grazzle

I don't think the difference between a 3.38 and a 3.42 should be the reason that you drop a class. However, it does kind of sound like finishing the bio minor will be rough for you even after this class. Maybe you could drop it in favor of a minor that you enjoy?

I thought it was funny. I have no idea who George Eliot is, but I have had the same evil thoughts about other authors. Apparently English people take this sort of transgression very seriously. Who knew?

I think a lot of neuro programs within psych departments are prepared to teach you lab skills. I don't think many of them expect you to come in knowing a lot of bio lab techniques. That said, it might give you an edge to know some coming in to a program.

Research experience in a lab that does the kind of techniques that you're interested in might be more useful than another biology class. Have you considered taking fewer classes next semester and using the time to volunteer in a bio professor'slab? An independent study is another option.

As for bio classes, I think it depends on the type of research you want to do. Cell, mol, and genetics won't help you (much) if you want to do fMRI studies, but they'll help you if you want to look at what's going on inside cells. That said, I think psych programs are looking more for fit and passion than a specific list of bio classes.

Edit: I just want to add that this is only based on my background and the response I've gotten from programs so far.

If you receive an impromptu call, graciously thank the caller for reaching out to you, briefly express your eagerness to speak with them further, and ask if you can schedule a better time to talk. This way you can be sure to accept the call in a quiet place where there will be no interruptions and you can prepare any talking points. This is what my adviser said.

Honestly, I think that your actions have to speak louder than your words. That is, you'll need to prove to your current and future colleagues that you were falsely accused. Because my reaction, at least upon reading your initial post, is that you were accused of something but it didn't go any further because various authority figures decided that the accuser's story was weak and thus had little chance of being successful in court. None of which, by the way, indicates a false accusation, merely one with a lack of physical evidence or other factors that make police and prosecutors hesitant to legally pursue such crimes and perpetuate a cultural problem where women who are raped or sexually assaulted keep silent, rather than coming forward.

and in regards to "feminists," I'm talking about women who will do and say anything to justify their position of victimization in a -- so they want to emphasize -- "patriarchal society". so they jump on the bandwagon when cases like this leak, as they get to suspect a man for being oh-so-evil! they tend to disregard the fact that men 1) have their unique feelings and insecurities and 2) women can make up stories precisely to take advantage of a "victim" position. these "feminists" make me ashamed to be one myself.

Wow... take a chill pill, dude and read his text. He said: "And knowing the nature of rumors, it will probably turn into 'he was accused of rape' rather than 'he was a victim of a false accusation.' Doesn't this support what I'm saying about society's tendency to villainize men? See, the truth is clearly that "he was a victim of false accusation," but because (along the lines of my conjecture) some people automatically assume men are in the wrong in these matters, the case will be spun to "he was accused of rape omg let's stay away from him." People will more than possibly not be able to view the case objectively, jump to judgments and shun him -- unfortunately. Thus, this shows how we're dehumanizing men by not being able to view cases such as this one objectively but are rather inclined towards our pre-conceived notions of what men are like -- which equals rapists in this case.

What is this supposed to mean?

You don't even know the full story yet you're willing to blame this on "feminists"? Disgusting. You're what's wrong with rape culture.

I think this is a delicate subject! Ultimately, you are the first author so you have control over what goes into your manuscript. However, as students, we generally do not have very much power/influence. I can understand the other coauthors' hesitation -- they don't know you too well (unlike their other collaborators that they might have worked with for years) and they have a lot of other stuff going on. This paper isn't as important to them as it is to you. So, they would prefer to be cautious instead of putting their name onto something that they might not be certain is right.

Usually your PI would be the one to turn to for support and guidance. When the other profs send comments to your PI, he/she should tell the others to send them to you instead!

Everyone is going to have different opinions. Eventually, you will have to decide which suggestions/edits to take and implement them. Again your PI should be the one to help you decide what's important and also help you smooth over issues people might take with you not following their suggestion. Usually a couple of edits is all you really want to do -- send out a first draft, give a couple of weeks for comments, talk about them with your PI, implement what you decide is necessary, and then send out a second draft, stating which suggestions you've made and address any other comments you didn't implement (i.e. similar to a peer review process). If it's going to be 4 co-authors agreeing to one thing and 2 not, then maybe some kind of discussion is needed to work it out. You might repeat this iteration with a third draft or you might just send out one last final draft before submitting the article.

Another important thing is to set deadlines for people to reply to your drafts. Again, your PI would help you enforce these deadlines as well as choosing a deadline that gives everyone enough time but does not take forever.

Finally, although you are the one who is leading the manuscript, as a relatively junior member in the group, you sometimes just have to be mindful not to step on too many toes and you might not be able to do as many things as a first author prof might be able to do. But you shouldn't let yourself get pushed around either. As I said, it's a delicate balance!

I saw that term on one of my applications. I just put the name of the Institution where they do their research (for one person this was different from where they teach). And for title I put the title listed on their CV, so associate professor, assistant professor, lecturer, etc.

