sqxz

Good for you not dwelling on the things that are beyond your control.  I bet you are so relieved that you got yourself set up prior to your program starting.  I'm sure you are more productive because your energy is not divided.  Poor guy stuck in another country, I bet he is worried sick.  
 
The importance your own mental health has been stressed in my program as well.  Way to go with your TA-ship.  

I agree with this. When it comes down to the final round of applicants, it is no longer a numbers game. It's about research fit, SOPs and LORs.
I also agree that it isn't about getting into a graduate school, it's about getting into the graduate school that will make you happy for the next 5-6 years. And it really shows which schools you are enthusiastic about and which schools you aren't.

I would heed against this advice, consider the following: Octopus could have things in his statement that resonate with the adcomm. He might even be a better writer than you! Hardly the same application. Another thing are letters, which everyone has immaculate, but again something could resonate.  
 
Perhaps Octopus would only be happy at these schools, why not apply? You shouldn't be trying to get into graduate school, you should be trying to get into the right graduate school. Furthermore, he is a post masters student. I don't know much about biology applications, but having a masters degree tends to ease the minds of many adcoms in general. 
 
Who are we to tell people how they should spend their money, or how they want to go to grad school. A graduate education is singular, no two degrees the same from student to student let alone from department to department.  In my opinion, no school should be crossed off unless you do not meet the minimum requirements and you can afford the application fee. Too many people pick the wrong department, advisor, program: GPA is never the reason. 
 
(yes its monday night, im bored, and responding to a thread I don't know much about).

This thread is bringing back memories!! Hello to all my wonderful gradcafe friends from last year's thread I hope you're all doing well and are excited to start at all of your wonderful programs soon! 
 
Throwing my hat into the ring: if you current applicants have any questions, feel free to drop me a pm. Keep calm - everything will be fine! 

I will also be around to answer any questions about any of the programs to which I applied and especially about the Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Later on, when you're deciding where to go (or maybe now, if you're deciding where to apply), I can also answer general questions about the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities (though probably none that pertain to any biological graduate programs) and about the Twin Cities in general.
 
In case I decide to change my signature at some point in the future, here is a copy of it:
 
Attending: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Biophysics and Computational Biology (1/10, email; 3/20-3/22) (1/10, email) (4/10, website)
Applied (8/8) - Interview/Visit Offered/Attended (7/8) - Rejected (5/8) - Accepted (3/8) - Admitted (1/8)
 
Carnegie Mellon University-University of Pittsburgh - Computational Biology (1/22, email; 2/20-2/22) (2/28, unofficial email; 3/18, official email) Johns Hopkins University - Molecular Biophysics (4/11, email) Princeton University - Quantitative and Computational Biology (12/30, email; 2/6-2/8) (3/11, email) Rutgers University - Computational Biology and Molecular Biophysics (2/18, email; 3/26-3/27) (2/18, email) University of California, San Francisco - Biophysics (1/13, email; 2/13-2/15) (3/3, website)
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center - Molecular Biophysics (1/2, email; 1/9-1/11) (1/13, email)
Washington University in St. Louis - Computational and Molecular Biophysics (12/19, phone, email; 1/30-2/1) (3/12, email)

I think this is too bad, as the originally posted question seems to have been more or less wrapped up to everyone's satisfaction (yes, your officemates are being dicks, no you shouldn't feel bad, here  are some suggestions...).
 
But this ancillary discussion is clearly interesting to many of the posters and is exactly the sort of thing I enjoy learning about in the forum. This side discussion has certainly given me a fuller understanding in what the expectations and norms in various graduate fields are, and underlined something of a philosophical debate about the value of our work as students and what the payout is and should be for all involved parties.
 
I'd also suggest that as "senior" posters you have a lot of agency where the rest of us don't. The power dynamic is such that by saying that any other discussion not directly addressing the opening question is "derailing" things, you can shut down conversation on this topic for those of us who may not feel the same way. Maybe the conversation is dead anyway (though I've seen other "derailed" threads go a lot further), but I think it is something we could all be mindful of.

Here's how I feel about money: Why live with less when you are awesome enough to make more?  Not to mention that applying for grants is a GOOD thing.  "You already have funding, so why bother?" is the exact wrong mindset to take and probably explains why your colleagues are stuck making half what you do.

That said, I agree with the advice not to talk about grants or money in front of them, because they are reacting with jealousy.  I also would be careful to never split anything big with them unless they are paying up front.

I agree, though, that it's weird your external fellowship has doubled your stipend.  Most external fellowships I know of pay about $30K per year, so that would mean that your stipend is $15K?  That's super low, and might explain some of the resentment - if they are struggling just to pay their rent and eat, the resentment may be towards the program but misdirected onto an easier target (you) whenever it comes up.

I also like TakeruK's answer to the question in your title - except that I think the stipend itself should be equivalent to what someone with an undergrad degree in the field would make, on average.  In most fields that's right around $30K.  In some higher-paid fields (STEM, especially the T and E part) that might be closer to $40K.  And that would mean that postdoc salaries need to be pushed up to around $50-60K, which is what I think they SHOULD be, and I think professors should be starting around $70-80K.  Alas, I do not run the world.  Most humanities stipends at my university, I think, are between $20K and $30K for 9 months.  The STEM salaries I think tend between $30K and $35K.  I live in a very expensive city, as well; splitting a 2-bedroom can cost pretty much any amount (sky's the limit) but in reasonably affordable but safe areas of the city is generally between mmmm about $900-1100 a month.



