<p>Hello. For those who got into MIT or other good schools (with science major, physics for me) as graduate school, how many science courses did you take each semester? and GPA if you do not mind.
Thank you.</p>
<p>I was an undergrad at Harvard in Physics, Astronomy & Astrophysics...
Around 22 out of my 32 courses were in physics, astro, math, chem, planetary science... that was probably overkill...</p>
<p>My science GPA was 3.67 (A-), my overall GPA was 3.55 (A-/B+).
My GRE's were 740 Verbal, 800 Math, 800 Analytic...
I had a lot of research experience, including published scientific articles and phenomenal recommendations...</p>
<p>I got into Harvard, Caltech, MIT, Columbia, Chicago, and Berkeley for grad school in astrophysics, and chose Berkeley.</p>
<p>I was an undergrad at UIUC in Computer Engineering and Math. I took 34 classes of which 31 were math, physics, engineering, or CS. My GPA was 3.9 and I had OK recommendations, research experience, and GRE scores of 800Q/770A/580V. I'm currently attending Stanford for grad school in EE.</p>
<p>? Our kid is senior and considering grad engineering. Are you guys doing masters with a doctors degree in mind or just masters?</p>
<p>harvard<em>and</em>berkeley, can I ask why you chose Berkeley over Harvard, MIT, and Caltech...? It seems like such a weird decision... And did you apply to Stanford and Princeton? (If you didn't, I'm curious to know why.) Thanks.</p>
<p>Nordhaus...</p>
<p>In Astrophysics, the top 5 according to just about everyone in the field are:
Harvard, Caltech, Berkeley, Princeton, and Chicago.
Columbia and MIT are slightly lower.</p>
<p>Stanford has absolutely HORRIBLE astrophysics (Stanford is great in just about everything else, and I would have applied because it is a phenomenal school overall, but it just so happens that they suck in my field... just goes to show they aren't the best in everything science.)</p>
<p>Princeton... eh... just not my scene... I really only applied to schools in urban areas... I'm a city person, and love to be in immediate access to urban life.
Plus, at the time, I was seriously considering being an observational astronomer (radio telescopes)... Princeton is known almost only for theoretical astrophysics... the ironic thing is, I ended up in theoretical astro anyway!</p>
<p>I grew up in Boston, went to school at Harvard... so I decided I needed a big change... so I quickly eliminated Harvard & MIT... At the time I was deciding (1995) astrophysics at MIT was having some internal problems as well, and one of the professors pulled me aside and said that I would be crazy to go there given my other great options. Plus, when I talked to the other MIT grad students, they all seem depressed and unhappy, and wished they had all gone somewhere else... not a ringing endorsement... great academics, horrible quality of life.</p>
<p>Caltech has a phenomenal program... absolutely amazing... but it was definitely not my kind of scene. Remember, PhD programs can take 6+ years...
I wanted a more diverse place where I would interact & meet many different kinds of people... funny, I remember one of the professors telling me that Caltech was NOT a university, but an INSTITUTE... that they didn't have any silly humanities or social sciences to dilute the place... I think he said it to make Caltech seem more attractive, but it completely turned me off...</p>
<p>I absolutely loved Chicago and Columbia... they are both great programs in the middle of amazing cities... I eliminated Columbia because Chicago had a much better program overall.</p>
<p>So I ultimately had to decide between Chicago & Berkeley... they were my top 2... Berkeley won on so many levels... the SF Bay Area is an AMAZING place to live and study... so close to the ocean and the mountains are only a few hours away... so many different kinds of interesting people... I met some of my best friends there... and they were in grad school for all kinds of interesting things: english, urban & city planning, mech eng., history, public health. Berkeley is just a vibrant community... I like the fact that its a bit gritty...
Plus, as I said, Berkeley is easily in the top 3 in my field... excelling in both theoretical and observational astrophysics... they joint own/run the Keck telescope (along with Caltech), which is the largest and best optical telescope in the world. </p>
<p>I know it may seem like a funny or wierd decision given my choices, but it wasn't. I know on this site, Berkeley gets bashed a lot for not being elite enough or prestigious enough... but you would be very very very wrong. In the real world, Berkeley PhD programs are unmatched in breadth and quality... look at the faculty roster of any top school, and you will see that Berkeley is overly represented. When I was asking for advice from my Harvard professors, they all said I could not go wrong with Caltech or Berkeley because they are EQUALS and to choose based on my personality... and of course, anyone who actually knew me said I should go to Berkeley.</p>
<p>I went to a LAC, so I had a few more non-science classes. But I still loaded up, counting all sciences (math, statistics, bio, chem, physics) 23 classes out of 37. GPA for Math was 3.7, 3.9 for Biology and 4.0 for Stat. GRE 790 Q, 570 V, 6.0 A, interned at WHO Geneva and over a year and a half of bio statistics research experience. Going for my PH.D. in statistical genetics, already in to Iowa State and Washington (top 10 in my field), and I've been told by my faculty advisors that Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, and UCLA shouldn't be a problem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you guys doing masters with a doctors degree in mind or just masters?
