saphixation

Biohopeful basically answered this one.
 
On top of that, I'm going to recommend re-reading Biohopeful's post to let it sink in.
 
PI's want to see dependable, mature students because they are more likely to handle the stress of many years of failure. Based on your disregard for humanities classes and fixation on top 10 schools (who happen to have plenty of PI's who don't care about your research), it sounds like you could benefit from a year off to gain perspective.

GRE scores are good for 5 years, and I think those look great.
 
If it were me, I would take a year off and work in a laboratory to get more experience.
 
Is there any reason why you're focused on prestigious programs?  I would like to point out that just because a program isn't top 10 doesn't necessarily mean the PIs there don't care about research.  You'll be surprised at how many PIs are passionate about their research at even mid or low-tier universities.  What it comes down to is who you work with, and you'd be surprised at who you find at lesser-known universities.
 
Also, grad school admissions are more than just numbers.  There are a plethora of applications with outstanding GPA/GRE scores who get turned down for one reason or another.  You need strong LORs and a strong SOP stating your reasons for going into your field and why you want to get a PhD.  Most schools will require 3 LORs, and it looks like you have 2 strong ones already.  On that note, it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a year or two off (especially since you're still so young) to work in a lab, get more research experience, and also get a 3rd strong LOR from a PI.
 
As for the number of schools to apply to... there really isn't a set amount.  The Biological Sciences field is highly competitive, and I would suggest applying to at least 5 schools, but I have seen successful applicants who only applied to 1 or 2 schools.  It depends on your financial situation (since applications can cost anywhere between $25-$100+ depending on the school), and how many programs you would genuinely be happy to attend.  Throwing money at a university because you want to get in somewhere, but probably won't be happy in the program is a waste, really.

Agh, I just got an email alert on my phone, and the only part of the subject line that showed up was "Your applicatio..." and my heart fully stopped. But turns out the full subject line was 'Your applications are finally in, right?', and it was just an email from my godmother asking me when I'd hear back from schools. I love the woman, but I could have killed her. 
I should send a memo out to all my friends and family: "To prevent accidentally sending Allie into an unstoppable (and potentially homicidal) rage, do not use the words 'admission', 'application', 'rejection' or 'graduate school' in email subject lines from now until April 15th. Love you!"

Um, what? You think that an unmarried professor is walking around all secretly envious of a married student ... because lack of a spouse represents a "position in life" that one must be  "grumpy" about? Why not take the next leap--this female professor is obviously bitter because she isn't getting laid.
 
Please, we're grad students. Let's not perpetuate such sexist crap.

Perhaps now is a good time to begin practicing that diplomacy...

Seeking, I agree with you that portions of the GRE are harder/less relevant, depending on your major. However, I'm not sure if your solution is really all that reasonable. For example, consider the contents of an advanced quant GRE for STEM majors. What, exactly, would be on such a test? Just because STEM majors are quant-heavy doesn't mean they all use the same types of skills; a math or computer science major may know a lot about graph theory, for example, but those might be completely irrelevant to other STEM fields. Even within the same field, people's quant backgrounds can be vastly different. Someone who specializes in computer graphics may know a lot about linear algebra, while someone else doing cryptography may primarily have a background in number theory. My point is, it's easy to talk about a GRE that tests "advanced quant topics", but the truth is that there are so many things that fall under that umbrella that there would be the exact same problem with some people suffering because their specific STEM discipline does not cover all of the topics. The current GRE avoids this problem by only testing things that people are assumed to have known when they started college; it doesn't expect anyone to have taken any quant-heavy classes post-high school, and in fact, I think the only college-level math course that would possibly be relevant to the GRE is stats, and even then it's pretty basic. Besides, we already have subject GREs to test more discipline-specific knowledge, and even those are frequently considered optional by grad schools, so I don't think attempting to specialize the general test is going to help much.

I wonder where you are getting this information?
 
I think the GRE is far from perfect, and I agree that it makes little sense to require the same test for aspiring English PhDs as for aspiring engineering master's students. Perhaps three different tests would make sense. But I do think the GRE's useful in helping schools compare candidates directly because GPAs can be more reflective of the grading policies and rigor of one's undergraduate institution than anything else. For example, a few of my friends who went to our state's flagship campus - considered a "public Ivy" - for the liberal arts all had ridiculously high GPAs: 3.96, 4.0, etc. They are all smart people, but nobody I knew in college got grades like that. I think the GRE can help adcomms better compare students who went to different undergrad institutions.
 
