biochemgirl67

That sounds like it might work really well for someone in your situation... you want to set yourself apart from other applicants and it might lead to some great leads.

Huh. #themoreyouknow Honestly, could you attend a conference this summer? You could meet people whose work you're interested in and kind of have an "in" at the program. You're not a traditional undergrad, so this might work really well.

You could always apply to anthropology departments. I'm no expert, but my Great Plains archaeology professor studied vertebrate remains at sites of like mammoths and dire wolves. Wait, I just realized palaeontology is dinosaurs.

This is so correct. crapshoot is totally not the right word for grad school admission. Like I said before, you will be competing against high end applicants at most of the schools that were listed. Therefore, if you want a few choices, you should apply to 8 - 10 schools that fit your profile/experience and your goals. Low GPAs, low GREs, limited research experience, less-than-glowing LoRs, an average SOP... all these things won't necessarily limit you actually going to grad school. However, they can make you less competitive at top tier schools

I think maybe I didn't emphasize what is really important... While your GPA is an issue, the main problem that will compound that problem is your lack of research recommendations. For reference, many people on this site have at least 2. If you would like more information, please don't hesitate to message me. We come from similar undergrad institutions and it's possible I can offer some sort of direction.

You're right, your GPA is low. Unfortunately, it's lower in your major than overall and indicates that you haven't really performed well in biochemistry. Maybe you have an upward trend? I don't know from what you've provided. However, I will say that you have only 1 research recommender and an adequate amount of research (nothing extraordinary). This may limit you in terms of consideration at Vanderbilt, UChicago, and WUSTL. (I don't know much else about the other schools you listed, but Notre Dame and Dartmouth are good programs, I think, where you'll be up against some heavy competition.) Unless you are very confident about your chances at these schools, I think you should apply more widely. You might get into these schools, you might not. If you want a fair amount of choice, include other schools. University of Michigan (still a high end, possibly still a reach), University of Pittsburgh, University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, University of Utah, and University of Minnesota. Just a note, upper-level coursework is pretty common. Unless you take an ungodly amount (hello, 30 credits of pain and suffering) or can get a recommendation from professors of that class (better be in a small atmosphere, not like an intro grad class and it doesn't seem this would apply to you anyway) it won't matter. Plus you'll be IN the classes as you apply. (Also, the top 50% Iowa state biochemistry majors take 8 credits of graduate courses in biochemistry by the summer before they apply. I'm saying this just to emphasize that 6 credits is not sufficient to prove your proficiency.) Your best shot is to get another research recommender if you can, present at a conference (not a university one), get your GPA as high as you can, and widen your applications. The reason a lot of the people on here tell incoming applicants to broaden their applications is simple. Top candidates are also applying to a lot of different schools. So if they are applying to your reach schools, they have a chance of pushing you out, especially if your profile isn't really stupendous. I mean, yes, it does happen that someone with a 3.1 gets into Harvard, but they usually have something else extraordinary about them. Exceptional research experience, a unique background in teaching science, industry experience, an MD, a public health degree, something that sets them apart. We've gotten into discussions before on here about whether GPA really matters... and it does. Just like your other parts of your application matter. However, if you really feel like you are a fit for a school but have a subpar GPA (lower than the incoming class average, not the stated minimum), go ahead and apply. The worst they can do is reject you. Also, "recommended GPAs" are not the same thing as "average GPAs." Look for real statistics of their admitted students. At Vanderbilt it was something like 3.67 overall, I think. Most high end grad schools have averages between 3.6 - 3.7. But then again, many science students have higher major GPAs than overall (cGPA 3.76 v. mGPA 3.89 for me) which shows an aptitude for science. So look at those, really be honest with yourself, and then apply to 8 - 10 schools based on fit. GPA will not dictate your acceptances. It is a part of your application. Treat it like that and look for places where you think you'll be a good fit research-wise and culturally. Rant over.

I know that a lot of schools say it's "recommended" to take the subject test... But my philosophy was that if they weren't going to consider me because of a $200 test, then I didn't want to go there anyway. If my grades, recommendations, and coursework wasn't enough, then they could go pound sand. It worked out, so I'd encourage younger applicants to consider not taking it.

I never took it, but it was because of the advice from someone at Harvard... she told me it only helps you if you do extremely well otherwise an average (or lower) score can hurt you really badly. And I just think that unless you have a serious issue with GPA or are changing fields (ie going from a psychology major to wet lab molecular biology research), don't waste the money. It isn't worth it. And I'd like to include my obligatory upset 20-something anti-establishment comment; THESE STUPID STANDARDIZED TESTS ARE JUST THERE TO EQUALIZE YOUR APPLICATION NOT ENHANCE IT. MAN, IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY WITH ETS. That being said, just make sure you do well on the general GRE... study for like 3 weeks then take it once and you should be fine. Don't put more money into the hands of ETS! They're just trying to own you! (I'm partially kidding but mostly unhappy that we still have to deal with this crap going into grad school. I know, I know, it's there as kind of a check for your undergrad education. But still.)

