Funding for MS Stanford Students

[brahmin]

Hey, I've been accepted for the MS program in Stanford but without funding. A lot of people want me to go there but I want to make sure it will be worth it. Firstly, I am keen in getting a PhD. Do do you guys know if MS students who want to continue to PhD have no trouble finding an advisor for PhD? This is the most important as my parents are willing to pay.

But I would really prefer if I can get an assistantship as soon as possible to help me through my M.S. I know Stanford rarely gives assistantships to newly admitted students but how does it look for continuing MS students. Do most of them get funding for MS? What are the chances of me becoming a TA or a RA after the first quarter or at most the second?

What is the course of actions that I should undertake to find a professor for a TA or a RA? Are professors ok with hiring MS students for research even if they haven't completed a lot of graduate course work? Should I suggest doing research for them for credit before asking them whether I can become a RA? Will I be able to find a professor for whom I do research for credit before my first quarter? How about TAs? Are they hard to get? Don't MS students TA for undergraduate courses? One of the professors said he picks from students who take that class...how would that work for undergraduate classes?

[Gullit]

I went to the Admit Day for MS program last week. IMO, Stanford is amazing, campus is gorgeous, professors are very knowledgeable, very friendly and approachable.

As I did a little survey, most of the students who joined with me on the day are not funded. Some professors do hire TA/RA but it is competitive within a department as well. Still, PhD are all funded. You just need to find the professors who want you to work with and sign the paperwork for you.

However, I've found out that those students who want to go there are very goal-driven. They know what they are doing, and exactly what they can get from obtaining Stanford degrees. I've heard a lot of stories about starting up companies from the current students (MS & PhD). You can also take classes from other departments (law, business, engineering management) as your electives, so I count it as an advantage.

The cost living is actually very high, housing is over $800/ month. Gas is $4.15/ gal. But it is the view from the SF Bay, and the weather is just perfect (for those who are from the east side like me).

Last but not least, the school name says it all.

I just clicked accept on the Axess yesterday.

Good luck on your decision

Hey, I've been accepted for the MS program in Stanford but without funding. A lot of people want me to go there but I want to make sure it will be worth it. Firstly, I am keen in getting a PhD. Do do you guys know if MS students who want to continue to PhD have no trouble finding an advisor for PhD? This is the most important as my parents are willing to pay.

But I would really prefer if I can get an assistantship as soon as possible to help me through my M.S. I know Stanford rarely gives assistantships to newly admitted students but how does it look for continuing MS students. Do most of them get funding for MS? What are the chances of me becoming a TA or a RA after the first quarter or at most the second?

What is the course of actions that I should undertake to find a professor for a TA or a RA? Are professors ok with hiring MS students for research even if they haven't completed a lot of graduate course work? Should I suggest doing research for them for credit before asking them whether I can become a RA? Will I be able to find a professor for whom I do research for credit before my first quarter? How about TAs? Are they hard to get? Don't MS students TA for undergraduate courses? One of the professors said he picks from students who take that class...how would that work for undergraduate classes?

[anotherflunky]

exactly what they can get from obtaining Stanford degrees

Which is not what people imagine it to be in the case of MS degrees. Really, look at all those rejected from MIT/Berkeley/Caltech but admitted unfunded to Stanford MS programs. Then they desperately see this as their only chance to get an "elite" degree and take it. Why would it be that easy? Doesn't it seem a little too good to be true? There's no free lunch: the Stanford unfunded MS programs are easy to get into precisely because they're not really anything more than money-makers. You pay, you get a "Stanford degree". Good for bragging to clueless lay people but those in your field know that it's not particularly impressive. Stanford is prestigious because of its undergrad, professional, and doctoral programs. The MS just tricks the prestige-obsessed folks into making Stanford lots of $$.

[Gullit]

Surely there is no free lunch: Stanford knows exactly what they have in order to offer to students. If unfunded MS is no good, it will eventually show up and affect the department's reputation. The department have thought of that, or have not realized that? I dont know. Maybe you know that.

[Slorg]

I think it's very hard to go from the MS program to the PhD program. (I'm not sure though)

Also, I think Gullit is wrong when he/she says that all PhD students are funded. (Also not 100% sure)

And yes, Stanford's MS EE program is a huge cash cow and they know it.

[Gullit]

If it is very hard to go from MS to PhD, IMO this is your problem, provided that you have all connections, networking, and opportunities to work with professors.

