Masters before PhD to get into Top?

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

Hi GC,

I'm having trouble deciding between getting a Masters first or a PhD. The idea is if I went for a MS I could get into a top 5 PhD program. However, I've heard getting a MS first doesn't guarantee getting into a better graduate program because some top schools like to get BS students. If I went for a MS I've also heard that it's expected to have top journal publications, best grades, etc or I otherwise might hurt my chances. But then again, the UCLA site says they would rather have MS students apply to their PhD program than BS students. Confusing.

I've recently been accepted to UC Santa Barbara for a PhD in CS fully funded for 5 years. I feel it's slightly superficial, but the new NRC rankings came out and UCSB has been placed among the top 10 for CS Grad programs. I also like the HCI lab that UCSB has, which is what I'd want to research (along with machine learning and other forms of AI). However, I have a few problems:

- The stipend is barely enough to live off at Santa Barbara alone. A lot of UCSB students live with roommates which is something I'm done with after 4 years of roommates as an UG.

- I'm not sure, but it seems like they don't offer an MS along the way. This is something I need to clear up with them, however.

- A dream of mine is to get into the media lab at MIT. A few research groups there are doing amazing stuff. (e.g. affective computing)

I have applied to MS programs, and got accepted to Stony Brook; UConn, which looks like it would be funded; Rensselaer Polytechnic, but I'm waiting to hear about funding. Still waiting to hear back from the HCI program at IA State.

Can anyone cast some insight on this situation? Is it worth it to give up an opportunity at a fully funded, top PhD program so I can live the dream? Or am I truly just dreaming?

Edited March 18, 2011 by stopcallinmesqrlboy

[the poisoned pawn]

Usually, it's difficult for undergrad students to have a paper, we have a hard time looking for a professor that has a project (which fits the capability of an undergrad) to work on. It was not until my 3rd year that I learned enough AI/Machine learning theory to join a research. Masters students have more time and background to do research, some have a masters thesis to show off.

If you can have several good papers, projects and a thesis during your masters, then yes, it is definitely a big advantage to get into a top school.

In any case, I think if you find the professors and research that you want to work with, ranking becomes less important.

If you plan to be a top professor in a top school, then I would consider trying to get in a top 20 school.

Edited March 18, 2011 by the poisoned pawn

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

Masters students have more time and background to do research, some have a masters thesis to show off.

Right, I'm considering a MS at Stony Brook because they do a lot of visual computing/HCI research and they've been recognized as a top CS grad program for many years. They also have a thesis option for their Masters program.

In any case, I think if you find the professors and research that you want to work with, ranking becomes less important.

Yea, I definitely agree. The problem is a lot of the cutting edge research is being done at the top institutions. There are some cool things going on at Santa Barbara, but I mean not as interesting as some of the stuff in the Media Lab or other universities.

If you plan to be a top professor in a top school, then I would consider trying to get in a top 20 school.

I'm not sure if I plan on being a professor in a top school, although, I do enjoy teaching. I do know I want to be a researcher, so this might be in either industry or academia.

Edited March 18, 2011 by stopcallinmesqrlboy

[scyrus]

Just keep in mind that it's probably not a good idea to delay getting your PhD just because you want to get into one particular program -- especially when that program is among those at the the top its field. Programs like MIT Media Lab accept a really small percentage of applicants, and it's never a guaranteed acceptance. If you don't like the UCSB PhD program, then it might be worth it to delay your PhD. But, consider the case that you get rejected from Media Lab after you get your Master's -- would you think getting the Master's over choosing UCSB's PhD program was worth it?

For perspective, CMU HCII which is comparable to MIT Media Lab in terms of prestige in HCI accepts less than 4-5% of its applicants every year. I can't imagine Media Lab is much different.

