Do you need a renowned professor to write your letter of rec to get into MIT Grad?

Colleges & Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>So I didn't get accepted to MIT as an undergrad. That's fine, I saw it coming. However, not I have to choose where to go next year, and I need some help. Those are the three places I'm considering:</p>

<p>University of Toronto
University of Waterloo (Honors CS Program)
McGill University</p>

<p>It seems I'll mostly end up in McGill because it would only cost me $3.6k/year compared to about $25-30k/year (french citizen that pays in-state-fees in Quebec). So my question is this: Would it hurt my chances at grad school in MIT (or any similar top school in CS like CMU, UC Berkeley, Stanford, Cornell) if I go to McGill University, which has a great reputation overall, but not a particularly strong CS department? Would it hurt not to be studying under famous/very successful professors (a quick internet search shows that some of them are rather well known, but none seem to be working in my specific fields or interest)?</p>

<p>In other words, does the success of the person who writes your letter of recommendation make or break you?</p>

2

<p>You might find <a href=“http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~harchol/gradschooltalk.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~harchol/gradschooltalk.pdf&lt;/a&gt; insightful.</p>

3

<p>Thank you for the link! That does help answer some of my questions. Makes me even wonder if a PhD is what I really want (I’m just a senior in high school anyways, there’ll be a lot of time to make that decision.)</p>

<p>However, it doesn’t touch on my main concern: How important is the strength of the department and the fame/status of the professors in it?</p>

4

<p>

Make or break you? Probably not. </p>

<p>Does it help, often significantly, to go somewhere for undergrad with a strong department in your field of interest and to do significant research with an eminent member of the field who thinks you walk on water? Absolutely.</p>

<p>The best track to pursue if you’re thinking of graduate school is to go somewhere you can be happy and successful, where you can do interesting research, and where you can form good relationships with your professors. To the extent that strong departments facilitate those things happening, they’re better places to be an undergraduate. But it’s not impossible to get into a top school for your graduate work coming from a weaker background – it’s just more difficult.</p>

5

<p>@Mollie, I remain a bit skeptical - can you give an example of someone, maybe in your own field, who came in from a less famous school and say briefly what they did to get into a top program?</p>

<p>To the OP, in theoretical fields (which is more up my alley to answer), you can distinguish yourself a lot more through acing classes and standardized testing, plus serious attempts at handling advanced work, maybe doing a research project (which is very hard to do, depending on what kind of theory). Doing summer research programs of extremely high repute would also help there. Standardized testing becomes more important when your school’s credibility is lower. Honestly, a huge bunch at the most competitive programs in the area I know of (math) seems to come from very reputed math schools, but yes some strong LAC candidates come up too.</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>I know it is fairly common in chemistry, but then the GRE is fairly difficult in chem so it’s easy to distinguish oneself there.</p>

<p>Computer science is different from other fields, so it’s probably best to talk to someone who went to grad school in that area.</p>

7

<p>

Well, in my own program there’s a minority of students who came from mediocre programs in the field, and a smaller number of students who came from schools with poor programs. Most of them don’t appear to have done anything crazy, although many sought out opportunities outside their schools and did summer research somewhere much more reputable. </p>

<p>My feeling on them is that they essentially won the lottery – there are apparently a handful of students who are admitted to my program (and others of similar caliber in biology) based on good grades and test scores and taking the word of research mentors who aren’t giants in the field. But I imagine there are scores more applicants than admits who fit this profile.</p>

8

<p>I am not in CS, but I am a college prof., I have participated in admissions, and I am fairly familiar with the schools mentioned. My two cents:</p>

<p>It would be best to choose a school with a first or second tier reputation. It is also fairly important to choose a school with an established program in your field. </p>

<p>Why? These established programs are easier to judge on an admissions level. In particular, a GPA from an established top-tier school carries a lot of weight. A GPA from a 3rd tier school is harder to judge. </p>

<p>Normally for Grad school, you will need at least a 3.3 to get into a PhD program. You will need at least a 3.7 to get into a better program. The better the program, the lower the cut-off. That said, it would be better to have a 4.0 from a second or maybe even a top third tier program, than a 3.2 from a top program. </p>

