<p>Can you guys answer my question please?</p>
<p>Superwizard, Stanford's policy is to curve Engineering classes around a B+ median. For grad classes, the Stanford EE policy is roughly 40% A, 50% B, and 10% C, which translates into an average of 3.3. I don't know how the undergrad percentages work, but they should be similar.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Aibarr's story of getting into a bunch of top Civil Engineering grad programs with a 3.5 shouldn't be THAT surprising.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't say it was surprising, I just wanted to confirm that this was the general trend for Civil Engineering, that's all. With that, let's close the discussion.</p>
<p>Thanks im_blue I appreciate it :D</p>
<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. </p>
<p>You seemed to imply it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said it was, I just said that I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, especially when you factor in all those MEng students. Like I said, many of them have rather mediocre grades. {Then again, they are at MIT, where mediocre grades are par for the course}. Why shouldn't they be factored in? They're master's degree students too.</p>
<p>But anyway, that's neither here nor there. The point is, if you have a 3.5, that's usually sufficient for most master's degree engineering programs out there, including many of the best ones, as long as you don't need funding. It does seem to depend on which discipline you are talking about. I agree that EECS is more selective. But there are other disciplines that are less selective. Nor do you necessarily have to get a master's degree in the same discipline that you got your undergrad. Plenty of people change disciplines. I personally know people who have switched from ChemE to EECS, from Mat Sci to BioE, from EECS to Mat Sci, from Physics to Mat Sci, from ME to EECS. I even knew one guy who switched from Biology to Civil Engineering (although, granted, that switch is pretty extreme). </p>
<p>For example, even at MIT, I would say that there are clearly some master's degree programs that are easier to get into than others.</p>
<p>A 3.5 will get you into a grad program no problem.</p>
<p>A 3.0 will get you provisional admission.</p>
<p>A friggin' 2.5, some experience under your belt and a 3.5 in you first 3 or 4 courses (in non-degree status) at the graduate level will also get you admitted.</p>
<p>Remember, college is a business. They are not gonna turn you down once you have proven yourself and can pay the tuition.</p>
<p>Trust me.</p>
<p>Arrrrrggghhhh. Once again, my reassurrances are dismissed in the name of civil engineering being the "slacker" engineering discipline. Sigh.</p>
<p>Rest assurred that despite my "mediocre" GPA, I'm good at my job, I know what I'm doing, and before I can sign off on any drawings, I have to pass <em>three</em> PE exams. <em>pbbth</em>.</p>
<p>Goobers, all of ya.</p>
<p>A 3.5 GPA is more than fine for getting into all but the most popular, cutthroat, selective engineering graduate programs, OP. I ended up in structural engineering at UIUC, the top program in the nation in my field, with a full research assistantship under the department head, at the Mid-America Earthquake Center and an open option to pursue a PhD if I wanted to. In fact, I started out as a masters/doctoral student at UIUC and decided I couldn't stand living amid cornfields and soybean plants, so I chose to leave with my MS and went into industry. The situation for us mortals ain't nearly so bad as my colleagues are implying... A 3.5 plus good recs and good GREs is more than adequate for most purposes.</p>
<p>What a lively topic!</p>
<p>I had a q though. Sakky, you mentioned MIT's SM program for EECS but I don't see that offered on their website. MIT has only 1 program: MS/PhD. Do they look at applicants who only want an MS and place them in their own category?</p>
<ul>
<li>phpguru</li>
</ul>
<p>
[quote]
I had a q though. Sakky, you mentioned MIT's SM program for EECS but I don't see that offered on their website. MIT has only 1 program: MS/PhD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You didn't look hard enough.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eecs.mit.edu/grad/degrees.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.eecs.mit.edu/grad/degrees.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Do they look at applicants who only want an MS and place them in their own category?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In general, yes. SM candidates are subject to lower admissions standards than PhD candidates are. I believe this is true at every school.</p>
<p>How much does gender impact MS engineering grad school admissions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That's a touchy topic. I believe it does help, but some disagree. See this thread:</p>
<p>P.S. I do agree with Sakky that 3.5 is sufficient to get into most top MS programs without funding. I had a 3.5 (3.7 major) and got into ECE @ GT with funding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You didn't look hard enough.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eecs.mit.edu/grad/degrees.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.eecs.mit.edu/grad/degrees.html</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I did see that. But check this out:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eecs.mit.edu/grad/faqs.html#7%5B/url%5D">http://www.eecs.mit.edu/grad/faqs.html#7</a></p>
<p>That's what confused me.</p>
<p>Allright, well, let me explicate. Basically, all EECS PhD students who don't already have a master's degree are basically "conditionally" admitted via the master's degree program. If they do well, and particularly, if they do well on their quals, they will be advanced to doctoral candidacy. If not, then not, and they will be shunted into getting an SM. Plenty of students have no desire to get a PhD and are there only to get the SM. </p>
<p>Funding also makes a difference. Stronger candidates will be offered funding. Less strong candidates will not be offered funding. Even weaker candidates will not be admitted at all.</p>
<p>Nope, undergrad Stanford EE grading is <em>not</em> as generous as graduate EE grading. Typically, about 25-30% of the undergrads get As as compared to 40% for graduate students. Of course, the grad students are smarter than the undergrad EEs but that is another story all together.</p>
<p>My top candidates for EE Masters are: Standford, Berkeley and GT
do you think that a 3.70, 3 internships, and an average gre will get me into any of those three with funding?
If not, what other colleges do you think are good alternatives?</p>
<p>cnation's question sparked one of my own:</p>
<p>Do internships help with grad school admissions at all?</p>
<p>I can't say for sure, but I'd say probably yes, especially if you're going the non-thesis masters route.</p>
<p>I was told undergraduate research is more important than internship which are only good for getting a job after getting your bachelor.</p>
<p>The reason I said yes is that I got into all 6 graduate schools that I applied to with zero research experience, but had a lot of internship experiences.</p>
<p>Hey,
Can anyone tell me if I have a chance of being accepted to any of the following schools for a PhD? Purdue, GTech, MIT, Stanford, UCLA, UMich? I have the following GPAs: BS: 2.85 / MS 3.54, and 5 years of work experience (NASA/Lockheed Martin). I'll be publishing a paper at an international conference and another at a national AIAA conference. I was thinking of pursing a 2nd MS since I messed up in my first 2 years of undergrad. Would a MS in Applied Physics from JHU through APL help?</p>
<p>I have a very fair GPA. I am doing undergraduate prog. in civil engineering. Ijust want to know that can i apply to masters prog in structural engg in mit or caltech or anyother leading institute in ths world ??? IS GPA REQUIRED FOR MASTERS PROG???</p>