velli

My impression is that a lot of folks know that there are significant factors out of your control when it comes to the NSF. Obviously, getting the award would make everyone involved happy, but an HM is worth a lot too and doesn't hurt you if you already have sufficient funding for your PhD. If you don't need external funding in order to do the research you want to do (e.g. as a joint advisee between two PI's), winning the NSF is icing on the cake for you. It could also mean your program or PI can take on an extra student, which is maybe the bigger reason there's pressure to win it.

It's hard to turn down an offer before weighing every option, and it's too early for a lot of people. Many programs have not even made funding decisions yet. Choosing a graduate program is a huge decision and I think it's fair for someone to take as much time as necessary deciding.

It's hard to turn down an offer before weighing every option, and it's too early for a lot of people. Many programs have not even made funding decisions yet. Choosing a graduate program is a huge decision and I think it's fair for someone to take as much time as necessary deciding.

The best time to take the general GRE is whenever you want to within the a year or two before you apply to graduate school. It felt to me like a harder version of the SAT. You should already have the requisite tools to do well, even if it takes some practice/studying. The chemistry GRE is more complicated because it draws from upper level chemistry courses. Take it after you've finished most of your undergraduate chemistry coursework. It might be best to take it the summer before your senior year (if you're planning to go straight into grad school) or after your senior year if you decide to take a gap year. 
 
Do you have research experience? Spending time in a research lab is the best way to figure out what you'd want to do in graduate school. It's the only way to get a hands on feel for what you want to spend 5-6 years working on during graduate school. In addition, you'll need to make an exceptional case to earn an admission without a reasonably strong research background. If you haven't worked in a lab, you should think about what gets you most excited about chemistry. That's the easiest way to narrow down a general subcategory of chemistry. For example, if you don't love mathematics and physics to go along with your chemistry, you won't enjoy chemical physics research, whereas if you loved biochemistry, you should look into chemical biology or biochemistry labs.
 
Lastly, don't be afraid to take a gap year to figure it all out. Doing research is the only way to figure out what you like best and there's no harm in taking a year or two to explore your interests before committing to half a decade in graduate school. 

At this point, you need to know. I wouldn't write specifically hounding them for a decision, but it might be worthwhile to touch base with them to express interest or thanks or something. If they can't give you any information, you should proceed with the decision-making as if it's a rejection. You can always cross that bridge if the waitlist comes through. 

There's not too much to do in the Palo Alto area. You'll see most of what you'd care for within a year of living there. My opinion is that it feels like a town for fairly well off families (safe and quiet -- perfect for raising your kids). You've probably heard it a bunch during your interview, but if you want some fun, you'll probably be heading into San Jose or SF. Like Chubberrubber said, having a car will give you much more flexibility. There's a lot of good food (California is super diverse and the cuisine reflects that) and lots of cool things to see and do, but they're relatively inaccessible with just a bike and a bus/train ticket.
 
Just as an aside, the Stanford shopping center is one of the more upscale places I've seen -- if you like shopping, be prepared to realize that something like J. Crew is one of your cheapest options. I personally wouldn't be able to budget for Palo Alto shopping on the 34k stipend (but you can drive to more affordable malls 15 minutes out if you have a car!). This is just my mini-rant because I like shopping.

I agree with BeakerBreaker, except for the Antarctica part...

Just wanted to chime in and say that I'm in a very "young" recently established program, and I think the mentoring here is phenomenal in part because of that. First of all, at this stage of the game, each individual student's success matters more in helping the program gain a good reputation and recruiting quality students in the future. So the faculty are very invested in setting us up for success. Secondly, by virtue of being new, our program has a lot of flexibility with respect to our individual needs because rules aren't set in stone and there's no "typical" way to do things, which I would consider to be a mentorship perk too. Just another side to consider when contemplating the newer institution

My personal ranking/rationale:
 
1) Finances, to make sure you can afford where you will be living. However, don't look at grad school as a money-making endeavor. Just make sure you have enough to live comfortably where you're going, unless you are willing to make personal sacrifices for a school.
 
2) Number of labs that match your interest.  There's a chance that your top, or top two lab choices won't be able to accept you for any number of reasons (unless you establish this ahead of time). Professors leave, lose funding, etc. You definitely want to be interested in what you are working on, and you don't want to bank entirely on one person unless it really is assured.
 
