Get into MIT, Stanford, or Berkeley EE without Published Paper?

[fdsa]

Is there any chance one could get accepted into one of these top electrical engineering PhD programs without being published? Second question: how does working at NASA JPL compare to having a paper published (assuming not mundane tasks, in a field that you are pursuing for grad school)?

Edited March 11, 2011 by fdsa

[ase_lima]

Yes, I have friends who have been accepted to all three schools (with fellowship) without any published papers, although they had research experience (i.e. had stints at different research labs)

[Slorg]

Yes, it's very possible to get into those programs without a publication. Research experience is important though.

It sounds like what you're really asking is which summer program you should choose: an internship at JPL or a summer research gig that gives you a chance at publishing. Is that correct?

Edited March 11, 2011 by Slorg

[fdsa]

It sounds like what you're really asking is which summer program you should choose: an internship at JPL or a summer research gig that gives you a chance at publishing. Is that correct?

Yes

[fdsa]

Also, I talked with my professor and he said something about me being able to publish a conference paper, but probably not a journal paper yet. Have to decide by tonight.

[HassE]

When someone says they published a paper, are they talking about a conference paper or a journal?

Also, can someone who got accepted into MIT/Stanford/Harvard/Princeton/etc comment on what there admission criteria looked like, Preferably a US citizen.

I'm a US Citizen looking at what it takes to get accepted into those types of schools. (sorry not trying to hijack the thread, feel its somewhat relevant)

[anotherflunky]

Both are called publications in EE. You'll want a 3.7+ from a high-ranked school (say top 20), or close to 4.0 from anywhere else. GRE should be 780+/550+, and have at least a year of research experience. This is enough to keep your app from being tossed out. The main factor then is letters of recommendation that back up your claims about your research experience.

You most certainly can get in without publications. I had none and was admitted to Stanford (with funding) and waitlisted at MIT (GPA 3.93, GRE 780/710, 1.5 years of research). Among my graduating class at University of Illinois, I know one who got into Berkeley and Stanford and another who got into just Stanford. They had profiles similar to mine and also had no publications. But note that our school is always ranked in the top 5 in EE, both grad and undergrad, so it's obviously easier for us to get into other top-ranked programs.

Also, the fact that you include Harvard in your "list" (yet not Berkeley) suggests to me that you have no idea what you want out of graduate school and just want to "move up" to a prestigious school so that you can brag about it to lay people. You need to seriously re-evaluate your goals. Researchers only care about what you've actually accomplished and, moreover, they have their own field-specific list of what schools are considered good. E.g. UCSB is always at the top (above MIT) in optoelectronics, at least for the time being. Going to Harvard for EE is about the same as going to Ohio State (yes, really). This is not an insult, as they're both fine programs in the grand scheme of things (top 30 out of 150 or so EE schools in the U.S.), but not even close to elite and you're not going to be impressing anyone that way.

[ibangz]

UCSB is always at the top (above MIT) in optoelectronics, at least for the time being.

Going to Harvard for EE is about the same as going to Ohio State (yes, really).

Haha! So if UCSB is above MIT in some subfield, how are claiming attending Harvard or Ohio State as half-insult???

FYI Ohio State sits on TOP in my area. Just as an indication, recently the researchers there designed MIT's Lincoln Lab new campact range. Among all the so-called prestige schools only UMich can claim tries at the top spot in this field. Now while the OP doesn't seem to be aware of this but I wouldn't be surprised if Harvard's overally low-ranked engineering, while very small, be strong in one nerdy research topic and you actually insulted yourself with your paradoxically condescending statement.

Edited April 11, 2011 by ibangz

[RoboticO]

Is there any chance one could get accepted into one of these top electrical engineering PhD programs without being published? Second question: how does working at NASA JPL compare to having a paper published (assuming not mundane tasks, in a field that you are pursuing for grad school)?

Sorry to hijack your thread; but do you have any pointers into getting a job at NASA JPL? I'm a EECS BS graduate from Berkeley, Robotics option, 3.42 GPA class of '09. I've applied to many openings there for 8 months but still haven't gotten any response from any position.

[anotherflunky]

Haha! So if UCSB is above MIT in some subfield, how are claiming attending Harvard or Ohio State as half-insult???

FYI Ohio State sits on TOP in my area. Just as an indication, recently the researchers there designed MIT's Lincoln Lab new campact range. Among all the so-called prestige schools only UMich can claim tries at the top spot in this field. Now while the OP doesn't seem to be aware of this but I wouldn't be surprised if Harvard's overally low-ranked engineering, while very small, be strong in one nerdy research topic and you actually insulted yourself with your paradoxically condescending statement.

Looks like someone got butt-hurt. There's a massive difference between being good in one "topic" vs. dominating in a very large area such as optoelectronics. Even people outside of optoelectronics know how good UCSB is. Ohio State? Yeah, OK. Name the "topic" and we'll see how broad it is. As the work of any group differs from those of others, any school can claim to be "top" at some "topic".

P.S. A school that's good doesn't need validation from MIT. Sad.

[ibangz]

There's a massive difference between being good in one "topic" vs. dominating in a very large area such as optoelectronics.

