biochemgirl67

OMG I KNOW I'M SO EXCITED!!!!  It really takes a weight off to know that I'm interviewing at least SOMEWHERE.
 
Although I wish I didn't have to front the money to travel. 

OMG I KNOW I'M SO EXCITED!!!!  It really takes a weight off to know that I'm interviewing at least SOMEWHERE.
 
Although I wish I didn't have to front the money to travel. 

Hi guys! 3rd year PhD student in Molecular Bio, here. I lurk this thread each year to add my 2 cents or help out when you guys get lost or are freaking out.

What Azia said is very true. I'm lucky to be in a place where there are several graduate institutions close together, so I get to see not only students that come into my own program, but also those that come into other programs. GPA and GRE are important, but only to a degree. The things that seem to be most important these days are your ability to show that you know what you're in for in a research PhD (aka, you've done real research for more than 6 months), that you're a good person, and that you have people who can vouch for all of this and that like you (letter writers are possibly the MOST important). There is rumor that some adcoms which remove the school names, and gender/other identifying information from applications before they submit to the committee, though I haven't seen evidence of that with my own eyes. I think it is a positive step for the future of science that they're focusing more on you rather than your numbers; some people don't test well, but you put them in the lab and they solve huge problems.
I've seen students, and actually interviewed with some of them, that had beautiful applications as far as the numbers go, but when they interviewed, the person in their personal statement didn't match with the person. They were not good fits as they essentially lied, and I wouldn't have wanted to be in a program with students like that. When I got here, they were not. Then there are applicants with mediocre scores who accidentally gave a muted version of themselves in their personal statement, but their letter writers gave them their due credit. Then when they interview, you see how amazing they really are, and they get in. They go on to do wonderful science.

I am an example of a student who came from a state school with a mediocre GPA and GRE scores, and I am doing well in my PhD studies. I won't comment on my application essays as I can't ever compare my own work to others. I'm biased. I passed my qual at the end of my first year and will soon have a paper out. I have no doubt that I will graduate. Yes, I came in with 6 years research experience because I worked in labs all of undergrad and MS, but that didn't teach me to survive in a PhD program. Why am I successful? I work hard, just like the other students in my program, which come from varying backgrounds from all types of different schools. Your previous experience may help you a little, but you all start on square one, no matter where you came from, and to me this makes it even more essential to pick a place where you feel comfortable. I did NOT choose my program based on rank. I chose programs to apply to that had research I was interested in and appeared to have an environment I wanted to be in. Some were top 25, some were ranked below 50. For me, rank doesn't matter. I also chose a mentor who doesn't only focus on the success of the research, but also focuses on my career development and my progress as a student. This is important; many a PhD student has gotten lost because their PI can't be there for them when they are needed.
Okay, end rant. Message me or reply to this if you have questions.

For those of you worried about interview notifications. In fall 2012, I got my first invitation and rejection on December 20. Then I didn't hear from anyone else until the second week of January. My last two schools didn't send invites until February. You've got time. Try to relax.

Hi everyone,
I worry a lot because my app is very different from most people's on here. I have multiple first author publications / other publications and perfect GREs. I'm also a domestic biochem major at small top 10 US university (~top 5 bio program) where there is significant grade deflation and competition. Because of this, my GPA is a 3.3, and in freshman year I failed a big intro science course and had to retake it. (So that F doesn't even factor into the GPA)
I often hear and/or see that a lot of graduate schools are "blind" to your institution's prestige. To be honest, it frustrates me to see how almost every other applicant has a 3.9 from a "big state school". I wish I had gone to a school where the average SAT score was like only 2000 or something and the students aren't as good at jumping through the academic hoops as they are at elite school, and just, statistically speaking, it would be a lot easier to get A's. (No offence to you guys, you did the smart thing) I feel as though going to an elite undergrad institution screws you over in science and ends up counting for nothing in graduate admissions. Is there any hope for me?

