biochemgirl67
-
Posts
358 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by biochemgirl67
-
-
5 hours ago, blc073 said:
Honestly, just go to the best school to which you are admitted. Everything else will fall in place. Interests change, so you shouldn't pick a program based on whether or not they have the exact research you want.
You all can split hairs all day about rankings and what advice you have been given, but at the end of the day, the best programs place graduates into the best post-docs which place graduates into the best jobs. If you are going to do good research, you are going to do good research, regardless of where you do it. Why not do that good research at the best school within reach?
It's really better to look at like schools are in groups of rank. There really is no one top school, looking at any number of factor. There's a top 10, a top 20, sure. But if you get admitted into 3 schools that are in the top 10 in your discipline (and I'd like to reiterate that you won't find these top 10 in a ranking system anywhere), then choose based on fit. In short, there's a lot of factors going into this decision, and prestige is not a top concern nor is it a minimal concern.
Glad everybody's being so clear lol.
-
14 hours ago, Luptior said:
I drop Biochem simply because I only have two semesters left and the schedule is too full for me to insert another 3, 4courses… For the question you still confused, I'll graduate Dec 17 and prepare to apply for 18 Fall admission. So in addition to this semester, I only have 2 left. And there is no space (6 lectures maximum for each semester) so… I'm not that afraid of workloads but overloading seems more impossible plus that I want to do some research in the new direction. BTW, besides CS actually I can finish a bio minor thanks to the previous work on biochemistry but not sure if a minor can help
There's still more than 1 year before the DDL but I just get more and more worried about application …
For the points you mentioned… Actually, I'm still super confused what are the academic demography of compbio applicants? More comp background or bio background? CMU's website says they welcome the applicants from different fields.
"We welcome students from various backgrounds, including life sciences, computer sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, statistics or engineering majors. We especially welcome students with interdisciplinary backgrounds (e.g., with undergraduate (or Master’s) degrees in computational biology or bioinformatics), or multi-disciplinary backgrounds, for example, double major or major/minor in biology and a quantitative science."http://www.compbio.cmu.edu/?page_id=163
And if the more applicants actually hold a biochemistry degree, yes my biochem background cannot stand out and I even don't have a degree for that but will the comp sci help? And there are some applicants from computer science majors applying to this program, it's more impossible for them to get the upper biochemistry courses on their transcripts, will it undermine their chance to get into this kind of programs?
I know graduate courses might be a great bonus to the transcript, and I'm interested in taking 1 or 2 but definitely not that a lot. I know some of my friends who intended for Math Ph.D. actually took a whole bunch of grad courses but they are more theoretical and enjoys more freedom in undergrad curriculum… In my current lab, 2/3 of the PhDs come from LAC which seems even don't offer any graduate courses… How they solve these problems?
Actually, I love my wet lab experience so far but my worry is how the committee value them, will they think the "unrelated" experience as a waste of time? And I agree with you that most computational researchers underestimate the importance of wet lab and even the background knowledge…
They are literally telling you that in their opinion, that you don't need to check each box. That to them (as will be the case for many grad school applications if not all) your background will be tailored to your own "journey." I might stop looking at requirements and start taking a more holistic approach where I consider each change in your academic plan for a reason. I've already said that if you feel that your current schedule would be an overload, you shouldn't do it. I would keep the minor in biology or biochemistry if you can without any effort/minimal effort, because I feel like it underlines your hard work. I really think you need to stop looking at your degree as "helping" or not. Just do your Comp Sci degree and take a biology or biochem minor. You really want to stand out on your LoRs, your SoP, and your research.
On that note, go to a national conference and present if you can! Super fun to talk about and if you meet some faculty you later interview with, they might remember you. You school should have scholarships to allow you to go with no cost to you.
A couple grad courses is more than plenty... no need to go overboard. And at least in my experience, people from LACs have amazing GPAs. Makes me jealous lol. But actually being in grad school, I'm here to tell you that everybody's from a different background. There is no majority or whatnot (although in my particular program EVERYBODY majored in biochem or neuro... kind of funny actually.)
Well, I'm glad you don't view it as negative and maybe you're just freaking out a tad, but don't be worrying if the adcom thinks it's a waste of time. Did it help you get you where you are? Yes? Then it's not a waste time. Don't try to view your experiences from the lens of someone who hasn't experienced them and try to form your degree and all the associated opportunities into your perception of what the adcom wants. The truth is, you can't guess what they'll think and if you try you'll seem a little fake. Just be who you are, make the most of your opportunities, and apply to grad school looking to find the right fit.
