<p>Does one stands a better chance of getting accepted into a PHD engineering program (ie ME/Aero) if he/she takes a professional engineer job after bachelor for 1-2 yrs, then applies to graduate school ?</p>
<p>Lets compare case below:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Student A: took the path I described above. </p></li>
<li><p>Student B: applying straight out of undergrad, but took advantages of research/intern/co-op programs as an undergrad student and recieved decent rec's.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>For argument sake lets say student B is a more impressive student, able to juggle internship/co-op program while as a student and still got good grades and GRE,
while student A did not work as undergrad and is generally below the level of
academic achievement that is student B.</p>
<p>Does student B competes less favorably against student A because of A's professional experience, or does the selection committee picks student B because of higher potentials ?</p>
<p>Students A and B are both on great footing, and it's unlikely that any program would choose only one or the other.</p>
<p>Professional experience is a great thing for a student with an unimpressive undergraduate record, or a student who's not sure about committing to a given field. It's not required, and it's not looked upon any more or less highly than a strong undergraduate record with research, internships, and co-ops.</p>
<p>I'm sure some people do quit to go back. Others get their companies to pay for their degrees -- my fiance's company will fund his master's and continue to pay him at his current salary level when he goes back for his master's in aerospace engineering.</p>
<p>I would say that the vast majority of students in my PhD program came straight from undergrad and fit the profile of your Student B best. Graduate programs don't necessarily require any work experience, and prefer students with strong academic records. Work experience can help overcome a less-than-stellar academic record, but is by no means necessary for a PhD program in engineering... after all, it is an academic degree. </p>
<p>Back to your original question, both of those candidates should have roughly equal chances of admission assuming that the difference in academic achievement is fairly small. </p>
<p>For your last question, I went straight into grad from undergrad, but with the benefit of 6 co-op semesters. As aforementioned, most of my peers also came straight from undergrad, but I can certainly think of several people who came from industry or the military. I would say the average age of my entering class was in the mid-20s. </p>
<p>If you are ready for graduate school, then you should go ahead and start. Some people need to take a few years off to gain some perspective and maturity. Others need to find out what their real passion is in life before committing to graduate study.</p>
<p>As I mentioned, my fiance will have a few years of work experience when he goes back, but he's already been accepted to his master's program and is deferring his acceptance while he works. I suppose that means he counts as someone who was accepted directly after undergrad.</p>
<p>At my alma mater, about 50% of undergrads go directly to grad school, while another 30% will go back for advanced degrees at some point in their careers. That number is for all students and all degrees, but about 50% of alumni have engineering degrees, so it's a decent approximation.</p>
<p>In my cohort (in Political Science at a top 5 department), half came straight from undergrad, half took time off. Of those who came straight through, 20% finished the program. Of those who took time off and worked, more than 50% finished. </p>
<p>Make of this what you will - and of course engineering might be totally different...</p>
<p>Years ago, my husband did his degrees in stages. He worked a few years after attending a very practical engineering college, went back for masters in a more specialized engineering field. Got a job in that field and finished up a PhD (at the same university where he'd done his terminal masters) while working. For him, the couple of years after college helped him figure out what he wanted to get his masters in. Then, once working in that field, he realized a PhD would be valuable.</p>
<p>I know this has nothing to do with your admissions question, but I tell it to illustrate that not going straight through can be a good thing if it helps someone define a focus.</p>
<p>Seems like there is no right or wrong way of entering grad school.</p>
<p>Let me modify my question a little...in your graduate courses, do students who come from having worked (professionally or semi-prof) have a knowledge advantage over those who went straight from undergrad ?</p>
<p>I would think it depends on what you do in your work experience and what you do in your program.
For international development, having work experience in development is EXTREMELY helpful in graduate school, both for courses and for research.</p>
<p>In my program (biological sciences), I don't think the students who have worked necessarily have a knowledge advantage -- the straight-from-undergrad students often have a slight advantage in the classroom, since they're still in the rhythm of doing assignments and taking tests. But the students who have worked are often more dedicated to their labwork. I suspect that they actually complete my PhD program at a higher rate than students who come straight from undergrad.</p>
<p>My impression, based on the experiences of PhD students I have known, is that those who took a few years off between undergrad and grad school seemed to be much more focused and ready, for lack of a better word, when they got into their programs. This is not to say that students who go to grad school straight from undergrad are necessarily cruising for disaster, but it seems to me that taking a few years off gives future PhD's a better idea of why they want to continue their studies, how they will do it, and also allows them to pinpoint exactly what they want to do in terms of research.</p>