I don't think a 2 or even 5-point difference in scores (on the new GRE) between two applicants necessarily means that there is a corresponding difference in intelligence between the two. But if someone really bombs the GRE, I do think that says something, either about the student's intellectual abilities, their unwillingness to prepare, or their ability to perform under pressure, all of which are relevant to admissions decisions. 

I often see the arguments you've made, but I think that I mostly disagree.
 
STEM applicants should be required to have strong verbal, writing, and reading comprehension skills. Reports and research conclusions require clarity and in-depth, precise descriptions, not solely with figure- or chart-based data, but with words as well.
 
I also think it's fair to expect humanities majors to possess logic and reasoning skills, which the GRE tests in some capacity.
 
Further, the GRE quant currently includes a sizeable portion of chart/graph- and stats-based questions, which are germane for those in the social sciences, essential for those in STEM, yet still decipherable by those in the humanities.
 
The more I mull this over, the more I think it makes sense that many top programs often consider both quant and verbal for all applicants.
 
And I definitely don't mean to sound like a champion for the ETS/GRE. I don't think the GRE is a perfect or even very good test, and it caused me undue stress and cost me a lot of cash. I resented taking it. I just think there may be some method to the madness, and that the current GRE may be the best they can do given the vast diversity of applicant fields as long as the schools maintain that standardized testing is necessary.

People have already given good advice for long-term strategies, so I'll give some tips for the day of the test itself.
 
First of all, the Princeton Review book suggests that you do practice GRE problems the morning of the test as a warm-up. I didn't do GRE problems the morning-of, but I did do some logic puzzles to pass the time on the 1.5 hour bus ride to the test center (free Kindle games are great!). I think doing that definitely helped me to focus and get into the right mindset. I really, really like solving puzzles, so by playing puzzle games, I was able to convince myself that the GRE was just more puzzle-solving. By the time I started the test, I was actually really excited about the "game" I was about to play (and of course I wanted to win).
 
Second, the GRE has built-in breaks, but if you need longer, you can use the instructions screen for each section as a sort of bonus time to mentally prepare. Basically, before each section, they will give you a screen of instructions on how to do that section. If you found the previous break was too short, just stay on that page and don't start the section yet. I suppose it's possible it will eventually time out and auto-advance (I didn't test it), but I know at the very least it will give you an extra few minutes. Also, maybe I'm weird, but I found it comforting to read the instructions multiple times, even if I'd encountered that type of section before, because it gave me a "nothing I'm about to see will be unexpected, I can do this" sort of confidence. Hah, okay, I'm pretty sure I'm just weird.
 
Finally, don't get discouraged by tough sections! I know it's easier said than done, but keep in mind that it's entirely possible that the tough section is experimental and isn't going to affect your score at all. My very first section was a super brutal quant section, and I was sure I was doing horribly. The next quant section I hit was way easier, and because the test is adaptive by section, I was convinced that I had been put into a lower score band. Then I hit a third quant section, which was also fairly easy, and it occured to me that the hard one might've been experimental. Don't let a possible experimental section stress you out and cause you to lose confidence!
 
For the record, my scores were 165V, 170Q, 4.0AW. Hope these help at least a little, and good luck!!!

I'll address these point by point from where I'm coming from:
 
A) Getting a PhD requires focused research--pretty hard to do successfully without motivation or direction. Courses are a component, but not the most important. I think the attitude you are describing is a lot more prevalent in undergrad degrees now, and perhaps some professional programs and skill based masters degrees, and to be fair, I just assumed we were talking about a PhD. For better or worse, it is not the attitude that admissions committees (including faculty, admins, and your potential peers--who often get some say in who they want to see admitted) are generally looking for. Why would any of the above want to work with someone who evidences what could easily be construed as apathy and entitlement?
 
