Chances of being admitted to MIT, Berkeley, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Caltech for a PhD in CS

[anon1]

I'm wondering if I have a shot at CS PhD programs at any of the above schools?

GPA: 3.66, double major at Vanderbilt in CS and math

CS GPA: 3.94

GPA last two years: 3.89 (did degree program in 3 years since I have a previous liberal arts degree)

GRE(assumed--need to take): 166 verbal, 166-170 quant, 5.5 writing

Have previous degree from liberal arts college in art

Have written ACT math questions for a textbook in all major bookstores

Taught SAT classes in Thailand and in US

Found mistake in national standardized test in high school

Did internships at Harvard, MIT, NASA (all were in astro/aero, but I did CS work)

(also admitted to internships at Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, Harvard--in CS)

Published papers in philosophy, biology, physics, (might get an aerospace engineering pub by the fall)

Run marathons

Am female

*** I applied last year but didn't study very much for the GRE and only got 160 math, (166 verbal, 5.5 writing), 2 great and 2 mediocre LOR, a really bad SOP (unfocused, fluffy), had a lower GPA: was only 3.5 when I applied, hadn't added a math major, didn't know I would be doing an internship at NASA, and didn't take the CS GRE (which I am considering taking this year) -- I had interviews at Columbia, Johns Hopkins, and Toronto, and ended up getting into Columbia for a Master's (no funding), UCLA, U of Maryland, and UC San Diego for funded PhD programs.

I am considering applying again next year with improvements to the above credentials. The only risk seems to be losing UCLA/UCSD (my top choices), though hopefully I would get in next year (sounds like deferring may not be an option) too.

Edited July 1, 2012 by anon1

[ghanada]

*sigh* it is so frustrating at how much you value school name, ivy prestige, and undergrad rankings for a STEM field PhD. I'm pretty sure most the people in gradcafe or applying in general are astounded that you would turn down 3 top 15 fully funded offers from amazing schools in CS just to impress other people with the name of a prestigious undergrad school. Looking at your list, these are all name brand undergrad schools, but not necessarily even known for strength in CS (Yale?) . Whereas you left off extremely good CS schools whose names don't necessarily impress the average joe (CMU, UIUC, UT-Austin, etc).

And what is so crazy is that you are giving up multiple great offers that anyone in their right mind would kill for to re-apply again to schools that are all complete gambles! Every one of those schools you listed are schools in which everyone hates trying to make guesses about because the variation is so high. I know plenty of people with 4.0 GPAs, 99% on all GRE sections, first author pubs, etc. that get rejected from every one of those schools. As much as you can have a "perfect" application, there is just no guarantee with those schools. It is like someone offering you $10 million now, OR wait 1 year, put in lots of time, money and effort to reapply for a 50% chance at getting $11 million next year.

At least in your last thread you made it sound like you decided that a math PhD was a better fit:

But now you are polling about CS AGAIN so it clearly means you just want to move up a bit higher in the rankings, which again as everyone has told you in that thread and your first thread (), is such a terrible way of picking schools.

It seems like you are asking for advice, ignoring said advice, and then rephrasing the same questions to try and get people to answer in a different way that validates your poor decisions. Obviously you are just going to do whatever you want to do, why keep asking the same question over and over??

[anon1]

I really appreciate your advice. Sincerely. And getting someone to tell me what you just wrote, with such conviction, is exactly why I asked the question.

One of my professors (who wrote my recommendations and who I really respect) told me that if my GRE math score had been slightly higher all of the schools would have loved me. He also said that the schools I got into are "good but not amazing." When I asked him if I should reapply he said, "I don't know," in a way that made it sound like he was deeply disappointed in me (specifically my GRE score).

When I told another of my professors that I got into UCLA she said, "well that's not a very good school for computer science!"

By the way, if you have any advice on UCLA vs UCSD, please do tell... these are my two remaining options, options that I apparently don't want to lose (it sounds like you think that my options could be worse if I apply again this year).

