How much research do you need to get into a top 10 school?

[cicada2014]

It seems pretty clear that the differentiating factor of applicants at the top school is one's research experience (pretty much everyone has has stellar GPA, GRE, good school etc.).

My question is, how 'good' does your research experience need to be to be considered at the top 10 schools?

 

My research experience has generally been limited to class projects, work experience (I work at a R&D group in my company, though it is more Stats-related than CS-related), and one personal project that I did in my spare time. Luckily, my personal project was accepted for publication at a decent (but not best) conference in my field.

 

TL;DR: My research experience consists of one first author publication at a mid-tier conference, class projects, and work experience. Is this (combined with good GPA and recs) enough for me to attempt at top 10 (I know I am probably out of the running for the top 4).

Edited January 11, 2014 by cicada2014

[complexbongo]

At top schools, GPA is pretty worthless. The adcoms will consider your grades in courses relevant to the field you're applying and make sure there are no red flags (C's). GREs are nothing but a filter. MIT and UIUC don't require GREs if that's any clue.

 

You need to demonstrate to the committee that you have potential to produce high-quality research. Publications are a GREAT way to show this. Good job. But they would also like to see that you are devoted to research. If you've been doing research for a long time, then that helps. 3 years or more is on par with the top applicants. 

 

A top applicant will likely have a) 2-3+ publications and b ) 3+ years of research experience. They will also write c) an outstanding statement of purpose and d) have raving recommendation letters.

 

I think if you can demonstrate 3 out of these 4 things, you have a chance of being accepted to a top program.

Edited January 11, 2014 by complexbongo

[dat_nerd]

A top applicant will likely have a) 2-3+ publications and b ) 3+ years of research experience. They will also write c) an outstanding statement of purpose and d) have raving recommendation letters.

I agree that these are the right qualifications for a top-3 school applicant. However, this is not necessary to be admitted to a top-10 school. More important are that you have any research experience (preferably at least a year), an excellent SOP describing what you did and what you learned, experience with communicating your results, and other people (recommenders) who are also willing to write positively about the quality of your research. 

 

It makes me sad to think that publications are necessary to be admitted to graduate programs. A publication may give you a better chance at being admitted, but I do not believe it to be a necessity. This was my biggest weakness during the application season, as I did not yet have any published papers, but it did not seem to raise as much concern with the admissions committee as I had expected.

[Azazel]

I agree that these are the right qualifications for a top-3 school applicant. However, this is not necessary to be admitted to a top-10 school. More important are that you have any research experience (preferably at least a year), an excellent SOP describing what you did and what you learned, experience with communicating your results, and other people (recommenders) who are also willing to write positively about the quality of your research. 

 

I'd second most of this advice.

 

Letters of recommendation are the most important thing. Sure, publications are really helpful, but if you have really strong letters of recommendation written by people known to the admissions committee, it won't matter too much either way.

 

Incidentally, the Stanford CS PhD admissions committee doesn't even read your SOP --- don't know how that compares with other schools.

[complexbongo]

Incidentally, the Stanford CS PhD admissions committee doesn't even read your SOP --- don't know how that compares with other schools.

 

I've also heard this, but this seems atypical, even at other top programs. Care to elaborate on how Stanford CS evaluates its applicants?

[Jonathan R Shewchuk]

I'm a CS prof at Berkeley.  I would estimate that our median admittee has one publication.  We do still admit some students every year with no pubs.  When I see someone who never got a lower grade than A (well, maybe one A-) and almost maxed out the GREs (with a perfect Q score), I tend to assume the raw intellectual firepower will make up for a lack of research.

 

Don't underestimate the matchmaking aspect of admissions...if there's a professor with funding who wants a student with your interests, you just need to beat the other applicants with the same interests.  Thus, there's more variability in quality than you might think.

 

I'm pretty doubtful about the suggestion that Stanford doesn't read the SOP.  The SOP is the most important part of the matchmaking process, because it tells us specifically what research the student wants to pursue.  I strongly recommend naming specific profs in the SOP and saying how you'll fit with them.

[cicada2014]

Thanks for the comments. Two additional questions:

 

- How much attention do admission committees pay to the quality of publishing venue? What about workshops versus conferences? Reason being, I am preparing another paper and deciding whether I should shoot for a workshop publication at a top-tier conference, or a conference publication at a mid-tier conference.

 

- I think my big weakness is that I don't have "real" academic research experience with a professor. My research has been limited to class projects, employment (we are barred from publishing), and personal interests. Will this hurt?

[Icydubloon]

How much attention do admission committees pay to the quality of publishing venue? What about workshops versus conferences? Reason being, I am preparing another paper and deciding whether I should shoot for a workshop publication at a top-tier conference, or a conference publication at a mid-tier conference.

 

I would say a lot of emphasis is placed on the venue as well. It's obvious that conferences are better than workshops. If I were you, I would submit it to the conference at a mid-tier. Reason being, many workshops don't have as extensive of a review process as conferences/journals.

[Jonathan R Shewchuk]

Answers to your questions:

 

1)  A lot.  I'm not sure I understand what "workshop publication at a top-tier conference" means, but if it's a workshop associated with a conference, it's the reputation of the workshop itself that matters, much more than the reputation of the conference.

 

Having said that, what your letter-writers say about your work matters more than the quality of the venue.  The quality of the venue loses its importance if your contribution is genuinely wonderful enough that (1) your letter-writers rave about it or (2) someone on the committee reads the paper and sees that it is good.

 

2)  Yes, it will hurt.

[DMX]

Answers to your questions:

 

1)  A lot.  I'm not sure I understand what "workshop publication at a top-tier conference" means, but if it's a workshop associated with a conference, it's the reputation of the workshop itself that matters, much more than the reputation of the conference.

 

Having said that, what your letter-writers say about your work matters more than the quality of the venue.  The quality of the venue loses its importance if your contribution is genuinely wonderful enough that (1) your letter-writers rave about it or (2) someone on the committee reads the paper and sees that it is good.

 

2)  Yes, it will hurt.

Regarding number (2), I am in somewhat of a similar situation. How much will it hurt? Have you had cases of admitting students with non-official research (through course projects, employment)? If so, what made them stand out (grades obviously, but anything else)?

 

Thanks!

[Snoq]

Regarding number (2), I am in somewhat of a similar situation. How much will it hurt? Have you had cases of admitting students with non-official research (through course projects, employment)? If so, what made them stand out (grades obviously, but anything else)?

 

Thanks!

 

Maybe a deep understanding of the field/area that you are interested in, and some (research oriented) thoughts? I don't know, I'm just asking.