Crucial BBQ

Wishing you good luck with your applications.

The program at JHU has an option to be taken 100% online if you are interested. The majority of the brick-and-morter courses are offered at their Montgomery County campus, which is nearish to NIH and Walter Reed. Either way, it is an expensive school. Between Northeastern and BU, I'd go with Northeastern for the sole reason that I would not have to ride B train on the Green Line. I did undergrad in Boston, lived in Brighton on the border with Allston. Honestly, I would walk the distance to the C train even during winter so I would not have to ride the special hell that is the B train. In all seriousness if you want to do biotech in Boston you should go to a school in Boston, in my opinion. With 80 colleges and universities in the Boston metro and 400K college students competition for jobs is intense enough as it is, you'll only make it harder by not being there in person. *edit to add: What I meant by "...the majority of..." is that the entire course load including electives can be taken at the MoCo campus while only a handful of courses can be taken at the Homewood campus.

I'm at Maryland. Nice to see this thread happen, was feeling a bit lonely. If anyone has any questions, please ask.

I don't know what you mean by "...expected to be in for another four years...", and I have no idea how it's done in academia, but in the other world, and unless you have a contract with the Military (that is, enlisted), things change. Just tell your employer that you had applied to graduate school on a whim and had been accepted. I have been working as an adult longer than I care to admit to around here so believe me when I say that they will understand. Sure, they may be bummed but that's life. If they truly are kind to you and have invested in you then they will surely continue to support you into graduate school. The sooner you mention it the easier it will be for all.

Because of mid-term elections coming up in 2018, Republicans are scrambling to get anything to pass at this point. Personally, I believe this will not make it into the final draft.

In terms of reference, what textbooks you had had used in undergrad would likely suffice. For me, any book relating to the central dogma of biology works.

From my perspective, they are now doing biotech.

I dunno. If you're talking about hipsters, sure. Otherwise I believe coffee is too ubiquitous to be considered popular.

For what it is worth, I respectively disagree. I know a number of people who had met their life partners in their 30s or later. To be frank, I believe it becomes easier the older you get.

Here's some advice from the resident oldie: it sounds like you are active and meeting people who are not only interested in you but you are also interested in them. Then nothing happens, romantically. The only common denominator in your life is you. I don't know you so I don't know how that fits into your situation and your life but sometimes we are our own worst enemies by self-sabotaging even when there is no seemingly rational reason to do so. You wrote: "A friend of mine was telling me the other day that all the work that I do, the activism that I am involved in outside of the classroom and the media attention that I get might make it difficult for a man to approach me because I don't "fit" in." What is standing out to me here is your mention of "...the media attention that I get..." which sounds to me like you are getting a lot of media attention, or aggressive media attention, something like that. This suggests to me that your activism is the driving force here, and as such, is getting all of your attention and energy. Perhaps consequential, or perhaps unknowingly intentional, when you do meet someone your energy is zapped, or your mind is on the next bit of activism. I really don't know. What I do know is that whether a black woman in grad school or a black woman not in grad school, there is someone (honestly, multiple people) who are right for you. A saying; "Do what you always did, get what you always got". In what I had quoted of yours above, "Yet, nobody seems interested in me. Or if it is the case, they are already involved in another relationship." Remove the absolutes and honestly think about this. Do you have the same conclusion? That is your answer.

Your doubt is based understandably in the fear of how it may negatively impact you. As an MS student looking to enter into a PH.D. program in two years, I also have concerns and fears, too. Of course, I do not know as an absolute but as someone who graduated from a high school before some GradCafe members had yet been born, I speak from experience. I am not suggesting that I am smarter, just that I have witnessed how Congress works over a longer period of time is all. The Republican voting base in large part are those Americans who do not value higher education as much as the Democrat voting base does. Congressional Republicans know this and they also know that few, if any, Congressional Democrats would support such a proposal. So its inclusion is a likely bargaining chip more than anything. Congressional Republicans also know that universities will restructure, providing zero gain in tax revenue from this proposed tax. But let's say that it does pass, and goes into effect January 1, 2018. For one, its passage only means that the proposal has been adopted. The actual language and implementation comes at a later point after the adoption and would not be written by Congress. Instead, it will be written by the IRS and likely in conjunction with other agencies such as the Department of Education for example. Once that is complete there is an evaluation process to see if the current implementation is working or if it needs to be amended. This last phase is where the slow rollout comes into play. If you send a jarring message to the system expecting change overnight, you can't expect the system to respond positively overnight, either. An absolute final option exists, too: elimination of the Congressional adoption if it is shown that implementation cannot work.