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

Just keep in mind that it's probably not a good idea to delay getting your PhD just because you want to get into one particular program -- especially when that program is among those at the the top its field. Programs like MIT Media Lab accept a really small percentage of applicants, and it's never a guaranteed acceptance. If you don't like the UCSB PhD program, then it might be worth it to delay your PhD. But, consider the case that you get rejected from Media Lab after you get your Master's -- would you think getting the Master's over choosing UCSB's PhD program was worth it?

For perspective, CMU HCII which is comparable to MIT Media Lab in terms of prestige in HCI accepts less than 4-5% of its applicants every year. I can't imagine Media Lab is much different.

I understand and I'm not at all worried about time. What I'm worried about is settling for a single PhD program when I could have had more options if I chose to do a MS first. For instance, I was rejected from UMass Amherst but would like to reapply after a MS to get into either the autonomous learning, vision, or perceptual robotics labs.

I'm sorry if I made it seem like MIT was the only choice, it's not. The problem here is that my only real choice for a PhD right now is UCSB. As an undergraduate I feel I might not have enough research experience to know that I want to commit to that program and maybe pursuing a MS first would shed some light on where I really want to be.

[Amogh]

I understand and I'm not at all worried about time. What I'm worried about is settling for a single PhD program when I could have had more options if I chose to do a MS first. For instance, I was rejected from UMass Amherst but would like to reapply after a MS to get into either the autonomous learning, vision, or perceptual robotics labs.

I'm sorry if I made it seem like MIT was the only choice, it's not. The problem here is that my only real choice for a PhD right now is UCSB. As an undergraduate I feel I might not have enough research experience to know that I want to commit to that program and maybe pursuing a MS first would shed some light on where I really want to be.

You'v answered your dilemma yourself .. just let it sink in

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

You'v answered your dilemma yourself .. just let it sink in

I suppose I am biased towards going for a MS at this point. I just want to make sure it will help me rather than hurt me.

I really appreciate the input, though. Thank you pawn, scyrus and Amogh. Anyone else want to put in their 2 cents?

[frenzydude]

I suppose I am biased towards going for a MS at this point. I just want to make sure it will help me rather than hurt me.

I really appreciate the input, though. Thank you pawn, scyrus and Amogh. Anyone else want to put in their 2 cents?

If I were in your position, I would probably take the PhD at UCSB, mainly because 0. it will save time compared to MS-PhD route, 1. it is fully funded, and 2. none of the universities to which you are accepted for MS is better than UCSB. The important question you need to ask yourself is whether you are fully sure of doing a PhD at some point in time, or whether you want to spend 2 more years to decide and then get into a top 10 or so PhD. You seem to have answered this yourself, so I think you are on the right track

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

If I were in your position, I would probably take the PhD at UCSB, mainly because 0. it will save time compared to MS-PhD route, 1. it is fully funded, and 2. none of the universities to which you are accepted for MS is better than UCSB. The important question you need to ask yourself is whether you are fully sure of doing a PhD at some point in time, or whether you want to spend 2 more years to decide and then get into a top 10 or so PhD. You seem to have answered this yourself, so I think you are on the right track

Agreed, thanks for the input. Also, it should be known that my undergrad institution's CS dept is relatively unknown and the university itself isn't ranked well. I feel like a MS degree from Stony Brook or RPI would legitimize my application to a better grad program.

[Radian]

Agreed, thanks for the input. Also, it should be known that my undergrad institution's CS dept is relatively unknown and the university itself isn't ranked well. I feel like a MS degree from Stony Brook or RPI would legitimize my application to a better grad program.

I am in the same position as yours. I have been admitted to the Materials Science and Engineering MSc program at Stony Brook which is ranked among top 25 programs in the nations. My primary target is to apply for a Top 10 PhD program afterwards and as far as I know it seems more logical. As it can be seen in the result section the trend is toward getting PhD students who already posses a Master degree. Moreover, although I have quite a heavy research background, the topics are not in the center of attention by most of the professor. So I guess getting a MSc in a Top 25 program would be a wise wise choice. Correct me if I am wrong.