<p>Letters from renowned professors are important AFTER you have a PhD, but are not so important for graduate admissions. In general, your exposure to famous profs at famous schools, will be extremely limited. Frankly, you will be lucky if a famous prof even remembers your name. Most of your contact will be with grad students. This is not a knock of these profs, but often big name profs barely teach at the undergrad level, and when they do, it is to larger classes. That said, if you are a 4.0 at MIT, the profs will probably know you. Often Honors programs (you mention Waterloo) offer more contact with pretty big name profs, and this can be a plus in terms of letter writing. </p>

<p>Letters are extremely important, but the name attached somewhat less so. Profs on the first and second tier often know and respect each other (if only vaguely). So any letter will be valuable. Letters are most important if you come from a small school. If I see a 3.8 from a second or (particularly) a third tier program, I want to see the letters. The good thing is that you are more likely to have good personal endorsements from these second and third tier schools if you are very good. The best letters give a personal endorsement from profs who have had you in at least two courses (one advanced.</p>

<p>Most grad schools request that the prof grade a student percent-wise, top 1 percent, top 10 percent, top 20 percent, top 50 percent. The lesser the school, the higher the percent you will need. Even at third tier schools, a very high GPA, very high GREs and a great letter will get you pretty far. Though, the very top programs sometimes will admit these students first on the MA-level as a trial run and to help these students get up to speed (coursework below the mid-second tier is generally not nearly on par with the best schools).</p>

<p>In terms of graduate school, you are much better off having a 3.85 from a top second tier program, than a 3.3 from a top tier school. In terms of life and jobs outside of grad school, you are probably better having the 3.3 from MIT (GPA matters much less than the name of the school in non-academic life).</p>

<p>A few more points. I realize that this is an informal setting, and I am sure that I have a few typos in the above post, that said, your posting, for me as a prof, raised a red flag. Your grammar was quite poor. For me this either suggests a language issue (is English your second language?), and education issue, or a lack of attention to detail. Even with a CS degree, these are very very important issues. As a prof, who writes letters of recommendation all the time, fair or not I am evaluating you every time I see you in class, after class, in office hours, in email. I am just like a boss at work. So, grammar matters, even in informal communication with a prof.</p>

<p>All that said, best of luck!</p>

9

<p>The original poster stated he/she was a French citizen living in Quebec, so it would not surprise me if his/her primary language was French and that he/she used English less often.</p>

10

<p>That was my sense as well, but it is something to be aware of, certainly in the case of applications etc. I have seen spelling mistakes and grammar problems play a part in the admissions process.</p>

11

<p>Thank you for the time to answer my questions guys!</p>

<p>I’m more interested in Computer Theory right now, but that might change later on. So I guess I’m looking at theoretical fields.</p>

<p>My main concern with McGill is that its strong reputation and prestige don’t necessarily seem to have the academic excellence (or great research) to back it up. The prestige will be an advantage when dealing with employers, but I’m not sure how that affects me on a specifically academic level (those Times and ARWU rankings are a bit unreliable and say all sorts of conflicting things). Would it be accurate to say that McGill’s CS program is in the top third tier? Or maybe at the bottom of the second tier?</p>

<p>So from what I could gather from your reply (cornfields), the fame and success of my professors won’t matter as much as the strength of the school’s CS program. I’m planning on getting into McGill’s Joint Honors program in Computer Science and Mathematics, but I’m not sure how it compares with Waterloo’s Honors CS program. I realize that Waterloo (and even U of Toronto) has a stronger reputation in computer science than McGill, but the difference in cost makes it a big financial burden on my family, and I was just offered a $3k scholarship from McGill which brings its tuition fees down to $600…is there anything that should stop me from choosing McGill over Waterloo or UofT? Would the strength of Waterloo’s program make things a lot easier for me? On the other hand, would going to McGill make it a noticeably harder for me to get into a top grad school?</p>

<p>(I feel like I’m asking the same questions over and over again, but I’m having a really hard time making this decision and would greatly appreciate all the help I can get.)</p>

<p>And I do apologize for the poor grammar in my posts. English is my third language, and given the informal setting, I didn’t really bother going over my mistakes.</p>

