HMC GPA and Graduate outcome

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvey Mudd College
21

<p>3.7 is undoubtedly hard but I don’t think it’s quite as hard as rocketDA is suggesting. I personally know 2 people with 3.9+, at least 2 others with 3.7+, several with 3.5+, and considering how few people I know I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more. Most of them have done quite a bit of research as well. But though it’s possible to get 3.7+ and do research, the workload would kill most people.</p>

<p>Before rocketDA asks, 4 of them are engineers, 1 chemist, 1 mathematician, 1 math-bio.</p>

22

<p>ok. so would it be safe to say that the top 5 of a class would have 3.8+, and top 10 with 3.7+??</p>

<p>That’s a little relieving. Still frightening. But I see light</p>

23

<p>again, 2% chance. .02 x 180 ~ 4</p>

24

<p>“Rocket DA, so basically we have a 2% chance of getting into top grad schools at mudd lol? I know research and personal initiative is also something Graduate schools look at like you mentioned, but I’m pretty sure they don’t override GPA… Grad schools are still looking for a GPA in a certain range, regardless of where they went to school and other things they did, at least that’s the impression I got.”</p>

<p>no. i would lose faith in the world if grad schools only cared about gpa. a 3.7 is not required…</p>

<p>it is quite tiring that everyone wants the most direct way to get into grad school. what ever happened to someone’s worth not being determined purely by their grades?</p>

<p>we’re fed this “you must get good grades to succeed in life” our whole life. it is bull. you need good enough grades to have opportunities but grades turn out to be a poor indicator of one’s ability to think outside the box… and for something like grad school that is pretty important.</p>

<p>i’m just going to put this out there… my job didn’t even ask for my gpa or transcript. they did their own research on my abilities through a phone interview and then a pretty rigorous in person technical interview (6 hours).</p>

<p>…and at the risk of sounding super pretentious, there was only one (or two) engineer with really good grades at mudd (my year) that i was impressed with. he managed to do lots of research and stuff outside of the classroom and that is what made him able to really own the material. most everyone else who were obsessed with grades were almost posers in my book. like… sure they can get good grades on a test but they would either forget the material right after the exam or not really understand how to work with it.</p>

<p>except in extremely rare cases (like V.A.), if you are getting above a 3.5 in engineering you are doing something wrong. it is time to go out, and get your hands dirty in the lab. you’ll be a better engineer for it in the end and you’ll have to have faith that grad schools and elite jobs will pick up on that and value that more than a 3.7.</p>

<p>…and there is a reason why mudd sends out “get a life” letters to frosh who get too many high passes.</p>

25

<p>I found this document, written by a CS professor at Carnegie Mellon (definitely a top grad school in the field) to be a good outline of what top PhD programs are looking for in applicants, and how to approach getting into such programs:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~harchol/gradschooltalk.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~harchol/gradschooltalk.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
(it seems to take a little while to load, so give it a few seconds)</p>

<p>He talks about top CS programs, but I think what he says applies to highly selective programs in any math/science/engineering field.</p>

<p>A few points relevant to the above discussion worth highlighting:
“For the top Ph.D. programs in CS, the most important component is your prior research experience and what your recommendation letters and personal statement have to say about your prior research experience.”</p>

<p>“When applying to a Ph.D. program in CS, you’d like your grades in CS and Math and Engineering classes to be about 3.5 out of 4.0, as a rough guideline. It does not help you, in my opinion, to be closer to 4.0 as opposed to 3.5. It’s a much better idea to spend your time on research than on optimizing your GPA.”</p>

<p>“A 3.4 GPA from a top-ranked CS undergraduate program like CMU counts the same as a 3.8 or 3.9 GPA from a less well-known CS undergraduate program.” Mudd, I’d say, qualifies as one of those “top-ranked” programs. (These are all from p. 8)</p>

<p>He also explains how fellowships work on p. 16, since some people were asking.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

26

<p>thanks for information rocketda and painkiller :)</p>

27

<p>I think Rocket makes a good point, although the unfortunate thing is always means of the graduate school determining your character to hold through graduate school…i.e. what do they ACTUALLY SEE when you apply.</p>

<p>It is undoubtedly true that graduate school is hardly about acing classes. One must know the fundamentals well enough that it doesn’t hurt one, but then again, I think a lot of schools may settle to looking a little more seriously at one’s classwork because if one did a lot of other stuff, one has to be careful to make sure the details of achievement actually make it visibly to the application. This is why I emphasize the letters as such an important thing. But at the very least, getting a high GPA at a hard school shows the ability to handle serious work and shows some intelligence, albeit far from an exact measure of what grad school requires. Which is actually more than most applicants have, and generally this is why I think it’s the most direct path. Assuming there are some projects worked on as well, and fair letters.</p>

