<p>just wondering...</p>
<p>not especially, considering that some people even extend their graduations or tack on an MS to add more graduate-level coursework and research experience. </p>
<p>applying to grad school is pretty much a convince-them-you-can-do-the-work show ... the more grad-student-worthy activities you can boast of, the better.</p>
<p>I disagree. If you can manage the workload that others take 4 years to complete, then I believe that the grad schools look at you more favourably. (Of course, this comes with the condition that you do at least as well as, or preferably better than the 4-year graduates).</p>
<p>I think the 3-year graduation shows the grad schools that you're motivated and excited to move on to the graduate schools.</p>
<p>Just my opinion, but I don't think there's much merit in graduating in 3 years. I think there are probably ways to make that 3 years into 4 that would be more beneficial on your application such as research.</p>
<p>i don't think 3 yrs vs. 4 does anything for your application, for the good or the bad. Grad schools look for the same thing in all applicants, regardless of whether you've brushed a year off your undergrad or if you already have a masters. It's your research experience/GPA that counts. If you can squeeze the experience into 3 yrs and still get into the quality schools you want, then hey, good for you. but besides the personal benefits I don't think it helps you get in to grad school.</p>
<p>In terms of graduate applications in my field (and having spoken to directors of grad programs in other fields), not only is there most often NO advantage to completing undergraduate work in under 4 years, there are often substantial disadvantages to doing so.</p>
<p>Some disadvantages that immediately come to mind:
fewer research opportunities
less time to get to know / work closely with professors (this can impact letters of rec)
less time to acquire necessary / desirable research languages</p>
<p>I have actually seen members of admission committees look skeptically upon such applications on grounds of lack of maturity. (Not that I have necessarily agreed, but I have definitely seen such skepticism.)</p>
<p>I must add that there certainly <em>are</em> successful applicants who sped through their undergrad, but in general, such a choice could potentially do more to hurt than help an application. Speed does NOT equal motivation / passion in the eyes of an admissions committee.</p>
<p>Spending the fourth year doing a related or very relevant second major could probably give your application a significant boost. A double major in economics and math (with great GPA in both), for example, would definitely have an advantage over a single major in economics when applying for economics Ph.d programs. I would think the same is true for any of the hard sciences and applied sciences as well; doing great in a math double major shows you have tangible skills that will allow you to do certain types of research that other applicants can't (or would struggle with). Even better would be using the fourth year to get research experience that makes use of the high level (hopefully graduate level) mathematics you are studying, preferably with a prof who can then write you a great letter.</p>
<p>If you've got the motivation to finish in 3 years, then you must have the motivation to get a double major in math and solid research experience in 4 years, which would stand you in far better stead.</p>
<p>thanks for the replies, i have another short question when is a good time for me to start looking for research opportunities if i want to extend my undergrad to 4 years?</p>
<p>immediately. Most people usually wait until their 2nd or third year, but I started looking in my first year. I had a pretty impressive CV for a first year at the time, and the labs at my school were pretty small, so it wasn't long before I found one that wanted me. Albeit I did mostly menial jobs like writing a programming script that does ____, it really gave me a good kick into the door or research and started everything off. Then by the time I got to my second or third year I already knew what was going on. Also, I got paid! (although you may want to just volunteer if you want a chance at a position in a competitive lab.)</p>
<p>thanks for your repliy, a few more short questions: whats CV? and which is better intern or research?</p>
<p>Curriculum Vitae. A fancy word for a resume, usually more than one page and has more detail about projects and what not you have done.</p>
<p>What is your field? For most I would say research going into a PhD, but it helps to know what you are going for.</p>
<p>A few more comments:</p>
<p>Professor X is spot on. Someone is much more likely to be negatively affected by speeding through undergrad. In addition to the immaturity label, the same kid may be viewed as doing minimal prep work, having skipped higher level classes etc. This is a particular problem if the quick trip through undergrad was facilitated by generous use of AP credits, and would be made worse if the applicant did not take advantage of the boost from AP to take tougher courses.</p>
<p>And nauru rather misses the boat by suggesting a 2nd major. It would be far better to do more work in one's discipline of interest, whether by taking grad classes, doing a research project, or gaining some relevant additional skills for grad school. An example of the latter would be when a would be anthro major studies a new foreign language, or a potential physics grad student takes some more high level math.</p>
<p>The key here, in other words is both depth and breadth for the prospective field.</p>
<p>oh, i forgot to mention. my response may be a little skewed towards people in math/engineering/computing. I did bioinformatics so my first few research terms all had to do with scripting/analyzing data etc. With stuff like that, there is really no "investment" put in by the lab except for your own man hours, which is free anyway if you're volunteering. When it comes to lab work, however, I think the profs are less willing to take a chance on a freshman who knows nothing about anything, and may end up breaking their expensive equipment. That's why a lot of people in bio start up washing glassware and prepping buffers (or so I hear). I didn't start looking for lab work until my 2nd yr (in preparation for my 3rd year), at which time I'd already taken a few lab courses.
