<p>What GPA and/or other experience is needed for a good shot at MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Princeton & UCB??</p>
<p>3.8+ GPA
At least one publication
Possibly some graduate coursework completed
GREQ:166+, GREV:160+, AWA: 4.5+</p>
<p>If you have the above, you would be fairly competitive. These numbers were taken from published admission records from these top schools.</p>
<p>Sorry but what is AWA?</p>
<p>“These numbers were taken from published admission records from these top schools”
Do these schools really publish such details?</p>
<p>
I would agree with these, but add 2-3 SOLID letters of recommendation. And I would also note that admissions is holistic, so shortcomings in one or two areas can be made up by being exceptional in some other areas (other than the GRE!).</p>
<p>
Analytical Writing from the GRE. It is graded on a 0-6 scale, and is largely considered the least important and least accurate score. The best you can say about it is that a score below 4 almost certainly indicates substantial writing problems, but differentiating a 4.5 from a 6.0 is mostly opinion. And length, the test seems to heavily favor the verbose.</p>
<p>
No, because then they would be fielding complaints (and possibly lawsuits!) from people who met the admission characteristics but didn’t get in. Nonetheless, a lot of applicants post their numbers and results on various websites, so it is not hard to put together a profile like the one above.</p>
<p>While I don’t doubt that that kind of profile would make you very competitive for a program, I DO doubt that you absolutely must have a 3.8 or higher GPA, or at least one publication.</p>
<p>Graduate admissions are holistic and they take several things into account when admitting you. I doubt that they would turn away an outstanding researcher with years of experience and several publications with a 3.5, for example. I don’t think they would turn away an English language learner with a 155 verbal who’s an otherwise outstanding candidate, or a person with a 3.6 because they were sick one year in college and got straight Bs or a few Cs. Nor do I think they would admit a student with a 170 and a 4.0 with one fourth-authored publication who can’t articulate their reasons for wanting to attend MIT/Caltech/Stanford.</p>
<p>In fact, that’s why I think they don’t publish their data - not because they would be fielding complaints from students who meet the criteria and didn’t get in (because they turn away many qualified applicants every year who would succeed), but because they don’t want to inadvertently discourage potentially outstanding students from applying because they are slightly below the averages/minimums posted. And applicants who post their numbers are quite possibly a biased sample, since people who got in are much more likely to post their numbers than people who did not and people with higher grades and stats may be more likely to post them.</p>
<p>So the answer is - if the schools don’t publish that kind of information on their website there’s no hard minimum. Generally speaking I would say having below a 3.3 is not competitive, but again, it’s holistic - if you had a second-authored publication in Science and a 3.2, you still might be a competitive applicant. Generally speaking I would also say you need 2-3+ years of progressively responsible research experience in a lab that is related to your field - i.e., a physics or engineering lab if you’re interested in mechE.</p>
<p>Princeton Admission Statistics for Fall 2013
[Graduate</a> Admission<em>-</em>A Princeton Profile](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/pub/profile/admission/graduate/]Graduate”>http://www.princeton.edu/pub/profile/admission/graduate/)</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins for Fall 2012 (Gives you an idea of a #1 school)
[Biomedical</a> Engineering PhD Program: Apply | Johns Hopkins](<a href=“http://www.bme.jhu.edu/graduate/phd/apply]Biomedical”>http://www.bme.jhu.edu/graduate/phd/apply)</p>
<p>I have stats from Stanford but it’s from 2008. MIT doesn’t require GRE and doesn’t post GPA.</p>
<p>Also, research experience and letters of recommendation matter more than GPA/GRE. The numbers from my original post came from a broad survey of top engineering schools.</p>
<p>Ace6904, I am very skeptical where you are getting your info from. MIT DOES require the GRE. </p>
<p>I attend Princeton’s MAE program and I can tell you that the GRE Verbal is essentially a non-factor in the admissions process. </p>
<p>I hadn’t realized that Princeton published stats for this year. Pretty sure the GRE Quantitative stat for engineers is a typo. There’s no way it’s that low and no way that it’s the exact same as the verbal average. </p>
<p>Publications are certainly not necessary. Unless it’s a first author publication, then it is likely that it will not boost your application substantially, at least for Princeton. Any other author positions may depend on luck (i.e., how willing is a professor to put an undergrad’s name on a paper) and the keener adcoms are aware of that. </p>
<p>Your research experience is most important, especially if it relates and is quality research.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine MIT being more selective than Princeton. In fact, I can say with some confidence that Princeton is slightly more selective due to how small the program is. MIT is more diverse and ranked higher, but personally I haven’t seen anyone get in with under a 3.85. </p>
<p>Caltech’s admissions process on the other hand is a whole different story. You will not find an engineering department more selective than Caltech. I think their aero program only accepts ~<10 students per year. I really don’t know how their admissions process works, but I’m under the impression that you have to have someone on the inside.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just gonna say this isn’t true for all of our engineering programs. ;)</p>
<p>@Ace6904: could you please post the stats from Stanford?
@DoubleD: I know that MIT doesn’t require GRE for EE. Maybe other departments require GRE.
In addition to the criteria mentioned above, I guess the reputation of your institution matters too.
If one’s name is 3rd or 4th in a publication, does the publication still make a difference in the person’s application?</p>
<p>The publications thing isn’t the strongest of factors. In the past few days I was talking about this with a couple of professors and a former graduate student who served on an admissions committee. They said that a publication is just icing on the cake, but it won’t get you into graduate school. They can’t tell much about you or what you did from a publication. Letters of recommendation are WAY more important and give way more information about you as an applicant.
