biotechie

How the interview is done depends on your field and your location. For example, in biomedical sciences, if you're in the U.S. already, interviews are done in person, but if you're out of the country, they're done via Skype. When I interviewed (in person), most of the programs gave me 3-4 weeks notice, but I had one that gave me only a little over a week and a half.

I personally dressed more formally interview day (not business formal... but definitely much nicer than business casual) with comfortable low-heeled boots; they go awesome with dress slacks. I personally avoid skirts for things like that. Then I went business casual (nice khakis and appropriate blouse) for all other events. I did not wear jeans or tennis shoes. You'll be doing a lot of walking at all times, including the social events. Some programs will take you out and show you where the students live or show a walking commute to school, so just have comfortable shoes that goes with every outfit. You can find some more details here. including dress code: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/blogs/entry/452-all-about-interviews-experiences-for-the-gc-minions/

I would say she will find out their true personality when she does rotations (if she rotates in their labs). A 20 minute interview won't be a true measure of personality. I didn't end up with any of the professors I interviewed with.

FYI MOST programs in the biological/biomedical sciences have rotations, not just the umbrella and interdisciplinary programs. Please make sure that these universities have several professors that you would be willing to work with; just because you're interested in what they're doing doesn't mean they're taking students, have money to take a student, or that you will get along with them.

Many schools will tell you some of that info when you interview. However, if they don't tell you, the current students taking you around can probably make a good guess based on how many students they see. And yes, it isn't uncommon for you to get invites before the final due date for applications. Schools have to start reviewing applications early or they would never get through all of them. They often do them in 2-3 groups based on when they receive them and invite for interviews from there. One con to this is that many schools also give offers very quickly after interviews; I had offers within 48 hours for both interviews I attended (and a verbal offer for one I was calling to decline the interview for), and they still had additional interviews scheduled within the month. That's one reason it is good to get applications in as early as possible, but people that hold onto their offers forever can really hurt other applicants that get put on the wait list. Take home message: Pick the earliest interview dates you can if you don't know anything about how the school does applications/interviews/offers.

I'm another molecular biologist that has a wide variety of interests. When I applied, I specified my interests as immunology and epigenetics as that's what I knew. However, I ultimately joined a lab that is in metabolism and doesn't do epigenetics at all. You do need to portray your interests such that you have obvious directionality. You want the adcom to see you as a student that can be successful but also as one that is fairly flexible. The problem with being interested in everything is that if you're not careful you can be viewed as unsure about your future or not committed to your graduate studies. Most people can say, "I'm interested in cancer biology because I think transcriptional regulation is interesting." or "I believe that further understanding of epigenetics will yield new obesity treatments," because those are things they ARE interested in, but that doesn't mean it is all they are interested in. Most of us are very interested in several fields. I'll go to micro biome talks, but I don't work on the micro biome, etc. I'm very multidisciplinary in my own studies. Umbrella or interdisciplinary programs might be of interest for you as they're going to have more different types of projects for you to choose from. Do NOT pick the first lab that is interesting to you. You need to pick for the whole package, the "good fit," which is: Good lab environment, good research mentor, a promising project, and a supportive program. If you get to application time during your senior year and you're still unsure about your own interests, it might be worth it to do a masters degree to prove to yourself that you want to do graduate school and it might help you see areas of science you're most interested in. I did a MS to prove I could do a PhD and that it was for me, though I already had a field of interest based on what I did as an undergrad (which I changed once I got to PhD), and I've been glad I did it through my whole PhD so far. I say this over and over on these forums, but I don't think "safety schools" should be on your radar at all. You should apply to programs that you think you would be a good fit in. Don't pick simply based on rank (and in my personal opinion, you should throw rank out). You should be able to look at each program and think, "I could be happy if I went to school there." If not, and you get into a school you view as a "safety school," you'll never be happy there and it might hinder your success.

