bamafan

Yup, no problem. That's the most important thing when choosing a program honestly, seeing if there are faculty with whom you'd like to work. They were from UCSC and Washington respectively, I believe with specialties in bioinformatics and machine learning. If you don't mind me asking, what's your research background?

Also, I know of at least two EECS students who got into Berkeley Comp Bio and MIT CSBi respectively. You'll be fine, but again, I think you're chances will be higher if you choose the seemingly more relevant programs to your background. Trust me, if you want to do cancer research for instance, regardless of your final PhD program, you'll be able to do the exact same work and experiments as you would in a regular bio program.

This is a poor reason to apply to a purely biology PhD in my opinion. It's a common misconception that bioengineering is the same as bioMEDICAL engineering, which it really is not. In practice, there is little difference in the research you'll be able to do in any of these majors. It just depends on your interests and what projects/labs you decide to go into. The main difference will probably just be in your classes and how easy it will be get in to the program. You can go into an engineering major like BioE and it doesn't have to have anything to do with devices. I have a bioE background, but my work is all in synthetic and systems biology, as in engineering life (bacteria as factories). That's as "pure bio" as it gets. Some of my co-grads in my UG major were likewise DNA engineers or protein engineers, some even molecular and chemical engineering in practice. We never touched any sort of device nor computational work (I switched actually and am now doing a computational track). On the other hand, being in an interdisciplinary or broader based program gives you flexibility and options if you do want to do something more along your original background (just as I was more or less pure bio in practice, some other students built microscopes and microfluidic devices or did tissue engineering, which is more mechE). Given this last point, I encourage you to apply to bioE programs since it'll honestly be easier for you to get in with your qualifications and background. Don't be scared off by the names of the programs, they aren't really restrictive defined boundaries -- regardless of what program you get into, it will not limit what you are want to do (if anything, being bio only could limit you as the faculty will not be interdisciplinary and may not have access or collaborations with other groups, which is very useful and important).

I think you would be fine honestly. You'll be at a disadvantage, but students come from unconventional backgrounds all the time and your research experience would help a lot. That said, why aren't you applying to bioE or compB type programs? It sounds like you'd be a better fit both based on qualifications and interests. It's not that you can't do those things as a "pure bio" PhD, but rather, I'm trying to figure out why you want to be pure bio in the first place.

You would be basically leaving scot free, because your work would be split between two universities, and therefore, at best, you're being paid twice as much as you should be. It also is theft because even if it's governmental funds, you are receiving it to do work at the university paying you. Failure to do so would be a violation of the legal agreement. It's like being paid full-time to only work part-time. I did look into this by the way. I don't know what UK university you were planning to scam, but several I checked definitely have legal clauses prohibiting you from being registered anywhere else. If you do, you risk forfeiture to not only your admission but also the funding plus interest. So it is illegal, chum. The funds may be for "research", but it's for research under specific scenarios and circumstances. There are conditions attached, and these are the conditions you hope to violate by trying to mislead one university. If you work out some sort of cross-admission with the universities, that's another thing altogether. But that is nowhere near the ballpark of what you planned to do originally, which I said then and still say now, was extremely ill-conceived, immature, and selfish (and not to mention, again, illegal).

Nothing should go into an SOP that isn't related to your research interests, interest in and fit with the particular program, and your qualifications/experience (you could discuss the health/withdrawals as part of discussing your qualifications, perhaps by describing how you overcame them and kicked total ass in your MA). SOP is not the same thing as a personal statement.

I strongly disagree. I don't think this is a legitimate question at all, unless it comes from someone who has a seriously lacking understanding of right and wrong and an equally lacking ability to analyze potential risks and consequences that stem from bad behavior. Perhaps my language was strong, but the OP's stance is just so far beyond the limits of reasonable adult behavior that it is unbelievable to me. The assertion that an advisor, let alone a professor, would suggest this is equally outrageous. Under no circumstances could I even imagine an academic, regardless of nationality or origin, giving such advice.

