bsharpe269

I applied to 10 and have mixed feelings on whether it was too many. If you are a solid applicant then 5 schools is probably plenty. You may get rejected from one or two since there is a bit of randomness in the process but you should get a few offers at least. If you are a bad applicant then you probably won't get offers anyway. I guess it's the in between applicants that should cast a wide net so they at least get 1 offer. Though it's really hard I determine how solid of an applicant you are... Applying to 10 schools is very costly so if I were to do it again then I might knock a couple off my list. I actually ended up really liking the programs I would have crossed off once I visited though. Also, I ended up being really unimpressed with a couple that I expected to be impressive based on ranking and prestige of faculty members there. The school I ended up choosing was one of my top choices before I visited but had I not chosen that school, the two others that I would have ended up strongly considering where near the bottom of my list before visiting. Anyway, I think the biggest advantage of applying to around 10 schools is that your top choice after visiting may end up being one that wouldn't have made the list if you only applied to 5.

I'll post my overall stats/results as well. Hopefully they can give hope to someone nervous about a low undergrad GPA. Undergrad Institution: Mediocre state university Major(s): Applied Mathematics GPA in Major (undergrad): 3.0/4.0 Overall GPA: 3.25/4.0 Masters Institution: Unranked state university Major(s): Bioinformatics Overall GPA: 4.0/4.0 GRE Scores (revised version): Q: 168 V: 162 W: 4.0 Research Experience: Undergrad: 1 year in bioengineering lab - didn't do anything special, just normal freshman work. 1.5 years in biomath modeling group - 2nd author conference publication (would have been 1st author but my advisor was presenting the material so had to be listed first) and 1 poster at school symposium Summer REU at top 20 school for biomath modeling work Masters: 2 years in biophysical modeling - 1 middle author publication, 1 first author publication, 1 poster at a big national conference, 2 posters at school symposiums and 1 talk at school symposium. Both publications are in medium impact journals that are well respected in my field. The middle author one was submitted when I applied and the first author one still had a ways to go but I was able to discuss the work in detail in my SOP and interviews which seemed to be the important factor. My LOR writers also mentioned that we would be publishing it in my letters. Awards/Honors/Recognitions: A big research award during undergrad and then small tuition scholarships during masters and a conference travel award. Other Info: My MS research is very involved. I really know the stuff in depth and can discuss my research and current literature in the field all day... I think this was the huge thing for me. Also, my LORs were terrific - all were from my MS program. I TAed for 3 semesters during undergrad and 1 during MS (though I don't think this mattered much). --Results -- Rejections : Stanford and UCSF (no interviews) Interviews/Acceptances: Johns Hopkins, WashU in St Louis, University of Washington, University of Pitt/Carnegie Joint Program, Rice University, UNC Chapel Hill, University of Maryland, Stony Brook Attending: WashU in St Louis - After visiting all of the schools this was a really easy decision to make. Perfect research fit, great resources, great stipend, great environment. The professors seem very concerned with the success of their students. It was all around the perfect for for me. Overall Impressions: I thought my low uGPA would hold me back more than it did. I was unfocussed during undergrad my science GPA was rough. I have worked my butt off during my MS and read literature nonstop so I think that my LORs and knowledge of research in the field were the reasons I got in. I am passionate about the work I do and have a clear focus for the work I want to do for my PhD. My low undergrad grades weren't mentioned at all during interviews. Hopefully this can give hope to anyone out there worried about a mediocre GPA.

I didn't realize that deferring was an option if you accept somewhere else. I thought that option was typically reserved for medical issues, family issues, etc. Anyway, If you decide to go to the other school then I think you should drop out of your current program, not just put it on hold. What degree are you getting and how much longer do you have to finish? Also, is the situation in your current program really rough or are you looking to move even though things are just fine? I wouldn't transfer unless you have good reasons to.

I would think of the meeting less in terms of trying to convince her to write the letter and more in terms of understanding her hesitation and listening to her advice. She may know a bit about admission to these types of programs and may know that her letter will not be helpful, like TakeruK mentioned. She may even be able to give advice about who you should ask instead. If you really think that she knows you better than other options then I would tell her that and explain why you think her letter will be best. She may agree that because she knows you better, her letter will be better. Alternatively, she may think that X professor is more well known in that community which would give you a big advantage to know.

What does this mean?? If I express a different or unpopular opinion then I don't care? I'm having this discussion because this is a topic that I do care about. I want people from varying backgrounds to succeed. We don't differ in that desire. The difference between our opinions is simply in whether people can succeed if they want to given the current system.

