<p>Before I state my question let me say I'm from a foreign university which doesn't do a GPA system so I'm not aware of what my GPA but I think I have an idea. </p>
<p>So for example University of Illinois Chicago Graduate School for Computer Science requires me to have a 3.5/4 GPA. I'm pretty sure I don't meet this requirement, I fall in I think the 3/4 range. So I was wondering can I still apply here without it being a total waste, meaning actually have a chance of getting in(say my GRE scores compensate by being pretty good). </p>
<p>Is that 3.5 GPA the actual minimum requirement or just an average or something?</p>
<p>If a GPA is stated as a hard requirement, it’s very unlikely you’ll be admitted with a significantly lower GPA (and 0.5 of a point is significant), absent something really spectacular to cover for that - and GRE scores are not going to do it. The GRE is just not as important in graduate admissions as people think it is.</p>
It depends on how the school words it - some schools have hard minimums that must be met, and if this is one of those cases then you must meet it. And to give you an idea, a 3.00 is roughly the 50th percentile while a 3.50 is roughly the 75th percentile, so the difference is pretty substantial. You should contact the department and ask them about calculating an equivalent GPA for you - they will be able to tell you exactly how to convert it, and if it is less than the hard requirement (if it is one) don’t apply.</p>
That has been my experience with a couple of engineering colleges at big public universities. I was involved with a couple of honor societies which handed out invites to students in the top X% of their department, and I am ballparking based on those numbers along with GPA’s that were benchmarked for honors awarded to the top Y% of students. There is some variation between departments and universities, of course, but I saw those as reasonably accurate benchmarks, along with 3.75 being ~ the top 10-12% of the class and 3.95 being ~ the top 2%. The numbers that I saw were mostly limited to engineering students and were not associated with any intentions past graduation, so I do not know how these numbers change for grad school applicants or for non-engineers.</p>
<p>In UIC graduate school they say they need a minimum of 2.75 in addition to whichever requirements the individual requirements of a department. In the CS department that minimum requirement is 3.5/4.0. So I guess it’s stated pretty clear that you need that minimum requirement in order to apply. </p>
<p>I’ll still try to apply for the ones that just state it’s an average. </p>
<p>What makes an outstanding application? Does GRE really not make a difference in graduate school?</p>
<p>Glancing at their website, it does appear to be a hard requirement - if your current performance does not correlate to a 3.50 then you should look elsewhere.</p>
<p>
There is no single formula - unlike undergraduate admissions, grad admissions are very individualistic. GPA and GRE are mostly used for an initial screen, to thin the application pool down to a more managable size, and to award funds that are available across multiple departments or colleges where other accomplishments are less translatable.</p>
<p>After researching graduate school on this forum and elsewhere, I have consistently found that admittance decisions are made on a large number of variables, with a significant amount on the letters and research experience you have. On the contrary to this, I have heard from my professors directly that admittance decisions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Mechanical Engineering department primarily focuses on GPA’s and GRE scores for initial acception. Funding, on the other hand, is a more involved process in which these additional variables, namely, research experience and letters of rec’s, come into play. Does this coincide with what you guys are stating or is the initial admission decision made on research experience and letters as well.</p>
<p>Both are correct. Most departments use a 2-stage process for admissions, your professors were describing one stage, CC usually focuses on the second.</p>
<p>In the first stage, the down-select, department staff winnow the applicant pool down based on simple and easily compared factors - GPA and GRE and other quantitative factors usually, as well as an interest in working with one or more researchers. This is done simply to avoid having to read through in detail a hundred applications for every opening.</p>
<p>In the second stage, the up-select, everyone who has authority to admit students (mostly those professors and administrators with funding to dole out) goes through the remaining students, picks out those few flagged as being appropriate for their spots, and picks out students based mostly on research experience, LOR’s, and other qualitative factors.</p>
<p>So if your GPA and GRE are too low for that department (levels that are rarely published) then you will be rejected outright during the downselect. If your GPA and GRE are competitive and at least one professor makes you their #1 choice, you get an offer. If your GPA and GRE competitive but you are NOT someone’s first choice, you get put on a formal or informal waiting list from which you may never emerge.</p>
<p>Bear in mind that this is complicated at some departments based on their funding situation and guidelines. Many programs will not admit students without funding, but others will, and in those cases the admission of non-funded students will often be a significantly less rigorous version of the upselect mentioned above - since they do not care as much about who you will work with, there is little incentive to put in the effort on the details. The difference is relevant only if you are one of those lucky few who is not dependent on department funding.</p>
Yes, generally. If a department can fund X students and manage Y students without overloading the faculty, then they can admit Z=Y-X students without funding. In some departments Z = 0 (MIT EECS, for example), in other departments Z>>X (Stanford is notorious for this), but at worst it does nothing and at best it lets you compete for more spots than you could if funding was necessary.</p>
<p>The downsides I would note are that it is often hard to get funding after initially saying you don’t want it, and that if you aspire to academia they often like to see funded candidates - it shows a level of confidence on the part of the department. Not a big deal for an MS, much more of an issue for the PhD.</p>
<p>they make you state your financial need for PhD? I thought all PhD’s get funded no matter what, be it through grants, RA, TA or department/school fellowships. Who in the world would pay for a PhD without full financial support and stipend? That’s just wrong that a department would let someone do that. Get them to work overtime for the university AND take their money, really?? my professor said that even if someone actively states that he/he doesn’t need financial support, the department will still cover it, because they want the students to be fully productive, and not worry about money; but maybe that’s just at my school.</p>