3) Establishment of the school + prestige. You want to make sure you are going to get a quality education. How productive are the faculty? How many connections will you be able to make? How much money is available to you? These are all considerations
 
4) Location. I'd do grad school in Antarctica if the program was good enough 

In order to rank them, it really depends on what your priorities are in life. It might be hard to know at this stage though, so maybe I'll rank these factors into two different categories and then you can decide your balance.
 
Ranking of career-based factors:
1. Resources available to ensure your success. This is often but not always, correlated with name/prestige. I think this is the number one most important factor for your future career goals. What you actually do in a grad program will have way more influence on your post-degree success of course, however, what you are capable of doing in your grad program is very strongly linked to how much resources are available to graduate students. Another way to think about it is that you don't want to go to a place where the lack of resources limits your ability to be the best you can be. 
 
2. Fit / number of labs you're interested in. I would worry more about personality fit than research topic fit. Your relationship with your lab/PI is correlated with your happiness/productivity. It's much easier to change your own research interests than it is to change your working environment.
 
3. Prestige of the school in your subfield. This is related to #1 (although usually the amount of resources comes from amount of funding, which is more linked to overall reputation rather than subfield reputation). It's important to take advantage of opportunities to meet top scientists in your field when they visit for seminars, colloquia, etc. If you are at a lowly ranked school, you are not going to be able to attract as many of these visitors. Similarly, you will not attract as many candidates for postdocs and potential collaborators.
 
4. How established the graduate program is. I don't think this is a very important factor for career reasons. This is because older programs are not necessarily better--lots of old programs have crappy systems and/or policies that are wasteful/annoying/unfair because "that's the way it has always been". New programs can be innovative and have more modern/forward-thinking policies. Perhaps a better factor is "what is the work environment like?".
 
Ranking of personal factors:
1. Financial circumstances. I put this first because financial stresses are one of the worst types of stresses, in my opinion. I've experienced it first hand and from working with student groups on campus, I've learned that this is one of the most common sources of stress/mental health issues for most graduate students. However, I want to clarify that by "financial circumstances", I mean that it is very important that the answer to "Does the stipend provide enough for me to live?" is yes, but I wouldn't consider money above this to be important. That is, if all else being equal, I would not use this factor to give preference to a program that pays $1000/year higher.
 
2. Preference for location.
 
3. Resources available for you to achieve work-life balance. Again, this is often closely related to name/prestige. You want to know if any particular resources you might want to use are available. For example, I personally asked questions about parental leave, childcare subsidies, can they help my spouse find a job, etc. Others might be interested in medical leave, personal leave (e.g. if you have relatives you know you might have to take a leave to care for), does the health insurance cover the things you need, are there enough social activities for you etc.
 
---
 
It's up to you to decide how much to weigh each list. Personally, I weighed them equally. This means that I would not consider any program that did not meet the #1 factor in both lists!

Congrats! You made the right choice, I have a friend who goes there for Immunology and he loves it. Hopefully I can join you.
 
Currently stuck in waitlist limbo there. They interviewed only 12 people out of 400 applicants for SCBRM and wanted to take 5 or 6 from those 12. ~1.5% acceptance rate! Crazy competitive, everyone was outstanding. Hoping that I can get an NSF GRFP to get me off the waitlist.

So, I finally made a decision everyone. I'm officially going to be a grad student at Stanford University!!! 

Professors don't want to hear that you're 100% set on a sub-field of research. They need to know you can handle doing 2-3 rotations without hating the research you're doing. Your interests will change, so you might want to change "I will study X in graduate school" to "I understand my interests have room to grow, but right now I find X most interesting." Obviously, I don't know what you said, but if you think the problem is research fit, the task for the next cycle is emailing potential advisors before applying to make sure they think you're a good fit for the program and that they will be recruiting graduate students for their labs. You also applied to at least five programs that I think were "reach" schools, given your stats and research background. Maybe apply to more middle tier programs? Those programs you got interviews from are no joke -- if you don't care too much about prestige, quite a few programs out there would be willing to take you. A few things to consider next time around.