[/quote]
I finished my MS degree last year and am now a PhD student.</p>
<p>harvard<em>and</em>berkeley...</p>
<p>Thanks for you reply! It was very enlightening...</p>
<p>
[quote]
harvard<em>and</em>berkeley, can I ask why you chose Berkeley over Harvard, MIT, and Caltech...? It seems like such a weird decision
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I feel I have to stick up for Berkeley here. If you're getting a PhD, then depending on the field in question, I don't think it is at all weird to choose Berkeley over Harvard, MIT, or any other school. Berkeley doesn't take a backseat to anyone when it comes to doctoral programs.</p>
<p>I would like to point out something, related to what Harvard<em>and</em>berkeley has been saying, or perhaps I am just misunderstanding what he said. I may be wrong about this, but it looks like h&b made a decision about where to apply based on personal fit. While obviously personal fit is extremely important, I personally find to be unbelievably dangerous to be crossing off top programs off your list for the purposes of deciding where to apply. Sure, once you've gotten into a bunch of programs, then you can make a decision about where to go based on fit, but to use fit to decide where you will apply? That seems you're just playing with fire. For example, let's say that you don't like program A, even though it's the top-ranked program in your field because you feel that program B is a better fit so you only apply to B but not A, but then what are you going to do if you get rejected from program B? You might then be thinking that you'd have been better off applying (and perhaps getting into) program A. It may not be a perfect fit, but, hey, it's a lot better than nothing at all.</p>
<p>It would be nice to believe that we would all know exactly which programs are going to admit us and which ones won't, and so we would then only apply to those programs that fit us the best and not waste time applying to the others. In reality, there is a great deal of uncertainty about where you will get in and where you don't. I was quite surprised at getting into certain programs that I thought were out of my league, and was equally surprised to get rejected from other programs that I thought were slamdunks. I know plenty of other people who say the same thing - got into some reaches, got rejected from some safeties. In fact, that's why schools have an application process in the first place. The application process serves to provide the school with a method to assess who they should admit, and ** more importantly, who they should reject **, based on whatever arbitrary criteria the school chooses. If everybody knew with perfect certainty which schools they could get into and which ones they couldn't, and only applied to the ones they knew they could get into, then there would be no need for an application process at all, because there would never be anybody to reject.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>I applied to FOUR of the top FIVE in my field... what are you talking about?
You make it sound like all I care about was "personal fit" and "lifestyle" and therefore eliminated a lot of great schools in favor of crappy schools. I only eliminated ONE which I was 100% I would not want to attend.</p>
<p>The reality is, you cannot apply everywhere... and the chance of me getting rejected by Harvard, Caltech, Berkeley, and Chicago, but then somehow getting accepted into Princeton, is so ridiculously small to not even merit concern.</p>
<p>Of course, when anyone applies to PhD programs, one should be in very close consultation with one's undergrad academic & research advisors... My two undergrad advisors at Harvard both said I would almost certainly get into Harvard, and they checked with colleagues at other top schools, and said I had great chances at all of them as well based on my research, publications, recommendations.</p>
<p>If my advisors had cautioned me that I wasn't that strong of a candidate, I would have applied to far more schools further down the rankings. Believe me, I did all my homework and research on which schools to apply... and I didn't cavalierly eliminate schools based on a whim.</p>
<p>Arrrrgggg...</p>
<p>Sakky, I see the point you are trying to make... and it is a good one.
So if I came off a little too strong in my response, I apologize.