 
I swear that TakeruK and I must share a brain sometimes because so often he says exactly what I'm thinking.  Basically everything he said in the above post is what I was going to write.

This is not really directed towards you, bsharpe269, but I believe that this is a partial fiction that graduate universities hand to us to keep graduate stipends low.  The truth is, though, universities need us.  Why do you think so many universities run so many low-ranked PhD programs?  Doctoral programs bring prestige and federal monies to universities.  In many STEM fields graduate students do work that is necessary to keep labs churning - without us, professors would be hiring research associates that they would pay the same amount or perhaps more to do the same work.  They also need us to help teach their classes - grade their papers and give their exams so that they have time to do the research they want to do.  In humanities fields (and sometimes, in the social sciences and pure math), students are often sole teaching basic service classes, sometimes in their first year.  In fact, it's become such a problem at some universities that students are taking many more years than necessary to graduate because they are stuck teaching freshman comp or sociology 101 to survive.
 
Besides, I think that the benefit to paying a decent salary is that you attract good students who might have done something else.  I disagree that students will go to PhD programs who don't have the commitment; if you could make the same amount of money doing something else in the field, it would probably be overall easier to just do that.  (Now if the stipend were a lot HIGHER in a PhD program, yeah, then we'd get a lot of dud apps.)  Instead, I think we'd get students who love research and really wanted to do a PhD, but have family obligations or got tempted by a more highly-paid job within the field elsewhere.  I also think it's difficult for working professionals to leave their full-time jobs and lives to take a significant pay cut and get a PhD - but the experience gleaned in work before a PhD is very valuable!
I also personally think the grad school = sacrifice trope is kind of bs, to be honest.  I can truly want a PhD without being willing to sacrifice my personal or financial well-being for it, especially if I have children or a mortgage or other family responsibilities to take care of.

Because apparently this is how the show is written:
 
Or:
 
It's not actually funny. The joke is "haha look at these losers". I find that boring.  I don't actually see anything related to myself as an "academic" so I think you mean STEM Academics. I could care less -- though I was raised by an original wave D&D player, it incidentally, has little to do with "academia" for me. I was raised in nerd/geek culture but I still find much of it detestable (see: San Diego Comicon refuses to admit there is a sexual harassment problem at Cons) We're also expected to laugh when a woman wanders into a comic book shop "is she lost?" instead of realizing this is not weird or unusual and also not a joke. We're expected to laugh when things that look like gay advances are played out between male characters - we're supposed to find "predatory lesbian advances" funny (between Penny and Amy). We're supposed to laugh at "quirky" qualities that remind us of Aspergers. It's not funny. It's sexist, it's ableist, it's homophobic, it's racist. This is old and tired and boring.   
I think this just implies you were going to refuse all counter-arguments from the beginning. "stereotypes have a purpose". 
 
Yes! They do serve a purpose in our culture -- for anyone out there studying human behavior, sociology, media studies, humanities & what have you, we know this. Even a quick wikipedia will tell you what that purpose is!:
 
Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are understood as related but different concepts.[8][9][10][11] Stereotypes are regarded as the most cognitive component and often occurs without conscious awareness, whereas prejudice is the affective component of stereotyping and discrimination is the behavioral component of prejudicial reactions.[8][9][12] In this tripartite view of intergroup attitudes, stereotypes reflect expectations and beliefs about the characteristics of members of groups perceived as different from one's own, prejudice represents the emotional response, and discrimination refers to actions.[8][9]
Although related, the three concepts can exist independently of each other.[9][13] According to Daniel Katz and Kenneth Braly, stereotyping leads to racial prejudice when people emotionally react to the name of a group, ascribe characteristics to members of that group, and then evaluate those characteristics.[10]
Possible prejudicial effects of stereotypes[3] are:
Justification of ill-founded prejudices or ignorance
Unwillingness to rethink one's attitudes and behavior towards stereotyped groups
Preventing some people of stereotyped groups from entering or succeeding in activities or fields[14]
 
 
 
huh. Who would have thought, right? You mean like how women don't enter STEM fields at the same rates as men do? Weird, right? Our Media and culture couldn't POOOOSSSIBLY affect this phenomenon, right?
 
The audience laughs at Penny because Penny (a woman) is the joke. That's it. The crux of the humor regarding Penny is she's a funny dumb girl who doesn't "get" nerd culture. 
 
And I'm sick and tired of bad, lazy writing which alienates me. It has nothing to do with feeling misrepresented as a nerd and everything to do with a lack of basic human decency and respect towards being a woman in the "nerd" culture. Other sitcoms exist. I pretend TBBT doesn't. 

Thanks!  Congrats on your acceptance as well!  I really hope you end up loving the school and program you will be attending.

Friends, SciencePerson101 has been suspended for a week. Please ignore him/her and move on. 

Please dont act like you are amazing. You didnt "compete" with anyone you were at bottom of the barrel. I hope you can survive the first quarter.