I agree with part of this.... however, I would sub the word PhD for post-doc in all of this. The most important thing is, if you want to stay in Academia, that you post-doc in a great lab. Other than that, so long as you are a productive grad student, your PIs reputation won't matter as much. I'm a third-year PhD Student. I did 4 years undergrad research, then a MS, and I also spent a lot of time talking to people who ran this PhD gauntlet ahead of me. Through this, talking to PIs, and my experience until now, here's my opinion on the matter. Nearly all of it pointed me to joining the lab of a fairly new PI as a PhD student (as one of their first three students) and then joining a big-name lab where you can really run with a project and prep for your own lab. I rotated in bigger name labs, and the younger PI won out. Your PhD is the time when you need to learn to be a scientist. You need to learn to not only do the bench work and improve your current skills, but you also need to learn how to run a lab, organize your research, write grants and papers, give presentations, and manage lab personnel and teach students. Most of us do rotations, so we get to see how the PI is going to be in the lab so we can make the right choice. Here are the criteria I used to pick my lab and why the new PI won out for me over a more established one. Remember we're all different; this is what worked for me, but your needs/wants as a student may be different. 1. Direct mentorship and funding: I wanted a PI who was going to be available to me when needed but would let me be independent when I could be. Established PIs that have big names are notoriously busy and may not have the time needed to give you the attention you will need early on in your PhD education. New PIs have not been thrown onto 20 different committees and will have time to work with you if needed. I could talk to my PI multiple times a day if I needed to. If you don't need a lot of one-on-one to teach you the research, then you can work more collaboratively to get epic amounts of research done. New PIs also have startup funding to start their lab and generate data to get funding, so they should have money to fund you if you can't get a fellowship. On top of this, your success as a graduate student (publishing and ultimately graduating) is essential for them to get tenure. Thus you becoming a good scientist also helps them become successful. The PIs I've talked to always seem to cite one of their first few students as their most successful, and I think the highly collaborative atmosphere and these goals really help those students succeed. This is also the only time that funding isn't do-or-die for a couple years so they can really delve into the science. 2. Research Project: The biggest thing that increases time to PhD is starting with a poorly thought out project with weak supporting data (and/or poor mentorship). I wanted a project that looked like it had a couple of directions it could go in and that I could get some supporting preliminary data for. I got this as well as a strong "back-up" project. My PI made it clear to me from day 1 of my rotation which projects were available to me and how far he saw them going. He had them well thought out, but left lots of room for me to make my own choices for direction within it. This was another benefit of the young PI. He had very clear goals, but was just getting started, so directionality was not set in stone. 3. Student Track Record: This is harder with new PIs as you may be their very first official graduate student. However, this one had mentored many undergraduates during his PhD and then graduate students (unofficially) and undergrads during his post-doc. He gladly gave me information on where these students ended up and I was even able to meet one of them during my rotation. I also got to observe this professor working with and teaching another rotations student. His teaching style was always patient with us, but he quickly learned how both students learned and altered his teaching method individually for each of us. This is important in the beginning while you're still learning the field and methods of the lab, and this is something you can really observer during rotations. If you can learn really well from the PI, you stand a good chance of doing well in the lab. 4. Lab skills: New PIs are still sharp on their skills from post-doc. They'll teach you directly, and I find that this is very helpful, especially when you're working up the data together. 4. Ultimate career goals: I want to be a PI and run my own lab one day. What better way to learn than by being part of a new lab getting set up? My PI got his keys about 2 months before I rotated. When I talked to him about the rotation, his lab was still empty. Since then, I watched and helped set up a lot of the lab. I helped establish cataloging systems for samples, talked to vendors, etc. I'm also getting to help train new people in the lab and I get to watch how my PI interacts with collaborators and hires new people. He was very recently in my shoes, so he also makes sure I get to see the outcomes on things he's been writing and he makes me write things on my own (fellowships and papers, etc). He also tries to let me take the lead on small projects and small collaborations. Finally, he has me out presenting posters and small talks as often as I can, which benefits me in the experience, but is also highly positive for the lab. By being here for this part of his journey, I'm learning a lot that will help me when I get there myself. I am lucky enough to have PI that cares about his students, allows me to freely voice my concerns, and takes time to help me work on my career development as well. Finally, I highly recommend choosing your lab based on lab environment and how well you mesh with the PI and lab personnel over the project or lab/institution ranking itself. You're going to be spending 5 years there... don't make it a miserable and unproductive 5 years. That can lead to burn-out or drop-out. You have to fit well in the lab, and you have to be happy. Don't just choose a young PI or a big-name lab because someone tells you to. We can only offer you our opinion based on our own experiences. Obviously I've been very lucky so far, but my PI is also new and he does make some mistakes. However, I am very happy in my lab and it has been very productive so far. I have no doubt I will be abel to graduate and get a good post-doc.