I'm not trying to make nasty claims or say that we shouldn't help people achieve their goals. I am just trying to offer a perspective of someone from that background who grew up around many others of the same background. I've seen people who have broken out of it and people who haven't and can try to understand why. It seems that many people on here have never been in that situation but write about it like they must know way more than me about what it is like. I'm not an idiot... I realize that each person's situation is unique and some are much harder to overcome than what I have experienced. Everyone I know who was determined to gain education and break out of that situation succeeded. That certainly doesn't mean that everyone can but my sample can still give some insight. I think there needs to be a balance. I am not suggesting that we do away with all the help that is in place for people currently. I also think that people should be responsible for their decisions. For example, you make a point about a student raising a child. If you decide to have a child then of course that will limit other opportunities while the child is growing up (location wise, financially, etc). I am not trying to say that in a judgmental way.... many people really want kids and I think they should go after what they want. I don't think we should feel sorry for them though when other areas of their life are a bit tougher because of it. I guess my opinion is that there are lots of great programs in place already to help people overcome these barriers. I have used some and am very thankful for them. We already have grants and loans for school, scholarship opportunities, application fee waivers, GRE fee waivers, things like medicare and foodstamps for families in need. I was able to get free breakfast and lunch at school. Free tutoring programs exist. Subsidized childcare programs exist. It sounds like you have noticed a lack of knowledge about educational opportunities among those who might need them. I think that is a reasonable thing to try to improve. I would support better educating guidance counselors so they can pass important information onto students who want to go to college. Other than that, what do you suggest then? Tons of opportunities are in place. I support them. I am not going to force people to take them though and I do think that people hold some responsibility for seeking out information as well and taking advantage of them. Relating this back to the pay gap, I agree with Cheshire_cat that the people who most need these programs aren't likely to be prepared for PhD programs so it doesn't seem to me that the pay gap is a limiting factor to people from less fortunate backgrounds.

I agree that there isn't a completely equal playing field but that doesn't make something wrong with academia. In this country it is not that hard to come from a disadvantaged background and be successful. Yes, it is harder thanif you come from a wealthy background but it still isn't hard. I am not just going off of my experiences... I grew up around people in a similar socioeconomic situation. My best friend who is from the same background and equally motivated is currently a writer a New York. If you seek after education then it is not hard to get in this country. I lived in subsidized housing so I know what it is like to not live in the best area or go to the best high school. I know what it is like to do homework without a computer and at times, without electricity even. The argument that going to a high school in a worse part of town is very damaging to getting into grad school is not as extreme as you make it out to be. This is mainly true because you don't need to go to an awesome college to get into an awesome grad school. If you go to cheap local university and make the best of it and seize the opportunities available then you can be qualified for top grad schools. I went to my local, cheap state school and got into plenty of top 10/20 grad programs. I get that you don't like the "I did it so others can argument" but as someone who has been through it, it really isn't that hard. I got fee waivers for multiple of my application fees. Its not that hard to do.. Fee waivers exist the GRE too. People make it seem like the whole process is impossible for disadvantaged people to make it through. It is probably more work than someone from a middle or upper class family would have to go through but it isn't all that difficult still. I honestly am very impressed by all of the opportunities given to me despite my background which is why I defend the current academic system. Of course academia will be skewed toward the middle and upper class just like any other "prestigious" career. For one, there are differences in average IQ by class. Also though, people who grow up in houses with highly educated parents are likely to pushed in school, given good tutors, etc. This isn't academia... this is any career. There isnt something wrong with academia just because people tend to follow in the footsteps of their parents.

I agree with Cheshire_Cat that academia is definitely not just for the upper middle class. For those claiming this, I would be interested in hearing about your background. Are you from disadvantaged backgrounds yourself and can discuss the ways in which you have been hindered? I come from a working class, one parent background (we were way below the poverty line). I am the only person in my family to get an advanced degree and one of only a couple people to get a bachelors. I have never felt limited in academia due to my background AT ALL. I got into PhD programs because for the past few years, my research has been my priority (meaning I spend many evenings and weekends working). Like ron_swanson said, I was accepted to programs because my career is my priority and I was not held back by my background. This is one of the few fields where you get paid to get an advanced degree! Also, fellowships, scholarships, and even loans are available to apply for if needed. I am fine with the argument that all programs should get a livable stipend and that people who are contributing to well funded areas (like medicine) get paid a bit more but I would put that stipend around 20k in most areas. Keep in mind that many schools offer health care, life insurance, free bus passes, and tuition wavers on top of the stipend so when you actually consider the whole package, the offers are not bad at all. Most other fields require loans to get advanced degrees so if someone needs to take out 5k a year to supplement their stipend then that does not seem like that big of a deal to me. If we think of it in terms of pay cut then science students actually end up in a worse situation than humanities PhD students. I have a masters in bioinformatics. My classmates make 55k+ but I will be making 30k in my PhD program. Someone with a bachelors in English will probably make 30k at most so relative to alternative options, they actually end up with a better stipend.

