BeakerBreaker

Every relationship is different. Without knowing why you feel your relationship needs to be saved, my general advice is: if this relationship was "the one," it wouldn't need you to transfer to save it.
I've skipped job offers and delayed my career for a year to try and maintain a relationship. It fell through. It wasn't the end of the world, but I believe these kinds of sacrifices are generally a bad idea, regardless of the outcome.

Every relationship is different. Without knowing why you feel your relationship needs to be saved, my general advice is: if this relationship was "the one," it wouldn't need you to transfer to save it.
I've skipped job offers and delayed my career for a year to try and maintain a relationship. It fell through. It wasn't the end of the world, but I believe these kinds of sacrifices are generally a bad idea, regardless of the outcome.

Every relationship is different. Without knowing why you feel your relationship needs to be saved, my general advice is: if this relationship was "the one," it wouldn't need you to transfer to save it.
I've skipped job offers and delayed my career for a year to try and maintain a relationship. It fell through. It wasn't the end of the world, but I believe these kinds of sacrifices are generally a bad idea, regardless of the outcome.

I'm not sure what you would get out of staying an additional year in your postbac, and I have no idea why they are advising you to stay. You have enough of everything on your CV from the looks of it to have a shot at those schools. I say just go for it this year. Umbrella vs. neuroscience doesn't matter unless you have zero experience in neuroscience.
You should definitely apply to a decent selection of best/good schools and see how it goes if it wouldn't be a financial burden to do so.

You were working ~40 hours/week as a technician while finishing undergrad? That would be a good bit of experience.
I think you should shoot for the top. Your GPA isn't stellar but won't prevent you from getting into good schools. Having good LORs will certainly help, but otherwise you look good to go.
For your personal statement, you want to be able to express clearly why you want to do research full time at the doctoral level (so, independent thinking), what kind of projects you are interested in working on, and why the school you are applying to is the right fit. Grad schools want to see someone who knows what they are getting themselves into and has a clear and realistic vision for what they want to do with their career, and project someone who will thrive in a graduate environment. All of this is crucial.
For the rest -- you can work in the hardship statements, but don't be defensive about yourself. Graduate school is basically a job interview and you don't want them looking at you like a charity case. If you expound on your medical issues, you sound like a liability -- this is not a good thing and they don't need to know. On the other hand, if work your family situation into it (don't make this the focus, though), you will sound like someone with grit which is one of the most important characteristics an incoming grad student can have.
Do you have a good sense of the sorts of things you want to study? You should be going through the labs of the programs you might be interested in and seeing who you might want to work for. As a general rule of thumb, find schools with multiple options for mentors so you don't put all of your eggs in one basket. Start with the top schools and make a spreadsheet of programs/labs and just work your way down until you feel like you have a large list, then whittle it down to ~10 schools for applications at the very least. On the coasts, places like UCSF/MIT/Harvard/UWashington/Etc... Mix some of those with schools in the middle-brackets. Think about what those environments might be like. The classes won't be the challenge, but the atmosphere/culture will be demanding and require hard work. You should be able to get some financial assistance for the application fees themselves.
Anyway, you sound pretty inspirational. If you want further advice on whittling things down, narrowing down the choices, or crafting the personal statement, poke around here or shoot me a PM. Good luck!

Given what is going on in the news, they should be very sensitive to your concerns should you bring them up
It can be hard to deal with ignorant people, but I think in the world of academia, they aren't TOO common. I'm white skinned, I've spent my entire life in the U.S. (no accent), but because I have a foreign name I have some odd interactions with people. For example, I took two semesters of calculus with the same professor my freshman year, and at the end of the year, she asked me (along with all of the international students) 'where I'm from.' 
Ironically, a lot of these people think that they are being ultra-culturally-sensitive by making these assumptions and judgments about you, giving you special treatment, and so on. Some of them just don't know better, while others are malicious.
My personal approach would be to make sure your supervisor understands that English is your first language, and that you are doing just fine with that. If they don't change how they interact with you, I'd probably wait out the rest of the month and then talk to the adviser at the end, because I don't like rocking the boat too much. You may be irritated enough to do something sooner rather than later though.
 