-
I dropped neuroscience the semester I applied. No one cared. Dropped another class the semester before I graduated. Just don't do it continuously and try not to do it on core classes. You'll be fine.
-
20 hours ago, biotechie said:
Actually, I would venture that neither of those are super important for your PhD so long as you pick a good program. What you're talking about seems to be more what you should consider for your PostDoc, not your PhD. Well established PIs that have all of those things also are extremely limited on time to mentor their graduate students. Those are the types of PIs, at least in biomedical sciences, that offer the best place to do a post-doc. They have money to spend on productive postdocs, giving you the opportunity to gain independence and make the projects that will get both of you more papers and move you on to the next step.
Some of my peers in more established labs are not doing well, and some still have no data at the beginning of our 4th year. I chose a brand new PI with lots of projects who I knew would be a good mentor from my rotation. I might even get to graduate early.
Thus, I very highly recommend newer PIs. Often new PIs have the most time to devote to their students, and the earliest students are the generally ones that become the most successful, which makes sense given the extra time that they get from the PI. In addition, younger PIs tend to really be trying to push out papers, which means you'll have multiple projects and have to work hard, but it also means there are lots of options for presentations and papers for you. In addition, you also tend to get more experience in writing. You have to be the one to choose if the PI is going to be the right one to mentor you as you need, but I haven't met very many young ones that are not good mentors where I'm at. I have, however, had students who started after me come back and tell me they regretted choosing a big, gigantic lab where they don't get a lot of guidance. Definitely take those things into account when you're deciding.
In short, you should choose a newer PI that is known in the field, but still working their way up with a small to medium lab for your PhD. This gives you all kinds of necessary exposure, especially if you want to stay in academia. I think rankings systems are crap, but you should be choosing departments that you feel comfortable with and are graduating students at or below the national average (currently over 6 years) and that are able to place their graduates in good postdocs or jobs. Then for postdoc, you should aim for the best place you can get, the highest experts in the field. The postdoc will propel you to where you want to go... if you work hard.
This makes me feel better... I'm getting ready to rotate with a brand new PI and I'm really nervous. I love the energy but I've never worked with one before.
Also, in general, you want 1) interesting research 2) good funding and 3) good environment. Definitely agree that the famousness of the PI is a better thing to consider in post doc when you'll be more independent and the institution... Well, if you actually look at where the top-notch research is coming from, it's not always the Harvard Yale Princeton Stanford quad-fecta. Not that there is anything wrong with them, but the best research in whatever field isn't always there. I would say that you want to look for a place that has a large concentration of PIs that would be good mentors (read: not always gone 3/4 weeks in a month and also won't leave the institution after 5 years because no one gets tenure.) and has research that is interesting to you and has the potential to be publishable and finally is in an environment that makes you feel comfortable and intellectually stimulated. Finally, you want to make sure that the program and associated faculty generally have funding.
The most famous PIs aren't usually the best mentors. I can think of a few Ivies that have research holes in areas that I would be interested in (Brown, Dartmouth). And what's with this binary classification of schools? Ivy v. top public; there are institutions like Rockefeller, public, private, elite, etc that have EQUIVALENT impact in a common field. For example, let's look at biomedical research: Rockefeller, UCSF, Harvard, Vanderbilt (ok bias but still) all have same "level" stuff going on. Stanford, UW, UCLA, MIT, Cornell, Upenn, Emory, UTSW, WUSTL, UW-Madison, University of Utah and so many many more... they are all leaders in similar fields and are all amazing schools. It's really up to you where you fit in best science-wise and personally.
-
And by the way, if you write about all your experiences outside of compbio like they were a "waste time" then you're going to come across as very negative. Wet lab served a purpose and gave you a certain set of skills, just like compbio does. Just like both your majors have served a purpose to get you where you are. A lot of times many computational people (like your PhD friend) underestimate the value of scientific wet lab and think of the skills as throw-away or less valuable. But you're not just learning techniques in wet lab, you're learning how to experiment, how to think 5 steps ahead, how to deal with technical failure and fix it, and how to think about the science that you believe is happening when you're at the bench. These are all valuable and important skills in any scientist, wet or dry. You also will probably have to collaborate with wet scientists and if you can understand their mindset and their perspective, you will be better at your job.