Abt the info that all PhD Mechanical are funded, thats what I have asked the Dean and the Chair of ME department at Stanford. Maybe they are wrong, I guess...

[structural_eng]

I'm not sure where everybody gets this notion that practically anybody can get into Stanford because as its put it is a "cash cow". I had heard about this before but I went to the visitation day for CEE and it doesn't seem like this is true at all. The majority of the students I talked to were choosing between Stanford and Berkeley plus the professors were extremely approachable and really seemed to care about each individual student. The professors in charge of admittance mentioned that he expects there to be about 40 students in the Structural Engineering program. My question is if Stanford is so easy to get accepted to then why do they shoot for a class of 40 students when they could easily double this number and make more money?

It was also mentioned that an estimated 8 students out of the 40 would get funding from partial or full fellowships based on merit. Also in order to get funding through RA/TA a second year was necessary because second year graduate students have priority. There are also not that many TA jobs because Stanford has a smaller undergraduate class than graduate class. Most MS students at Stanford complete the necessary 45 units in one year at a rate of 15 units/quarter. Rather if the 45 units are done in say 5 quarters at 9 units/quarter instead in order to get funding the second year, the lower units/quarter leads to a lower tuition rate per quarter. Meaning that it costs about the same amount of tuition money to complete Stanford's MS program in 1 or 2 years. So it is possible to get funding at Stanford it is just the way the program is run that makes it more difficult and not because Stanford's MS program is a "cash cow".

The point is that Stanford has a great engineering program and draws applications from some of the best engineering students in the country and chooses the best ones, no different than any other top university.

[anotherflunky]

My question is if Stanford is so easy to get accepted to then why do they shoot for a class of 40 students when they could easily double this number and make more money?

My question is if Stanford isn't just using the MS students for money, why not fund them? What was that endowment again? 15 billion?

Who says they can double the number easily? The school has a limited number of professors, number of courses, number of housing units, etc. I'm guessing they're milking what they can reasonably get already. Besides, civil engineering admissions are relatively easier compared to other engineering fields. So it's more so that civil departments in general are easy to get into, rather than that Stanford alone being that way. This is a straightforward consequence of the marginal value of higher degrees in some fields vs. others. This is not the case in, say, EE or CS, where giant hordes of MS students get in and they're not even top 10 caliber, let alone Stanford caliber. It is what it is. I'm not complaining. The departments' wealth makes it better for those few that do become funded PhD students. It's just funny to see all these similar topics on Stanford engineering every year. Hope, delusion, worrying, all rolled up.

The point is that Stanford has a great engineering program and draws applications from some of the best engineering students in the country and chooses the best ones, no different than any other top university.

Hey, I like Stanford too. I'll be going there (probably). But a more correct version is that Stanford chooses a *large* number of students, and this necessarily goes deeper into the lower-end of the academic totem pole. And even lower because they lose a lot of the best students to MIT, Berkeley, and even others which have better environments (thanks to not weeding students out or forcing them to pay). Graduate school is not meant to cost anything. Don't toe the Stanford party line just because you want to make yourself feel better.

[jendoly]

Hey, I like Stanford too. I'll be going there (probably). But a more correct version is that Stanford chooses a *large* number of students, and this necessarily goes deeper into the lower-end of the academic totem pole. And even lower because they lose a lot of the best students to MIT, Berkeley, and even others which have better environments (thanks to not weeding students out or forcing them to pay). Graduate school is not meant to cost anything. Don't toe the Stanford party line just because you want to make yourself feel better.

This. I think I even made this exact argument to students at our visit day this year when explaining why I picked MIT over Stanford. Stanford was the only one of my schools that a) didn't offer funding and b ) didn't even offer reimbursement to come out and visit. From my perspective, it never made a real effort, and as such, I had no desire to go. Not saying it's not a good school/program, but I felt more respected and valued by other schools that only accepted as many students as they had funding for. I know people who were more than willing to take out loans to go to Stanford, and all the power to them, but it's true that Stanford loses a LOT of students simply to schools that WILL pay for masters students.

In addition, the students they DO get are die hard for Stanford (at least in MechE), either because it was their reach or dream school already or, for the candidates with other offers, the research is the best and they are thus compelled. One can argue that they are "selecting for" that subset of the population by admitting a larger pool without offering the incentive of funding. It's one approach to finding a student body, and not necessarily a bad one - just different than schools who individually select students for projects.

