biochemgirl67

Also, you could apply to some interdisciplinary/umbrella programs that have a neuro track.  But otherwise, you'll be totally fine because a year and a half of experience is great!

You know what?  Because you can't do anything and you did your best, you need to repeat after me:
Fuck that guy.  Fuck that class.  Fuck that rotation.
I know we're supposed to use professional language, but sometimes you just have to drop a few F bombs.  There is nothing you can do to change it other than move on.  Work hard to do well in your other classes, choose a different rotation.  Identify what you could have changed and make it a point to work on those things in the future.  Do you need to learn better study habits?  Do you need more of a work-lab balance?  One failure doesn't constitute an entire career of failure.

You know what?  Because you can't do anything and you did your best, you need to repeat after me:
Fuck that guy.  Fuck that class.  Fuck that rotation.
I know we're supposed to use professional language, but sometimes you just have to drop a few F bombs.  There is nothing you can do to change it other than move on.  Work hard to do well in your other classes, choose a different rotation.  Identify what you could have changed and make it a point to work on those things in the future.  Do you need to learn better study habits?  Do you need more of a work-lab balance?  One failure doesn't constitute an entire career of failure.

You know what?  Because you can't do anything and you did your best, you need to repeat after me:
Fuck that guy.  Fuck that class.  Fuck that rotation.
I know we're supposed to use professional language, but sometimes you just have to drop a few F bombs.  There is nothing you can do to change it other than move on.  Work hard to do well in your other classes, choose a different rotation.  Identify what you could have changed and make it a point to work on those things in the future.  Do you need to learn better study habits?  Do you need more of a work-lab balance?  One failure doesn't constitute an entire career of failure.

You know what?  Because you can't do anything and you did your best, you need to repeat after me:
Fuck that guy.  Fuck that class.  Fuck that rotation.
I know we're supposed to use professional language, but sometimes you just have to drop a few F bombs.  There is nothing you can do to change it other than move on.  Work hard to do well in your other classes, choose a different rotation.  Identify what you could have changed and make it a point to work on those things in the future.  Do you need to learn better study habits?  Do you need more of a work-lab balance?  One failure doesn't constitute an entire career of failure.

Just want to say that age isn't an issue... although GENERALLY speaking, older applicants have more research experience.  They'll have worked in industry, been at the NIH, etc.  The time that you said you've had to decide you want a PhD... it hasn't been spent in science (from what I can tell, which could be wrong) and that might be an issue if you phrase it like, "Because I'm older, I know that I want to be a PhD."  It sounds presumptuous simply because you are getting a PhD to be a scientist, not to be a PhD.  You are still a straight out of undergrad applicant, so I wouldn't go to any lengths to differentiate yourself from that crowd.
The only glaring problem I can see with you application is that you'll only have 1 LOR from a PI that knows you well.  If you haven't kept up with the micro PI, then it's going to make it difficult.  If it's been less than a couple years, it'll be fine, as long as you've kept up with him.  To be competitive at a high level, as many LORs as possible from a PI are a must.  They are one of, if not the most, important parts of the application.  
You'll be fine.  Your application is stellar.  You don't need to say anything about your technical skills, because it's not a really considered.  As my current PI says, you're not in grad school to be the hands, you've got to have the hands and the brain.  And the brain is more important.  But here's something; unless you have some attachment to Brown, I would apply elsewhere.  Like UCSF, Stanfod, UCLA, Weill Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, Sloan Kettering.  They are actually much better schools.  Brown has a weak research background compared to your other choices and is very undergrad focused.  But it's up to you.
Just peace of mind that it's over.  I submitted in early November so I could focus on other things, but you definitely don't have to.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you see those stats here? The thing about GPA is that it tells you nothing about your ability to do research, or the amount of connections someone has. So, that person with a 2.67 could be a Stanford legacy with 4 years of experience, or just someone that had letters from 3 Nobel laureates, you'll never know. I'm not by any means discouraging you from applying, but I've seen people with 4.0s and high GREs literally get rejected across the board because their SOP was weakened due to a lack of diverse experience, which also has an impact on LOR "quality". 
I think you have nothing to lose by applying, so might as well do so to see how it goes. At the same time, I suggest NOT lowering your standards when it comes to picking schools, unless you truly want to go to that particular places. "Safeties" are more of an undergrad thing, and applying to a low tier school you have no interest in could definitely lead to a rejection. 
I also suggest applying to postbac programs or maybe even lab tech jobs later in the game to increase your chances for next year, if you don't get in. I'm confident that you can, at the very least , land a 1/2-year tech position at a top 5 school.  
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.