Profile Evaluation

[snit]

I want to get a masters in CS at a top ten school.

I graduated from a top 30, but not top 20 university according to US News with a double major in math and cs.

Overall GPA: 3.85

Math GPA: 4.0

CS GPA: 3.97

GRE: 800 Quant, 680 Verbal, 4.5 Writing

I believe I can get two really good recommendations and one pretty good one, all from professors at my undergrad university.

In the two years since I graduated, I've been working as a software engineer at a startup in the Chicago area.

I think the main weakness in my application might be lack of research. I have done no CS research at all, and one summer of math research (graph theory), but no papers published.

I know some masters are more research oriented (MIT's) than others (Stanford's). How would my lack of relevant research affect my application. Would non research oriented masters programs care about research? Would they care about my work experience/resume?

I feel that my GPA, GRE, and recommendations are as good as I can hope for, but I'm not sure what else I would need.

Thanks for any input.

[jjsakurai]

MIT and Berkeley don't have a Master's program for students from non-MIT/non-Berkeley undergraduate.

[snit]

I believe MIT's masters of engineering for CS is only for undergrads, but MIT's masters of science for CS is for anyone. Though it is on the path to the PhD, so I would probably need research experience.

I think the same is also true of Berkeley.

[blankslate]

You have a strong profile IMO. It comes down to your SOP and what your work experience is. I wouldn't worry about lack of research experience (I had none when I applied for masters programs). Show passion.

I would shoot for Princeton/Stanford/CMU. Apply to safeties of course.

Good luck.

[psycho_killer]

<p>

MIT's masters of science for CS is for anyone.

I didn't think MIT had a terminal MS degree in CS.  Can you provide a link?

Also, @blankslate is right on.

[snit]

I didn't think MIT had a terminal MS degree in CS. Can you provide a link?

Also, @blankslate is right on.

Its not terminal. It is actually the same application as the PhD. Which probably makes it about 100 times harder to get in.

You have a strong profile IMO. It comes down to your SOP and what your work experience is. I wouldn't worry about lack of research experience (I had none when I applied for masters programs). Show passion.

I would shoot for Princeton/Stanford/CMU. Apply to safeties of course.

Good luck.

What about work experience is attractive to masters programs? Is it the same things that are attractive to potential employers?

[blankslate]

Work experience that shows you were able to do something significant, that you were passionate, and is useful for research. The former two are more important. But these are all indicators that you'll do well in grad school.

And you're right, applying to MIT's PhD program is nothing like applying to masters programs. Masters is broad, PhD is specific. Unlikely to find a good fit in a PhD program with only work experience.

[Networc]

I would shoot for Princeton/Stanford/CMU.

Add UIUC to the list.

+1 to everything else blankslate said.

[Adamah]

What do you want to get out of a Master's? Different schools have different strengths, depending on what you want from it

[LightTreasure]

I agree with Adamah and blankslate.

snit, you've got a great profile, and you should definitely be applying. In my opinion (and in Matthew Might's), if you haven't published, you need to prove that you have the interest, experience and potential of doing research. A published paper demonstrates all of that, so it's useful, but it isn't necessary. If you can demonstrate interest, experience and potential effectively through some other things you've accomplished, you're good to go.

In order to do this, you should have specific goals in mind about what you want to pursue through a master's. You should choose a specialization, a research area or a topic that you have had experience with (through a project or through your work), have shown interest in it (maybe by doing something independently) and hence have tangible potential for.

Look back at all the work you've done (projects, research work, your current work) and try to find a common interest or a theme in it. Try to find some progression and some direction in your choices. Then look through university and professor webpages to see what work is being done by them, and see if your interest or your experience matches with it or if you could contribute to that work because you've had some experience related to it. The best match would be something that you have had experience with and is a step forward in your direction. At this stage, it's good to get in contact with Professors and check if they are interested in you.

If you're able to convince professors (through your Statement of Purpose) that you can contribute to research or the work being done at that university, you will have a better chance of getting admitted.

[snit]

I agree with Adamah and blankslate.

snit, you've got a great profile, and you should definitely be applying. In my opinion (and in Matthew Might's), if you haven't published, you need to prove that you have the interest, experience and potential of doing research. A published paper demonstrates all of that, so it's useful, but it isn't necessary. If you can demonstrate interest, experience and potential effectively through some other things you've accomplished, you're good to go.

In order to do this, you should have specific goals in mind about what you want to pursue through a master's. You should choose a specialization, a research area or a topic that you have had experience with (through a project or through your work), have shown interest in it (maybe by doing something independently) and hence have tangible potential for.

Look back at all the work you've done (projects, research work, your current work) and try to find a common interest or a theme in it. Try to find some progression and some direction in your choices. Then look through university and professor webpages to see what work is being done by them, and see if your interest or your experience matches with it or if you could contribute to that work because you've had some experience related to it. The best match would be something that you have had experience with and is a step forward in your direction. At this stage, it's good to get in contact with Professors and check if they are interested in you.

If you're able to convince professors (through your Statement of Purpose) that you can contribute to research or the work being done at that university, you will have a better chance of getting admitted.

The thing is I'm not interested in doing research. I'm looking for a terminal degree, and after/during my degree I want to get involved in a startup. Is not being interested in research a negative? Should I get interested in research to improve my changes?

I thought/hoped that for a masters there were schools that were happy to accept non-research oriented students.

[snit]

I'm finally getting around to finalizing my list of schools, and am trying to figure out what some good safetys would be. I'm planning to apply to Stanford, Princeton, CMU, and Cornell as my top choices. Other schools I'm applying to are Harvard, Brown, and BU. (Kind of a weird list I know, but given the opportunity I would love to move to Boston or the surrounding area for personal reasons).

What might be some good safetys to add to this list? Should I play it really safe and apply to schools as little known for CS as Tufts? Or is applying to schools ranked 20-30th safe enough?

Also, how do the schools on my list look for someone interested in going to school with the goals of:

1. Learning a lot of really interesting and cool stuff. Because I love learning CS.

2. Gaining skills that would make me a better software engineer/architect, and learning things about technology that would be useful to know for someone in industry.

3. Making contacts with smart classmates and professors with the goal of finding people I would want to co-found a start-up with, or people who have founded a start-up and need a CTO type person.

Those were listed in no particular order.

Thanks

[ssk2]

Hey snit,

I think I'm in a similar boat to you - I've been working for a couple of years now, and am mostly going for the professional Master's track where possible. That's not to say I'm writing off a PhD but I think it's highly likely that at this age and stage in my career, I'd head back to industry after graduation. (I'd be 32 or similar by the time I finished my PhD!)

The top end of my list is very similar to what you've listed there - from reading around it seems like Princeton and Harvard have a more research based focus. I'm applying to UBC too, if you're not averse to the idea of applying to some Canadian universities, I think they are reputable departments, possibly not as competitive as many of those you've listed and often better with financial aid.

(Another thought, related to your third point - if you want to find a non-technical co-founder, perhaps you should apply to some universities with strong business schools too.)

I've sent you a PM with some additional questions too :-).

Edited August 4, 2012 by ssk2