ion_exchanger

@TerpsFan0130 I think you still have a good shot regardless of your GPA. Sure, some programs weed out people using an initial numbers screen, but your GRE scores are strong, and your research experience is also strong. Not every program looks at grades as a measure of what will make a great student. Are you not interested in applying to College Park? IIRC, you will pass their initial numbers screen.

Maybe you can call the program and explain the issue and offer unofficial test scores for application review, while they wait to receive your official scores from ETS?

Great! Alls well that ends well.

Depending on the school, they can be somewhat lenient with the time at which LOR writers send in their letters. Sometimes the adcoms will still review an app with 2 of the 3 letters, which is fine if the other 2 letters are strong, because LOR writers can be notoriously slow in sending their letters and the adcoms understand that they may be writing letters for dozens of students. In my experience, the app deadline is hard for the prospective students but incredibly lax for the LOR writers. IF it comes down to the wire, contact the school and explain your situation, because that is out of your hands and they may be understanding.

I don't see why not. Professionals move all the time, and are still used as referees for their students at their previous institutions. They would just note in their letter that they taught you at X university.

IMO I think it's ok. It shows diversity in your profile and you have two other research related references. As long as the letter is favorable, it shouldn't be a dealbreaker. Are you at all interested in doing clinical or translational research? If that's the case, even better. I wouldn't freak out about it, your overall profile won't be severely affected by having one doctor as a reference.

IMO, a strong LOR is a letter from a person who knows you and your research profile closely. A lot of times it is obvious when a professor uses a form letter of recommendation for an applicant, but a strong LOR will detail that you have spent a significant amount of time with the writer, that they are especially impressed with your skills and abilities, and you rank high above the applicants that they have recommended in the past. For science programs, an average acceptable LOR would be from a professor you had that was impressed with your coursework, a strong LOR would be that they were particularly impressed with your critical thinking skills, the way you came to office hours and went above and beyond to master the material. An acceptable LOR from a researcher would say that you are competent in the lab and pick up techniques quickly, a strong LOR will say that you performed above your position, you have the ability to think critically to design and execute your experiments with minimal supervision, that you would make an exception doctoral candidate, and that you excelled in research both independently and as a team player.

I feel like that's a weird question, right? Advisors are so busy and always have things on their mind, a lot of information to forget. My advisor has been puzzling and frustrating me lately. I'll come up with ideas for my project and other members of the lab,which is great, right? I'm an involved graduate student. One idea was for an undergrad in the lab to help her project .The undergrad went to the PI and pitched it, to which she said no. One month later, she comes to the undergrad extremely excited about a new idea she had, the same idea that I had pitched a month earlier? Also, she continually encourages me to come up with new ideas, but when I tell them to her she shoots them down so quickly that I wonder why I even bother. The kicker is that she brought me in because I have expertise in a certain technique that she is also working on, and would like my input. When I give her outlines of my experimental plans, she says no, why are you doing it like that? I say that this is how it has worked for me, and reminded her that she encouraged me to design my own protocol based on my successes. I review the literature and show her that other groups have done it the same way, to which she replies, no they didn't. NO, THEY DIDN'T! As if they published papers, in very reputable journals in our field, and they lied about being able to do it? I didn't know how to begin to process or respond to that. I'm trying to remain respectful and not point out the fact that she asked me to do it because everyone else had been unsuccessful, and if it hasn't worked for you, why would I repeat your same failed protocol? It has gotten to the point where she will tell me to do something and if it works, she will praise herself for suggesting it, and if it doesn't work she will question how I failed, when she is the one who designed the experiment. I'm constantly being told to think of ideas, and then once I present one its like she goes out of her way to immediately fight me on them. I can't always be right and she can never be wrong. Am I being too sensitive? Should I suck it up and do what I'm told? Thanks for letting me vent.

Originally came here to say what mathcat said, that studios for some reason feel noisier to me, especially when listening to the refrigerator kick in, or hear the ice maker working. With that said, where I live we don't have many traditional studios where the space is one room and a kitchen and bathroom. Our studios generally look like very small one bedrooms. A studio means a bedroom without a window, so there is a defined space for a bedroom, where usually just a bed and dresser can fit without a window. It has a door or a half wall that separates it from the living/dining room. Its pretty cool actually. I ultimately chose a one bedroom over the traditional studio that I was considering because it feels weird to me to be able to see my front door while i sleep, and I too like the idea of defined rooms. If you go on YouTube though there are tons of videos that show how people smartly transform studios to create designed rooms, so there's an idea. Personally I prefer a shorter commute, and I basically just use my apartment to relax, eat and sleep. In your case I would probably choose the studio. I do live in an area with a less than reliable subway system and threat of snow, so it would be nice not to wonder if I can make it to lab during a big storm.

I agree with Vene. I just finished all of my coursework and am looking forward to never being required to take another course again. If I choose to take a course, different story. When I was an undergrad, quite a few of the biology majors interested in going to pharmacy school said that they wanted to become a pharmacist and then go to law school to practice pharmacy law.

Note: this is directed at bsharpe269, and anyone else who was wondering, for some reason my quote is not working. The optional drinking hours are just that, optional. They will not hurt your chances if you do not attend. One of my interviews lasted Thursday evening through Sunday morning, and Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night the students offered to take us out to bars and such. I didn't attend any of the outings. I am also shy and reserved, and I don't drink, so I really had no interest in doing that. The students were nice, but there are plenty of opportunities to talk to them and ask questions. My roommate on that interview went to all of the outings, and sometimes came back at one in the morning. I need that time after the interviews and activities to recharge, so I decided to come back to the room, relax, and unwind. I was accepted to that program. Quite a few of the applicants also did not attend the optional outings, and they were ok as well.