He totally was. But I just want to put it out there because the lab meeting between all the labs with like 5 PIs ended in a screaming match between the PIs. It was my first day, which was horrible. Also, it is a fact that anyone who is a tenure track faculty at Harvard has to be famous because they have such a fast turnover for laboratory heads there. It's just worth thinking about. Like I said, I would totally go back for a post-doc. However, I realize now that it was probably better for me personally to go to a different type of environment in the learning stage that is the PhD. It's a really awesome environment overall but if someone would choose to go there, they should REALLLLY listen to current graduate students in a particular lab. It'll help filter out jerk PIs. (Just a note, my summer PI does not accept grad students so don't worry. I think he really knew his limitations time-wise at least.)

It depends on the lab, really. However, I will say that there is a distinct culture to the Harvard community. It definitely is intense and you are expected to work hard. But again, I'd like to express that it really depends on the lab. There is a fair amount of collaboration. However, it can be difficult to find a PI who is intimately involved in the lab. A lot of the tenure-track professors are famous and very very busy. My PI was gone for weeks at a time and it definitely took a concerted effort to meet with him 4 times in 10 weeks. Obviously this isn't global (but I've heard a lot of similar stories) and it truly depends on the lab, but it was my personal experience. I would definitely go back as a postdoc. Especially knowing that I would be more independent at that point in my career. When I got rejected from Harvard, I was so crushed. However, after I stopped and thought about my experience and what I really needed as a developing scientist, I realized it probably was a good thing I didn't get in. I would have accepted regardless of how much I liked anywhere else (I was a tad starstruck) but with reflection I realized I wanted to have a PhD program with more support with more engaged faculty. I'm not going to tell you what you should do because no one can. The East Coast is definitely not as relaxed as the West and Harvard can fulfill some of the stereotypes it has, depending on how you go about your education there. Oh, and as a P.S., I spent 10 weeks working at Boston Children's Hospital last summer. I was in a small lab and still had only limited access to my PI. And the expectations about presentations and critiques of papers were EXTREMELY high. I once saw my PI and all the other lab heads on the floor get into a fight about the implications of one scientist's data and why it was invalid (or not) compared to their own research. Each professor definitely wanted his or her project to be "right" and refused to accept any other explanations. Oh, and my PI also once threw a manuscript hardcopy at his research manager (who had a PhD) when they had a disagreement about how something should be presented and yelled, "I'm the scientist, you're not, and I'm going to write the paper! So don't you tell me how to write a paper!" Needless to say, I would NOT work for someone like that. He is very famous and busy and also a bit arrogant.

If you could get all your scores above the 75th percentile, you could also apply to WUSTL as well. Otherwise, you might want to apply a broader range of schools because you might get weeded out based on the scores. Maybe also add University of Iowa and Iowa State University if you don't want to retake the GRE. Also, it is slightly odd that you've been a tech for five years. Generally people work in industry for that length of time (or do some other job) while they only tech for like a year or two. You might raise questions as to why you didn't do a master's during that time. I'm not saying it'll be a huge deal, but it is a question at least in this internet lurker's mind.

I think it really REALLY depends on the program/applicant. 1.5 years of productive research with a stupendous LoR is definitely more than enough. Just depends on what you've made of it. No one can really tell if the response you got was general or was a true reflection of your profile unless we know more about what you've done/where you applied.

So here's the thing. Many schools have the policy to go through domestic applications and decide who to invite before they even touch the international applicants. Unfortunately this means that international applicants generally have higher GPAs and there is less wiggle room on the GREs. Just look at the applicant profiles on here. At this point, @meat-killer should know whether or not they are going to get that first author paper. Which, in the U.S., is a common requirement for many master's programs. I just think that although they could include a couple dream schools, this particular applicant could better focus on less competitive programs.

So so true. It's not worth the struggle of trying to decide your optimum rank in terms of the institution you apply to. What I would recommend, in addition to looking at funding, is look at the work that is done there. However, there are issues with trying to decide based on funding and the amount of work coming froma department or PI. While you want them to be well funded and dynamic, you don't want to join a department where the Pi's were all famous and you get lost in the shuffle. (Looking back, this was my experience at Harvard. Obviously not everyone is like that there but all my friends had the same issues... Their PI's were difficult to reach on a personal basis.). You want a supportive environment that fits your goals and still is well funded and well placed in the field. That's why rankings of all kinds are of secondary use in this process. So go ask your current mentor(s) which schools that they have liked when giving seminars that do a lot of the work you are interested in. Decide where you want to live (does Baltimore bother you? I've been and knew it did so i didn't apply) and then apply holistically.

You can reach higher than you currently are. I'm not saying to go and apply to Harvard, MIT, and Stanford alone. But what about Boston University, Washington University in SL, University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Minnesota, UCSD, University of Oregon, University of Utah, University of Virginia, and Cornell as a starting point? Yes, your GPA isn't stellar. But your experience working and research have a good chance of mixing to counteract that issue. Look broadly and apply based on fit. Don't limit yourself at this point, you don't need to. A 3.3/3.45 is a good solid GPA. Don't beat yourself up but definitely apply to a variety of schools.