12

<p>I am afraid that I do not feel qualified to rank computer science programs. The schools in general, and from a science-engineering perspective in particular, are good. Honors programs look good on an application, and are worth serious consideration. Sometimes it is better to over-perform at a somewhat lower ranked or smaller program than to under-perform or get lost at a larger program. McGill is a well-regarded school. And no need to apologize on the grammar, I am really just trying to be helpful and not trying to nitpick. I often tell students, that there is no perfect place. I would suggest visiting, if you can, and fellow students, perhaps a CS prof. could offer you advice. Also cruise the websites for awards/placements/faculty honors etc. And good luck!</p>

13

<p>Mollie -
Are you saying that the fame of the recommender would actually help the application?
I mean, for undergrad, I’m going to a university with excellent educational opportunities, slightly limited yet reasonably useful research opportunities, and great teachers - yet probably none of which are ‘renowned’ in their fields. Int’l here. Assuming all other things more or less equal, would the knowledge that the recommender is more known in his field tip the scales?
I mean, MIT keeps saying to make the most of your available resources, and that’s what I plan to do…
I do still have the choice for McGill though I wasn’t considering it seriously. Perhaps now I should, as I intend to go to MIT for grad school?</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>This agrees with what I have seen, sure.</p>

<p>@cornfields, I think for the programs that are most competitive, fame matters, in so much as the professor concerned probably then has more exposure to the best researchers of many ages, and thus has an opinion that is believable. After all, they can then make valuable comparisons! As we both know, the success rate in academia is a lot scarier than the success rate in college classes, etc. It helps to have tons of perspective from the best who constantly interact with the best when writing to programs aiming to accept only the best. Less important if one slides down the ranks to the good but much less competitive.</p>

<p>It is not so much about just dropping a famous name for grad admissions, it is about someone saying something meaningful in a credible way.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, it does.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Good advice, but you don’t get extra points for grad school by making the best out of a bad/mediocre resources. That’s only for undergrad admissions. The professors are selecting people who can advance their own research, so all that happy talk about rewarding the underpriveleged goes by the wayside. They just want the people who they are the most sure are going to help their career.</p>

16

<p>Well, stats show that about 10 students from the college go to MIT for grad school each year. That’s just a random estimate on some statistics from MIT I found a while back, but the point is that MIT hasn’t been too hesitant on admitting kids from my university. Shouldn’t I assume that this means that if I make the most out of what I have there (and it does have excellent professors and adequate, if not great, research opportunities - but it’s the best in the country by a longshot) - then I’d stand a good chance of acceptance into the research program?</p>

17

<p>If your school has a great track record and you are faring similarly to those who got in, I would say you have a great chance</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, you can assume that. </p>

<p>If the graduates of smaller or less prestigious schools have a good track record at MIT in a particular department, then they are willing to take them because they can trust that the recommendations and the academic record mean something. Obviously this is the case with your school.</p>

19

<p>^Agree, but want to emphasize the use of the words “in a particular department” – graduate admissions are done by departments rather than by a school in general, so the fact that about 10 kids a year go on to do graduate work at MIT from a given university is less useful than knowing how many go on to do graduate work at top programs in your field. If all 10 of those kids are from the chemistry department, it doesn’t say much about your ability to get into grad school in mechanical engineering.</p>

20

<p>

I just want to register my general disagreement with this point, at least insofar as we’re talking about MIT. </p>

<p>In my undergrad department, biology, all professors are required to teach courses every year. Some choose to teach graduate-level courses, but those are also open to undergraduates. I took a small graduate-level seminar course taught by a Nobel laureate during my sophomore year. </p>

<p>I did my undergraduate research in the lab of a big-name professor, who wrote me an outstanding letter of recommendation for graduate school (and a subsequent graduate fellowship). Although the letter was great, the most important thing he did for me was to provide a well-funded laboratory full of smart people doing excellent work – I was able to learn a variety of techniques, work as an apprentice on a big project that was eventually published in a good journal (with me as a co-author), and conceive and execute my own project during my senior year. </p>

<p>It’s true that my day-to-day bench contact was with a postdoctoral fellow. But to say that the big-name professor was irrelevant to my research experience and education is patently untrue.</p>