Like Vene said, there must have been some red flags during your interviews. You're shy, but not socially awkward enough to warrant a rejection. That's good. Those professors meet with a lot of people, and if they're not on the adcom, they're probably more concerned with recruitment than with trying to pick apart your application. If you want an answer, you need to speak to someone who has been looking at your profile and your character critically, i.e. someone on the admissions committee.
 
Let's just assume you're reasonably likeable and that you communicate your science well such that you are not being rejected for issues with your resume or personality. The only thing I can imagine that would earn you these rejections is your niche research interest. If it's so specific that there are only a couple faculty that have the expertise to advise you, that might be the problem. In fact, if that's clearly your passion and it's not something you'll be able to work on at the schools you're interviewing with, you will get rejected as a bad fit for the program. Having a narrow or extremely well-defined research interest is a red flag to a lot of professors from what I've been told during my interviews.
 
It's also possible that you make a poor first impression. People who know you well probably think you're fantastic. People you meet for a first time might think something else. My impression is that you're judgmental, entitled and self-centered. Obviously, your friends know you well enough to see beyond that and this probably isn't who you really are with people you like. However, this is the sense I get having read several of your posts. This is my honest feedback that you asked for, albeit with a very limited sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope you can read through your past posts and figure out why I think this (hint: look at how frequently you make yourself out as a victim and how much you shit on other people).
 
My suggestion is that you apply to programs that don't do interviews. Your profile is strong enough to get you in somewhere and your recs were clearly good if they got you six interviews.
 
Edit: For the record, starting research in your junior year is not late. I didn't start until after my sophomore year. Your academic record looks OK for middle of the pack schools; you got interviews so you passed the "written" portion of the application process.

Professors don't want to hear that you're 100% set on a sub-field of research. They need to know you can handle doing 2-3 rotations without hating the research you're doing. Your interests will change, so you might want to change "I will study X in graduate school" to "I understand my interests have room to grow, but right now I find X most interesting." Obviously, I don't know what you said, but if you think the problem is research fit, the task for the next cycle is emailing potential advisors before applying to make sure they think you're a good fit for the program and that they will be recruiting graduate students for their labs. You also applied to at least five programs that I think were "reach" schools, given your stats and research background. Maybe apply to more middle tier programs? Those programs you got interviews from are no joke -- if you don't care too much about prestige, quite a few programs out there would be willing to take you. A few things to consider next time around.

Like Vene said, there must have been some red flags during your interviews. You're shy, but not socially awkward enough to warrant a rejection. That's good. Those professors meet with a lot of people, and if they're not on the adcom, they're probably more concerned with recruitment than with trying to pick apart your application. If you want an answer, you need to speak to someone who has been looking at your profile and your character critically, i.e. someone on the admissions committee.
 
Let's just assume you're reasonably likeable and that you communicate your science well such that you are not being rejected for issues with your resume or personality. The only thing I can imagine that would earn you these rejections is your niche research interest. If it's so specific that there are only a couple faculty that have the expertise to advise you, that might be the problem. In fact, if that's clearly your passion and it's not something you'll be able to work on at the schools you're interviewing with, you will get rejected as a bad fit for the program. Having a narrow or extremely well-defined research interest is a red flag to a lot of professors from what I've been told during my interviews.
 
It's also possible that you make a poor first impression. People who know you well probably think you're fantastic. People you meet for a first time might think something else. My impression is that you're judgmental, entitled and self-centered. Obviously, your friends know you well enough to see beyond that and this probably isn't who you really are with people you like. However, this is the sense I get having read several of your posts. This is my honest feedback that you asked for, albeit with a very limited sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope you can read through your past posts and figure out why I think this (hint: look at how frequently you make yourself out as a victim and how much you shit on other people).
 
My suggestion is that you apply to programs that don't do interviews. Your profile is strong enough to get you in somewhere and your recs were clearly good if they got you six interviews.
 
Edit: For the record, starting research in your junior year is not late. I didn't start until after my sophomore year. Your academic record looks OK for middle of the pack schools; you got interviews so you passed the "written" portion of the application process.

Like Vene said, there must have been some red flags during your interviews. You're shy, but not socially awkward enough to warrant a rejection. That's good. Those professors meet with a lot of people, and if they're not on the adcom, they're probably more concerned with recruitment than with trying to pick apart your application. If you want an answer, you need to speak to someone who has been looking at your profile and your character critically, i.e. someone on the admissions committee.
 