Here are a couple of anecdotes that have shaped my view on this:
My mom has an MBA from Stanford, and even 40+ years after she graduated, she is still talking about how "it was okay that she went to the #2 school because she got into Harvard and turned them down." A close friend of mine was accepted into a Tier 1 law school, but also was accepted into a Tier 2 law school with full tuition paid, and this made her decision very difficult.
The MBA/J.D./etc. worlds are just fundamentally different than what goes on in science. The prestige of the program has a huge impact on your ability to find internships or clerkships and further your career. Science is a little more meritocratic. Nobody is going to bat an eyelash if you present a keynote talk at a conference and happen to be from the University of South Dakota. Similarly, if you publish three papers in Nature, your career prospects are going to be fairly good no matter what institution you're coming from.
I just think - and this is sincere - that using prestige metrics to shape your decision is going to be a mistake. A couple other issues that will greatly affect your success would be: 1) who would you be working with (even if you go to Harvard, not all Harvard labs are the same), and 2) will you be in an environment where you will thrive and be inspired/allowed to do your best work (such as umbrella program vs. specialized).
The prestige of the lab (lab, not school in most likelihood) will be good for networking opportunities, but that is fairly limited in scope. If you do good work, your institution won't be a big factor.
Definitely don't make the mistake of using the opinion of people outside the field either. I know you aren't doing this, but I just felt like adding a mini-rant section for all of the people who thought I was absolutely nuts to consider schools in the midwest like UT: SW, a "no-name" school, and turn down 3 Ivy league schools in the process.
Anywho, I hope you find a good university that fits what you're looking for scientifically. The extent to which I used rankings was I opened up U.S. News to look at the top ~150 schools and make sure I hadn't missed anything noteworthy (like UT:SW, Scripps, Cold Spring Harbor) that I might have otherwise overlooked. I didn't apply to Harvard or Stanford, not because I thought I wouldn't get in, but because I didn't see enough labs there I thought would fit my research interests. I'd totally look into WUSTL, UW:M, and Emory more if you have even the slightest interest because you certainly can succeed at any of those three provided the schools turn out to be good fits for you.

Here are a couple of anecdotes that have shaped my view on this:
My mom has an MBA from Stanford, and even 40+ years after she graduated, she is still talking about how "it was okay that she went to the #2 school because she got into Harvard and turned them down." A close friend of mine was accepted into a Tier 1 law school, but also was accepted into a Tier 2 law school with full tuition paid, and this made her decision very difficult.
The MBA/J.D./etc. worlds are just fundamentally different than what goes on in science. The prestige of the program has a huge impact on your ability to find internships or clerkships and further your career. Science is a little more meritocratic. Nobody is going to bat an eyelash if you present a keynote talk at a conference and happen to be from the University of South Dakota. Similarly, if you publish three papers in Nature, your career prospects are going to be fairly good no matter what institution you're coming from.
I just think - and this is sincere - that using prestige metrics to shape your decision is going to be a mistake. A couple other issues that will greatly affect your success would be: 1) who would you be working with (even if you go to Harvard, not all Harvard labs are the same), and 2) will you be in an environment where you will thrive and be inspired/allowed to do your best work (such as umbrella program vs. specialized).
The prestige of the lab (lab, not school in most likelihood) will be good for networking opportunities, but that is fairly limited in scope. If you do good work, your institution won't be a big factor.
Definitely don't make the mistake of using the opinion of people outside the field either. I know you aren't doing this, but I just felt like adding a mini-rant section for all of the people who thought I was absolutely nuts to consider schools in the midwest like UT: SW, a "no-name" school, and turn down 3 Ivy league schools in the process.
Anywho, I hope you find a good university that fits what you're looking for scientifically. The extent to which I used rankings was I opened up U.S. News to look at the top ~150 schools and make sure I hadn't missed anything noteworthy (like UT:SW, Scripps, Cold Spring Harbor) that I might have otherwise overlooked. I didn't apply to Harvard or Stanford, not because I thought I wouldn't get in, but because I didn't see enough labs there I thought would fit my research interests. I'd totally look into WUSTL, UW:M, and Emory more if you have even the slightest interest because you certainly can succeed at any of those three provided the schools turn out to be good fits for you.