B ) Arguably the singular requirement of academia is honesty. If you can't even be honest about why you are there, why should anyone expect you to be ethical in your research practices? So yes, someone who lies should be "blamed" for their actions and grad school is a poor choice for them. If you are ambivalent, don't lie about it. You can still show commitment to a project/program/job even if you have reservations about whether it is the ideal course forward--but if you can't even see how it might help you, why waste the time that you could be doing something enjoyable?
 
This is totally separate from a question of whether it is worth time and effort to get a slip of paper just for the sake of the credential, and whether someone can or should know exactly what they want to do, which is what you seem to connect it to. I don't think anyone hear would suggest that they know 100% what they will do and how it will turn out 5 years in the future, but having solid interests and enthusiasm sure makes it more likely that you'll put out good work and graduate in a timely manner, both of which are important considerations for grad programs. Even the ones you pay your way for are generally "losing" money on you relative to the cost of your education. This really gets back to the point you brought up in A--admissions are limited, and I'd argue that ability is not sufficient to "deserve" (a loaded phrase that I dislike) anything relative to an applicant that is more enthusiastic/committed and also has the ability to contribute positively to their program.
 
C) There are NGOs and NPOs looking for enthusiastic and smart people to help them worldwide. And the OPer is clearly from the US, so this is a red herring regardless.The OPer clearly is excited about such jobs, which include the travel and learning/thinking that they specified as appealing. The "then what" is that these positions provide the experience and CV blurbs to do things in related fields that continue to value and reward the same activities, say, working for the Gates Foundation. Or that they provide some direction to future grad school so that instead of retreading old ground in a field you dislike, you are using your time productively towards a goal in something that you can get some more fulfillment out of than checking off the to do list.
 
Finally, I'd point out that I didn't suggest anything the necessity of "finding yourself" prior to grad school or work, just that grad school wasn't the ideal place to make this happen. The same was true of the OPers teller job, and lots of other situations. The reason I used quotation marks is that it is clearly a cliched, oversimplifying phrase.

True!
 
Two years ago, I had a term where I did really, really poorly in school due to various mental health issues. I only passed one class, and that was with the lowest possible passing grade. That class was in my major, so I thought for sure I'd messed everything up. I talked to the professor about why my grades were so poor and he was very understanding, but it was the first class I ever had with him so I wouldn't blame him if he wound up thinking I was a horrible student or just didn't care.
 
Flash forward to last semester, I went to go ask him to write me a recommendation for grad school. I'd taken two more classes with him and he was the advisor for my senior project so he'd seen how much better I was doing (hence why I felt justified asking for the rec), but I was still nervous that my poor grade in my first class with him would be a deal breaker. I would totally understand if he saw that little episode as evidence that I wasn't cut out for the rigors of grad school.
 
Also, note that at the time, I was planning on only going for a masters. That one bad semester had killed my confidence so I was convinced that a PhD was way out of my league, and even a masters would be a miracle.
 
Anyway, instead of saying no to my recommendation, he started asking me all sorts of questions about why I wanted to go to grad school. He didn't understand why I wasn't going for a PhD, though. He agreed to write me a recommendation, but he refused to speak to me any further until I could adequately defend my reasons for getting a masters only. He went on to say that he thought I sounded extremely passionate about research and that I would make a stronger PhD candidate than a masters candidate.
 
Having a professor whose class I nearly failed show so much confidence in my chances at getting a PhD was... amazing. I've had a lot of support from friends and family - whether it's the well-intentioned but misguided "you'll get in everywhere, you're smart!" or the more honest "you did the best you could, now all you can do is wait and see" - but that one professor's encouragement has been my main motivation in this application season.

True!
 
Two years ago, I had a term where I did really, really poorly in school due to various mental health issues. I only passed one class, and that was with the lowest possible passing grade. That class was in my major, so I thought for sure I'd messed everything up. I talked to the professor about why my grades were so poor and he was very understanding, but it was the first class I ever had with him so I wouldn't blame him if he wound up thinking I was a horrible student or just didn't care.
 
Flash forward to last semester, I went to go ask him to write me a recommendation for grad school. I'd taken two more classes with him and he was the advisor for my senior project so he'd seen how much better I was doing (hence why I felt justified asking for the rec), but I was still nervous that my poor grade in my first class with him would be a deal breaker. I would totally understand if he saw that little episode as evidence that I wasn't cut out for the rigors of grad school.
 