I know this is a little late, but here we go...
 
I applied to an overall of 14 graduate programs, all mostly immunology since I come from a strong immunology background from UC Irvine.  I only received two interview invitations which were from UTMB BMB, and UC Davis Immunology.  I was accepted to UTMB, and waitlisted at UC Davis post-interview.  My obvious choice was to go to UC Davis since their program was a much better fit when compared to that of UTMB.  Furthermore, I also wanted to attend UC Davis because one of my friends who was working in my undergraduate lab was a first-year in that program (and coincidentally she was also my student host at the Davis interview!).  I actually didn't receive the acceptance from UCD until the day before the April 15 deadline, and by then I had already taken the offer from UTMB.  Luckily, I was able to rescind my acceptance from UTMB without any hard feelings (I hope somebody else was able to receive my offer though!).  
 
To be honest, I'm quite amazed at how I was able to make it into a rather selective program at UCD; I don't have the greatest of stats (3.096 GPA for example), but knowing that I was able to compete with people from UCSD, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSF was a nice morale booster.  I'm sure a lot of those people I met at the interviews have chosen to attend a program they feel is better suited for them, and they really deserve it.  While it wasn't your top choice, it was definitely up there on my list.  Good luck to you guys - I'm sure you'll be happy and will succeed in the program you are ending up at!

I didn't think first year would be hard enough, so I'm having a baby this summer.

Tufts reject. Officially done! The blood bath is over haha

Sounds like a tough call! I did my undergraduate in computer science and physics at the U of M, so, if you have specific questions about the U or the CS department, just let me know. I can even talk about some graduate courses, as all CS undergraduates are required to take two years of graduate courses at the U.
 
A couple of things to think about: One, the US News rankings are based primarily on peer assessment surveys, so the reputations of programs within the programs' community tend to play an important role in these rankings. Depending on who you're asking, these rankings may give a fairer indication of the perceived quality of the CS programs relative to one another.
 
Second, I wonder what the person talking about student "quality" is basing his or her opinions on. When you talk about "quality," do you mean the impressiveness of the students' research/abilities/things of that nature? Has the person that you're getting this opinion from worked extensively at both schools as a graduate student? Maybe just visited both programs? If so, I will say that, when I visited various graduate programs for interviews, I was definitely impressed more by students in some programs than in others, but I think it's important to keep in mind that these judgments are based on first impressions, which can be very wrong, and that they are very subjective.
 
I wonder also if by student "quality" your source is instead referring to the general environment of the two schools/the general attitudes held by people at the two institutions. There are a lot of stereotypes about Californians, especially Southern Californians and Angelenos. There are also a lot of stereotypes about Midwesterners. Some of them are more true than others, but I think the applicability of the stereotypes will be significantly diminished within the university communities and especially within the CS department communities. I think these stereotypes can be considered when you are thinking about whether you will like the environment you live in, but I don't necessarily think they should be heavily considered when making judgments about the programs themselves.
 
Third, you mention that the Twin Cities is not that great of a location. While I don't think it's as much of a tech hub as LA, I will mention that all of the major tech companies (Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc.) do recruiting events at the U. So, while it might be easier to get a job at a mid-sized or start-up tech company out in LA, having the opportunity to get a job at a major tech company should be no problem at the U. More generally, the Twin Cities is a large metropolitan area, so I don't think there is much you'd be able to find in LA that you couldn't also find in the Twin Cities.
 
Fourth, something I don't see you mention is cost of living. Living in Minneapolis is considerably cheaper than living in LA. If you want to check it out for yourself, I recommend this tool: <http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/>. So, if you can't get paid at USC, or if you have to pay your own way for a little while, you will have to worry about the higher tuition as well as the higher cost of living. Even if you think you can get paid, you should consider what kind of standard of living you can afford at USC versus the U of M.
 
Fifth, I will say that more famous or well-known professors tend to have more funding available to them. If you definitely know you will work with the professor you mention at USC if you go there, then maybe funding will not be as challenging as you expect. (Then again, it could be just as challenging as you expect. It's hard to know!)
 
Finally, I will say that I have loved being an undergraduate at the U and in the CS department. I think it's a great university and department with great people, and I don't think you would go wrong choosing to go there.
 
Hope this helps! Like I said, let me know if you have any specific questions about the U. Good luck with your decision!

I don't know anything about these particular programs, but I did visit both Rutgers and Illinois for their Biophysics/Computational Biology programs. I have decided to attend the University of Illinois, so you should keep my bias in mind as you read this note.
 
The stipend I was offered at Rutgers is more than $8000 more than what I was offered at UIUC. When you factor in cost of living, the stipend offered by Rutgers is still higher, but not by much. I recommend using this tool <http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/> for estimating how far your stipend offers will go in each city. I will also say that, at Rutgers, a huge red flag for me was that a current grad student told me he was offered a stipend similar to mine, but, when he actually got into the program, the actual stipend he received was somewhat less than he had been promised. (Yikes!)
 
