<p>I understand this question has been asked many times so don't chew me out on that but I want to hear more opinions. What exactly is a solid gpa to get into a top grad school for engineering? I'm talking about the likes of Berkeley, Stanford, and MIT. I know gpa isn't everything, but hat exactly do you think the average is? Thanks.</p>
<p>Go ask the admissions committee.</p>
<p>Not really possible to predict that since there are so many other factors. The GPA required to get into top graduate programs is going to be dependent on the rest of your application, such as whether you have research experience and how much and how strong your letter of reference are. This isn’t undergraduate admissions. There is no real way to put out an average number that means anything real.</p>
<p>If you want to know that anyway, I am pretty sure if you pay for the US News Graduate School rankings you can look all that up. It’s only like $20 or something like that.</p>
<p>
There is no answer to this question!! These programs routinely reject applicants with 3.9+ GPA’s and at least occasionally accept applicants with 3.5- GPA’s… in the same year! As boneh3ad noted, it really depends on the strength of the rest of your application - if you have great research and recommendations, you can get in despite a modest GPA, but if your research accomplishments are pretty pedestrian then you had better have near perfect academics.</p>
<p>The only real guideline I can give is from the head undergrad advisor at my alma mater. He said that with a 3.5+ GPA you had a shot at a top-5 program, with a 3.2+ GPA you had a shot at a top-25 program, and with a 2.9+ GPA you had a shot at a grad program somewhere. Those are minimums to have a chance, mind you - most people with those GPA’s will still get rejected from most schools at those levels.</p>
<p>
I can’t think of any grad departments that release this, so it is really anyone’s guess. Is there a reason it matters? If this is important to you, the average will be meaningless anyway!</p>
<p>Why ask that question?..are you planning to apply into those schools? the answer is: you have to have at least GPA 3.5 cumulative and above AND you need to have some kind of research (solid one) or internship. </p>
<p>If yours is hovering around 3.2 then the best you do is forget about it. However, for starter, you can browse the MIT forum…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False statement. There is very rarely a set-in-stone bare minimum. There are people who are admitted with low GPAs and great everything else and there are people admitted with high GPAs and no research experience whatsoever. You can’t make generalizations like this where none exist.</p>
<p>hold on to your horses, so the statement from cosmicfish is also wrong non existence? here is his general statement: </p>
<p>The only real guideline I can give is from the head undergrad advisor at my alma mater. He said that with a 3.5+ GPA you had a shot at a top-5 program, with a 3.2+ GPA you had a shot at a top-25 program, and with a 2.9+ GPA you had a shot at a grad program somewhere. </p>
<p>I bet this statement from ME is good, dont you think so:…However, for starter, you can browse the MIT forum…</p>
<p>Statement: There is very rarely a set-in-stone bare minimum.</p>
<p>Question: unless you are part of grad. admissions commitee the you will not be able to quantify nor certify that statement.</p>
<p>Of course, MIT, stanford, etc have a set of requirements but they just dont want to say it in public?..I have no idea. But, how come they dont have any guidelines? what is the base they are using for admissions into grad. school?</p>
<p>IF you say that they are people with low GPA but have great everything else to be admitted THEN that is their guidelines…dont you think so?..</p>
<p>Knowing people on various admissions committees like I do, I can say without a doubt that there is rarely any official minimum. Graduate school admissions are highly case-by-case and ultimately, even at the MITs and Caltechs of the world, the professor trumps all. Dr. Charlie Coolresearcher at MIT could often tell the admissions guys that he wants Johnny Poorgpa on his research staff and most of the time he will get his way as long as Mr. Poorgpa isn’t embarrassingly below substandard. There is obviously some limit to this but it generally holds, which is why it is so difficult to give chances for graduate school. I’m sure various schools have unofficial cutoffs for the various stats, but they never discount the possibility of exceptions. They are typically soft cuttoffs.</p>
<p>
You missed the earlier part of the same statement:</p>
<p>“These programs routinely reject applicants with 3.9+ GPA’s and at least occasionally accept applicants with 3.5- GPA’s”</p>
