<p>I have applied to graduate school for an M.S. in Civil Engineering and am now getting really anxious while waiting for their admission decisions. I've been actively looking for jobs, too, just in case I don't get accepted anywhere. Although it's too late now to change anything, could anyone give me some kind of idea of where I stand for getting into these schools so I can decide whether or not I should accelerate my job search? I applied to Drexel, Penn State, NYU Polytechnic, WPI, and Rensselear. I'm currently a 4th year Civil Eng. major at RHIT. Unfortunately I applied with a 3.02 overall gpa, 3.35 major gpa, 440V 650Q GRE, but with good recs. and 3 summers' worth of internship experience. Also if I don't get into any of these schools how hard would it be to reapply next Fall to easier schools?</p>
<p>Cross that bridge when you get there. Lets wait and see if you get into grad school first. If you really want to get your Masters I'd say keep trying until you get in. Determination pays off.</p>
<p>Wait... I thought RHIT grads are almost guaranteed a job BEFORE graduation and have GREAT chances at the top grad schools. Or is this just false advertising?</p>
<p>You guys know that applying for an MS hurts your chances, right? </p>
<p>For research programs, schools prefer to bring in PhD's because they can improve the school's ranking (by placing well in a research university) and generate publishable research. MS's usually just assist with publishable research. </p>
<p>Also, an easy way to an MS is to apply as a PhD then fail the comprehensives. You'll get the benefits (good lab, easier admission, higher stipend, more access to faculty) of a PhD for 2 years then get an MS. But you didn't hear that from me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You guys know that applying for an MS hurts your chances, right?
[/quote]
I assume we're talking about non-thesis programs, which means no research. It's usually much easier to get admitted to these programs because they tend to be cash cows for the school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Either you're kidding, or need to get off your high horse.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Professional degrees only exist to generate money. Master's classes in engineering are glorified undergraduate courses, often with the exact same syllabus. You're basically retaking some of the core classes from the undergraduate program. I should know - I have both a thesis MS and a non-thesis MS and I would have been ****ed if I had to pay for the non-thesis MS. </p>
<p>If you have an undergraduate degree in a field, getting a professional MS in the same field is a complete waste of time as you're recovering topics. If you don't have a BS in that field, then a professional master's degree can be dangerous: you have a basic knowledge of a topic but not in the depth that you would have in an undergraduate program.</p>
<p>You're basically suggesting that grad school classes are a replay of undergrad. That couldn't be further from the truth. Grad classes are damn hard. Most undergrads would **** themselves if they had to take what I and others are taking (I know because I tutor "smart" undergrads in basic courses). There's a developed maturity that is required to excel on a full load of grad courses.</p>
<p>Actually, they're pretty close for a professional degree. Schools repackage the undergrad core courses. Maybe they'll repackage them by combining three undergrad courses into two master's courses, or maybe they'll throw in a more methodology somewhere in a course, but the basic ideas are a rehash. </p>
<p>Doctoral courses and seminars and methodology driven master's classes (usually the non-core courses) are typically different.</p>
<p>Many people untertake a Phd, but I am curious about how many of them end up with a university position? There can't be that many available. Do those who can't make it in academia work in industry?</p>
<p>It depends on the field and school. In a field like Mechanical Engineering, placement for PhD's from a Top 15 program is about 33% in research universities. In a field like Industrial Engineering (with less universities available), it's less than 25% from the #1 school.</p>
<p>PhD's that don't place (or don't want to place) in a post-doc / in a research university have several options. Some go to teaching universities and just teach undergrads / MS students. Some go to industry and usually work in R&D labs. Some go to consulting. </p>
<p>That's specific to engineering, though. In Economics, nearly everyone goes into industry because there are many more students than positions. In fact, they have a very complicated job interview process for new graduates because there are just too many for a hiring university to deal with. In a field like Business, schools allow in 1 to 2 PhD students per year to a program to keep supply low. As a result, academic appointments are close to 100% from good schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, they're pretty close for a professional degree. Schools repackage the undergrad core courses. Maybe they'll repackage them by combining three undergrad courses into two master's courses, or maybe they'll throw in a more methodology somewhere in a course, but the basic ideas are a rehash.
[/quote]
This wasn't the case for my program and wasn't the case for the other programs that I looked at. None of my MS courses were covered in my undergrad curriculum. Some were open to undergrad, while some were open to grad students only. I really don't see the difference that you're trying to point out since the PhD students were taking the same courses as MS students... The only difference really was the thesis, which is not the best route for everybody, especially for those like me who had no interest in research. I just wanted to expand my knowledge in a specific area within my major which I didn't have time to do in undergrad.</p>
<p>Obviously I'm not experienced with every college in the country, but I've attended four universities for five degrees and teach at another. In every program I've ever seen, it works like this: undergraduates take a course like Thermodynamics. Then the master's level teaches a similar course called Advanced Thermodynamics, which is basically the same thing with some nominal additional complexity. The students take five to seven of those courses, then choose three to five additional courses from a broad list.</p>
<p>Just to prove the point, I just googled a random school that I've never attended and know little to nothing about:</p>
<p>The non-thesis degrees (there are two) for MS ChE at Texas A&M have just four required courses:</p>
<p>CHEN604: Chemical Process Analysis
CHEN623: Thermodynamics for Chemical Engineers
CHEN624: Kinetics and Reactor Design
CHEN629: Advanced Transport Phenomenon</p>
<p>Then you take 6 more classes of electives. Three from chemical engineering and three from any other graduate school.</p>
<p>Now, let's compare that to TAMU's undergradute requirements:</p>
<p>CHEN320: Chemical Process Analysis
CHEN205: Thermodynamics for Chemical Engineers + CHEN 354 Thermo II
CHEN464: Kinetics and Reactor Design
CHEN424: Mass Transport</p>
<p>See how that works? I literally just guessed at a school. If you want to pick one yourself, we can have a look.</p>
<p>There are several reasons you might see doctoral students in one of those classes. First, if the doctoral student doesn't have a degree in that field (which is actually pretty common), he might be required to take those classes to catch up with the undergraduate material. If the class is particularly applied, doctoral students without work experience will often take it. If the class is being taught by a student's advisor, usually the student will register. If the class is one of the more difficult electives, doctoral students will frequently register. If the doctoral student has been out of school for a while, he'll often take master's courses.</p>
<p>I took the following courses for my MS degree (plus some independent study):</p>
<p>Capital Facility Planning & Financing
Prevention & Resolution of Construction Disputes
Construction Industry Law
Managing Engineering & Construction Projects
Design of Construction Systems
Principles of Construction Techniques
Managing Infrastructure Systems
Uncertainty & Risk in Infrastructure Systems</p>
<p>Nothing remotely similar were offered at my undergrad institution with the exception of the last one, which somewhat resembled probability. However, I will say that many of these courses had undergrads in them even though they were considered grad courses. It probably would not be the best idea to do both undergrad and grad at the same institution because course choices will be more limited.</p>
<p>The good thing about the MS program though, was that there wasn't a core curriculum. Nobody was forced to take a course that was similar to something they had already taken.</p>
<p>Yes, it was the construction engineering & management concentration within the civil engineering department. My undergrad didn't offer such a concentration; I actually took mostly geotechnical engineering courses for electives. I can't speak for other majors, but at least in this one, it's very broad, so it's not difficult to take courses that you didn't have in undergrad.</p>