Here are a couple of anecdotes that have shaped my view on this:
My mom has an MBA from Stanford, and even 40+ years after she graduated, she is still talking about how "it was okay that she went to the #2 school because she got into Harvard and turned them down." A close friend of mine was accepted into a Tier 1 law school, but also was accepted into a Tier 2 law school with full tuition paid, and this made her decision very difficult.
The MBA/J.D./etc. worlds are just fundamentally different than what goes on in science. The prestige of the program has a huge impact on your ability to find internships or clerkships and further your career. Science is a little more meritocratic. Nobody is going to bat an eyelash if you present a keynote talk at a conference and happen to be from the University of South Dakota. Similarly, if you publish three papers in Nature, your career prospects are going to be fairly good no matter what institution you're coming from.
I just think - and this is sincere - that using prestige metrics to shape your decision is going to be a mistake. A couple other issues that will greatly affect your success would be: 1) who would you be working with (even if you go to Harvard, not all Harvard labs are the same), and 2) will you be in an environment where you will thrive and be inspired/allowed to do your best work (such as umbrella program vs. specialized).
The prestige of the lab (lab, not school in most likelihood) will be good for networking opportunities, but that is fairly limited in scope. If you do good work, your institution won't be a big factor.
Definitely don't make the mistake of using the opinion of people outside the field either. I know you aren't doing this, but I just felt like adding a mini-rant section for all of the people who thought I was absolutely nuts to consider schools in the midwest like UT: SW, a "no-name" school, and turn down 3 Ivy league schools in the process.
Anywho, I hope you find a good university that fits what you're looking for scientifically. The extent to which I used rankings was I opened up U.S. News to look at the top ~150 schools and make sure I hadn't missed anything noteworthy (like UT:SW, Scripps, Cold Spring Harbor) that I might have otherwise overlooked. I didn't apply to Harvard or Stanford, not because I thought I wouldn't get in, but because I didn't see enough labs there I thought would fit my research interests. I'd totally look into WUSTL, UW:M, and Emory more if you have even the slightest interest because you certainly can succeed at any of those three provided the schools turn out to be good fits for you.

This is a near pointless exercise to involve multiple people on this site. There will be no consensus on what the 20 "best" graduate programs are in a field. If you want the metrics, they are freely available online; otherwise, sites like US News use their own. You will be the best judge when it comes to appraising each program's value based on what you feel is important.
WUSTL, UWM, and Emory are all good schools for MCB. You will probably find that there are other factors much more important to your decision among these high caliber schools than their absolute ranking in some subjectively influenced list.

This is a near pointless exercise to involve multiple people on this site. There will be no consensus on what the 20 "best" graduate programs are in a field. If you want the metrics, they are freely available online; otherwise, sites like US News use their own. You will be the best judge when it comes to appraising each program's value based on what you feel is important.
WUSTL, UWM, and Emory are all good schools for MCB. You will probably find that there are other factors much more important to your decision among these high caliber schools than their absolute ranking in some subjectively influenced list.

Ivy schools aren't all in the same tier in terms of difficulty. Brown and Dartmouth are not nearly as hard for admission as Harvard and Princeton. Your stats are fine for Brown, so far as having a chance at it. Can't comment on UPenn as I don't know. As Bioenchilada said, your other stats will matter. Aim higher and not lower if you have the time and financial means to do so.

I think it's possible to make this kind of switch. HOWEVER, I think your friend needs to make a compelling case. If, for example, she devours some literature related to what she wants to study, and is able to intelligently make sense of it, that would be a start. In addition, volunteering for or working in a lab, even for a short period of time, might be a good way to gain some credibility. There are plenty of grad students in biology who have shaky-at-best training, but they usually have something else helping them (like a major/work in another STEM field).

Students do live in the Shaw neighborhood. It isn't my first pick for first years or otherwise, but it is reasonably priced and reasonably safe.
 
The reason it isn't recommended for first years is because it puts you further away from campus and the center of grad student activities (both socializing and work-related, almost all of which will happen in or near the CWE).

http://parking.wustl.edu/parking/permits/Pages/PermitOptions.aspx
 
It's not crowded so much as somewhat expensive if you want to pay for a pass (you'll want a yellow pass at $555 a year).  You can park for free on some side streets a couple blocks away if you get there early (6 a.m., 7 latest if you are lucky), or even across Skinker in Forest Park if you are willing to walk. Another alternative is to park at a metrolink stop and take the train in some distance away (if that stop has parking), depending on where you live, but you introduce some inefficiencies with your commute by waiting for the train.
 