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

lol wtf UCLA, UCSD "not very good schools" are you joking... I'd love to go to this low ranked school if I could take your spot!

for the top schools, there is absolutely nothing you could do to increase your probability of being accepted that you can control. I am serious. It is a complete gamble. Now, there is a way to improve your probability: get your parents to donate 5 million dollars to the school. Then your probability of being accepted is much higher. But I don't think you have 5 million dollars lying around.

[ghanada]

I think it is terrible that these professors you talk to are so curmudgeonly an unsupportive of you. My Masters adviser genuinely cares about me as a person, so when I told her where I had acceptances, she first asked me about who I would work with, what work I would be doing, how the funding is, etc. before making any type of judgments about the schools themselves. To immediately blow off UCSD and UCLA shows a lot of resentment and just plain snobbery.

I am from the west coast, lived there for over 26 years, and I can tell you that UCLA and UCSD are HIGHLY respected schools (on the level of Harvard/MIT) over there. I personally did my undergrad at UCLA and it is a top notch school. Even for undergrad, getting into UCLA was just as respectable as getting into an ivy. In fact, on the west coast, most people wouldn't even be able to tell you what cities Yale, Cornell, Brown, Princeton, and Dartmouth are in. If you have any desire to work on the west coast, I would argue that going to either UCLA or UCSD would give you a leg up on graduates from Harvard, Columbia, Yale, etc. Plus if you spend 5-6 years doing a PhD there you would make tons of connections on the west coast and the profs you work with would also have tons of connections. Employers on the west coast really look favorably at graduates from the top UCs and Stanford. As an example I had close contacts in industry on the west coast and I asked them about my school options (1 of them being Columbia) for biomedical engineering and nobody cared about the ivy name. I even specifically asked if going to Columbia for the ivy name would help, and they all said no, they just care about WHAT work you do and what skills you have. And then everyone in my field that I talked to about Columbia was like "oh? is that even a good school?" since they are not particularly well known for BME even though they are ranked #15 on US News.

Seriously, don't let stuck-up professors choose your life for you. If you genuinely don't like UCLA or UCSD, you don't like the research, you don't like the atmosphere, or you just hate socal than those are understandable reasons to not go. Give up your spots, there are literally hundreds of people ready to jump on those spots given the opportunity. To many (and probably MOST), those are dream schools and I know lots of people that would literally cry of happiness to get in.

[ponylevel]

Eh, do whatever you want. Don't accept an offer to a school that you don't want to go to, regardless of what your personal reasons are.

That being said, don't expect a drastically different result next year, when there will (probably) be more competition. But if you take the time to do some research and significantly improve your application, then go for it.

[anon1]

Thanks all for your advice. You've convinced me to go to grad school this year. The department at UCSD was significantly more friendly, so I think I should probably go there.

[victor.s.andrei]

I'm wondering if I have a shot at CS PhD programs at any of the above schools?

GPA: 3.66, double major at Vanderbilt in CS and math

CS GPA: 3.94

GPA last two years: 3.89 (did degree program in 3 years since I have a previous liberal arts degree)

GRE(assumed--need to take): 166 verbal, 166-170 quant, 5.5 writing

Have previous degree from liberal arts college in art

Have written ACT math questions for a textbook in all major bookstores

Taught SAT classes in Thailand and in US

Found mistake in national standardized test in high school

Did internships at Harvard, MIT, NASA (all were in astro/aero, but I did CS work)

(also admitted to internships at Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, Harvard--in CS)

Published papers in philosophy, biology, physics, (might get an aerospace engineering pub by the fall)

Run marathons

Am female

*** I applied last year but didn't study very much for the GRE and only got 160 math, (166 verbal, 5.5 writing), 2 great and 2 mediocre LOR, a really bad SOP (unfocused, fluffy), had a lower GPA: was only 3.5 when I applied, hadn't added a math major, didn't know I would be doing an internship at NASA, and didn't take the CS GRE (which I am considering taking this year) -- I had interviews at Columbia, Johns Hopkins, and Toronto, and ended up getting into Columbia for a Master's (no funding), UCLA, U of Maryland, and UC San Diego for funded PhD programs.

