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.

I mean, you've got to do what's best for you. But just remember it's actually very easy to apply molecular biology to neurobiology. Because neuroscience includes cognitive and psychology, it might be more limiting if you later decide to something different. It's paramount that you be sure about this before you do it because you won't get a do-over. It just seems you are shooting into the dark with talking to the program director before you were sure/had a plan of attack. Of course they aren't going to be happy! And now you're thinking about going to a different school... but applications are due in a month. Why did you choose this school/program in the first place? Was it really that there was "expectations" after graduation? Or did you have cemented reasons? I just find it hard to believe that people would tell you that you had to go into molecular biology just because you did your undergrad in it because ~99% people change fields at least a little. You should write those down to make sure this isn't a "grass is greener" type situation.

That's all you can do. Chillax and try not to drive yourself insane. You have 5-6 years ahead of you with which to drive yourself crazy. Just bank on the fact that you is SMART, you is KIND, and you is IMPORTANT. It'll come through in your interviews. That goes for everybody on here!

1) contrary to popular belief, professors are not thinking about taking you on for a rotation right now. They are busy with their current students. I would be a little wary of PI that wanted to lock you in right now because you're not even there yet. 2) I would use one or two labs and say they are examples of work you are interested in. 3) you seem to be interested in developmental biology and cell biology. Say that and then explain 3 different topics briefly and how they fit together. For example, if you're interested in developmental biology, talk about developmental patterning and signaling and it's role in structure formation coupled with apoptosis. You could also talk about how you are interested in cell cycle arrest/control in developmental processes.

You're trying to generalize too much... just do your best on your interviews and you'll be fine. Trying to plan with percentage points will drive you insane my friend.

Chillax... you'll be fine. It won't be an issue whatsoever.

I wouldn't list in preparation, but if they have been submitted, list them. Or at least, I did and no one said anything bad about it lol. Other than that, I think you have a good list. Because I'm a worrier, I would include 1 backup school (I know, I know. Everybody says there should be no safeties. But I like to have one to make myself feel better.) But if you feel confident without it, it won't matter anyway. You'll likely get interviews at some of the schools at the very least. Also, if you're interested in virology, Emory has a pretty great emphasis on it. Just in case you want to add one more to your list.

You might want to apply this year, just make a list of schools that fits your profile plus a couple of reach schools. Also mix some master's programs in there. Then make the best decision after you have more information. There isn't really much you can do in a year to improve your profile. You might get some really great opportunities out of this cycle or you might get some rejections. Just make sure you have multiple types of options. Maybe I didn't provide enough context. If the person is someone who thinks the only acceptable PhD program is a top tier program but they lack some important application points in combination, they might be in for a disappointment. I mean "settling" in this negative context. If an applicant considers going to a school "settling" and really wishes to be a top tier school (which may not be attainable), that seems like setting up for a bad situation. If this same person ONLY wants to go these top schools, then the best way to do that (if this cycle doesn't hold any acceptances) would be to fundamentally change your profile through a master's or industry. Just my opinion though.

@bkim346 If you view anything under the top schools you've chosen as "settling" for your PhD, go get your master's or spend some time in industry. Those are your 2 best ways to try and catapult yourself into a top tier school with limited diversity of experience and lower academic qualifications. If, however, you could see yourself being happy at different types of schools, you will be well-positioned to apply broadly and attend the best fitting program, regardless of prestige. Basically all we are saying is only you know your priorities. Personally, I would apply broadly and have a back-up plan if I didn't like any of the schools (probably a post-bacc or actually apply to a few master's programs) and try to be really flexible. But I know people who wanted to top named programs, and so that's where they focused. My friends got in because they had amazing stats and amazing experiences, but on here some people fail to get in to one or all of the schools they've applied to because they shot to high for themselves with their profile at the time.

I'd like to point out to all the impressionable applying students, especially those coming straight out of undergrad, that "top person" is so subjective. It's in flux and it's not a real thing. Don't choose schools/programs based on a PI (not saying VirologyPhDinTraining did, just that someone with a master's is more focused/mature in their training and therefore more successful in making those kinds of decisions) because there are so many things that they don't tell you in undergrad. How do you like to be mentored as a growing scientist? 90% of you don't know (and you shouldn't!) and will find out during rotations. What do you want to study? So many of you think you know (I did and now I'm kinda falling in love with viruses) and end up in something else. Do you want to work in an established lab or a new one or something in between? Do you want your PI to foster a sense of community by trips to bars and parties or do you want someone who is more hands-off? Do you want your PI to jump in and train you or do you feel more comfortable doing that with a senior lab member? For someone who has not been in grad school before, fame of the PI should be last on your mind. If you already have a graduate degree, chances are you have your life a little more figured out and can make a decision like that and not regret it, just because you're more informed. But younglings, keep in mind that fame does not equal grad student success. It doesn't negate it, but there are a lot of ways to be successful in grad school, and it's not always by going to the top school/program and working with the "top" PI in the field. Choose a school/program where you fit in and a PI that will be a good mentor. Don't make decisions on fame and prestige if you barely have any experience in the field. And I know, it feels like you have a lot when you've worked in a lab for 2+ years, but do yourself a favor and give yourself as many options as possible because you might just want them in about a year from now.

I would ask a faculty member that knows you well that is not connected to the vet for their input before going forward, but I think it's an interesting letter. If you're looking to strengthen your app, go to a post-bacc program. @Bioenchilada and I never disagree so this comes as no surprise. But in order to get a really strong letter and overcome the deficiencies in your profile currently, you might need to do it for 2 years (if that's eve possible with that type of program). Because if you apply next cycle, you will only have ~3-5 months in that person's lab. The stats thing is... difficult. Unless you went to a top-tier undergrad AND published in high impact journals (Science/Nature/Neuron/Cell), publications won't make up for everything. This is what Bioenchilada was saying. Those people who overcame their 2.8 - 3.3 GPAs have a lot of diverse experience, maybe worked in industry for a bit, got a master's, worked in high powered labs as a lab assistant to work their way into publishing on a project, and/or also got published. GPA is a component and a consideration in this process because grad school is academic AND scientific, so adcoms are trying to make sure that the people they choose have a high probability of lasting through the entire program. So if you want to go to grad school at those specific schools, then you're going to have to wait at least a year. But you could look into some other programs that have really good research going on and are not in the tippy top tier of schools. I'm not suggesting you lower your standards, but take a good hard look at you and your profile and choose schools that fit you right now, not the person you wish you were. Grad school is not easy and top programs come with extremely high expectations. I'm just saying that given your profile and your high level of success in science as opposed to academic courses, you might be super successful in a program that has less difficult classes. Because as a spoiler, balancing between the high expectations in coursework (which later this year determine training grants at least here) and also in lab is incredibly difficult. But you know you best, and if you feel that you weren't trying your best in the coursework in undergrad or you had other circumstances, then take a couple years and apply to those schools. You could also apply this year and see what happens. Just also consider looking at other schools who routinely do important and interesting research in your field but also maybe aren't the top schools in the country.