I've got a question to pose to the general community if anyone has any thoughts. I'm a rising senior and I'd like to go to grad school; my faculty think I can get into MIT/Stanford/etc but I'm not too sure. My qualifications are:
I'm an undergrad with 3.75 GPA, three years research experience at the labs at school, an internship with the Department of the Army's Night Vision labs. I have my name as a second author on a paper and patent, and hopefully another patent/paper before graduation. I took the GRE and got a 770 Q, 540 V, and 4 AW. I'm going to graduate with a bachelors in MechE and a second in Physics. I don't know if this is good/bad/irrelevant, but I'm also 17 (I throw that in because it was a bad thing for my sister when she applied to med school, so I don't know if it's pertinent).
My professors want me to retake the GRE - I'm wondering if it's worth the risk that I'll do worse. Could I get into the bigger schools with the qualifications? Should I retake the GRE?
Thank you so much. I'm really confused about all this and I'm looking for any sort advice from someone who may know.
If your professors think you can get in, they are probably right. They know what they are looking for in graduate school applicants, and they know how past students from your program have done in graduate school applications.
I think it's up to you -- it's certainly true that an 800 on the quantitative section is not unusual for a competitive applicant to top engineering programs, but I really doubt a 770 would raise a red flag. The GRE is certainly not the most important component of your application.
Note that faculty will usually tell you - you *can* get in, but of course there's always a little luck, unless they're writing really ridiculously glowing letters, are professors at a well-known school (with credibility both in name and in terms of making useful recommendations for great students).
They'll usually make a great estimate, which should only be wrong by a small margin of error.
Also, I doubt that for top grad schools, the difference between near perfect and perfect GRE scores really comes into play, when you have a solid GPA and lots of research experience. Top programs are notorious in many fields for caring most about lettres of recommendation and things like that.
The GRE is certainly not the most important component of your application.
Hmm, I've heard that a lot, especially about MIT - that GRE is not as important in grad admissions as the SAT in undergrad. But then I've heard many people say that the SAT and GRE are equals except one's for grad and one for undergrad. Is MIT just different in the way that it's less important for them than for other schools?
Nope, the GRE isn't that important for any top science/engineering graduate program, provided you did fairly well. The GRE math is very easy -- about 10% of test-takers get a perfect score on the math section -- and it doesn't do a very good job of differentiating between applicants at the top end.
Moreover, graduate programs are looking for future scholars in a particular field, and for people who will successfully finish the program, and neither of those things is well-predicted by GRE score. Professors on the admissions committee will rely much more heavily on an applicant's letters of recommendation and previous research experience than they will on a specific GRE score.
But the GRE and the SAT are very similar in content and format, except that the GRE math section is easier and the verbal section is a bit harder.
Certainly there are some brilliant students who enroll in Tier 3 schools on full-ride scholarships or attend for other reasons; There are always some faculty members at such schools who received doctorates from top-tier schools. In my field, we inform graduate students in our mentoring program that most of the jobs available are not in Tier 1 schools. It's therefore possible to find good mentoring in a lower-tier school, although generally the resources are not as extensive.
It is possible for an outstanding candidate from a Tier 3 school to gain admission to MIT; easier in some programs than in others. The website gradschoolshopperdotcom (spelled out here so it's legible) provides information on admission rates to 3 grad programs at MIT. According to the data at this site, in 2009 the graduate physics dept. admitted around 17 percent of applicants, whereas graduate nuclear engineering admitted a much higher percentage. It's competitive for everyone.
A question please,There are certain things i can control in undergrad.1.i can get a 3.9+GPA at my school,2.i can get a 4.0 in both math and CS(as a double major)4.i can get good recommendations from my professors.Now,there are two things i cant control 1.I am in a tier 3 school,and financially,am unlikely to leave2.i cant get top level,quality research in CS or math at my school,but am already doing research in astrophysics with a prof who tapped me after an intro physics course.I would love to get a phD in math at either Harvard,MIT or Berkeley,or a CS phD at either MIT or stanford.What are my chances?Will it be more sensible to go to law school?.We have our opinions about prestige,but now that i know one can acquire knowledge anywhere,i need the other part of the equationrestige.any views?
I would love to get a phD in math at either Harvard,MIT or Berkeley,or a CS phD at either MIT or stanford.What are my chances?Will it be more sensible to go to law school?
It sounds to me as if you first need to clarify what you want to do. No one here can say anything about your chances, whether it's to study math, computer science, or law.
I have a passion for math and CS.In an ideal world i want to take a phD in CS at a top research institution.failing that i will take math.Law is just a desperate attempt to replace money with what one truly loves
@mollie
So, in theory, if the GRE has less of a predictive power of grad school completion than the SAT for undergrad, then the GRE has a smaller role in grad admissions than does the SAT in undergrad?
Just making sure
I would love to get a phD in math at either Harvard,MIT or Berkeley,or a CS phD at either MIT or stanford.
I have it from a friend who has it from someone he knows that for example, MIT math stated that if you're coming from a lesser known school, to have even a chance at all, you should probably be the best student they've seen in several years, and do things outside of your school's offerings to have a shot. This also clarifies why the following
So..basically if one is from a tier 3 school,a 4.0 ,high GPA plus non mainstream research cant get one into an MIT phD program?
is probably untrue.
So, in theory, if the GRE has less of a predictive power of grad school completion than the SAT for undergrad, then the GRE has a smaller role in grad admissions than does the SAT in undergrad?
I think this is definitely true, assuming one can demonstrate one speaks English decently somehow, and is quantitatively decent. However, depending on the field of study and the school, the subject test may become a way to weed out some candidates, although glowing letters from top faculty (which are extremely rare and tough to obtain) would override most things - grad schools tend to make sure they don't put down a "lowest score" cutoff.
I would love to get a phD in math at either Harvard,MIT or Berkeley,
No one here can say anything about your chances, whether it's to study math, computer science, or law.
I'm just throwing it out there - you're probably not getting into Harvard for math. Chances: close to 0%. Why do I say it? If you have to ask the question, it's probably not happening. This is no knock on you at all, by the way, that program is just notoriously hard to get into, and you not only have to be extremely smart, you probably have to be doing lots of things to make your application look 'insanely' good from the very start.
====
From my knowledge - to get into a good math program, take plenty of hard classes that train you well, do well in them, figure out some area of interest, try to impress upon some faculty that you are serious. Possibly do undergraduate research and publish, but it's possible to get into top schools without doing any at all, and indeed, not at all far from common. However, getting into certain notoriously hard to get into top schools may require you to throw everything you have at them. Try to do well on the subject test, don't blow it off. Letters of recommendation come from a combo of professors teaching advanced classes and ones you did independent work under. Your GPA probably does matter. Some people get into Ivy League schools with pretty low subject test scores.
To get into a good (EE)CS program (check out my username, my advice here might be less trustworthy), do lots of undergrad research, publish, so try to develop research interests early on, take hard classes and do well in them initially, while spending more time on research as time goes by. Letters of recommendation from a research advisor really, really help. If you check around, you'll come across an article by a CMU prof detailing grad school admissions from the point of view of a CS fellow. He seems to comparatively de-emphasize GPA.
Common advice for both - letters of recommendation rule your success, barring other troubling factors, the more you desire a "top tier" school.
restige.any views?