I am considering applying again next year with improvements to the above credentials. The only risk seems to be losing UCLA/UCSD (my top choices), though hopefully I would get in next year (sounds like deferring may not be an option) too.

Your credentials are fine, but I'm concerned about your "unfocused" and "fluffy" statement of purpose.

Don't worry about the CS GRE.

Also, as another poster pointed out - you missed a few really good CS schools like UIUC, Carnegie Mellon, and UT Austin. I'd also add UC Berkeley to that list. I've also heard that the University of Utah and the University of Washington have good programs, too.

[anon1]

Or not. I just looked on ratemyprofessor. UCLA adviser: 5.0 helpfulness, 5.0 clarity, 1.0 easiness and glowing reviews (2), UCSD: 3.0 helpfulness, 2.0 clarity, 3.0 easiness (2 bad reviews)

UCSD person was nicer, but he might be frustrating to work with if he's not clear... I have trouble dealing with supervisors like that.... and am unmotivated to work hard for them.

Now UCLA is looking better. Only risk is: what if I end up not liking the work I'm doing with the prof there, then will have to find someone else to work with, and theory probably won't be an option... though I think they have some good graphics people, and strangely enough in 2009 I saw a networks prof give a talk in Rome, didn't know he was from UCLA, then saw him give a talk on my visit day, and remembered him! Such a cool moment.

Some of my profs said they thought UCSD was a better school for CS, but the two schools are tied in the rankings. Plus I just visited SpaceX on Friday and asked our tour guide which school was better, and her response was, "UCLA is one of our favorites." While in CA I asked around, and everyone's response was that given the choice they'd pick UCLA. Two profs also said that SD is a much nicer city than LA, but really I found LA to be more exciting than SD... maybe after I live there a while it will seem dirty/dangerous? In any case, I have a prof whose daughter lives 2 miles from campus and says I can live there if I want to, which would make moving there less daunting...

[anon1]

ghanada-- cool that you went to UCLA:)

victor.s.andrei-- my parents tried to tell me I had a horrible SOP, I should have listened You know, I found that I got into the schools whose essays I didn't 'try' to make good.... I just wrote simply and honestly. I should have done that for all of the essays... In any case, I guess UCLA's name recognition might satisfy my craving for that. I did have a friend who got into Berkeley and CMU, but was denied by Stanford and Georgia Tech. She had a 3.9 GPA and triple majored in classics, CS, and math! Plus did a bunch of other cool stuff.... so if she didn't even get in... Does make me wonder if I might have a chance at getting into one if I throw my application out to all of the schools, since I got into so many great internships, but, the consensus seems to be: go now... Plus if I go to UCLA, the prof I'd be working with has had students such as: Berkeley alum with a 3.9 GPA! (Have a friend in my current internship with 3.1 GPA at Berkeley and he says the ave. CS GPA there is 2.7; that it's super super hard.)

[ghanada]

ratemyprofessor is not a great way of picking advisers. The only people that review are people on the poles, they either loved or hated a class. And I personally don't think how a prof teaches an undergrad class of 300 people has any correlation with how this person will be as a PhD mentor. If I were a professor, you could be sure I would care a whole lot more about my grad students than a pre-req class that nobody even wants to be in.

Have you talked to current and former grad students from the labs you are interested in? THAT is how can get a better judgment of your would be advisers. I had long phone and in-person conversations with current senior members from the labs I was looking at and grad students are very good about not being fluffy about their feelings. Seriously, talk to those people and it should be clear which one is favored. You should easily be able to find their e-mails and they were always eager to offer advice and had lots to say about their lab.

From a Cali perspective, UCLA has the better name. Just like Berkeley has a better name than UCLA even though they get ranked in many things very similarly. UCSD is a much newer school (1960) whereas UCLA was founded in 1919. So UCSD has slowly moved up the ranks, but older generations like our parents' age would not realize how strong UCSD is. In fact, UC Irvine was thought of as a better school up until around the mid-90's and then UCSD started to pull ahead. Now UCSD is right on the heels of UCLA and even stronger in many areas. However, UCLA garners strong recognition for its professional schools. It is very good in Law, Medicine, and Business.

