ringo-ring

mute swan

Here the quote from MIT BCS graduate admissions FAQ: How are graduate students selected? Graduate student selection is based primarily upon evidence of research interest and potential for work within the areas represented in the department.

Dear Eigen, First, if you were honest to yourself you would see that my posts ain't getting down-rated because of "bad advices" - just compare those posts that have "bad advices" and those who were down-rated. Second, my "advice" was a joke, but every joke is half-truth. I didn't even think I would have to protect them seriously, but I just couldn't leave fallacies in your post unaddressed. But on overall, I completely agree that scientists should pursue their own research ideas, not those that are "popular".

perfect world

Hi Eigen, a single professor oftenly cannot decide on your admission - to have a better chance, you better fit several profs/research groups, i.e. "department". Since faculty with similar interests usually group together, that should be feasible. By "mainstream" I mean well-established, proven, and widely-distributed research approaches, not ones that are "hot". You need to look for approaches that lots of scientists made career on - and therefore unlikely to wrap-up in a couple of years, are easily funded, and so forth.. It is much less risky to continue well-trodden path in your graduate application, especially one that fits faculty well, than try to present your own outlook. The latter you can do safely after passing the graduate admissions barrier and perhaps the first year of grad school. Of course you can follow your heart and pick up the program closest to your research field in the 100+ range, but I bet if you really love what you're doing, you want to give it as better resources as possible, ideally in the top 10 range Even if this involves a bit of trickery. "Ordinary" research or, how to say, research that everyone has tired of already, may actually have a better shot when it comes to graduate admissions. Of course as a scientist you need to do what you love, but this motto doesn't make much sense if you sit without lab, funding, and degree to be able to get yourself lab and funding. At this point of the career - before you're even a graduate student - the most important thing is to climb yourself up to the point where you can do what you love safely, and with enough resources to make it flourish. ---------------------------------------------- PS I don't consider this state of things in science right. But it seems to naturally follow from over-importance of "fit" in graduate admission process. PS2 I would like to ask "haters" to stop voting all of my posts down. Thanks.

That's true. But since "research interests" seem to carry much more weight than any of other factors, having ones that are popular at therefore "fit" the department will still give one advantage over others with less recognized research. IMHO

fuzzylogician, you need to learn to understand irony. popular research direction will increase your chances of being admitted. that's how it is. how to act on this information is up to anyone's own choice. but for now, the science, given such grad school system that makes "fit" the most important thing out there, seems to work on replicating itself rather than supporting and promoting new discoveries.

Oh, I see my data analysis skills are developed so well I cannot take your "criticism" seriously. If your research interests are in concordance with mainstream science, then obviously you'll have more options while applying, since it will be easier for you to find departments that fit those interests. Therefore, if you haven't decided on your research interests yet, keep in mind that choosing something from mainstream will make your chances higher. It doesn't mean you should choose from mainstream and I haven't said so. It just will make your chances better, accordingly to poll at least. Of course, it also means you need to choose schools that fit your interests, but it does not contradict previous statement.

That's is not about MGIMO reputation only, the reputation of higher education itself is on the decline in Russia. There is a common opinion among us that our universities can only take bribes not teach. That's why everyone is trying to get an education abroad. But maybe that's all just rumors and wrong? I would look at the level of expertise of individual professors at MGIMO, where did they publish in last years, which conferences do they attend and etc. to figure out their reputation in the international community. That will matter for your job prospects after you finish. Do you want to stay in Russia for good? If you plan your further career to be in Russia then definitely you better get education here. But for other cases, examine the situation carefully before making decision.

So far, the poll shows: The best strategy to get into graduate school is: a) research various departments carefully, to understand what kind of research each of them is doing from the list above, select the direction that would fit most departments, i.e. "mainstream" c) get a good research experience on that direction. that should lead either to a good LOR from prof known by departments, or a publication d) have a good basic education e) apply to as much departments as possible f) wait... nothing weird so far

from here

I thought of including this category but it seems to be more about the quality of LOR rather than independent category. Just like practicing GRE will result in better score, having more discussions about your research with the prof will result in better LOR. The question is - which prof is to choose and does the prof really matter that much? - maybe it's better to invest your efforts in test preparation, or something else. Hope the poll can provide some clues about which parts of the application are best to work on.

duly noted.

I wonder who has voted my previous post down and for what reason? I've been told by one of the adcoms that, they don't count on student papers much, since they're not sure who actually owns the credit for that paper - the student, or the group he has been into. Therefore, I think that working at one of the top research groups will make it harder to advocate your credit.

Suppose you have a pool of applicants, and each applicant has near-top scores in any three of the fields listed above, but so-so scores in others. You have only 1 place. Which candidate would you choose? Please select 3 most important characteristics, in your opinion...

I agree with previous poster that coming from a less-recognized school can make adcoms doubt the quality of your education. They won't necessarily assume it's bad just because of the name of the school - it's just your GPA becomes much less informative if they don't have any clue about your school's requirements. But getting a good score on GRE Subject test can compensate for this. In terms of research projects, however, coming from a top school with great faculty and resources can make some candidates less competitive, since adcoms will have a higher expectations for such applicants. This applies also to cases when student has worked with some high-profile research groups - they can overshadow the student's achievements with their name

tattoed knuckle

That's my opinion but I think it won't be good if you show up yourself as a looser in advance. Just mention you've applied and now waiting for the result.