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

I am in the same position as yours. I have been admitted to the Materials Science and Engineering MSc program at Stony Brook which is ranked among top 25 programs in the nations. My primary target is to apply for a Top 10 PhD program afterwards and as far as I know it seems more logical. As it can be seen in the result section the trend is toward getting PhD students who already posses a Master degree. Moreover, although I have quite a heavy research background, the topics are not in the center of attention by most of the professor. So I guess getting a MSc in a Top 25 program would be a wise wise choice. Correct me if I am wrong.

That's interesting. To be honest I've had a change of heart since I visited Stony Brook yesterday; I strongly advise a visit to meet the dept and ask questions. In addition to having to work even harder towards the MS to impress top schools it seems the students pursuing a Masters at Stony Brook don't get nearly as much attention as the PhD students do and they almost never get funded (even after being a student there for a semester or so). I'm not sure what the Materials Science and Engineering program is like but the dept. chair told me that the CS program has 200 Masters students which is an overwhelming amount for the faculty. It seems I would have to be really persistent if I wanted to work with a professor and publish a couple papers. To say the least, I'm glad I visited. If anyone is interested I'll post an update after my visit to Santa Barbara.

Edited March 22, 2011 by stopcallinmesqrlboy

[frenzydude]

That's interesting. To be honest I've had a change of heart since I visited Stony Brook yesterday; I strongly advise a visit to meet the dept and ask questions. In addition to having to work even harder towards the MS to impress top schools it seems the students pursuing a Masters at Stony Brook don't get nearly as much attention as the PhD students do and they almost never get funded (even after being a student there for a semester or so). I'm not sure what the Materials Science and Engineering program is like but the dept. chair told me that the CS program has 200 Masters students which is an overwhelming amount for the faculty. It seems I would have to be really persistent if I wanted to work with a professor and publish a couple papers. To say the least, I'm glad I visited. If anyone is interested I'll post an update after my visit to Santa Barbara.

Interesting. Now I have a feeling you will like UCSB

[Radian]

That's interesting. To be honest I've had a change of heart since I visited Stony Brook yesterday; I strongly advise a visit to meet the dept and ask questions. In addition to having to work even harder towards the MS to impress top schools it seems the students pursuing a Masters at Stony Brook don't get nearly as much attention as the PhD students do and they almost never get funded (even after being a student there for a semester or so). I'm not sure what the Materials Science and Engineering program is like but the dept. chair told me that the CS program has 200 Masters students which is an overwhelming amount for the faculty. It seems I would have to be really persistent if I wanted to work with a professor and publish a couple papers. To say the least, I'm glad I visited. If anyone is interested I'll post an update after my visit to Santa Barbara.

Well, it's completely expected that a master student wouldn't get the same attention as a PhD student which is why all the fundings will usually go to the PhD students. Unfortunately, I am international student and so I am afraid paying a visit wouldn't be an option for me. Though I have to admit the numbers that you are mentioning is somehow very much concerning. I can only hope they don't get so many MSc students in our department. By the way, UCSB has got the 1st ranked program in our field and so it wouldn't be a wise choice for me

I may email the department to check the numbers with them

[edvolkov]

That's interesting. To be honest I've had a change of heart since I visited Stony Brook yesterday; I strongly advise a visit to meet the dept and ask questions. In addition to having to work even harder towards the MS to impress top schools it seems the students pursuing a Masters at Stony Brook don't get nearly as much attention as the PhD students do and they almost never get funded (even after being a student there for a semester or so). I'm not sure what the Materials Science and Engineering program is like but the dept. chair told me that the CS program has 200 Masters students which is an overwhelming amount for the faculty. It seems I would have to be really persistent if I wanted to work with a professor and publish a couple papers. To say the least, I'm glad I visited. If anyone is interested I'll post an update after my visit to Santa Barbara.