The yellow pass is pretty solid if you think the fee isn't so bad.  You can park near the art building and social work building which is usually one of the last places to fill up in what's called the Brookings lot.  There is also an underground garage in the heart of campus, although it's likely further away from most of where you will be taking classes.

BeakerBreaker covered much of the basics, but I had just a couple things to add. St. Louis is very much like a quilt made of different neighbourhoods. Each neighbourhood has its own feel and it's own culture. Some places are great and some not so great. It's difficult to gauge where you'll fit in best until you move here, but there are lots of great places to live and spend time. I personally choose to live close to campus in a very quiet neighbourhood and spend most of my free-time elsewhere. 
 
Places like Clayton and Brentwood (lots of upper-scale stores, restaurants, franchises and the mall) have a MUCH different feel than South Grand or Benton Park (ethnic cuisine, coffee shops, smaller boutiques) but both share similarities with the Delmar Loop. I have previously heard fellow graduate students complain that St. Louis is too close-minded. I have rarely, if ever, had that experience as I choose to spend the majority of my time around people who are open-minded and have found many, many places to speak with like-minded folks. That being said, I do think St. Louis is best enjoyed if you have a car. It's possible to get by without one, but you would likely miss out on finding some of the more out-of-the-way neighbourhoods you might enjoy. 
 
I've generally found people to be friendly no matter where I go and my boyfriend and I almost always make new friends when we go out, even if we're just waiting in line at the grocery store.  Anyway...I'm rambling to avoid grant-writing...please feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions . Aside from "It's a big city that feels like a big town", it's hard to succinctly sum-up St. Louis. 

I'd say it has the features of a big city without really feeling like one.  If you are used to Houston, Chicago, New York, Boston, etc. Saint Louis might feel kind of small. The metro area has about 3 million people to give you a rough idea for comparison.  On the plus side we don't have insane traffic problems, and it never feels like a particularly busy place (which may be good or bad depending on your perspective).  Saint Louis sort of sprawls out, and there has been a lot of recent development to the west.
 
As far as things to do, there are a few nice perks of living here.  The zoo, science center, history museum, and art museum are all free and all very solid options (the zoo is better than a lot of paid zoos in other cities).  The scenery is not that great, but it's what you'd expect living in the midwest, although there are some decent state parks within 20-30 minutes of downtown if you want to go for hikes or mountain bike or that sort of thing.  It doesn't get cold enough long enough to do major winter sports although you can find places to go ice skating in the winter or indoors.  St. Louis is big enough to have a good symphony, several concert venues that attract broadway/off-broadway productions and current artists, and NHL/NFL/MLB (Cardinals fans are pretty crazy here).
 
Public transportation exists but isn't great.  UMSL will give you access to the light rail system which will connect you to certain parts of town (the airport and the stadiums/venues downtown are notable examples).  UMSL itself isn't in the best part of town (but not the worst either), and some of the recent posts above mention some very nice suburban areas to live near UMSL if you have a car; otherwise you can look at the Metrolink (light rail) path and see if you can live near one of the stops.
 
I'd say the people on the whole are nice, sometimes too provincial, and diverse when it comes to socioeconomics and political beliefs.
 
If you have any other or specific questions I can try to address them. Good luck in your search!

I'd say it has the features of a big city without really feeling like one.  If you are used to Houston, Chicago, New York, Boston, etc. Saint Louis might feel kind of small. The metro area has about 3 million people to give you a rough idea for comparison.  On the plus side we don't have insane traffic problems, and it never feels like a particularly busy place (which may be good or bad depending on your perspective).  Saint Louis sort of sprawls out, and there has been a lot of recent development to the west.
 
