Vene

Something I got from working in industry; it's not that my experiment failed, it's that I found out what not to do in the future. I was doing formulation chemistry and I discovered a lot of very undesirable formulas.

How long have you been in the second lab? It can sometimes take time to warm up to a new person, especially with a cultural barrier. But, ultimately, I can say that I wouldn't personally want to work in a lab where I don't feel welcome. I may not need to be buddies with the other people, but I'd like to be able to at least chat about things when I'm there. For now, I'd say just make the best of it, socialize elsewhere and try to do good work. But, I could see this lab being one you decline to join, even if you get along very well with the PI.

The thing that really made me decide that I wanted to do rotations was that it allows me to work with multiple faculty and see if we actually can work together in an effective manner. That single pro was stronger than any con I saw with rotations.

Numbers were provided in I suspect that the OP didn't like the answers given there.

Your quantitative is mediocre. Your verbal is low. Your AW is low. Your TOEFL is terrible. You're also looking at some of the most competitive universities in the US. Luckily for you, the GRE isn't necessarily that important. Unluckily for you, the TOEFL does matter.

Are you getting a bachelors in the US? If so, there's no reason at all why you can't get a PhD in microbiology afterwards. If your bachelors comes from elsewhere contact the program you're interested in and ask them if it's a US equivalent to see if you're still qualified. The tricky part will be that Purdue is a public university and there are more funding opportunities for domestic applicants. It's not that you can't get in, but you may actually have a better shot at a private school for a PhD.

That very much would explain it. And it is lucky that they're one of the last interviews so you'll have an idea of where you stand with other universities at that point. If they rush, you might get an unofficial acceptance prior to your interview at Iowa, but you should have enough time to at least get a response from every university.

This is where the April 15 deadline is from: https://www.cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/CGS_Resolution.pdf If you're applying for a funded PhD and your university is on that list they can't really force you to decide prior to April 15th. I wouldn't really list this as a reasonable concern. Now, without funding (rare in biology) or as a MS applicant all bets are off.

I think there's a bit of selection bias here. Those who are more likely to apply for a large number of programs are likely the same type of person who will sign up for a graduate student forum. Personally, when I applied the cost scared me off. Hell, I applied to 4 universities because that's the number of free scores I could send when I did the GRE.

On the 6 months of experience thing, I do think it can make a difference if you're coming from a large research university or a teaching university. At a research university there are far more opportunities to get into a lab. But, at a teaching university typically only the very dedicated get research experience so even if it's comparatively less than at a research university the impetus required to do such is greater so the student is more comparable to those who have been working in a lab for a few years even though they have significantly less experience. A very prestigious program may not care, but I think those a step below will pay attention. At least personally, I do believe you have to consider the opportunities each student had in addition to the outcome.

I think this may be the case. A university like Harvard or Stanford knows they're one of the best universities in the nation (and world) and so can actually be really picky with prospective students and still get stellar students interested in attending. It really is better for them to force students to pick Stanford or Harvard (sticking with the example, I don't know when they actually interview) and interview at just one instead of coordinating with other top universities and see the student with a plethora of choices. They would much rather bring in interviewees who have a higher chance of accepting. On the other hand, middle prestige universities may know they're good, but also do realize they will never win out if they have to compete with the top. Somebody may really like the University of Maryland, but is highly unlikely to select them over a schedule conflict with Harvard. Maryland has to hope that they can either charm that student into their program regardless (which does mean being accommodating) or that said student just doesn't click with the faculty at Harvard and is rejected.

I found such at Minnesota which was actually really nice to know when applying. I really wish more universities did this and that it was simple to find.

The university I attend is closed until Monday. I wouldn't be surprised if this was typical.

For the interview portions you want to wear business casual clothing with nice, but comfortable, shoes as you will probably be doing some walking. In addition you want a warm coat. Something like this or maybe this is fine. Your coat doesn't have to be as formal as the rest of your clothing as it should be warm and anybody living there understand this, especially when you're not used to the cold. I could see trying to layer your clothing, even if it's something as simple as wearing an undershirt as that extra fabric will help keep the heat in and the cold out. As most programs have a more relaxed day following one-on-one interviews your attire can change. If you're doing stuff outside boots (I'm personally fond of hiking boots), a nice sweater (or other warm shirt, layering thinner shirts can also work), and nice pants along with the previously mentioned coat are fine. Gloves can be a good idea if you're spending a significant amount of time outside as can a hat. I heard about one program taking people skiing (I think it was Utah) so in that case you definitely want gloves and a hat. Something else you can do is wear long underwear underneath your clothing. It basically allows for layering when wearing pants and during very cold weather can be extremely nice.

Replace that you can't substitute meals with you shouldn't.

I can only comment on what I've observed as I never really looked at the path of earning a MD and then entering research, but there's a good number of professors in the US engaged in research who do not possess a PhD and instead are MDs. Look at the faculty pages for neuroscience departments at US universities and you're going to see a number of different professors who have MDs.

So many empty calories.

I've actually found my seminars underwhelming. I attended seminars at a large Midwestern university as an undergrad and they regularly provided coffee and cookies for their seminars. Not really enough for a meal, but it was very welcome. But, now that I'm at a university in the Northeast the seminar series I'm required to attend doesn't serve anything. I've been to the seminars of a couple different departments (because the topic was relevant to my research area) and only once did I find one that offered food of any sort.

Just a side thought, why are you looking at obtaining a PhD? At least where I'm studying a good number of faculty members do have MDs instead of PhDs and a MD can very much qualify you for academic research. I admit I don't know the details of what is needed, but it may not be necessary to go through an additional half-decade of schooling if your goals can be fulfilled without the additional degree. Additionally, at least where I study, none of the PhD students have a degree higher than a masters. If anything, I don't think the issue is if you're sufficiently qualified, but that you're overqualified.

Yep, that's how you do it. In fact, for many disciplines that is the only way to get accepted as you have to have an advisor willing to take you on prior to your admission. It's less common in the biomedical world, but is extremely common in organismal and ecological biology. It's also extremely common in the social sciences.

I saw both when I did interviews, I don't think it matters too much as long as you're comfortable with what you're wearing. If you're not used to wearing suits and you're awkward, don't do it. If, however, you don't feel like you'll take it seriously if you aren't wearing a suit by all means wear a suit.

Okay, that's actually a lot clearer. You don't have to give then your official transcripts unless you get an offer and accept it. This means that they're content with unofficial for review, but in order to formally enter the program they do need the official transcripts to confirm that they match the unofficial one you provided.

From talking with PhD students at my university (I took a genetics class with some of them) the ecologists don't do rotations, whereas those of us who are in a PhD program through the college of medicine all do rotations (an umbrella program as well as a neuroscience degree). So, even in the sciences in the US there is variation between disciplines.

The only people who really know the answer to this are the people in charge of admission. Have you talked to them at all? You're not even telling us what university so those of us who have experience with that particular program in the past can't help you either.

Your reading comprehension concerns me. There is nothing in what I said that suggests Wisconsin is settling for those who are "good enough." I suppose it's possible that during a year with above average domestic applicants a truly phenomenal international student may be overlooked. But, ask yourself, is it likely that somebody that far beyond what they see year after year is going to apply? Is this applicant really going to go to Wisconsin if they're that phenomenal? Is it worth the resources year after year to search for a needle in a haystack when Wisconsin is already able to recruit fantastic students? Speaking of resources, somebody is going to have to be paid to look through all of their applicants in detail. That is not a trivial cost. Where is that money going to come from? My bet is that it means an increase in application fees.