For personal statements, they said that 90% of statements of purpose fall into the category of “solid but not spectacular.” They won’t really push you over the edge for admissions, but they won’t knock you out of the running. Then there’s 5% that are really outstanding and can get an applicant admitted because of the very clear focus and dedication that the student demonstrates.</p>
<p>who are the members of admission committee?</p>
<p>“Then there’s 5% that are really outstanding and can get an applicant admitted because of the very clear focus and dedication that the student demonstrates.”
Focus on what one’s reasons for attending the program and his/her goals are?
What else is necessary for an outstanding statement of purpose? personal information about one’s background?(of course, related background)</p>
<p>MIT does require GREs for BME as my som just applied.</p>
<p>My son was advised that to get into a top 10 program your Quant should be over 95%. </p>
<p>If you look at the stats of those accepted into top programs on thegradcafe.com you will see that they are pretty consistently stellar. I recommend you take a look at your targeted schools in the result section of thegradcafe.com.</p>
<p>That 95% is really not going to separate you from someone who scored in the 85% percentile, although if you’re an engineer you should easily get 90%+. Gradcafe results don’t say anything when all it shows is the #s. #s are to ensure that you don’t get declined immediately, in the very tippy top selective schools, it’s all the non-# factors that get you in.</p>
<p>This is random, but schools ranked higher often are easier to get into than schools ranked lower. THis is typically true of public schools in the top 10 compared to private schools (e.g., schools like UMich, Purdue, UIUC, GaTech are not as selective as schools like Cornell&Princeton despite being ranked higher). I don’t know how USNews rank grad schools, but I find it odd that we’re ranked relatively low despite having several faculty members in the NAE. </p>
<p>RacinReaver, good point. I was mainly referring to the aero and mech departments. I’m not sure about the others. </p>
<p>shrouded, I don’t know how much that will help you for other schools, but i’m under the impression that it really won’t help. You see plenty of undergrads who’ve had years of research experience with no publications. A publication does not necessarily mean that your research was meaningful. You will find that many of the top master’s students do not have publications. It’s all about what you’ve accomplished, not some name on a paper.</p>
<p>I agree with the bulk of what has been written here already. I would like to add that experiences such as being an undergraduate TA or placing at a student conference are very likely to help you with your application. These can be mentioned in your statement of purpose or perhaps in your resume which some institutions request. </p>
<p>I’d probably say the two least important factors are GRE scores (as long as they’re not bad) and publications only because I don’t know anyone who had published as an undergrad. Like nanotechnology said, that would simply be icing on the cake.</p>
<p>The most important factors in my opinion are letters of recommendation and GPA. While it is certainly the case that some students are admitted with lower GPAs I’d say that it’s important to have a high GPA because it demonstrates you will be able to cope with graduate coursework. I found the gap in difficulty between undergrad and graduate coursework was MUCH bigger than I had predicted and I struggled to get through the first year. I’d say a 3.7+ is what to shoot for.</p>
<p>Caltech’s aero program and mechanical program each accept around 20 students a year, but it is extremely variable. In 2011, around 28 students joined the aero department. In 2012, there were only 12 students and in 2013 the number was 26. Mechanical was big in 2012 (around 20) but was much smaller this year (around 14).</p>
<p>fiddlerkt, are you in Caltech’s aero/mech program?</p>
<p>@DoubleD : Isn’t a publication kind of a proof of the research you’ve done & indicative of its quality? Otherwise, how can you prove that you’ve had research experience? (maybe by a recommendation?) And, doesn’t collaboration in research necessarily result in a paper or something like that?</p>
<p>There’s several things this depends on. I see many people get caught with the word publication.
Indicative of the quality of research? A paper is just one of many measurements of quality.
Regarding the quality suggested by a paper, it largely depends on the impact factor of the journal you published in.</p>
<p>The rec letter is far more important. Some profs are more willing to put an undergrad’s name on a paper while others aren’t. You see plenty of applicants with years of research experience but no publications. This could mean several things, but not limited to: 1) the student didn’t contribute that much (likely this will be exposed in the LOR). 2) There’s not enough to publish (a publication may come later). 3) the professor just didn’t want to put an undergrad’s name on there. For the cases that fit under number 2, and I suspect that that is a majority, and 3, why should those students be placed at a disadvantage?</p>
<p>Also, some professors only publish in high level journals. I used to work with a master’s student who had zero journal pubs, but was admitted to every PhD program (Notably Stanford, MIT, and Caltech) he applied for and was also awarded the GRFP. This guy was brilliant. His MS work was on a really lengthy topic that would take years to result in a paper. Adcoms will surely recognize that. Publishing is inferior to the quality of research.</p>
<p>Publications in peer-reviewed journals always help, and the “lower” the author you are, the better. That having been said, the primary testament to your research ability should be in the letter(s) of recommendation from your advisor(s). As DoubleD noted, there are several reasons why a solid research contribution from an undergrad might not lead to something publishable by application time, so penalizing someone for a lack of publications doesn’t really make sense.</p>
<p>I also echo that GPA and letters of recommendation tend to be the strongest factors for admission, with the sole exception of basic fit (meaning, you want to research something that the department actually researches!). GPA is the best indicator of your ability to handle the academic requirements, and the LOR’s are the best indicator of your research proficiency and character.</p>