Another red flag was that some current students at Rutgers pointed out that, while my offer states that I should expect to receive a full assistantship for each year I am in the program, the kind of assistantship is not specified. It seems that students of PIs who don't have much funding have to teach pretty much every semester to get paid. As a TA, it is my impression that the amount you are paid at Rutgers seems to be set by the university, and this amount seems to be significantly less than what I was offered. Some current students told me that the TA union at Rutgers recently went on strike (or maybe just threatened to go on strike?) to get higher wages and better working conditions. They also qualified this by saying that there had recently been talk that they might go on strike again because Rutgers had been discussing converting some TA positions into lecturer positions, which are not eligible for certain benefits, or something to that effect. Perhaps this is a common problem at many universities that I am simply ignorant to, but this was certainly the only school where such a problem was brought up (unprompted, I might add).
 
At least in my program, I have been told it is quite a competitive process to get a teaching assistantship at Illinois, and it is explicitly stated in my offer letter that most students are supported by research assistantships after their first year. I should note that Rutgers students that I talked to who worked in labs with well funded PIs did not seem to have much of a teaching load. However, even these students said their stipends were not high enough to live close to campus. The public transportation in Piscataway and New Brunswick is not as good as it is in Chapaign-Urbana, so these students have to drive to work every day. This was not something I wanted to do.
 
In general, I would say that the students at Rutgers seemed MUCH more concerned about money than the students at Illinois were. To give some concrete examples, at Illinois, students talked about buying houses or condos, while at Rutgers, four students discussed at length how they were going to divide up a $9.00 bill... For me, the contrast was pretty dramatic.
 
Piscataway is arguably a better location on paper than Urbana-Champaign. It is well connected to New York and Philadelphia by train, but, then again, Champaign-Urbana is only a two to three hour drive from Chicago, St. Louis, and Indianapolis. There are even regular trains and buses from Chicago to Champaign and back. I had expected Champaign-Urbana to feel like a suburb, and I was surprised to see high-rise buildings in downtown Champaign and Urbana. One of the current Illinois graduate students characterized the cities as "micro urban," and, without having lived there yet, I have to say I completely agreed with her characterization based on what I saw.
 
I feel like I had a great research match with some of the professors at Rutgers, but I feel like I have just as good of a match with more professors at Illinois. The program at Illinois is also larger and seems more established, which I like. Finally, it seems to me that the program at Illinois is better funded and has access to more resources than the program at Rutgers. These may be factors you want to consider for your own programs.
 
Finally, as you mention, Illinois is ranked higher than Rutgers in biology. In the latest US News rankings, they are also ranked much higher in chemistry (6 vs 60), physics (9 vs 29), and computer science (5 vs 34). A similar story is told in the 2010 US News rankings and NRC rankings. Mine is an extremely interdisciplinary program with professors who hold appointments in all of these departments, so these rankings are relevant to my program. Overall, I think these rankings also paint the picture that Illinois is a more highly regarded university than Rutgers is, at least in the physical sciences. Of course, whether or not this is actually true is open to interpretation.
 
Obviously, the most important thing for you to consider is research fit. You say this is equal for the two programs, but I find that a little hard to believe. How many PIs at each university are doing research that interests you. Do you know which ones expect to be taking on new students into their labs in the fall? Does everyone you're interested in working for look like good mentors on paper? (Are they publishing frequently? Do their students seem to be getting first authorships on these papers? Do they have tenure yet? If not, is there any concern that they might not get it/you will be competing with them to present your research at conferences, etc./they might leave the university unexpectedly? Are they old enough that they might retire or pass away unexpectedly? Are their students getting jobs doing things that you are interested in doing after grad school?) How is the curriculum fit at both schools? (Do the classes sound interesting? How many do you have to take?) I believe these are all important questions to consider when you are evaluating your research and curriculum fit at different schools and when you are evaluating where to attend in the fall.
 
Anyway, as I said, I have decided to go to Illinois. I made this decision primarily because I believe the research and curriculum fit at Illinois is better than it is at Rutgers. I also believe it is the safer financial choice based on what I heard from current grad students, and I believe that the program at Illinois has a better reputation than Rutgers. Finally (and importantly), I was completely blown away by everyone I met and everything I saw when I visited Illinois. That's not to say I wasn't impressed when I visited Rutgers, but Illinois clearly left a more significant mark. This only happened with one other program where I didn't ultimately end up getting in, so, for me, the obvious choice was Illinois. My point is that I think it is definitely important to consider how good the programs are for you on paper, but I think it is also important to consider your gut instincts.
 
I hope this analysis has been helpful to you! Let me know if you have any questions I may be able to answer. Good luck making your decision!

I have some information for future applicants to the Joint Carnegie Mellon University - University of Pittsburgh Ph.D. Program in Computational Biology. I suspect this also applies to the Joint CMU-Pitt Molecular Biophysics and Structural Biology Graduate Program, but I don't know for sure. I should note that some of this may be in the CPCB handbook, but I know that some of it is not. I thought it would be best to list all the differences I heard about today for the benefit of future applicants who search for information in the forums on this program in future cycles.
 
I found out today that applicants are admitted to either CMU or Pitt based on their interests and the primary appointments of the PIs they are interested in working with / the PIs who are interested in working with them. It turns out this makes a difference for the application process. Pitt requires that all North American applicants interview at the institution before an offer can be extended, while CMU does not. Consequently, CMU admitted students receive offers earlier and without an interview, while Pitt admitted students must come to an interview before an offer can be extended. This is why 90-95% of Pitt admitted students receive an offer if they interview.
 
