<p>Thinking of an MS in Computational Bio. Went to undergrad at UC Berkeley EECS and underperformed: GPA 3.26, but have great research record, work experience in field, LOR, and solid GRE score (800 Q 670 V). Not too worried about funding, since I was doing full-time work in undergrad and received full-ride in undergrad.</p>
<p>Specifically, the schools im looking at are:</p>
<p>Stanford
MIT
Brown
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
UCLA</p>
<p>bump? anyone…plz</p>
<p>Very good Undergrad institution, high GRE, but that GPA…</p>
<p>For what I can say, you’ll have a chance at Stanford but no way to enter MIT or Princeton IMHO. I think you’ll get in at UCLA, don’t know about the Ivies.</p>
<p>Why do you say he will have a chance at Stanford but not the others?</p>
<p>Stanford’s MS is a cash cow and let’s in people more than the other for money.</p>
<p>i guess that means i have a chance at stanford! :D</p>
<p>Grassbandit…
hey I’m sorry I have to tell you but Stanford has the best engineering department in the WORLD. literally it is ranked first in many ranks. It accepts less than 4 percent. How many applicants do you think they reject who have 4.0s and great reasearch? If anything Yale or Brown is the lowest reach, and yet I am about 99% sure you will get rejected. Now, UCLA seems like a slight reach, but good chance. Please reply back and tell me how you feel, or tell me why I’m wrong.</p>
<p>P.S. My cousin had a 4.0 from UC San Diego, great research, still didn’t get into Stanford (only private school he applied to). I have yet to hear anyone who had lower than 3.8 get accepted to Stanford, Harvard, etc. and I have heard results from MANY people.</p>
<p>3.26 GPA… ? that might hurt you a lot than you think. 3.26 is considered low for top schools in your list.</p>
<p>If stanford is a cash cow, then please explain why they let so few students in?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure if that whole statement was meant for me since I only wrote about Stanford.</p>
<p>The same thing can be said about any top program regarding their rejections of 4.0 GPAs and such. Grad school admissions are a gamble, which sometimes don’t make sense. For example, a friend of mine was admitted to MIT’s EECS PhD program, but was rejected from UCLA. How does that make sense? He had a 3.6 GPA, a lot of research, great GRE scores, and I am assuming positive LORs. I have met a student at Michigan Ann Arbor that was doing the nuclear engineering PhD program who had a 3.0 GPA, but had a lot research experience, and great LORs from professors at Michigan. I hope you agree that Michigan Ann Arbor has consistently ranked among the top 5 schools for nuclear engineering. Sometimes it beats UC Berkeley, MIT, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have friends with 3.1 - 3.5 GPAs that have been accepted to MS programs at Stanford in the past. One of my friends from UCLA with a 3.5 GPA was accepted into the EE MS program with no prior research experience. Another from UCLA was accepted with a 3.4 GPA into the mechanical engineering MS with some research experience. One had a 3.1 GPA from Stanford with research experience, but was accepted into an engineering MS program.</p>
<p>Do you think UCSD offers an inferior undergraduate education than UCLA or Stanford? I don’t. Grad programs evaluate the whole application package. Maybe my friends had great recommendations and amazing essays. Perhaps their references knew someone on the admission committee. I don’t know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have heard and read that Stanford’s MS programs was a “cash cow” on various occasions so I asked that earlier. I have also thought about it for some time too since I know of at least 10 people that have been accepted to MS programs (EE, ME, ChemE, Civil Engr.) at Stanford.</p>
<p>I have rarely heard of anyone getting into MIT, Caltech, and none at Berkeley. Why is that? However, I am sure Stanford does reject a lot of students so it is tough to say OP or I have a chance at its program.</p>
<p>The best advice I can give OP is to talk to his advisor and professors about the schools, and ask for some program recommendations.</p>
<p>research experience is not a big component if your ultimate goal is just the terminal master degree. I’ve seen a lot of people with ZERO research experience got into top schools (master only). I have 3.7 GPA from UCLA with ZERO research experience, but rejected by Stanford, Cal, Princeton and Harvard (great schools in my field) + some other schools, but got into Georgia Tech, Cornell, Columbia, Penn, Michigan, Texas, Brown (great schools in my field too) + some other schools. If Stanford is indeed a “cash cow”, then I am shocked that I didn’t get accepted.</p>
<p>great point grassbandit
but i would just like to say a 3.26 will EXTREMELY hurt you…
but nonetheless you can get extremely great reasearch. But yet it seems altogether a bit low GpA still doesn’t it? well I can assure you taht even if it is , admission isn’t all about numbers.
But if you think you can get in with a 3.26 with only a few research here and there, you are wrong (especially for Stanford/MIT). You really need to be dedicated. in my experience ive never heard of a 3.1 getting in, thats just me though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends on who is on the admissions committee. Some professors care a lot about GPA and other numbers. Other professors put a higher value on the LORs and prior research/work experience regardless of the terminal degree. It just depends on who’s on the committee and who’s your competition.</p>
<p>I only stated research because this was assuming that they all had great LORs, statements of purpose, and GRE scores. Research has to say something about the students. It could show dedication, ingenuity, etc., and their advisor could vouch for that. That’s just my speculation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A 3.2 could hurt you extremely, yes. That’s why people shouldn’t be surprised if they get rejected by top programs. I also wouldn’t be surprised if someone with a 3.2 with extremely great research being admitted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree you need other portions of your application package to be strong in order to compensate for a low GPA. It’s hard to say how many people with <3.5 GPAs have been admitted to any top program because they rarely, if ever, publish that information; and people don’t like to talk about GPAs.</p>
<p>Why are you not?</p>
<p>According to one of my sources, Stanford’s EE department accepts 37% of graduate applications. If you take out international applicants, and you’re applying for an MS rather than a PhD, this number could shoot up dramatically to 60%. So you do have a decent chance at MS at Stanford…but its a coin toss.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>link to source?</p>
<p>what… ?</p>
<p>This is from different department, but Stanford’s MSandE department accepts around 35% of their applicants to MS only program…</p>
<p>^ you do know that you can edit your post within a couple of minutes after posting, right? that way you don’t have to make multiple posts.</p>
<p>as far as civil eng goes, berkeley and stanford both accepted around 30% of applicants in my year. They stated the numbers explicitly during their open house day which are always conveniently set back to back for ppl who get into both schools. the numbers are so close that I don’t know why stanford is the only one being called a cash cow… my guess is because stanford get more students each year total compared to berkeley? or berkeley offers more assistanceship than stanford so stanford MS has to pay out of pocket? I am not quite sure…</p>