<p>Would this qualifying exam be a nationally standardized exam, or does it differ from school to school? Also, if you went this route, about how much shorter does it make your time in graduate school (as opposed to if you wanted to get your master’s degree first)?</p>
<p>tigerton, Princeton is one of the harder schools to get into from a pure numbers standpoint. I believe they have the 2nd highest GRE scores behind Cal Tech and the acceptance rate is quite low as well, a very solid resume is going to be necessary to get in there.</p>
<p>hadsed…The qualifying exam is entirely dependent on the school. At some schools its not bad, at others its utter torture. Some schools use it as a weed out mechanism, some schools don’t. Some do it based on undergraduate work, others do it on graduate coursework. It all depends on the program. To answer your second question, you can basically re-read what I just wrote. There is no national standard and schools vary a great deal from each other. Even within a given school, there can be tremendous difference between departments at the same school. Some schools require you to go through their masters programs, others may let you come in with a masters and start your PhD research and possibly get out early. You’ll have to look up individual programs that you may be interested in to answer these questions. </p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>you pick up your masters along the way to a phd (when you pass qualifying exams, anywhere from end of 2nd year to middle of 3rd.)
Major reserach schools (that have large phds programs) may not have masters programs. Those kids eat up space in classrooms and (sometimes) lab time that professors would rather spend working with phd students who are going to be around for 4+ more years. that and most master degrees will cost money in tuition, wheras the phd programs in science will pay you (but you’ll probably have to TA)</p></li>
<li><p>most any respectable graduate program will require a 3.0 GPA to look at you. if you dont, the computer will typically trash your file, not a adcom. if you have major connections (aka GREAT letters), thats when they look at you again. The general rule is, once you get pass 3.6ish, the marginal value of a GPA is pretty much null [ie you have a 3.9 and i have a 3.6 means almost nothing if we’re fighting for the same spot]. but aim for the highest gpa you can get.</p></li>
<li><p>dont worry about the gpa. if you’re really interested in the material and hardworking, its actually hard to get below a 3.0.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you figure this? I might see that logic for a lot of schools, but I’m not sure this would be true at the creme de la creme of research universities. Something tells me the Cal Techs of the world wouldn’t view a 3.9 and 3.6 the same</p>
<p>Go look at the average GPAs of those schools, typically you’ll find an average GPA around 3.5-3.6 or even less. This certainly isn’t because they don’t have the capability to fill all their spots with near 4.0 students.</p>
<p>Getting a 4.0 generally comes with lacking performance in other areas. Employers and grad schools tend to look at the entire package, not just grades. If student A and student B have the exact same qualifications, then a GPA difference of 3.6 vs 3.9 might be the deciding factor… But if the 3.6 has research, internships, great letters, community and school involvement while the 3.9 only has research and a good letter of rec - it likely will go to the 3.6…</p>
<p>Just because the avg GPA is around a 3.5-3.6 doesn’t mean schools won’t look favorably at a student with a near 4.0 as oppose to a 3.6, and frankly, I highly doubt many schools could in fact fill all of their spots with near 4.0 students. Outside of the highly selective schools like Cal Tech and Princeton, I just don’t see this as being possible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are assuming an awful lot in making this statement. I see no reason to assume that getting a 4.0 generally comes with lacking performance in other areas. Sure it might come from hard work that takes up all of a persons time, but it might come from raw intelligence and ability. It can be equally valid to say this about a 3.6 student over a 3.3 student as well, we all have our own limitations.</p>
<p>Sure a student with a 3.6 and a stellar application might get into a program over a 3.9 and no app to speak of, but this is really just a contrived situation that you conjured up to support your argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s differs from department to department. Sometimes it’s written, sometimes it’s oral, sometimes both.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you met a whole lot of 4.0 students? As a very general statement, I can say that most people with very high GPAs tend to value grades above almost everything else. This includes a social life, relaxation, other interests, etc. At a certain point it becomes a value of self worth, not just proof that you understand a subject. </p>
<p>Of course we all have our own limits - mine is right around a 3.3. Anything above that and I become miserable because all I do is work - and I work enough just to get the grades I do. I know a few people who are able to go out and have fun five nights a week and still manage to pull near 4.0s - but these are abnormalities. The majority of the people I know with very high GPAs don’t ever go out, are working on final projects one month into the semester, and are generally not people I would like to be around.</p>
<p>The programs that you talk about; Caltech, Princeton, etc… have grad programs of about 500 people total. They’re the best schools in the country and every good student in the country applying to grad school, applies there. I’m positive that they could easily fill up their slots with 3.8+ GPA students, but they don’t. Whatever the reason, the averages speak for themselves and they’re usually not above 3.6…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re talking about grad school admissions here, not a popularity contest. I still see no credence to the argument that a 3.6 gpa and a 3.9 gpa are equivalent in a grad schools eyes. You make it sound like starting projects early is a bad thing when it comes to learning the material and doing well with your school work, which the last time I checked is whats important for grad school admissions.</p>