I think both swisschocolate and Instigate are right for different reasons! It might be useful to look at the tables on page 23 of this: http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf. It shows the percentile score for each scaled score. This lets us know how many test takers scored in which range.

In the ranges of scores 145-160, each scaled score point is between 3 to 5 percentile ranking. This means that every extra point earned means you just scored higher than a lot of people (e.g. if there were 1000 test takers, getting one more point puts you up 30 to 50 rankings higher). However, at the top level, say between 165-170, an extra scaled point is only 1-2 percentile rankings -- scoring higher only means you move up 10 or 20 spots in the overall rank. So, an extra point in the mid-ranges mean a lot more in terms of absolute ranking! Assuming that the pool of applicants to a certain school can be represented by the GRE score distribution (not perfect, especially not for the highest ranking schools), this means that if a school was ranking the profiles by GRE scores, having an extra point in the mid ranges is more likely to move your application upwards on the pile than an extra point at the 165+ level. This makes sense -- if you scored, say 168, you're probably at the top of the pile, so having 169 doesn't really mean you'll move up.

In addition, depending on program, some places treat GRE scores as a "cutoff". The cutoff would be nearer to the middle of the score ranges so having an extra point there might help you pass the cutoff, or come close enough so that they at least look at other factors. If you're 165+, you're well above the cutoff, so having more points won't really make a difference.

So, in these practical respects, I think swisschocolate is right -- an extra 1 or 2 points might make a bigger difference to your outcome if you're in the mid-ranges instead of the high ranges.

However, Instigate is also right in a different sense. In terms of ETS Test Taking Ability, scoring a 168 instead of 166 is much harder than scoring a 158 instead of 156. It's basically "diminishing returns" -- at the tails of the distribution, it's a lot harder to move upwards.

In terms of "making a difference in admissions", I agree with swisschocolate. In terms of "difference between scores", Instigate is correct.

With all that said, admissions are decided on much broader aspects of the application than just GRE scores!!

Yeah, the tricky thing with SOPs is that you want to address the holes they may see in your experience, but pointing out the holes yourself can make things look bad. Sometimes a difference in tone can help:
Instead of a tone that presents your experience as a substitute for what they're looking for, ("I haven't done biostats research, but I've done some economics and that's the same thing, right?") shoot for a tone that presents your experience as a confirmation of what you'd like to do moving forward: "My thesis on the Japanese economy taught me [all the stuff you said] and introduced me to how fascinating and insightful numbers can become once properly analyzed."
Not that you would ever say the first version, but you get the idea, I hope. In the second way you're still communicating to them that you have some experience with data analysis, and if they recognize the utility of that, great! But, if somebody doesn't think it's at all relevant, then your point still holds; people can argue about how much an experience "counts" but it's hard to argue about what you learned from it.

Good luck!

I think these two posts are the best advice.

But if you really want to include it, I think it would be better to remove the last phrase ("as a gentleman and a scholar ought to"). Stating your preferences is one thing, but judging others is another! What if the person reading your SoP has an alcohol problem, or chooses to abstain from coffee and/or alcohol? I know that everything you say could potentially upset someone so it's not productive to think this way, but as I said -- you shouldn't have to worry about other people's opinions when it comes to your own preferences, but being judgemental isn't going to make you any friends.

Finally, that last phrase, for some reason, justified or not, makes me think of the "Mad Men" stereotype. It also adds to the "Boys Club" mentality of academia (or maybe just science?) and it's something I'd discourage. Just my opinion.

Does "relatively new, up and coming" mean not tenured yet? If so, she should have a vested interest in setting the record straight, and her career could get hurt if it's not and you complain to the dean. As ktel says, you need to play things right in order to not burn any bridges. You want to improve your situation but if you cause damage to a successful academic's career by not following the necessary steps to correct whatever is wrong, people will remember that. Start by having a conversation with her about her advising style. Tell her it hurts your confidence when she tears down a second draft after saying good things about the first. You might find out that she thinks she is doing everything right and helping you to improve your work, not hurting you in any way. If the situation continues, seek help first within your department: approach the DGS or the department head. Only if that doesn't work should you take this matter outside your department.

As an African American I must say that most schools, excluding HBCUs, are mostly White. According to your claim there should be a lot of unhappy Blacks, Latinos, and Asians. Also, being in a majority Black environment does not equate to being unhappy just so you know. Minorities can be very successful in predominantly White environments and White people can also be very successful in majority Black environments.

I know I know you said one of those three things could do the trick but I wonder: Do you normally warn Black students about attending predominantly white schools like Columbia, Harvard, Stanford, Univ of Maryland, Univ of Delaware, etc? Or how gritty cities are in general?

For the record, I applied to all predominantly White institutions, except for Howard. No one has ever said "at UIUC you may feel out of place, the only Black psychology student just graduated this year so now there are no Black students, so you could be really unhappy, the department is like 85% white, 14% asian, and 1% Other"