<p>I'm an Electrical Engineer from UCLA and my GPA is 3.0. Yes, it's that low for family reasons but I know that people ultimately dont care what the reason so I have gotten used to people treating me as if I ruined my life.</p>
<p>Truth is, I'm applying to graduate engineering schools for Artificial Intelligence in Computer Science. I'm applying to these schools:</p>
<p>Boston University
Columbia University
Cornell
Duke
Harvard
MIT
Princeton
Rice
Stanford
Texas A&M
UC Berkeley
UC San Diego
UCLA
University of Pennsylvania</p>
<p>Honestly, the only reason I'm applying to all those is because I am trying to maximize my chances of getting in somewhere. My GRE is 800 Quantitative, 570 Verbal and 5 for Writing.</p>
<p>I have 13 quarters worth of research, worked on two IEEE papers. One recommendation from my boss at my internship last summer, one from my professor with whom I worked for 2+ years of research, and third professor basically laid out a way for me to write my own letter.</p>
<p>What are my chances or is it hopeless? Will my GPA kill me? I look at the admission statistics for all these schools and it is less than 2% for most of them. For all those who wish to flame, that's fine, I cannot be any more depressed anyway. For those who reply, I cannot thank you enough.</p>
<p>As you know, your GPA is a bit of a red flag. But - where did you fall down? Was it in core engineering courses or in the general curriculum? If you have a high major GPA you may still have a shot.</p>
<p>Now, some people believe that admissions is a "crap-shoot" but that is only the case for "well qualified" applicants. As you know, your GPA places you outside that group for the most part. So, you need to maximize your chances by applying to schools you have a reasonable chance of admission, then add a couple safeties, and a couple reaches.</p>
<p>I'd suggest you meet with your research professor and try to work out a plan to get where you want to be. That may mean:</p>
<p>1) Taking another year of undergrad to bring up your GPA
2) Applying to masters programs with lower admissions standards, the going to the PhD
3) Working for a few years while taking graduate courses to prove yourself</p>
<p>There are lots of options - but you have to be creative and you may still not make it.</p>
<p>Less than 2%? That doesn't sound right at all, even for Stanford and MIT. Still though, it'd be lie if we said you had a reasonable chance of getting in to many of these schools for PhD. However, your 3 years of research and papers definitely sounds promising. How good do you think your recs will be? If they're all halfway good, and you do have a valid reason for the poor grades which you can explain on your SOP, I think you have a very good shot of getting into a funded MS program at some of the rank 10-20 state schools(I don't know what these are for AI). You can always shine there and then reapply to a PhD at a better school. Try talking to your research adviser and asking for suggestions on where you might get into. You'll have to work harder, maybe a year longer, to get where you want, but if you really do want to do top level AI research, there's no reason you can't get there.</p>
<p>Thank you for replying. I should have been clearer: I know that applying for a phD is more competitive, so I'm applying for masters. The rankings for computer science for my schools are as follows:</p>
<p>Boston University (41)
Columbia University (19)
Cornell (10)
Duke (30)
Harvard (23)
MIT (01)
Princeton (18)
Rice (30)
Stanford (02)
Texas A&M (14)
UC Berkeley (03)
UC San Diego (13)
UCLA (16)
University of Pennsylvania (29)</p>
<p>As you can see, I'm trying to apply for all ranges of schools. Yes, my recommendations will be good; one of them will be nearly perfect because the professor wants me to outline the letter myself.</p>
<p>Do you think I need to apply to more safety schools?</p>
<p>WilliamC,: yes the only reason my GPA is so low is because of family losses in the last two quarters, and that meant that my core EE classes took a hit.</p>
<p>merper68, thanks for the reply. found your feedback valuable. no, I'm not applying for PhD for the very same reason you suggested. I will try to sell myself as a research-based student; I researched for a year with a PhD Purdue professor and his students. Will that fly for a Masters? Thanks</p>
<p>It's less about how long you've worked than how well you worked. The professor can put down that you are a very hard worker in his rec, but that's just code for he doesn't think very highly of your intellectual capabilities. I know people who've worked for 3 months and gotten recs that sent them to top 5 schools and I know people who've worked for 3 years and not gotten into same schools. This is probably an issue you'll want to bring up with the professor.</p>