Also, note that at the time, I was planning on only going for a masters. That one bad semester had killed my confidence so I was convinced that a PhD was way out of my league, and even a masters would be a miracle.
 
Anyway, instead of saying no to my recommendation, he started asking me all sorts of questions about why I wanted to go to grad school. He didn't understand why I wasn't going for a PhD, though. He agreed to write me a recommendation, but he refused to speak to me any further until I could adequately defend my reasons for getting a masters only. He went on to say that he thought I sounded extremely passionate about research and that I would make a stronger PhD candidate than a masters candidate.
 
Having a professor whose class I nearly failed show so much confidence in my chances at getting a PhD was... amazing. I've had a lot of support from friends and family - whether it's the well-intentioned but misguided "you'll get in everywhere, you're smart!" or the more honest "you did the best you could, now all you can do is wait and see" - but that one professor's encouragement has been my main motivation in this application season.

I can imagine how devastating that scenario would be.  That said, you do have responsibilities in this situation.  Some of them may seem unfair, but they're very important.
 
I want to note that I'm coming at this as a male rape survivor.  I was raped at 15 by a man who was a religious leader in our community and who I know has assaulted other kids.  I was called a liar when I tried to get help, and he has never faced any consequences for his crimes.  
 
1. The "too good to be a rapist" fallacy is just that.
 
Rapists often rape people they are supposed to protect, people who like or love them, and/or people who feel safe around them.  They often get close to people, or acquire authority, because they seem like good people.
 
Many survivors (me included) would never have predicted that their rapist would rape them.  This is a big reason that many of us are not believed.  The reality of it is that survivors have had it proven, in the worst possible way, that you can't tell who the good people are.  
 
2. Most rapists do not get caught: 97% of rapists never spend a day in jail.
 
Most rape survivors you meet did not get justice.  They know that a person who has not been convicted is not necessarily innocent.  They can't rely on that information to keep themselves safe.  They can't trust your word on the matter, because most rapists will insist that they're not rapists.
 
3. Nobody is obligated to feel safe around you.
 
It might be very painful and upsetting; it might affect your career.  But the reality of it is that rape survivors are trying to keep themselves safe, and the pain you experience is not more valid or more important than the pain they have experienced.
 
Hell, I don't even know you, and there is a part of me that doesn't believe you when you say you're innocent.  That's not your fault, but it's not mine either.  It's my rapist's fault, and it's every rapists' fault, because they're disgusting victimizing liars, and that has lasting effects on the people they victimize.
 
4. Okay, so what are you supposed to do about this?
 
- First of all, the people telling you not to talk about it and not to touch the subject of rape are absolutely right.  If it's important to you to help rape survivors, consider making donations to RAINN or something like that.
 
- If you do need to talk about it for whatever reason, don't bash or blame your accuser.  Most rape survivors are called stupid, attention-seeking, slutty, or crazy when they talk about what has legitimately happened to them, especially by the rapists, who want to reduce accusers' credibility to avoid punishment.
 
- If someone tells you they have been raped, believe them.  The vast majority of accusations are true, and people who are not listened to suffer additional psychological trauma.  
 
- It's okay, even good, to acknowledge that someone has no way of knowing whether you're telling the truth.  This would make me feel a lot safer if I were in conversation with you.  If you acted like it was ridiculous that I was wary (because there is no proof of your innocence), I would wonder why you didn't care about survivors' experiences.
 
- Do not get yourself in situations where you make someone (especially women) feel unsafe.  Do not have sex with drunk people (don't do this anyway).  Do not walk an intoxicated person home alone -- get a female friend of hers to come with you.  Don't loom over someone or make it difficult for them to leave an area.  Maybe you don't do any of those things -- if not, great -- but don't make it easy for people to look at you and see red flags.
 
- Do not allow other people to use your experience to say that "lots of" or "half" or whatever number of accusations are false.  First of all, it's not true, and second, men have an obligation to help stop rape culture and rape apologism.  
 
Well, sorry I ended up writing a novel here.  I hope it's useful and that it made sense.