[victor.s.andrei]

Two profs also said that SD is a much nicer city than LA, but really I found LA to be more exciting than SD... maybe after I live there a while it will seem dirty/dangerous?

If I had to move anywhere in California, I would pick the Bay Area - San Francisco or San Jose - or San Diego. Definitely not Los Angeles though. Of course, Los Angeles has horrible traffic, and I'm biased, coming from the Northern Virginia perspective.

[adelashk]

I am from the west coast, lived there for over 26 years, and I can tell you that UCLA and UCSD are HIGHLY respected schools (on the level of Harvard/MIT) over there. I personally did my undergrad at UCLA and it is a top notch school. Even for undergrad, getting into UCLA was just as respectable as getting into an ivy. In fact, on the west coast, most people wouldn't even be able to tell you what cities Yale, Cornell, Brown, Princeton, and Dartmouth are in.

Many people know where UCLA/UCSD is because the name gives it away. I bet a lot of people do not know where in California Caltech is or where Carnegie Mellon is (besides the fact that it's in the midwest). This should not be an indicator of a program's prestige or strength. Needless to say, UCLA/UCSD are highly respected not only on the west coast but around the world.

If you have any desire to work on the west coast, I would argue that going to either UCLA or UCSD would give you a leg up on graduates from Harvard, Columbia, Yale, etc. Plus if you spend 5-6 years doing a PhD there you would make tons of connections on the west coast and the profs you work with would also have tons of connections. Employers on the west coast really look favorably at graduates from the top UCs and Stanford.

I agree that going to UCLA/UCSD would help a lot in finding a job on the west coast but it is not a leg up on graduates from HYPC through personal experience. Most of the people I worked with in California did not come from UCLA/UCSD but from random universities and they had some local connections in California.

As an example I had close contacts in industry on the west coast and I asked them about my school options (1 of them being Columbia) for biomedical engineering and nobody cared about the ivy name. I even specifically asked if going to Columbia for the ivy name would help, and they all said no, they just care about WHAT work you do and what skills you have. And then everyone in my field that I talked to about Columbia was like "oh? is that even a good school?" since they are not particularly well known for BME even though they are ranked #15 on US News.

The rankings are a slight indication so when you see Columbia ranked #15 it does not mean it is way better than UCLA (if it was ranked lower) but it tells you it has the potential of the same university. I passed on an opportunity to go to a top 10 school but choose a top 15 school because of the specific research area and faculty available.

Seriously, don't let stuck-up professors choose your life for you. If you genuinely don't like UCLA or UCSD, you don't like the research, you don't like the atmosphere, or you just hate socal than those are understandable reasons to not go. Give up your spots, there are literally hundreds of people ready to jump on those spots given the opportunity. To many (and probably MOST), those are dream schools and I know lots of people that would literally cry of happiness to get in.

Agreed. Also, OP should have applied to schools where she really wants to go.. So she should have done a lot of research in to what research/faculty is available at UCSD vs UCLA. If you go to MIT/Stanford and suck at research it's way way worse than going to a top 30 school and doing amazing. These things matter.

[ssk2]

I haven't studied in the U.S. or been accepted into any graduate program so feel free to ignore me.

A friend who did a summer research internship at USC didn't enjoy his time in LA at all - he said it's almost impossible/infeasible to get around without a car. He spoke quite highly of San Diego and the Bay Area as places to study but recommended against studying in LA. (Again, this is a European view, so YMMV, literally.)

Regardless, those two schools are both very reputable from the research I've done, so well done.

[ISEngineer]

I agree with the last poster, USC is not in the nicest area. You won"t enjoy the location at all. But UCLA is next to Bel Air, what better region could you expect. Anyhow the car thing is kinda true, you will enjoy the city much more if you have one, whereas you don't really need one in other West Coast cities like San Francisco/Berkeley, San Diego or Seattle.

