<p>I will be a senior in EE this coming year and really want to get in a decent grad school. I prefer to go to a school in California (currently at UC Davis), and UCLA or SD are two schools I am interested in, but I know they are competitive.</p>
<p>After my summer class, my overall GPA is a 3.5 and my engineering GPA is a 3.796 (really wanted to get to 3.8!!). I am currently doing research for one professor and something kind of part-time with another. I'm not too worried about the letters of recommendation and the essay/personal statement or whatever, and I'm studying to take the GRE next month.</p>
<p>So just based on my GPA and supposing I don't fail the GRE, do I have a chance at either of the schools? Maybe LA is more of a reach..</p>
<p>I think you have a good chance of getting into either program since I’ve met people with similar GPAs. I think MS might be easier to get into since there is very rare MS students get funded.</p>
<p>I recommend you apply to Stanford too. I’ve met who got into Stanford EE Masters program with a 3.6 GPA with little, if any, research so give it a shot.</p>
<p>Hi GrassBandit, thanks for the reply. I’m a bit confused on one thing… what do you mean by MS might be easier since there is very rare MS students get funded?</p>
<p>Edit: Actually I wasn’t aware before… you can apply to either master’s or PhD? I originally thought you could only go for PhD after you get your master’s. I think I only want to pursue a master’s for now… but in the future could I still go for the PhD afterward if I decide I wanted to?</p>
<p>Sorry! I might have been in a rush when i posted that.</p>
<p>What I meant to say was that I think MS was probably easier to get into because the department rarely funds MS students so their admission into the program are less stringent than for PhD students. For example, from what I’ve read and heard, it is easier to get into the Stanford MS program than the PhD because the MS program is considered a “cash cow,” which means that the student pays the full tuition. I believe this might be the case at UCLA, but to perhaps a lesser degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can apply to PhD straight after undergraduate studies. You do not have to get a master’s first. However, some programs will consider you for a masters if you are denied into the PhD track.</p>
<p>Yes. YOu should be able to get in if your GRE quant is above 770, provided your high GPA is from a very good school (a 3.8 doesn’t mean much if your school is a low-end school, such as, say, Cal State San Bernadino). And yes, you should also apply to Stanford/Cal too if your GRE quant is above 770 (for MS… PhD, you should also get good rec letters).</p>
<p>Thanks wifey9…9, I’m actually kind of stressing about the GRE now… hopefully I feel better about it after a month more (I want to take it once before school starts).</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification GrassBandit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey Spicey1988, I actually do like UC Davis, the analog program for EE is especially strong. The campus itself is nice too, I wouldn’t mind staying here for Master’s, it’s just that I want to change it up a bit after 4 years here.</p>
<p>Just a quick update: I just finished the GRE and got Q:770 and V:710. I would’ve preferred the Quant score to be slightly higher but I don’t think it’s worth it to retake and really don’t feel like it either. Would this score still be competitive for the top UC schools?</p>
<p>Who wants to get into grad school without fund? I don’t.</p>
<p>those free no-fund no-thesis MS admissions are for those able to take money-bath. I have seen normal people seeing free MS admissions of “TOP” schools, going eccentric and put themselves on the verge bankruptcy :(</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone likes it, but it happens. I’ve only met a few (~3) MS students that were funded by their department or advisor. Others get funding through a company, but then they have to make a time commitment to the company. More than half (~15) of the MS students I’ve met have had some sort of financial aid and loan package, which sounds like the stuff they do for my undergrad package. I’ve also heard from professors and graduate school recruiters that the MS is usually not funded because they would rather invest it into PhD students who will be there longer.</p>
<p>If you are so against getting a MS degree without funding, then you probably fail to see the long term perspective of your career. You pay the tuition now, but in the long run, you earn more in your lifetime with MS degree. </p>
<p>There are tons of MS students (at top private schools which charge 40K / year) without funding and have to pay the tuition themselves, by loan or by company sponsorship or by family money.</p>
<p>^^^ If I was the only one against it, getting MS no-fund admissions from places like Stanford wouldn’t be as easy it is. One of my pals got a “FREE” admission from Stanford with absolutely no credentials! This is while he could stay in his current school and pay “nearly zero” for a thesis+MS. After racking up a good CV he could apply for a PhD of his choice or find a “descent” job with his MS. And now the “RANK” problem comes up I know!</p>
<p>To me it is absurd! I do not wanna “generalize” anything, but just as an example: have you heard about the near-scandal that Bill Gates brought on a few years back in U of Waterloo in Canada (that you probably are not aware of its existence)? Apparently the guy hires MORE grads from there than ANY other TOP RANK school (he did say that) and he paid (or wanted to pay, I’m not sure) a couple of million dollars to UW so they SET UP a couple of courses “he needed” from grads to be familiar with, so he can put even further his plans of hiring grads of that school!</p>
<p>My point is EVERY ONE of ordinary rank-worshiper people that are not aware of realities of the cruel world, think grads of say MIT has highest chances of getting hired with “highest” salaries. That is not necessarily true. People like Gates do not want MIT grads with their “high salary demands”, “bragging about their school’s name”, but nearly as capable grads of other schools with lower salaries. That makes sense, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>real world doesn’t work that way. so MAYBE you should avoid loans and stuff like that and study at a place feasible for you and instead try to rack up tools you need for your future career. I’m not saying go to north pole and take a MS there I’m just saying good schools are nearby if feel the need of searching for them. and remember this: “no top school is top school without its students”. If you do not go there it won’t be a top school. YOU make it a top school. I have given a couple of other real world example in another post of mine, check that out too, if you’re intrigued.</p>