Taking time off will definitely not hurt you! Get involved in full time research for the year and it will help you tremendously in the application process. Based on my interview experiences, most of the people interviewing at top schools took some time off. I don't find the concern that you might not want to go back to school very compelling. If you don't feel motivated enough to go back to school after a year off then you probably shouldn't be in grad school at that time anyway!

I second the idea of something from the place you got accepted. My PI spent time going over my list of schools with me, giving general application advice, wrote me a terrific LOR, etc. I wrote him a short letter, thanking him for his help through the process and his guidance in my MS research and got him a coffee mug from the school I will be attending. I think it is a small but thoughtful/appropriate gift.

Thanks for all of the advice on here! I particularly like the comment that feeling at ease while talking about it makes a big difference. I think that is definitely true. I don't think that I need to downplay it as much as just need to 1) Not be so conscious of it since that makes others feel awkward in itself and 2) find a way for others to connect with it. I had a very successful conversation about it with a nurse the other day. She asked what I do and I told her that I am in grad school, studying biophysics. She gave your typical "wow you must be really smart" comment. I responded that I was lucky to have such an awesome job... after all, in how many other jobs can you do something you are really interested in from your couch in your PJs! (I do computational work). She apparently used to work from home and that sparked another conversation about the pros and cons of working from home. Anyway, I think it is less of an issue of the job itself and more of an issue of finding ways to relate what I do back to what other people relate to.

Another idea would be to put that you were a research assistant or teaching assistant if you were either instead of putting. Otherwise, I agree that you could just show that I took the courses without explaining.

It sounds like you want to leave very badly and are having a hard time to giving yourself permission to do so. It's ok to leave... You're not a failure. I just finished my masters and someone in my program has MS. She had a rough time but did really well anyway. She has learned how to deal with it and takes Ritalin to help with being so tired. If you're miserable then it's fine to go home and learn how to handle your illness. You did well in undergrad. If you address learning to deal with your illness in you SOP then i'm sure future programs will understand. Decide what is best for you and your happiness and do whatever that is.

I post regularly about this but I got into top programs with a 3.25 uGPA. I did a MS first with a good GPA though. You need to make up for the low GPA in other areas. In my opinion, the best way to do this is to take time off to do full time research. If you are average in your other areas then you have little chance of getting into a great program with a 3.3. If you blow them away in other areas (research experience, LORs, etc) then you can get into any school you want.

I don't think that people with families should get bonuses to their stipends. I completely support anyone who wants to have a family in grad school but I don't think they should get extra money to do so. I have 2 dogs that can be quite expensive. One of them had heartworms when I got her and juggling that on a grad school income was rough. Having dogs has limited me in grad school. It makes it harder to find housing and I have additional fees for vet care and pet deposits and have to figure out how to either come home on my lunch break to let them out or pay for a dog walker. I recognize that I chose to get dogs though and so I live with the pros and cons that come with that. Why should someone with kids get extra money when I don't? My dogs aren't as expensive as kids but they are still an extra expensive and grad school can be difficult with dogs. Everyone chooses to live differently. Some people choose to have kids or spouses or pets in grad school. Others choose to live in one bedroom apartments instead of studios or decide to have roommates or live near campus. Some people choose to eat organic food. These are all life choices. I think that people should be free to live however they wish to in grad school but I don't think that stipend should be determined based on life choices.

I do biophysics which really similar. I am definitely not a biologist (I've had 2 bio classes ever...) but physicists definitely don't accept me as one of them. To make it more confusing, my undergrad is in applied math. My current advisor is a physical chemist. I don't belong in any field! The department I am going into is a biochemistry and biophysics department so all of us fieldless people are put together!