I've heard that SB is much cheaper than UCSB

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

I've heard that SB is much cheaper than UCSB

Indeed, both in living expenses and tuition. However, I've been offered a fully funded position at UCSB and absolutely nothing at SB.

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

Well, it's completely expected that a master student wouldn't get the same attention as a PhD student which is why all the fundings will usually go to the PhD students. Unfortunately, I am international student and so I am afraid paying a visit wouldn't be an option for me. Though I have to admit the numbers that you are mentioning is somehow very much concerning. I can only hope they don't get so many MSc students in our department. By the way, UCSB has got the 1st ranked program in our field and so it wouldn't be a wise choice for me

I may email the department to check the numbers with them

Yea, emailing is a good idea if you can't visit. For the record, the CS dept is the largest graduate dept at Stony Brook so it's likely to be a different situation for you.

[newms]

I know I'm chiming in late on this, but I really think that taking the Ph.D. offer from UCSB is the better option. Applying to top 10 schools is a crap shoot - just look at the rejections from MIT, CMU, Stanford etc of people with publications and great profiles. UCSB is a pretty good CS school and with a Ph.D from UCSB you can do pretty much anything you'd want after graduation - in other words, you'd be judged by the quality of research you did rather than the school you got your PhD from. So as long as your research interests are a good match with the research being done at UCSB and you'd have a good advisor there, go for it!

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

I know I'm chiming in late on this, but I really think that taking the Ph.D. offer from UCSB is the better option. Applying to top 10 schools is a crap shoot - just look at the rejections from MIT, CMU, Stanford etc of people with publications and great profiles. UCSB is a pretty good CS school and with a Ph.D from UCSB you can do pretty much anything you'd want after graduation - in other words, you'd be judged by the quality of research you did rather than the school you got your PhD from. So as long as your research interests are a good match with the research being done at UCSB and you'd have a good advisor there, go for it!

Agreed, I'm completely aware of the selectivity. I mean, the ranking of UCSB wasn't getting me worried, anyways. NRC ranked them top 10 and I wouldn't be surprised if I saw US News boost them in their next ranking.

My research interests are a pretty good match, I think. Anyways, I'll be visiting soon and I'm sure it will affect my decision a good deal. Hopefully, my decision won't be influenced too much by the beautiful weather there.

Edited March 23, 2011 by stopcallinmesqrlboy

[OH YEAH]

Nobody in CS trusts the NRC rankings. http://www.cs.washington.edu/nrc/ http://www.technolog...=349&bpid=25822 http://blog.computat...c-rankings.html

Even the CRA denounces them: http://www.cra.org/g...mputer-science/

I'm not saying UCSB is a bad choice, but don't make your decision based on them being "top 10"

Edited March 23, 2011 by OH YEAH

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

Nobody in CS trusts the NRC rankings. http://www.cs.washington.edu/nrc/ http://www.technolog...=349&bpid=25822 http://blog.computat...c-rankings.html

Even the CRA denounces them: http://www.cra.org/g...mputer-science/

I'm not saying UCSB is a bad choice, but don't make your decision based on them being "top 10"

All rankings should be taken with a grain of salt. Those who got ranked high will boast the results and those that got ranked lower might make a scene. To say, "nobody in CS trusts the NRC" is rather bold. Do you completely trust the US News rankings? I can name a few universities off the top of my head that are in the top 20 that probably don't belong there.

Clearly, I'm concerned with finding a good research group.

Edited March 23, 2011 by stopcallinmesqrlboy

[OH YEAH]

All rankings should to be taken with a grain of salt. Those who got ranked high will boast the results and those that got ranked lower might make a scene. To say, "nobody in CS trusts the NRC" is rather bold. Do you completely trust the US News rankings? I can name a few universities off the top of my head that are in the top 20 that probably don't belong there.

Clearly, I'm concerned with finding a good research group.