Besides agreeing that you sound incredibly snobby and pretentious with this comment (there is no saving yourself now), I think you are forgetting, or maybe just naive to the fact that admissions committees don't only care about your grades. There is a huge push in many of these programs to stop accepting the top 4.0 ivy league students because this limits the diversity and experience of the incoming class. Now many schools are looking for a significant commitment to research (more than just 2 years) and individuals that have had to overcome adversity to get where to where they are.
I'm not saying those top students aren't going to get in, but you have to realize adcoms are also interested in the personality and drive of those they admit. Often times individuals who have dealt with set backs and difficulties along the way are more likely to persevere in a doctoral program. You would be surprised to know how many people don't realize what they are getting themselves in to and end up mastering out because they can't hack it.
There are so many qualified candidates on this forum that come from "state schools" with average GPA's but who are likely to be amazing research scientist. Grades aren't even half the story.

I'm surprised we were even able to figure out how to graduate. 

Oh man.  I've worked it out; I'll get married and start and dog sitting business that will become so successful that I'll be able to vacation in Spain and never think about money again.
 
I mean, or get a job and eek out a living until next year when I'll reapply.

Fingers crossed in the next few days for Vanderbilt!  I saw they released their first round last year at this time. 

And I think your LORs will be a great match for your application.  If an applicant had a choice to have 3 research LORs, that would be the best case scenario.  I really tried to make an impression through my REU and Amgen so even though I was only there for a bit, they could still talk about my abilities.  FINGERS CROSSED THAT IT WORKED.  But if I didn't, I was going to have a professor that taught my molecular signaling grad course and graded my NIH grant I wrote write my letter.  Like I said, you have to use your best judgement and trust it.
I agree with your side note.  Everybody IRL says I have a great chance at getting into the schools but here, sheesh, I don't have a 3.9!  Ah well, we'll all be biting our fingernails together I guess!

Since you only worked in 2 labs, it's impossible to get 3 research recs; you might as well stop worrying about it. The only thing you can do now is find the best third rec and it sounds like your academic advisor fits that bill well. Good luck.

Calm yourself!  It isn't a big deal... what IS important is that they know your research capabilities.  A research committee is NOT going to go, "Oh, we don't know their name offhand, NOPE."  And trust me, working for both well known and lesser known people, sometimes the famous people know you least.  Although 2 of my letters are from summer PIs, I tried to make an impression of them.  You should go with as much research as possible, though.

All my applications are in and while I'm relieved, I'm... anxious.  I'm having big time regret for applying to the caliber of schools I did and a serious freak out about my lack of back up plan.  What if I get in nowhere?  What if my experience last summer spoiled everything and all I want is Harvard and I can't get in?  Ugh.  Please tell me I'm not alone in feeling a bit like I'm in limbo.
And does anyone know when we can realistically hope to hear back from the admissions committees?  One of mine says late December!  (University of Washington)

And all the labs that I've researched in have treated lab techs as workhorses without the creativity allowance that the grad students enjoy.  I don't know if maybe it is a discipline thing, but lab techs don't design experiments, they perform them.  And that is a trait that PIs expect in the grad students; someone who has the ability and inclination to design experiments and projects rather than someone who keeps animal stocks, does genotyping, makes competent cells, cultures stocks, etc.  I was just making the point of to not get too excited at this stage because any PI the OP contacts will probably wonder why they are being contacted at this point.  The lab tech I worked with in Boston got the job through her graduating university for 2-3 years before med school.  That would really be a place to start with your university's(or any university you have worked at) connections to labs and institutions rather than cold emailing the PIs.  But then, take my advice with a grain of salt; I'm a person that actually doesn't agree with all the emailing of grad students/faculty at prospective programs.  I think it is presumptive and can be annoying.  I lean more conservatively toward emailing the program director if you truly have questions, not just if you want an in, as so many people on this site seem to do.  Your dedication to improvement and accumulated experience will shine through without the emails, believe me.  But again, I'm sure there are people who would disagree and encourage emailing and contacting.  It's really up to you.

