Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

Thanks for the Question Eric,

Getting in and deciding between programs:


For graduate programs in Electrical Engineering you should also consider Caltech, Urbana
Champaign and Cornell apart from MIT/Stanford as they will all offer you enough depth to
create and innovate (and I'm guessing you only want programs in the US). If you have
enough experiance and are willing to pay for your degree, Masters programs are pretty easy
to get into with a decent GPA. PhD programs are not a good idea if you are more interested
in starting a company.. its a very long route to solving a tough problem and showing that
you can solve tough problems; which is not what building a startup is usually about.
Startups are about maximizing impact with the least amount of challenge. So go straight
after what you want!
Creating, Innovating and Startups: I will say that Stanford and MIT while both having
startup culture are still a little different. Stanford tends to stand alone with respect to the
number of successful "big" ventures that have come from students and faculty because that
"gold rush" mentality had to morph into something else and it did. You will find every other
person has an idea to make something happen and while some of the start-up ideas are
based on hard technical innovations that have to be licensed (Fairchild, Google etc) many
others are technically simple but needs that excite people and if "done right" can be
breakthroughs (Instagram, Coursera?).
From my experience with MIT collaborators, MIT has slightly more of a culture of taking
knowledge acquired through research and trying to leverage it into a company; which is
great. The risk is slightly less but so is the reward. So MIT makes up for that less risk
through brute force and size of its engineering departments.. they file slightly more patents
(632 vs 600 in 2011) and in the end earn about the same in royalties every year.
Conclusion you'll be more than fine and find more than enough resources in any of the
places I mentioned (and many more) to build something big or small that excites you but
check out the culture by spending some time at each of the places if you have the time and
then decide.
27.1k Views View Upvotes Answer requested by Eric Lynch

Grant Robinson, Synthetic Biologist


Written Jul 17, 2012

Note: I come from a biology background, not a computer science one, so everything I'm
offering is anecdotal and based on what I've heard grad students and admissions
committees mention.
As far as grad school goes in general, the elite universities- as far as I've been able to tellalways place a huge premium on whether or not you've done research before. This is
especially critical for something like biological/chemical fields. Computer science, I would
wager, is similar- there's obviously no laboratory work that's expected, but some sort of
either professional-quality work is essential. They want to know that you'll be able to work
on difficult problems, fail, and get right back on track until you contribute an excellent final
thesis/series of publications. I would *not* expect your interest in developing a start up to
be an obvious strength, since academia is its nature set up to attempt to maintain itself

rather than let its talent drain away into industry. Mentioning your interest in creating
useful software/algorithms/methods (that will be open and widely applicable to various
kinds of research, especially if you have any proof of this already) is a fantastic thing to do,
though.
One thing that some people (something around 20% or so, at least at UCSF) do before grad
school is go into an academic or industry tech position. Doing that offers you the
opportunity to learn good skills and, if you choose properly, get yourself an excellent letter
of recommendation. One grad student I know (and admissions committees, etc. have
confirmed this) is that the chain of importance goes:
Research Experience >/~ Letters of Recommendation > Personal Statement/Statement of
Purpose > Grades and everything else.
My twenty cents.
EDIT: I somehow read over the fact that you mentioned a year's worth of co-op experience,
and the bit about other graduate programs. Especially if your start-up was at all notable or
someone in the field can back it up as being an excellent attempt, you have something very
compelling to write about.
Regarding schools, Stanford is definitely way at the top- Caltech is too, but for whatever
reason I rarely hear about Caltech in the context of graduate work (?). Those are the only
ones that I have personally been exposed to as absolutely elite. Stanford has the strong
benefit of being right in the heart of Silicon Valley, so it's in your best interest to take a look
at what they have to offer, too- it seems, in fact, that your interests may ultimately be a
better match for them.

