biochemgirl67

And should never commit until you've done a rotation. It's a big decision that you really don't have the information to make at interviews. "Thank you so much for reaching out to me! I am delighted to hear of my acceptance and really enjoyed learning about your program and community over interview weekend. I look forward to letting you know my decision after I have completed all my interviews.". I don't really think you need more than that. They know you have other interviews and that it's not fair to expect a decision made before those are completed.

This is the biology forum. But good luck regardless of discipline!

I've got one prescription... Chill pills for everyone. For the sake of everything holy, you'll get detailed information on interview weekend. And by the way, it's pretty true that at a certain level/caliber, the research and educational quality is equal across institutions. A grad student at Hopkins is not guaranteed more or less success than one at Harvard. Or Yale. Or UCSF. Or UPenn. Or Rockefeller. Or Weill-Cornell. Or Stanford. Or Emory. Or Vanderbilt. Or University of Washington. Or several other schools. Do you feel me yet? So wait until interviews to assess your options.

Having moved from the Midwest to the South, it's not as much of an adjustment as you would think. I really like it. The weather's a good shift and it's similar in terms of the people and the overall feel. I would recommend looking into Southern schools if you want to expand your list. You could also apply to Purdue as it has a fairly good reputation in microbiology.

Lol not the blocking! I messed up the first one that night by somehow managing to move the membrane when I tried to roll it together. I tried to learn it off Bio-Rad protocols that said to do it in buffer and I think it was too wet for someone with no experience in doing wet transfers. So I had to redo it and stay later that night. It's not that you don't have a chance. Those schools are literally the top in the country and can be a bit dodgy in reliably admitting students based on a common profile. I've never seen an American student apply to just 4 of the top 10 schools in our country just because it can be a bit of a crapshoot.

you can't use publications that haven't been at least submitted. It's in bad form. But otherwise, you'll be fine. Don't freak out, you'll have some good choices. No one expects publications out of undergrad, although they are a plus. It won't be a detriment and your experience speaks for itself. Hopefully you've done presentations and conferences, which are useful. Either way, you will get in to some of the schools on your list at least. You know when you think you're going to edit a post and then you just don't? Sorry about that. I'm tired and waiting for my damn Western to block. Ugh. (I messed it up the first time and am pretty sure it's gonna turn out shitty now too. Hey kids, come to grad school! )

Personally, I would say that your overall profile is low for a lot of the schools you've chosen. (Vandy, Cornell, Dartmouth, UTSW, WashU) Your research isn't anything more than expected because mosts applicants have that level. Your GPA is low and your GRE scores are a little on the low side. I'm of the opinion your undergrad's name won't matter that much unless it's a TOP school like Harvard, MIT, Yale, Princeton, etc. It's probably too late to change your applications, but maybe look into options like the NIH post-bacc or a lab tech job to bring your research experience into the light. Otherwise, I would suggest adding some lower level schools that are less competitive. You will be fine! I think you'll have some often awesome choices. Engineering backgrounds with extensive research are super cool! Your research experience is sorely lacking and it will be a toss up whether your stellar GPA and short-term projects will compensate. I would say that it might be an issue especially since you're international. I'm surprised you only applied to 5 schools, especially since they are so competitive. You really should diversify and create a back up plan in case it doesn't pan out. Many applicants will have great experiences with research and presentations and even sometimes publications. Really, it'll a be toss-up and I wouldn't be expecting anything.

Also, you could apply to some interdisciplinary/umbrella programs that have a neuro track. But otherwise, you'll be totally fine because a year and a half of experience is great!

I mean I'm straight so maybe my opinion isn't applicable, but I would not mention it in the SoP. I would mention it in a diversity prompt if there was one. If not, use the space to write about something else. EDIT: I just think that it would be super awkward to write. Like... "I find the same gender attractive. And that's all I have to say about that." I just wouldn't want to talk about it lol.

Sure! That'd be totally fine.

You know what? Because you can't do anything and you did your best, you need to repeat after me: Fuck that guy. Fuck that class. Fuck that rotation. I know we're supposed to use professional language, but sometimes you just have to drop a few F bombs. There is nothing you can do to change it other than move on. Work hard to do well in your other classes, choose a different rotation. Identify what you could have changed and make it a point to work on those things in the future. Do you need to learn better study habits? Do you need more of a work-lab balance? One failure doesn't constitute an entire career of failure.

So I know @Bioenchilada already said this, but you have so many more choices than you are giving yourself. You look like a direct-out-of-undergrad applicant, and I would HIGHLY HIGHLY OMG HIGHLY recommend you apply to some schools that are really strong in microbiology/genetics but aren't a perfect fit for the research you do now. Graduate school is about finding a great mentor in an interesting research area, not about defining your career specifically. You haven't tried so many options. You've had 3 years of the same thing and then 1 summer internship. I promise you, if you give yourself the chance, you will try something new. You may end up in the same field or similar topic, but if you don't limit yourself now, you can open up your horizons that much more. University of Washington, University of Wisconsin Madison, Harvard, WUSTL, UCSF, Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, etc are all schools within your grasp. You are so early on in your career, it is not worth limiting yourself to the a couple schools because you love the research you've been doing. You have nothing to lose by not limiting yourself, I promise you.

DAMN IT. I meant ON. I guess I was typing in between waiting for my gel to stain. I meant that if you're going to go to an institute, you have to go to the actual campus. Even though you may be allowed to collaborate from your current lab, you need to go to the program and form those connections. I understand the personal connection, but if that's the important thing to you, then don't apply outside of Boston. Rockefeller's fabulousness comes from the community of scientists that are there, as do any other programs. I would not go to a graduate school program that I wasn't going to live at. If that's not what you meant (if you meant that there will be a collaboration between the labs and you'll go back to Boston often, don't count on it because there are more factors that go into building a collaboration relationship that 1 graduate student) then sorry, I've misunderstood.

What about UMass-Boston or Brandeis? There's also Boston University. And if you are up for it, Yale is only a couple of hours away. But if you decide to go to Rockefeller, do yourself a favor and actually work off that campus. It's part of the reason that that place is so special. You won't make connections with those scientists otherwise.

Just want to say that age isn't an issue... although GENERALLY speaking, older applicants have more research experience. They'll have worked in industry, been at the NIH, etc. The time that you said you've had to decide you want a PhD... it hasn't been spent in science (from what I can tell, which could be wrong) and that might be an issue if you phrase it like, "Because I'm older, I know that I want to be a PhD." It sounds presumptuous simply because you are getting a PhD to be a scientist, not to be a PhD. You are still a straight out of undergrad applicant, so I wouldn't go to any lengths to differentiate yourself from that crowd. The only glaring problem I can see with you application is that you'll only have 1 LOR from a PI that knows you well. If you haven't kept up with the micro PI, then it's going to make it difficult. If it's been less than a couple years, it'll be fine, as long as you've kept up with him. To be competitive at a high level, as many LORs as possible from a PI are a must. They are one of, if not the most, important parts of the application. You'll be fine. Your application is stellar. You don't need to say anything about your technical skills, because it's not a really considered. As my current PI says, you're not in grad school to be the hands, you've got to have the hands and the brain. And the brain is more important. But here's something; unless you have some attachment to Brown, I would apply elsewhere. Like UCSF, Stanfod, UCLA, Weill Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, Sloan Kettering. They are actually much better schools. Brown has a weak research background compared to your other choices and is very undergrad focused. But it's up to you. Just peace of mind that it's over. I submitted in early November so I could focus on other things, but you definitely don't have to.