This current tax overhaul is meant to save the Fed Gov $$$ by not "paying out" money in the form of tax breaks and other incentives and is just another example for why and how monetary systems and economics in general make little sense. For example, a reason to cut the existing ObamaCare tax (penalty) is that it has been estimated that roughly 13M Americans currently on ObamaCare would leave the program since their would no longer be a tax penalty for not having it in the first place. Since the Fed Gov would no longer be subsidizing those 13M, it has been estimated to save the Fed Gov just over $300M. So this change will be made in the hopes of getting people ObamaCare. Of course, this implies that if say, only 2M people leave, it will not have as powerful of an impact towards the deficit, so it's a gamble. Another reason for the majority of changes are based on the fact that just under 30% of Americans itemize their deductions. With that is the reason for other cuts such as the Student Loan Credit, Lifetime Learning Credit, and other current deductions related to higher education. I have been claiming the Student Loan Credit since 2007 and to be frank, it does not effect my return at all. I am just one case, YMMV. The Lifetime Learning Credit has been nice, I must admit, and is one of the reasons why I had even bothered to file two of my returns. My thoughts on the potential taxing of graduate student tuition wavers: my guess is that the hopes for its passage are to have an effect similar to that of ObamaCare. That is, fewer graduate students in Ph.D. Personally, I don't think this will happen but considering that research conducted by universities is heavily paid for by Fed Gov grants, the logic makes sense. But let's assume that it does pass and becomes Legislation. For one, when will it go into effect? With 2018? With 2021? If it does pass through, only a handful of new policies would go into effect for 2018 and those will of the easiest to change. For graduate school programs, a change like this will take time to implement and my guess is that if it does pass it will not go into effect for at least three years but I would not be surprised if universities were given a five-year window. This will programs time to figure out other ways to fund students in a manner that does not impact their quality of life. There is also the possibility for individual States to alter their own tax codes and laws to offset any damage done by this current tax plan. For example, with public universities there may be incentive to offer a State tax deduction/credit to match a new tuition fee waiver tax. I'd be surprised if this does not pass the Senate, although it might go into early 2018 before it does. Honestly, I also wonder if things such as tuition fee waiver taxes and proposed removal of the Student Loan Credit are not in place to entice Dems in the Senate into a bargain.

As mentioned, use of GRE scores by programs is idiosyncratic at best, but one thing you can almost be assured of is that with the more competitive/prestigious programs comes a higher emphasis placed on GRE scores. What I have learned since first applying is that often times it is as though GRE scores are used as the differentiator between two or more candidates when only one spot is available.

My partner is a long-time microbiologist at the NIH. If you saw the Discovery Channel show First in Human, that is her microbiology lab. Because the two of you may be associated with the same lab, that is all I will write about her identification. I will say this: most in her lab, including herself, hate the place. Many have left over the years (typically to the FDA or VA if wanting to stay with the Fed. Gov.), or threaten to do so. The lab is understaffed, and too many Ph.Ds and Post Docs who lack basic lab skills like being able to read a plate. Another issue is that while the lab is in support of the medical side of NIH (it is a hospital, after all), the research in the lab is basic microbiological research yet the lab is run by M.D.s who only know how to do medical research. Suffice to say, this place is not a good example of what to expect from a biology lab.

I was in a similar situation with a PI and had wrote about here at Grad Cafe in the past. Frankly, I thought that my acceptance into this lab/program was all but guaranteed so you can imagine my surprise when I saw the rejection letter. As it had turned out, the PI simply had not seen all of the applications yet and I can only assume that a better application had come across his desk after we had spoke. Not suggesting the same fate for you and I truly hope you have a different outcome, I am only illustrating that these things happen. I am not one to believe that 'everything happens for a reason' but I do believe that there are multiple future events that the future *you* may become a part of. Yeah, I know, no duh, right? I' just saying there are many paths towards the same end-goal, some of which might include time, money, and an MS program. I am familiar with your postings around Grad Cafe; when I read them I often think to myself, 'this is something I may have written back in 2013/2014'. In a way, my responses here are a sort of my future self giving my past self advice. Serendipity is a marvelous thing and I would not be where I am now without having failed hard, many times. Now, I am likely in one of the best positions for me to enter into a Ph.D. program; certainly in a better position now than I was even a year ago. The caveat of course is I must wait another year or two, but so what? I had read something somewhere on the Internet a few years ago; it was a post by a guy who in his forties was concerned that he would be too old by the time he [would] have earned his Ph.D. Another poster responded to him by reminding him that, 'you can be 50 with a Ph.D., or you can be 50 without a Ph.D. Either way, you will still be 50'. As someone who is older than most around here, words to live by for sure. Anyways, you seem to be in a better position than I was before all of this. I imagine you will also have better luck. About UCs: If you want Scripps, would it not be possible to attend UCSD and work in collaboration with Scripps, assuming we are discussing the same Scripps? I also assumed that UCSF would have the BioChem you are looking for and if not then UCB or UCLA. Possibly Irvine, but Irvine might be more on the BioTech side of things.

