Eigen

I googled Vanderbilt protein NMR. Since I knew there were some good people there in different departments, that let me find them quickly. Those are just the first page of results, I'd bet there are more.

I think they way you're going about this takes a lot longer. Look up papers, find people doing protein crystallography, then see where they work. Kinda surprised you're not finding what you want at Vandy, it has a fantastic biomolecular NMR center. From a cursory look: Sanders does protein NMR. https://medschool.vanderbilt.edu/biochemistry/person/charles-r-sanders Fesik's lab does NMR and crystallography. Reiter's lab does NMR of ribonucleoproteins. Chazin does NMR on replicative proteins. Damo does structural analysis of metalloproteins. I think you'll have a harder time finding s group that does only NMR, most good structural groups will make use of more than one technique. As you talk about your interests, you seem very focused on a technique rather than a field of study- protein NMR is a tool, but finding a lab that specializes in it is less likely, and going to be more niche as time progresses and more people use it as a tool. You say protein NMR is a huge field, but I would say it's a common tool but a small field of exclusive study. I think that also may be why you're finding a lot of people who used to do it and aren't publishing exclusively on it anymore.

I'll let people in MSW programs answer, but from a general perspective that's way too little time out of class. For accreditation, the baseline amount of out-of-class work is a minimum of 2 hours per hour spent in class, so 6 hours out of class for a 3-hour class. And that's supposed to be a minimum.

I'm surprised you don't have Vanderbilt or Iowa State on your list, given interests- they both have pretty strong work involving protein NMR. One thing I'd keep in mind as you're looking for PIs (given your specific interests) is that all of the people you'd be interested in working with aren't likely to be in the same department. You'll find them spread through Chemistry, BMB/CMB, Physics and Biomedical Sciences programs, as well as potentially in biomedical engineering/chemical engineering programs. You might consider looking at places that didn't have enough PIs for you in a given department, and look at related programs. Some places will include affiliated faculty on the website, some do a worse job of that.

I love the portability of my air, but I have a desktop at work that balances it out. I think power wise you'll be fine with a newer model 13" air, and they have the best battery life of the lineup. I would personally invest in a good monitor for work/home so you have a bigger screen to work on when you need it. I use dual 24" monitors at work and love the room for writing and analysis- I can tile 4 full size documents easily.

That's one of the reasons older macs were so reliable- they tended to use server grade components as opposed to, as you say, Costco grade. The benefit of an apple refurbished one is that it comes with the same warranty as a new one- a lot of other places can't (or won't) do the same.

The only things like this I would add to my CV are those that I consider particularly applicable. For me, this pretty much boils down to pedagogy courses (since I'm in the SLAC market). So when I take a short course or MOOC on, say, integrating research into the undergraduate curriculum, it goes onto my CV under professional development, and shows that I'm making an effort to grow and keep current in pedagogical strategies. It's the same heading I put in-person workshops and short courses under.

I think you're over-generalizing what "most" people do in the sciences. In my current Chemistry department, it's about a 50:50 split, with the edge slightly to Macs. In my graduate chemistry department, it was slightly more Macs than PCs. In the bio programs I collaborate with, Macs are more common than PCs. In my current school's Science division as a whole, there are definitely more Macs than PCs. There are definitely Mac/PC issues in Office, but that's why people upthread are recommending that the OP wait and see what their research group uses. For instance, when I started grad school I had a PC, and had to switch to Mac because that was the prevalent OS. As to some of your more direct comparisons, keep this in mind: You can run Windows on a Mac, but (for the most part) you can't run OSX on a PC. Technically, that makes getting a Mac the "safer" bet if you don't know what colleagues will be using, since you can always take your Mac, install Windows, and remove any potential compatibility issues.

But the vast majority of computers can do that. My 2010 MacBook Air can run multiple tabs of research papers easily while I'm writing. That's kinda my point. The average computer now is built for doing high res 3D modeling, when the average user is, well, reading lots of websites and writing things.

That's not really how typical scores work. Rarely are they taken as an important criteria in a case like yours (great letters, good research experience) unless they're below a hard cutoff set by the school.

Are the GRE scores you're seeing cutoffs, or typical scores? They're very different things for what you're asking. Minimums are things below which the graduate school will not admit a student without an exemption- typical scores are just what the average student usually has.

Not guaranteed, but highly increased likelihood. Most admission committees will forward applicants to faculty they feel like would be the best fit, and see if there's strong interest. A department can go against minimum scores for the school, but it requires a lot of political capital- they have to not just want you, but want you enough to fight for you. That said, school minimums are usually pretty low. As long as you stay above a 3.0, you should be OK there- and I don't know any schools that set GRE minimums offhand.

I would wait and see where your research interests lead you. Fit matters immensely both in getting in, and being successful and happy once there.

You really should be picking schools based off of research. Read papers. Find ones you like. Look at where those authors are, check out the school. If you have an option, I think a biomedical sciences program limits your options more than a traditional biochem program.

Not sure how this question fits in this thread. Can you maybe elaborate? This is for discussion of the NSF graduate fellowship.