Where the student is admitted also affects the offer that is made. CMU does not provide health insurance, and it does not waive any fees. Pitt does both of these things. Consequently, the stipend for CMU admitted students is about $3000-$4000 higher than it is for Pitt admitted students. The coordinators of the program are responsible each year for going through all expenses and payments and making sure that the package offered to all students in the program is worth the exact same amount.
 
The thesis lab selection process is also different for CMU and Pitt students. Pitt students may either elect to start working in a lab right away if they know for sure who they want to work with, or they have the option of doing three four-week rotations in the first semester. Conversely, I believe CMU students are required to listen to talks given by each faculty member in the program who is taking students. After this is done, each student submits a summary of his or her research interests and PIs he or she is interested in working with, and the PIs submit lists of students that they are interested in working with. Students are matched with PIs based on this information.

Officially admitted by the Graduate School at Illinois! In a couple days, I can set up my university email! It's all becoming so real so fast! Anyone else started their apartment hunt yet?

I spent a lot my time lurking on this forum, but I've finally decided to post my stats hoping that they will be helpful to future applicants, especially those of us that have to deal with some of the disadvantages that accompany being international. 
 
 
Undergrad Institution: Big Ten
Major(s): Molecular and Cellular Biology, Honors Concentration
GPA in Major: 3.98
Overall GPA: 3.99
Position in Class: Approximately top 1%
Type of Student: International

GRE Scores (revised/old version):
Q: 170
V: 165
W: 4.5
B: N/A

Research Experience: 3 years in a lab at my home institution, including 3 full summers. Presented at a couple of conferences, but they were both undergraduate specific, and thus far I have not been published. 

Awards/Honors/Recognitions: A couple of research awards from my home department, another research award from an honors program, and a couple of other awards for academic performance and such. 

Pertinent Activities or Jobs: Volunteered quite extensively with various MCB related and unrelated activities, including things such as undergraduate research workshops, tutoring sessions, and even some humanitarian work.  

Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help: Part of three different honors programs on campus, the most selective of which admits about 2% of the incoming class. This means that one of the most common letters on my transcript is an H, which stands for honors. Don't know how much of a difference this makes though.

Special Bonus Points: A handful of graduate level courses, and one of my letters was from a professor who taught one of those courses. The reason I mention it, is because I have a feeling his letter made a significant difference to my application. 
Applied (9):
 
MIT Biology (Interviewed, Waitlisted, Accepted) 
 
UW Madison MDTP (Interviewed, Accepted) 
 
Yale BBS Microbiology (Interviewed, Assumed Rejected)
 
Columbia University Medical School- CMBS (Interviewed, Rejected)
 
Stanford Genetics (Rejected)
 
Duke MGM (Interviewed, Accepted)
 
WUSTL MCB (Interviewed, Accepted)
 
UW Seattle Microbiology (Invited for an interview but I couldn't make it due to scheduling conflicts)
 
UPitt IBGP (Rejected)
 
 
Advice for future applicants: I'd like to address what I consider to be a few key points below.
 
 
Grades/Scores/All the numbers
 
Although my GPA and GRE scores are relatively high (excusing of course the writing score ony my GRE), I don't believe they got me into any schools I wouldn't have gotten into otherwise. Several faculty members I met with during the interviews specifically told me that those numbers aren't given too much importance beyond a certain level. Under most circumstances, nobody should feel the need to get above a 90th percentile on the GRE or 3.90 GPA on a 4.0 scale. I have seen several students with much lower scores be just as successful as me, if not more so. A number that could make a significant difference however, is the number of publications you have. Several good publications can often compensate for even extremely low GPAs. 
 
 
Research Experience
 
I am sure most applicants know this already, but this is by far the most important aspect of your application and both quality and quantity are often necessary. As to the debate between spending several years in a single lab without interruption, or trying to squeeze in as many REUs as possible, I prefer the former. However, over the past few months I have learned that it might be most attractive for one to spend regular semesters or quarters at a lab in your home institution over an extended period of time, and do a couple of REUs over the summers. 
 
 
Letters of Recommendation
 
These are up there with your research experience. I had one from my PI, one from a professor who taught me a graduate level course, and one from an instructor/academic advisor/honors coordinator who I worked closely with all through undergrad. I had been warned that the recommendations my PI writes are often extremely dry and they often don't read very well (English is not his first language), and so I sought out people who were much more likely to be passionate about my future and would be able to convey that effectively in a letter. Some would suggest that it is best to have at least 2 letters from research supervisors for a competitive application, and so I made sure that all the people I recruited letters from would be able to comment on my research experience and graduate school potential in a significant manner. I had discussed my research extensively with both these people, and it might have helped that they saw me at my bench all the time as they passed by on a regular basis for the past few years. 
 
 
Statement of Purpose
 
Although important, I don't believe it needs to be extensive as long as you satisfy the basic criteria. Typically that involves talking about your research experience, motivation to continue to do science and potential future research interests, and choice of graduate school (including names of faculty members you are interested in working with). Mine was rather short, but I made sure it covered all the bases, although it was the least fun part of the application cycle for me. 
 
