should I bother with the top 5?

[child of 2]

I'm going to get a BS in chem e from a top 30 engineering school, and I really want to further my education in polymers in the SF bay area (eg. stanford or berkeley). However, I'm worried about my GPA - 3.50 (3.61 eng core), and GRE score (148V, 154Q practice test that I rushed through in 1/2 the time allowed). I speculate that I can definitely score higher on the GRE if I study some vocab, and practice the math section.

I do have several years of research experience, and I will have 2 publications in good journals. I also TA general chemistry. It's really hard to gauge whether my research experience is really good or just average. I mean publication is good, but I don't have any internships, REUs, or outreach activities that would seem to enrich my experience beyond just research assistantship.

After some searching, I found that stanford's graduate program consistently has an average GPA of ~3.73, and GRE of (600+V; 760+Q). Going off by the information I have provided, should I even waste my time and money applying to these schools? Or should I place my stake between top 10 and 20?

I'm also interested in UT-Austin, GA tech, UMass-A, CU-B and UC-D, and I think these schools are reaches for me. Any input?

Edited October 15, 2012 by child of 2

[Darth.Vegan]

You will want a high quant score for programs like those, I imagine verbal doesn't matter as much but it would be best to bring it up above 70th percentile on verbal just to make sure. With your research experience you should be competitive, but I would apply to 10+ programs and make sure that you have 2 you think you have a decent shot at and 2 that are safeties. Good luck!

I am in a similar situation applying to sociology programs. My GPA is very high (3.94) and my verbal score on the GRE was above 90th percentile, but I am concerned about my abysmal quant score for programs that are quant heavy. I did get an A+ in stats last semester that should help a bit, but a quant score in the 40ish percentile is concerning to say the least.

[TeaGirl]

Sure apply to Stanford and Berkley, but you're gonna need better GRE Q scores than that for an engineering program there I think. 2 journal publications while still an undergrad is pretty impressive.

But make sure you apply to other programs as well and not just in the top 20 either, because most of these schools can be very competitive, at least in my field, and I suspect in chemical engineering as well.

[Usmivka]

The answer you get could be impacted by what you are aiming for--MS or PhD? I think those GPA/GRE stats for Stanford are probably a little out of date if they are "consistent." The last two years have seen the bar for applicants raised significantly in science and engineering programs because ARRA money in these fields is starting to dry up and the buffer between STEM fields and the recession is finally gone. You really want to compare yourself to the most recent class or two only, nothing pre-2010 certainly (and an average implies that folks below that number got in as well : )!). Regardless, since the GRE score is probably a second-rank consideration for the admissions committee, I'm not sure it is worth putting a huge amount of time and angst into. Lots of research and publications sounds good, and if you are applying to an MS anything more may be irrelevant. It is your CV and letters of rec that will overcome your GPA or not, so track down some good references now!

[child of 2]

There is absolutely no way I could afford to pay for a MS by myself, and I'm not going to work part time to try to pay the bills and lose precious sleep. Research interests me the most, so PhD is the final destination. I should get two good LORs from my research professors, and a third ok one from either my adviser or TA mentor.

I didn't know the ARRA had anything to do with school grants. I thought PhD's simply get their tuition waved by the university, and the stipends come from the grant moneys from NSF and private companies.

By the way, the stats I was looking at was for MS&E (management, not materials). So hard STEM might be totally different. And yes, I did see the acceptance for MS drop from a ~30% to ~20% in MS acceptance rates for MS&E between '10 and '11.

Edited October 16, 2012 by child of 2

[Usmivka]

I didn't know the ARRA had anything to do with school grants. I thought PhD's simply get their tuition waved by the university, and the stipends come from the grant moneys from NSF and private companies.

In the two universities I have experience in (both R1, one state school one private), the tuition is not waived, but paid out of grants. Stipends come from endowed internal sources, external fellowships, or grants. Private companies give more grants in engineering, but in the physical sciences much of our cash comes from government agencies.

In the 2009 (and a little carryover to 2010) a significant portion of ARRA money was floated to research institutions for specific capitol improvements and research focused in STEM ($490 million into the Directorate of Mathematical and Physical sciences alone). Here is a handy info-graphic from NSF showing where ARRA money went nationally--CA alone got $259.5 million in NSF allocated ARRA money! Overall $7.6 billion went to science agencies like NOAA, NASA, DOE, and another $10 billion to the NIH to do health related stuff...and each of those agencies had to spend all that money as grants in the space of only a year and a half, otherwise it wasn't acting as a stimulus for the economy.

So the Fall 2010 application season (for the 2011 class) rolls around, $17.6 billion in ARRA science funding is no longer there to float the boat, and then the recession really hits for universities. It turned into a double whammy for state schools because state education funding was cut everywhere, and universities were a relatively easy target as opposed to more immediate services--ARRA money to the tune of $50 billion had been floating the education budgets of many states as well. So in academia, we've essentially just hit the deep end, with no reprieve in sight and the fiscal cliff looming for remaining federal funding unless congress pulls its collective head out of its ass and depoliticizes science funding.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Usmivka

[child of 2]

well I really hope you're wrong .

[Usmivka]

well I really hope you're wrong .

Me too.

[TeaGirl]

This is a little depressing. Well, a lot actually.

Now that you mention it, I can see its effects though. When I was doing my Masters I easily found an RA ship 1 semester in, at the beginning of 2009 to fund my education. Funding came from the DOE and the academic word on the street was that there was plenty of funding and grants for STEM from the government up for grabs, and they didn't even know what to do with it.

Contrast that to my sister in Cali, also an engineer, started in 2011, just could not get any funding at all for her Masters and had to take out loans. Funding was strictly for PhD students, and not even all of them got it for that matter. Luckily, she found a pretty good job afterward, so for her, the investment paid off.

[child of 2]

that's it. we need another bailout.

[Usmivka]

that's it. we need another bailout.

I note that you are in a swing state. I'd make that opinion known to friends and family. People don't seem to realize where those bailout funds went, since they largely paid for services and funded activities that are only now being noticed and missed by their absence. You are in a position to have disproportionate influence on how government distributes revenue, and how large that revenue stream is. Some candidates have outspoken views against current, downgraded levels of research funding and the government agencies that provide that funding to researchers and graduate students. If you don't like those views, you'd better be voting. Or if you like those candidates otherwise, you ought to be communicating to them why you think their particular stance on this one issue should be changed. 10% across the board cuts will make life proportionally worse for those of us in the sciences than similar cuts in other places, so write your US Senators and Representatives as well, they love to hear from their constituents, and you can influence where they stand, regardless of party affiliation.

People like you, in swing states like Iowa, are the front lines in depoliticizing science.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Usmivka

[child of 2]

Or we can advocate for real scientists and engineers to run for political seats. Wouldn't it be better if the political power can be shifted toward people who actually earned it?

[Usmivka]

An applicant directly impacted by the upcoming fiscal cliff posted

As to electing scientists and engineers, it rarely happens. In my home district a university scientist has run unsuccessfully for a local office for something like 15 years. His politics and proposed policies are very in line with the region, and he is certainly more qualified than most of those who've won that seat. But that doesn't make him electable. Sometimes you just have to work with what you've got.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Usmivka