free_radical

I've found that most people don't mind helping you out when you're looking for a job - because we've all been in that position before. However, you're much more likely to get useful help if you know what you need, in other words, a general question will get you a general answer. If you say "do you have any advice for how I can find a job," the response will probably be "check these job boards." And maybe that is what you need at this stage...just a push in the right direction. However, if instead you know the types of organizations you're interested in and the type of work you want, and say, "I'm interested in this (insert specific type of work), would you happen to know anyone in the area"...then who knows, you might get an introduction.

You definitely want to talk about your past research; I don't believe many schools have a separate "Statement of Research" so the SOP is your chance to talk yourself up! However, it shouldn't be just a laundry list of all your past research accomplishments, you should talk about why your past experience qualifies you to do the type of graduate work you want to do.

I worked in industry for a while before applying for PhD programs, I think my industry experiences helped my applications. I talked about them in my SOP and how those experiences informed my decision to get a PhD. I'm also in a STEM field. I had a nice job in industry, but I realized that I did want to do an independent research project, and learn how to direct my own research project...so I decided to come back for a PhD. From a practical perspective, a PhD is necessary for some industry research roles in my field (biotech). It seemed like this was less true in Computer Science, but I'm sure you know the field better than I do. If you need to do it to get the job you want, then you need to do it I guess.

Well one poster above said that a school specifically asked NOT to see websites - I had one school that was the opposite. It specifically asked if we had a website, but obviously, it was optional. Likewise, some schools encourage extra LORs if you feel they are necessary, but others actively discourage it. So going back to the original question, I'd say read the application instructions carefully...and if they don't seem to be against a website and you have a good one, there's no reason why not. But in general, reading application instructions carefully helps.

In my field we work in the lab all day, so the dress is rather casual. However, I've found in my experience that it never hurts to look nice, even with casual dress. Instead of just throwing on a t-shirt, sweatshirt, and sneakers to go to lab (which is perfectly acceptable, as in, it's not against the rules), it doesn't hurt to put on a nice fitted shirt, fitted jeans, and comfortable but nice shoes. I think that regardless of how "dressed up" you are, it is always possible to present yourself nicely - just with different types of clothing. It's also probably good to dress at the same level as everyone else - if someone showed up to lab in a suit, yeah they might get a few looks. Above paragraph applies to both girls and guys. For girls specifically, I'd say watch out certain messages you might be sending, like if a dress is a little too short, nothing too low-cut, etc. And unfortunately, if you're a girl who wears super-expensive clothing, it can get judged sometimes. Sad that women get judged by these things, but yes, we do need to think about the way we dress. Especially if you ever work in a male-dominated field like I did.

Graduate schools want to see that you've taken upper-level (difficult?) classes that are relevant to the program you are applying to. Basically, they want to see that you've taken challenging coursework that has prepared you. Just make sure you do this - no matter what major you choose. Graduate schools will look at the actual classes on your transcripts, and not just the name of the major and GPA. As for school name/reputation - it does matter, but as the previous poster illustrates, it's not everything. From my personal experience, I think the reason people from "top" schools have an advantage in getting into top graduate schools is that they've had more opportunities along to way (i.e. to engage in meaningful research, have access to more relevant internships, etc.) So if you know what you're doing at your cheaper in-state school, you should be fine.

I can't comment on the GRE or Computer Science programs specifically (except to suggest that you look at the average GRE scores for programs you're interested in), but I did apply from a non-traditional background (i.e. some time in industry). The best piece of advice I can say is that in your SOP, you should really talk about why your time away from academia makes you a BETTER candidate. How has your work experience prepared you beyond just someone coming in straight from a BS program? For me, I talked about how my industry experience helped me solidify my research interests, and how my industry experience informed my decision to get a PhD.

Hey I understand how you feel - I also had some industry supervisors write LORs for me. Many people have said that professors see writing LORs as part of the job, but its...not really true for industry supervisors! So yeah, I got a little worried when I applied too, but it wasn't an issue. Honestly, I don't really know what to say except just be appreciative, give plenty of notice, etc...if you have done good work and your boss likes you, I don't think they'll have a problem with it. One thing you could try to do - that I found out after my application cycle: So some schools just want recommendation writers to submit a standard letter (i.e. they just upload the same letter they wrote several times), but others have specialized forms where the writers have to go in and answer specific questions. The second type was annoying, I felt so bad because of the extra time these took! So you could try and find out which schools on your list ask for what type of recommendation, and warn your boss of the schools that are requiring specialized forms. If you're flexible in where you want to apply, you can try and avoid these schools. But don't worry too much about it, you're not the only one .

No problem - Here's something else you might try: Browse a few major medical device company's career pages, to see where the demand for skills is. That way, you'll know what areas are hot and where you're likely to land a job. Granted, the industry is fickle and you never know how it's going to be when you graduate, but it's good to keep an eye on trends. One example, from Medtronic, is below: http://www.medtronic.com/careers/index.htm Other companies you might look at include Boston Scientific, Stryker, St. Jude...etc.