I mean, the deadlines are approaching so the amount of work you're gonna need to do to get appropriate SOPs and everything for each school at this point is staggering.  If you were domestic this wouldn't be a consideration because you'd be a super strong applicant.  But you aren't domestic so I would recommend pulling in some lower level, less brand name schools.  It's not that you're not strong, it's that international applicants are not held to the same standards because there is less money.  I would choose at most 3 of the following: Stanford, UCSF, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Cornell, UCD, or NYU.  Replace the others with schools like University of Iowa, Brandeis University, University of Oregon, Oregon State University, University of Utah, Texas A&M, Iowa State University, Ohio State, etc.  These are great schools that will still be hard to get into but you have a better chance here.

I mean, the deadlines are approaching so the amount of work you're gonna need to do to get appropriate SOPs and everything for each school at this point is staggering.  If you were domestic this wouldn't be a consideration because you'd be a super strong applicant.  But you aren't domestic so I would recommend pulling in some lower level, less brand name schools.  It's not that you're not strong, it's that international applicants are not held to the same standards because there is less money.  I would choose at most 3 of the following: Stanford, UCSF, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Cornell, UCD, or NYU.  Replace the others with schools like University of Iowa, Brandeis University, University of Oregon, Oregon State University, University of Utah, Texas A&M, Iowa State University, Ohio State, etc.  These are great schools that will still be hard to get into but you have a better chance here.

I would say you are over-exciting yourself with dreams of the future.  Even if you were to get a job in one of these labs, it does not mean that much for grad school.  The qualities a PI looks for in a grad student are completely different than the ones for a lab assistant.  And that's what you would be.  Your best shot would be to try and get a real job.  It'll show that you're focused and give you a tangible reason for going back to school.
 
Oh and BTW no REU programs accept graduated seniors.  And most of them too have a strong 3.0 cutoff.  Not to be picky, but if you have an REU experience with the kinds of grades you have and the described fairly limited experience, it just leaves me wondering.  Was it a real REU or something else?  You don't have to answer, but the way you represent yourself in the dialog you have with grad schools eventually will give them a peek into your personality; are you humbly seeking greater education or are you amplifying your past and trying to make excuses?  Again, I'm not trying to be harsh so please do not think so.

I think that if you've taken Calc I/II and Calc III/Diff EQ possibly with quantum mechanics/thermo (Physical chemistry), no one will look twice at your quantitative score.  You're not applying for computational, chemistry, or engineering programs, so I don't think they will care.  Although I completely understand the freak out, because I recently took the GRE and totally did not get above 90th percentile in quantitative (but killed the verbal) and proceeded to wonder if I should retake.  I was looking at the dates on your profile; did you take a gap year or an extra year to finish school?  If so, did you do anything in that time that underlined your desire for grad school?  (SoP material if you did.)  I wouldn't include the class-based research unless it shaped your thinking and then only if you did anything related afterward.  I would, however, highlight your graduate coursework.  I personally have taken 10 grad courses while in undergrad and each one of them shaped my thinking and scientific brain.  It's something that made me sure I was ready for graduate school and it's what I wanted... if it's the same for you, tell them in your SoP.
 
I would say that your school list is long.  Almost too long, simply because are you really going to write that many personal statements, making each one tailored in some way to that program?  Could you cut it down to 8?  You'll get in to at least one.  But I would say that make sure you want to go to every school on that list.  When you apply to the top schools, sometimes it's just luck and you don't want to get yourself stuck.  The only reason I say that is because the locations/feels of all these schools are incredibly different.  That's important, because you've got to live there for 4-6 years!
 
All in all, you're in good shape.  Really, incredibly good shape.
 
If anyone has critiques over my profile (1st page), please feel free to share!  I welcome any and all criticisms, especially since this application process is nerve wracking.

Oh it's hard to even know... the American government websites are AWFUL.  They don't work, are full of broken links, and way too confusing.
 
I mean, I don't know what I expected.