Engineering GPA

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>First year second semester I have a good, solid GPA. (No GPA given for first year first semester.)
I don't think it's reasonable that I will be able to maintain such a GPA for the duration of the next 6 semesters, classes are getting much harder it seems. How do grad schools/professional schools/employers look on GPA slides? I know when applying to Colleges a GPA slide is bad and a gpa increase is very good. Is this the same in college?</p>

<p>(I don't think my gpa will get better, it may stay the same, but better is unlikely, of course -- I will work hard to make sure that's not true.)
Thanks.</p>

2

<p>I had better semesters and worse semesters. My advisor at Rice told me that if I got above a 3.5 (for civ, at least) GPA, then I'd probably get accepted to about half the seven or eight programs I'd applied to, and that about half of those programs would give me money.</p>

<p>He was wrong... but not necessarily in a bad way... I got into all seven top programs I applied to but only two of them gave me money.</p>

<p>So long as you end up with a decent GPA, I'm not sure that the grad schools really care how you got there. Also, I think you'll find that it's not as difficult to get A's and B's in upper-level courses as you might think. Sure, they're harder, but in a lot of cases, nobody understands a thing and the prof grades on a curve, so all you have to do to get a decent grade is to be the <em>least</em> lost of your classmates.</p>

<p>Take a couple of practice GREs at the start of your junior year, get involved in research if at all possible, and show some leadership. Befriend your profs... not only are a lot of them really cool people, but they're also incredibly connected within the academic world. Find out who's notable in the field at your school and attend their office hours so that they learn your name. Ask intelligent questions in their classes and don't fall asleep during their lectures.</p>

<p>Other than that... good luck! Don't worry too much.</p>

3

<p>Aibarr, is a 3.5 GPA generally good enough (along with everything else, of course) to get into the top 7 Civil Engineering programs? For EE, the top 5 programs have average GPAs of about 3.9, and I think you need a 3.7+ for the rest of the top 10. Of course, many people get in with lower GPAs and stellar research experience or recommendations, but a high GPA certainly is the first step to a competitive application.</p>

4

<p>I can only speak from experience... But I didn't get rejected from anywhere I applied for structural, and I applied to MIT, Cornell, UIUC, GaTech, UT, Stanford, and Berkeley... so... not creampuff schools.</p>

<p>Granted, I worked two part-time jobs, additionally was a TA for mechanics of materials, took 19 hours of classes per semester, was drum major of the band, had great recs, and an 800 on the GRE math section... (<em>sheepish</em>)... which may have had something to do with the "lower" GPA in the first place... so...</p>

<p>Honestly, though, the prof who told me that all I really needed was a 3.5 didn't know about any of my extracurriculars. Actually, I don't think any of my profs really knew about my extracurriculars, so I'm not sure how much of that is actually taken into account.</p>

<p>I dunno. It <em>can</em> be done, at the very least, and I can say for certain that there are apparently more important things than GPA when it comes to grad apps.</p>

5

<p>Are you talking about Master's or PhD here?</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
Aibarr, is a 3.5 GPA generally good enough (along with everything else, of course) to get into the top 7 Civil Engineering programs? For EE, the top 5 programs have average GPAs of about 3.9, and I think you need a 3.7+ for the rest of the top 10. Of course, many people get in with lower GPAs and stellar research experience or recommendations, but a high GPA certainly is the first step to a competitive application

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think we're confusing master's programs and PhD programs. Aibarr is, I believe, talking about master's degree programs.</p>

<p>I highly highly doubt that the top 5 EE programs require a 3.9 for master's degree students. While I can't speak for the other schools, at MIT, the GPA cutoff for undergrads to get into the EECS MEng program is really not that high. MIT grades on a 5-point scale (hence a 5.0 at MIT is really a 4.0 elsewhere, and a 4.0 at MIT is really a 3.0 elsewhere), but the following quote in the department guide says this:</p>

<p>"During the summer following, those who have maintained an appropriate grade point average will be informed that they may continue into the M.Eng. program. While there is no sharp cutoff, students with a 4.25 gpa are very likely to be admitted, while those with a 4.0 gpa are very unlikely to be admitted."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.eecs.mit.edu/ug/brief-guide.html#meng%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.eecs.mit.edu/ug/brief-guide.html#meng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, granted, only MIT undergrads are eligible for the MEng program. But still, the fact is, if you're an MIT EECS undergrad with, say, a 4.3/5 GPA (equivalent to a 3.3/4), then you're almost certainly going to be admitted into the MEng program. Granted, getting a 4.3/5 at MIT in EECS is no walk in the park by any means, but still, it's not THAT hard. You might also say that the MEng program is not "really" a master's degree, but MIT says it's a master's degree (the "M" stands for masters). </p>