As far as things to do, there are a few nice perks of living here.  The zoo, science center, history museum, and art museum are all free and all very solid options (the zoo is better than a lot of paid zoos in other cities).  The scenery is not that great, but it's what you'd expect living in the midwest, although there are some decent state parks within 20-30 minutes of downtown if you want to go for hikes or mountain bike or that sort of thing.  It doesn't get cold enough long enough to do major winter sports although you can find places to go ice skating in the winter or indoors.  St. Louis is big enough to have a good symphony, several concert venues that attract broadway/off-broadway productions and current artists, and NHL/NFL/MLB (Cardinals fans are pretty crazy here).
 
Public transportation exists but isn't great.  UMSL will give you access to the light rail system which will connect you to certain parts of town (the airport and the stadiums/venues downtown are notable examples).  UMSL itself isn't in the best part of town (but not the worst either), and some of the recent posts above mention some very nice suburban areas to live near UMSL if you have a car; otherwise you can look at the Metrolink (light rail) path and see if you can live near one of the stops.
 
I'd say the people on the whole are nice, sometimes too provincial, and diverse when it comes to socioeconomics and political beliefs.
 
If you have any other or specific questions I can try to address them. Good luck in your search!

My personal ranking/rationale:
 
1) Finances, to make sure you can afford where you will be living. However, don't look at grad school as a money-making endeavor. Just make sure you have enough to live comfortably where you're going, unless you are willing to make personal sacrifices for a school.
 
2) Number of labs that match your interest.  There's a chance that your top, or top two lab choices won't be able to accept you for any number of reasons (unless you establish this ahead of time). Professors leave, lose funding, etc. You definitely want to be interested in what you are working on, and you don't want to bank entirely on one person unless it really is assured.
 
3) Establishment of the school + prestige. You want to make sure you are going to get a quality education. How productive are the faculty? How many connections will you be able to make? How much money is available to you? These are all considerations
 
4) Location. I'd do grad school in Antarctica if the program was good enough 

I agree with BeakerBreaker, except for the Antarctica part...

Just wanted to chime in and say that I'm in a very "young" recently established program, and I think the mentoring here is phenomenal in part because of that. First of all, at this stage of the game, each individual student's success matters more in helping the program gain a good reputation and recruiting quality students in the future. So the faculty are very invested in setting us up for success. Secondly, by virtue of being new, our program has a lot of flexibility with respect to our individual needs because rules aren't set in stone and there's no "typical" way to do things, which I would consider to be a mentorship perk too. Just another side to consider when contemplating the newer institution

My personal ranking/rationale:
 
1) Finances, to make sure you can afford where you will be living. However, don't look at grad school as a money-making endeavor. Just make sure you have enough to live comfortably where you're going, unless you are willing to make personal sacrifices for a school.
 
2) Number of labs that match your interest.  There's a chance that your top, or top two lab choices won't be able to accept you for any number of reasons (unless you establish this ahead of time). Professors leave, lose funding, etc. You definitely want to be interested in what you are working on, and you don't want to bank entirely on one person unless it really is assured.
 
3) Establishment of the school + prestige. You want to make sure you are going to get a quality education. How productive are the faculty? How many connections will you be able to make? How much money is available to you? These are all considerations
 
4) Location. I'd do grad school in Antarctica if the program was good enough 

My personal ranking/rationale:
 
1) Finances, to make sure you can afford where you will be living. However, don't look at grad school as a money-making endeavor. Just make sure you have enough to live comfortably where you're going, unless you are willing to make personal sacrifices for a school.
 
2) Number of labs that match your interest.  There's a chance that your top, or top two lab choices won't be able to accept you for any number of reasons (unless you establish this ahead of time). Professors leave, lose funding, etc. You definitely want to be interested in what you are working on, and you don't want to bank entirely on one person unless it really is assured.
 
3) Establishment of the school + prestige. You want to make sure you are going to get a quality education. How productive are the faculty? How many connections will you be able to make? How much money is available to you? These are all considerations
 
4) Location. I'd do grad school in Antarctica if the program was good enough 

If you're okay with a 5-20 minute drive, I'd add Clayton (expensive), Richmond Heights, and Brentwood to the list as pleasant neighborhoods that err on the side of safety.  I've spent the last five years living in either Richmond Heights and Brentwood.  Since you mentioned parks, I'd look into the neighborhoods near Tower Grove park and the Botanical gardens, too -- these ought to be cheaper and they have a different vibe (the further west you go, the more suburbanite the population generally). Forest Park is adjacent to the Danforth Campus which is a main park/cultural attraction in itself.
 
