<p>I am hanker after MIT.
I applied two times for undergraduate admission in MIT but failed because my score in English section is very very bad.
I all these efforts (preparing for SATI ) my GPA is dropped badly in first semester.
Now I m doing work very hard in second semester.
Please tell me what should be my target to get into MIT.
How I can get admission for Master programe in Electronics engineering.
What should be my GPA?
Does 1.4 GPA of first semester matter if I got very nice GPA in latter semester?
Plaese guide me
thanks</p>
<p>The MIT EECS masters program is quite competitive -- in 2003, 217 people were admitted out of 2800 applicants, and I don't think the admission percentages have changed much in the intervening years.</p>
<p>There's probably not a hard-and-fast GPA cutoff, but you should aim to do your absolute best through all of college to be considered for admission.</p>
<p>molliebatmit, do you have a link to those stats?</p>
<p>Sorry, I should have written that earlier. The 2003 numbers are from this</a> story in the Tech.</p>
<p>I thought I remembered seeing a number last year -- that 2100 students applied for 100 spots, i.e. that ~150-200 students were admitted from 2100 applications -- but I can't find the source of that number, so I feel the Tech numbers are at least marginally more reliable.</p>
<p>Wow, I always thought that grad admissions was easier than undergraduate. Scary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry, I should have written that earlier. The 2003 numbers are from this story in the Tech.</p>
<p>I thought I remembered seeing a number last year -- that 2100 students applied for 100 spots, i.e. that ~150-200 students were admitted from 2100 applications -- but I can't find the source of that number, so I feel the Tech numbers are at least marginally more reliable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems to me that those Tech figures cited are for all graduate-level admissions, not masters degree admissions specifically. That is, unless I'm missing something. </p>
<p>I think there is also something to be said for the timing of the article. Let's keep in mind that in 2003, the tech industry, and especially the computer industry, was in an economic deep-freeze, as thousands of computer and IT people were recently laid off by the dotcom boom. Given those economic circumstances, I would not be surprised to find that a lot of people wanted to go to grad school, as grad school is a common method to wait out bad economic times. Can't get a good job? Might as well go to grad school. </p>
<p>This is further reinforced by salary figures between 2002 and 2003. Notice how the salaries for EECS bachelors degree grads for both Berkeley and MIT actually * declined * from 2002 to 2003. If figures from both these schools declined, then EECS salaries nationwide probably declined, as evidence of a bad economic time for EECS, and I am sure that a lot of people decided they'd rather camp out in grad school. </p>
<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation03.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation03.pdf</a>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation02.ppt%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation02.ppt</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm</a></p>
<p>well!
thank you !
What i must have to maximize my chances other than GPA?</p>
<p>sakky, I think MIT EECS doesn't make any difference between admitting students to Master's or PhD programme.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, I think MIT EECS doesn't make any difference between admitting students to Master's or PhD programme.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, it's not me who brought up the notion that such a difference existed. I was just going with the flow of the conversation. If you object to it, you should take it up with the people who first brought it up.</p>
<p>
It seems to me that those Tech figures cited are for all graduate-level admissions, not masters degree admissions specifically. That is, unless I'm missing something.
I was referring to this. All I'm saying is that there is no difference between graduate-level admissions and master degree admissions.</p>
<p>Well, at any rate, the number I recall from last year was 2100 applicants, which is only marginally less troubling, admit rate-wise, than 2800 applicants (~7% vs. ~10%).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was referring to this. All I'm saying is that there is no difference between graduate-level admissions and master degree admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I'm saying that I was not the one who first started talking about EECS master's degree level admissions specificially. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, at any rate, the number I recall from last year was 2100 applicants, which is only marginally less troubling, admit rate-wise, than 2800 applicants (~7% vs. ~10%).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, see, it's the 2006 figure that I want to have the data for.</p>
<p>I also didn't want to raise this point before, but I'll do it now. Those external admissions figures are, I think, somewhat misleading because they don't count the * internal * admissions - namely, those people who are already part of another graduate program at MIT and either decide to pick up an additional master's degree in another program (in EECS or something else) or just decide to switch graduate programs entirely. I seem to recall that Peregrine "Pepper" White, the author of the autobiographical expose 'The Idea Factory', did exactly that. He was admitted into the Technology and Policy Program (TPP) as a master's student. But he never actually got his TPP master's. Infinite Connection shows that he ended up getting his master's in Mechanical Engineering. </p>
<p>{The book chronicles the troubling he had as a MIT graduate student, and he ended up failing his PhD qualification exams (in mechanical engineering). Personally, I suspect that the main reason why he found it so heinously difficult was that he decided not to complete the master's degree program that brought him into MIT, but rather decided to complete an entirely different master's degree. I'm sure that he was well-suited for TPP, but perhaps not so for mechanical engineering. But he did manage to complete that master's in ME.}</p>
