Trying to determine if I am ready to apply directly to PhD programs

[babubot]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm new to the forum, but I will probably be around quite a bit now that I am preparing to apply for grad school for Fall 2014. I'll also hope to answer some questions because I work in my schools graduate admissions office, but that is another matter.

 

I am a mechanical engineering undergrad interested in pursuing a PhD in the robotics field (Mechanical engineering in a lot of schools, CS at others). I have a pretty good idea of what area I would want to focus my research on, but I am not sure if I have a chance at getting accepted in the schools I am interested in, primarily because I don't have any publications or an undergrad thesis. Here's what my profile looks like:

 

UG Major: MechE

Minor: CompSci, Math

University: Large state university ranked ~60 in my field

GPA: 3.9+/4

GRE: Q170, V169, 4.0 (Still have no idea how I pulled this off. It is significantly higher than my practice scores and I was working on very little sleep)

Will have 2 years of research experience by the time I graduate, but I have not published anything yet which from browsing around seems to be a requirement for top programs/PhD. I expect to be submitting a couple papers as an undergrad, but it will be too late to be part of my application.

I should have two strong letters from the professors I do research with, but I still don't know who to ask for a third.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I had a research internship at NASA, but I didn't have the best relationship with my mentor and it isn't in the field I am interested in continuing with, so I don't think it will help very much.

 

Without publications, is it possible to be admitted to top ranked PhD programs? The two schools I am most interested in are Carnegie Mellon and UPenn. Is it realistic to apply to that caliber school directly to PhD? What about for Masters? I've responded enough "What are my chances?" emails as part of my job to know you can't tell me anything concrete, but I am just looking for a general idea of what level university I should focus on because right now my list of schools with programs I am interested in is way too big.

Edited July 23, 2013 by babubot

[Arcanen]

Most undergrads admitted directly into PhD programs don't have published papers (though they typically have a lot of research experience). You have decent stats and research experience, so you're in with a chance (no one on this website or any other can tell you what that chance is).

 

If you're that worried, just apply for some PhD programs that consider you for the masters as a fallback (e.g. if you fail to get admission into the PhD program, you get considered for the masters program automatically as part of the same application).

[nugget]

If I am not mistaken, if you have submitted publications to journals and they are under review, I believe you can list it on your cv and beside it write "under review." This will look much better than not having anything at all.

Edited July 23, 2013 by jenste

[IRToni]

If you put something as "under review" on your CV, though, it's seen as pretty much a joke, since most manuscripts under review actually get rejected. I think it might make more sense to put that in your SOP.

[juilletmercredi]

The field thing for your NASA internship isn't a problem as long as it was engineering related research, but the relationship with your mentor is another thing entirely.  Does "not the best" mean you just weren't close (which is totally fine) or that you had a personality mismatch and butted heads?

 

But anyway, yes, it is totally possible to be admitted to PhD programs without publications.  I know in engineering it's more common for undergraduates to have pubs, but really they aren't expecting you to have any necessarily.  Go ahead and apply, you're a very strong candidate!

 

However, definitely seek out some funded MS or MEng programs that are research based and will beef up your apps for a PhD program, just in case.  With your stats you should find getting funding for a master's program relatively easy.

 

And depending on your field, "under review" is totally fine.  In my field people put their under review (and even in preparation, if they are close to finishing) manuscripts on their CVs all the time.  I see it done by everyone from graduate students to senior scholars.  "Under review" at least means that you completed a publication to the point that it was ready for submission to a journal, which is something.

[Angua]

I had a "Current Projects" section on my CV to detail major research projects I was working on.  It wasn't a huge section, and I also used my SOP to discuss some of them, but it was nice to have a spot to discuss mechanics -- what I was working on, what specific work I had done on the project, who I was working with, whether the paper was under submission, etc.  The SOP discussion for me was more about theory -- talking about what the topic was, why it was exciting, how it fit into my broader research agenda, and what directions I was interested in taking that topic in the future.

[Eigen]

If you put something as "under review" on your CV, though, it's seen as pretty much a joke, since most manuscripts under review actually get rejected. I think it might make more sense to put that in your SOP.

 

Not at this stage of the career. It's generally pretty common to have a "Works in Progress" section on your CV, likely up until mid-way tenure track. 

 

You have "In Preparation" when you're working on a manuscript, "Submitted" when it's been submitted, "Under Review", which means it's passed the editors desk and is out for peer review, and "Accepted/Under Revision" if it's been accepted pending major/minor/no revisions. 

 

It shows that you have data and work that is at a stage where it could be submitted, and you should be able to provide copies of said papers on request. 

[babubot]

Thank you for the suggestions, everyone! I'm definitely feeling better about applications now. I'll probably be applying to a mix of PhD and Masters programs depending on the schools and whether they will automatically review you for MS if rejected for PhD.

 

 

The field thing for your NASA internship isn't a problem as long as it was engineering related research, but the relationship with your mentor is another thing entirely.  Does "not the best" mean you just weren't close (which is totally fine) or that you had a personality mismatch and butted heads?

 

It was an engineering internship, but my mentor didn't have any specific project that I was working on and I frequently didn't have contact for up to a week at a time. Overall just not a positive experience which is why I am hesitant to even mention it in the application.