 
Deciding where to apply
 
A lot of the admissions process cannot be quantified, and what I mean by that is that it is highly unlikely that you will be able to logically come to a precise conclusion regarding which schools you are going to apply to. However, there are several constraints that can be applied, and that will make this task much easier. I believe the most important factor is fit. If you are already aware of the kind of research that interests you, obviously make sure that the programs you apply to are strong in that area, but also make sure you have the freedom to explore new areas of research. Just because the specific program or track to apply to is part of a bigger umbrella program or division doesn't necessarily mean you have access to faculty outside of the program/track you've picked. After fit, the two most important factors I think are location, and prestige. And when I say prestige I'm referring to the program, not the school itself, there is sometimes a significant difference. Prestige becomes important if as an international student you want to keep the option of going abroad after your PhD open. After fit, location, and prestige, I think the focus should be on program structure, stipend, and any other constraints you can come up with. 
 
 
Interviews
 
Terribly exciting, so much fun, and once in a lifetime opportunities that need to be taken advantage of. These are often just as much of an interview weekend as much a recruitment weekend, and I would suggest going to as many as you can. After 4-5 interviews it can get exhausting, but it is definitely worth it. My impressions of several schools changed drastically after I visited, and that has helped me a great deal in making my final decision. Talk to as many people as you can, faculty, graduate students, administrative staff, and other recruits. One typically doesn't have to prepare much for these. Just make sure you can confidently talk about your research, whether it's a short summary to be delivered in 10 seconds, or a 30 minute description. And also make sure you can answer questions regarding your work (Shouldn't be much of a problem if you've worked on your projects for an extended period of time). Also, I know some schools only admit 40-50% of the students they interview, but that should not be something to worry about during the interview weekend, it won't help. 
 
 
Post-interview
 
Some schools take forever to get back to you (Yale Microbiology still hasn't gotten back to me), and others will send you an email on your way back from the interview weekend. Try not to spend hours of your days refreshing your email or stalking GradCafe because it won't really help you hear back any sooner. In my opinion, you will never really know what your PhD experience is going to be like at any given institution unless you spend a few years there actually doing your PhD. And keeping in mind what I said earlier about how it's nearly impossible to precisely quantify your experiences and determine which school would be the best fit for you, it might be best to simply talk through your decision making process with others who could be of help, including PIs, other professors, and anybody who either has a PhD in the sciences or is working towards one. Family and friends can be helpful too if you think out loud with them there to help you figure out what you really want.
 
Lastly, international students need to keep in mind that for a large number of programs, being international does mean that your chances of admission are lower. Although sometimes it might not make much of a difference, at times it could mean that while a school accepts nearly all the domestic students who interviewed, they might not have the funds to offer admission to many of the international students. (Sometimes as low as 1 out of 4 students who interviewed on site)
 
Based on several of the factors mentioned above I have decided to accept my offer at MIT Biology. UW Madison-MDTP was my second favorite amongst all the programs I visited.
 
 
I hope this post is helpful for future applicants, and I would be happy to answer any other questions that might come up (specifically for international students). Just send me a personal message. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alright, my season is officially over as well! It's been quite the ride and now I know I'm headed to Baylor College of Medicine's IMBS program!
 
Here are my stats once more:
 
Undergrad Institution: Large, private university
Major(s): Biological Sciences
Minor(s): Psychology
GPA in Major: ~3.6
Overall GPA: 3.78
Position in Class: Graduated magna cum laude
Type of Student: Female, US citizen, mixed race, non-traditional (I'm a bit old!)
GRE Scores (revised version):
Q: 160 (78%)
V: 162 (89%)
W: 5 (93%)
Biology: 690 (58%)

Research Experience: 8 years as a technician and researcher in a gene therapy lab, 1 year working in an invertebrate zoology lab.

Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Dean's List, magna cum laude

Pertinent Activities or Jobs:  Worked at an animal hospital and humane society (originally wanted to be a veterinarian); also spent a month working on a conservation project in Costa Rica.

Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help: Nothing in particular I can think of. Been in the lab a long time so I know my way around it. That's probably the main thing. Had one 2nd author paper and 5 middle author ones. Also some abstracts and posters.
 
Advice for those new to the process: Definitely start early. Especially with essays. That was probably the most stressful part of the application to me. To write well, you just need a lot of time to edit and mull over your words. Even if you're a good writer, you still need a minimum of time (especially since there will inevitably be days where you don't feel like writing and would benefit from standing back from your essay anyway), so don't wait till the last minute! Definitely give your letter writers plenty of notice (and a convenient dossier full of information they can refer back to) and definitely start early when researching programs. In hindsight, I probably applied to a handful of places I had no business applying to because the research fit just wasn't really there. But I didn't really realize this until I was putting the finishing touches on those applications. Basically I knew which schools were probably going to be rejects before I even pushed submit (not finding too many faculty you're interested in is a BIG clue!!!). Had I started a little earlier and had a better understanding of the program, I could have saved myself the trouble of a few apps and kept the total number to under 10 (not that I think you have to do this - apply to the schools you want to apply to and don't worry about what anyone else says about what "a good number" is) but...time is money, you know.
 
