Vene

First thing, a 2.8 GPA from freshman year is very much salvagable. It is the year which admissions committees care about the absolute least. But, of course, don't do it again. I do notice you're already in a lab, which is exactly what you should be doing, it doesn't matter if it's a chemistry lab, the two fields are related, especially since you're working on a biologically relevant concern while in the lab. As for organic chemistry and biochemistry at the same time, organic chemistry is useful in biochemistry as it teaches you the chemical language you need as a biochemist for the functional groups and the like. It also gives you a good idea of how organic reactions occur, even if biochemical reactions operate differently due to the use of enzymes. From my experience it's really common to need an organic background to even take a biochemistry class and with you needing to increase your GPA you may want to avoid situations where you arrive at a disadvantage. Is there a way to hold off on biochemistry until after you finish organic? Alternatively, how many biochemistry type courses does your school offer? I recall where I went that there was a microbiology course designed for the biology majors and there was one designed for the nursing students, naturally the nursing option didn't go into as much detail. I wonder if there's something like that going on for your biochemistry options because it strikes me as very odd that you can register for biochemistry without already completing organic.

I'm just popping in to say don't bother throwing your money away on those honor societies. Also to say that your GPA is damn good and I think you'd have a shot at top programs.

This sounds like the way to go to me, I'd add to it that the work you're doing for the start up is where I'd probably stay if I was you. They're paying you, right? Non-academic research is still valued and you can't overlook that you're getting paid for it. The point of research experience is that you know what you're getting yourself into and still want to pursue a research degree. Alternatively, you could take a year off after undergrad if you can keep the lab assistant job and then apply. When I was interviewing for PhD programs it was about a 50:50 split between those who were still in undergrad and those who have graduated and the professors spoke favorably of those who had some time between their BS and graduate school.

I really hope you like Chicago. Assuming they all match research interests for you, that sounds like a reasonable range to me. Northwestern and U of Chicago are of course very well respected schools. Your stats do look fine to me and should make you competitive for top ranking programs. If anything getting your Quantitative GRE above 160 could be a good idea so you can try and avoid a program's cut off. The award for best presentation and the experience at a biotech company both are fantastic, as is the paper, and those tend to matter a lot more than a GRE does. I do second Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL), if for no other reason than their connection to the human genome project.

I'd say not to be afraid of applying to higher caliber institutions, your degree is just as valid as any from a high ranking university. If they don't want you, fuck them. For lack of a better reference, feel free to apply to programs typically ranked in the top 50. Of course, you shouldn't be looking merely at ranking/prestige, make sure that wherever you apply suits what you want. Think about how much location matters, do you want to live in a city or someplace more rural, how big of a program do you want to enter, and of course what are your research interests. For example, if you want to do drug discovery then there's no point in applying to an organic chemistry program which focuses more on polymer synthesis.

I interviewed both at Minnesota and Vermont and I talked with 3-4 professors for half an hour each. It's not terribly structured and depends upon the professor for exactly what you discuss. In both cases there was somebody on the admissions committee who interviewed me as well. I was asked about why I was interested in that particular school/program/faculty member. We also discussed my goals and what I wanted to get out of graduate school. They also answered questions I had about what their program offered and how it was conducted. And, of course, we talked about their research. When it came to their research, I generally tried to put that at the end of the interview because once you get a professor started they don't stop. I would say don't let the professor dominate the discussion, you're also trying to decide if this is a program you want to attend so ask questions about the university and how it can help you fulfill your goals. It's not meant to be a stressful thing, it is, but by the time you're there for an interview you're already on the short list. Even so, you want to conduct yourself professionally and be eager. They want people excited about going to graduate school.

Go with the option that gives you minimal debt.

I no longer have my high school diploma, but I don't really care about it (consequence of moving). I do have the AS and BA I earned though. I see no reason to get rid of them.

