asaprocky

I feel like graduate school should be a place where you push the limits of your intellectual abilities, are challenged to become a better scientist/problem solver, and where you'll actually be excited about doing your research. Therefore, I don't think the highly ranked institution is for you. It sounds as if your 4-5 years will be mundane and repetitive. More of a technicians work. As for the second institution, I feel like everyone will at some point run into a road block in their graduate studies and that's why you have your adviser and peers. To help you out. They're not going to just watch you fail. If you're in a nurturing environment, they're going to help you succeed and you'll be better off in the long run with having to solve those problems. I know you may not be as excited about the applications, but maybe you can talk to the adviser and figure out other applications along the way? Also, you may want to look into other advisers you met on your visits and see if they interest you to a happy medium where you get the experience you want and it has the applications you're interested in. Just my 2 cents.

I basically had the same issue. For me it came down to Berkeley and Stanford for organic chemistry as well! I think that you should choose a school where 1. you'll be happy and 2. where you'll succeed. I actually had a gut feeling of going to Stanford as well, but I also think that's because I was hypnotized by the "prettiness" of the campus and facilities. I almost committed but then talked to the specific PI I was interested in at Berkeley on the phone and he completely won me over. Everything he said aligned with what I wanted out of my graduate experience, so I then changed my mind. If you want to make a decision not based off of pure feeling, I'd recommend talking to the PI's you're really interested in via phone. Email can get long and annoying with waiting on a response. By phone, you can gauge their interest towards you. I saw a great quote and it went along the lines of, "go where you are wanted." To me, I felt like I was wanted more at Berkeley than Stanford, so that also affected my decision a lot. It also doesn't hurt that Berkeley has some of the more lax graduation requirements compared to all the requirements Stanford has. BUT, like St. Andrews Linx said though, going with your gut is a valid way to choose. If you just feel like you and Stanford fit perfectly, then great! Go there! Stanfod has some top notch facilities and great faculty with what you want to do (Wender, DuBois, Burns). They have some of the more extensive graduation requirements but hey, it'll probably be worth it in the end. You can't go wrong with any of those choices, so don't agonize too much!!

without research, it's going to be extremely hard

Pretty sure I was on both visits with you (OP), but after visiting both, I'd choose Scripps over Harvard. Both are very prestigious institutions in their own right, but for me, Harvard students seemed like they weren't as happy as the students at scripps. Also, at both institutions you would have the ability to teach, so I wouldn't factor that into your decision. Honestly, go with your gut. You'll be successful either way.

wherever you'd succeed and kill it. I worked in industry for a guy who went to UOntario. He killed it and is head of catalysis now at a ripe young age. Just go where you'll do well and you will get a job (as long as we have a good job market)

I'll be visiting Scripps this weekend and in the email there are 60 interviewees. I'm guessing another 60 for the next weekend? One thing I have a hard time grasping is why they wouldn't make the interviewing pool smaller if they really didn't want to accept so many students, basically agreeing with MOchemist123. Because quite honestly, they could cut the more "iffy" students right off the bat and they would still get some top notch recruits. Also, I feel like this is research-focus dependent. The groups who's funding is more gov't based (for example, cancer) are going to have to cut back on how many students they take. On the other hand, the groups who are well funded (for example, chemical biology) are going to fine with getting whatever students they want and can accept the normal amount. Obviously my examples aren't backed with information, just for conversation sake. 10% is a ridiculously small amount of students to take and is quite scary when thinking about the future of funding if this is actually true. Does anyone know how early they let interviewees know whether or not they were accepted after the weekend?

It's still really hard to pull the trigger....

I'm guessing business casual.

But I do respect what you're saying @Eigen, don't want you to think that I don't. Personality is definitely something important to take into account and I'll keep that in mind!

I really don't care about strictly age, just what stage they're at in their career and how that'll affect my graduate experience (which I guess can be correlated with age...). Obviously I'm going to pick the PI's with research I'm interested in and who I have a good relationship with, but you can't just ignore how different your ~5 years in graduate school will be different with a pre-tenured faculty member and an established, big shot professor. Basically, depending on where they are in their career, my experience could be different and I'm asking to see what people want and what people value when choosing between the two options.

So I know this has been talked about on this forum before, but I thought it'd be nice to get some fresh perspectives about this issue. Basically who would you go with and why? The older, more established, larger research group PI or the young, new, smaller group PI. I think both of them have their pros and cons. For the older PI, I would think they would help you a lot when it comes to finding jobs or post-docs (name recognition), easier to push out papers because more people could contribute to your project, and you won't have to worry about them leaving since they have tenure. On the flip side, because they're older and more established, their group is probably large and you could easily get lost within the group and would be less in-contact/connected with the professor. For the younger PI, you would become very close with them, you'd have more influence regarding the direction of your project, and could be more involved with grant writing and more. Conversely, they don't have tenure, it may be harder to get jobs/post-docs (not known), and may be harder to get some publications out. I was wonder what everyone's thinking is and what they're looking for? I think this is a topic is pretty important to consider since many people grapple with this issue and is very important for the future of our lives!

Sorry I lied...got accepted to Harvard just now...

Harvard will be sending out acceptances in February (says their website)

Call them. Basically same thing happened with me and Berkeley. Had to call to get things straightened out but once I did I got the official email in 30 min.

I would call them and ask. I'm sure scripps as a whole is winding down on their applications reviews since the visiting weekends are quickly approaching.