-
On 9/29/2016 at 2:10 PM, Luptior said:
I listed gen and organic on the top… And yes, these are the courses I've taken...
BS in biochem almost is demanding major in my college, there are a lot of courses required. I still some courses left like Metabolic chem, a biochem lab, an inorganic synthetic lab, an pchem lab, which is not a lot but still need a bunch of time. And I feel maybe I already took enough courses for compbio(I'm not sure if it’s really enough for the research but according to the reccommeneded courses listed on CMU’s program website it should be enough), and the leftovers are mostly lab courses(actually I learn some or most of them in my undergraduate research before, so in my opinion there’s no need to take the course just for the credits…)
Actually I should be able to get at least a BA degree in chem since I’ve finished even more than the degree requirements, but college's policy restricts transfer students to get a degree if we transferred more than 50% of the major courses in… I do still have 2 semesters left, but I've some gened course(3), and a cell bio, an compbio course of bio dept, and some programming courses like algorithm, bioalgorithm and etc. Which I think are at some level more important for me if I want to apply for compbio program。
But I I do so I definitely cannot get a biochem degree...and not sure if it's a right choice...
Yeah, I realized that after I typed the whole thing up. In my defense, it wasn't quite clear but I was also having a bad day.
I mean, here's my perspective (and feel free to take it or leave it). Undergrad is primarily a way for you to gain a broad understanding of the entire field that you will be studying in grad school. Obviously there are practical skills in there, but in no way are you going to need to be able to use the Schrodinger equation or regurgitate the TCA cycle or know the intrinsic properties of lipid biochemistry or be able to draw the cell cycle or the thousands of other things we learn in all those classes. They don't feel like it at the time, but those classes are super broad. So in my view, all of those courses will be "important" and I could see you using any of them in combination with quantitative and computational biology. Undergrad is not about getting skills to list on a resume, if you're going for a PhD it's about building a solid foundation for your career ahead.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm actually not a fan of treating undergrad like every class should apply to your career. (I mean unless you are going for something skill-based, which you're not. Computer science is to some extent, but I mean like IT or secondary education or mechanical engineering.) If you really feel like you can't succeed in these classes because it's simply too much, then sure, go ahead and drop the biochem and be just computer science. I think you should keep it because I see biochemistry as the cornerstone of modern science, but know that when you apply to the PhD programs, they will only see "Computer Science" listed. You can point out your work in biochemistry, but honestly it's not extensive enough for me to have pointed out because I would have been afraid the committee would either 1) not care because all the other applicants would have the basics too or 2) wonder why I was pointing it out if I dropped the major because it was too much work. You haven't done graduate work or really specialized courses above and beyond the biochemistry curriculum, so I would imagine that it would be non-information. You also haven't done very much computational biology research yet (Still don't know when you're applying) so you really need to think about how you're going to answer the question of why you want to do that type of research and get that type of training.
-
I'm an idiot... that was a list of classes you've already taken, wasn't it?
Ugh. This day, it just keeps getting better.
-
Hmmm... I think you should continue with the biochem major. The basic understanding of biochemistry and all its associated fields will apply really well in computational biology programs. I get where the grad student was coming from, but just remember that when he said important, he meant practical. He means that he applies coding every day, which I'm sure is 100% true. But going back and trying to play catch up to all the people with biology backgrounds that understand the specifics of protein structure and what techniques are used in molecular genetics and can scientifically logic through a metabolism pathway? Those things are important in the less practical parts of a PhD... reading papers you'll use to write your grants, discussing in journal clubs, passing your qualifying exams. Computational skill is 100% a plus and super important, but I don't feel like it trumps biochemistry/biological study such that it renders the basics of biological processes unimportant. And why would you drop it? It'll be hard work but worth it.
And honestly, you're graduating in a "off" semester, so you could stay 1 more semester if it works financially or take a post-bacc/research assistantship to increase your computational experience past 2 semesters. Then you would be set to apply by fall of 2018 (or fall of 2019, if you need the extra time to offset your grades). That would definitely decrease the workload if you're concerned about it.
Also wondering why you haven't taken Gen Chem OR Organic yet... Any of it???