<p>I agree with viennariver, I don’t think that people with a 4.0 are necessarily socially backwards or never relax. Some peole are just naturally intelligent. I knew of a few classmates that never really had to study much but had practically a 4.0. I realize that these people are exceptions but your assesment is a big generalization. To get really good grades you do not have to spend 15 hours every day in the library, even in engineering. You will have to work hard but most importantly you must be efficient when you study and manage your time wisely. If someone gets in to a routine of good study habits, you will have time on most Friday and Saturday nights to have fun.</p>
<p>Honestly, I am going to side mostly with purduefrank here. Grad school applications are about more than just GPA, and someone with a higher GPA but not a lot else going for them on their app is going to be at a disadvantage compared to someone with a lower (yet still respectable) GPA that has a strong app on all fronts.</p>
<p>That isn’t to say that a 2.8 is going to get in over a 4.0, but I think frank’s 3.6 vs 3.9 analogy is quite accurate in my experience. I know a ton of people around here (and elsewhere) that had middle of the road GPA’s but a lot of strength in the rest of their apps and got in just fine.</p>
<p>Still, I personally think that most of the time, in frank’s example, both of those students get admitted. To be honest, though, I think that 3.6 has the edge when it comes to funding though since, in the example, the 3.6 had previous research experience and professor recommendations, so it gives a hiring professor more to look at than a number.</p>
<p>Still, the whole argument is somewhat moot. If you have a 4.0, you are going to find a good grad school somewhere that will admit you even if you have no other credentials. It won’t be MIT, but you won’t get stuck at East BFE State U or something.</p>
<p>Also, vienna, in some respects, grad school apps ARE a popularity contest. They can get a lot more subjective than some people want to imagine. A good letter of rec from a renowned professor can get you into a school that you otherwise would have never had a shot at getting into. Conversely, if someone on the adcom doesn’t like that particular renowned professor, it could hurt your chances. Some aspects of it are entirely a political game.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fundamental assumption in my argument is that Princeton, Caltech, Stanford, MIT, etc., literally have about a hundred apps for each slot available. And just about every person who applies to MIT, also applies to Caltech, Stanford, etc. The people who go through all of the work to apply are self selective in the first place, meaning that these programs don’t get a lot of apps from low GPA students. Certainly, most of the people I know with near 4.0s plan on going to grad school – and these are the schools they’ll apply to. Thus, my point is that I don’t think it’s only the best students at Purdue that want to go to Caltech and MIT, I think the best students from every undergrad program in the country apply to roughly the same five-ten schools – all of them vying for a very limited number of spots. There are roughly 2-3000 ABET accredited engineering programs in the country, each with varying numbers of 4.0 students. Even if you say there’s only 50 4.0 students/school on average – and only 50% of them decide to go to grad school, and only 20% of them apply to the schools in question – you’re still left with 10,000 4.0 GPA students applying for 10,000 or less slots. So, my main point is that I think it’s relatively easy to assume these schools could select almost all 4.0 students if they wanted to :: the number 50 is extremely conservative, and the vast majority of 4.0 students that I’ve met have/will go to grad school. Now, if these numbers are even in the general vicinity of the actual numbers then I have to ask myself why aren’t the average GPAs at these schools closer to a 4.0? </p>
<p>As far as it being a popularity contest, that was never even close to my point. There’s a vast number of examples where marginal benefit above a certain point dramatically decreases. A 3.6 shows that you know your stuff, have intellectual ability, etc., I don’t think the marginal benefit of having a 3.9 is going to be much at all. Meaning, once you hit this point, your time is far better spent building other parts of your application.</p>
<p>Are student clubs and social …stuff that important to your graduate school application? Say I had a good number of research/internships and an averagely good GPA, would a lack of social activity matter?</p>
<p>Also, I was under the impression that you spent all of your time doing research and working on your thesis (I will admit, I’m not quite sure what that even entails). Perhaps that’s why I was confused with the skipping MS and going straight to PhD, but how many classes are you required to take as a PhD student?</p>
<p>Most of your questions are answered in the Grad 101 thread at the top of the Graduate Studies forum, but I’ll do a quick rundown for you.</p>
<p>Outside clubs don’t matter unless they’re related to your major/research/work.</p>
<p>Often times you pick up a MS on your way to a PhD. For example, in my program at my school all I had to do was fill out two pages of paperwork after finishing the classes required for my PhD. In other departments you need to write a separate MS thesis, so people may elect to skip getting it.</p>
<p>And as for how many classes you take, it’s all up to your department, school, and adviser. In my department we have to take 15 classes. In the Chemistry department I think they only have to take 3.</p>