To the OP: I've heard that it isn't TOO hard to find funding once you get there, which falls in with the above idea of recruiting students who will take a financial or other risk for the sake of going to Stanford. I'll leave more specific rumination and advice to people who actually go =P

Edited April 6, 2011 by jendoly

[bt30]

To answer your question on funding, I was talking to a professor who said that TAs are extremely rare for your first year. It happens every once in a while but its not common at all. He did say that its certainly possible to get RAs your first year. Normally you have to work for a professor for free for a quarter or so, and then if they like your work they'll offer you an RA. He said that its sometimes possible to find funding for the 2nd quarter and definitely by the 3rd. If you can't find funding by the time you start your 2nd year you're in pretty bad shape to continue onto a PHD.

He also said that, when you take out all of the students who simply want a terminal masters, about half the students that want to continue for their PHD at Stanford are able to do so (this is compared to the <2% acceptance rate for outside students who have already gotten their masters applying to Stanford's PHD program)

[wifey99999999]

Which is not what people imagine it to be in the case of MS degrees. Really, look at all those rejected from MIT/Berkeley/Caltech but admitted unfunded to Stanford MS programs. Then they desperately see this as their only chance to get an "elite" degree and take it. Why would it be that easy? Doesn't it seem a little too good to be true? There's no free lunch: the Stanford unfunded MS programs are easy to get into precisely because they're not really anything more than money-makers. You pay, you get a "Stanford degree". Good for bragging to clueless lay people but those in your field know that it's not particularly impressive. Stanford is prestigious because of its undergrad, professional, and doctoral programs. The MS just tricks the prestige-obsessed folks into making Stanford lots of $$.

Getting into stanford is by no mean easy. Yes, their MS programs are not as selective as MIT/CalTech/Cal, but they still have pretty low acceptance rate, and you still need the grade to get in (they obvioulsy don't emphasize research as much for MS admission). they're not going to admit people who are not smart, but just have money. If Stanford's goal is to make money, can you please explain why they don't admit 100% of their applicants? I mean, that would at least quadruple their tuition revenue, right?

Edited June 24, 2011 by wifey99999999

[Amogh]

Getting into stanford is by no mean easy. Yes, their MS programs are not as selective as MIT/CalTech/Cal, but they still have pretty low acceptance rate, and you still need the grade to get in (they obvioulsy don't emphasize research as much for MS admission). they're not going to admit people who are not smart, but just have money. If Stanford's goal is to make money, can you please explain why they don't admit 100% of their applicants? I mean, that would at least quadruple their tuition revenue, right?

Hey erm, they cant really accept 100% of applications. they get around >1000 applicants for ms a year. I dont think there are even enough rooms/professors to handle that many students in the cs dept alone.

[wifey99999999]

Hey erm, they cant really accept 100% of applications. they get around >1000 applicants for ms a year. I dont think there are even enough rooms/professors to handle that many students in the cs dept alone.

100% is just an exaggeration. But if they seriously go for money, they might as well hire more part-time lecturers to accomodate more students, right? Business-wise, this could make them a lot of money!

[HassE]

Listen, you guys are nit-picking this way to much.

Stanford is a very large school with a large engineering department. They are also one of the best. The point is they can accept a large number of students and need to fill sits. For most Ph.D students, they are going to reserve the funding (RA/TA) for them. It's called a cash-cow because as mentioned, it's a big school and they need to fill these seats. No one is saying getting accepted or attending Stanford is easy. It is very difficult to get get accepted into Stanford, but just not to the same degree as other top-5 schools.

To the OP, if you plan on attending Stanford, plan on attending Stanford from your own pocket. The odds of you getting funding from Stanford for your MS is very unlikely. Like mentioned, there are plenty of other unfunded students hoping to do the same, and there isn't enough funds to go around. If somehow you are funded during your MS, then congratulations, but it won't be common.

To the person who said why don't they accept nearly all of their applicants: Stanford is a large reputable top school. They clearly do not have the seating capacity, nor do they want to accept unqualified students to their program either. Remember there are plenty of "smart" engineers out there applying to graduate school. Do you want them to accept every student? Where would they put them all? Clearly, this is not what we mean by a cash-cow.

It just simply means that, they know people want to attend Stanford. So it you want to attend, you can fund your own way. If you can't afford it, they know theirs hundreds of other well-qualified applications that would be more than happy to fund their own way. It's simple. Why fund a student if they have others begging to fund themselves? This is the definition of a cash-cow.

To conclude, as one of my engineering professors once said, "Engineers should be funded through graduate school". Plain and simple!