Can I get into a good grad school (Masters in Robotics or Aerospace) with none or only 1 term of research experience?

American grading system is different though, apparently it's very easy to get A's in American grading. Here we have class averages of 67%.

apply everywhere. I was accepted into a program i never thought id get into because i lacked research experience, but apparently my letter of reqs and intent letter made a huge impact on whoever read it.

How to get letter of recs? I'm in 3rd year now but with no research I can't imagine how I can get a prof to recommend me for anything other than coming and bugging him about shit.

I was planning on applying to the top 10 aerospace schools and top 10 robotics schools. Hopefully I can get into my top 5 overall choices being Stanford aero, CMU robotics, Princeton aero, GT aero, purdue aero though ive just no idea if I have a chance fo any of them

You shouldn't need to specify a professor yet for a masters. Also Affirmative action is much less prevalent in grad school. It might help a little, but not as much as undergrad.
It depends on the uni and the professor desu. Some top schools are known for grade inflation, some for grad deflation. Most of my major classes have had averages as low as 50%

>Here we have class averages of 67%.
You'd probably be wise enough to know this is more telling of canadian education rather than american. I doubt however that strong graduate schools in canada are more stringent than strong graduate schools in the US. At any rate, different courses at different schools handle different grades regardless, so a single percentage is relatively useless (hence the "GPA" scale in american education).

>What GPA is good?
Depends on the school you apply to. You should google the programs you are interested in and see what their requirements are. Criteria for academic achievement will likely be one page over from the program's home page.

>How to get letter of recs?
Ask professionals of your field who you've worked under. If you have internships at Blue Origin and JPL, then you should ask your supervisors. American graduate programs typically require at least 2 letters of recommendation for a masters program, and 3 for a doctoral program, though it's common for programs to require 3 in general. If you do not have professionals to come to for letters of recommendation, then you should obviously try as urgently as you can to receive an opportunity to do so.

from professors who know you and think you would be a good addition to a program. By my senior year i had 3 professors in mind, and they all agreed upon it, as well as my retail boss of 5 years (her's was really the one i wanted, since it showed i was loyal/can show up to work on time/get along with people). i did have to hound them all to get them in on time, and i took each to lunch as a thank you.
Apply everywhere you can, on time of course. try to make each intent letter slightly personalized to each school, maybe dropping a PI name or a lab you'd be interested in working in. Apply to some fallbacks too, just in case, mine were master's programs, i got into 4/5 of them, and 2/5 PhD programs.

oh to add on this, take the GRE as quickly as you can, even if you plan on taking it again. This will cause schools to email you relentlessly about applying to their programs, and most will waive their application fee, which adds up really quickly (i spent at least 1k on applications fees, transcript sending, ect).

my uni is ranked 27th worldwide, even though it is leaf uni

I was planning on taking the GRE 3 or 4 months before the application deadline. I don't really have free time to study for it early

That should work, i took mine very late october and most my applications were due a month later, dec 1st.

I wouldnt recommend studying too hard for it. If anything, learn to type fast, typing at 130 wpm definitely was an enormous advantage on the 2 essays, i wrote 2 5 paragraph essays in 30 minutes each and got a 98% in writing.

>130 wpm

That's the 99.7th percentile for typing speed, so it's a pretty ridiculous thing to recommend. Typing speed for most people can't be improved much once you plateau.

How was it contentwise?

I (OP) type at around that

heres my record, but i was on a large dose of amphetamines and cannot reproduce it. i guess i should say "if you type only 30 wpm, you're kind of screwed"
contentwise was very good as well, but only because both prompts asked for you to form an argument, and i am very good at that.

who is this AAbabby person

Can I lie about my race to get into a grad program?
>Fuckin' racis', I identify as a black person

most recent astronaut candidate group needed miuh diversity so they hired a fucking mulatto geologist girl just cuzzz

She doesn't seem any more capable than your average PhD student - am I wrong?

Forgot to add link.
nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/jessica-watkins/biography

>dyke
check
>black
check
>female
check

I really don't know man, those qualifications mean almost nothing with the AA systems the US has, especially in government shit like NASA. Could be smart could just be another nigger with a dream

>I really don't know man, those qualifications mean almost nothing with the AA systems the US has, especially in government shit like NASA.
Yeah! I live in New Zealand, and I know these two guys that have way more """qualifications""" than they should because they're half Maori. They don't even know their culture, I know more cultural shit than them but they get all this AA shit.

They're capable, but if they didn't have that Maori in them they wouldn't look so impressive on a CV. The awards themselves don't even sound like AA ones, but when you look into them they are. It's so fucked. They get awards for pretty much existing.

Yup, not like they're dumb or anything, they're smart and hard working but if they were an Asian male they wouldn't have gotten any of that shit.

She has years of previous experience interning at NASA and working on the curiosity program on top of her degrees.

What set of qualifications would a black woman have to have for you to consider that her being put into astronaut training wasn't purely the result of racial favoritism?

I wasn't saying she wasn't qualified, I'm just saying there's nothing outstanding in her CV. Nothing to hint more capabilities than an average PhD student, the fact she's got some experience in the industry is basically the only thing "outstanding."

I wasn't implying that she was selected for her race, I was just saying that she's not THAT impressive of a candidate - irrespective of her race.

Whether or not she was selected for her race over a more qualified or capable candidate - I don't know. You couldn't determine that based on the information available without knowing the candidate pool.

What would you consider impressive that she lacks? i'm genuinely curious.

Her experience doesn't really offer any valuable input by her - it uses words like "participated","served" and "supported."

It never really says anything she accomplished in those roles, she sounds like a passive team member. I suppose they expect the positions and roles she's been in speak for themselves.

It doesn't say that she's actually done anything impressive or made any significant contribution whilst in her role or in her field (through her PhD, etc.). She studied so and some such? So what, did she actually contribute anything important? So many PhDs are hypothesis' and studies which contribute little to their respective fields - is this one of those?

That's what's missing, and perhaps NASA have not included it on purpose - or there's nothing more to add.

I got into top tier EE PhD programs with minimal research but good internships.

I am assuming you are applying to masters programs (1-1.5 years) which can be research or class masters. For class masters they wont care at all and for research masters they probably only care a little. It can even give you something to talk about in applications or interviews. You can talk about how you saw what industry looks like and realized masters/PhD is necessary for the work you are interested in long term.

Undergrad research is mostly bullshit so dont sweat it too much.

In general masters programs are not that selective because they only take you for a short period of time and the institution is more likely to be judged by their PhDs and undergrads.

Ignore everyone talking about affirmative action, you have nothing to gain and much to lose by letting those narratives shape your goals and opinions of yourself.

You should check out Caltech, I have a lot of respect for aerospace people I have worked with.

>> blue origin and JPL
Yeah you're good man.
You might want to consider other schools further down the list. The top 10 are only marginally better. Here's a hint for you: cassie.