biochemgirl67

Human samples are completely different from clinical, patient-focused research. For instance, today I talked to a lab that does do human sample research. But although the grad student will work with human samples, not interact clinically with them (ie the patients). Therefore the work is translational rather than clinical. It really is an important difference. Also, human samples are notoriously difficult to obtain in large enough quantities for experimental repetition unless you're at a big medical center. And as a PhD student there is absolutely no guarantee you'll work with anybody with clinical or translational emphases. The discipline patient interaction is common in is neuroscience, so if OP is interested in that, maybe they could find a happy medium. Oh and BTW, in order to get access to human samples later on in your career, you HAVE to have either an MD or have an MD in your research group. Otherwise you don't have access to the tissue banks. This might be important to OP looking ahead about WHY they would want to get a PhD rather than something else.

To be honest, most clinical work is done by MDs. Or MD-PhDs. You can't work with human samples without that MD and the closest you could get is translational work which generally is testing therapies in mouse models or the like. I'm not saying a PhD will limit you, and I'm sure somebody on here will jump to tell me that you can get involved in clinical research as a PhD student. However, I am saying that I'm at a medical center-based graduate school and nearly all the labs focus on the biomedical. And even here, you have to apply to the program in Molecular Medicine Certificate to get any involvement with patients. And even so, most clinical work after grad school (you know that job you'll get after?) is done by doctors. I would seriously consider changing your career path if you want to work in a clinical, patient-focused setting because grad school is not about that. Maybe do a PharmD because they have extra training you can do to work in hospital settings creating treatment plans for patients with things like cancer, autoimmune disorders, etc.

Princeton was my dream when I was 16! I met my hero-scientist, Bonnie Bassler, and really appreciated the opportunity to compare it to other schools. However, I really am interested in biomedical research, so I had to go to a school with a medical center. I thought master's were funded! They are at Iowa State if they are thesis programs, I'm 90% sure. You should look at the mcdb, gcdb, and bbmb master's programs there! I can tell you from personal experience the faculty are extremely well connected. Specifically, look at Amy Andreotti, Robert Dispirito, Scott Nelson, and Robert Honzatko. They all work in microbiology/immunology related biochemistry. And all have lots of funding and prestigious pasts. Amy did her grad work at Princeton and then a post doc at Harvard!

I think, for what it is worth, you have enough experience to counteract your GPA. However, you should apply to 10-15 schools just to have a selection. Your experience is very attractive and you should mention how you've overcome the difficulties of the chronic illness. I really do think you have a good chance! What do your mentors think?

Many top programs have a good production of biotech people, although it's super popular on the west coast. Unless you've had an issue with your GPA or are not doing anything related to physics (ie biophysics), you don't have to take the subject test. But you also seem like you don't have a clear direction yet because you're "torn" between so many topics. However, if you've had productive research and good academics, I can recommend some awesome places. Rockefeller, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Caltech , University of Washington, UCSF, MIT, WUSTL, and Vanderbilt would be good places to start. And btw it's actually not to your advantage to pick faculty members now... you have no idea if they will even be accepting students. Just make sure there are multipmu you are interested in. The places I mentioned have a lot of good research and connections, but if you don't have the profile for them, then maybe University of Utah, university of Oregon, UTSW, university of Iowa, Boston university, etc. It really depends on your profile. GPA, GREs, years of research, papers/posters/talks, graduate coursework, who is writing your LoRs and how that relates to what they can say about you, where you went to school. If you could fill in some gaps, it would help our suggestions on here!

I really do think another gap year would be best... although don't think of it as a gap year. Applicants who work in the field for 2 years (the time that's required to get a decent lor out of whomever you're working for just because of the application timeline) are viewed more mature, more focused, and more of a "sure thing" when evaluating the applicant's aptitude for finishing the full course. You've had longer to think about it, you're doing it because of a certain goal, and you're motivated to get out quickly. These are all good things. However, you could get into grad school this application cycle... you just might sacrifice it being a top tier institution. It's up to you if it's worth it. If it is, apply to a few dream schools but focus on schools of the same caliber as the ones on your list, excepting Cornell and WUSTL. Who knows, you might get into a top school, but don't focus there.

Yeesh. I mean it's not the best thing that he's looked upon as a "bad" scientist, but also, what he'll be saying about you has nothing to do with that. If you feel like he makes a bunch of claims about his work without having evidence, I might encourage you to come up with someone else who doesn't evoke such a response from fellow scientists. But if you decide to keep him, the adcoms are evaluating you, not him. I might reach out to an unbiased 3rd party (maybe an academic advisor?) to see what they would do. Be honest with them and they might have some good suggestions.

I mean, the study of molecular science/biology is really detailed. It requires a good deal of knowledge. It's not something you can just jump into without previous credentials. The piece of paper you refer to isn't just for the administration. And taking a couple classes while working is not the same thing as having a robust scientific background. You don't really have the experience, academic or research, to indicate to the adcoms that you can hack a 5-6 year program. You would have to get some actual INDEPENDENT research experience, not just working in a lab, and take a good deal of academic coursework. (Many PhD programs require foundational coursework and will make you take it before you can take their program. Especially if it's like biochemistry or genetics.) What about if you went and tried to get a master's? That would prove a good deal to PhD committees.