[ISEngineer]

And giving you some advise concerning your PhD. I would go with UCLA, I am sure the program will be challenging and the professors will support you enough to do great research. You applied there, so at one point of your life, you must have actually thought that you might wanna go there. The problem is that wishes and directions in life often change as soon as you start a new segment of your life. You will never know, if it is actually the right thing until you do it and you will sometimes start loving something you never thought before you will ever love. You can not plan ahead too much, and it is good that life have unexpected things to discover. If it is really not the right thing, you will have figured that out after one year and you always could change the program. It sounds the better option to me than doing nothing than reapplying for one year.

[sabdo]

I agree with the last poster, USC is not in the nicest area. You won"t enjoy the location at all. But UCLA is next to Bel Air, what better region could you expect. Anyhow the car thing is kinda true, you will enjoy the city much more if you have one, whereas you don't really need one in other West Coast cities like San Francisco/Berkeley, San Diego or Seattle.

^^^ I have lived over 10 years in San Diego and trust me, you need a car. Unless you want to simply stay in the UTC area for the entirety of a PhD, you need a car.

Personally, I would pick UCSD over UCLA. The engineering department is stronger overall and UCSD has a nice vibe. However, I also hate LA so I may be biased.

[comp12]

People, if you check out anon1's other posts, you can gather that she is probably just trolling y'all. This can't be a serious grad applicant, and I wonder if she even has these offers from UCLA and UCSD in-hand. They've been open for months, and I wonder how they are still open as of July, unless anon1 is a Spring applicant.

[tkulk]

I got 161 in math (general GRE) but I am still going to MIT. GRE is not important ... just forget about it. Focus on better presenting your research and other related things.

[anon1]

I think I will definitely attend this year, but possibly apply again to my top 4 or so school choices as well (so long as my recommenders are willing to recommend me while I'm enrolled in a program...).

Another factor in my decision: at UCLA I have 2yrs funding VS UCSD 1yr....

UCLA: TA for almost entire time

UCSD: TA for only one quarter (if I get funding beyond 1st year & continue on with my potential adviser there)

I continually find myself gravitating toward the theoretical side of CS, and the prof at UCLA does theoretical work. Though UCSD overall seems to have a better department, and overall they are ranked higher in the theory subfield.

I know people have said that location shouldn't be a deciding factor, but I have to take my fiance into consideration, who is moving with me and has to find a job. I know SD has lots of government/defense jobs, but Santa Monica/LA seems to have lots of options too: Google, SpaceX, (JPL), etc. Quality of life in the location is also important to me (i.e. La Jolla vs Westwood area)....

[codejunkie]

I got 161 in math (general GRE) but I am still going to MIT. GRE is not important ... just forget about it. Focus on better presenting your research and other related things.

I thought MIT doesn't require GRE for EECS. If so, your post may not be the best example of how GRE scores affect admissions.

[Azazel]

I thought MIT doesn't require GRE for EECS. If so, your post may not be the best example of how GRE scores affect admissions.

You're right: MIT isn't a good example, but GREs don't matter (particularly at top schools). Just don't fail them.

What you should worry about, in order of importance: recommendations, research experience, publications, grades, GRE. (This is possibly on an exponential scale.)

[Mecasickle]

Hi I'm in the same situation, but I'm from Peru. How do the top schools regard our applications compared to people in the US? Any personal feedback from anyone who actually has a friend or is an international who got into one of these top schools coming from a 3rd world country?

Some extra stuff/achievements about me:

I've been to 3 computer vision PhD level summer schools in Italy, France and USA

I've been a speaker at the National symposium of neuroscience and complex systems of Lima Peru where all speakers were grad students, postdocs, and professors - i was an undergrad.

I did a 6 month internship at UCSB on neuroinformatics and am working on a paper that I have planned to submit to the neuroinformatics journal with a Professor an d grad student there.

I scored 800/800 on the math lvl2 and physics SAT subject test, but this was 4 years ago... so the GRE will be fine.

I'm thinking going for CS or brain/cog sci related to Computer and Human Vision.

Any other stuff that could help my application stand out?

Thanks!

[anon1]

Okay, so my question is: am I being greedy to want to try again next year, or should I just be happy that I got into a top 15 school?

[ghanada]

this can't be real. There is no way you are still deciding in mid-August. Some schools have already started!