<p>I'm a sophomore at Stanford right now. My GPA is around 3.59 right now. I kinda bombed freshman year but this year I did pretty well. I expect to finish junior year with a GPA of around 3.67ish. Should this be good enough for me to have a good shot at MIT/Berkely/Caltech PhD programs in EE? Are there any programs that have a 3.7 cutoff? I've been doing research every summer so far, but don't have any publications yet. I know several professors fairly well so I'm assuming I can get a decent letter of recommendation. What do you guys think, will my GPA be a problem?</p>
<p>You’ll be fine. publications aren’t everything. whether people like it or not, the connections your professors have will run deep. Professors at Stanford, MIT, Caltech did not just get ph.d.s from the top schools, but they were usually superstars during grad school. Thus, their letters will hold a lot of weight with professors who might have taught them or colleagues at their old graduate schools.</p>
<p>It would be nice if your gpa was a little higher, but with your particular alma mater I doubt any program will complain. Publications are gold, but just as important are your LOR’s - make sure your research prof’s will go to bat for you.</p>
<p>My main concern is that I am part of the stanford solar car team and I was planning on taking all of fall quarter off this year to go race our car in Australia. However, if I stayed here instead, I could probably bring my GPA above a 3.7. So are there any programs that have a 3.7 cutoff? I noticed that Berkeley had a 3.0 cutoff, but I couldn’t find one for Caltech or MIT.</p>
<p>Almost all cutoffs are 3.0 for Masters programs but for Phd’s they are typically 3.5 (MIT etc). It may come down to your research, gre’s, LOR’s. Your Gpa however if below 3.6 will pose a small problem since the top programs especially for phd are very competitive and they have so many qualified applicants. But since you go Stanford you should not fret too much but still try to bring up your gpa. It should be rather easy for you to gain acceptance to any Masters program however and you can always apply again to phd at MIT etc afterwards. And from what I hear, Caltech is probably the hardest to get into since they have fewer spots available.</p>
<p>The Berkeley 3.0 cutoff is just a formality like most other universities.</p>
<p>Heres Berkeleys statement about their EECS program. Their program accepted ~3.6% for the 2009 admissions cycle.</p>
<p>[Competition</a> for Admission | EECS at UC Berkeley](<a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Gradadm/Competition.htm]Competition”>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Gradadm/Competition.htm)</p>
<p>“If Berkeley is your preferred choice for graduate study, and you believe that you have superior qualifications, then we encourage you to apply. However, you should be aware that admissions are very competitive. Most successful applicants last year had GPAs above 3.7 and GRE quantitative scores above 90%. Many successful Computer Science applicants took the GRE Computer Science Subject test and scored above 90%. For Fall 2009 we had approximately 2800 applicants for about 100 slots.”</p>
<p>You can pretty much say Berkeley has an unofficial cutoff at 3.7. I expect MIT/Caltech to be similar as well.</p>
<p>In my opinion, their GPA quote can be misleading for you. Successful applicants include people from grade-deflating institutions such as Caltech, MIT, or Princeton. Stanford, to be honest, is not a grade deflating undergraduate institution, and it has a famous reputation for grade inflation, which graduate departments will surely know about and will take into account.</p>
<p>Your GPA is a red flag in my mind, but thats just from an uninformed look. I think the 3.6% admission rate pretty much says enough. Keep in mind, PhD admissions are fairly self-selective much more so than undergraduate admissions and especially when Berkeley publicly posts that “successful applicants have 3.7+”. I expect MIT and Caltech to have a similar admission qualifications as Berkeley.</p>
<p>From my personal experience, every Stanford EECS prospect Ive known that has been accepted to either MIT, Berkeley, or Caltech has been an exceptional student at Stanford (top of their class in their minds), and I have seen qualified Stanford undergrads rejected from these schools. I would suggest that you talk to your professors as they will probably give the best advice you can possibly get. They would know better than anyone.</p>
<p>I don’t want to discourage you from applying. You should still apply because you never know what can happen.</p>
<p>
I dont know if Caltech is the hardest to get into as there are multiple ways to define difficulty in an inherently subjective process, but the fact that they have fewer spots available is not a way to illustrate their admissions difficulty. Fewer people tend to apply.</p>
<p>Where does this 3.5 cutoff come from? Why is 3.6 being used as reference number?</p>
<p>If anything, because he goes to Stanford, he should worry about his GPA.</p>