The OP is obviously trolling, because no one with half a lobotomized brain would even conceive of doing this let alone actually do it. Everything about this idea reeks of sheer stupidity and immorality, and I'm willing to bet real money the OP is just here to jerk everyone's chains. Move along, folks. If this idiot actually is considering doing this, then he/she deserves to get be screwed later on, blacklisted professionally, and kicked out of both PhDs. So simboxon, if you want to do it, by all means go ahead.

Okay, first off, you can't type because it's "bamafan", as in a fan of Alabama. Second, you misattributed a quote to me as I didn't even say those things, someone else did. Third, I said, after trying to give you some financial advice, that you were "somewhat aggressive", which you were then to the above posters and are being now. No one has at any point said that your path is "unnacceptable and stupid". If you want empathy, you should have said so, but instead you asked for advice, which I, and many others, have tried our best to give. I certainly have not at any point tried to disparage or discourage you, and I honestly wish you the best. We gave you our thoughts, as well as useful suggestions. Maybe you didn't get anything meaningful out of our comments, but that's not because we were being rude or unhelpful, but rather because you chose not to appreciate what we said. Try not to be so offended and hostile to strangers on the internet, so much so that you didn't even bother to check who actually said what. This in and of itself lends weight to your behavior and response not being quite so "level-headed".

It also seems like you're pretty set on following your heart regardless of the financial hardship, so I'm a bit confused as to what you even want from the rest of us if not our opinions. Some people gave you their thoughts, and you reacted somewhat aggressively. If you're not open to other people's opinions and judgments, why did you ask for them? Thoughts and judgments are necessarily inclusive when it comes to opinions on your situation. As for your situation, if and only if you're sure you will qualify for debt forgiveness, why not go the route of your dreams and go to USC? But if you're not sure that you'll be able to do this, save the money. As you mentioned, it's not like your salary will be any different regardless of where you went. Are you sure there aren't any grants you could get to finance your education, rather than just loans? Also, as long as you're in school, debt does not accrue interest. If you're really worried about the debt also, why don't you defer a year and work -- even if you only pull in 30-40k, that puts a huge dent in your debt, and more importantly, the eventual interest.

Well, you don't really have a choice, you have to take the general GRE. The subject is optional depending on the school.

I'm not from Canada, but I've been a few times, and there's nothing wrong with Calgary except the Flames are terrible. Seriously, it's not like you'll be moving to a sleepy town of 3000 people. When it comes to getting your PhD, location is important, but funding and research fit are way more important.

I picked UCSD over some "better" schools for many of the reasons you mentioned. The reputation in life sciences is very well regarded, and you have some real superstar PIs there, not to mention great affiliated institutes (Salk, Scripps, the soon-to-be new freaking JCVI!!!)

1. You'll make new friends. It's life. It's not like your old friends disappear just because you're farther part. 2. Always choose funding. Seriously, especially for a masters, it's not worth spending $100k when you could get it for free.

I'm going to say something very unpopular but it is kind of the elephant in the room right now. I don't know how serious or long-term your relationship is, but I chose to spend the last year near my girlfriend instead of grad school, a girlfriend with whom I'd been living with for three years (spending 16+ hours/day together over this span...) and we broke up this earlier this year. This is pretty much a worst case scenario -- being somewhere you didn't want to be for someone with whom you are no longer together. Obviously, I don't know your relationship nor would I ever prognosticate anything bad happening between you two, but you should consider this possibility as only you can.

Wow, the vote #s are still small, but it's interesting to see the results. I have wondered if I picked how I did because it was freshest on my mind... interesting findings so far.

For me, it was research fit first and foremost, but also the breadth of the department. I think that says a lot of how much the university is putting into the program. If there's a lot of faculty covering a range of topics (all the main "-omics", super computing, machine learning, if they have a core, etc.). Some schools are very topic specific like all cancer focused, and if that's not what you want to do, then it won't be a very good fit. I wouldn't bother with a Masters unless you feel you are very in need of supplementing some area of your training. Most of the programs today, at least the ones I applied to, have evolved to assume applicants are mostly Bachelor's only and have a strong amount of classwork that covers most topics including CS, stats, informatics, epidimeology, etc. so you'll learn it all anyway in all likelihood.

Good choice, congrats.

