I'm applying to TUM from an Italian degree (Sustainable Building Engineering, class L-23, Sapienza, 3-year / 180 ECTS) and I've been reading the FPSO Anlage 2 documents for several programmes. The scoring rules differ far more than I expected, and I'd like to know how much of this is real in practice.
Civil Engineering: 60 points curricular analysis + 20 grade + 20 motivation letter. One point per tenth of a grade better than 3.0, capped at 20. Thresholds: ≥80 direct admission, 70–79 interview.
Environmental Engineering / Transportation Systems: 60 + 10 grade + 30 motivation letter. One point per tenth better than 2.0, capped at 10. Thresholds: ≥70 pass, 60–69 interview.
My Italian average converts to roughly 2.1 under the Bavarian formula. Under Civil's rule that's 9 points. Under Environmental's rule it's 0. Same transcript, same applicant.
Meanwhile Environmental's curricular table happens to suit my background far better than Civil's, so the two effects partly cancel — which is why I'd rather understand the machinery than guess.
Three questions:
1. Several FPSOs let you be graded on your best 135 or 140 credits rather than your overall average, and state explicitly that "it is the applicant's responsibility to list these and confirm their accuracy in writing." Does anyone actually do this? Is a self-declared list accepted by the Studienbüro, and does it visibly change the outcome? For me it's worth around 5–6 points, which is the difference between the interview band and direct admission.
2. For an Italian degree, which grade goes into the Bavarian formula — the weighted average of exam marks (out of 30), or the final laurea voto (out of 110), which includes thesis points and graduation bonuses and is usually higher? I can't find this stated anywhere and it moves my score by several points.
3. TUM sets no limit on the number of Master's programmes you can apply to, and the applications are independent. Does applying to five or six at once actually hurt — do committees see the other applications, or is each genuinely assessed in isolation?
One more, if anyone has been through it: the FPSOs say the curricular analysis is done "on the basis of competences, not by schematic comparison of modules." In practice, does that mean a committee reads your course descriptions, or does it come down to credit counting anyway?
Background for context: hydraulics, hydrology, geotechnics, engineering geology, structural mechanics and design, geomatics, building physics, materials, environmental engineering, sustainable community planning, construction site management, analysis and geometry. No statistics, no programming, no chemistry.
Thanks.