I hate to write an answer that may be 'stating the obvious' but hopefully some of this is nonobvious. (perspective: I have helped with admissions before, was accepted to every top
program, and was told by faculty what they look for). Here is the approximate order of
importance:
1. Connected to Someone on the Admissions Committee: By far the most
useful way to get into grad school. Sadly this was not true for me, but I have
friends for whom this was true, and it works. We live in a human society after
all.
2. Letters of Recommendation: Selection to grad school is made by humans
(professors) who trust their peers. So if they respect someone, and that person
says you are incredible, nothing else matters.
3. Research Experience: As is true for any job, if you are already doing the job
you want and have proven you are great at it, you are more likely to receive
offers.
4. Grades: You need to be smart in the subject areas that matter, and ideally in
general as well. This is proven largely through your grades, there really isn't a
better mechanism yet.

5. Essay: Write a compelling statement of interest, and more importantly your


research interests need to align with someone's in the department. My strategy
was to name specific professors and project that they were working on as
potential fits. However, I also made sure to express my general interest in my
field. So you need to balance your essay.
6. Standardized Tests: By far the least important aspect of your application. In
fact, I was admitted to Physics programs without ever giving the Physics GRE (I
just didn't have the time for it, not out of complacency).
UPDATE: There was another question on Quora that is highly relevant to this one: How do I
choose people to write my recommendation letters for my grad school application? I
recommend people read those answers as well, remember an application is comprised of
many parts, and there are good strategies for each. So look around Quora and seek out
advice on each independently. An application can certainly be 'designed' to improve your
odds. Content alone does not decide your fate.

PhD programs? Publications, publications, and more publications. If you don't have any
publications, a solid research background is essential. After all, what you'll be doing for 5+
years in grad school is essentially research. Demonstrating that you understand and
appreciate the intricacies of scientific research is essential, if not necessary, to getting
admitted to a top program. Your experiences should also be backed up by stellar letters
written by your supervisors.
Of course, there are always exceptions, in that one or two people in a program will have
minimal to zero prior research experiences. But these people usually have some other
extraordinary background that enabled them to demonstrate to admissions committees that
they have the scientific inquiry and work ethic to succeed in graduate school.
After your publication and research record, the usual "number stats" are important i.e.
GPA, GRE scores, and etc... I've heard grad schools are using numbers more and more as a
screening tool.
Disclaimer: I'm a MD student, but I've spent ages upon ages in research and around PhD
students to appreciate the nuances that PIs look for. A proper grad student can probably
give more specificity. This is also aimed towards programs in the natural sciences and
engineering.
4k Views View Upvotes
Upvote11 Downvote
Comments2+
Sha re

Barry Rountree, Computer Scientist, LLNL


Written May 11, 2015

At the PhD level the reputation of your advisor is far more important to your
career success than the reputation of the school or department.

If you're optimizing for the reputation of the department, you could find yourself admitted
into a program where none of the faculty are working on anything you're interested in, and
even worse, where your particular skills are terribly relevant. You'll still graduate, but seven
years of doing work whether you were disadvantaged by a lack of interest and skill will lead
to tepid letters of recommendation and unexciting job prospects.
Instead, figure out what you want to do, find the best people working in that area and start
reading their papers. Demonstrate that you have the capability to do research in their area.
They might not take you on, but they'll know other top people in the field who might.
My experience getting into Stanford for graduate school (Ph.D.) was pretty straight forward.
I was working at NASA Ames at the time and met my (then) future advisor at Stanford
through my boss there. We had a good rapport and I wanted to stay in the bay area, so I
talked to him about it. He invited me to give a talk to his lab group and then encouraged me
to apply.
At that time I had an M.S., five years research experience and three publications. Still, with
all of these things that should make me a shoe in, the number one thing he warned me of
was that I had to be above the "bar" for Stanford. Meaning, no matter how good I looked on
paper, if my standardized tests scores weren't good enough to get me past the first cut, there
is nothing he could do to help me get into the program. If I was above the first cut, it was
pretty much up to him. Things turned out OK in the end.
That was 2007. Just about the time that places like UC Berkeley were starting to change
their requirements so that taking the GRE was no longer required for admission to graduate
school. I don't know where things are at right now (happy to be done with degrees), but I do
know that Stanford is typically slow to adjust to those sorts of arbitrary measures of
potential.
My best advice is to make meaningful connections with people you're interested in working
with at those schools. Just realize they get a lot of email from potential students, so be direct
about your intentions and be persistent (they may not respond the first time you email
them).