I guess mentioning "compact range" was enough for someone actually IN the EE area to get the signal, but you seem to be slightly OUT. Sorry for the wrong assumption. Now tell me, is Applied Electromagnetics large enough for you? Does that just hurt or you really need to ripped?

P.S. A school that's good doesn't need validation from MIT. Sad.

Agreed! You mean something like "If UCSB is good doesn't need validation from MIT", huh? Sad.

[anotherflunky]

Your threshold for considering something "top" is remarkably low. Not a single active NAE member, not a single ISI highly cited. Who are you referring to that makes OSU "top"? OSU is not even in the radar for top applicants the way UCSB is. So it's not even in the game while plenty of talented opto guys go with UCSB over big names. Without even having a sizable number of cross-admits, it's silly to compare. Like I said, top 30 is not bad in the bigger picture, but your perception of the school is simple self-delusion. I'll let you wallow in it.

Agreed! You mean something like "If UCSB is good doesn't need validation from MIT", huh? Sad.

That was a direct ranking comparison, useful because MIT is typically ranked #1. Not "UCSB's X is so good that MIT uses it". Sigh. Does OSU not require English proficiency?

[ibangz]

Your threshold for considering something "top" is remarkably low. Not a single active NAE member, not a single ISI highly cited. Who are you referring to that makes OSU "top"? OSU is not even in the radar for top applicants the way UCSB is.

Wow! I'm amazed by your blindness, sad you can't see a late NAE member and 2 ISIhighlycited ones (and that's in a field famous to be NOT for sissy paper citing kids). I assume EM was too hard for you that you're having still nightmares over that so you have technically adopted the defense mechanism of ingnorism.

That was a direct ranking comparison, useful because MIT is typically ranked #1. Does OSU not require English proficiency?

Sooooooo true Yep, as I said #1:OSU #2:UMich #OUT: The rest. How about Stanford's reqs.? Seems they need to introduce a new one for domestic ignorant turds.

Edited April 12, 2011 by ibangz

[ibangz]

Lose your insecurity about attending OSU. You weren't good enough for a better school and that's pretty much understood from the fact that you're attending such an undesirable school. No use trying to hide it and it's not that embarrassing.

Your bitterness and inferiority complex are just a little too obvious.

Your pathetic effort in ending this conversation by resorting to private messages, reveals that you simply couldn't disprove my statement and has owned up to the fatal mistake you made in your original post. That's enough for me. The sad part is when I introduced verifiable evidence about superiority of the school you deem undesirable, in one important branch of engineering and science, your strongest argument was like "X is so good that even people outside Y know that". Believe me, with such low aptitude for making an argument your graduate school years will not go anywhere and I am ashamed of having you as a fellow electrical engineer.

[was1984]

gtmshine here is proof that plenty of dumbasses get into even places like Stanford. Get over yourself dude.

[HassE]

Not trying to drag this out any longer, but you guys both read into the rankings well to much.

I had a meeting with the dean of engineering from the University of Michigan - a top 10 Engineering school and one of the best in the world.

When i asked him what a Michigan degree would offer me compared to another school, and his response was "Michigan is not going to teach you anything new or different compared to other top-30 ranked schools. When you go to a Michigan/MIT/Stanford/Illinois/Princeton/etc all that your paying for is the name of the school because any top-30 ranked school is going to teach you nearly exactly the same. There are amazing professors at all of these top schools."

He also told me not to get too caught up into the rankings.

So for the discussion you guys were having, Sure MIT has that BIG BRAND NAME, however, i'm not sure, but Santa Barbara might actually have a better more focused department in something else. But what does "better" mean? MIT has that BETTER name? Are they really going to teach or challenge you more though than Santa Barbara which is still a top top school? I doubt it

Edited April 18, 2011 by hasseye

[anotherflunky]

Heh, I left this forum for a while and the clown goes crazy. His "verifiable evidence" includes a "late" NAE member immediately after quoting me saying "active" NAE member and 2 ISI highly cited in what? It ain't engineering. Sigh. "Ashamed of me as a fellow electrical engineer"? Rofl. The pomposity and fake enlightenment is palpable. Stop trying. Your English is too poor to pull it off.

The point of a private message is to not drag out arguments that the public doesn't care about. This guy has an inferiority complex and that's that, as we can see from his flipping out over a trivial statement. You'll see from my other points that I *don't* worship MIT/Stanford/Berkeley and repeatedly give advice suggesting taking up other options. Three weeks ago I was almost certainly going to pick a not-so-famous school over Stanford before changing my mind for personal reasons.

But anyway, as I said. OSU is not even in the game to top students as UCSB is. We don't get to pick our own reality and there's no reason to give shitty advice to other students just to make yourself feel better.

gtmshine here is proof that plenty of dumbasses getinto even places like Stanford. Get over yourself dude.

Get over *yourself*, was1984. Think a little and don't just on bandwagons.

[ibangz]

But anyway, as I said. OSU is not even in the game to top students as UCSB is.

People, I have news for you: ^^ that's the strongest argument of a douchebag going to Stanford. ^^

I'm convinced that you're an idiot. The kind that keeps chanting to itself "OSU is not even in the game to top students as UCSB is"

Get lost kid ...