I totally understand. I was put on academic probation my first semester working with my to-be mentor. She (and my department) has seen me go from a bumbling 20-year-old who knew nothing about research to someone one of my letter writers phrased as "extremely smart, street-savvy, and far above a bachelor's level scholar." I'm gaining graduate-level TA responsibilities under this professor because of her view of me. I don't get to talk much with my third writer (she's the interim head for one department and heads my current department), but she's best friends with my mentor and I'm sure she knows what's going on.
 
I was abused for years as a child and have a severely damaged self-esteem and always wonder what others think of me, because I'm quite sure I'm incompetent in a variety of ways. To have her talk about me like I'm heads above the rest, like I can truly make it...just about had me in tears. I am so thankful for the professors I've had. One of them came up to me and said "So I hear you had an interview, huh?" She's teased me (playfully) and supported me since I started in the department. She's not an LOR writer (she's just got a masters, and mentor wanted tenured faculty to write for me), but she's an amazingly nice person and I've had her for three semesters now.
 
It does squick me out a bit that they obviously talk about me, though. Because she had to hear of the mini-interview I had with the faculty that contacted me from my mentor, because she was the only one I talked to about it.

People have already given good advice for long-term strategies, so I'll give some tips for the day of the test itself.
 
First of all, the Princeton Review book suggests that you do practice GRE problems the morning of the test as a warm-up. I didn't do GRE problems the morning-of, but I did do some logic puzzles to pass the time on the 1.5 hour bus ride to the test center (free Kindle games are great!). I think doing that definitely helped me to focus and get into the right mindset. I really, really like solving puzzles, so by playing puzzle games, I was able to convince myself that the GRE was just more puzzle-solving. By the time I started the test, I was actually really excited about the "game" I was about to play (and of course I wanted to win).
 
Second, the GRE has built-in breaks, but if you need longer, you can use the instructions screen for each section as a sort of bonus time to mentally prepare. Basically, before each section, they will give you a screen of instructions on how to do that section. If you found the previous break was too short, just stay on that page and don't start the section yet. I suppose it's possible it will eventually time out and auto-advance (I didn't test it), but I know at the very least it will give you an extra few minutes. Also, maybe I'm weird, but I found it comforting to read the instructions multiple times, even if I'd encountered that type of section before, because it gave me a "nothing I'm about to see will be unexpected, I can do this" sort of confidence. Hah, okay, I'm pretty sure I'm just weird.
 
Finally, don't get discouraged by tough sections! I know it's easier said than done, but keep in mind that it's entirely possible that the tough section is experimental and isn't going to affect your score at all. My very first section was a super brutal quant section, and I was sure I was doing horribly. The next quant section I hit was way easier, and because the test is adaptive by section, I was convinced that I had been put into a lower score band. Then I hit a third quant section, which was also fairly easy, and it occured to me that the hard one might've been experimental. Don't let a possible experimental section stress you out and cause you to lose confidence!
 
For the record, my scores were 165V, 170Q, 4.0AW. Hope these help at least a little, and good luck!!!

Yes! I have one more application to submit, and I've yet to hear back from anywhere (it's still a little too early). I'm going crazy waiting, though. Doesn't help that CS people seem to be underrepresented (or at least not very vocal) on this forum; I was starting to think I was the only one!

Hi, perfectionist.

I would advise you to make an appointment with a professor during their office hours and let them know what you are interested in doing. In my experience, professors are genuinely excited to find out that you want to pursue graduate work. Ask them questions. Tell them about yourself and the things you have been doing to prepare yourself for graduate school. Most of the time they will have many suggestions and offer to help. If not and you are too shy to ask in person (I know I was), then send a thank you email, remind the of what you want to do, and ask for the LOR.

Btw do your research! Try to target profs who have similar interests, and if you have access to associate and full professors that have strong resumes and have some ties to the schools you are looking to apply to then that's great!


GOOD LUCK!

I think an acceptance with no funding would be worse because I'd sooooooo want to go, but I'd be unable to. Its like the school is dangling the carrot in front of me and then pulling it away at the last moment. At least with a straight up rejection it wouldn't be so much turmoil inducing. Luckily, I guess, in my field no funding= no acceptances.

I read an article on that which might interest you.
 
http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/
 
Good luck,
 
HM

It's free, it's fun, and a tremendous opportunity for you to assess your fit with PIs and schools. Go for as many as you feel you can manage and for which you have genuine interest.