<p>Plenty of people don't switch programs outright the way that White did, but rather decide to get an additional master's. In fact, dual-master's are not uncommon at MIT. I know a number of current TPP students who are picking up a 'side' master's in one of the engineering disciplines. The Engineering Systems Division master's program also has a number of dual-students. The Systems Design and Management Program (SDM) also has some. I know a guy who got dual master's in SDM and in Aero/Astro. </p>
<p><a href="http://tppserver.mit.edu/img/hand-outs-06/DUAL-DEGREE-handout06.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://tppserver.mit.edu/img/hand-outs-06/DUAL-DEGREE-handout06.pdf</a>
<a href="http://esd.mit.edu/academic/ms_faqs.html#simultaneously%5B/url%5D">http://esd.mit.edu/academic/ms_faqs.html#simultaneously</a></p>
<p>To complete these dual master's programs, you have to successfully complete an internal application to that 2nd program. I don't know what the stats are for that, but I strongly suspect it is easier to get in to a program through the internal method than the 'normal' external way, although I would love to see stats for it. Of all of the dual guys that I know (and I know a lot), practically all of them believe that they would probably not have gotten admitted to their 2nd program if they had tried to apply to it the normal way. </p>
<p>But in answer to the OP's question, of how to get admission to the master's degree program in EE, one way to do it is to get admitted to some other MIT graduate program and then switch over or get a dual degree.</p>
<p>There's also the issue of interdisciplinary work -- there are some professors who do work that spans departments, so you could be admitted to a department with easier admissions standards, but complete your degree with a high-profile professor who's technically in another department.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's also the issue of interdisciplinary work -- there are some professors who do work that spans departments, so you could be admitted to a department with easier admissions standards, but complete your degree with a high-profile professor who's technically in another department.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>... or even in the same department. Some profs hold multiple appointments, so all you have to do is get formally admitted into one of the departments of which a guy who holds a joint appointment is affiliated. </p>
<p>I'll give you an example from Berkeley. I know a girl who got her BS in chemical engineering from Berkeley, doing research under Jay Keasling, arguably the pre-eminent biochemical engineering researcher in the world today (was named Discover Magazine's Scientist of the Year 2006). Berkeley ChemE has an anti-incest rule that forbids former undergrads from entering their PhD program. {Note, this rule is not unusual - lots of departments at lots of schools have similar rules. The idea is that the department doesn't want its students to become 'ingrown' and stagnancy, so they want them to go out and become exposed to different profs and different ideas.} So she couldn't apply back to the ChemE department. </p>
<p>So what did she do? She just applied to the Berkeley Bioengineering department, a department that Keasling holds a joint appointment in. She got in, and ended up going right back to the Keasling lab, and going right back to extending the research that she had been doing as an undergrad. So she was basically able to sidestep the anti-incest rule by 'technically' getting her PhD from another department, when, really, she ended up right back in the same lab, under the same prof, and doing the same research that she had always been doing. The whole point of an anti-incest rule in the first place is to prevent 'ingrowth' and stagnancy by forcing you to see new things, yet this girl went right back to doing exactly the same thing she had always been doing. A lot of people were asking why should the department even have an anti-incest rule if she is allowed to pull off something like that.</p>
<p>EECS students are considered for the masters and/or phd programs together</p>
<p>
[quote]
EECS students are considered for the masters and/or phd programs together
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only if they apply through the 'normal' external application process. If you get into the EECS graduate program as part of a 'second' master's degree program via internal transfer, you are not considered for the PhD program. Trust me, I know. </p>
<p>For example, take the LFM students (the Sloan MBA + Master of Science engineering students). If those LFM students choose EECS as their engineering option, they're just allowed to get the master's in EECS. They are not allowed to automatically continue onto the PhD in EECS after they finish LFM. If they want that, they have to apply as normal.</p>
<p>So you're saying that it probably better to apply for something else than EECS and later switch (or make a double major)? That sounds complicated...</p>
<p>I'm not recommending it. I am saying that it is a path that people have used before, almost as a 'backdoor' method. Again, to use LFM as an example, most LFM'ers will concede that they are not as good as the 'real' engineering grad students at MIT. But they get a master's degree in engineering anyway. </p>
<p>You asked for options, so I'm telling you the options. I am not recommending any of the options. I am just telling you what they are.</p>
<p>The TPP student handbook says that the TPP program is one of the more "social" programs at MIT. Any comments on what that means?</p>
<p>I went through the TPP program over 20 years ago when it just started. At that time the program only had about 20-25 students per year. It is about double that size now. What distinguishes TPP is that most students have professional experience. It used to be part of Civil Engineering but is now part of ESD. For all practical purposes it is independent from all other departments as it is the most interdisciplinary engineering program at MIT. In addition to a concentration in an engineering specialty it involves law and economics classes and a lengthy research thesis. It is very international by design and attracts top students from Europe and Asia where it has developed a "cult-like" following in some engineering schools. I found it be very useful as a springboard to business and engineering consulting. It is an intensive program but still affords a lot of flexibility in shaping your own program.</p>