Here is an answer I gave to another question on how to become a PhD student at MIT or
Harvard:

...a person who wants to attend MIT or Harvard for a PhD is cruising in a rarefied
atmosphere (excuse my aero engineering pun).
A PhD slot at an university, especially one like Harvard or MIT, is a Job.
Those are research universities. They tolerate undergraduates. They truly exist for the
graduate students and the research that the students and the professors conduct for Large
Sums of Money.
A PhD student at those two colleges (or any elite research college) will not want for money.
They will have Free tuition and a reasonable stipend towards living expenses. It is expected
that they will live like a "graduate student" and for those in the USA, there is a connotation
to that expression. I was a grad student at MIT for five years and I never wanted for
anything (except free time). MIT took care of me as an undergrad and then as a grad
student. I developed my Vocation at MIT and my several Avocations and I am truly
grateful.
A JOB:
Your responsibility is to perform Leading Edge discovery research, while taking and doing
well in your courses and passing your Doctoral Qualifiers with flying colors (or at least not
throwing up on the floor, a Pass is a Pass). While doing that, you are expected to write
papers, help organize symposiums and write a definitive thesis. The professor's career and
future funding is tied Directly to your success. You fail, and the professor fails. And these
are not all Full tenured professors. Many of the thesis advisers will be young assistant and
associate professors fighting for tenure and their careers.
Additionally, you as a PhD candidate are grooming and being groomed to be the next
generation of faculty at many of the universities across the USA, or the next generation of
leading researchers in industry. That is a Huge responsibility, when they bestow the title of
Doctor on you.
Therefore, do they take students that they don't know??????????????
Would you as a young faculty member fighting for tenure????
Yes, there is the "process" for being admitted......... Words on paper.
Let me tell you about a close associate of mine. He was a student at the University of West
Virginia. Top of his class in aeronautical engineering.
He thought for certain that he would remain there on a PhD track.
The head of the department (well known in the field) made a phone call, then called this
young man into his office.
"Pack your bags. You are Not staying here. You are going to MIT for your PhD. Good
Luck."

MIT was willing to take him because someone who knew him Extremely well told MIT that
this young man was worth the risk (and he was).
I was asked by MIT to stay as a graduate student at the start of my senior year. By second
term senior year, one of my professors who was also my senior capstone project adviser
asked me to work for him for the next several years. No paper work.
Most of the people I worked with at MIT in aero and mechanical engineering came the same
way. They may have "applied", but some professor at their undergraduate college knew a
professor at MIT and the skids were greased. Or the student had done some research as an
undergrad and got the attention of a MIT professor. And there are Lots of MIT trained
professors across the USA, and they will recommend graduate student candidates back to
MIT. Same thing for international colleges.
How else did three of the graduate students that I knew quite well at MIT were:
University of Colorado - Boulder and a Professional Ski Instructor
Purdue - Member of the men's basketball team
Notre Dame - Captain of the men's ice hockey team and the leading scorer in the nation as a
sophomore.......
They were also brilliant students who knew someone who knew someone at MIT......
submitted an application, but the skids were greased.

They

So, go back and look at what I originally wrote:


"MIT and Harvard will invite those that have the right stuff"
It is true. You have to do something that catches MIT's or Harvard's or Stanford's or
Princeton's etc. attention. And it is Not merely an application. It is much more than that.
It could be an application only. Being accepted "sight unseen" as an unknown quantity on a
piece of paper. But if your job as a young faculty member hinged on that person's ability to
perform, would you only look at an application?
So, get noticed. Write papers. Work with faculty at your college. Or get a job and work at
a company loaded with MIT or Harvard graduates, who will rave about your work and tell
their softball or ice hockey buddies (who are young faculty at MIT or Harvard) to take this
person under their wing and guide them to a PhD, and they won't regret it.
All the best. And may you soar in rarefied air.......

S-ar putea să vă placă și