I need some advice. (Engineering)

[ysznl]

Hello everyone!

I am a sophomore student and transfered to a top 10 engineering school in US. I really want to go to the best engineering schools (like MIT) for my MS/PhD. So is there anybody who wants to share your experience with me? I just want to know which factors can determine the application results. I know that GPA is the most important, but how about the other factors, like publication and GRE? Is publication a must? Does the publication which I am just involved in but not the first-author count? And which is more important, GPA or publication?

Thanks!

[DUguy333]

You'll quickly learn that there is no "most important" factor in a grad school application. GPA is important yes, but outstanding achievements like publications will certainly help along the way. I can give you one piece of advice I wish some one gave me in my sophmore year though and that's to network...network network network...

[sigh]

I don't know if you got this when applying to competitive schools for undergrad, where someone would ask, "If I want to get into your school, should I take the honors class and get a B, or take the regular class and get an A?" The reply was, invariably, "You should take the honors class and get an A." I think the same is probably true for admission into the most competitive grad schools...try to have a high GPA and a publication! You don't have to be first author, and even conference proceedings help.

But yes, having just come through all this, I can also vouch for the fact that networking is super important. You'll still need a high GPA, GRE, lots of research experience, etc., but a very supportive letter from a well-known professor who has connections at your dream school, and knows you well, will really boost your chances. Most people don't think about this when they're sophomores, but getting to know such a professor now might be one of the easiest things you can do to help you get in to the school of your choice in a couple of years. It might be too late this year, but a variation on this is to do an REU at a university you'd eventually like to go to for grad school. These sorts of things really do help.

[ysznl]

Thanks DUguy333 and sigh. Your replies are really instructive! But I also want to know whether publication is a threshold. Does no publication mean no good offer?

[eve2008]

You can definitely get into graduate school without a publication, although they obviously help. The key is *research experience.* So RA for a prof, write a kick-ass senior thesis, do summer research. You also might try approaching professors whose work you like (going by their office hours, etc.) and confiding in them your desire to go to graduate school. They would be able to give you the best advice and may help clue you in as to what kind of research opportunities are available to undergraduates. As with anything in life, relationships are key.

[123456789]

If you are in the position to think about all of this so early, then I am going to just say: yes, publication is essential for entry into a top 10 engineering program. Even if it possible to pull it off other ways, you should treat it like it is a necessity because it will be hugely advantageous.

Fortunately, Profs love undergrad researchers, especially free ones, and they love publishing, so show up in office hours (way more effective than emailing -- they truly are receptive to this) and ask if there are opportunities in their lab. If you get to talking about it, make it clear that you are interested in graduate school so you want some independent experience and the opportunity for a publication (as opposed to tech work). You will definitely find somebody. Even the well-known profs often have pet projects they'd like somebody to work on at minimal expense to them.

I emailed a prof at MIT at the beginning of the application process this year, and he outright told me that GRE meant nothing, and that what he looks for in an applicant are: how many publications?, how many patents?, how many companies have you started? That was enough to keep me from applying there. This was a particularly well known prof, so I wouldn't expect every prof there to be quite so demanding, but it just gives you an idea as to the kinds of qualifications that show you can be a top notch scientist and really get things done.

[ysznl]

how many publications?, how many patents?, how many companies have you started?

It seems that it's not as simple as I thought before. From your reply, I am clear about one thing, that is if you want to work with elites, then the first step is to make yourself an elite. Maybe I shouldn't waste my life any more. Thanks a lot!

[sigh]

I don't mean to underscore the importance of research/publications - it's just that everyone talks about research experience first, and networking is only occasionally mentioned. Networking is one thing that will make you stand out in a pool of well-qualified applicants, but you need significant research experience to even be considered "well-qualified." I agree with 123456789 here.

Some professors are more supportive of undergrads than others. One of the best professors I've worked with told me right from the start that, if I succeeded with the project he gave me, I would get a first-author publication from it. As long as I was willing to put in the work, he was there to give me the resources to take the project as far as I could. Work for someone like this if you can, and I would recommend talking to several different professors to get a sense of how undergrads are treated in their labs (a bad group can hinder your research as much as a good group can help it).

Don't give up! I know some "mere mortals" who got into MIT - there's a lot of luck involved. Everyone in my department who applied to grad school has gotten in somewhere that's top 10 in our field (my school is well-known, but not for engineering in particular). If you're thinking about this now, and you put in a lot of work, you're in a good position to do well.