-
3 hours ago, godspeed said:
Undergrad Institution: Top 10 liberal arts school (good reputation in undergrad education, but not known in research field)
Major(s): Honors in neuroscience and behavior
GPA in Major: not calculated but I calculated as 3.65/4.0
Overall GPA: 3.4/4 (strong upward trend, 3.9 senior year)
Position in Class: average?
Type of Student: (Domestic/International, male/female, minority?) Asian male
GRE Scores (revised/old version):
Q: 160 (76)
V: 151 (51)
W: 4
B: not takenIs it worth taking again to raise Verbal score??
Research Experience:
2 years in a autism lab @ undergrad institution (3 conference posters, thesis paper, 1 third author paper)
1 year in a behavoiral lab @ undergrad institution
1 summer at a top alzheimer's lab @ top research university
1 year at a top neurodegenerative lab @ top research university (IVY), full-time RA (1 first author paper, 1 second author paper)
Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Received honors distinction in major. Research grant awardee during Undergrad (2k)
Special Bonus Points: I think my recommendations are going to be the strongest point of the application. Two of which are my current PIs (couple hundred publications between them) and one is a professor who I worked with for my senior thesis. I took a break from research the last 2 years to work in pharmaceuticals but now ready to pursue a PhD. Significant other lives in NYC and looking primarily at schools in NYC.
Applying to Where:Neuroscience PhD Program at the following institutions
Cornell NYU Columbia Icahn Sloak K. Oxford/NIH Rockfeller Yale Harvard Princeton MIT Upenn Brown I just want to know if my stats are good enough to have any shot at these schools, please help...
Is it worth taking the GRE again?
Should I be looking at some mid-tier schools at well? Any recommendations?
Thank you guys
Your experience in pharmaceuticals is a great addition to your profile, as is the fact that your academics seem solid.
I mean if you're really focused on NYC and the general area, maybe take Yale and Princeton off and add Cornell Weill and Albert Einstein. Yale is not somewhere you'd like if your preference is to live in a place like NYC. And Princeton is very basic science oriented. Strong but definitely basic and your other choices seem to have a medical tilt.
Also, and maybe this is just my perception, but Brown doesn't actually have the super strong research the other schools on your list do. But maybe go look at pubmed and see the papers published out of the department there and see what kind of impact journals the papers are in. In 4 years and some serious paper reading, I've never seen anything in a high impact journal from there. I know someone who went there and from what she said, the emphasis always seemed to be on the undergraduate students' experiences. But again, do the journal thing and don't just take my word for it.
Otherwise, I think you're competitive. Though I would take the GRE again if you can stomach it, and try to get your scores over the 75th percentile.
-
6 hours ago, myhairtiebroke said:
Just after I read this, one of the PI's I was waiting on a reply from got back to me - they had been traveling! lol
Thank you for all your help. I think I'll have to reevaluate how important having a particular research topic is to me, or how much I'm willing to stray from it for grad school.
For what it's worth, I think you should be relatively flexible in your research. Shoot for general areas that aren't a specific topic simply because 100% of PhDs I've met changed their research from grad school into the rest of their career. You want to look for interesting questions that will produce publishable data with a good mentor. But just my thoughts!
-
9 hours ago, myhairtiebroke said:
I see. Is it worth emailing them again after a week if I haven't heard back? I'm worried about annoying them and seeming eager - even though I am.
Hopefully I don't seem presumptuous when asking about their research, lol. I certainly don't try to frame it like that. Is 10ish faculty really the goal for applying to a program? I've been happy with finding 3-5, so am I being too specific?
I mean, it's up to you but I wouldn't email them again. Most people have email on their phone (my PI currently has his synced to his watch) and therefore see it when you email them. Of course, there can be circumstances like traveling and whatnot. If you are really interested in the lab and haven't gotten a reply from them, I might try emailing the graduate students. They'll be really honest and also can tell you if the PI is traveling or not.
I think that as long as you don't ask, "So what would I be doing if I were to join your lab?" you should be fine. Ask about future directions, sure, but the question about projects that you could do is kind of misplaced. They can't tell you because they might have students joining this year that might want to work on the project so they don't want to promise anything.
