<p>Hi guys, I would like to know how would the differences be distinguished by the adcoms when they glimpse over the thousands of applicants who are applying to graduate schools. There will be people coming from schools like Harvard and Duke, Boston University and NYU, and people from State Universities.</p>
<p>Given the fact that Harvard and Duke > BU and NYU > State Universities.</p>
<p>But let's just say that a Harvard and Duke kid has a 3.3 GPA. BU and NYU kids have a 3.6. State University kids have a 3.8 when applying to graduate programs also.</p>
<p>Wouldn't the kids at Harvard and Duke look more impressive with a 3.3 than someone from BU or NYU with a 3.6 or State Kids with a 3.8 given that Harvard and Duke undergraduate curriculums were more intense than the other rest?</p>
<p>Anyone glad to tell me how would the adcoms value this?</p>
<p>It depends on the major and what the school is known for. Some state schools are better than Harvard, Yale, etc. Lower ranked schools aren’t necessarily easier. You should look up the ranking criteria they use. </p>
<p>The smarter students choose schools that fit them individually. They use criteria like location, programs, professors, community, cost to select the right school. </p>
<p>Graduate schools know that and choose accordingly. They want thinkers, not US News followers.</p>
<p>GPA isn’t that important – it’s more of a red flag/green flag than an absolute number grad schools use to decide whom to admit.</p>
<p>So the student from the more difficult school will most likely be given a pass for the 3.3 GPA, while a student from a less-difficult school would not. But the GPA is not the deciding factor – the other application components, such as research experience, recommendation letters, and fit with the graduate program’s research, are far more important.</p>
<p>MollieBatMIT, are recommendation letters extremely important? A Yale alum and former professor told me that it plays a large role in my graduate school admission process. Another former Yale professor told me the same thing, and an MIT grad said something along those lines. I’m starting to think that the whole “who you know” factor takes a large chunk out of the admissions pie. </p>
<p>I assume you have a load of experience with the subject. I’m sorry for asking if this was asked a million times before.</p>
<p>Oh, they’re very important. It’s critical to get letters that say you’re a promising thinker in your field, and letters from important, well-respected people in your field saying they think highly of you are exceedingly useful.</p>
<p>MollieBatMIT, do I need to have done research under th professors that recommend me? The professors I’ve mentioned, amongst others, have offered to write me recommendations. However, I haven’t done research under most of the professors who kindly made these offers. Alongside that, most of them have done their research in physics, whereas I’m an EE major. Are there any major problems you see here as far as me accepting these recommendations?</p>
<p>What’s the point of applying to graduate schools anyways if others are coming from stellar schools like Harvard and Duke with a 3.3? Obviously, those kind of kids would have the upper advantage than someone from less stellar schools.</p>
<p>If you are from a “good” school, then you will have a better chance at admissions on the whole. The reasons are:</p>
<p>-More likely to work for a well-known professor
-The difficulty in entering said program is a testament to ability</p>
<p>That’s it. If you work for a well-known professor at a “bad” university, then the advantage between good and bad is nearly gone. At that point, have a decent GPA and you’re good to go.</p>
<p>^Also, from a good school, you have to work harder AND be consistent in your hard work for 4 years.</p>
<p>Say, at State School X, you do 3 hours of work a day on average for 4 years.
At Top School Y, you do 5 hours of work a day on average for 4 years.</p>
<p>It will be a lot harder to be consistent at Y than X, don’t you think?</p>
<p>another question I hope to ask in addition to the thread initiator. How “well-known” should a professor be to be considered well-known in a field? Like he or she has to win fields medal or what?</p>
<p>I honestly would think that Top School Y looks better because 5 hours a day in 4 years is intense compared to little hours of work at a State University.</p>
<p>But here, I’m talking about the GPA because low GPA at top schools is better than a high GPA at lower schools. So it’s what concerns me.</p>
<p>For undergrad, certain top schools have a reputation for being difficult (Caltech, MIT, probably others), while other top schools don’t. However, the support system at all of these top schools is much better than at good state universities. The gist of it is that someone with a 3.8 at a state school had to work hard to do that well, and they did it on their own merits, while a 3.8 at a top Ivy or something had a lot more support available to them. Besides support networks, grade inflation is another issue that comes up when you compare top private schools and state schools, and that comparison is not flattering to the top private schools.</p>
<p>I don’t want to diminish getting good grades at good schools. But I think going to a place like Harvard is hugely beneficial because of the extra things it brings, not because grad schools will think a 3.3 from Harvard = 3.8 from Good State University. Top schools have top labs to get involved in, they have fantastic opportunities for internships, etc. If anything, that’s why someone with a lower GPA from a top school can compete with people with high GPAs from slightly lower-ranked schools.</p>