Your GPA is at the cut-off for most programs, so I wouldn't worry to much about it. What will be more important are the courses in which you earned those lower grades, in particular whether they were math and science courses or not. If so, mention this and the reason in your SOP--but keep it brief. Your QR and VR scores will hurt your chances more than your GPA will. If you have the time (and the money), I strongly suggest retaking the GRE. Your SOP will need to be top-notch, well written. Even if you think that you wrote a killer SOP, you likely did not. That is rude to say, but it's true because you do not know who the PI/program/etc. is looking for. With one program I had applied to my application was deemed 'admissible', yet no PI had picked me to join their labs. With the Physical Oceanography lab I was admitted into, I was admitted by the PI of that lab because I have small boat handling skills/experience/certs which the PI found to be of use to his lab. How was I supposed to know that before applying? I did a phone interview with him before he had seen my application, he didn't mention it. To further illustrate with another example: you are applying to biochem/biophysics programs. Maybe with one or more of the labs you are looking at have enough students who are good at biochem and with the related research. As it stands, the PI of this lab is now looking for someone who is only good enough with the biochem but who possesses strong programming skills; a skill that the other students in the lab do not possess. Maybe this PI is looking to get into informatics? PIs do take their research into a new direction every so often. About LORs; typically, a professor/PI are not going to waste their time by agreeing to write a bad letter. If they feel they cannot recommend you, they simply won't agree to do it. About your selected schools; there is simply no way of knowing where you will get in. With that, Scripps and Harvard are likely long shots for you. I am from California and know a bit about the college systems there. Mainly, because a ridiculously large portion of the State budget is dedicated to higher education, and because that money comes from taxpayers, California heavily favors California. Having graduated from a CSU you stand a good chance of getting into a UC. You are pretty much guaranteed admittance into a CSU if you are willing to do an MS first.

Keep it out of SOP but do include it on your CV. Who ever is looking over your application will make the connection.

I am now in an MS Bioinformatics program at Maryland. I don't know much about the programs on your list because Maryland was the only program I had applied to, but I did take a brief look into others and they only thing I can really say is that the program at JH is really expensive. I also had done a part of my undergrad at Northeastern before transferring out. It's a good school that doesn't get the credit it deserves. What school/program you select should be determined by both your background and your future goals. Of course that can be said about most disciplines, bioinformatics is unique in that it can be under Computer Science, Biology, BioMed, BioTech, and a few others. At Maryland, there is a bioinformatics program within their CS Department, and then a second one within their Biology Department. Also at Maryland is a Health-related Informatics and Bioimaging program and if I recall correctly also an environmental center that does informatics as well. I imagine similar treatment at other universities. What is your background? Biology? CS? If Biology, expect the pre-req/co-req of a course or two in programming (this is me, I had to take one course prior to or within my first semester and I was lucky to find a course that focused on Python and R. I will be taking a second course in programming next semester). If coming from a CS background, expect to take a molecular bio course or two. Then again, I didn't look too much into other programs. Then there are the labs. If you don't know what you want to do yet, that's fine. Keep in mind that bioinformatics is an umbrella; do you want to: predict protein folding? Cancer research? Build phylogenetic trees? I am interested in phylogeny/phyloinformatics and was also lucky enough to find a lab that works with marine species. If you have any other questions, I might be able to help.

I imagine it would have to do with wanting to do basic research or applied research. If you are more inclined to do basic research then med schools are likely not the place for you.

In my opinion, this would depend on how the application process is done at the program in question. At two programs I had applied to the first cycle was to simply deem your application as admissable or not. All this meant was that your application is complete and/or had met some base-line criteria. From here, applications went into a pile with individual PIs from around the department looking through it at their leisure. As you can see, it makes sense in this case that a PI could be on the lookout for your application. Otherwise, they might not have any pull at all unless they really want you to join their lab. Now, if you had a meeting with a PI it certainly would not hurt if you shot them a quick email. Keep in mind they may have also met with other applicants, too.