<p>I am in a similar position, probably gonna apply for Masters in CS dis december. Anyway, I was looking at MIT, Berkeley, Princeton CS website, and they seem to not offer a "Masters only" option. So what exactly did u apply for at those universities?</p>
<p>I'm in almost the same spot as you. I have also a 3.0 and almost identical GRE scores to you. I'm also majoring in EE at a UC (though a worse one). </p>
<p>I think it's hopeless for us. I mean the bare minimum to apply to UC grad school is a 3.0.</p>
<p>I applied to a few UCs for a ECE (Computer Engineering) MS, but I'm not expecting much. I suspect Fall 2008 I'll be at a Cal State.</p>
<p>NO, not hopeless I would say. You still have a chance. You seem to be truly interested in research and I would recommend you applying for PhD if thats your final goal. You can stress on your papers and research work. Many programs anyway consider people for masters automatically if they feel they dont qualify for PhD. Since other things are good many schools might admit you and some might decide to give you a provisional admission. Stay positive.</p>
<p>No. It is not hopeless. And people treating you as if you ruined your life can...hmm, I suspect that if I complete that sentence parts of it will get censored and I will probably get reported to the mods. :D</p>
<p>Take the "minimum" GPAs for various schools with a grain of salt. I have known several people with strong work and research experience who got into very prestigious grad programs with lower than the minimum undergrad GPA. And trust me, I know people who are now in very strong grad sci/eng programs who had significantly lower undergrad GPAs than you.</p>
<p>If you are applying to PhD programs, they care more about research and recommendations than anything else. According to a CMU prof who has worked on their admissions committee, CMU actually does not use grades as a PhD admissions criterion (though most of their acceptees have very good grades)! However, they reject everyone without prior research experience.</p>
<p>Your GPA is right on the border of being high enough to not get you rejected for it alone. So it is possible that you will not get in anywhere, and you may need to take a back door. This is okay. If you do not get in anywhere, get a research-oriented CS job, and perhaps enroll in one of these universities as a special or certificate student. Then try again in a couple of years!</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that recommendations carry so much weight. Essentially, every recommendation is identical ("This student was very intelligent, hard-working, and had a zest for learning. He was one of my top students and since I've advised many graduate students, I'm sure he is qualified for further study."). How does anyone really stand out with regards to recs when each person applying (especially to prestigious programs) has more or less the same recs?</p>
<p>dontno - no, that's not what every LOR looks like. If you're getting letters like that you're asking the wrong professors.</p>
<p>What you <em>should</em> be seeing is a letter that specifically adresses your qualifications for the program where you're applying. </p>
<p>So, for example, my three:</p>
<p>1) The professor who supervised an independent study project discussed my ability to do both the library and museum parts of archaeology as well as my independent field work and how that relates to <em>each</em> program I applied to. </p>
<p>2) The one from one of my Latin professors discussed not just my linguistic skills but also how I had made a start on 1st C. CE epigraphy as part of that same research project.</p>
<p>3) The letter from my undergraduate advisor was probably the most generic, but again, he specifically adressed my background (older adult, full time job), the academic awards I won for that project, and how well prepared I was in relation to what I proposed in my SOP.</p>
<p>All the professors involved asked for my SOP and writing sample (obviously it was the paper from that project) as well as a meeting (though they all know me pretty well) BEFORE they wrote. As a result they were able to write letters that will (I hope) stand out a bit, not because I'm so special, but because they form a unified whole with the rest of my application materials and say "this guy knows what we're about and is ready to get to work.</p>