Applying for CS PhD, what are my chances?

[samoe]

Hello all,

I am an international student from a central asian country-not a lot of us here in the U.S. with external funding

Major: CS bachelors from Berkeley, CS masters from Harvard

GPA: 3.11

Major GPA: 3.10

GRE: 790 M, 490 V

Experience: Two years at Cisco in California as a software engineer, no research or any publications

Good SOP and letters of recommendation from professors based on coursework and industry.

What are my chances at each of these schools for Systems? Should I forget about MIT and Stanford because I have no research experience?

MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, Caltech, Columbia, Yale

I am considering Cornell, USC and UWashington

Edited May 25, 2012 by samoe

[emmm]

All you can do is try -- these programs are so competitve that no one can give you chances.

[Pauli]

Every department has different needs each year. Like person above, no one can give you what the chances are.

[samoe]

Do you guys think that my GPA and lack of research experience would render my chances close to zero? What would be more of a reach for me?

[Pauli]

Why are you focusing on just the name schools? There are many strong and competitive CS programs with higher admission rates.

[samoe]

Why are you focusing on just the name schools? There are many strong and competitive CS programs with higher admission rates.

My external funding is conditional upon acceptance into one those schools in addition I really like the research being done in those schools.

[blankslate]

Is that your masters GPA, your undergrad GPA, or combined? If not your masters GPA, what is your masters GPA?

By the way, he asked for his chances, not for your standard "you can't predict PhD applications" response. Even an approximate answer (with a given that it will contain huge variance at competitive schools) can help a would-be applicant judge what he's up against.

If your masters GPA is that low, it will definitely hurt your chances. But the fact that you have degrees from Berkeley and Harvard will help. The top 4 schools will be a stretch, with a decent shot at the rest, given that you can reasonably communicate your passion for an active area in those schools. Focus on communicating that in your application - passion.

Edited May 25, 2012 by blankslate

[Pauli]

By the way, he asked for his chances, not for your standard "you can't predict PhD applications" response. Even an approximate answer (with a given that it will contain huge variance at competitive schools) can help a would-be applicant judge what he's up against.

It does not, because adcomms don't judge a PhD applicant on such a narrow set of factors that the OP posted, but on much richer information such as strength of reference letters, essays, and publications. Without that information, his primarily list of scores would give an inaccurate approximation.

But the fact that you have degrees from Berkeley and Harvard will help.

What? No it doesn't. Adcomms put much more focus in judging candidates based on their time there, not where they went to school. Even candidates who did their undergrad in state satellite schools will get acceptance if they were stellar during their time there.

[jjsakurai]

My external funding is conditional upon acceptance into one those schools in addition I really like the research being done in those schools.

A PhD is usually a paid position. You don't need to worry about funding. To be completely honest, I'd say that given your lack of research experience and your GPA, your chances at the schools you mentioned are close to zero. I'd recommend getting some research experience before applying and add some lower ranked schools to your list. Even with research experience admission is going to be tricky given your GPA. You may wanna take the CS GRE to make up a bit for your GPA.

A good way to get research experience might be to say try and join a university lab. If you do good work there, then you can get good recs and the prof might even be interested in funding you for a PhD at that university.

Edited May 25, 2012 by jjsakurai

[jjsakurai]

What? No it doesn't. Adcomms put much more focus in judging candidates based on their time there, not where they went to school. Even candidates who did their undergrad in state satellite schools will get acceptance if they were stellar during their time there.

Yes it does. Berkeley is known for having a very good CS curriculum so your GPA is viewed in a somewhat more positive light. The profs you're getting recs from are much much more likely to be known by the Adcom which is very valuable. While a degree from Berkeley may not have much of an edge over a degree from a place like U. of Michigan for PhD admissions, it's definitely a lot more valuable than a degree from a school no one in the Adcom has heard of.

[Pauli]

Yes it does. Berkeley is known for having a very good CS curriculum so your GPA is viewed in a somewhat more positive light. The profs you're getting recs from are much much more likely to be known by the Adcom which is very valuable. While a degree from Berkeley may not have much of an edge over a degree from a place like U. of Michigan for PhD admissions, it's definitely a lot more valuable than a degree from a school no one in the Adcom has heard of.

But the thing is that all engineering/science programs from the Top 40 schools are difficult in general. Yes, Berkeley has a strong program, but almost everyone who applies to grad school -- including to those prestige name schools -- already come from strong programs, so where someone went to school before is negated.

[jjsakurai]

But the thing is that all engineering/science programs from the Top 40 schools are difficult in general. Yes, Berkeley has a strong program, but almost everyone who applies to grad school -- including to those prestige name schools -- already come from strong programs, so where someone went to school before is negated.

I'm not saying that it will give you much of an advantage. What I'm saying is that if you come from a school that no one in the adcom knows about, that will hurt your chances as the adcom will find it harder to gauge your preparation for grad school.

[samoe]

The GPA and Major GPA are from my undergraduate. I have an equivalent of above 3.6 in my master's. Without diverging too much, getting that external funding is not just about money but it fits my future career plans when I head back to my country.

jjsakurai: My chances are close to zero for the top 4 schools or for each school I listed?

blankslate: Which schools do you think I would have a chance at if I work with what I currently have?