I see what you are saying, but I am not even close to a relevant example.</p>
<p>All I'm saying is that you gotta do what you gotta do to maximize your chances of getting into at least one program that you have at least a semi-interest in attending. Clearly nobody can apply to every single program out there. However, there is the danger that if you restrict the number of programs you apply to for whatever reason (fit, whatever), you then increase the chances that you won't get any acceptances. If you're a strong candidate, then you will obviously only run a small chance of not getting into any of the programs you apply to, but it can still happen. I've heard of it happening to a couple of guys. They only applied to only a small handful of programs that they thought were truly the best for them... but didn't get into any of them. Now they're kicking themselves for not applying to more programs. Getting into a program that is an imperfect fit may be better than getting into no program at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My two undergrad advisors at Harvard both said I would almost certainly get into Harvard
[/quote]
A lot of times you can get a virtual guarantee from the professors of your own institution if you're also applying to its graduate program. That's why I only applied to top 5 EE programs because UIUC already assured me that I was in.
[quote]
If you're getting a PhD, I don't think it is at all weird to choose Berkeley over Harvard, MIT, or any other school. Berkeley doesn't take a backseat to anyone when it comes to doctoral programs.
[/quote]
I have to second this as well. Berkeley has top 5 programs in almost every field, and it's very common for people to choose them over Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and the rest of the Ivies. In fact, the consensus is that Berkeley has the most selective EECS program, and many of its rejects end up enrolling at MIT and Stanford. I know a couple of people on fellowship at Stanford who also got into MIT but didn't get into Berkeley. I also know several people who got into Stanford (MS/PhD, not MS) but not UIUC. You should apply to a lot of places since you're never guaranteed anywhere.</p>
<p>Please expand on MIT.
Was the time frame 1995?
Why were MIT grad students disappointed and wished otherside of fence?
Was this for your major specialty.
What did you to find this info- Do Walk Arounds?</p>
<p>Thx. </p>
<p>MIT is on kid's list for grad ME, coming from CMU. One of his major profs whom he gofers for is MIT ph.d.</p>
<p>itstoomuch,</p>
<p>These are just my observations and info I got from friends... so take it for what its worth... I make no claim that this is representative of every dept. or program at MIT... it's a big place, and I'm not sure how much of my experience is universal... My comments specifically refer to the Dept. of Physics...</p>
<p>I was deciding in the spring of 1995... I spent a couple days on the campus, visiting a few different research groups in the physics department...
Plus, one of my good friends decided to attend MIT (his other option was Stanford)...</p>
<p>(1) In the physics dept., you had to join a research group right away, unless you had an outside fellowship... and you could only join groups which had money to support new students... this was unlike other programs i looked at in which the department took care of you the first year while you took classes and prepared for pre-lims, giving you time to explore different research groups before getting locked in.</p>
<p>(2) I specifically recall asking grad students if they were happy at MIT and fell that they made the right decision... most mumbled about how they were starting to maybe sort of kind of like it a little bit... not a ringing endorsement... many felt the name/reputation of MIT was worth being miserable for 6+ years... </p>
<p>(3) one of my friends said the department was in general not very supportive...in his opinion, they didn't care whether you succeeded or not... the attitude was very much sink-or-swim.</p>
<p>Again, I have no experience with Mech Eng... it might e very, very different.
Also, I have some friends who are now faculty at MIT in Physics, and they say things have dramatically improved in the past decade... so my comments may not even be relevant anymore...</p>
<p>im_blue: What about you and Stanford?
Our S prof has an undergrad degree from Stanford and MS-PhD from MIT. S is done the Pittsburgh-CMU scene and will move on to somewhere else. We're from Oregon. </p>
<p>H & B. What do you mean by miserable for 6 years? Studying, competition?, Food? Quality of Life? I will discount your comments on MIT because 10 years old. Son made a visit to Boston for a week, after CMU let out, found Boston interesting and MIT to have too much concrete. So, I imagine that you are done with Berkeley?</p>
<p>itstoomuch,</p>
<p>it sounds like you have more personal, direct info on MIT... cool... as I said, i only have a very limited perspective that is probably no longer relevant to today... I would certainly give MIT a good look because it is such an amazing place... but, i have never met a grad student who enjoyed grad school there... unlike, berkeley where students are generally very happy... I've heard the same is true at stanford, students are very happy there as well... maybe it's just california, i don't know.</p>
<p>yes, i graduated from berkeley in early 2004, and am now a post-doc back at Harvard... i love it here... it's a phenomenal place for science (but NOT engineering)</p>
<p>H & B: Why not liking MIT. Kid visited Boston and not so much of colleges. The schools were let out at that time. He only toured area on a tourist.</p>