Infinito

@bsharpe269: Thanks for giving me hope. I had a few Ws (medical withdrawals) on my undergrad transcript, and didn't want it to be held against me too hard, especially if my overall GPA was still above average.

I'll be applying to Biomedical Science PhD programs for the Fall 2016 season, and I've already asked most of my LoR writers for "strong, positive" recommendation letters, and they're all game. That being said, I wanted to see if anybody has had a strategic approach as to what to have their LoR writers talk about in their letters. I have two PIs that can write to my strengths in the lab, and with conducting research. My other two are from professors that I had small classes with in which I excelled, and offered great presentations and got to know very well, and they got to know what my professional interests and aspirations were. I also have a former manager that can speak to my non-science related strengths. But, of course, each LoR writer can talk about multiple things, like your background, and things that you may not have time to address in your Statement of Purpose. So, the crux of my question is how to best divide that extra room that LoRs have so they can concentrate on something different, so that each LoR isn't redundant. Going off of that, I guess I'd like to know if that is a good strategy (to have a unique perspective from each LoR writer), or would you want all the LoRs to sound similar? Should they bring up things that I didn't address in my SOP, or should my SOP resonate with things they say in their LoR so as to give greater emphasis and support for what is stated? I'd love to know how other people approached this. Thanks!

This is the kind of situation that I dread having; while I do not have any advice for this particular matter, I still admire and appreciate you sharing it, and I'm hoping for the best and for positive news from you

There's only one situation where I have actually noticed that grad students have incentives to sugarcoat things, or to hide negatives. Namely, this might not happen until you matriculate, but it comes with rotations. If a lab is underperforming, or the POI is MIA or not being as helpful on projects due to various life changes (think new first-born, sabbatical, being recruited by other schools), a current grad student could downplay the negatives to get a 1st year to commit to the lab in order to have more hands to help on their own projects. This wasn't something I ever thought about until two different graduate students brought this up in private after a seminar; they were, however, on their way out (5th years), and alluded to the fact that they were lured into the lab by someone, and that it became a cycle with the next graduate student doing the same. That's probably the main thing I would watch out for.

From what I hear, and from talking to some professors, it's actually quite uncommon for a student to be on a paper at all, let alone first author, as an undergraduate. It does depend a lot on the specific lab and the field, too. For instance, it might be easier to publish a short paper in a cell genetics lab than it is to do the same in a neuroscience lab that involves animal models. Most of the time, lab research for undergrads during the school year is not always conducive to the productivity required to complete a task that would warrant a name on a paper, but summer programs are a different study as you're working 40+ hours for weeks on end, and usually on a specific project that will be put into a manuscript. From my experience, my 2 years in my undergraduate lab were productive, but not fruitful, mostly because the data obtained through my diligence was either negative (so either not novel, or refuted the hypothesis) and therefore not paper worthy, or it was a side project to test feasibility for a future project. On the other hand, the two years I did research over summer in a different lab earned me enough credit to be an author on a paper. That being said, I think being published is a positive thing for anyone's application, but professors know that research results can be a crap-shoot, and therefore the total amount of research experience and time allotted to bench research might be weighed more heavily. It's the only way to try and equalize the fact that some people may simply be more lucky with their results to get onto a paper, so as to not disregard hard work other applicants may have done that have not earned them the same thing. That's not to say that there aren't bright individuals out there that honestly did all the work and deserve all the credit for their papers. However, it's also very common these days for people to be added to papers simply because they are lab members, or to be fortuitous enough for your PI to give you the task of, for instance, writing a review paper because the PI (on the journal's committee) was asked to do it but doesn't have time.

I had been studying on and off since November 2014; mainly read the Revised GRE Math review, and in January began to use Magoosh to review math, and also the verbal section, so my first practice score could have been higher because I had prepped a bit. I had to condense my intensive studying time into about 2 weeks. As you can see, there was a bit of variability, but not by much. The Power Prep II, the day before the actual exam, is uncanny in how close it is to my actual score the day after. It's kind of funny because the areas tested on the math section didn't overlap between the two, so I guess you could say it's luck of the draw. Since I'm aiming for top 10 programs for next year, I'm probably going to retake it for the math section sometime over the summer, but otherwise I feel like the scores are enough to get my foot through the door. Feb 1: Power Prep II Test 1: 161V 162Q Feb 8: Revised GRE Paper Test 1: 165V 159Q Feb 15: Revised GRE Paper Test 2: 164V 164Q Feb 20: Power Prep II Test 2: 164V 160Q Actual Test (Feb 21): 165V 160Q 5.5AW

Though I'm applying to graduate school for next year, I still like reading this stuff . Anyway, having gone to undergrad at an Ivy, I would say that the whole cut-throat aspect is reserved more for the undergrad experience (where kids, having had it reinforced their whole lives, value themselves only on their successes and good grades), and even then only within certain majors or pre-professional paths (think Business, Pre-Med). When I was working in a lab, I never sensed a spirit of competitiveness between graduate students. They were all focused on themselves, on their projects, going at it alone. It seemed like a lot of PIs were juggling too many roles and hats - writing grants, being on committees, consulting on the side, having to go to DC to be on some President's committee, etc. In other words, not a lot of the PIs seemed to be consistently there, in the lab, if a graduate student wanted more robust mentorship experiences. On top of that bureaucracy was a nightmare, and a lot of the science programs are housed in old, unrenovated buildings; just because the school has a large endowment and brings in NIH research dollars doesn't translate to good stewardship of those resources. Personally, I'm going to apply to a few select Ivys only because of their programs and the faculty in those programs, not because of a preconceived notion of competitiveness at the graduate level. The interview will be important for fit. However, I will, for the majority of my applications, be applying to top non-Ivy schools just because I would also like a campus that might be larger, friendlier, happier, and more likely to be investing in new facilities (to attract high-caliber faculty and students).

I was planning on applying to graduate school next year, but I wanted to begin preparing for essays next Spring/Summer. Therefore, does anyone know if there is a spreadsheet or list out there that already contains a crowd-sourced list of school/program specific essay questions? Thanks!