Vene

A problem with your analysis is that international graduate students in biosciences don't pay tuition and there are funding sources which require anybody put on the grant be a US citizen. I'm sure international students will bring in money for programs like a MBA, but not so much when tuition is waived and a stipend is provided.

Well, one thing I can say is that I see a lot of high prestige programs on your list of universities. Clearly they were not realistic aims based on your current credentials. Credentials which would be incredibly useful if we're to help you. Kind of hard to tell somebody how to proceed if we don't have things like your GPA, GRE, or work history.

As a current PhD student I am so sick of classes. I want to be done with them so I can actually do some real work.

I suspect they only have Dr X and Dr Y confirmed as of this point in time.

Lawyers in general have to be workaholics. They put in some intense hours.

Patents, it means you'll be perfect for working in patent law. Also, a MBA can be good if you want to lead a large team. I worked for a chemist with a PhD and a MBA.

I can't imagine that such is a factor at all when making decisions.

Pretty much, you look to see what topics people are working on and think about what you want to research. Then you find universities where there are several faculty members doing something of interest and apply to those programs.

It's a mixed bag, some universities intend to accept everyone that they interview, some plan to reject some number of them. I think the worst I've heard of was wanting to only accept half. Regardless, once you get an interview you're in pretty solid shape.

I think you should have time to discuss both as well as what you're currently doing, even if it's not research. I remember having a nice conversation with a professor about good manufacturing practices as I was working QA at the time.

Communicating with those who are not going to get accepted is a low priority. Unless you're in a group which hits an automatic cutoff early one or somebody who came in for an interview your rejection can wait. An automatic cutoff is easy as you can get a big list of people to send rejections to all at one. Those who come in for an interview have taken the time to come and visit and interact with faculty, so if they're being rejected they should be told soon (although it's still reasonable to tell them after you have offered acceptances to those who interviewed). Seriously, the deadline is April 15th. It's easy to get impatient, but there's still a lot which can happen between now and then. Now, that being said, if they don't get back to you in April, then they're being rude.

There's still a lot of time. I got the final rejection form a couple universities last year in April. Which makes sense when you consider the April 15th deadline. Chill out.

I think that you want to talk to your PI about this first. I know you're trying to impress others, but that can be a great way to get scooped.

You may also want to check out as this one is pretty dominated by biomedical people.

Professional schools are a whole other world.

Dismissing other students in the lab who were unable to replicate Sezen's results is highly concerning to me.

Go ahead and wear the suit, there are always a few people who have one and shouldn't cause any issues. Technically, it certainly is more than is required or expected, but as long as you don't feel uncomfortable you'll be fine. Also, forgoing the tie really does make it less formal. For the after-interview events you should still try to dress nicely, but for those a suit very much is overkill. I think for those jeans and a button up shirt can be fine. Naturally, wear the best pair of jeans you own.

A really good way to get yourself rejected is to start making as many racist and sexist jokes as possible and generally just acting like a creep.

Well, we have one undergrad in our lab who will be sticking around for an accelerated masters as he wants to go premed route. I don't believe his masters will be funded. Well, there's the subject GREs for if a program is truly concerned about a candidate's level of biological knowledge. Otherwise, being able to memorize a bunch of details isn't the best way to tell if somebody can succeed in a PhD. Even for the classes the PhD coursework is designed so that we're supposed to be able to put pieces of information together, make predictions, and interpret data. MD classes are much more about memorizing as many clinical details as possible. Or, to put it another way, a MD can tell you the muscles in a body, a PhD can tell you how to design an experiment to test their function. You'd have to convince the graduate college, never underestimate the power of internal politics. Also, since the vast majority of programs in biomedical science want the GRE students will still take it and will only take the MCAT for yours if you are of sufficient interest/prestige. I see it far more likely that such a scheme will lead to getting droves of med school applicants who are just using your program as a backup without enough interest to really succeed in a PhD.

We have both admission and funding after the interview. But, admission also means you get x funding package, which is described on the website.

I think it's not typically treated as a backup to med school, but some will apply to both as their interests kind of merge the two. A lot of medical schools offer MD/PhD joint degrees where both clinical and experimental skills are taught. I could easily see somebody interested in being a clinical researcher deciding to apply for both types of degrees. But, ultimately, if somebody looks at a PhD as a medical school backup they're in for some pain as the type of education really is quite different.

Ours expects 5-6 years from start to finish. It might theoretically take more time, but on the other hand your rotation project can lead to your dissertation and the skills you learn from other labs can also be pretty useful.

If asked, you could always just name the schools and let the professor come to what conclusion they want about the exact programs. So, instead of saying that you're applying to Stanford psychology just say Stanford. If pressed, neuroscientists know they are interdisciplinary and that neuro work gets done in other departments. Over here the neuroscience students can certainly work for somebody housed in the biophysics or the psychology department, so going into one of those programs when you are interested in neuroscience shouldn't bring up any red flags.

It's listed right underneath her username and post count: And as somebody who is in a biomedical science PhD program Eigen is exactly right about the time frame. We do expect 5-7 years of graduate education, but with most of it being laboratory work to the point where classes are one of the least important aspects of our degree. The first year or two includes classes, but we're researchers first and spend most of our time in the lab, even when classes are not in session. After finals I was able to get so much more work done precisely because I didn't have to worry about my coursework, but now that they're starting up again my research is going to slow down.

I think you're in the wrong subforum.