I actually applied to bioinformatics and sys bio this application season. In truth, there is kind of a dearth of programs; it's not exactly a new field anymore but compared to most others, it's very recent (past 20 years or so max). Therefore, the majority of programs are the handful of ones that have been around for a while and then every other school in the world suddenly deciding to have a program since it's an exploding field. I would probably put NC state in the latter group. That doesn't mean it's bad at all -- in fact, if you look at schools some schools like Berkeley, their programs in comp bio is also basically brand new, but already considered elite because of the faculty starpower. That's probably the most important thing for you to do. Look up the faculty in the PhD program at NC State and determine if you think you'd want to work with them. For reference though, I would say you can't go wrong with the following four: USC, UCSD, Michigan, BU and beyond that of course, your usual suspects (Harvard Systems Bio, MIT CSBi, UCSF iPQB, etc).

I actually don't think they'll change significantly at most research universities. At smaller or less funded universities, it'll probably be down, but at tier 1 and other larger places, I think the number of PhD students is actually continuing to grow. Most departments there have other sources of funding for student stipends, etc. and are either staying constant (maybe small reductions) or actually expanding. The real losers from the funding crunch are the new and younger principal investigators. They aren't tenured yet and likewise aren't in situations where they would be guaranteed funding (many PhD programs), and are the ones under pressure to produce so they can get tenure. Ouch. EDIT: Another group of losers from the funding issues would be Masters' students, but in general, not PhD students. The reality is there are not enough *qualified* applicants for the number of PhD positions available, which is increasing even in this budget crisis. The sort of irony here is that in the bad economy, getting a funded PhD is actually one of the best bets; you get your degree by the time the economy should get better and you get a stable, guaranteed salary while doing it. It's not going to make you rich, but you get stability.

^ You're certainly right, but my point is more than since one doesn't know how many people are above you on the waitlist nor what the matriculation rate will be of accepted students, it'd be folly to play as if you'll get it. When waitlisted, the best course of action is to assume you won't make it off the list so you can plan accordingly. You wouldn't plan for a tomorrow assuming you'll win the lottery if you haven't won it yet, and while that example is hyperbolic, the principle is the same. With so many unknowns that can vary so wildly year-to-year and program-to-program, the chances of getting off the waitlist could be 50% or higher in some cases but also it could be 0% (as it often is).

I would err on caution contrary to what's being posted and say you should assume you won't get off the waitlist. It's definitely possible, but the odds are against you and it's better to play the probabilities and assume you're not getting then (so if you do, you're delighted, and if you don't, you're not disappointed). While many applicants are cross-admitted and necessarily must decline schools, schools also try to account for this by overadmitting by as many was 4-5x their expected matriculating class. So often, a few people slip through the waitlist, but it's definitely not as frequent as you might hope and you shouldn't count on it. Play it safe and go with what's certain. If you're on a waitlist, plan for not getting in. You still might, but don't hold your breath.

Did you already decline UConn? Why did you decide to do that if you didn't have any other offers in hand? Did you dislike the program that much?

They absolutely can revoke it for whatever reason they want. I was under the impression that you officially matriculated with A. You need to figure out for sure from school A if you did, because I disagree with selecttext. If it's unofficial, then you might be fine, but if you are actually officially enrolled and not just having a spot reserved (I find this hard to believe as that's true as soon as you get an acceptance, but then again, we don't know the details), the longer you wait, the worse the situation will be for you and for A really (and students on a waitlist for A as well).

You did not succeed. With regards to your question itself, I would email school A right now to clarify and say that you did not mean to enroll yet, you just misunderstood the email. Stress that you accidentally enrolled. As for etiquette, it's very bad. It's not cool and there's a good chance they'll be very offended, though you might be able to ameliorate it by being conciliatory and explain how accidental it was that you committed. Practically speaking though, I mean, what's the worst that can happen? A revokes your admission? Since you seem to prefer/are fine with B, it doesn't seem you have anything to lose per se, just it's not a very nice thing to do and you don't want to burn any potential bridges professionally, which is a real possiblity. The worst thing you can do though is not tell A anything at all and string them along until almost all the way until the deadline, just to turn them down. Let them know. They might be okay, they might not, it's hard to say. But don't leave them in the dark.