Let's just assume you're reasonably likeable and that you communicate your science well such that you are not being rejected for issues with your resume or personality. The only thing I can imagine that would earn you these rejections is your niche research interest. If it's so specific that there are only a couple faculty that have the expertise to advise you, that might be the problem. In fact, if that's clearly your passion and it's not something you'll be able to work on at the schools you're interviewing with, you will get rejected as a bad fit for the program. Having a narrow or extremely well-defined research interest is a red flag to a lot of professors from what I've been told during my interviews.
 
It's also possible that you make a poor first impression. People who know you well probably think you're fantastic. People you meet for a first time might think something else. My impression is that you're judgmental, entitled and self-centered. Obviously, your friends know you well enough to see beyond that and this probably isn't who you really are with people you like. However, this is the sense I get having read several of your posts. This is my honest feedback that you asked for, albeit with a very limited sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope you can read through your past posts and figure out why I think this (hint: look at how frequently you make yourself out as a victim and how much you shit on other people).
 
My suggestion is that you apply to programs that don't do interviews. Your profile is strong enough to get you in somewhere and your recs were clearly good if they got you six interviews.
 
Edit: For the record, starting research in your junior year is not late. I didn't start until after my sophomore year. Your academic record looks OK for middle of the pack schools; you got interviews so you passed the "written" portion of the application process.

First admit! What a relief!

Like Vene said, there must have been some red flags during your interviews. You're shy, but not socially awkward enough to warrant a rejection. That's good. Those professors meet with a lot of people, and if they're not on the adcom, they're probably more concerned with recruitment than with trying to pick apart your application. If you want an answer, you need to speak to someone who has been looking at your profile and your character critically, i.e. someone on the admissions committee.
 
Let's just assume you're reasonably likeable and that you communicate your science well such that you are not being rejected for issues with your resume or personality. The only thing I can imagine that would earn you these rejections is your niche research interest. If it's so specific that there are only a couple faculty that have the expertise to advise you, that might be the problem. In fact, if that's clearly your passion and it's not something you'll be able to work on at the schools you're interviewing with, you will get rejected as a bad fit for the program. Having a narrow or extremely well-defined research interest is a red flag to a lot of professors from what I've been told during my interviews.
 
It's also possible that you make a poor first impression. People who know you well probably think you're fantastic. People you meet for a first time might think something else. My impression is that you're judgmental, entitled and self-centered. Obviously, your friends know you well enough to see beyond that and this probably isn't who you really are with people you like. However, this is the sense I get having read several of your posts. This is my honest feedback that you asked for, albeit with a very limited sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope you can read through your past posts and figure out why I think this (hint: look at how frequently you make yourself out as a victim and how much you shit on other people).
 
My suggestion is that you apply to programs that don't do interviews. Your profile is strong enough to get you in somewhere and your recs were clearly good if they got you six interviews.
 
Edit: For the record, starting research in your junior year is not late. I didn't start until after my sophomore year. Your academic record looks OK for middle of the pack schools; you got interviews so you passed the "written" portion of the application process.

Like Vene said, there must have been some red flags during your interviews. You're shy, but not socially awkward enough to warrant a rejection. That's good. Those professors meet with a lot of people, and if they're not on the adcom, they're probably more concerned with recruitment than with trying to pick apart your application. If you want an answer, you need to speak to someone who has been looking at your profile and your character critically, i.e. someone on the admissions committee.
 
Let's just assume you're reasonably likeable and that you communicate your science well such that you are not being rejected for issues with your resume or personality. The only thing I can imagine that would earn you these rejections is your niche research interest. If it's so specific that there are only a couple faculty that have the expertise to advise you, that might be the problem. In fact, if that's clearly your passion and it's not something you'll be able to work on at the schools you're interviewing with, you will get rejected as a bad fit for the program. Having a narrow or extremely well-defined research interest is a red flag to a lot of professors from what I've been told during my interviews.
 
It's also possible that you make a poor first impression. People who know you well probably think you're fantastic. People you meet for a first time might think something else. My impression is that you're judgmental, entitled and self-centered. Obviously, your friends know you well enough to see beyond that and this probably isn't who you really are with people you like. However, this is the sense I get having read several of your posts. This is my honest feedback that you asked for, albeit with a very limited sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope you can read through your past posts and figure out why I think this (hint: look at how frequently you make yourself out as a victim and how much you shit on other people).
 