I shot for 10 at the bigger programs. If it was a smaller program, say for instance Rockefeller, I didn't really pay attention that much because I knew how amazing the research was there and also I knew there were only about 10 people total (maybe) that did anything in my field, so it was obviously going to be reduced. Also worth considering, I was open to researching a topic that wasn't in what I thought I wanted to do (immunology) so I counted those people. But if you're committed to your research topic, then I think you interest count will obviously be lower.
-
4 hours ago, myhairtiebroke said:
I've been emailing professors for 1.5ish weeks now, but very slowly, lol. So far, only four. Two were the ones I spoke on the phone/Skyped with last year, but I'm still waiting for responses. One suggested which programs I should I apply to in order to rotate through her lab and said we would talk if I got an interview, and the last professor asked me to email them again in October when they are less busy. The latter two responded within the day I emailed them.
What do you mean by "If it's been over a week, it's not a lost cause but it doesn't look good for affecting your application"?
I understand that emailing won't help with actual admissions. I think every program I have applied to does rotations as well so professors wouldn't be able to have a say in admissions. I email to check if professors I am interested in are even considering taking on new students, and to get a better feel for their research - mostly current research and potential future projects.
Lastly, thanks for the school suggestions! I will check them out.
I simply mean that in a week, if they haven't gotten back to you, there is a good chance that the email is buried in their inbox. I mean, it's possible they'll clean it out and see it if they've been gone at a conference.
Also, it's grant time now, so some of the less-well-funded professors won't be able to say whether they are taking students or not. I'm just worried that it might be a bit presumptuous to ask what you might be working on in their lab. I guess if what you are working on is so specific you can't find 10 ish faculty in the program you might be interested in, then emailing is a good idea.
-
13 hours ago, myhairtiebroke said:
Ok, will do. Now that you mentioned it, my undergrad PI's 2015 LOR was likely identical to the 2013 one (he submitted them within minutes.) I'll talk to and update them on new stuff that I did. My NIH LORs were fairly involved. They sat down with me and talked about my goals with grad school, and before leaving the NIH they also mentioned they were open to more discussion to ensure I could get in somewhere this cycle, so I feel good on that end. And I will definitely expand on the programs I'm applying to.
It was variable. Last year, most replies boiled down to "good luck, and we can talk if you get invited for an interview," so they likely weren't too interested. I spoke to one over the phone, and another over Skype who were very helpful and seemed interested. I've emailed both of them this year, but I'm waiting to hear back. It's been over week, so I might bug them again next week or wait for October - I think I emailed them as the semester started so they're probably swamped. I've only just started reaching out to professors this year, but the one reply I got so far was essentially "good luck, and we can talk if you get invited for an interview."
How long has it been since you emailed them? If it's been over a week, it's not a lost cause but it doesn't look good for affecting your application. Also, I believe that emailing faculty does not in any way help you get an "in" into a program. Unless you're going to be a direct admit, but those require more of a relationship and also aren't common in the biological sciences. I mean look at it this way, faculty want to choose their grad students from a pool of qualified people and so use the admissions committee as a filtering mechanism so they know in general everybody in the program is academically qualified and has a demonstrable aptitude/interest in science.
So my point is, email faculty if you have a valid question about the institution, the program, or their research, not if you're looking to get a leg up in the competition (not that you are, just PSA).
Have you looked into microbiology programs at University of Iowa, University of Tennessee, university of Utah, or other similar schools? They have great research but aren't necessarily University of Wisconsin-Madison competitive in microbiology.
-
16 hours ago, myhairtiebroke said:
I should clarify: I applied 2013, 2015, and reapplying now. It wasn't two years in a row, and my 2013 was admittedly shoddy compared to 2015. I had a lower GRE score, and aside from my undergrad PI's LOR I had two professors I only knew as instructors, so those letters likely weren't that great. I also didn't have a first author publication at the time (project was ongoing during 2013 grad apps.)
Point taken on the GRFP. I will be more rigorous in getting feedback on my applications this year. I will also try expanding my list of schools. My strategy (last year) for picking schools was finding professors I liked, seeing which schools they were at, and then evaluating whether programs were a good fit (mostly whether or not there were other professors in the same program I wouldn't mind working with.)
Is that ok to do? I get that they're old letters of rec, but I'm pretty sure my LOR writers aren't going to drastically change the letters for this cycle.
