<p>hey guys I go to a state school (computer science) my CS GPA is only 3.2(computer science GPA) and im pretty sure I can get it to about 3.4, you guuys think I would have shot at grad school at atleast on the top 25?
the only reason its a 3.2 is beacuse I take a lot of classes every sem :( last sem I had 4 computerscience and 1 math class that was a huge pain,I hope grad schools look at things like how I take all the hard classes offered.</p>
<p>I think that would be pretty hard, because CS is one of the most competitive majors for grad school. For example, a few schools ranked in the 40s have average GPAs of 3.5 to 3.6.</p>
<p>ga I know that kinda blows, my first year just totally killed me baddddddddddddddddd. i wasnt prepared for college. :(
ah well. im just hoping I can get in somewhere. other then the school im at now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how many MIT/Stanford students would rather be at Virginia Tech but didn't get in, as opposed to Virginia Tech students who would rather be at MIT/Stanford? I think it's fairly safe to say that there are more people in the former category than in the latter.
[/quote]
Just a little note ... did you mean to say there are more people in the latter category than in the former?</p>
<p>im in a similar situation. ive applied to berkeley, caltech, and mit. i havent been accepted to ne of them yet, but hypothetically, if i got into all of them, should i go with the in-state public (berkeley), the in-state private (caltech) or the out of state private (mit)? is berkeley far from the other two, in terms of undergraduate engineering. i would prefer berkeley greatly, because its about half the price of the other two.</p>
<p>For EECS, Berkeley is absolutely on par with MIT and Caltech.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Randal went to Rutgers for his undergrad, and that obviously didn't stop him from getting 3 degrees from MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but look at when he went to MIT. He went AFTER he had picked up a master's from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Randal was an academic and athletic star at Rutgers and that spurred him to win the Rhodes. I'm fairly certain that LFM (the MBA/MS program at MIT) was most impressed by his Rhodes Scholarship than by anything else on his resume, including his Rutgers degree. Then because he did quite well in LFM, it was relatively easy for him to stay and get his PhD. One of MIT's secrets is that it's a lot easier for you to get into an MIT graduate program if you're already an MIT graduate student of some capacity, even if it's in an entirely different program, because intracampus transfers are easier than trying to get in from the outside. </p>
<p>So, simplistically speaking, Randal's path was as follows</p>
<p>Rutgers -> Oxford on Rhodes Scholarship - > MIT LFM -> MIT Media Lab PhD.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just a little note ... did you mean to say there are more people in the latter category than in the former?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes yes, you know what I meant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if research experience is more important than your GPA for grad school, how would you go about getting good research experience if your college isn't known for research? My school goes by the saying "learn by doing"...so I'm pretty sure there aren't many research opportunities
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would say a good GPA is more important than research for getting into graduate school, at least on the Master's level. This is because you will likely need to get a 3.5 or better to get into good graduate school whereas the research experience is not as much of a requirement. We had a student get accepted to UIUC, Purdue and Stanford for graduate school but he did not have any undergraduate research experience. He did have an excellent GPA though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, look. What I meant is that strong research experience trumps a bad GPA. In other words, a guy with only middling grades but stellar research experience will probably get admitted over a guy with excellent grades but no research experience. Granted, they may both get in. But if only one gets in, I would put my money that it would be the former. </p>
<p>As far as where to find research opportunities, I agree that some schools are more readiliy able to offer such opportunities than others. However, even the lowest level school ought to offer some opportunities to some students. It usually takes some asking around. Ask the GSI's, ask the profs. There may be opportunities for you to intern for the R&D department of a tech company during the summer. Things like that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
im in a similar situation. ive applied to berkeley, caltech, and mit. i havent been accepted to ne of them yet, but hypothetically, if i got into all of them, should i go with the in-state public (berkeley), the in-state private (caltech) or the out of state private (mit)? is berkeley far from the other two, in terms of undergraduate engineering. i would prefer berkeley greatly, because its about half the price of the other two.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that on a purely academic level, the EECS program at Cal is as good as anybody's.</p>
<p>However, there are a number of non-academic, non-EECS related issues of Cal that would make me hesitate to choose Cal over MIT or Caltech. Tops on my list is the course inflexibility at Cal. The truth is, a lot of people who think they want to study EECS coming in will never actually get an EECS degree, either because they find out it's too hard, or they don't like it and want to do something else. </p>
<p>MIT and Caltech, by and large, offer full "course shopping", which means that you are free to major in whatever you want, and switch majors whenever you want. If you go to MIT intending to major in EECS and find out later that you'd rather do Mechanical Engineering or Economics, Mathematics, Sloan Management or whatever, you're completely free to do so. Not so at Berkeley. If you want to switch from one engineering to another, or switch out of engineering completely and to Letters & Science, you have to petition to do so, and depending on your grades, you run the risk of being turned down. You generally need at least a 3.0 in order to successfully switch engineering majors or switch to another college, and it is VERY easy to get less than a 3.0 in EECS.</p>
<p>In fact, this scenario has led to one of the most pernicious academic paradoxes I have ever seen. Some people in Berkeley EECS get poor grades in their EECS classes and so they want to switch out of EECS. But the fact that they have poor grades prevents them from switching out. In other words, the very reason why they want to leave is precisely the reason why they cannot leave. The irony is palpable. In fact, this happened to a guy I know. He got into EECS, got poor grades, and so wants to get out, but he can't get out because of his poor grades. He's in one heck of a bind. </p>
<p>However, I think you've answered your own question. If you can't afford MIT or Caltech, then you should take Berkeley. The Berkeley EECS program is on par with any other EECS program. Just keep in mind that your college experience is dictated by far more than just the quality of your specific program.</p>
<p>Yikes! im starting to have second thoughts</p>
<p>I would also add recommendation of Olin College as an incredible engineering school to look into. (I am currently a freshman there). The same arguments against caltech's inflexibility apply here, but if you know what you want to do, this place is incredible. The school is new and small, but located in an awesome city (Boston), has an unbelievable group of incredibly social athletic, super-smart engineers (average SAT is higher than MIT), and is rapidly gaining national attention. I can't convince you to apply in one paragraph, but I highly encourage you to read up about the school's curriculum at <a href="http://www.olin.edu%5B/url%5D">www.olin.edu</a>. Their app deadline is the Jan 6th.</p>
<p>You forgot to mention the full tuition scholarships given to every student!</p>
<p>And don't forget Harvey Mudd. Our general engineering program is very successful and prestigious among employers and graduate schools.</p>