Most schools wanted all my transcripts, but they didn't require official ones. You can upload your unofficial ones and if you get in and decide to go, you mail in your official ones. Definitely saved on time and money. Also, if you only took 1-2 courses and they were transferred to another school, you probably don't need to submit it. For example, I studied abroad and got a transcript from an overseas institution, and those credits showed up on my home institution transcripts. So I didn't need to submit my study abroad transcript, except for one school that wanted it for some reason.

You should look at the websites of the programs you're interested in, and see what their average scores are. That's the best way to figure out if scores are "good enough."

I've worked in the medical device industry - it really depends on the job description. If the job heavily involves SolidWorks, using Machine Shop (i.e. to physically prototype the devices), or building circuits, then they would probably prefer a MechE/EE. If the job is more bench lab work to test the device, or working on device biocompatibility, then I imagine BioE is fine for that. ChemE would probably do too. At the end of the day, it's the skills you have that matter, not really the degree you have. Plus, most BioE programs make you concentrate in a particular area, so you could be BioE and take all the MechE design classes. If you did this, your biomedical expertise might even put you ahead of all the MechEs. So in summary, it's more about the skills you have than the degree. From my time in industry, I can say that SolidWorks is a HUGELY needed skill. Learning Solidworks is generally not a part of most BioE programs, but that doesn't mean you can't take it as an elective. The medical device industry is extremely diverse - I suggest you think about what TYPE of work you'd like to do within it, and get the degree appropriate for that.

I worked in industry for a while before coming back for a PhD, so I basically made a conscious decision to give up a "real" job, with salary and benefits - so I get your reluctance at leaving the job! Here are my reasons: 1.) Practicality issue - in my field, you actually do need a PhD for some higher level research jobs. BS/MS employees generally get hired to be research assistants, while PhD level researchers run the company's research program. This is absolutely not true in other engineering fields, like Computer Science. 2.) I enjoyed my industry work quite a bit - much more than academic work with no foreseeable applications - but I found out that I did want to learn how to independently plan and execute my own research project. This is what the PhD degree teaches, and I cannot get this type of experience/training in industry. I think I'll probably find my way back into industry after my PhD, so I'm not doing it because I particularly like academic life, but it will teach me a set of skills that I desire. I think everyone has different reasons for doing a PhD - my reasons seem to be quite a contrast to the previous poster's comment. What's important is that YOU know what YOUR reasons for doing a PhD are. I can also say that it was a little daunting to come back into academia after being in industry for so long - I felt so lost researching schools and writing my SOP with no academic advisors around to help me - but it was well worth the effort.

I'm in a somewhat similar situation - I'm thinking about doing a minor on top of an engineering PhD. From my visit weekends, it seemed like a lot of students did something like this and it worked out, so I think it's definitely doable. The only thing to watch out for is making sure your advisor is okay with you taking extra classes - especially if they are paying you from an RA. I imagine if you have an external fellowship, you have more power in doing what you want. I also did visit one program that seemed to discourage taking any classes outside of the actual requirements...it was one of the reasons I chose not to go to that school. Anyways, I'm hoping my minor works out, so good luck to the both of us!

From my limited experience, it really seems to depend on the school and the professor you work with. On one of my campus visits, one guy took a fun class just about every semester - an athletic class, an art class, etc. At another one of my visits, the professor said something along the lines of "you will take electives. by electives, I mean maybe a physics or chemistry course (i'm in materials science). if you're feeling super, super crazy, then MAYBE a business course that deals with technology." So it really just depends...if pursuing your outside interests are really important to you - and you haven't chosen an advisor yet - you can try and gauge the attitude of your potential advisors toward pursuing outside interests. Obviously it's a bit difficult to just announce to a potential advisor that you want to do stuff besides just work for them...so maybe something along the lines of "Have previous students ever pursued courses outside the department"...something like that. If they say "graduate school is a full time commitment and I discourage any coursework outside the requirements," then perhaps that advisor won't work out for you.

A few of my classmates did that, and they got into top programs in the US. I imagine it would help to pick a well-reputed international institution - some popular destinations are Oxford, Cambridge, Max Planck, ETH Zurich, etc. If you already have a strong background from your bachelors (strong research and GPA, etc.), then your Masters will probably just be a CV-filler, and it will look cool that you went overseas. I know one person who did a Masters overseas with well-reputed people, and they wrote her recommendations, and he got into some top-ranked programs in the US. So in summary, it certainty doesn't hurt to go overseas. I'm sure you know this already, but you will be treated as a domestic applicant when you apply.

I retook the GRE...because my scores expired after working a few years in industry . Ok, more serious answer: Whether or not it's worth it to retake the GRE Biology test probably depends on your specific situation. For example, the general impression I've gotten is that Physics programs swear by the Physics GRE, and if you want to get into a top 10 you had better score at least 90 percentile (disclaimer: I'm not a physics student myself, this is just the impression I get). Other fields, it seems like it doesn't matter as much. I'm sure you know better than I do how important it it in your specific field...but I'd say take a look at all the programs you're planning to apply to and see if their websites say anything about an average GRE score. If you're on a the low side of average, then perhaps it would be worth it to retake it.

