ponylevel

You need to talk to someone. The earlier the better. Go see a counselor and discuss your issues realistically and write down the different options you have (maybe cutting down on the course load will give you the extra time needed to catchup in the other courses). The important thing is to do this now. Good luck, I feel for you.

You're welcome. For "feedback based on your inquiry" see my original post: "Yep I think so. Your recommendations will make or break your application. Your GPA will hurt you the most." This holds whether you're applying to a top 10 or a top 20. GPA is still an important component in Masters programs applications. And yes, I still consider a 3.4 low. That's a little bit better than a B+. Pauli, however (I can use bolded names too!), takes offense to my blunt statement. My advice is not based on a small random sampling (where did you get that?). I've looked at thousands of applicants and their profiles. Really? Who's the angry one again? In any case, I don't care to argue with retards. Take my advice or leave it. Obviously my advice is geared for the more competitive programs, but several of the ones you mentioned probably will be. Pauli has a ton of experience with his applying to one school (Texas A&M) and all, so his advice definitely holds a lot of weight.

When you're looking at a top 10 school (and even moreso for the top 5), they have their pick of students. The students they pick have the entire package, from GPA, to stellar recommendations, to relevant research/industry experience, to an engaging SOP. Being shitty in any of these categories ALMOST completely disqualifies you. You may be able to offset being poor in one of these by being the top 1% in another, but a 3.4 GPA will hurt. The top schools end up picking the kids who have all of the above, because they can. I think you should spend some time looking at the profiles of people accepted to tier 1 schools to adjust your perspective. You shouldn't be giving advice about tier 1 schools unless you've applied and been accepted to them. http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-average-credentials-for-someone-entering-a-PhD-programme-at-MIT-or-Stanford http://www.quora.com/How-should-I-prepare-for-getting-into-the-MIT-CS-PhD-program Find me some kids in PhD CS at the top 5 schools with GPAs below 3.5, link their profiles to me, and then you'll have built a more convincing argument. Otherwise everything you're saying is full of shit.

Hmm... nope.

You must not understand how admissions works for high-tier programs.

Fine for lower tier schools.

That program sounds like a waste of time UNLESS a. you work on an awesome project or b. you end up getting awesome recommendations from professors Otherwise either a. get a programming job b. build your own project/startup Both of which show that you have the initiative to strive in a new field.

Yep I think so. Your recommendations will make or break your application. Your GPA will hurt you the most.

huge lulz at ^

6%

Very few MS programs in Computer Science offer funding as part of admission. At Stanford you'll have to find your own TAship, and although it wouldn't fully cover costs, it isn't terribly hard to get. Quoting a post on Stanford MSCS: "In the Bay Area you could probably make $15k+ during the summer and another $7-8k per quarter if you get TA or RAships. It seems like a fair number of MS students do TAships and PhDs generally don't do any more than they have to, so you may be able to bank on that. In all, if you work summers and TA one quarter out of the year, you could offset the cost significantly. Princeton's MSCS students are funded through TAship (admission stats here http://www.princeton.edu/gradschool/about/docs/ratestable/tablea/COS_MSE.pdf). Other schools sometimes offer scholarships to exceptional MS applicants (Wisconsin Madison). Getting funding for an MSCS is one or a combination of talent/initiative/luck.

Unfortunately, no. Better recs will help. IMO if you apply again you'll do as well if not a bit better. The Top 4 are out of your league.

A few things: 1. 3.66 overall GPA is low when you're talking about applying to a top CS school. 2. Your GRE quant score is bad. 3. Stuff like "found mistake in national standardized test in high school" doesn't mean shit, and putting something like that on your app makes it look like you're trying too hard. 4. Internships at great schools are not as application-boosting as most people think. IMO if you re-frame the way you present your qualifications, you could do a little better, but not much. It's your call, follow your gut.

BUMPITY BUMP

Hi all, I have a question. Say we take an identical set of candidates, all who receive a PhD in Computer Science from the same program, all with identical credentials EXCEPT for their research topic (i.e. one's topic is networks, another theory, and another HCI). If these candidates opt to go for the industry route instead of academic, how important is the actual topic they picked (NOT how well they researched it, assume they all published papers in equally ranked conferences) in finding a job? Specifically, say these candidates were looking to get a job at a consulting company. How much would the company care about research topic, over and above that it's a CS degree? My question is because I am considering potentially pursuing a highly unconventional topic in which very few people are doing research (both academic and industrial) but that I am interested in. Does this hamper non-academic job prospects?