Here are my somewhat disjointed thoughts. UC Berkely and UC Davis are going to be difficult to get into with a 3.0 GPA. GREs are not likely to help you as much as you hope, they tend to keep people out of programs, not convince a committee to bring you in for an interview. Quantitative means more than verbal means more than writing. I'm not sure if a GRE test in psychology means much as neuroscience is more of a biological science than a psychological one. The TA experience doesn't seem likely to help you much, but you could include it as a part of a SOP if you want to use it to show why you want to teach. I think approximately zero people care about your journal club. Your experience in a research lab is helpful though. You're probably most likely to get into a lower tier PhD program or you're going to have to do a MS to get into a respectable one. It's possible that connections from UCSD will help, especially if you get killer LORs and SOP. A 3.0 GPA doesn't mean you can't get to a PhD, but it's going to be tough to get into a top program and can make securing funding tough, depending on how the program handles funding. If your GPA rised as you progressed through undergrad it'll look better and if your GPA in science and math classes was higher than a 3.0 it'll also help your case.

It's better to try and get a job doing something research related than it is to pay for a masters degree.

That post was two years old. But, that is a site I wish I knew about when I was starting the application process.

From my experience in industry less is more. HR doesn't want to go through a multi-page resume. Keep it short and to the point. It is a good idea to add in a few highlights from what you've done. If you want to go into any detail that's what a cover letter is for, but even still keep it focused on accomplishments and what it means to the company. They don't care if you won a fellowship, they care that you're able to take an idea, turn it into an actionable plan, and follow through to finish a project. And yes, leave off your GPA. You're past undergrad so it doesn't matter and GPA from a graduate program means nothing.

Here are my thoughts. One is that an unfunded graduate degree is generally a bad idea, even if it's prestigious. Another is that I've worked in the chemical industry at the bachelors level and have seen people with both BS and MS degrees working as temporary employees, but have never seen a PhD doing the same thing. A MS doesn't seem to mean anything beyond the equivalent of a few years of work experience. You might have a higher chance of finding that chemist job doing R&D or working at a pilot plant compared to doing QA/QC testing, but I personally don't think a MS is worth the monetary investment. I don't really know how wise or unwise it is to get a PhD at a low ranked program though.

From what you've said here you're more likely than not going to get into this program. However, it is a bit of a gamble and I don't think the cost (money and time) of applying to a couple different universities is too high. You never know what can happen between now and then which can hinder your ability to enter a program. *cough*funding*cough*

You can probably get into somewhere for a PhD program, but you're going to have a tough time getting into a top program. A MS first might not be unwise, at least if you can get it funded. Otherwise there's the option of building up a few years of work history. The big challenge you have is your GPA.

I went to an absolute no name university and had no problems. I would be surprised if you ran into too many hurdles.

Is there anybody in the graduate program who is able to look at it in your place? I'm in a not quite so extreme situation, but I'm 1300 miles from my graduate program of choice and the program assigned a student mentor and he's been generous enough to look at housing options for me. And yes, they do want your business, but it will also depend on the market in the city you're moving to as some cities will have plenty of apartments available and landlords will bend over backwards. In other cities housing is much tighter and they'll have plenty of other people to pick from. You may have to end up biting the bullet and taking a less than ideal situation and make the most of it.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if somebody values my work they'll pay me. Otherwise it has to be for a cause I believe in.

It's an unpaid internship, you owe them nothing. Take the paying position.

Unfortunately, I don't have any insider information, it's not even in the same field of study as me. But, 161 V and 161 Q are pretty good scores and I have a hard time seeing them being below any reasonable cut off. If the rest of your application is solid, I don't see why they would hurt you.

Those are all top universities, so they do expect them to be quite high. I'm not in any of those fields so I'm not sure what they typically require, but I'd imagine they aren't terribly concerned about quantitative and may well want a higher verbal score instead. Another thing to consider is that a GRE is what aspect of an application package so you'd also need a high GPA, you'd need good LORs, a strong SOP, and some form of scholarly experience (in my field they expect us to have spent time in a lab). What I'd do if I was you would be to look at their websites to see if they have information on the GRE scores of previous admitted students as well as to check out the results search here to see what the stats are of people who got in and people who were rejected.

What sort of program are you going for? Unless it's something like engineering or mathematics I can't say I see the point or if you are looking strictly at top 10 programs maybe. Increasing your GRE score hits diminishing returns really fast as generally a high score isn't going to get you considered by a low score will disqualify you. What you have here is not a low score.

Such an unreasonable thing it is to expect a professor to work to advance a student's education, especially when said professor more likely than not encouraged said student to pursue an advanced degree.

It always comes back to people, always.

I say apply, protein folding is right up a biochemistry department's alley and you will have obtained a life science MS. You have extra background in mathematics can actually be a good selling point.