Do you want to do a biochemistry PhD (ie, one in a biochemistry/biomedical sciences/biology program), or a biochemistry PhD in a chemistry program? The latter is something I think you're a lot better set for given your references and experience. I think by your GPA you might stand a better chance at some lower ranked schools with good PIs well known in your field. They're more likely to be interested in your experience and letters, and not be inundated with students with high GPAs and research experience. And honestly.... Prestige of the school only matters so much, and only if you have certain goals (say, TT faculty at an R1). My school was ranked somewhere south of 100, but I turned down top-15 schools to go there for s few specific PIs. It's not as recognizable of a school, but I'm finding it matters less now that I'm out of grad school. What I'm doing now matters more to people.

Depends on the school. My school had a max embargo time of 2 years, and even that required some special hoops. The default embargo time if you needed it was 1 year. This is something I think people don't rank importantly enough. You can see in this story that people told her over and over that she shouldn't work with him, that he was taking advantage of her- to the point where she stopped talking to friends about him at all. It doesn't seem like this was someone with a sterling reputation and this a one-off case.

I think STEM in general is a bit more complex, and harder to "steal" ideas- since you also need the facilities, money and expertise to set up the experiment and collect the data. I know several cases, but none are advisors to students- they're all senior faculty to junior faculty. Someone with the lab and status to throw money at getting results faster on the same idea than a junior person can. I also think there is a lot of unintentional theft, or gray areas, in academic relationships. The case in the article is black and white, but there are a lot that are fuzzier. I see it in STEM labs where the PI gives general ideas and guidance to grad students, who then talk about more refined versions of those with the PI. Both have ownership, and there are often times where either one forgets exactly what e other told them and when. It's one of the reasons notes are so important. I also see it with colleagues and collaborators. We'll be batting about ideas, and later on someone will honestly think they came up with and idea that I had proposed. It's not intentional, they don't always remember the seed idea that got planted when we were talking. IMO, the solution isn't to stop sharing- I've seen that happen, and it leads to bad places. It's to build good relationships with people you trust, and share within those bounds. Follow your instincts- the article in the OP, the writer says she'd gotten bad vibes off this person for years, and others had told her he was using her. That's not the person you share a manuscript with. You won't always be right, but you stand a lot better chance!

I got mine at the end of my first year, and deferred one year, and wish I'd deferred two. Using it later gives you more funding when you need it- use available funding your first year if you have it. First year is the best time to TA if you need to as well, at least in terms of research productivity.

Yeah, I don't have policies against computers. I just encourage students to try taking them by hand, and show the relevant studies. That said, most recent literature on cognitive science of learning also goes agains the idea of multiple "learning styles" a lot more, and learning from handwriting seems to be relatively universal- ie, it benefits everyone. The other reason why I don't do blanket no computer policies is an accessibility concern. If I ban them and then exempt a student who needs to use one for accessibility reasons, I'm obviously singling that person out to the class. it was something I got from "The Accessible Sylabus Project" that stuck with me.

I'll just note that pedagogical literature shows that the act of physically taking notes is beneficial in the learning process. It's why I strongly discourage my students from taking notes on a computer or printed slides. The process of taking notes during a lecture, then going back and filling in portions that is incomplete is also a critical part of learning and helping cement connections. When I'm taking notes on anything, it's always pen and paper. Then later I can transcribe them to a digital format if need be (scan, re-type, etc.). But the first brush is always by hand.

Schools can be strange. Where I did my PhD, there were multiple non-overlapping and very similar fields. You could do Molecular and Cellular Biology at the medical school, you could do Cellular and Molecular Biology in the biology department, you could do Biochemistry at the Medical School, or Biochemistry in the Chemistry department. All of these departments had wildly different requirements with respect to number of classes, what type of exams acted as qualifiers, etc. It would have been really hard to cross them and keep everyone happy. People crossed over with collaborations and work between all of the above, but had to have an advisor in their home department, or where they were actually enrolled and getting their degree.

If they reached out to you, then there's a good chance they know if it will work or not. As with the vast majority of questions asked and answered on this forum, the most accurate answer is always "it depends, you should ask the school". If you've been talking to this PI, why not just ask them straight up how it would work, and if you'd need a co-supervisor or if the school would let them supervise you? The one thing I'd be careful of is having a PI that doesn't know your program's requirements. This person may know them, or they may not know the Bio program requirements very well. It can still work fine, you just need to be the one to keep an eye on specific requirements, deadlines, etc. that might differ from your advisor's home program.

My guess is not possible. You'd need to be interdisciplinary or in the CHEM department to have them as your advisor. You might be able to set up a co-advisor situation or have them on your committee, however. To add, I'm assuming US schools here. If I recall you were interested in UK programs at some point? They operate very differently.

The best advice I got about academic time management was this: Put in the things outside your work first (sleep, time to maintain your health, relationships, hobbies). Then use the time remaining (within reason) for work. Research (and teaching) can easily extend to fill any time you allocate for it- there is literally no end to what you can do. So limit it by deciding what your other (arguably) more important life priorities are, then make sure you take time for them. As a starting point, I worked grad school as a regular 9-6 job. Sometimes I had to work outside that, but I tried to keep that to a minimum and only during discreet periods. That also ensured I had time in the evenings to cook good food, work out, spend time with my family, and pursue my hobbies. As a great resource, I'll recommend the book "Making Time, Making Change" (http://store.newforums.com/Making-Time-Making-Change-SDB05.htm). I went to a faculty development seminar by the author, and it was fantastic at refocussing the narrative from "how much time to do I have for things outside teaching" to "how much time do I have left for teaching once I budget in the really important stuff in my life".