Don't stress too much about interviews. You will need to be conversant about your research and it certainly helps if you can articulate well and ask insightful questions. But most of my interviews were very much like friendly, low key chats, so just don't worry too much and be yourself. And don't forget to interview them/the program as well! Ask lots of questions and be polite. Try not to be shy - you just don't have time for it. The interviews really fly by and are over before you know it, even the 45 minute ones.
 
Use recruitment weekend time wisely and get as much information as you can. Record conversations, write diaries about your experiences (particularly about your impressions of faculty), and take pictures. I went on 8 interviews and over such a long and tiring stretch, you forget about stuff if you haven't written it down or otherwise stored the memories in some way. Also, make sure to go to all of the activities (even staying out later at the bars and other "optional" gigs), even if you're tired and don't feel like it. The reason I suggest this is because, for me, I realized after a couple of interviews that it just seemed to take a certain amount of time before I (and the others around me) felt more relaxed. It takes a bit of time (around 48 hours for me) for the visit to "sink in," if that makes sense. If you want the most accurate impression of a place and the people, you've got to give yourself as much exposure as possible. I would arrive feeling a bit awkward and out of place, then after most of the time was up, I'd start feeling that "click" of what a place/school was like. You want to get to that "click," if at all possible, before you have to go home. Also....8 interviews was tiring as hell and I can't believe I did it. However, I didn't have a job or school to worry about, so I managed it. But even still it was a challenge. I don't recommend it if you're in your final year or something. If you are going on lots of interviews, just make sure to take care of yourself and pack light but smart!
 
Also, you really have to be organized, especially if you're applying to a lot of places. There will be so many details and emails to keep up with, so come up with an organizational scheme early. WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN! If you think you'll remember it, you won't. I used a lot of spreadsheets. For example, an excel file that had a tab for each school and all of it's relevant application/program info. A simple way to do these is to use a snip program (there's one that comes with Windows) to capture info from websites and paste into the tabs so that you don't have to re-type (and screw up) information. Come interview time, I needed another spreadsheet just to keep up with contact info of program coordinators and travel/airline reservations and itineraries. I used yet another to keep up with deadlines, files and test/letter info I had submitted, and dates of interview weekends for every school.
 
Oh yeah....and just don't worry about the subject test! Unless you're ug school/program is unknown/untested, you were a non-biology major, the application requires it, or you're just bad ass that way, I think it's not worth it. I spent a lot of time studying for it and ended up screwing myself because even though I knew the material pretty well, I went too slow and only did about half the questions. But even though I only got 58%, I was still interviewed by top programs and to some schools, I didn't even bother submitting the score (the ones that didn't require it anyway) and was also still interviewed. It's definitely not a deal breaker, so just save your time and money. If you do do it, like I said, don't dawdle. It's a lot of material and my experience was that the real test was harder than the ETS practice one they give you.
 
Haha...and on that note, be prepared for the expense! This process is EXPENSIVE! Test score reports, study aids, transcripts, plane tickets (reimbursed when the school feels like it), interview clothing, etc., the cost can really ramp up.
 
And lastly...I have loved the support and invaluable information I have received on grad cafe but, for the love of God....don't hang around on this site TOO much. Don't get nerdy about it. Don't refresh your email zillions of times, don't agonize over every single detail. Don't worry about whether to call/email the department/faculty/letter writer for too long. Either do it or don't. In short, don't let this process consume you. I know it's like trying to ignore a log in your eye, but do try to get away and remember that this is something that is just a PART of your life. That being said, however, I do recommend trying to get as much enjoyment out of the process as you can, especially with interviews. For many people, it is basically a once in a lifetime thing. Even if you go through this two or three times, it's still not a forever thing.You will see so many places and meet so many cool people...try not to let the stress and fatigue ruin it for you. Just do your best and RELAX! If it truly is your ambition, you will end up in grad school one way or another. You might as well make it fun...especially since the actual grad school itself will suck the life out of you....ok, ok. I'll stop now.
 
Thank you so much, everyone!!!
 
If any future hopefuls would like my help, feel free to message me. I would like to try to stay present on this site and help out where I can.

So after a very stressful last couple of days in which I played phone tag with the director of graduate admissions for the Classics department, I am happy to report that the situation is resolved! I finally broke down and called the FSU admissions office when I failed yet again to get in contact with the actual department, and after spending half an hour on hold, I was told that I was indeed admitted and due to a "clerical error" the decision on my application was mistakenly submitted as a rejection. They said it will take about a week to fix my status, but I'm just glad that's over with and I'm no longer stuck in limbo!
 
Thanks everyone! I really hope that no one ever has to go through this!

Got mine too! Now my season is officially over!

I don't know anything about these particular programs, but I did visit both Rutgers and Illinois for their Biophysics/Computational Biology programs. I have decided to attend the University of Illinois, so you should keep my bias in mind as you read this note.
 
The stipend I was offered at Rutgers is more than $8000 more than what I was offered at UIUC. When you factor in cost of living, the stipend offered by Rutgers is still higher, but not by much. I recommend using this tool <http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/> for estimating how far your stipend offers will go in each city. I will also say that, at Rutgers, a huge red flag for me was that a current grad student told me he was offered a stipend similar to mine, but, when he actually got into the program, the actual stipend he received was somewhat less than he had been promised. (Yikes!)
 