<p>Again, the main thing that I am worried about is whether or not I should go to Australia this fall. If I do go, I will probably end up with a high 3.6 by the time I apply to grad school. If I don’t, I’ll probably be right above a 3.7. Will it make that much of a difference you think to be above a 3.7?</p>
<p>bump…</p>
<p>Stanford engineering is not grade inflated. This is only true for stanford humanities. PLENTY of stanford EE undergrads with a 3.6-3.7 make it into Ph.D. (they don’t have an EECS masters at MIT for outside applicants) programs at MIT every year. I know 3 of them personally, as I did some math tutoring on the side, this past year. STDB, don’t start spouting about stuff you don’t know about. Have you ever taken an engineering class at Stanford? Princeton, additionally, is not grade deflated. Hell, they had a grade inflation problem just 2 years ago. As I’ve stated before, a good letter of recommendation from a stanford prof holds a lot of weight. Especially if the professor (who were usually top of their class at MIT/Caltech/Berkeley grad school if they are a professor at Stanford) can attest that the applicant will do well.</p>
<p>
I am speaking from what Ive seen even though my opinion is obviously biased from my singular experience, but what Ive seen is something I know about. If youve seen something different, your contribution will help stabilize my opinion, but, for what it’s worth, Im reporting what Ive seen as Ive spent some time with the EE undergrads.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that youve seen students with a 3.6-3.7 make it, as Im sure there are those that do, Im talking about for the upcoming year, which is probably not going to be like every year. 3.6% admittance is a very small percentage and it is a decrease from last years admissions cycle, and I personally wouldnt feel safe with a 3.6-3.7 when the admittance rate is that low in a relatively self-selective process.</p>
<p>In any case, a GPA debate is minor compared to undergraduate research experience, which I know Stanford is exceptional for. And like you mentioned, a professor will have a better idea of where the OP stands.</p>
<p>My inclusion of Princeton, although not important at all to the topic, is a reaction to articles such as below about its change in policy in 2004 (5 years ago). Although 35% is hardly deflated, it is a perception. Princetons policy has been of much discussion in the undergrad forum.</p>
<p>[GRADE</a> DEFLATION | Newsweek Education | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/54666]GRADE”>GRADE DEFLATION - Newsweek)
[Princeton</a> leads in grade deflation - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-03-27-princeton-grades_N.htm]Princeton”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-03-27-princeton-grades_N.htm)
[Curbing</a> grade deflation’s A- obsession - The Daily Princetonian](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/10/13/21753/]Curbing”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/10/13/21753/)</p>
<p>
My previous post was meant for you not to feel safe with a 3.6-3.7 because I felt that the other posts made it seem beyond stellar.</p>
<p>I dont know anything about the solar car team, but if you plan to use your experience in it as part of your research experience in your graduate school application and there are professors that can speak about your contributions to the project and how it relates to potential graduate research, Id argue that that is much more important than the difference between a high 3.6 and a 3.7, which seems trivial, in my opinion.</p>
<p>if you go to those articles such as [Princeton</a> leads in grade deflation - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-03-27-princeton-grades_N.htm]Princeton”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-03-27-princeton-grades_N.htm), it says princeton leads in grade deflation WITHIN the ivy league. That is an utter joke. Additionally, in one of the articles you cited, it even disputes MIT (a school you claim was grade deflated) as a grade deflated school with : “A 2003 Princeton study found that marks of A and A-minus accounted for 44 to 55 percent of grades at the Ivy League colleges, MIT, Stanford and the University of Chicago.”</p>
<p>As for my sample size, I knew 3 kids personally. But the fact of the matter is, I know of several other acquaintances from my own undergrad in addition to more stanford undergrads (albeit not personally) with similar profiles that have made it into MIT, Stanford, Caltech (i.e. top EE schools). You say you know stanford students that made it into these schools who were top of their class. But that doesn’t imply graduating with distinction as a requirement. It’s far from the norm when you go to a top school as an undergraduate. The 3.7 you cite from Berkeley includes students from average and below average undergrads. It’s not like everyone being accepted is from Stanford, Caltech, MIT (i.e. top undergrad EE schools) Try to convince the adcoms that a 3.6 from Stanford is less valuable than say a 3.8 from UTexas. In my field at Stanford, as one example, this is far from the case.</p>