No research experience but want a PhD... should I join the circus instead?

[cheezburger42]

So, taking into account that I suck at juggling, I would love If anybody gave me any advice regarding the way I should approach my applications so that they don't go straight to the trashcan on the admissions office.

You see, the non-american school where I had my undergraduate studies focuses a lot on applied knowledge (it's aeronautics engineering specialized in manufacturing, fyi) so I have a lot of practical experience on labs, simulators, and internships. I've been able to create an airplane's window out of composite materials, formally worked (and still working) on the design of Honeywell's and Pratt's mid-range motors with the help of Ansys (because screw confidentiality agreements), tried things like soldering (I used the Darth Vader helmet and everything) and even created an excel that could solve all the problems of a motor's textbook (hey, I was scared of flunking my final exam and he said computers were allowed).

 

 

Sooooo, thanks to those random experiences I've tasted different areas in aeronautics and I've found my passion on the structural assessment of solid parts. That is why I want to study a masters and/or PhD on aeronautics structures, because i can imagine myself doing that forever on a more advanced level. I've seen what PhDs do on my area and I really envy them because it all looks awesome.

 

Anyway, my practical experience seems to be enough for the most part of structural postgraduate programs on Europe because they work really closely with the industry. But you see, I've been stalking everybody on this website and it seems that the norm to apply and be accepted to any graduate study in america (that aims for a PhD, so the Meng is out, I believe) is to have a tiny bitsy speck of research experience. Which I don't have. Unless I take into account some conferences that I took long ago regarding research methods. And I am pretty sure that I cannot just tell them that I know how to Google. 

 

Any feedback, opinion, nagging, and advise on this issue is more than welcome. Bye

 

Ps. Have mercy on me if this topic wasn't supposed to be here. Also, sorry for the awkward english learned by this awkward foreigner.

PS2. About my stats. Eughhh, oh well. GPA 9.5/10, GRE 160 on both sections, written section 4.0 and a toefl iBt of 111. In an alternate universe, Harvard has already accepted me with full funding ; ) .

[juilletmercredi]

Well, the best way to approach this is get some research experience.  Typically you need about 2-3 years to be competitive, although they don't have to be full-time - most often students get research experience at about 10-20 hours per week.

 

You'd also be competitive for MS programs, because many MS programs accept students with no research experience because they help students get that experience for PhD programs.

 

IN engineering things may be a bit different, so I would try to approach explaining your undergraduate experience.  Talk about how your practical experience gave you the tools you need to understand research.  For example, you are working on the design of mid-range motors.  Have you needed to review other motors of different types to try to make your own?  Have you reverse-engineered certain parts or took bits and pieces of knowledge from other types of machines to build upon in building your motor?  Have you consulted the research literature published in mid-range motors in engineering to help you decide where to take your design?  Have you experimented with prototypes or parts to see how they work in isolation and together in order to make it work?  Things like that are related tasks to research that could bolster your argument that you know what you're getting yourself into and you could succeed in a research career.

 

There's no guarantee that this approach will work, and in general students who have no research experiences have very slim chances of getting admitted to PhD programs.  But basically you have to explain why, despite the fact that you have no direct experience, you have *in*direct experiences that will be easily transferable to a research environment and allow you to excel in your work.

 

Talking about having worked with PhDs before and being very passionate about what they do is also a good way to go.

[cheezburger42]

Thanks for your response, I do agree that the chances of being admitted directly to a PhD are slim, yet a sizable amount of my work on the mid turbine frame is very research-ly in nature. The difference, I believe, between most researches and my work is that the discoveries, methodologies, and optimizations created all aim to improve and validate the current motor's design (a design that has been subjected to modifications and adaptations for the past 2+ years by engineers in the USA, UK, Spain, etc) and have therefore a non-publishable nature. I have been looking at articles regarding solids' structural analyses and it seems that the main difference between an article and my work documents is that the ones I write are concise because it is assumed that the reader already knows the basics of the project. 

 

However, I do understand that following your insightful advise may not do the trick for all the PhD programs that I intended to apply, so I will change my approach and I will apply instead to several Masters and a couple of PhDs. I hope that explaining my closeness to research will help me with those ones, yet I am willing to study a MsC to be fully prepared for a PhD. It may take a bit more time and effort, though, but It doesn't bother me because I know that it will be totally worth it. Again, thank you very much for your answer, I've found it incredibly helpful.

 

Regards