My suggestion is that you apply to programs that don't do interviews. Your profile is strong enough to get you in somewhere and your recs were clearly good if they got you six interviews.
 
Edit: For the record, starting research in your junior year is not late. I didn't start until after my sophomore year. Your academic record looks OK for middle of the pack schools; you got interviews so you passed the "written" portion of the application process.

Like Vene said, there must have been some red flags during your interviews. You're shy, but not socially awkward enough to warrant a rejection. That's good. Those professors meet with a lot of people, and if they're not on the adcom, they're probably more concerned with recruitment than with trying to pick apart your application. If you want an answer, you need to speak to someone who has been looking at your profile and your character critically, i.e. someone on the admissions committee.
 
Let's just assume you're reasonably likeable and that you communicate your science well such that you are not being rejected for issues with your resume or personality. The only thing I can imagine that would earn you these rejections is your niche research interest. If it's so specific that there are only a couple faculty that have the expertise to advise you, that might be the problem. In fact, if that's clearly your passion and it's not something you'll be able to work on at the schools you're interviewing with, you will get rejected as a bad fit for the program. Having a narrow or extremely well-defined research interest is a red flag to a lot of professors from what I've been told during my interviews.
 
It's also possible that you make a poor first impression. People who know you well probably think you're fantastic. People you meet for a first time might think something else. My impression is that you're judgmental, entitled and self-centered. Obviously, your friends know you well enough to see beyond that and this probably isn't who you really are with people you like. However, this is the sense I get having read several of your posts. This is my honest feedback that you asked for, albeit with a very limited sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope you can read through your past posts and figure out why I think this (hint: look at how frequently you make yourself out as a victim and how much you shit on other people).
 
My suggestion is that you apply to programs that don't do interviews. Your profile is strong enough to get you in somewhere and your recs were clearly good if they got you six interviews.
 
Edit: For the record, starting research in your junior year is not late. I didn't start until after my sophomore year. Your academic record looks OK for middle of the pack schools; you got interviews so you passed the "written" portion of the application process.

Like Vene said, there must have been some red flags during your interviews. You're shy, but not socially awkward enough to warrant a rejection. That's good. Those professors meet with a lot of people, and if they're not on the adcom, they're probably more concerned with recruitment than with trying to pick apart your application. If you want an answer, you need to speak to someone who has been looking at your profile and your character critically, i.e. someone on the admissions committee.
 
Let's just assume you're reasonably likeable and that you communicate your science well such that you are not being rejected for issues with your resume or personality. The only thing I can imagine that would earn you these rejections is your niche research interest. If it's so specific that there are only a couple faculty that have the expertise to advise you, that might be the problem. In fact, if that's clearly your passion and it's not something you'll be able to work on at the schools you're interviewing with, you will get rejected as a bad fit for the program. Having a narrow or extremely well-defined research interest is a red flag to a lot of professors from what I've been told during my interviews.
 
It's also possible that you make a poor first impression. People who know you well probably think you're fantastic. People you meet for a first time might think something else. My impression is that you're judgmental, entitled and self-centered. Obviously, your friends know you well enough to see beyond that and this probably isn't who you really are with people you like. However, this is the sense I get having read several of your posts. This is my honest feedback that you asked for, albeit with a very limited sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope you can read through your past posts and figure out why I think this (hint: look at how frequently you make yourself out as a victim and how much you shit on other people).
 
My suggestion is that you apply to programs that don't do interviews. Your profile is strong enough to get you in somewhere and your recs were clearly good if they got you six interviews.
 
Edit: For the record, starting research in your junior year is not late. I didn't start until after my sophomore year. Your academic record looks OK for middle of the pack schools; you got interviews so you passed the "written" portion of the application process.

I got accepted into my safe school, which is ranked lower than any other schools that I applied. I was planning on going straight to PhD from undergrad and I felt like I deserved better schools than just my safe school. Although I don't feel like going to my safe school, I am an international student and the only option left for me is to work for two years max in the US before I reapply. Right now I am still waiting to hear back from schools and it would probably be a little too late to apply for jobs in mid April. I don't know what the situation would be two years later and so I debating whether I should accept the offer and settle down or take a year off to improve my resume. 