Okay, but you shouldn't have been straight up rejected from every school you applied to, especially with 3 good letters and a first author publication and good statistics. The problem is that theoretically, you should have gotten something and that says to other people that you aren't seeing something about your application. And your LoRs will probably be exactly the same... professors are as lazy as regular people, unless something new has happened with them and you in the past year. You should definitely ask to see them, although you want to be careful because it could come off like you're saying that they might have been the reason for your rejection last year.
Maybe change the way you're approaching choosing grad schools? Something isn't clicking with your profile and the schools you applied to. I think you should apply to them and also about 5 more programs that aren't as competitive. If I remember correctly, you wanted to do host-microbe stuff? That's really common (which is a good thing) meaning that you should be able to find some schools with a strength in it.
-
You shouldn't do the NSF GRFP because you're not currently working under anybody. You can do that your second year of grad school.
I mean, at this point I might go back to your letter writers and ask them to be specific and detailed with criticism of your application. The point is two-fold... if there is something you're not seeing, they'll tell you and if they are writing sneaky bad letters, you'll get an idea. Some professors will do that and not tell you, although if you have a good ongoing relationship with them, I think it's unlikely.
What's really weird is NIH post-baccs are highly sought after. Maybe apply to some different schools? It's getting to the point that you're going to have to decide if you are going to hold fast to the list of schools you want to go to or if you want to go to grad school. I'm not saying you won't get in, just that with past history in mind, add 5 more mid-tier schools.
-
On 9/16/2016 at 7:46 AM, cumulina said:
How do you feel about your programs now that you're on the other side?
I know research fit is very important, but putting that aside, is doing research in a different city really all that different? do you think you'd be able to get a similar educational experience elsewhere?
Please and thank you!
I'm waiting for my FBS to thaw so I thought I'd chime in.
I love LOVE Vanderbilt. The research here is so interesting to me and the faculty here have amazing connections to all the other top institutions. Everything is disease-focused, either from a basic science standpoint or closer to translational research, all of which was something that I did not have in my undergrad. I could go on for forever about how amazing I think Vanderbilt and it's medical center and the IGP program are, but I really want to focus on the other part of your question.
I feel like it's not the city that makes the research different, it's the institution. For instance, when I spent the summer at Harvard, I was dumbstruck with the quality of research ideas that flowed through that place. It was vibrant, it was bustling, and all the researchers had this underlying sense of urgency to investigate and it truly was an intellectual powerhouse. However, I had some experiences personally that showed the flip side to that (which is not to say that these experiences are pervasive at all at that institution, just an anecdote) which saw my PI and the others he "collaborated" with as fierce competitors. The labs weren't tense, but relations among faculty in that particular division were. I knew that I wanted that vibrant research atmosphere more than anything, which wasn't present at my undergrad. My undergrad mentor was letting her lab die off, which was an issue and contributed to me feeling less than excited about research in basic science-only institutions. However, Princeton is a good example of an institution that does basic science solely but really is a leader. I wanted disease focus, so I stayed away from institutions like my undergrad.
Research here has been much faster pace, a much steeper learning curve, and more interesting than my undergrad projects. The PIs are motivated, enthusiastic, and well-connected. All in all, the institution is what has made the difference in the research environment, not the city.
That being said, I LOVE NASHVILLE. It's so funky downtown (not the tourist part but all the other parts) and there are so many concerts. I'm really into theater and alternative music (great combo, I know) and there has been a huge Shakespeare festival going on and there's always alt rock bands coming in. And there's some really awesome hiking, cliff diving, canoeing, and camping sites within a 20 minute drive of the campus. But then again, remember, I'm not a city girl. I like to have it accessible but I grew up in the Midwest with a literal cornfield in my backyard, so I like space to breathe.
And the weather's bomb here, which can't be said for the Northeast. *Shots fired* (I'm kidding. Sort of... in New England they get an INSANE amount of snow at once... when we lived in the Boston area it could be 1-2 feet at once, at least 2x a month November - March/April.)
-
Um, just... don't apply to a school and get your hopes and dreams all pinned up in working with someone. There's a lot that goes into that decision, not even counting the whole funding aspect. (For instance if you and Student A both love it in the Lab of Dreams but the professor can only take 1 student and Student A has an NSF-GRFP or a departmental training grant that assures ~2 years of study, they might be very VERY tempted to take the person they don't have to pay tuition, health insurance, stipend for.) I know people say minimum 5 people of interest, but I would posit that number needs to be closer to 10. Simply because professors aren't always taking students and many won't commit to telling you either way before you're even in the program. Not because they're mean or whatever but because grants and things come in all the time.