<p>Now, you might say that the MIT SM program in EECS (for some reason, MIT calls it an SM, not an MS), is the "real" master's degree program. But even in this program, I highly highly doubt that the average GPA for these students was a 3.9/4. I seem to recall reading somewhere how it was more like a 3.5 or 3.6 out of 4. </p>

<p>That 3.9/4 number might be true of direct admission to the PhD program. Yet the fact is, plenty of MIT PhD EECS students didn't get in via direct admission. Rather, they came in as SM or MEng students and then did well and found a faculty member to sponsor them to be upgraded to the PhD program. In fact, this seems to be a common strategy for undergrads. Get a SB and MEng, hook onto a professor via UROP, and then have that professor endorse you for the PhD. That's why you have so many people who came into MIT as freshmen and just stayed there all the way to becoming "MIT-cubed" (bachelor's, master's, and PhD, all at MIT).</p>

7

<p>MIT's was the MEng program, as was the Cornell program. The rest were MS/PhD programs.</p>

8

<p>"I seem to recall reading somewhere how it was more like a 3.5 or 3.6 out of 4."</p>

<p>Where do you get this sort of information? The only gpas I can seem to find are PhD averages. </p>

<p>Happen to have the stats for Top 5 Mech E. MS by any chance?
From this post I'm assuming a 3.6 from Berkeley with pretty good recs will give you a pretty good shot at the top 5.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
Granted, I worked two part-time jobs, additionally was a TA for mechanics of materials, took 19 hours of classes per semester, was drum major of the band, had great recs, and an 800 on the GRE math section

[/quote]

Actually, none of these matter for grad admissions except the recommendations. An 800 GRE Math puts you at about 91st percentile overall, and around the median for top Engineering programs. Job and TA experience don't matter unless they were related to research, and a 19-hour courseload is nothing to brag about, either.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I highly highly doubt that the top 5 EE programs require a 3.9 for master's degree students. While I can't speak for the other schools

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The MIT MEng in EECS is a special case because they only offer it internally. I'll bet that Stanford's co-term MS EE program isn't anywhere as selective, either.</p>

<p>Stanford EE used to post stats about incoming students a few years ago, and I remember seeing an average of 3.85 for MS and 3.87 for PhD students. UIUC ECE also quotes an average GPA of 3.86 on its web site. Given that Berkeley EECS and Caltech EE are more selective than these two, it's not a stretch of the imagination to assert that the top 5 programs look for a 3.9. Also keep in mind that the majority of their domestic students are represented by the top few schools, so you'd need something closer to a 4.0 if you come from anywhere outside the top 10 undergrad programs. If the average GPA really were 3.5-3.6, everyone and their mom would be attending a top EE program.</p>

<p>It's also impossible at Stanford, Berkeley, and UIUC (and I'd imagine Caltech as well) for an undergrad to just sign up for the MS and then sneak into the PhD program like at MIT. I'm sure you're aware of Stanford's brutal PhD Qualifying Exam, which requires a 3.5 GPA just to sign up for (median = B+ = 3.3 for grad classes), and MS students must petition with the support of 2 faculty members to take it (approval of which is certainly not guaranteed). Likewise, Berkeley EECS accepted about 7 of their own undergrads to their graduate program, a higher percentage than other institutions' grads to be sure, but nonetheless a small fraction of those who were interested. UIUC also requires everyone, including its own students, to apply to the MS and MS/PhD programs, and there's no free pass.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
The MIT MEng in EECS is a special case because they only offer it internally. I'll bet that Stanford's co-term MS EE program isn't anywhere as selective, either.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is true that it is special because it is offered internally, but I don't know if it necessarily translates into lower selectivity. Truth be told, I personally find the MIT MEng students to be better than the SM students. </p>

<p>While I don't have the stats on me right now, I have a very hard time believing that the MIT SM average incoming GPA is anywhere near a 3.9/4, simply because I know far too many MIT SM students who came in with only around 3.5's or so (and some with around 3.0's, although granted they did come from places like Caltech). Granted, while I only know a fraction of the class's incoming GPA's, it's hard for me to see how the averages could work out to be around 3.9, considering how you have all these students whose GPA's are nowhere close.</p>