[bgk]

I thought I'd add my 2cents and basically agree with everything that has been said already.

You'd be competing with a lot of very qualified people. Some with "connections" (via letters of recommendation), some with publications, some with perfect numbers, some with all of the above. You should do everything you can to improve your chances., which probably means summer projects, try to get a publication, doing well in classes, generally making a good impression so that you can get 3 relevant letters of recommendation.

Use the projects to get an idea of what you want to work on in grad school. EE is a big field and being able to articulate clearly what you want to do can help you in two ways:

1) It can help you select schools with professors who work on specifically the problems that you are interested in

2) When the time comes to write your statement of purpose, you can talk more thoroughly about research and goals

Hope that helps a bit too.

[ysznl]

I know that publication is really important, but at the same time I'm also clear that sending paper is not an easy thing. In my opinion, most undergraduate students don't possess enough academic backgrounds to write a paper. So I want to know how much a professor can help to finish my research and write a paper.

And today I saw one unluck guy who had recommendations from 2 distinguished MIT alumni, 5 publications, 4.0 grad. GPA and still was rejected. What is the reason? The number seems perfect, the connection is "not so bad". Is it all about bad luck?

I just can't understand.

[bgk]

I know that publication is really important, but at the same time I'm also clear that sending paper is not an easy thing. In my opinion, most undergraduate students don't possess enough academic backgrounds to write a paper. So I want to know how much a professor can help to finish my research and write a paper.

And today I saw one unluck guy who had recommendations from 2 distinguished MIT alumni, 5 publications, 4.0 grad. GPA and still was rejected. What is the reason? The number seems perfect, the connection is "not so bad". Is it all about bad luck?

I just can't understand.

Well, perhaps he wasn't a match for the school. I know some schools factor in considerations of whether or not there are faculty who match the students interests before admission. So even a very strong candidate may not get admitted to some places. That's why it's important to pick not just the schools, but the faculty too.

With regards to the paper. It's rare that an undergraduate would be a first author on a paper, so I'm not suggesting you go and do that. I'm suggesting you get involved with a project and make enough contributions so that you get listed on a paper. Even if you don't but the project supervisor is able to say something like "X has demonstrated to me that he is capable of excellent research. He made a number of helpful contributions to the project including ..... " that's got to mean something. And that most undergrads don't get their name on papers isn't important --- most undergrads don't go on to do graduate work.

[Scratchawl]

Well, perhaps he wasn't a match for the school. I know some schools factor in considerations of whether or not there are faculty who match the students interests before admission. So even a very strong candidate may not get admitted to some places. That's why it's important to pick not just the schools, but the faculty too.

This factor cannot be overstated. At top 5 schools fit matters. Now, that doesn't mean that you should try to echo the interests of faculty members at MIT or Stanford or whatever. Rather, it is very important that you know what your interests are and find faculty and schools to match that. Not only can faculty members sniff out BS in your app, but also you'll be much happier researching something that actually interests you.

For example, I consider myself a top-tier caliber applicant, so I applied to three top 5 schools (UIUC, Stanford, JHU; I'm 2 for 3 and waiting for Stanford). Now when I spoke to faculty members, they did mention in passing "great GPA/GRE" but what they really wanted to talk about was their research and how it would interest me (they were right). I did not even bother applying to MIT and Berkeley because they weren't strong in my areas, thus (a) I would be rejected and ( even if accepted, I would be miserable working on their projects.

In short, that MIT reject really bothered me. No one is entitled to admission to a top school regardless of great stats.

[sigh]

Also, I think that some of these people with too-good-to-be-true stats are master's students, or people who have been in industry for a couple years. Here's another example:

"GRE Verbal/Math: (780/800). Dual degree undergrad with 9 publications, extensive industrial experience in electronics, and own startup. MIT's loss."

At the very least, a lot more is expected of these candidates, and I think some schools are even more reluctant to accept them because they want to be the ones to teach/train you.

Playing devil's advocate here, is it possible not to be a good fit for MIT EECS? In terms of research interests, I mean. Their department is absolutely huge, and I get the impression that there are at least a couple people working on pretty much anything you could ever imagine working on.