I have seen a lot of candidates planning to have two rounds of applying. For example applying to Fall 2013 to test the waters and then reapplying in Fall 2014. Is this a good strategy?

[Adamah]

I don't think you should plan on two rounds of applying. Besides, would your application significantly improve if you waited until next year?

It's true that your lack of research experience (especially since you've already done a masters) is a negative for them, and your GPA is not outstanding. I'd say your odds for those schools is minimal, but you never know. If there is something unique in your application and you can convince them that you have a specific research interest that happens to align well with a faculty member who is looking for a student, then you could get lucky.

Also, mentioning that you have external funding is a big plus. That makes you free for them, so there's much less for them to lose by accepting you.

[blankslate]

A 3.6 for your masters isn't too bad. Honestly you have a small chance at all of them if the school's research interests align with what you're passionate about. You should try and communicate your ability to do research, in light of your work experience and whatever other projects you've done at school. I agree with jjsakurai (including the advice to add some safeties to your list), except I wouldn't say your chances are zero. You do need to pull off one hell of an application to make it a possibility at top schools though.

[jjsakurai]

jjsakurai: My chances are close to zero for the top 4 schools or for each school I listed?

Given that you have a 3.6 for your Masters and come with external funding (I assume it covers both tuition & stipend?), I'd say you definitely have a chance at Columbia/Yale/USC. I still feel the rest are out of reach but I might be wrong. Given that you did your Master's at Harvard, you might have a chance there if the professors have a good impression of you.

Edited May 25, 2012 by jjsakurai

[emmm]

So much depends on factors we don't know -- namely what you are able to convey in your SOP and what your letters of reference say about you, that we really can't say what your chances are. I would not recommend not applying to your top choice schools just because some posters here think your chances are slim. Most of us are in programs with relatively low admission rates. If we'd let that scare us away from even applying, we'd all be nowhere. You might want to talk to various program reps to see if bringing your own funding will help, or you might want to contact some profs directly (they might be interested if your skills/interests align with theirs). Good luck!

[samoe]

Thanks all. I am still going to apply to that list but will include other top 30 schools as backup. I still want to do a PhD regardless of this external funding opportunity but will hope for the best. I understand that nothing is impossible here but I also have to be realistic and should not expect an acceptance from those top schools.

[aberrant]

I'm not saying that it will give you much of an advantage. What I'm saying is that if you come from a school that no one in the adcom knows about, that will hurt your chances as the adcom will find it harder to gauge your preparation for grad school.

This is totally untrue. Like Pauli said, it isn't about where you from but what you have done to prepare yourself for grad school (besides the fact that the admission process consider number of factors that indicate the potential of an applicant).

What are my chances at each of these schools for Systems? Should I forget about MIT and Stanford because I have no research experience?

MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, Caltech, Columbia, Yale

I am considering Cornell, USC and UWashington

If you are getting a master's degree and "no research experience", I supposed it is a 1-year coursework degree (some refers it as MA) instead of a 2-year research thesis degree (some refers it as MS)? While your work experience might be able to compensate your lack of research experience, zero research experience will definitely hurt your chances. After all, we are talking about bosses recruiting someone to do research for the next +4 years. For most of the science phd programs (if not all), research experience is almost a must, regardless the duration (even though competitive applicants tend to have at least a year of research experience, if not more).

While Cal may be competitive, your GPA would definitely hurt your chance as an international applicant. As an international student myself coming from another UC campus, I'm pretty sure that this GPA will be detrimental to your application (along with ~zero research experience), regardless your citizenship. 3.6 GPA in grad school will not put you in a better position since most of the graduate programs require a B to pass a course, which is really a C/pass in undergrad coursework.

Also based on the information from Yale graduate school, international applicants who scored less than 500/800 in verbal is also detrimental; a sub-48% (<4.0) in analytical writing would hurt your application also.

What you can do, imho, are:

1. retake GRE and hopefully boost your verbal score to at least 500, ideally +600 (whatever that percentage corresponds to the new scale).

2. write a strong SOP. good SOP is not good enough.

3. get strong recommendation letters from people who know you well enough outside of the classes that you took. since the recommenders have to tell the adcoms how they think you have potential to succeed and do well in grad school, letters from professor who you took classes with may not help (unless they know you well personally). Your grades are reflected on your transcript, so don't waste a letter on things that the adcom can evaluate from other parts of your application. letters from people in the field and very well known is the best; otherwise, try to get letters from the same field, before moving "outwards" (letters outside of the circle of your field).

You can always look at the admission results on "Results Search" to see the stats of the successful applicants who got into schools that are on your list.

Edited May 26, 2012 by aberrant

[emmm]

On one of my interviews, I was told that they liked to get letters from people they knew (and they didn't know any of my letter writers). I didn't get in to that program

Coming from a "big name" school can help. Of course, you need to have done well enough at that school. I think my school name did help me get in to the program that took me -- even though it was a long time ago that I went there and none of my letters were from my old profs there.