<p>Furthermore, if you have access to the USNews 2007 Graduate edition (either offline or the online premium edition), it states that the average incoming GPA for master's degrees in Berkeley engineering is a 3.6, for PhD is a 3.7. Note, this is for all engineering, not just EECS, but aibarr was referring to Civil Engineering which obviously has nothing to do with EECS.</p>

<p>I have online premium access so the link is below, but I doubt that those who don't have premium access will be able to open the link. But I ain't lying - you can buy access and you can see for yourself. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/directory/dir-eng/premium/admis_02021.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/directory/dir-eng/premium/admis_02021.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>MIT, Stanford, UIUC, and Caltech refuse to publish any GPA information, but here is reported data from some other grad engineering programs, in both master's/doctoral format. </p>

<p>Michigan - 3.5/3.6
Georgia Tech - 3.5/3.6
Carnegie-Mellon - 3.4/3.7
Purdue - 3.5/3.6
UT-Austin - 3.6/3.7
USC - 3.4/3.6
Northwestern - 3.3/3.4
Johns Hopkins - 3.5/3.6
UCSD - 3.5/3.6
Penn State - 3.5/3.6
Texas A&M - 3.4/3.4</p>

<p>Again, if you don't believe my figures, you can go to the library, check out USNews, and see for yourself. Or buy the online premium access, and see for yourself. </p>

<p>It is possible and intuitive that EECS may be more selective than other engineering disciplines, although I am going to poke around to see whether I can come up with MIT EECS data. But the point is, the incoming GPA's of many of the top engineering grad schools isn't all that high.</p>

11

<p>Wow im_blue are you saying that the average GPA for incoming Masters students at Stanford was 3.85? I mean how hard is it to get that at Stanford?</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
MIT, Stanford, UIUC, and Caltech refuse to publish any GPA information

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So what exactly is your basis for refuting my data? If anything, your US News data support my assertion that the top schools outside the top 5 look for something around 3.7, seeing as how EECS is the most selective of the Engineering majors. If schools like Michigan, Georgia Tech, and UT Austin have a 3.6 average for all of Engineering (not EECS), would it make any sense for MIT EECS to average a 3.5-3.6 as you claim? One explanation I can offer is perhaps that programs are reporting their median GPAs instead of the average, which could mesh with your anecdotal evidence of students with low GPAs.</p>

<p>Here's the link where UIUC ECE says its incoming students have an average GPA of 3.86. Are you saying that UIUC is far and away the most selective EE program out there, besting even the likes of MIT? Or that UIUC eschews research experience and faculty recommendations in favor of a high GPA alone? Or that UIUC is simply making up their data?
<a href="http://www.ece.uiuc.edu/grad/admapp.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ece.uiuc.edu/grad/admapp.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Wow im_blue are you saying that the average GPA for incoming Masters students at Stanford was 3.85?

[/quote]

Yes, this was posted on Stanford EE's web site a few years ago, while I was in the process of applying.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
UIUC ECE also quotes an average GPA of 3.86 on its web site.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, that's not completely true. Here is what the quote actually says.</p>

<p>"In the fall 2005 semester, the average GPA of applicants admitted and receiving financial aid was 3.86 (on a scale of 4.0 = A). "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ece.uiuc.edu/grad/admapp.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ece.uiuc.edu/grad/admapp.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The key phrase there is 'receiving financial aid'. While I don't know what's happening at UIUC, I can tell you that there many, probably most of the master's students at MIT are not receiving financial aid. They either pay out of pocket. For example, I think almost all MIT EECS MEng students pay out of pocket. Or they may be working and are getting an MIT degree part-time. For example, I know that the GE Aircraft Engines division based out of Lynn, Mass has a special arrangement with MIT that will allow employees to get an SM in Aero/Astro at MIT, paid for by GE, earned over a 3-5 year period. Or they are supported by another department. For example, most LFM students are basically Sloan School MBA students who also happen to be picking up an engineering SM, but their financial aid status is managed by Sloan. LFM is only one way by which you can get a dual-master's at MIT. It's actually not uncommon for students to pick up dual-master's, by getting admitted into one program, and then fulfilling the requirements of both master's degrees and then writing a thesis acceptable to both. But your financial aid (if any) will be provided by your "primary" department, which is the first department that you joined. For example, I know a number of Technology and Public Policy (TPP) students who are also earning an engineering SM. In fact, that is rather similar to what Pepper White, the author of the book 'The Idea Factory', did. He actually matriculated as a TPP master's student, but then got approved for Mechanical Engineering, eventually earning an SM in ME. {The difference is, he never got his TPP degree.}</p>