<p>INGWAY, prestige exists for a reason: people recognize certain programs as being rigorous, with graduates who are extremely well qualified after they earn their degrees. When people in this forum talk of “top ranked,” they are referring to specific programs, not universities, even though it may seem that way. Harvard may be ranked by many as the number one university in the US and the world, but for certain fields, it’s not in the top ten. The top ten of a given field may include the University of Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, or Brandeis, schools that aren’t usually on the general population’s radar as “top schools.” Here, on this forum, people talk about top programs. They talk about the quality of education, faculty, and facilities – and they know that their subfields create a different set of “rankings.”</p>
<p>Next, MS and MA programs are much easier to gain admittance into than are PhD programs. That said, there’s no way that someone got into Stanford “with absolutely no credentials.” You may think that he wasn’t qualified, but I can assure you that something in his application impressed them. </p>
<p>Next, Microsoft hires thousands of people every year. They recruit students, both undergraduate and graduate, from universities across the US and internationally. A quick Google shows that they currently employ 88,596 people world-wide. The issue is not just whether one can get a job with Microsoft but also at what level. </p>
<p>And last, the students do not make a top program by themselves. The faculty determine the level of research, and the best research tends to attract the best students, who then in turn raise the level of the program. A good student working with mediocre professors and among disinterested students cannot significantly affect the quality of the program.</p>
that’s exactly my point, PEOPLE recognize it, not employers of those people</p>
<p>
Did I say universities? The depth of perception of “most” people (you included) on this forum goes nowhere deeper than the rankings of some “engineering majors” or “math majors” or so, and that is not “specific program” I was talking about in grad level. e.g. USNEWS has only an absurd Electrical/Comm. list but every EE-major (hopefully!) knows that on the next level (a MS or PhD program) that list is too shallow, e.g. “in my field of interest in EE”, only 2 (which are among public ones incidentally!) out of top 10 in that EE-list can be called with a “research program” and those 2 are not even in the competition, in my field of FOCUS, with a ~30 ranked on EE-list. This is something I know less than 1/10000000 people care about or are aware of! no hard feeling though, “moms” and the “new” ones they’re “waiting for” ain’t supposed to know this.</p>
<p>
I know that I do! But do you consider yourself among “THEY” too? Is that why you commented:
“I’m mostly familiar with neuroscience programs and computer science programs, but usually not the two combined”
I mean USNEWS has a “neuroscience programs” list and a “computer science programs” list and that’s the end of depth of your “mostly familiar”, see what I mean!</p>
<p>
huh, I may not THINK because he told me he wasn’t, in a pal-pal talk, now should I make him come here and bash himself for you? H.E. W.A.S. N.O.T period
of course something impressed them! heck I’m impressed too: He is going to pay 30K right on spot with 0 bank account and 1 wife and completely illegible to receive loans!</p>
<p>
See! exactly my point! internationals are “preferred” to US grads (“prestigious” schoolers included, IF NOT on top of their list of “thou shalt not be hired”) and you know why? non-prestigious ones are more efficient: same quality, lower salary!</p>
<p>
they currently HAVE … employees</p>
<p>
uhm… do you mean they hire BS grads of CMU for PhD-level jobs? definitely not</p>
<p>
Obviously you have never seen and I doubt will ever see PhD dissertations of two grads of the same school same year and under supervision of the same prof. one high quality and the other low quality as s**t. Conclusion: 95%student 5%profs</p>
<p>
rankings attract the best students and they do the best research and then more best students are attracted. that’s why these ranking are always the same and also why many great professors located in low-ranked schools do not take on the type of low-quality students there. I know many of these great profs discovered by foreign schools and sharing their brains with them not here in their country.</p>
<p>Now the question is what about the time the rankings didn’t existed? I don’t know how many decades or centuries we should go back, but back in dark ages I can tell you the discipline of research has not been the way it is now. I don’t wanna get into this talk, but when MITs and Harvards become what they are now times were significantly different.</p>
<p>
“A” good student is never able to do so but can do a great job with many many professors. disinterested students barely has nothing to do with it and more on that like I mentioned above great profs can do nothing with bad students entered in a low-rank school</p>
<p>Perhaps because English is not your first language, you seem to have misunderstood much of what I posted. For that reason, I won’t argue with you.</p>
<p>But I will question your assumption that a moderator with a “Mom” in her name cannot possibly know the university system and certain subfields better than you.</p>
That’s exactly what I was thinking too, correcting your blunders …</p>
<p>
For that exact same reason I needed to argue. misinformation, like “The faculty determine the level of research …” no matter how stupid it looks, needs to be corrected, not for the sake of its writer, obviously!, but other readers.</p>
<p>
uhm… assumption?, it was just a theory that I offered its rigorous proof a few lines below that.
BTW that really needs no proof, I mean how can a mom (of any nationality ;)) know that sort of things when she has never been to grad school never done research never read anything more scientific (except mine IF she read it) than posts of other moms.</p>
<p>I agree with INGWAY on this. Moms don’t go to grad school, much less know anything about it so how could you know anything, Momwaitingfornew?! :rolleyes:</p>