This isn't my field, so don't take everything I say to be truth, but it seems that if your eventual goal is a PhD, a research-based Masters would be far better than a professional one. Your thesis supervisor can then write you a strong recommendation based on the research abilities you show. As for what you can do now, probably just the same stuff everyone else does to prepare - score as highly as possible on the GRE, think about which professors you'd like to write recommendations for you and make sure they actually know who you are, and get involved with research (with a CS professor or other professor doing work you're interested in). Your school probably also has a pre-graduate advising office for students, which you can try - the qualify of these advising offices vary by university, but certainly worth a try.

Does your school have an official maternity leave policy? I can't offer any specific advice since I've never been in this situation myself, but I think knowing the maternity leave policy before talking to your advisor will put in you a stronger position.

I imagine it depends on where you are in your career and what you're applying for, but in general: 1.) I personally have separate sections for conference abstracts (of posters I presented, whose abstract got published in journals) and actual papers. As for university poster presentations, that probably depends on where you are in your career - if you're an undergraduate applying to graduate school, certainly you should put them on your CV. Most undergrads do not publish by the time they apply to graduate school, and a university presentation is quite relevant. If you're getting ready to apply for a TT job, I imagine listing a university presentation might seem a bit silly...but I haven't gotten to this stage so I don't really know. 2.) I've heard that generally, you should only include stuff that's actually been accepted for publication, or presentation in the case of poster abstracts. However, if you're an undergrad applying to graduate school, it could be good to include stuff that's in-progress, because it is kind of a big deal to get there as an undergrad. 3.) Again, I think this depends on the stage of your career. I've just been accepted to some programs and need to choose a lab soon - in my case, I will include plenty of technical detail on my past positions, so that the professor can see the skill set I can bring into the lab. For people more advanced, I imagine a high level description of each project should be fine, and they look more at your publication record.

Yeah in California, several buildings have a warning that the place "contains chemicals known to cause cancer." Strictly speaking that's like...pretty much everywhere. I think Disneyland has that warning.

I personally didn't do this, but met several people on my visits weekends who did. Materials Science + Chemistry is a very common combination, and I also met some people who applied to both Materials Science and Chemical Engineering. There were even people who applied to EE and MechE in addition to Materials Science. In all these cases, I don't think people were uncommitted to a discipline, they just had research interests that happened to be in different departments at different universities. I think what is important for showing commitment though, is that you've thought out what your research interests/goals are and can articulate them to your LOR writers. I'd say there should be a common theme at all the programs you apply to, but they don't necessarily need to have the same department name.

You want to show that you're a good fit for the department, but not narrow your interests too much. For me personally, in my SOP, I stated the general field I was interested in, and the general questions I was interested in working on. I then listed like ~3 professors who were doing work in the area, and said I was interested in their work and how it related to my background. I then said I was open to other projects in the area. It ended up working - I got into 4/6 programs - but it's not the only way to approach it. Some people have said they didn't name any professors in their SOP because they didn't want to be too specific, and they also got in. If you've done your homework, I'm sure that'll come across in your SOP no matter what approach you take.

I applied this past cycle, 3-4 years out of industry, and it was intimidating to email some professors. I had done well in some classes and knew the professor had liked me, but I hadn't really kept that closely in touch. It felt like I was saying "Hi, I took your class 3 years ago, do you remember me? Can you write me an LOR?" (In a more professional tone obviously lol) It was fine though, the professor was happy to help, and was understanding of the situation. I guess I was lucky in that I only had to do this with one recommendation - I was fortunate enough to have relevant work experience with employers who both liked me and were supportive of my decision to leave and get a PhD. I ended up getting into 4/6 schools, some of them top 10, and I even switched fields...so it was obviously fine. It is also not uncommon for students to work and then go back for a PhD, met several of those at my visit weekends.

I never did the MS Biotechnology program, but did attend Johns Hopkins in a bio-related field. Obviously I can't comment on the program, but here are my 2 cents on Hopkins as an institution for biotech careers: In general, Hopkins tends to be a bit "ivory tower" traditional academia, and not as industry focused as some other schools. It is not like Stanford or MIT where every professor seems to either have their own startup or have some collaboration with a large biotech company, and many students get hired by their professors' company after they graduate. Compared to other schools, the majority of my classmates didn't really do summer internships in industry, as most did summer research. The Hopkins Career Center also generally wasn't the best in my opinion - premed or pre-graduate advising was much better haha. That being said, the Hopkins name can indeed help you out in industry. I have friends working at the likes of Genentech, etc. Also, I know Hopkins is trying to move in the direction of more industry involvement, less traditional academia, etc. - the previous poster mentioned interactions with venture capitalists and entrepreneurs in the program, so it seems there is at least some evidence of this happening. With Hopkins' strength in biology and medicine, I have no doubt that the content itself is solid, even if industry connections may not have historically been Hopkins' strong point. You said you're currently in a PhD program? I work in industry now and there are several PhDs - they come in at a higher position than people with just a BS or MS, and most of them didn't have previous industry experience. However good or bad the MS in Biotechnology program is at Johns Hopkins, I don't think you'd need it to transition out of academia - many PhD grads do it.