<p>If one can convince the school to give a favorable admissions offer otherwise, really more power to them. Giving a direct indicator of the ability to handle graduate school can be hard for many who are less certain about what kinds of projects interest them at the initial stages…since diving into a specialized project without having a clear intent and reason to be interested usually is a bad idea (motivation, motivation, motivation…)</p>

<p>So it is certainly true that a really self-motivated, independent-minded student (perhaps Rocket was one of these) could shape his/her own path very independent of working day and night over problem sets, just that I think fewer people are really ready to do that mentally. From Rocket’s posts, it sounds like he entered Mudd with a real clear vision that it was the sort of program he wanted, with knowledge of exactly why its structure appealed to him so much. I think this takes a good deal of maturity to be able to say at all – I certainly get the impression most students enter with a fairly keen interest in the technical fields, excitement to learn, belief in working hard, but not necessarily with an early developed intent as to exactly what they want.</p>

28

<p>In short: don’t go jump into the pit with no idea what’s in there, ruin your GPA entirely, and expect to be admitted to grad school as you floundered through doing whatever you felt like. I think there needs to be a really seasoned line of reasoning as to how the schedule/program was individually shaped and why it should be heeded, as opposed to having the more standard measure <em>including but not limited to</em> solid work in school.</p>

29

<p>" again, 2% chance. .02 x 180 ~ 4 "</p>

<p>Because I personally know all 4 of them out of all 180? Please. I could easily find 4 more of them if I asked. I have a 3.1 and I know yours was similar, but it’s no reason to hate GPA so much. It obviously isn’t the most important statistic when applying to grad schools, but either have a 3.7+ and a decent amount of research or a 3.5+ and a lot of research or you probably aren’t going to get into Berkeley or MIT. Grad schools don’t have 6 hour technical interviews so they can’t get a grasp on your ability directly, they have to rely on transcripts. </p>

<p>“But at the very least, getting a high GPA at a hard school shows the ability to handle serious work and shows some intelligence, albeit far from an exact measure of what grad school requires.”</p>

30

<p>yeah, i think my gpa was like a 3.3 for junior/senior year and a 2.7 for frosh/soph. i worked a lot with the engineers in my class and only a few of them came away with a 3.7. only one or two i’d consider an excellent engineer though. i think there were lots of excellent engineers in the 3.1-3.5 range though.</p>

31

<p>Guys,</p>

<p>I think we all know very well by now that GPA is NOT the only thing that matters! We already applied to colleges, and most of us active in this forum have got in to Mudd. So, I don’t think we need another lecture about that. But I think it is appropriate to ask what GPA would allow one to be a strong candidate in a top grad school given that the person will probably take responsibility and work on other stuff too.</p>

32

<p>I should confess, I expect I am largely to blame for Blackroses216 and maruhan2’s anxiety and persistent questioning. I told them about how so many students, even with above a 3.5 GPA (and in many cases even above 3.7) got rejected from every top 10 US News school they applied to, both last year and this year. I told them how in engineering, physics, CS, and math, particularly, many excellent students (not just in terms of grades, but also in research experience and overall mastery of the material - and there are probably less grade-posers in majors outside of engineering, FYI ) did not get into their top choice, and got “stuck” at their safety school.</p>

<p>I also, however, told them a lot of other things that I think they have conveniently forgotten about. First of all, the economy has been totally crap these past two years, leading to a mass overload of graduate applicants and schools cutting the number of students they take (as an example, Illiinois’ physics department I heard was cutting the incoming class size from 50 to 20). The physics department chair John Townsend, who has been teaching at Mudd for 35 years, has told me he was shocked at the rejections some students have gotten, and that he would never have imagined they get rejected from some of the places they have been denied at. So you really have to take that into consideration before you jump to conclusions based on the last two years.</p>

<p>And secondly, it is frankly quite immature and childish to assume that the only graduate schools that are worthy of attendance are the “top” ones as defined by the US News. When one is deciding where to go to graduate school, what matters most (among other things) is the match of research interests. Research is infinite; the number of questions that can be asked and problems that can be tackled are so unimaginably large that it is frankly impossible for the faculty at any one school to cover more than a small fraction of the number of interesting problems in their field. What does this mean? That different schools focus on different research areas -> you go where the faculty are at, and depending on the research problems you are interested in, such a “non-top” school could be better suited. My good friend and bachelor’s thesis partner, who was (still is) tremendously passionate about quantum computing, turned down UCLA, UCSD, the University of Rochester, and several other more highly ranked places for the University of New Mexico. Why? Because New Mexico happens to have one of the strongest concentrations of people in quantum computing in the world. </p>

