Krypton

Food for thought. Below is an increasingly viral opinion post that entered the blogosphere yesterday. It might inspire some of you PhD hopefuls into thinking a little bit longer and a little bit harder to ensure that you're really ready to embark on this (oft-troublesome) journey.

Third year applying, second time getting HM. VG/E G/G E/E Again, like last year (when I didn't even get HM), the lowest-scoring judge seemed to have only praise for my IM and BI, but simply didn't give me good ratings for either. Oh well! I'm actually feeling pretty happy right now, since I got a VERY reassuring comment from one of my judges: "The proposal is very well written and hypothesized. Results of the proposed research activities are likely to be published in a prestigous journal (e.g., Science or Cell)." No pressure!

Where my review sheets at?!

Actually, this past application cycle was the first to not allow GRE scores at all (and I'd be willing to bet it will remain this way). Before, it was optional but recommended.

I use labels like "Stuff that probably tastes bad" for things I don't want stolen. Sounds like people are either savvy to the fact that the lab only ever uses 2% agarose, or they think 1% agarose will work just as well, so mislabeling doesn't help! Might as well just take the route of keeping your gel hidden!

Is this post-doc in the lab of a professor you're already getting an LOR from? If so, this could result in a lot of redundancy in their letters. You're better off getting a letter from just the professor of that lab (if possible, with input from the post-doc) and going elsewhere for the 3rd letter. It's fine if your 3rd letter doesn't attest to your lab abilities; most people do not have 3 professors who can all attest to a student's research ability.

Yes, I think Tetrad would have been prepared to offer all 60 interviewees admission. (Admitting only 56 students, as opposed to all 60, would not have resulted in a more "manageable" class size.) I met three of the students who were not admitted last year. One of them did not make an effort to seem interested in the program, and the other two were lovely people who, well, just seemed a bit unready to embark on graduate studies.

greenertea, I was told by a professor on the admissions committee that their meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, so don't worry if you haven't heard back before then! Good luck, and I hope you enjoyed your visit!

Last year, 56 out of 60 interviewees were accepted.

Difficult to say. With the increase in number of applications this year, we've invited 30 more people than last year (for a total of 90 people) to interview. However, the target class size (typically around 25) is unlikely to increase. I would predict ~60 admission spots?

Why should that matter? The idea isn't to influence their decision with a thank-you note/card. In fact, you better hope they DON'T think you're trying to influence their decision with your thank-you note/card.

Actually, IIRC, I didn't send thank-you letters until after I got my acceptances (which were sent out soon after interviews). I thought, that way, it didn't look like I was "fishing" for admission. Granted, when I did that, I wasn't thinking of what I would do if I weren't accepted... probably not write any letters? Also, I guess it would be awkward to send a "thank you" to a professor before you're accepted, only to have that very person write back denying you admission. There's an easier "flow" anyway to writing thank-you letters AFTER you've been accepted, as you'll usually get several congratulatory e-mails from your interviewers, and your "thank-you" can just be in response to those e-mails. And yeah, writing thank-you letters is completely optional. Being admitted is not contingent on writing some nice letters.

Hmm, I have a first-year friend in Scripps Biology who definitely never took a GRE Subject. Are you sure they weren't saying that applicants who wanted to include a Subject score would start to be evaluated only after it was in? Anyway, either they've become stringent about the requirement this year, or they are in fact still not 100% stringent about it.

That essentially never happens. The GRE Subject Test is simply not important enough that not taking it, even when the program technically says "required" or "strongly recommended," would result in your application being tossed out. No disadvantage to going early other than having less "practice," if you think you need it. If you interview early, you might get your admissions decision earlier.

Most programs have "rolling" admissions in that students interviewing earlier who very clearly should be accepted or rejected will hear right after their interview weekend. Because no program is going to want to fill the entire class (or even a majority of the class) from just the first interview, though, many students may not hear back until after the later interview weekend is over.