Also, your stats are low for schools like Harvard and such, and I'm not just talking GPA. Your research, unless it's been full time AND productive, is really just at the minimum for top tier schools. (Not just Harvard, but I'm talking the entire top tier.) I'm not trying to put anybody down, but I and the other people on here want you to realize that you should apply to 1 or 2 of these top schools and focus on a more diverse school set for the bulk of your applications. Really, going to grad school in the biological sciences with your hopes pinned on something sets you up for a lot of disappointment. Please, apply to Harvard but realize that it is a very long shot and that you should be focusing that enthusiasm at other schools as well.
-
14 hours ago, Born-to-pipette said:
Oh, lovely. My dilemma/thought process when selecting immunology vs cancer bio for non-umbrella programs:
1. My primary research interest lies in cancer immunology; however, I hesitate to apply to immunology programs over cancer programs because of points 2, 3 & 4 below.
2. I'm predominantly interested in immunology within the context of cancer. I have limited interest (at least developed thus far) in other aspects of immunology research (i.e., infectious disease, etc.)
3. I'm still quite interested (albeit to a lesser extent) in other aspects of cancer research -- mainly drug resistance, metastasis, tumor microenvironmental interactions.
4. I believe I am more competitive for cancer programs than immunology programs -- both in terms of previous research experience as well as my existing grasp on the field-at-large
5. Immunology program curriculi are more appealing.
6. Some cancer/immunology programs have substantial overlap between cancer immunology faculty. For these schools, if there are additional cancer bio faculty whose work I'm interested in, I will likely apply to the cancer program.
7. In some institutions, cancer immunologists are primarily in the immunology department and not in the cell/mol bio program. In this scenario, I will likely apply to the immunology program -- although I am a little nervous about the increased stringency of admissions...
Is this a good way of approaching it?
Apply to umbrella programs!!!!!
So this is coming from a person that actually was against them during admissions because I was interested in immunology in the context of disease. However, my ass ended up in a umbrella program because that's how life works and I did not realize how much freedom it affords until I started to rotate. Vanderbilt IGP allows you to rotate with anyone of about 170 faculty which is great if you want to possibly try something new or if you just want that safety net. For instance I work in a biochemistry lab that interrogates virally infected cells from the perspective of innate immunity. Next rotation I want to do the host-cell interactions of KSHV. I have also been thinking about trying a structural biology lab in the spring.
So you see, if I get into a subject and hate it, or more likely simply change my mind, then I can easily explore other options. Also, a lot of times the interest subjects of entering students are fields that are incredibly saturated right now... cancer immunology and neuroscience come into mind. What if you decide you want to work on the pharmacology of cancer treatments in leukemia? Or in the changes of lymphocyte trafficking through infection?
Don't exclude umbrella programs one way or the other and don't exclude departmental programs. Apply for fit and keep it in mind you probably will change your mind in grad school about what you want to do.
-
But not for me! I'm quite happy in the sciences.
My fiance is a materials engineer and has always wanted to do R&D. He did an 8 month co-op in it and has been working for the past 4 months in an academic lab. He's graduating in December and is trying to find a job until he says that he wishes he could go to grad school because R&D is impossible without an advanced degree. First off, is this true?
He has a 3.02 GPA, specializations in polymers and metals (I'm pretty sure that's what they are called) will have 2 publications by the end of the semester, is a first generation Hispanic college student, and is super passionate about materials. So I'm trying to use all my resources (ie this place) to figure out if there is a way he can go to grad school at Vanderbilt, where I go, because he's been drooling over the program there. In biology, you can take a could of years "off" to gain experience as a lab technician. Is this something he could do? Would it help offset his GPA (Which started off low but had a strong upward trend)? What are some options he could come up with to make a career in materials R&D? Also, are engineering master's funded?
I'm sorry my questions are so basic, but it's really a whole different world. Ask me about applying in biomedical sciences, sure. But engineering???