I think you need to get an email going with you, your advisor and his wife and come to an agreement about the changes that should be made. I am sure that some disagreement between committee members is normal so you guys just have to find a compromise that everyone can agree to.

The school I have decided to attend was my 5th acceptance but I was still way more excited about this one than any of the others (including the first). I was leaving my apartment to go visit a friend. Before driving off, I looked down at my phone since it was on silent and I had a missed call and voicemail. My phone said the call came from the city that my top choice PI had recently moved from so I immediately guessed it was him. I listed to the voicemail and it was him congratulating me on my acceptance! I started crying which didnt happen for any of the others (even the first) and I ran inside and gave my SO a huge hug while he kept asking me what was wrong since the tears threw him off.

I would make sure there at at least 3 people at each school would be interested in rotating with based on internet descriptions. Then start reading papers. Are you still interested in their work after reading the papers? You can look at the lab websites to get an idea of the size of the groups. If you have a preference for size then you can cross labs off based on that (For example, one famous prof in my field has an 80 person lab which I know is not for me). If stipend amounts are posted online then those can be considered too. If any seem unreasonably low or normal, but a huge cost of living would prevent it from being livable then cross schools off based on this too. Once I went through this process, I had around 15 schools left on my list. I choose 10 to apply to based on reputation of advisors and a bit of randomness as well. If I had unlimited time and money then I probably would have applied to 3 more schools that didn't end up making the cut.

I don't think its important that you do the specific research that you applied to do. I do think that you need to at least be able to identify a few people whose research you find exciting. Have you gone through the papers of profs at school 1 to see if any seem cool? If you can find around 3 people who are taking students and you think that you *might* enjoy their research (at least enough to rotate with them) then I think that is good enough. I made my decision a couple months ago and it definitely didn't come down 99% to research. It is a great research fit for me BUT definitely not the best. I chose the school that I knew in my gut I want to attend, it wasn't the highest ranked or the best research fit, but I was super excited about it. I don't regret my decision at all!

You're lucky to have that time off! I get 2 weeks between ending my MS work and my first PhD rotation. Feeling brain fog is definitely normal. I would focus on just getting all the rest you need and doing fun stuff with family and friends. I don't think you need to actively do anything to get rid of it... you probably just need rest!

Those grades should be just fine. As long as you have a 3.5+ then I think that your research experience and letters of recommendation will matter much more.

I have never heard of someone having a gap year or two and regretting it! Everyone I know who has done that feels that they gained a ton from it. Because of that, I would try to not view it as negative. I think that it can be a great experience and would advocate it even if you had a 4.0 GPA.

I want to chime in here as someone who is finishing up a masters. For me, getting my masters was the best possible decision I could imagine making. If you go about it in a smart way then it doesn't have to be expensive at all. I ended up in a lab that expected me to perform at the same level of PhD students and gave me just as much independence. I am in the process of submitting a couple 1st author papers to great journals on topics similar to my PhD work and I haven't even started my PhD yet (and I have more middle author ones as well)... I am staying in a similar research area so I already know the literature in my subfield like the back of my hand and have already networked in the field. Since I have already been doing graduate level research in my subfield for 2 years, I am starting my PhD program with a huge head start. There are certainly other ways to get this sort of head start AND there are also ways to be very successful without a head start. Working full time in a lab could be a great way to gain knowledge. In my field, these sort of opportunities are rare since we don't have wet lab work and PIs would usually rather pay a student instead. Also, in my experience, post bacs are not given the level of independence that graduate students are given. I'm not trying to say that getting a masters is preferable to other options but I did want to show some of the benefits of it since in my situation, it was certainly not a waste of resources. I definitely think that funded MS programs would with worth considering for the OP.

Your undergrad profile is very similar to mine. I ended up doing a masters first. I applied to PhD programs after the first year of the MS and got it to some top 10 programs and lots of top 20s. My uGPA was overlooked due to all my research experience. I had 4 years of undergrad research + my MS research. I do not think I would have done nearly as well in the process if I had applied right after undergrad. I don't think the MS is necessary but I do think that you will be a stronger applicant if you take a gap year or two at least and do full time research. You will distance yourself from the undergrad grades by doing this will gain even more research experience, including possible publications. Most of the students I met interviewing at top 20 schools had taken a gap year or two and gotten additional research experience. If you take a gap year then you would also have time to take a subject test. I didn't take one since I had a 4.0 MS GPA but if you do full time research instead of a MS then the subject test might add credibility that you know the undergrad material.