[blankslate]

On 5/26/2012 at 1:51 AM, aberrant said:

This is totally untrue. Like Pauli said, it isn't about where you from but what you have done to prepare yourself for grad school (besides the fact that the admission process consider number of factors that indicate the potential of an applicant).

I'm somewhat perplexed that there is debate over whether the prestige of previous degree granting institutions matter. I would argue that the OP's admittance to the Masters CS Harvard program is such an example of this bias. Imagine a 3.1 GPA from an institution outside of the top 10. This bias for prestige exists everywhere whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. More well known professors, a more well known program, and inherent bias towards prestigious institutions.

Don't get me wrong, PhD applications are all about research fit. But the fact that his pedigree is Berkeley and Harvard does matter and will help him. This is why I suggest focusing on communicating passion, because an excellent fit will make his GPA less relevant.

I've had experience applying for both top Masters and PhD programs in Computer Science now (and I believe jjsakurai has experience applying as well) and our advice is based on our own experience and countless wasted hours perusing profiles and admission results. Do feel free to argue on any points we make, we're only trying to help the OP after all.

[Pauli]

I'm somewhat perplexed that there is debate over whether the prestige of previous degree granting institutions matter. I would argue that the OP's admittance to the Masters CS Harvard program is such an example of this bias.

Don't get me wrong, PhD applications are all about research fit. But the fact that his pedigree is Berkeley and Harvard does matter and will help him. This is why I suggest focusing on communicating passion, because an excellent fit will make his GPA less relevant.

I've had experience applying for both top Masters and PhD programs in Computer Science now (and I believe jjsakurai has experience applying as well) and our advice is based on our own experience and countless wasted hours perusing profiles and admission results. Do feel free to argue on any points we make, we're only trying to help the OP after all.

We're in the same boat. Like yourself, some of us also have experience applying for top Masters and PhD programs in Computer Science as well, and already completed years of PhD programs like myself. What we're saying is that people should not be using where they went to school as crutch, and that the illusion of a school's prestige seriously doesn't matter because you're neglecting to mention (especially for the OP's case) that the OP actually to apply to the grad school twice (once to the actual program, once again to the research lab). Even if the OP passes through the adcomms themselves, don't forget that research lab directors have to admit them themselves, where they don't even bother looking at where the applicant went to school.

Imagine a 3.1 GPA from an institution outside of the top 10. This bias for prestige exists everywhere whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. More well known professors, a more well known program, and inherent bias towards prestigious institutions.

Yes, this bias exists and we're aware of this. But the discussion has always been about the importance of where one went to school in isolation. What you're forgetting is that where one went to schools is a part of MANY factors. If someone did only average with their scores in the time they spent at a name university, adcomms do see this as wasted potential because they would have a bias towards higher expectations in that program. If they didn't do well or only did average at such a program but don't explain themselves in their academic portfolio or essays for the reasons why they didn't do well (e.g., personal hardships, more focus on research publications), this actually hurts the applicants even more than using their name school as a crutch. Adcomms are looking out for the interests of their own programs, and they really are looking for a great fit.

This is almost exactly what somebody on an adcom at one of the top schools told me.

And this sums up the discussion nicely. If someone goes to an unfamiliar university (like some obscure university in a foreign country or a non-name program at a known university), it hurts them. That's not really true in the converse case, especially since most applicants will be coming from prestigious name schools or had stellar performances from familiar-named schools.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Pauli

[jjsakurai]

This is totally untrue. Like Pauli said, it isn't about where you from but what you have done to prepare yourself for grad school (besides the fact that the admission process consider number of factors that indicate the potential of an applicant).

And how is the adcom supposed to gauge your preparation if they're not familiar with the courses and standards of your university?

While Cal may be competitive, your GPA would definitely hurt your chance as an international applicant. As an international student myself coming from another UC campus, I'm pretty sure that this GPA will be detrimental to your application (along with ~zero research experience), regardless your citizenship. 3.6 GPA in grad school will not put you in a better position since most of the graduate programs require a B to pass a course, which is really a C/pass in undergrad coursework.

Citizenship makes little difference to your chances (apart from the fact that you can't apply to citizens-only fellowships which can indirectly hurt your chances)

Also based on the information from Yale graduate school, international applicants who scored less than 500/800 in verbal is also detrimental; a sub-48% (<4.0) in analytical writing would hurt your application also.

While it's definitely not flattering, I wouldn't call it detrimental.

Edited May 26, 2012 by jjsakurai

[OH YEAH]

I don't think coming from a name brand school helps in and of itself. The reason it is so important is because your letters of recommendation are important, and professors at name brand schools know the professors that you want to work with! However, that won't help so much if your recommendations aren't great. If you don't have research experience, then what exactly will your LoRs say that will convince an adcomm that you are prepared for doing research?

Every year I see the admits for Princeton, and almost everyone comes from a name brand school. What will set you apart from those people will be your research experience, and you don't have any. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[jjsakurai]

<snip>

And therefore I still don't think that the reputation of one's previous education is as important as some of you might think... it could be true in computer science, I guess.

Most of those people have done either BS or MS at well-known schools...