<p>I'm applying for grad school this semester.</p>
<p>The most lacking part of my app will probably be that I only have one year's worth of research. Is that detrimental to my application or is a year's worth still very good? I plan on applying to top institutions.</p>
<p>I have reasons why I only had a year. I won't list them because it's not going to matter.</p>
<p>What is your field?
Do you want an MS or a PhD?
What is your current undergraduate institution?
What is your GPA?
Do you have any publications?</p>
<p>You need to provide all of these details in order for someone to offer some advice. In general, for PhD, limited research and no publications is an up-hill battle, especially for top programs. However, sometimes that can be offset if you’re a top student and the limited research was recent and a good experience (as demonstrated by publications and/or a strong letter of recommendation). </p>
<p>Best wishes,
-DV</p>
<p>What is your field? Mechanical Engineering (I will be applying for aerospace engineering though)
Do you want an MS or a PhD? PhD
What is your current undergraduate institution? A state university, nothing special.
What is your GPA? 3.75
Do you have any publications? Only a 5th (last) author. I emailed UMich a while back and they said publications aren’t that important in their applications and won’t have too much value placed on them in the decision process. </p>
<p>I’m not sure if one year is considered little. There are a bunch who have even less or none at all and there are a bunch who have over 2-3 years. I’m not sure if that PI will write me a strong LOR, I would have to ask if he would. Part of my reasons for limited experience is he’s a bit strange, almost bipolar. One minute, he’s helping me plan out my future by using his connections to help me look for internships, then he pulls a 180 and seems like he hates me out of nowhere. Honestly have no clue what is going on with him.</p>
<p>I planned on pursuing grad school in the same area as what I did in ^ lab, but the research area only exists at a handful of schools. </p>
<p>This year’s worth happened was during my sophomore year. I did get involved my junior year with another project. The project was not really focused on research, at least imo. But the PI at that lab told me it was a combination of research and various other things and would look great on a grad school application. His grad students also spent time on the project.</p>
<p>Dear DoubleD,</p>
<p>In your original post you said you wanted to apply to “Top Institutions.” I’m afraid I will have to disagree with what the person at UMich told you, but Publications, GPA, and LOR are the three most important criteria when applying to Top PhD programs in the field. I’m speaking from personal experience of applying (and getting admitted) to the top institution in my engineering discipline. Professors at MIT/Stanford/etc. (during interviews) commented and informed me that they were really impressed that I had so many publications as an undergrad, and out-right said how it was really important for admissions purposes to PhD. </p>
<p>NOW, don’t sell yourself short, you DO have a publications (even if its last author; I’m assuming you meant the last author before the PI, bc most engineering journals/conferences put the PI last). In your application, you need to highlight how the research you did in undergrad made you realize what you wanted to do in PhD. Furthermore, you can cite that you published your findings (no need to stress that you were the last author). As a PI from MIT told me…for PhD admissions, research RESULTS are a lot more important than research EXPERIENCE. You have results relevant to your area of interest, so harp on that. A LOR from your PI will also be very helpful. </p>
<p>IMHO, you should apply to the Top 4-5 PhD programs that you’re most interested in, but I would also recommend applying to research/thesis-based Master’s program or Post-Bac programs as well. The reason for that is because PhD programs such as MIT/Stanford/etc. get way too many applications (many with 4.0GPA, laundry list of pubs, etc), and it really is a crap-shoot. Having a thesis-based masters under your belt can greatly improve your odds. Just my $0.02. </p>
<p>Best wishes,
-DV</p>
<p>Hi Vader. </p>
<p>I tried to find the email regarding the publications, but it’s somewhere in my long list of emails.
I remember the contents they said something like “having a publication is not a major part of the application.” I forgot what question I asked them after that, but then they said “the percentage of students who have publications that get accepted are about the same percentage of students who have publications that get declined.” </p>
<p>A professor from Princeton told me that he cares more about what the student has learned/done with their experience rather than having a publication because “we have come to understand that having a publication has a lot to do with luck and being paired with the right research group. Some groups are more willing to add undergrad names on a publication, and some aren’t. We don’t see an application with less value because they don’t have a publication.” It makes sense to me. I find it hard to believe that some applicants who’ve had years of research experience have 0 publications. It’s more than likely that their labs were just not willing to put undergrad names on papers.</p>
<p>Dear DoubleD,</p>
<p>I see your point, and I can see where you are coming from. </p>
<p>However, at least the PIs I interviewed with at MIT/Stanford for PhD (EECS and BioE), they valued undergrads who had first-author publications a lot. </p>
<p>I agree that if you had like a bunch of n-author publications it wouldn’t matter, but I think first-author is a different story. </p>
<p>None-the-less, in your case, you should focus on emphasizing the work you did and what you learned and also emphasize that you have a publication. </p>
<p>Best wishes,
-DV</p>
<p>Oh! you’re talking about 1st author publications. I agree if it were 1st author publications.</p>
<p>I didn’t specify author positions when I emailed those schools, I’m sure their opinions would change if it was a 1st author publication.</p>
<p>Publications are very important for admission, but being fifth author is not going to impress anyone, I think. It’s very true that having a publication has a lot to do with being in the right place at the right time. Having a publication on your CV at the time of application is impressive (depending on the journal and your position in the author list), but it’s definitely not required, and not having one or only being fifth author on one is not going to keep you out of the program. However, it would be false to say that they are not important at all.</p>
<p>One year is not much. Of course this is field dependent, but in one year you likely aren’t doing the kind of research tasks that will give you an inkling of whether you want to stay in the field or not (or at least that’s what most professors will assume). Ignore the bunch of people who have less experience; they are even less likely to gain admission. Most successful candidates will likely have 2 or more years of research experience.</p>
<p>Well, I don’t understand how some top students with years of research experience, but still have no publications and still get into top institutions. Even though these students with years of experience have no publications, I don’t think that makes them of less “value” than those with co author publications. </p>
<p>Many grad comittees have said “Most of our applicants/admitted students are not published” or “our percentage of accepted students with publications are about the same as those declined.” 1st author publications would be impressive, but I think anything else is mainly the willingness of a PI to put an undergrad’s name on a paper.</p>