<p>The point is, there is a big difference between getting admitted just as a master's degree student, and getting admitted as a master's degree student with financial aid. Aibarr even said that 7 schools admitted her, but only 2 offered her money. If you don't need money, then getting admitted is a whole lot easier.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
would it make any sense for MIT EECS to average a 3.5-3.6 as you claim?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wait a minute. Did I SAY that MIT EECS averaged 3.5-3.6? Please point to the quote where I said that. Can't do it, can you?</p>

<p>What I said is that I know SM students who have around a 3.5. I never said that I thought that was the average. I just don't think the average is a 3.9.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So what exactly is your basis for refuting my data? If anything, it supports my assertion that the top schools outside the top 5 look for something around 3.7, seeing as how EECS is the most selective of the Engineering majors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't have to refute you, you just refuted yourself. You asserted that people needed a 3.9 for the top 5 EECS schools. Now you are backing down to a 3.7. There is a big difference between a 3.9 and a 3.7.</p>

<p>But none of that is here nor there. We are not talking about EECS specifically. Aibarr is a civil engineer. Other people here are asking about ME and other engineering disciplines. What the data indicates is that, in general, you don't need THAT HIGH of a GPA to get into a top engineering graduate school. It might be high for EECS specifically, but not so much for engineering in general. That's what the data indicates.</p>

15

<p>Ok can either of you guys tell me what the average GPA for engineers is at these schools (specifically Stanford)? That would help me understand this discussion more- thanks</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
But even in [the MIT SM EECS] program, I highly highly doubt that the average GPA for these students was a 3.9/4. I seem to recall reading somewhere how it was more like a 3.5 or 3.6 out of 4.

[/quote]

You seemed to imply it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't have to refute you, you just refuted yourself. You asserted that people needed a 3.9 for the top 5 EECS schools. Now you are backing down to a 3.7. There is a big difference between a 3.9 and a 3.7.

[/quote]

Nope, my statements were that "the top 5 programs have average GPAs of about 3.9, and I think you need a 3.7+ for the rest of the top 10" and "the top schools outside the top 5 look for something around 3.7."</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
One explanation I can offer is perhaps that programs are reporting their median GPAs instead of the average, which could mesh with your anecdotal evidence of students with low GPAs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope, it says very clearly that what is being reported is the AVERAGE. The category specifically says "Average GPA".</p>

<p>Again, if you don't believe me, fine. Get the premium access and read it yourself.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
Nope, my assertion was that "the top 5 programs have average GPAs of about 3.9, and I think you need a 3.7+ for the rest of the top 10."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that's exactly what I am disputing. Even UIUC has stated that that 3.86 figure holds ONLY FOR THOSE RECEIVING AID. What about those that don't receive aid? I am quite sure that the average GPA is lower, as it would be quite odd for those who are not receiving aid to actually have better grades than those that are receiving aid, which means that the overall average GPA for everybody (aid and no aid) is lower than a 3.9. Hence, right there is one EECS program in the top 5 that doesn't have a a 3.9 average.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Again, if you don't believe me, fine. Get the premium access and read it yourself.

[/quote]

I know what it says and I have the premium access. I guess you're saying that my slight concession to your argument has no merit.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Even UIUC has stated that that 3.86 figure holds ONLY FOR THOSE RECEIVING AID. What about those that don't receive aid?

[/quote]

Around 90% of UIUC ECE students receive aid, so that's a moot point.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Around 90% of UIUC ECE students receive aid, so that's a moot point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How is it a moot point? Even if only a minority of these students are not receiving aid, that implies that the true average overall GPA (aid + no aid) is, at best, maybe a 3.8 or so. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I know what it says and I have the premium access. I guess you're saying that my slight concession to your arguments has no merits at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, im_blue, this whole digression was never really my main topic. My point is to simply say that, with the possible exception of EECS, you don't need THAT HIGH of grades to get into a graduate engineering program. People here aren't talking specifically about EECS. Aibarr's story of getting into a bunch of top Civil Engineering grad programs with a 3.5 shouldn't be THAT surprising.</p>