<p>boneh3ad is largely correct in my opinion - most of the top schools do not really use a specific cut-off. Now, that does not change the fact that very few get in to the top tier with sub-3.5 GPA’s, and the vast majority of those who do have something else exceptional in their favor. But professors are so dominant in the admissions process that I would not consider it impossible for a generally mediocre student to gain admission IF the professor was really going to bat for them.</p>
<p>My advice on the 3.5 is simply because most students who have a <3.5 GPA will already know if they have that special something (amazing research, pubs, patents, connections, whatever) that will give them a real chance.</p>
<p>
They don’t have any guidelines because (a) every professor has different priorities and (b) none of the factors available to them provide anything close to a complete picture on someone’s performance in grad school. This is a hiring process, and it is holistic.</p>
<p>Some professors want the best student who is Chinese, others the student with the best major GPA, others someone with the best GPA/GRE combo regardless of anything else (generally because they lack funding and need someone competitive for a fellowship).<br>
While there is often an initial cutdown of the applicant pool based on GPA and GRE, professors can and do consider applications rejected in that cutdown, either before (“I know this guy doesn’t have the best GPA, but I really like his research!”) or afterwards (“None of these guys fit what I want, I’m gonna shuffle through the rejects.”).</p>
<p>^ I cannot believe race plays a card in grad admissions. (I can say this cos I’m Asian. lol). So an Indian prof might want more of his Indian cronies, and a Chinese prof might want to keep his lab mainly Chinese?</p>
<p>also, are you accepted into a grad program based on only one prof selecting/accepting you? Do you then have to work for that prof who picked you?</p>
<p>What about Masters’ admissions, for a courses-only option?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a lot of professors from X country having a large majority of their students being from that same country.</p>
<p>
Actually, this is personal experience. I know of a Chinese professor who ONLY takes Chinese grad students. The only exception was the caucasian student with external funding whom he took on when the department said he needed to take on at least one non-Chinese student. That student was with a different advisor a year later, leaving him with a dozen Chinese grad students. Again.</p>
<p>Not saying this is typical or even common, but professors have tremendous leeway in picking their grad students.</p>
<p>
Funding plays a large part in admissions. If you get funding from a professor, leaving requires finding new funding, which can be an uphill battle. If you are accepted with internal funding then leaving is simple.</p>
<p>
Coursework-only degrees do not usually have the same advisor and funding structure, and are more like undergrad admissions (minus the extracurriculars and such).</p>
<p>If you want a M.S. degree to be the “check off the list” attribute to get higher salaries, promotions and such, then the coursework-only option may be better. Plus on top of that, since there is no funding, the GPA requirement is lower…depending on the school.</p>
<p>Me personally, I did the “sneak in the back door approach” where I took 3 graduate courses as a non-degree graduate student and aced them. Sometimes the graduate engineering course is not that hard…especially when you have more work experience in the field than your professor.</p>
<p>If you aced 3 courses out of a 10-course M.S. program, it will be hard for most schools to deny admission. You have just aced 1/3 of the program. Add in your employer tuition reimbursement hitting student receivables and an admission letter will come.</p>
<p>Remember…college IS a business.</p>
<p>Note: Probably only the Top-10 schools won’t allow this.</p>
<p>You should check out whether it pays to get a Masters degree in your engineering field. Most typical engineering jobs do not pay more for a Masters. Employers want to see you get your P.E.</p>
<p>I understand that research is just as important as GPA, I was just thinking that there was maybe a cutoff where when they see your gpa they just forget about you altogether.</p>
<p>Kvillemom, you couldn’t be more wrong. Most engineering fields by and large don’t care that much about PE licensing except in select niches of the field. Most pay (very) roughly $10k/year more for a MS.</p>
<p>Just try to stay as high above a 3.0, since most schools claim that is their minimum, and do the best you can research-wise. That will give you good opportunities.</p>
<p>I was going to say that here in the Washington DC area, as far as government contracting, the contract companies can bill you at a higher rate just for having a master’s degree. What makes it cool is that the federal government doesn’t even care if the degree is a M.S.-thesis, M.S.-nonthesis or M.Eng.</p>