[bgk]

Playing devil's advocate here, is it possible not to be a good fit for MIT EECS? In terms of research interests, I mean. Their department is absolutely huge, and I get the impression that there are at least a couple people working on pretty much anything you could ever imagine working on.

Well, maybe so, but the professor concerned may already have enough excellent students and still have to decline you.

[Scratchawl]

Also, I think that some of these people with too-good-to-be-true stats are master's students, or people who have been in industry for a couple years.

It is interesting that you brought this up. I have been told by two profs at different schools that this is the case. Changing schools from an MS to PhD is difficult, unless you have a very good reason. It is not impossible, but it does bring up some questions: Is this person difficult to work with? Was he thrown out?, etc (it wasn't an issue for me; my MS school was my UG institution). It definitely doesn't seem fair to me, but this is right from the horse's mouth. But, don't let this discourage anyone, it can be (and often is) done.

[ysznl]

Thanks everyone for sharing experience with me. Very informative!

[whitemud]

I'll throw in my two cents.

Statistics, networks, and publications aside, I feel like a lot of my applications have been judged by my personal statement. For MIT particularly - I had no network and no publications. But, I had the ability to tell them "THIS is what I want to do. These are things I've done to make this happen." With the personal statement, I was able to qualify my lack of research (with the caveat that I was planning to do more in the current year) and expound upon my internship experiences. The statement makes you into an actual person for them. I don't know how much of this true: Considering the stats I've seen, I feel like MIT just throws all the applications down the stairs and accepts the ones that go the farthest.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I got into Stanford because of my current advisor. So, it's all relative.

[orgirl]

I believe when applying for graduate studies in really good universities, the letters of recommendation is important. Since you mentioned you are in one of the top 10 universities, it is very likely that there are some professors there that are pretty well known in the field. These people tend to know people in the universities you are planning to apply to. If you work under them and give a good impression, it will help your chances tremendously. I did a Masters degree under two really good professors in MIT, whose research is well known in a lot of different places. Now that I am applying for PhD, I realized that getting in is not that difficult once they see who you worked under. In any case, some MIT professors told me that the important things they look at are letters of recommendation and statement of purpose. Publication is not a must, as long as you show interest in research, or are currently working in some research that is not yet published.

[ysznl]

I believe when applying for graduate studies in really good universities, the letters of recommendation is important. Since you mentioned you are in one of the top 10 universities, it is very likely that there are some professors there that are pretty well known in the field. These people tend to know people in the universities you are planning to apply to. If you work under them and give a good impression, it will help your chances tremendously. I did a Masters degree under two really good professors in MIT, whose research is well known in a lot of different places. Now that I am applying for PhD, I realized that getting in is not that difficult once they see who you worked under. In any case, some MIT professors told me that the important things they look at are letters of recommendation and statement of purpose. Publication is not a must, as long as you show interest in research, or are currently working in some research that is not yet published.

Hi orgirl, your reply reminds me of another question. Some people would like to apply to PhD after they get bachelor degrees, but some other people like you are different. They don't rush their applications to Phd and prefer to get a Master first. So what is the difference? Why wouldn't you apply to Phd immediately after you got your bachelor degree because it seems that you can save a lot of time?

[orgirl]

Hi orgirl, your reply reminds me of another question. Some people would like to apply to PhD after they get bachelor degrees, but some other people like you are different. They don't rush their applications to Phd and prefer to get a Master first. So what is the difference? Why wouldn't you apply to Phd immediately after you got your bachelor degree because it seems that you can save a lot of time?

Hi ysznl. In my case, when I finished my Bachelor's, I didn't have a lot of research experience. I also didn't know much about what grad school was all about. If I applied for a PhD and later realized I made a mistake, it would have been a waste of time and resources. So doing a Masters is sort of a testing phase for research for me. The good thing about the Masters program I applied to is it was a dual Masters program which you finish in 18 months. So it wasn't really a waste of time.

[ysznl]

Hi ysznl. In my case, when I finished my Bachelor's, I didn't have a lot of research experience. I also didn't know much about what grad school was all about. If I applied for a PhD and later realized I made a mistake, it would have been a waste of time and resources. So doing a Masters is sort of a testing phase for research for me. The good thing about the Masters program I applied to is it was a dual Masters program which you finish in 18 months. So it wasn't really a waste of time.

Oh, I see. Thanks!