If you're interested in the program, apply there and make sure all of the positive attributes of your application really shine. Make sure it is somewhere you think you could be happy. I will say that no matter what program you're in or what institution, if it is in the Texas Medical Center, the research environment is amazing. With so many institutions in such a small area, the possibility for collaboration and discussion is nearly endless. And, I'll say this once again: You should be choosing programs based on how you think you'll fit and how happy you think you'll be. Those are essential for your success. Don't choose based on rank. It's okay to look, but don't let that determine your choices.

You've already accepted the interview offer to School A. It would be extremely rude to ask them to change dates, and potentially expensive. Ask School B for an alternative interview date.

1. Some schools don't pick their first choices until after all interviews, but others extend offers after each interview. The latter was the case at schools I applied to. That means you might have a higher chance of waitlist if those that interviewed earlier. However, I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you're unavailable the earlier date, still interview if you're interested in the school, but if you can go to the earlier date, I would do it. 2. I didn't stay with host students at my interviews; they just automatically put me up in a hotel, once with a roommate student, but the other time by myself. At my M.S. institution, they had us host students when they interviewed. This meant that the interviewing student slept on my futon, which may not have been the most comfortable. However, she did get one-on-one time with me to talk about the program and ask whatever she wanted more privately than with normal grad school outings. If you're paying out of pocket for your interview, it isn't a bad thing to be hosted. My schools paid for my interview expenses.

I did a little bit, but not really. The interviews I went to, I got to choose the professors I interviewed with, so I already knew my interests aligned with theirs. If you don't get to pick, it is okay to not have the same interests, but definitely do come in having read a few abstracts on their research. Believe it or not, at interviews, they're trying to recruit you to pick their program over other offers if you're accepted, and many of these professors may also be taking students next year, so they may be trying to recruit for their own labs as well. They also love talking about their own research. I would view that as a positive response from the POI. Good luck!

Being selected for interview is a very positive thing, especially this early in the game. Interviews serve to make sure the person on paper is the same person they would be getting if you attended, and it allows both the applicant and the people at the school to determine if the applicant is a good fit. At the same time, this is also the chance for the schools to woo and market themselves to you in person. If she's gotten 4 invites, odds are she'll get offers from one of them, or at the very least be wait-listed. If you get rejected post-interview, something is up, either with you or how the program received you. I view interviews as more of a formality to make sure you're not a psychopath. I only applied to 6 schools and ended up being fine. The only reason I declined two of the interviews was because I loved one of my programs so much that my second interview was less than impressive and I knew my other two wouldn't live up to it as I had been to the campuses before. Your daughter will be fine. Feel free to ask me questions about interviews, etc if needed. I also have a blog post that's showing up on the front page about interview expectations that you guys might find useful. http://forum.thegradcafe.com/blogs/entry/452-all-about-interviews-experiences-for-the-gc-minions/

This is EXACTLY how it feels. When I got invited to interview at BCM for a different program, they emailed. You can check your voicemails from another phone so long as they run through your phone company.

