Texas University At Austin Application: Fill & Download for Free

They don’t. However, part of the point of going to college is to form social networks, and if you go to Harvard or Stanford you will get access to these social networks and their alumni organizations, which are better developed than those of UTexas Austin. This is a bad thing since it’s starting to create an hereditary aristrocracy and killing the middle class.Also one difference is the way that STEM is taught. At MIT, the weeding out takes place at admission, so there is no effort to push you out of the university once you are in. At UTexas Austin, the first year of freshmen science classes are deliberately taught to get rid of people. The other difference is the way the tests work, and were graded. At MIT the tests were all killer tests, but they were all hand graded, since this was considered part of the educational system.One other thing about MIT is that for someone that did really well in high school, it teaches you how to handle being the dummy in the room. Had I gone to University of Florida, I would have likely been a top student. At MIT, I was not spectacular, and in fact in a lot of cases was below average. Being in an environment where you are the dumbest person in the room rather than the smartest turns out to be useful. I’ve found that it gives me a lot of sympathy for people. When I’m trying to explain very basic algebra, and I have a confused student, I know what if feels like. Also, once you learn that “it’s okay to be stupid” it makes you less worried about trying new things.There are things that UTexas Austin does better than MIT. UTexas Austin is much better at handling a large number of students, it’s much more embedded in the local community, and as a state university it has public responsibiliities that MIT does not have. Also while MIT will get you the connections that will get you into the national elite, UTexas Austin and University of Florida will get you the connections that will get you into the state elite.One of the worst days in my life was when I got rejected for MIT graduate school, and I was told that MIT physics had a strong policy of not admitting MIT undergraduates. Looking back, I think this policy was a good one, and had I been on the MIT admissions committee, I would have rejected my own application.

This is extremely field dependent, but for Wall Street jobs requiring a science/engineering Ph.D., it doesn't make a difference. It will make a difference if the jobs requires an economic/finance/business Ph.D. or for an MBA.The reason that it doesn't make a difference on Wall Street is that Harvard science Ph.D.'s tend to go into academia, whereas Wall Street is a second choice for physics Ph.D.'s. What this means is that physics Ph.D.'s on Wall Street tend to come from the big state public universities (like UTexas Austin, or UCLA, UIUC) and that means that the hiring network for physics Ph.D.'s on Wall Street has is more dominated by the big state universities than by the Ivy League.So having a Harvard/Princeton physics Ph.D. won't help you. It won't hurt you. But that make hiring very different from MBA's where while it is possible to get into an IB with a degree from Big State, it's a disadvantage versus a Harvard MBA.The other thing is that a lot of it is regional. If you are looking for a tech job in Austin, Texas, having a degree from Harvard might hurt you mildly versus a degree from UTAustin or TAMU, because you don't have access to the local network.This also is wildly different for degrees from other countries in which you need a top Ph.D. from a top university (say Beijing University or Qinghua) to have a competitive application.

Let’s assume the OP is American first.In the top 20 undergraduate engineering programs, we’re probably talking the top 50 or so schools in the US. I’m open to amending my list, but I’ll suggest in no particular order MIT, Stanford, Caltech, CMU, UMichigan/Ann Arbor, GA Tech, UIUC, UTexas/Austin, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UWashington, RPI, Harvey Mudd, Purdue, Cornell, Princeton, VA Tech, Johns Hopkins, Rose-Hulman, UWisconsin/Madison, the US military academies … I have another 5 or so I’m thinking about like Virginia Tech, Northwestern, Texas A&M)very good to excellent academics, probably top 5% in your school or higher to be competitiveand commensurate SATs although these are less important (thinking around 1450+ median)most of them are going to want solid commitment in extracurriculars (a lot of them are private, some of the public ones still want extracurriculars)the top ones are going to want leadershipfor engineering specifically, your STEM abilities should be very strong (all A’s, preferably high A’s/A+’s)take as much STEM as you can (especially Mathematics-Algebra-Calculus, Physics, Chemistry; less important Biology, Computer Science)the fit is going to be different for each of these. Some will want more well-rounded applicants with 1+ “hook”.your letters of recommendation (if required) will need to be solid.Something to differentiate you (being a straight-A student with nothing going on is kind of bland, although would be fine if you are in-state and shooting for public universities)