<p>Hello, i've been wondering, can anyone give me a rough estimate as to how much weight (in percentage) graduate schools give to certain criteria when deciding who is admitted and who is not? is it something along the lines of 25% gpa, 25% GRE, 25% research, and 25% real world experience? if not please correct me,or am i leaving any major categories out? thank you in advance.</p>
<p>oh i forgot, this is for engineering graduate schools.</p>
<p>It depends on the school I would presume, and really only an someone who has sat on an adcom can say so I welcome them to chime in. However, the general consensus seems to be (for engineering schools) that the order goes something like this: Publications/research>GPA>SOP and LORs>GRE. Honestly I would guess different schools look at credentials differently but overall it seems publications matter most, and the GRE is just a checkbox, everything else is in between. Unfortunately, real world experience I think is not that applicable unless you’re applying more then a few years after your UG or the experience is literally industrial research R&D. Note this is for PhD, masters programs have different weightings, I am sure, but I haven’t done a whole lot of research on them so I can’t say.</p>
<p>Graduation admissions is much more subjective than grading a test, which means that there are no percentages to weigh each component. You might have a glowing LOR written by someone who has the respect of one or more of the admission committee members. Or you might have experience in a research area that has just been funded in the department. Or you might come from a university that the adcom has found prepares students well for the program. The preceding and the like are tipping points – that is, given all the well-qualified applicants, they may decide who is offered admission.</p>
<p>As Paradx says, research experience is paramount, but even in that category, you cannot quantify it. Someone who has one year of experience may be admitted over someone who has four. Someone who has no publications may be admitted over someone who has one or two. The whole package, and how each part supports the others, is what counts.</p>
<p>Usually, the most important components are research, letters of recommendation, and preparation/grades, although research fit, as outlined in the SOP, can be the deciding factor.</p>
<p>i figured something like that would be the case. thank you to both of you. i guess my main concern is: would i be able to get into a top 10-20 engineering program with a low gpa (3.0-3.3) but a large amount of research experience. if i continue my current path, i’ll have 4 or 4.5 years of research experience by the time i graduate, and i’m wondering if it will outweigh a lower gpa. but i was unaware that admission criteria for masters and doctoral programs was that different. if someone could shine some light on masters admissions, i would appreciate it.</p>
<p>I asked adcom for biochemistry major:</p>
<p>30% GPA and GRE
60% Research/publications and Letters of Rec (SoP is included in research)
10% Interviews</p>
<p>
Probably not, unless your experience was exceptional. Most of those programs will be expecting a 3.5 or better, and getting in with a significantly lower gpa will require a correspondingly big advantage in your research. Considering that your fellow applicants are not likely to be slouches in this area, that can be hard to pull off.</p>
<p>
Depends on the quality of the research as indicated by your LOR’s and pubs (if any). Personally, I would say that any work done before you are a junior is unlikely to provoke much interest at the graduate level, so I think that the only real advantage you would have here is that the extended time should hopefully improve the quality of your research by the time you finish.</p>
<p>
Masters admissions are generally more lenient as the difficulty in completing the course is lower. Also, some programs use masters programs as a cash cow, and are more than happy to admit a ton of students and receive a corresponding ton of tuition.</p>
<p>i see. well since i’m going for a master’s program, does any of the information you told me change? is research less important to them, or anything like that?</p>
<p>Research will be less important to them. However, this can work in your favor. When I was applying to master’s programs in my field, I had a so-so GPA (3.4) but a higher level of research than most MPH students in my field have. I didn’t have trouble getting in anywhere, and it won me some scholarship money. So although you don’t need to have research in an MS program, some of them may value it very highly (whereas it would just be expected in a PhD program).</p>
<p>MS programs will not expect as high a GPA as PhD programs - usually you can aim for around a 3.2/3.3, and some programs will accept you with less. It also depends on the program - the top program in your field may have more 3.7s with 4 years of research experience than it can handle, whereas the number 20 program may be more flexible. Or it could be the other way around - the number 20 program may be trying to up their reputation so they are more stringent, whereas the number 1 program is more flexible. It just really depends.</p>
<p>In regards to the above post- Would the lower GPA for admission to masters programs be prevalent in a more difficult field (such as engineering) because I am going into engineering and I don’t think it will be humanly possible to keep a GPA around 3.9</p>
<p>ok, i believe i pretty much get it now. so then will completing a master’s program (with solid gpa and associated work, of course) up my chances of getting accepted into top Ph.D. programs as opposed to applying straight out of undergrad?</p>
<p>A masters program is a second chance, and just like the first chance it can go well or it can go poorly. If it goes well it can help substantially, but remember that the expectations are higher for grad school - a 3.5 ugpa is pretty darn good and makes you eligible at most school, but a 3.5 ggpa is generally a disappointment, and will not look that good to top programs.</p>
<p>Can you elaborate comicfish?</p>
<p>I would think a 3.5 ggpa is better than a 3.5 ugpa, since graduate school is tougher…?</p>
<p>
I will try. For the most part, admissions committees only really care about your most recent relevant degree, so completing a masters degree in many ways makes your undergrad irrelevant. Your grad coursework is more recent, more topical, and more rigorous than your undergrad, and so is your gpa. You will have (usually) a chance to do some real research, at a higher level than you did as an undergrad. Your LOR’s will come from people who have seen a lot more of your work and potential.</p>
<p>This all means that you can make big strides with a masters degree - realizing that you can only improve your situation so far in any one step, doing a masters separately may require more time and more money, but it gives you an extra chance for improvement (or failure) before PhD admissions. In general, if you apply to both masters and PhD programs at the same time, you will get into better schools for a masters and lesser schools for a PhD. But after you complete the masters, you can potentially get into even better programs, significantly improving your final PhD options.</p>
<p>All of this is of course highly dependent on your masters performance, and I would not bet one in five sees a significant improvement this way. Some will (for one reason or another) fail or degrade during their masters program, while most will simply mirror their undergrad performance, scaled to grad school. Still, some do realize advantages this way.</p>
<p>
You would be wrong. Grad students have proven themselves academically and are taking classes almost exclusively in a specific area where they have both talent and interest (generally). As a result, the grade distribution in grad school is very different, and 3.8+ gpa’s are much much more common - while a 3.5 ugpa ranks you among the best of your peers, a 3.5ggpa is often below average in many programs.</p>