Just want to say for the record that if you've been trying to avoid graduate school and Indiana isn't truly a fit for your goals, you might be more unhappy than if you found another option. Trying to avoid graduate school is not a good sign. But if that's the way you go, best of luck!

Also, why would you accept their offer in Indiana this early if you thought that it wasn't ranked highly enough for you? I snooped through your posts and I'm just a tad confused.

What about doing a post bacc or a master's? The bottom line is that you can't change your profile enough in the nine months before submission. The GRE is easy to fix, recommendations are not. And again, I'm going to reiterate... Don't worry about their credentials. Everybody cares more about what they say about you anyway. And if you think they are saying anything less than glowing, you need to not use them again. You can be successful at a lower ranked school. However, going to somewhere premier really greases the wheels in terms of networking and exposure. Unfortunately, the quality and number of international students at such schools is high and low, respectively, because of competition. I think you need to reevaluate how to change your profile in terms of GRE and letters as well as if it would be worth it to reapply with only the top programs in the US in mind.

Okay. I can see where you'd want to reapply. And you might get in somewhere better, I can't really say. But. I think you issue would be your letter of recommendations. One bad letter of recommendation, or even a mediocre one, can shoot down an application. It says a few things that I think @immuno91 mentioned; it can emphasize a lack of self-motivation. Also, it can say that maybe you aren't the best at self-evaluation (if in your SoP if you talked yourself up but your LW was a little more like, "eh, they were okay,") or that you aren't actually capable of performing in a research environment. It matters what the adcoms think of you from the faculty who write to them about you. It doesn't matter if your experiences were at top schools are not. So I think your GRE is probably a secondary issue. I am sorry your cycle didn't turn out the way you wanted it to. I would find some new letter writers. Maybe you a post bacc or get a job related to your field of choice or go to a master's program. If you don't want to do that, and you reapply next fall with the same profile, you run the risk of similar results next fall.

You can definitely look at all those schools. Stanford is a reach for everybody but that's just life. And your high GPA plus research looks like you can actually handle the load of academics and research. And your GPA is high enough that you don't need the subject test unless you really want to take it. And yes, to answer your question, you WILL be good. Apply to about 8-10 schools you feel fit you and you should have some great options in about a year. Don't think you're a sure thing anywhere but definitely know that some of those schools will invite you to interview.

NO NO NO NO you can't do that. It's a big deal to share manuscripts that haven't been accepted yet and it's also a big no-no. Your current PI would more than likely flip their lid about sharing unpublished data/manuscripts with someone who isn't a collaborator. The review process for manuscripts is extensive and you may not/probably won't get published on the first revision. The only worse thing you could do would be to send a grant proposal in as well. There's a huge deal about confidentiality of reviewers so I would avoid that huge problem by just patiently waiting for your notification.

Um... you have pretty good research experience. Actually a pretty good profile overall. (Who told you your experience was "flat"??? You don't need published papers! And your GPA is great!) Depending on if you want to work in medical-focused research (ie with a medical school attached) or in a more basic capacity, you'll begin to choose schools. The 3 schools you mentioned are a good start, but you can shoot higher if you want to. Vanderbilt (hey I'm biased), UVA, Emory, Duke, UNC, Princeton (you said structural biology and they're very good at that), University of Washington, Cornell (Weill-Cornell if you're interested in medical stuff), University of Minnesota, Yale, Baylor, Washington University in St. Louis, University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Utah might be a good starting place. I don't see any reason to limit yourself. Hell, you could even apply to MIT and Harvard if they suited your fancy. Just continue working in research over the summer, give a poster presentation, a lab meeting presentation, and do well on the GRE. If you have good letters of recommendation, at least 1 from someone who's seen you research (and it looks like you might have 2... plant genomics guy and structural biology prof), you will be great. I think the person who was being down on your profile might be a tad salty for some unknown reason. Don't listen to them. Take it from the girl from a state college with a 3.76 GPA, 3 semesters of long-term research, and 2 summer research positions before she applied. And got in. To grad school.

YAAAAAAAAY! I really hope you do! If it has the right feeling, it's the right place. If you're so excited about the program, the faculty, and Nashville you keep talking about it to your friends, family, and partner, then my advice would be to let yourself fall in love. I wouldn't shut up about it for weeks and my now fiance kept asking me if I would accept and I would just say, "oh, I don't know, depends on the others." Every time I went somewhere else all I could think about was Vandy and the faculty/research there plus the environment. I didn't wait for any other offers and accepted immediately once my interviews were over. Like I said, I really hope you decide to go! But congratulations either way!

I'm so happy you liked it! I'm over the moon about moving to Nashville and going to Vandy. Every time I would go on another interview, no other program felt like it fit me as well as Vandy IGP did. I hope you hear back today! (I heard back on MLK Jr Day, so I think they are definitely at least committed to the cause of sending out notifications.)

They'll consider her, but experience is key. If she's looking to get into a stellar program, it might be best to go back to undergrad or do something like a master's in public health first. That's so she can add a science bias to her experience. I'm just concerned about a person that wants to jump into a career like this without having experienced it first. It's a big thing to know if someone will stay in the PhD program since it's such a huge commitment.