I have to one select among the three universities for MS in Electrical Power Engineering

  1. North China Electric Power University (NCEPU)
  2. Xi’an Jiao Tong University (XJTU)
  3. Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU)

Shanghai Jiao Tong University has several joint degree programs as
SJTU-Monash University Dual Degree Program
SJTU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology Double Master degree program and others like these.

Please also provide your valuable suggestion about this especially about joint degree programs of SJTU whether they are good or traditional single university programs?

Thank you.

What are some universities in North America where you can choose freely (the programs are not pre determined)what you study in your combined/dual degree?

Such as the combined degree from mit allows you to choose two fields (unlimited)of your choice to study and schools like UBC has a combined major and dual majors that are pre determined (limited) like the combined major for computer science and commerce.

I am a Mechanical Engineering major applying for Ph.D. programs in Physics (in the US) who was always interested in Theoretical Physics but chose Mechanical Engineering due to a poor career choice at the time of the selection of undergrad major. Being interested in only theoretical physics, I didn’t care much about perfecting the engineering subjects and this is reflected in my grades. I have very good scores in Physics courses (except for an applied physics course). I am writing my SoP and have gotten advice from a lot of people that I should explain my choice of a different major despite my interest in physics as well as my average grades in engineering subjects. But I am not sure whether plainly telling them that I got viciously lured into engineering by being told “undergraduate physics education in our country is not good and one can easily switch to physics after the undergraduate program if one has done undergraduate studies in engineering” would help. Also, whether plainly telling the truth that I didn’t find engineering interesting and thus, my grades are average would help. It might (wrongly) show that I would not study uninteresting things that are required for some research project.

I have a fair amount of content to write about my interest in Physics, for example, I am pursuing a minor in Physics, I have done a good number of interesting research projects, I have attended some schools on theoretical physics, have taken a graduate course in GR, I have well-identified research interests, etc. etc. Is it required (or helpful) to write about why I chose a different major and why my grades are average in the engineering subjects? If yes then what should be the tone and approach?

I am a freshman at a university and so I am a little confused on to what type of courses should I be taking since there is a limit on the number of courses I can take.

I have three options

  1. Double Major in physics and maths and take 3,4 extra physics or maths electives

  2. Major in Physics, minor in maths and take extra 5,6 physics electives

  3. Major in maths, minor in physics and take extra 5,6 maths electives

Which option is better in terms of career and applying to a good graduate school?
Let me know if more clarification is required in this question.

Edit: Reading the comments I have altered my options a little

  1. Double Major in physics and maths and take 1 extra physics, 2 maths electives and 5 Programming/ Computer science electives

  2. Major in Physics, minor in maths and take extra 10 physics/ CS/ Programming/ Maths electives

  3. Major in maths, minor in physics and 10 physics/ CS/ Programming/ Maths electives

My question is about whether I should still stick with biology as my major.

I’m currently a first year biology undergraduate and I chose biology because my school does not offer neuroscience.

My interest in neuroscience was developed from prior interests about logic, formal systems and their application to the whole of science, how the brain and mind work, and the idea of how a mathematical model might open way to a unified theory of mind.

But recently I’ve come to realize while learning more about such topics, and that if I want to do theoretical research about the mind or something related after undergraduate school, I feel like I would gain “more” knowledge if I changed my major to something else instead of biology since I’ve strayed from the biological aspect of the brain and more towards the theoretical, plus a developing interest in mathematical logic.

Rather than biology I would consider (in no particular order) Mathematics, Philosophy, Computer Science, or Psychology. I wish I had enough knowledge and experience about the whole of each of those fields to conclude how they would align with my academic passion for the mind and logic, and is why I would really appreciate advice on what you would suggest I major in and why.

(Financial reasons wouldn’t be a factor in deciding)

I just finished third year in college, I’m majoring in math. I am considering to be an actuary.
I heard from many others said that math major is perfect for actuarial work. but I don’t think I have learned anything that relates to actuarial work. I feel I am lack of a lot knowledge about finances. So, would it be better to switch to actuarial science or stay math major?

I have studied:

  • Calculus I,II,III
  • Linear algebra
  • Differential equation
  • Abstract algebra
  • Real Analysis I,II
  • Complex Analysis
  • Statistical Methods for Statisticians and Actuaries
  • C++
  • Physics, chemistry, art, history, literature etc.

I’ve looked into double majoring at my university and it seems that, as is apparently common, it’s very likely that if I go down this track I will not graduate in 4 years, but probably in 5 or 6. This makes me wonder: what are the implications for a career in either industry or academia of a double major, as opposed to doing a single major, graduating in 4 years, and using the next 2 years to study for a Master’s degree instead?

I’m a M.A.Sc (equivalent with M.Sc.) student majoring in electrical and computer engineering at a top-tier Canadian university. My undergraduate studies were, reasonably, related to computer science and engineering. Robotics and implementation of human mental (cognitive) capabilities is my main research interest within these years. So, I had to learn a lot about cognitive processes of mind, biological aspects of nervous system and psychological concepts. Right now, I’m thinking about not to pursue technical majors towards Ph.D. and switch to psychology field. In no doubt, I have no classical background in psychology in view of previous degrees, but I have some fairly-strong reasons to justify my new idea to change the major:

  • First of all, I was already interested in study of psychological affairs within the artificial intelligence (AI) framework, but now I’d changed my mind because I feel I am actually interested in WHAT natural aspect of psychology, not artificial HOW perspective. Furthermore, I think my contribution to psychology will be more gratifying (for myself) than AI, since the impact of the former will directly affect human-beings, whereas real imitations of AI are just like dreams, currently.

  • (As I stated above) However I have no official preparation in psychology, my research experiences may show that I’m not an alien in this field. I have a couple of conference and journal papers, most of which are about implementation of cognitive processes into computer procedures. Hence, I am aware of them partly.

  • My ideas are coherent enough to let me write a proposal to address what sort of contribution I’ve in mind to have. Obviously, that proposal will reflect a literature review that is by itself representative of my acquaintance with this field.

My target programs are well-known ones in US and EU, such as University of Cambridge. I’ve tracked some faculty members whose researches need background and mental preparation approximated by mine.

With all being said, my main concern here is whether aforesaid stuffs and justifications have any merit to help me get in such (at least in first sight!) irrelevant program compared to my background or it is impossible for me to hit this mark (I’ll be carrying water in a sieve). In other words, how do universities typically analyze applications of fellows like me and what sort of credits are often important for them (which should be reflected into my application)? What are typical admission committees' assessment criteria in such situations?

PS. The probable answer might be:

Just pursue another master degree (in psychology, this time), and then
apply for Ph.D.

Actually, I’m an international student and humanity funded positions (at least here) are very rare, typically granted to aboriginal candidates. So, please assume that pursuing another master is not pretty feasible for someone in my situation.

I read an article recently showing research data of the average graduating GPAs for various majors. It was a discussion piece about whether or not not humanities majors were more likely to have higher GPAs given the increased opportunity for professors to be subjective in grading. (Very interesting piece.)

However, I would like to know more than just the average of GPAs. For example, the percentile you would be in if you had x GPA in y major.

Does such data exist?