EE PhD at Stanford or Berkeley???

Graduate School
1

<p>Hi, if anyone could give me some info about either of these programs (especially if you know someone in them) that would be great! I'm trying to make my decision right now. I'm lucky enough to have $ at both so finances aren't part of my worries at the moment. </p>

<p>What I am worried about: I've heard the Stanford EE program is very competitive and cut-throat, and that it's hard for students to even find phd advisors. However, at Berkeley I'm afraid the program is too theoretical for me, since I'm interested in applications of EE. </p>

<p>Any thoughts would be appreciated!</p>

2

<p>Stanford EE has 50% passing rate for their qual.</p>

3

<p>My former advisor (recent Stanford EE graduate) advised me not to even apply to Stanford because of the horrible quals system.</p>

4

<p>I’m in your position, except I already decided on Stanford. If you were at the visit weekends, we probably met. I’ll give you a little background about me first before addressing the question at hand. </p>

<p>I worked at Stanford for three months last summer. I have numerous good friends (5+) in Stanford EE, and I know pretty much everyone from my school (Caltech) that has gone to Stanford in the past four years. </p>

<p>Stanford Quals are not easy, this is true. It’s also true that 50% of people pass on their first try (75% pass on their second try). Part of the reason for this is that Stanford does some of their weeding after admissions; this is partially related to the massive Masters program Stanford has.</p>

<p>My take on it is that while Stanford does do weeding after their admissions, it mostly weeds out people who are lower on the admit totem (i.e. Stanford is not as hard to get into as Berkeley and MIT, so the people that were only admitted to Stanford). From personal experience, it seems that all of the top applicants (fellowship funding at Stanford, in at MIT and Berkeley) pass quals their first time. Out of all the people I know who have gone from Caltech to Stanford, only one has not passed quals on their first try, and those I spoke to said it wasn’t THAT bad. </p>

<p>This doesn’t mean the quals system is a good thing. I personally don’t like it (and in fact, a lot of profs at Stanford don’t either–they are currently in the process of revising the quals system). That being said, for me, the research at Stanford was more interesting and more in-line with what I wanted to do. (And yes, more applications oriented).</p>

<p>From the competition side, I didn’t meet anyone at Stanford who was competitive or cut-throat. While quals is somewhat of a competition, the study groups tend to be pretty cooperative (typically the entire group either passes or fails). Post quals, it’s no more or less competitive than any other place (which is to say, it’s not really competitive at all). Also, I don’t feel that it’s hard to find advisors at all–I already have mine set up!</p>

<p>In summary, while quals is a hurdle I don’t think it’s an insurmountable one, and I think it’s one worth the benefit of doing the research you want to do.</p>

5

<p>From what I’ve heard, you shouldn’t worry about quals too much. The statistics seem to imply that 7/8 pass eventually (though it might be stressful). What worries me more is finding a good advisor - even after weeding, the groups seem large and impersonal, for the most part. They also seem to have lots of quasi-commercial research (at least in devices), and while this could mean that they are adding the most value to society, I’ve also heard that some professors at Stanford are more worried about money-grubbing and less about innovating. All that said, Stanford has a good program and choosing between Berkeley and Stanford is not a bad choice to have.</p>

6

<p>It’s hard to talk about things like that in generalities. I know the professors I am interested in working with are definitely innovators (Roger Howe and Olav Solgaard). I also feel that the other profs I met (Miller, Vuckovic, Fan) are doing really cool work. I worked with Howe for three months over a summer (and indirectly with Solgaard and Fan) so I am pretty confident of this.</p>

7

<p>50% pass rate first time and 75% pass rate second time is not bad. It doesn’t warrant the reputation Stanford has for thier EE quals. Are you sure it is right? Is the pass rate 50% for everybody on a single given exam or is it more like 60% to 70%. It if it really 50%, then the numbers don’t really make sense. Are many students just not taking it twice, or is Stanford giving out “fail, and you can’t retake”?</p>

<p>Other schools in the top 5 to 10 use Standford’s quals as an argument to recruit away students who might otherwise go…sometimes works too.</p>

8

<p>While the numbers are still “not bad”, they ARE substantially worse than virtually every other school (where almost no one fails out, most people leaving do so voluntarily). </p>

<p>That being said, I don’t really think they are as bad as the reputation they have been given. </p>

<p>And yes, the numbers I gave are pretty much accurate (these are the numbers given by Stanford’s EE department when I was there three weeks ago). Stanford does not fail anyone out after the first round of quals. One problem is though for people that are self-funded, or funded for only a year, if they don’t pass quals they may be without funding for a year, or have to pay an extra year before getting a GRA/GTA which can be tough.</p>

9

<p>For a given exam what is the total EE PhD pass rate combining first and second time takers?</p>

<p>I’m in the same program at Michigan, and from what you’re saying the numbers are only slightly worse…perhaps 95% of the people pass quals by the second time here.</p>

<p>Funding sounds much better at Michigan though.</p>

10

<p>75% vs. 95% is fairly significant. </p>

<p>As for the funding situation in general, I didn’t speak on it extensively for two reasons: one, I already have an advisor (I worked at Stanford for a summer, and we’d like to work together), and two, Stanford gave me a three year fellowship. Edit: To clarify, I’m saying this not to brag but to point out that I didn’t really have to search for an advisor or funding, so I’m not super familiar with the process.</p>

<p>I don’t know anything about Michigan’s funding because I didn’t apply, but I do know Stanford awards a number of 3-year and 1-year fellowships. </p>

<p>I personally haven’t heard of anyone with funding issues, but I’m not in the program, so it’s hard to say.</p>

<p>Obviously, the specifics of losing funding after failing quals is possibly unique to Stanford, but this is why people don’t like the rigorous quals. If a significant portion didn’t pass, but there was no penalty for not passing, no one would be complaining. People complain about Stanford (rightfully so) because there are relatively serious consequences for not passing.</p>

<p>I guess my message here is that I don’t really like the quals system but I also think people maybe worry about it too much.</p>