I'm biomed, which is still not the same field, but much closer. I do not think this will negatively impact you. I did not contact POIs until I was invited for interview. Then I got to pick professors that I interviewed with. It is really important that you picked institutions more than one professor you could be happy working under. Sometimes you'll rotate and then find out you don't like them. Other times, your POIs won't be taking students for the 2016 cycle due to funding or lack of space. It is in your best interest to have lots of options! As a side note, even if you had selected POIs ahead of time, it might not even matter in the end. I ended up joining the lab of a new faculty member who wasn't even at the institution when I interviewed, and it was the best choice I could have made. This professor is available when needed (he checks in a couple of times daily) and is very involved in making sure I get career development opportunities, learn new techniques, and write in addition to moving my projects forward and intellectually running them. Often times the first couple of students of professors that become awesome become very successful as well. New professors have more time to devote to their students, and, since they're setting up a lab and aiming for tenure, you being successful is directly tied to their success. My goal is to do well and enjoy the hands-on approach this new PI has for my PhD and go into a big, well-known lab for post-doc. If you get this opportunity and you fit really well in their lab, I do highly recommend it so long as you can be sure the professor will be a good teacher/mentor for you. When you do your rotations, this will be fairly obvious. The rotations system is very helpful, and I'm glad most bio programs use it. You may love the research, and you may even like the PI, but you may find that they aren't pushy enough, are too pushy, or that their lab members constantly fight, etc. There are a lot of things that could keep you from joining a lab that you won't see on paper. The most important thing is that you pick a PI and Lab where you feel that you fit and that the PI is going mentor you appropriately for you to reach your end career direction. I rank that even over your dream project; you can aim for those when you're going for postdoc. You may join one of your POIs labs, or you may just surprise yourself and join a lab going in a completely different research direction that is just too awesome to pass up! Of course, before you can have that kind of fun, you've got to get through your interviews. I'm sure you'll be fine. Good luck!

I wrote a fairly detailed blog post in January 2014 that might be helpful, and @fuzzylogician gave some good additions in the comments. If something is not covered there, let me know and I will add it and comment it on here. http://forum.thegradcafe.com/blogs/entry/452-all-about-interviews-experiences-for-the-gc-minions/

No, definitely not. But it does show that you're committed to research, which is why the professors I interviewed with said they were excited about it. And it gives a positive talking point in interviews.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. REUs with long term experiences can be awesome for exactly the reasons you say. I did a short time in another lab just to learn a technique. Just REUs on their own are what don't hold much weight in my book. Coupled with longer experience, they help. I get that REUs and internships are the only opportunity that some students have. My point was that the person shouldn't feel bad for sticking in one lab as it was a wonderful opportunity and isn't going to be looked upon negatively. Actually didn't get paid the first two years I did research and went home to work over the summer. Being out of lab that long sucked, but I still got to do research. There's apparently something to be said for research completed under volunteer time, and I didn't realize that until I was talking about research at interviews. If you volunteered for part of your research (didn't get paid), make sure your resume says that when you take it to interviews with you!

I went into PhD applications with 2 years mediocre experience in two different labs and then nearly 5 amazing years in my second lab (including masters). Do NOT worry about the adcom being upset about staying in one lab; it is generally quite the opposite. I've said this before, and I will say it again. A couple of years in a single lab is generally better than several small research experiences. Summer REUs don't hold much weight in my book; in 3 months, you're just starting to understand the protocols and project you're working on. However, staying in a single lab for at least a year causes you to not only learn your project and the lab protocols, but it makes you really do research. You're in the lab interacting with people, asking science questions, and actively troubleshooting what doesn't work. You are very lucky to have been in that lab for so long as you've already shown that you're a good scientist and that you can probably hack it. Otherwise, why would your previous PI have kept you on so long? The adcom will see this and it will be a positive thing on your application. Then, when you get interviews and can discuss with PIs, it'll help even more. I didn't apply to any of the schools on your list (long story), but I expect you to have a good chance at several of those.