Unfortunately, a great GRE does in NO WAY offset GPA. Maybe the subject GRE would do the trick, but no one can promise anything. If this were me, I would under no circumstances pay $65,000 per year for a degree. Maybe I'm cheap, but why not go into industry or something for 2 years and then reapply. Applying in October will not change your profile since undergrad. And worrying about the caliber of the school you can into right now probably isn't your best endeavor. You will be judged by schools on your academic and scientific performance during undergrad and that judgement will then determine if adcoms think you are capable of doing research and earning a degree from their program. In summary, go get a tech job/industry position for ~2 years to substantially increase your odds. You can go to the master's program and get the same result, but be 130K in debt.

A lot of people who got interviews at Emory and UNC seemed to also have them at Vanderbilt... i was offered the very first weekend, which I think corresponded to their priority applicants/deadline. I don't think you should necessarily cut any of the schools you've listed... just add in 3-4 more that are diverse in their competition. You want to have a few schools that you stand a good chance at getting an interview so you don't drive yourself nuts in the fall, some that you are competitive but not necessarily the top of their applicant pool, and maybe 2 reaches if you want to give it a shot. Therefore I'd focus on the tier where you will be not a sure thing but stand very good chances. You don't want to apply too low either... i did with university of Tennessee and once my letter writer there heard i got an interview at Vandy, he told the adcom not to consider me at all even though my credentials indicated that I would have exceeded their expectations in their program. So I basically wasted $60 and the time it took to do their application. It's all about balance.

Well obviously Vanderbilt IGP should stay on the list because I'm biased. But honestly there's a lot of them. I would start looking at schools such as University of Utah, Colorado State, university of Oregon, UTSW, university of Georgia, Penn state, and so forth. You will definitely get into a good program, but the key is to apply widely because different programs evaluate differently. Some schools want you to have previous, long term experience in the field (Harvard for me) and some will realize that they will give you the experience. It's really all about applying to different types of schools/environments/programs so you have a good chance of finding a fit.

The only problem with your profile is that your second major GPA is so low for the schools you've listed. A molecular biology-based program is going to pay attention to your achievements in molecular science ie biochemistry. Your research experience is nice, but isn't actually related to your goals except for the lab you just joined. Unfortunately, adcoms won't really consider this in terms of LoRs because you will only have a few months experience by the time you apply. The only reason these the disparity between your research experience and goals even matters is because it would show that you could be successful in your chosen field. I would therefore recommend you expand the net you're casting. At least 4/6 schools you've listed are leaders in their fields and extremely competitive. You WILL have people ask why you've chosen the molecular signaling of the brain because of your experience in psychology research. Apply to umbrella programs as well. It'll help immensely. You might get into the schools you've listed, or you might have a harder time. No one can really tell you that. I'd diversify your targets.

If you apply to 8 ish schools were you are competitive rather than a sure thing, you will have 3-6 good options come interview time. I think you can reasonably apply to schools you listed and schools of their same caliber. Both the others that I listed before and that @PlanB listed will be really good choices to look at to try and narrow down your list. Don't worry so much about long reach v. short reach (the difference is minute and you will probably have schools of both on your final list). As long as you don't have your hopes set on one school only, you should be fine. Just don't get starstruck with one particular school (like I did with Harvard) and keep an open mind as you investigate. If you were to apply to say WUSTL, Stanford, UCSF, UW, Vanderbilt, Emory, UPitt, Weill Cornell, UCLA, and Yale, you would have a good mix of interviews. Right now, you might want to have a running list of ~15 schools then pare it down to 8-10 based on your evaluations of their research focus, funding, location, and graduate placement. The list I have above is just what I personally consider to be varied and doable. Don't be too hard on yourself and focus on writing really good applications to each and everyone

Congrats! And I know how you feel. My fiance and I will be separated for 8 months while I move to Nashville and deal with wedding drama. I'll be glad when it's over!