Like Vene said, there must have been some red flags during your interviews. You're shy, but not socially awkward enough to warrant a rejection. That's good. Those professors meet with a lot of people, and if they're not on the adcom, they're probably more concerned with recruitment than with trying to pick apart your application. If you want an answer, you need to speak to someone who has been looking at your profile and your character critically, i.e. someone on the admissions committee.
 
Let's just assume you're reasonably likeable and that you communicate your science well such that you are not being rejected for issues with your resume or personality. The only thing I can imagine that would earn you these rejections is your niche research interest. If it's so specific that there are only a couple faculty that have the expertise to advise you, that might be the problem. In fact, if that's clearly your passion and it's not something you'll be able to work on at the schools you're interviewing with, you will get rejected as a bad fit for the program. Having a narrow or extremely well-defined research interest is a red flag to a lot of professors from what I've been told during my interviews.
 
It's also possible that you make a poor first impression. People who know you well probably think you're fantastic. People you meet for a first time might think something else. My impression is that you're judgmental, entitled and self-centered. Obviously, your friends know you well enough to see beyond that and this probably isn't who you really are with people you like. However, this is the sense I get having read several of your posts. This is my honest feedback that you asked for, albeit with a very limited sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope you can read through your past posts and figure out why I think this (hint: look at how frequently you make yourself out as a victim and how much you shit on other people).
 
My suggestion is that you apply to programs that don't do interviews. Your profile is strong enough to get you in somewhere and your recs were clearly good if they got you six interviews.
 
Edit: For the record, starting research in your junior year is not late. I didn't start until after my sophomore year. Your academic record looks OK for middle of the pack schools; you got interviews so you passed the "written" portion of the application process.

Professors don't want to hear that you're 100% set on a sub-field of research. They need to know you can handle doing 2-3 rotations without hating the research you're doing. Your interests will change, so you might want to change "I will study X in graduate school" to "I understand my interests have room to grow, but right now I find X most interesting." Obviously, I don't know what you said, but if you think the problem is research fit, the task for the next cycle is emailing potential advisors before applying to make sure they think you're a good fit for the program and that they will be recruiting graduate students for their labs. You also applied to at least five programs that I think were "reach" schools, given your stats and research background. Maybe apply to more middle tier programs? Those programs you got interviews from are no joke -- if you don't care too much about prestige, quite a few programs out there would be willing to take you. A few things to consider next time around.

Like Vene said, there must have been some red flags during your interviews. You're shy, but not socially awkward enough to warrant a rejection. That's good. Those professors meet with a lot of people, and if they're not on the adcom, they're probably more concerned with recruitment than with trying to pick apart your application. If you want an answer, you need to speak to someone who has been looking at your profile and your character critically, i.e. someone on the admissions committee.
 
Let's just assume you're reasonably likeable and that you communicate your science well such that you are not being rejected for issues with your resume or personality. The only thing I can imagine that would earn you these rejections is your niche research interest. If it's so specific that there are only a couple faculty that have the expertise to advise you, that might be the problem. In fact, if that's clearly your passion and it's not something you'll be able to work on at the schools you're interviewing with, you will get rejected as a bad fit for the program. Having a narrow or extremely well-defined research interest is a red flag to a lot of professors from what I've been told during my interviews.
 
It's also possible that you make a poor first impression. People who know you well probably think you're fantastic. People you meet for a first time might think something else. My impression is that you're judgmental, entitled and self-centered. Obviously, your friends know you well enough to see beyond that and this probably isn't who you really are with people you like. However, this is the sense I get having read several of your posts. This is my honest feedback that you asked for, albeit with a very limited sample size, so take it with a grain of salt. I hope you can read through your past posts and figure out why I think this (hint: look at how frequently you make yourself out as a victim and how much you shit on other people).
 
My suggestion is that you apply to programs that don't do interviews. Your profile is strong enough to get you in somewhere and your recs were clearly good if they got you six interviews.
 
Edit: For the record, starting research in your junior year is not late. I didn't start until after my sophomore year. Your academic record looks OK for middle of the pack schools; you got interviews so you passed the "written" portion of the application process.