<p>To be perfectly blunt, if you want to go to graduate school for the name and prestige of having a PhD from a glamorous school, you are wasting your time going there. You should go for no other reason than that you are passionate about research and discovery and want to learn as much as you can about your field. </p>

<p>Now, it often happens that a lot of the most passionately curious students go to glamour schools, but that does not mean those glamour schools are the only places, or even the best places depending on who you are, to get a good graduate education. It matters much more who you are. The very best students, who are tremendously passionate and in love with discovery, are usually secure enough with themselves to understand this fact greatly, and go to places based on research interest and don’t worry too much about rankings. One of Harvey Mudd’s only 4.0’s, Elisha Peterson, a math major and a Rhodes Scholar, did his PhD at Maryland College Park. He is now a successful professor at West Point. Another 4.0, Cass Sackett, a physics major, turned down MIT for Rice University and is now a damn successful physicist at the University of Virginia (in particular, he won an incredibly competitive and prestigious Sloan Fellowship for young faculty). I can name several more examples.</p>

<p>So guys, just think about what I just said. Seriously think about it. You are still young, much to learn you still have.</p>

33

<p>:(</p>

<p>Not cool.
You think I would have applied to Harvey Mudd ED when I only care about rankings??!
when even my friends and my parents say that I should apply to “better” schools?</p>

<p>I never said that MIT, Caltech, etc were the only choices. I was only trying to figure out a benchmark.</p>

<p>Seriously, not cool</p>

34

<p>Point taken maruhan2. I apologize for my harshness. I have edited my post.</p>

35

<p>meh. Not ur fault. I guess I should be careful with what I post on CC more.</p>

<p>I seriously am not too concerned with ranking and do not just think that the top ranked is the only possibility, but in CC most people assume that you are so. Personally, I get mildly annoyed when an answer to a question is “don’t think about what colleges think, do what you like” cuz then nobody is really answering my question even though I am doing what I like.</p>

<p>Such talk I guess it’s easier to ask in person later when I make friends with seniors.</p>

36

<p>I agree completely with tiyusufaly.</p>

<p>I also think that everything will be much clearer after you’ve even attempted Harvey Mudd, because I’m fairly certain it won’t be what you expect.</p>

37

<p>I honestly don’t understand the huge lashing against people asking what is necessary to get into the top schools. I think people like to assume that if someone is asking what it takes, then they want it for the prestige. As someone who has thought about graduate school for a long time and heard the views of a huge number of different people, I honestly don’t believe the question being asked is unreasonable.</p>

<p>I think people confuse the fact that getting into places is not the same as doing what’s necessary to prepare for their programs. What someone intrinsically is capable of is known almost exclusively to them and a few close people, and quite often an application need not reflect it well enough. When people ask what is necessary to get into the top schools, they are probably asking what to do to be in the running, and with the other schools very much in consideration too. </p>

<p>Now I totally agree the US News rankings are not what one should go by. There is <em>so</em> much information to be gained about schools that is not told in those. One must really figure out what schools do, and hell, why not figure out WHY those top schools’ faculty are considered to be churning out such great work, or if there’s anything to those claims by actually asking questions. This is all good stuff. But it doesn’t mean it’s exactly what’s required to get into any good school. Getting in kind of is important…let’s not forget that. Aiming for the credentials that a top school might demand means at least getting a fairly good shot at getting into a good school. After which one can do whatever one wishes, including turning down a top school for another school of choice. But getting in means keeping options open, and that’s a really important thing.</p>

38

<p>I guess the huge lashing out has to do with the impression that all that is important is getting into a top 10 US News school, which is by definition (because of popularity/selectivity) a “top” school. I suppose the contention is not so much with the question being asked as with the way it is asked.</p>

<p>So, if you want to ask “What GPA is required to be a competitive applicant at the most selective graduate schools?” then I would think that is a perfectly fair and valid question. And like so many others, I believe the answer is that it is impossible to predict. Research and recommendations are much more important, as has already been said. If you want an absolute minimum GPA below which I think it would be near impossible to get into the most selective programs, I would say 3.0, but you really should try for at least 3.6-3.7, but above a certain point, GPA will only take you so far.</p>

39

<p>phsssh I cant believe you guys are falling for this 2% BS to get into Top grad schools.</p>

<p>Didnt you guys figure out that even if 5-6 ppl get into a really good grad school, THAT DOES NOT equate to 6/180 admitted to that school. It just means 6 out lets say 10-20 ppl who applied from Mudd to that school who got in :/</p>

<p>and cmon 2% for a Grad school from Mudd? LOL their admission rates itself are like 20-30% (imma sure its much higher than undergrad rates) and 2% from Mudd?? Cmon guys, think about it.</p>

40

<p>Yeah, it looks like you’re advising roughly the same thing I am, tiyusufaly.</p>