Hmmm... the immunology professor does sound like a good choice because he is on you thesis committee. Have you talked about how your current work with him connects to your goals? The only thing I'm worried about (and someone else can chime in and support or oppose me) is that if you don't include LoRs from your research experiences, the adcoms will look at your CV and ask themselves why. (Also, with the summer PI, you could mention someone who worked with you quite closely and actually tell him the things you think they witnessed. Your work ethic, your commitment, etc.) It's very important to ask ANY of these people to write you a STRONG letter, not just a letter. The last two lecture professors I wouldn't bother with. So if you have an faculty advisor, ask them who you think would be better... wildlife biologist (with an updated info email to help her) or thesis advisor. Honestly, I think I would go with current PI, summer PI, and capstone advisor, but get someone else's opinion on what they would rather see. Go to your current PI and just straight up ask; they'll be honest with you. Also, don't fall into the trap of applying to 10+ schools. You have a good profile and will drive yourself NUTS going to all the interviews. Really do a lot of groundwork and even email current grad students if you really want to scoop. I would apply to 8-10 maximum. I applied to 7 and got 4 interviews... the travel just gets so exhausting. And because I had chosen schools to apply to that were good fits for my goals (except Princeton, but that was a dream to interview at since I was 15), I actually ended up going to a school I LOVED the first weekend. I also did some location vetting before I applied to weed out areas I knew I wouldn't be comfortable in. For instance, over the summer in Boston, someone mentioned that I should see Yale before applying. My radar went off and I got in a rental car with some of my program friends and took off... You can guess that I didn't feel like it was a good fit because I scratched it. I also didn't want to live in Philadelphia (I'm in the small town Midwest and knew it would be too much for me) so I scratched UPenn. I kept Rockefeller because I felt their research quality outweighed how much I didn't want to be in NYC. And I kept 2 California schools on the list due to their quality even though I knew I would have to live in more debt than I was comfortable with in North Cali. Once you get to a certain level, many schools offer the same stellar opportunities and it becomes 100% about fit. And fit is more than just science.

You are more than competitive at the schools you have listed and also similar schools. You could also include Emory, Harvard, Vanderbilt, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, Rockefeller, Yale, Weill-Cornell, and Columbia. Like I said, you will be more than competitive. You can apply directly to specific programs if you want, but it can also be more flexible to apply to umbrella programs. Also, you want as many research letters as you can manage if they'll all be excellent.

The calls to uninvite people that my in laws invited that aren't on the guest list are more awkward than that time we all called programs to see when they would release interview invites.

No, in December between semesters. So I totally don't need family drama as I'm getting an apartment, moving in, doing my first semester of classes, and doing rotations. Lol it's gonna be a busy time these next six months.

Furiously planning a wedding (and trying not to go crazy on the constant drama. You think applying to grad school was hard? Weddings have way more drama because it turns out that the people not paying like to secretly add people to invite list after the fact.) Oh, and trying to decide who to list for my first rotation choices. And going to Nashville to vet apartments.

I would give you more than 1 reputation point if I could. This answer is so on par. Rankings are a really crappy way to compare schools, and the point was, if you must, funding agencies have a more straightforward determination than U.S. News and World Report. Point is, look at the science, read the papers, and go find your fit from there. Funding is important, as is mentorship, projects of interest, and a palatable location. Apply broadly and you'll find a good home. I can almost promise that.

Yes he did! That explains it, although I am still very displeased that UTK would forge my withdrawal without even asking. It's pretty crappy.

So I have a "Decision Day" story... I received an email telling me my application to the University of Tennessee was withdrawn... upon my request. I didn't request that! Back in January, my old PI there emailed me and said he heard about my acceptance and he assumed I was going to accept there. It was so weird, but now, looking back, I feel like he was trying to feel me out to see if I wanted an interview at UTK. He mentioned in the email that Skype interview notifications would be forthcoming. Let's just ignore the fact that he didn't get the information from Vanderbilt's administration because it's AGAINST FEDERAL LAW so he must have asked a faculty friend there. And that they forged my request to withdraw. Tsk Tsk Tsk UTK. (Oh, and Tennessee isn't in my signature because I was so weirded out by the whole exchange AND after I emailed him back my application portal got locked and said that I didn't have a saved application anymore. I guessed they must have deleted it.)

Dang it my photo didn't post.

There's a lot that bothers me about this post. @Bioenchilada is making the point that different programs have different levels of competition AND that international students are generally considered AFTER domestic students. That means there are less spots/funding for international students and subsequently have a harder time getting into better programs. Also, U.S. News and World report is WIDELY considered to be an unreliable resource and many times flat out wrong. You'd be much better using NIH funding levels like @PlanB keeps saying. It's literally a REALLY GOOD IDEA. So I've decided to do some of the work and show you that you can't just say that it's all down to the individual profile. Yes, that does matter. But money is tight here in the US and NIH funding level is a really good measure of competition in the biomedical field. Above are the top 20 institutions according to NIH funding. You can see that UChicago is NOWHERE on that list. Obviously, this is not the only consideration in choosing a good place to get a graduate education (as faculty availability and mentorship is also huge and sometimes scarce at the tippy top institutions) but it's a good start on indicating where the most competitive SCIENCE takes place.

Okay, new applicants. This is 100% true. And what was says earlier by this poster is also true about higher standards for international applicants. Many schools don't touch international applications until they have sorted through domestic ones. While I wouldn't encourage anyone to stay away from top tier schools, because hey, it's your money to apply, I would say you should cast a wide net. Look at the numbers of the program and others on the same caliber to determine if you should apply... Many post average GPAs. (Then we don't have to fight about it here.). Let's focus more on the crucial parts of the application. In research experience, talk to your professors about what you want to do and if they have any suggestions or connections you can investigate. So so much better than looking at rankings. If you can't make a decision without consulting rankings, maybe you want to take a year off to understand how people construct their graduate education. The most successful consciously choose places with important research in their interest field. That does not include rankings... You can get a good idea by seeing where people from the program publish.