 
St. Louis historically ranks in the #1-5 positions as far as dangerous cities in the US go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_St._Louis#.22Most_Dangerous_City.22_rankings).  Whether or not you consider a particular neighborhood dangerous is largely an individual decision.  There are parts of St. Louis you probably wouldn't want to visit during the day, parts of St. Louis you probably wouldn't want to put any property (real estate, your car) for any period of time, and large parts of the city you probably ought not to hang around late at night, either alone or with a friend (mostly the sides closest to IL)
What you will usually hear when you ask someone about danger in St. Louis will be something to the effect of "there are some bad spots you should stay out of and use common sense."  This is true, but not necessarily the best way to present the advice - for example, there are a lot of people coming here from Small Town America, or from other countries, who haven't really lived day to day in an urban environment at all, and therefore haven't developed what the advice-giver would consider "common sense."  Additionally, when you are from out of town, learning which pockets are good and bad takes some time.  There are also people who for whatever reason don't concern themselves too much with the crime rate here, although I tend to find that the locals are acutely aware of it. 
 
My college was in a big town/small city where anybody could roam around at any hour in 90%+ of the city without any real concern because the crime was so low. Since I am from St. Louis originally, I was pretty shocked to turn on the news there and not hear of a homicide for months consecutively.
 
Near the Danforth campus, the areas to the south and west are fairly safe. The campus itself is policed by their own department and, especially when school is in session during the academic year, shouldn't be too much of a concern.  The street immediately to the north has a lot of shops, restaurants, entertainment, and student housing; however, if you go more than a couple blocks north or northeast, you start to run into trouble.  My own rule of thumb is not to live within easy walking distance of sketchy neighborhoods, but YMMV when you ask other people.  Segregation in St. Louis doesn't just mean race; usually socioeconomic disparity goes hand-in-hand with it.  Those areas near the Danforth campus are segregated, but they're not full of African-American WashU professors or upper-middle class families like what you'd expect from most of the other neighboring areas.
 
Now, this all sounds somewhat scary, but I'm trying to be as frank as possible because 1) you won't necessarily get an unbiased view from the school, who after last year's incidents are having a slightly harder time with faculty recruitment, 2) so that no one is shocked.  St. Louis is an awesome city -- I've lived here 20 years at this point and would enjoy another 20 more.  There are huge parts of the city/metro area that are more or less unaffected by crime.

Clayton/WashU are located in great areas of St. Louis and have very little crime around them. 

I had this same problem (Ivy League vs. WashU), partially because I enjoyed my experience at Dartmouth enough to seriously consider it.
 
I realized that most of the pressure I felt to attend one of the Ivies that had accepted me came from society's perception/name recognition of the schools.  Much of this is based on their undergraduate record.  In the end, what matters most is whether or not you enjoy the environment, will receive a good education, and what people in the field think about the school.
 
There were so many people outside of science who told me I was nuts to attend WashU, a school they hadn't heard of.  Anyone who knows anything knows that WashU, U of Chicago, UNC-Chapel Hill, Scripps, Cold Spring Harbor, UTSW, etc etc etc are all excellent (and often better than some Ivies, for some programs), despite not being as well known.
 
At the end of the day, you'll be able to tell anyone who is stuck on Ivy name recognition that you turned down Columbia for a better school/fit, which will speak both to your ability to get into good schools, as well as to the quality of the program you picked.
 
WashU is a really solid school, more or less on the same level as any top tier program. I wouldn't let name recognition factor into the decision, because employers will know full well that you received a good education.
 
Edit: basically what everyone else has said; this is just my experience to add to the pile

Why would you say this when you haven't spent a week in grad school yourself?
 
OP: Especially if you have good letters of recommendation, I'd apply right away. You can consider getting a Master's (hopefully funded) as an alternative, or if funding is tight, working as a lab tech for a year or two.  Doing well on the subject GRE would help if you can get a good score.
 
My experience so far is that grad school classes have been straightforward, and although I had a low undergrad GPA and didn't take that much biology, I've done very well this first year.