Nope. I meant this one: https://www.bcm.edu/education/schools/graduate-school-of-biomedical-sciences/programs/integrative-molecular-and-biomedical-sciences I'm pretty sure the applicant you quoted to ask about their interview applied to Baylor College of Medicine (Houston). You're talking about Baylor University (Waco).

If you mean Integrative Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, in the past, interviews came after December 18 or 20 or as late as late January. I'm not sure what they were last year.

Not necessarily. I had friends get interviews that were in March. But past February, your chances really dwindle.

It depends on the school. Some of them send them out all at once, but others make you wait. They should still send you an email letting you know your status in the end. Some rejections don't come until right at the April 15 deadline to commit, but you'll sort of "know" since you will have missed the interview weekend.

Just in general, these are students who are just not nice to be around or who get caught in a lie at interview. Sometimes students make claims about their character or things that they've done that aren't true, and that's one reason we have interviews. I've never been in the room to see that happen. There are others that you meet that you know are there because of good scores or a good application even if you don't know what is in it, but they just don't play well with others, and they don't get in. (I realize that's a horrible run-on, but I'm too tired to fix it).

Hi guys! 3rd year PhD student in Molecular Bio, here. I lurk this thread each year to add my 2 cents or help out when you guys get lost or are freaking out. What Azia said is very true. I'm lucky to be in a place where there are several graduate institutions close together, so I get to see not only students that come into my own program, but also those that come into other programs. GPA and GRE are important, but only to a degree. The things that seem to be most important these days are your ability to show that you know what you're in for in a research PhD (aka, you've done real research for more than 6 months), that you're a good person, and that you have people who can vouch for all of this and that like you (letter writers are possibly the MOST important). There is rumor that some adcoms which remove the school names, and gender/other identifying information from applications before they submit to the committee, though I haven't seen evidence of that with my own eyes. I think it is a positive step for the future of science that they're focusing more on you rather than your numbers; some people don't test well, but you put them in the lab and they solve huge problems. I've seen students, and actually interviewed with some of them, that had beautiful applications as far as the numbers go, but when they interviewed, the person in their personal statement didn't match with the person. They were not good fits as they essentially lied, and I wouldn't have wanted to be in a program with students like that. When I got here, they were not. Then there are applicants with mediocre scores who accidentally gave a muted version of themselves in their personal statement, but their letter writers gave them their due credit. Then when they interview, you see how amazing they really are, and they get in. They go on to do wonderful science. I am an example of a student who came from a state school with a mediocre GPA and GRE scores, and I am doing well in my PhD studies. I won't comment on my application essays as I can't ever compare my own work to others. I'm biased. I passed my qual at the end of my first year and will soon have a paper out. I have no doubt that I will graduate. Yes, I came in with 6 years research experience because I worked in labs all of undergrad and MS, but that didn't teach me to survive in a PhD program. Why am I successful? I work hard, just like the other students in my program, which come from varying backgrounds from all types of different schools. Your previous experience may help you a little, but you all start on square one, no matter where you came from, and to me this makes it even more essential to pick a place where you feel comfortable. I did NOT choose my program based on rank. I chose programs to apply to that had research I was interested in and appeared to have an environment I wanted to be in. Some were top 25, some were ranked below 50. For me, rank doesn't matter. I also chose a mentor who doesn't only focus on the success of the research, but also focuses on my career development and my progress as a student. This is important; many a PhD student has gotten lost because their PI can't be there for them when they are needed. Okay, end rant. Message me or reply to this if you have questions. For those of you worried about interview notifications. In fall 2012, I got my first invitation and rejection on December 20. Then I didn't hear from anyone else until the second week of January. My last two schools didn't send invites until February. You've got time. Try to relax.

You may also consider applying to more interdisciplinary programs rather than only straight neuro. Many of them have a variety of professors to choose from, and though I'm wasn't that into neuroscience, the programs I looked at had several neuroscience-based labs. That would be something you would need to look into before you apply, however. Now I'm "accidentally" studying the brain for part of my thesis project.