<p>For us, we have to take something like 32 hours for an M.S. and like 18 of those or so have to come from actual classes, the rest can come from research credits and seminar credit. It is an additional 32 hours on top of that to get a Ph.D., but there are no required classes, so that can all come from research or whatever. What that translates to is that outside of a few required classes for passing quals, it is up to your individual advisor how much of that credit comes from additional classes. Most schools you have to file a degree plan fairly early in your graduate program that serves as a road map for what to take to get your degree, and that is something that you work out with your advisor 1 on 1. I BELIEVE that is fairly typical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. GPA is one of about 5 heavily weighted items to a grad application, its about the entire package, I never claimed otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d also agree that frank’s analogy is accurate as well, it was contrived to support his argument.</p>
<p>My problem, as ME 76 pointed out, is that a sweeping generalization has been made that you are somehow more likely to have a well rounded application if you have a 3.6 as oppose to a 3.9, I see no credence to this argument whatsoever. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. But people shoot for MIT all the time, and Stanford and Cal Tech and Princeton and so on and so forth, and if you want to have the best shot at gaining admissions and funding to these schools why not have a great GPA and a great application, the two are not mutually exclusive. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, lets look at the numbers. Princeton gets about 2000 applications for engineering and accepts ~20%, CalTech gets about 2000 and accepts ~10%, Stanford gets about 5500 apps and accepts ~33% and MIT gets 6500 apps and accepts ~25%</p>
<p>So out of these schools, the most difficult to get into, Cal Tech has literally 10 apps per acceptance slot available. Stanford has as high as about 3 apps per spot. If you want to include yield rate this will drop a little, but nowhere near one hundred apps per slot. </p>
<p>But lets keep running with the numbers some more…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As of 2008 there were 2992 ABET accredited engineering programs</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Stats/08-AR%20Stats.pdf[/url]”>http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Stats/08-AR%20Stats.pdf</a></p>
<p>The total undergraduate enrollment at these schools was approximately 350,000</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Presentations/AM08/Chubin.pdf[/url]”>http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Presentations/AM08/Chubin.pdf</a></p>
<p>So if we make you’re assumption of 50 4.0 students/school is correct, conservative in fact, then thats means there are ~150,000 4.0 students in engineering. Or roughly 40% of all engineering students at ABET accredited schools have a perfect GPA.</p>
<p>I think your fundamental assumptions are wrong. </p>
<p>I would only be speculating to guess the actual number of 4.0s or the number of those students that actually apply to graduate school. So to question why average GPAs aren’t higher is kind of difficult without statistics because your assumptions aren’t even remotely close to “in the general vicinity” if you are saying 40% of engineering students have perfect grades. </p>
<p>And throughout all this discussion, you’ve only been considering domestic applicants, but something like 50% of applications are international at Princeton alone. So realistically how can we answer how many 4.0s apply without making some pretty big assumptions and conjectures?</p>
<p><a href=“http://gso.princeton.edu/about/docs/admission/admission_stats.pdf[/url]”>http://gso.princeton.edu/about/docs/admission/admission_stats.pdf</a> </p>
<p>I think Cal Tech and Princeton might be somewhat unique because they are smaller, more selective programs, but I have yet to find GPA stats on them, I’d be interested to see them if anyone has them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point throughout all of this is that all things being equal there is going to be a difference in acceptance rate between a 3.6 and a 3.9 application. I don’t think having a solid resume and a 3.9 are mutually exclusive. I’d rather have my cake and eat it too when it comes to graduate applications. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that if you’ve got a 3.6 and a good app to boot then you’ll do more than fine in the admissions process, I’ve never stated otherwise. But if you can pull a 3.9 in your coursework and rock some summer research/internships so that you have an equally good app as the 3.6, you’re chances to get fellowships at the top schools and through government programs are substantially increased. I’d encourage anyone to try to nail the 3.9 during the academic year and use the summers for research as a way to boost their graduate app. But enjoy college, it is possible to do it all, as ME 76 said, you’ve just got to work efficiently.</p>
<p>“Conversely, if someone on the adcom doesn’t like that particular renowned professor, it could hurt your chances. Some aspects of it are entirely a political game.”</p>
<p>Actually, it’d be a breach of ethics to reject an otherwise qualified candidate because you don’t like the person who write a reference letter. </p>
<p>If this happened to me, I would take my case to the university ethics board.</p>
<p>It could be a breach of ethics, but it happens. It is a political game. I know of several professors who my advisor does not like around the country and I would imagine that if someone had a letter from one, it wouldn’t mean much to my advisor. Would he not take them on solely on those grounds? Probably not, but an otherwise stellar LoR could be nullified.</p>
<p>“Even if you say there’s only 50 4.0 students/school on average”</p>
<p>Someone’s already pointed out how hard your numbers fail… But 50… really dude? Have you met 50 graduating seniors with 4.0s? Have you met 50 people with 4.0s? Have you met 10 people with 4.0s?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why rejection letters don’t give a reason.</p>