Contacting profs is the best strategy. Don't rely on websites as profs/PIs/labs don't seem to update the websites with any sort of frequency. A POI that you are interested in, as an example, may be going on sabbatical or is retiring from research. They may have left the department or is no longer associated with the institution, for all that we know. Speaking of neuro, and I had wrote of this story here on GradCafe a few times, I know of a woman who graduated from a ho-hum State university with an average uGPA and below average GRE scores who was accepted into one of the better programs for neurosciences in the U.S. This woman was friends of an ex, who, had also graduated from that same State university, but with a high uGPA. Her GREs were really low and she was accepted into the #2 ranked program for her field of study at Johns Hopkins (if you believe that grad programs can be ranked, like USWNR does). With her, however, she had applied to perhaps 8 programs, all for Ph.D. She was denied, expect by two, and both only had offered her admissions into their MS programs. I do know that with Hopkins they were concerned over her low GRE QR score, which is why they had denied her into their Ph.D program.

Yeah, I heard all of this too. I also have a low uGPA with great research and volunteer (directly related to field) experiences. I did not publish while in UG, nor did I run my own lab--both of which I assume will be huge advantages for you, but I did also receive stellar LORs. First time through the application cycle I was denied by five programs and waitlisted by one... ...only to ultimately be denied by that one, too. Second year, applied to 7 programs and was denied by all seven. I was in contact with a PI at one of those programs and I had thought for sure I was in as he practically all but said it. Third cycle/year/attempt I had applied to five programs, including to the same lab/PI I had just previously mentioned. Was denied by four but was accepted into that PIs lab. Each time, with each rejection, I had contacted the program director to see if I could find out where in my application I may have been delinquent with the hopes of arming myself with that knowledge for the next cycle. My SOPs were good, LORs were good, experiences were good, GRE scores good enough, and so on. Turns out, it was my low GPA that caused the rejections. It's really hit or miss, though. Some will say that a well-written SOP, good LORs and UG research experience are enough to overcome a low uGPA. Others, will tell you otherwise. There is truth to both and it really depends on the department, who's looking to take on students that particular year, and on and on. Luck plays a role in all of this, too. *edit to add* I've been a member around here for five years or so. If history bears any evidence, this thread will get swamped with bio undergrads looking at neuroscience programs, immunology, oncology, and a few other programs more-or-less related to a medical field. Competition in these areas is intense, in particular when compared to other fields of biology such as marine bio, micro, ecology, and a few others. Not to discourage anyone from applying, though, and I am wishing everyone good luck.

Old George Carlin joke: Eat right, stay fit, and die anyway. I feel that I had posted the above in this thread, perhaps with a few other comments that were a bit defensive. Not sure if I came to my senses and decided not to post, or, if my previous post was deleted? I am a long-distance thru hiker and I tend to walk everywhere. I used to walk to work and back, five miles each way. Many people thought I was nuts for that; I kept thinking "Huh? Five miles is totally within walking distance". I only stopped when I got a job that was roughly ten miles from home, and in that case I was forced to ride a bike. I was also a former 8-year vegan. My own two feet are still my preferred mode of transportation, however, I haven't rode the bicycle in a few years, as I now drive to most "far away" destinations. To add, been packing on the pounds as I have been sitting on my behind a lot over the last two years or so. I went from always being on my feet, even while at work, to now sitting through most days. I feel so agitated and have this strange desire to run. So I joined the local Y, even though I get free access to the gym at school. Not very exciting or informative; that's what the opening joke is for. I also have a love for beer.

My Plan B was to get on with life, and to reapply the following year. That may sound facetious, however I am older than most around here, already have a career, home, and so on. In reality, grad school was my Plan B.

Gotta say it, a grow light and indoor "herb" garden... Anyway, I've had house plants for most of my adult life (I am on the older side of Grad Cafe forum members). I grew up with them; my mom practically kept an indoor jungle. I am not sure how she managed to, though, as for a long time I couldn't keep anything alive for more than a year. I now have a handful that have been going for four years now, so I must be onto something. Here is what I know: different plants have different requirements (sunlight, temp, humidity, water, etc.), so it's best to match plants to your indoor environment and to your own habits. For example, don't get plants that require more sunlight if you live in a place that receives little, or you are a vampire. For herbs, you don't need a grow light unless the area you want to set up the garden in gets little sunlight to begin with.