Nobody in CS trusts the NRC is an understatement. I don't remember the Computing Research Association denouncing the USNews rankings. USNews and the NRC are not comparable because 1) the NRC study claims to be an objective measure based on statistical evidence, where USNews claims to be a popularity contest and 2) the NRC has a claim to legitimacy as a government funded, "official" project. The NRC report being erroneous is a big deal.

Academics from a wide variety of fields have denounced the rankings, even those that come from schools that did well in the rankings (for instance, Princeton did well, and here I am). The links I cited were but a small sample of the backlash: all you have to do is Google. Here are a few more, for fun: http://leiterreports...l-rankings.html http://news.uchicago.edu/node/42456 http://www.insidehig.../09/28/rankings (the last one reveals that even the NRC doesn't trust their own rankings... to quote:

The advance briefing for reporters covering today's release of the National Research Council's ratings of doctoral programs may have made history as the first time a group doing rankings held a news conference at which it seemed to be largely trying to write them off.

While the NRC committee that produced the rankings defended its efforts and the resulting mass of data on doctoral programs now available, no one on the committee endorsed the actual rankings -- and committee members went out of their way to say that there might well be better ways to rank -- better than either of the two methods unveiled....

To be honest, I find it more surprising that you are defending the NRC rankings, given the large amount of extremely negative press it has received in academic circles.

Edit: I am interested, which programs in the USNews top 20 do you think don't deserve to be there? I don't agree with all of the exact placements, but I would pick the same top 20.

Edited March 23, 2011 by OH YEAH

[edvolkov]

Edit: I am interested, which programs in the USNews top 20 do you think don't deserve to be there? I don't agree with all of the exact placements, but I would pick the same top 20.

What method of evaluation do you use in your ranking?

In my experience all the ratings suck. For example in the computer security field of research about half or more universities from usnews ranking top 20 don't deserve such placement. You should be keen not on the ratings, but on the publications at top conferences in your field, alumni placement. If I had a choice between Stanford, MIT, Princeton, Cornell, Harvard and UCSB which is only top-40 I would definetly choose UCSB, since other universities suck in computer security and UCSB has a very strong lab. I think such situation pertains to other fields as well.

[stopcallinmesqrlboy]

Nobody in CS trusts the NRC is an understatement. I don't remember the Computing Research Association denouncing the USNews rankings. USNews and the NRC are not comparable because 1) the NRC study claims to be an objective measure based on statistical evidence, where USNews claims to be a popularity contest and 2) the NRC has a claim to legitimacy as a government funded, "official" project. The NRC report being erroneous is a big deal.

...

To be honest, I find it more surprising that you are defending the NRC rankings, given the large amount of extremely negative press it has received in academic circles.

I'm not defending any rankings, I just said "all rankings should be taken with a grain of salt". I was defending myself after you claimed to speak for everyone in CS, which is absurd. And let me repeat this again, all rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, including NRC and US News. I think it's interesting you admittedly trust the "popularity contest".

I do believe dept ranking matters but I'll have to agree with edvolkov and say research group matters more.

And please, don't turn this thread into a debate about which rankings are better, start a new thread if you're feeling emotionally charged.

[OH YEAH]

I trust the popularity contest because it is good for what it is. I do not trust the NRC rankings because they have been shown to have no statistical validity. But, believe what you want, I have a feeling you care a lot more about this than I do

[frenzydude]

All rankings should be taken with a grain of salt. Those who got ranked high will boast the results and those that got ranked lower might make a scene. To say, "nobody in CS trusts the NRC" is rather bold. Do you completely trust the US News rankings? I can name a few universities off the top of my head that are in the top 20 that probably don't belong there.

Clearly, I'm concerned with finding a good research group.

I, for one, completely trust the US News Rankings. If I were to decide on only one factor irrespective of others, it would be US News CS Rankings. This is mainly because all seniors who applied from my university told me to look at the US News Rankings, and I never felt the need to look for any other.