People have already given good advice for long-term strategies, so I'll give some tips for the day of the test itself.
 
First of all, the Princeton Review book suggests that you do practice GRE problems the morning of the test as a warm-up. I didn't do GRE problems the morning-of, but I did do some logic puzzles to pass the time on the 1.5 hour bus ride to the test center (free Kindle games are great!). I think doing that definitely helped me to focus and get into the right mindset. I really, really like solving puzzles, so by playing puzzle games, I was able to convince myself that the GRE was just more puzzle-solving. By the time I started the test, I was actually really excited about the "game" I was about to play (and of course I wanted to win).
 
Second, the GRE has built-in breaks, but if you need longer, you can use the instructions screen for each section as a sort of bonus time to mentally prepare. Basically, before each section, they will give you a screen of instructions on how to do that section. If you found the previous break was too short, just stay on that page and don't start the section yet. I suppose it's possible it will eventually time out and auto-advance (I didn't test it), but I know at the very least it will give you an extra few minutes. Also, maybe I'm weird, but I found it comforting to read the instructions multiple times, even if I'd encountered that type of section before, because it gave me a "nothing I'm about to see will be unexpected, I can do this" sort of confidence. Hah, okay, I'm pretty sure I'm just weird.
 
Finally, don't get discouraged by tough sections! I know it's easier said than done, but keep in mind that it's entirely possible that the tough section is experimental and isn't going to affect your score at all. My very first section was a super brutal quant section, and I was sure I was doing horribly. The next quant section I hit was way easier, and because the test is adaptive by section, I was convinced that I had been put into a lower score band. Then I hit a third quant section, which was also fairly easy, and it occured to me that the hard one might've been experimental. Don't let a possible experimental section stress you out and cause you to lose confidence!
 
For the record, my scores were 165V, 170Q, 4.0AW. Hope these help at least a little, and good luck!!!

Where in the OP's post did she say she was going to do it herself? Jesus. Take a moment, breathe, re-read her post, and then slowly get off your high horse.

People have already given good advice for long-term strategies, so I'll give some tips for the day of the test itself.
 
First of all, the Princeton Review book suggests that you do practice GRE problems the morning of the test as a warm-up. I didn't do GRE problems the morning-of, but I did do some logic puzzles to pass the time on the 1.5 hour bus ride to the test center (free Kindle games are great!). I think doing that definitely helped me to focus and get into the right mindset. I really, really like solving puzzles, so by playing puzzle games, I was able to convince myself that the GRE was just more puzzle-solving. By the time I started the test, I was actually really excited about the "game" I was about to play (and of course I wanted to win).
 
Second, the GRE has built-in breaks, but if you need longer, you can use the instructions screen for each section as a sort of bonus time to mentally prepare. Basically, before each section, they will give you a screen of instructions on how to do that section. If you found the previous break was too short, just stay on that page and don't start the section yet. I suppose it's possible it will eventually time out and auto-advance (I didn't test it), but I know at the very least it will give you an extra few minutes. Also, maybe I'm weird, but I found it comforting to read the instructions multiple times, even if I'd encountered that type of section before, because it gave me a "nothing I'm about to see will be unexpected, I can do this" sort of confidence. Hah, okay, I'm pretty sure I'm just weird.
 
Finally, don't get discouraged by tough sections! I know it's easier said than done, but keep in mind that it's entirely possible that the tough section is experimental and isn't going to affect your score at all. My very first section was a super brutal quant section, and I was sure I was doing horribly. The next quant section I hit was way easier, and because the test is adaptive by section, I was convinced that I had been put into a lower score band. Then I hit a third quant section, which was also fairly easy, and it occured to me that the hard one might've been experimental. Don't let a possible experimental section stress you out and cause you to lose confidence!
 
For the record, my scores were 165V, 170Q, 4.0AW. Hope these help at least a little, and good luck!!!

I don't know of any school that only accepts people with perfect 4.0 GPAs. If you go to the results section for the last few years, I'm sure you'll see some people will less than perfect GPAs got in. The impression I've gotten is that evaluating PhD applications is not really a numbers game. Most applicants will have some sort of weakness, and it is the overall strength of apps that really matters. I'm certainly no expert though. For all I know, I could end up going 0-8 this cycle!