Another red flag was that some current students at Rutgers pointed out that, while my offer states that I should expect to receive a full assistantship for each year I am in the program, the kind of assistantship is not specified. It seems that students of PIs who don't have much funding have to teach pretty much every semester to get paid. As a TA, it is my impression that the amount you are paid at Rutgers seems to be set by the university, and this amount seems to be significantly less than what I was offered. Some current students told me that the TA union at Rutgers recently went on strike (or maybe just threatened to go on strike?) to get higher wages and better working conditions. They also qualified this by saying that there had recently been talk that they might go on strike again because Rutgers had been discussing converting some TA positions into lecturer positions, which are not eligible for certain benefits, or something to that effect. Perhaps this is a common problem at many universities that I am simply ignorant to, but this was certainly the only school where such a problem was brought up (unprompted, I might add).
 
At least in my program, I have been told it is quite a competitive process to get a teaching assistantship at Illinois, and it is explicitly stated in my offer letter that most students are supported by research assistantships after their first year. I should note that Rutgers students that I talked to who worked in labs with well funded PIs did not seem to have much of a teaching load. However, even these students said their stipends were not high enough to live close to campus. The public transportation in Piscataway and New Brunswick is not as good as it is in Chapaign-Urbana, so these students have to drive to work every day. This was not something I wanted to do.
 
In general, I would say that the students at Rutgers seemed MUCH more concerned about money than the students at Illinois were. To give some concrete examples, at Illinois, students talked about buying houses or condos, while at Rutgers, four students discussed at length how they were going to divide up a $9.00 bill... For me, the contrast was pretty dramatic.
 
Piscataway is arguably a better location on paper than Urbana-Champaign. It is well connected to New York and Philadelphia by train, but, then again, Champaign-Urbana is only a two to three hour drive from Chicago, St. Louis, and Indianapolis. There are even regular trains and buses from Chicago to Champaign and back. I had expected Champaign-Urbana to feel like a suburb, and I was surprised to see high-rise buildings in downtown Champaign and Urbana. One of the current Illinois graduate students characterized the cities as "micro urban," and, without having lived there yet, I have to say I completely agreed with her characterization based on what I saw.
 
I feel like I had a great research match with some of the professors at Rutgers, but I feel like I have just as good of a match with more professors at Illinois. The program at Illinois is also larger and seems more established, which I like. Finally, it seems to me that the program at Illinois is better funded and has access to more resources than the program at Rutgers. These may be factors you want to consider for your own programs.
 
Finally, as you mention, Illinois is ranked higher than Rutgers in biology. In the latest US News rankings, they are also ranked much higher in chemistry (6 vs 60), physics (9 vs 29), and computer science (5 vs 34). A similar story is told in the 2010 US News rankings and NRC rankings. Mine is an extremely interdisciplinary program with professors who hold appointments in all of these departments, so these rankings are relevant to my program. Overall, I think these rankings also paint the picture that Illinois is a more highly regarded university than Rutgers is, at least in the physical sciences. Of course, whether or not this is actually true is open to interpretation.
 
Obviously, the most important thing for you to consider is research fit. You say this is equal for the two programs, but I find that a little hard to believe. How many PIs at each university are doing research that interests you. Do you know which ones expect to be taking on new students into their labs in the fall? Does everyone you're interested in working for look like good mentors on paper? (Are they publishing frequently? Do their students seem to be getting first authorships on these papers? Do they have tenure yet? If not, is there any concern that they might not get it/you will be competing with them to present your research at conferences, etc./they might leave the university unexpectedly? Are they old enough that they might retire or pass away unexpectedly? Are their students getting jobs doing things that you are interested in doing after grad school?) How is the curriculum fit at both schools? (Do the classes sound interesting? How many do you have to take?) I believe these are all important questions to consider when you are evaluating your research and curriculum fit at different schools and when you are evaluating where to attend in the fall.
 
Anyway, as I said, I have decided to go to Illinois. I made this decision primarily because I believe the research and curriculum fit at Illinois is better than it is at Rutgers. I also believe it is the safer financial choice based on what I heard from current grad students, and I believe that the program at Illinois has a better reputation than Rutgers. Finally (and importantly), I was completely blown away by everyone I met and everything I saw when I visited Illinois. That's not to say I wasn't impressed when I visited Rutgers, but Illinois clearly left a more significant mark. This only happened with one other program where I didn't ultimately end up getting in, so, for me, the obvious choice was Illinois. My point is that I think it is definitely important to consider how good the programs are for you on paper, but I think it is also important to consider your gut instincts.
 
I hope this analysis has been helpful to you! Let me know if you have any questions I may be able to answer. Good luck making your decision!

Rejection does hurt, I agree, but we are all adults here and we know that rejection is part of life, I may be rejected from the program I applied for. That being said, it is not the fact there were rejected that is humourous, it is sad indeed, it is their response to the rejection. Instead of thinking perhaps there were better applicants or there wasn't a supervisior they rant and believe that since they went to an ivy league that should have guaranteed them a spot, this is what I find humourous, in a facetious way. I want people like that to understand that an ivy league doesn't make them a better applicant unless they have the stats to support their claim. No malice is intented.