I'm not sure if "research" terms used to prep buffers really make a difference to your qualifications for grad school or future research opps. I wonder what the pure-bio people on this forum did early in their undergrad.</p>
<p>Regarding the original topic</p>
<p>I disagree with the "less opportunity" issue. I've seen MANY of my friends speed through their undergrad by taking 5/6 courses a semester AND working part time throughout their undergrad. They never took a break and did the same throughout the summer. And they are very accomplished. They worked their asses off, and they are just as successful as those of us who took it easy and did everything in 4 years.</p>
<p>I am also surprised that directors of admissions would say that ONE year less would make someone immature. I am a year younger because I skipped the 5th grade, and I have friends who have finished highschool a year early or who have finished University in 3 years. I have also met many not-legal-to-drink folk along my interview visits. I have never personally received any comments or suggestions of immaturity, nor have I seen anyone else become subjected to it. Quite the contrary, people very much admire this quality. Most people I've met who's done this are actually MORE mature than their peers, for as hopefullyIvy said above, it takes a lot to SUCCESSFULLY graduate in 3 years, and it IS a sign of hardwork/dedication/intelligence. However, all of this is just "personal" issues. I don't think it makes any difference in the eyes of the admissions committee when it comes down to whether you admit someone to grad school or not.</p>
<p>i really appreciate all your replies. i am a incoming freshman of Berkeley, and my major is EECS. so do u guys think i can get any research opportunity this year? or perhaps its better to start on my 2rd year.</p>
<p>13MK,</p>
<p>No one is saying that any one kid will be viewed in any way plus or minus by 3 years to grad. And there are a lot of duds after 4 years, too. And we recognize that there may be good reasons, often financial, to finish as rapidly as possible. </p>
<p>But the OP asked if there is any advantage to finishing in 3 yrs. The answer to that is No, plain and simple. Rather, a fast finish is a negative, albeit a minor one, that may need to be explained or overcome. Many do it brilliantly. </p>
<p>Regarding research, never be shy. My own daughter sought out a lab the week she started college 4 years ago. Every lab she visited offered her a spot, most for pay. Of course, she had an advantage in that she had been able to spend two summers while in HS working in labs, one year doing real research work like organelle preps. And she took her lab notebook with her to her meetings. But all this argues for is being prepared for when you meet with a lab head. </p>
<p>Even if the only experience you have is from HS labs, write up an outline for what you did. And know what the lab you visit is about. </p>
<p>EECS? Do you know anything yet? C++ perhaps? Get your skills on paper. Sell yourself.</p>
<p>Yeah, I would say start as soon as you can, but give yourself some time to get acclimated to college life as well. My undergrad freshman year I had a relatively light course load and honestly found myself bored so I sought out research. This was after I recognized how much time exactly the courses would take and knew when in my schedule I had time to volunteer in a lab.</p>
<p>While yes, you may be inexperienced, that should not hurt you too much since faculty know you will be around for four years. Where students end up getting screwed is waiting too long to start because there is no point in training someone to do meaningful work when they are graduating. Often times those students are the ones that only bother showing up in lab until December when they get their letter of rec and then are suddenly too busy, so most faculty I know are wary of them.</p>
<p>i do have a lot programming experiences including c++, vb, java and a little bit php and i took 6 cs related courses in a community college during my HS years; by the way, does anyone know exactly what kind of work most professors will ask u to do in computer science research projects?</p>
<p>This worries me. I'm planning on graduating in three years, strictly for financial reasons. There are so many classes I'd like to take, fields that I would like to explore, languages that I would like to learn...having one less year makes that more difficult, but I'm not doing it to simply speed through college. I'm taking the language and research opportunities that I can, but it's frustrating to hear that my attempting to help my family's financial situation may be perceived as immaturity.</p>
<p>fanatic, if you write your reason in your personal statement, I think the adcom will think you're more mature.</p>