-
On 9/2/2016 at 11:30 PM, Flux1100 said:
My recent project is my master thesis project whereas what I consider old are projects done while I was an undergraduate.
all my projects are related to mymajor. The problem is that my research interests developed over time and some of those projects became irrelevant to the research topic I want to pursue
I would mention the ones you didn't get a LOR from only briefly. Obviously you want as much room as possible to talk about your master's thesis. Also, in writing there is a "rule of 3" which easily corresponds to the 3 LoRs. So to be most effective, choose 3 to talk about in detail and gloss over the others in 1-2 sentences. Otherwise your SoP will be unbearably long or long and without important detail.
-
If it were me and I felt I could do better, I'd take it again. When I took it, I tried to get 160+ on both sections and 4.5+ on AW so it won't be an issue.
Also (and I'm probably about to freak you out), but there is a chance that it will come back to play a role. If your program doesn't assign training grants outright the first year (and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS) then it contributes to your application for those. Obviously not as important as your performance in your 1st year, but still. This is common in umbrella programs where the funding source changes. Like I said, it will contribute along with your uGPA (so basically your admission application) and mostly your performance.
-
7 hours ago, VirologyPhDinTraining said:
Up until this week I haven't even heard of this process. Details so far have been sparse, and I can't find anything online about it. I want to know if anyone knows anything about this process in general.
Sorry to butt in, but I have to say, based on only 2 WEEKS of grad school I would NOT EVER join without being able to rotate. Not in this field. It takes so long to get a PhD and you can be pretty miserable if you get it wrong.
Example: I met with a professor I thought I wanted to work with. They look good on paper, we even got along really well. However, when I met with her grad student, she let me know some of the drama that had transpired in this laboratory AND about some of the negative aspects of the faculty's personality. Then a couple other students said they had heard some stuff about her mentorship abilities. Now, this is not to say you should trust everything you hear. But you SHOULD take some pause and think if those things might be serious problems for you. If you talk to 3+ independent people and hear the same things, it is very likely true. Also, if you were to ignore the warnings and rotate in the lab (which I may very well still do. My school has 4 rotations.) you're only wasting 1 rotation, NOT 5+ years of being miserable. So all in all, faculty members know how to sell themselves and know what you want to hear. I would heavily warn against going into a program where you've already committed to a lab.
- facelessbeauty, biotechie, Beanstian and 1 other
-
4
-
3 hours ago, Bioenchilada said:
I would also add that you should avoid writing generic sentences in the personalized section of your essay, or things that make it sound like you're idolizing the school. My rule was if I could replace the name of the school with another and the sentence/paragraph would still make sense, I wouldn't write it. Overhyping a school just feels weird, in my opinion.
Using this approach, I feel like a wise applicant will narrow down their list to schools they are legitimately interested in.
YESSSSSSS. Preach! The schools are acutely aware of the fact that they are good. (I had someone at Harvard say, "We know we're Harvard, you don't have to tell us." Instead, do exactly what @Bioenchilada says... write about specifically what is at that school that interests you. Faculty, research, faculty. And why YOU are a good fit. Sorry to chime in, I know that you already have 2 grad students on here, but I just felt like this is a common mistake.
-
I would rather have a strong letter of recommendation from someone that knows me academically than a mediocre person I had worked with. Is there a program director or something you've really impressed during your master's? Someone involved in your master's thesis? Mediocre letters can be really detrimental at high level schools. Just my 2 cents, but you seem to be otherwise competitive at the schools you've listed. Stanford, Harvard, and the like can be a bit dodgy with admissions. Sometimes it's referred to as a crap shoot, and it can be. You could try applying to schools that really put a high emphasis on research experience like Rockefeller, Cold Spring Harbor, etc. I understand you don't want to spend the money on applications... ask for fee waivers from the departments you apply to! They exist and who knows, they might just give you one. Also, these schools don't need your $100. And IDK if you're even interested, but Vanderbilt has no application fee. Just to save money!
2017 Applicant Profiles and Admissions Results
in Biology
Posted
I don't think that's the issue. I think a DVM-PhD might be an interesting LoR, especially if you've worked closely with her for a long-term project. If this is not the case, then maybe you need to take 2 years to be a lab assistant and get another strong letter. If you really are set on applying to the schools you've listed, I think you may be in for some disappointment this time around. Maybe be a bit more realistic about the programs you've chosen based on the fact that you have a quite low GPA and have one sustained research experience. Your publishing will be a huge plus, but not enough to counteract the other deficiencies at the schools you've chosen.