<p>I did my undergrad. in CSE and CE. What is easier to get in to, EE (speciality CE) or CS?</p>
<p>If it depends on the university, how is it at Stanford or Princeton?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>EE for sure is easier to get into than CS.</p>
<p>why do you think so?
I doubt there is a significant discrepancy.</p>
<p>For the very top grad schools, CS seems to be a little more difficult for PhD-track (terminal MS is pretty easy in most schools that offers it, even elite ones). There are fewer slots available in CS and it works out to lower admissions rates than EE. I don’t know about CE within EE as these statistics are really hard to track down even for whole departments. I remember clearly that MIT’s EECS department had 5% acceptance rate in CS vs something like 11% in EE a few years back (it was in a news story about graduate admissions). I believe Berkeley is similar, but that’s anecdotal. I know Stanford has a massive graduate EE program so that’s also probably easier than Stanford CS (again, this is for PhD-track; Stanford terminal MSEE/MSCS are both bizarrely easy for being Stanford degrees). Don’t know about Princeton.</p>
<p>Hi Gshine,
I did call Stanford earlier today, you were right… EE is easier than CS based on the fact they admit more EE students. You mentioned MSEE/MSCS being “bizarelly easy,” are we talking 5%-10% or even easier? Strangely, there is an MS management science engineering program that apparently admits 37%… Yes Stanford!!! Source: [Department</a> of Management Science and Engineering - Admissions](<a href=“Management Science and Engineering”>Management Science and Engineering)</p>
<p>Would you think that being fully funded would make PhD admission as easy as master’s admission (stanford or other top schools)?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Ivictor, nothing is “easy” when you talk about top programs in any field. Just apply to the programs you’d love to attend and see what happens. Did you actually call Stanford and ask which was easier, CS or EE? Or did you just deduce that one was easier? Be careful about doing stuff like that. The last thing a program wants is a student looking for an easy route to a degree.</p>
<p>BTW, CS and CSE are related, with some overlap, but they are still different. Your interests will likely fall into one or the other, and even the easiest EE program may not accept you if your interests are in the realm of CS – and vice versa. I’m sure, given your educational background, that you understand the distinction between the two fields.</p>
<p>Narrow down your list of programs by their research strength and how well they match with yours. No match = no acceptance. But you may get into a top notch, highly selective program “with ease” if everything in your profile lines up.</p>
<p>11% seems high for MIT. Berkeley is only around 3.5% acceptance rate for EE.</p>
<p>Hi momwaitingfornew,
I did not give my name and I did not bluntly ask which one is easier, I kind of lead the conversation to that direction and she mentioned it. You mean CE and CSE? (you said CS and CSE), anyway my target research area is Networking. Networking is CE related (thus usually falls under EE in graduate programs), the problem is my research would span to higher level implementation (CS related) so ideally I would like to do CE and CS. As you said, I need to see what matches my interests/background the most. For example, since my work experience is purely CS it might give me a higher chance in CS acceptance than the easier admission in to EE</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Whew. That’s a relief. I know that some people get so anxious about graduate admissions that they don’t pay attention to what they are saying. </p>
<p>Computer engineering is different from computer science, so when I typed CSE, I meant just CE. Sorry.</p>
<p>
Berkeley <em>enrolls</em> a class of ~100 in EECS out of an applicant pool of something like 2800. But the number accepted is much larger. At least 160, probably closer to 200 as I believe the yield isn’t much higher than 50%. The acceptance rate is roughly 7% in recent years, and that’s EE and CS combined. I’m guessing, again, that CS is lower and EE is higher.</p>
<p>Regarding Stanford MS admissions: I don’t know the acceptance rate but what you should be looking at is the credentials of those at the accepted-rejected boundary. From pouring through applicant profiles on here, urch, and gradcafe, it’s clear that a lot of people that are nowhere near qualified for MIT/Berkeley (which are PhD-track only) get admitted to Stanford terminal MS. Stanford PhD-track is a little easier than the other two as well (though significantly harder than terminal MS), but this is because few are given funding until they pass the qual.</p>
<p>Let me clarify “easy”: MIT/Berkeley are very hard to predict and a lot of high-end applicants get rejected. Stanford, on the other hand, is reliably predictable in admitting them, largely due to its larger entering class (200 in EE vs. the other two having 100 in EE and CS combined) and the fact that it makes them pay their way through.</p>
<p>urch/gradcafe are not offcial stats. I can post fake stuff there if I want. </p>
<p>While Stanford does seem to have looser admissions standard for MS than Cal/MIT, it is by no mean “bizarrely easy”. And by looking at its degree requirement, it does seem that Stanford’s program is much harder to finish than Cal/MIT (Stanford’s coursework load is much higher and stricter). To get into Stanford’s MS program, you still have to have very good academic background (GPA, test score, rec letter). The reason I think they seem to have looser admission standard for MS is that they solely look at academic background and if you don’t have much research background, but you did very, very well in your prior academic coursework (i.e. undergrad), they’ll let you in. Cal/MIT seem to want people with both good academic and research background. </p>
<p>ALso, by looking at MSandE’s MS stat, I notice the GPA and GRE are very high. I guess their applicant pool is pretty good. (Again, I think research experience isn’t the main component in the MS-MSandE admission).</p>
<p>
Truism. You are free to go post “fake stuff” but I doubt most are.</p>
<p>
The choice of words is subjective. I consider it easy. The lack of concern for research experience is exactly it. 3.8+ and 780/550+ may be rare at a particular institution but they’re a dime a dozen in the big picture and attained with little trouble by top candidates.</p>
<p>You make it seem like MIT and UCB’s preference for research experience is a minor additional requirement. It makes all the difference in the world in the quality of the admits or at least these institutions seem to think so. My view of Stanford’s MS is not unique. Search Stanford + “cash cow”. It’s something of an open secret.</p>
<p>Nope. I don’t make it seem like MIT and Cal’s preference on research experience is a “minor” requirement. I agree with you that having the research requirement makes the program much more prestigious than others (thus the low admit rate). </p>
<p>However, not everyone has done research in the past, especially for someone whose intention is to go into industry after obtaining the masters degree and almost all undergraduate programs do not require research. </p>
<p>Also, I don’t believe in the myth of cash cow, espeically for a program who only admits people with strong academic background. I’ll believe in the cash cow concept if a top engineering school admits many people with GRE quant lower than 750 or below 3.5 GPA.</p>
<p>Thread title states “EE or CS”. CS means comp sci to most people, hence confusion. Good advice already given.</p>