biochemgirl67

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.

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.

I'd second bioenchilada's suggestion. My first suspect was the SOP too. Assuming your LORs and SOP were good, I'm surprised you were rejected from every program two years in a row.

It's your money, so if BBS is a program you're really interested in, you should apply, though you should look for more people to potentially work with since 1 person is just not enough. 5 people is a good baseline number, and people typically list 3 in their app. 

You should NEVER apply to a school just because you're interested in a single PI, especially in biomed-related fields. They may not even be taking students into their lab next year, and then you're out of luck! You want there to be at least 5 PIs that you're interested in at a school.
In addition, don't go to grad school to work on your dream project. Go to grad school to learn how to be a great scientist, and then you can make a career out of your dream projects later on if you're lucky. Pick a PI based on your rotation and how they teach you, how you get along with everyone, and the prospect of being able to generate publishable data. The project should be one of the last reasons you pick a lab! 
I joined a lab doing something completely different than what I wanted to do, and I love it. While I don't recommend going as far out of your comfort zone as I did, it helps you in the long run to do something a little different. The PI I thought I would want to join wasn't that nice and wouldn't have given me good guidance. Instead I joined someone who does, and I may even graduate early.
That said, I had a slightly higher GPA than you when I applied (3.69), and 6 years of research experience, all of it greater than 30 hours a week. I would say 2 years is average for most schools, but probably the minimum you need for a school like Harvard. Consider some other schools as well. Don't limit yourself just to that one or you may be disappointed and not have anywhere to go to grad school next year!

I second everyone here with the umbrella programs! I applied to half interdisciplinary programs, and then the others were molecular biology and immunology. Long story short, I ended up working on metabolism with some immunology aspects, and I love this field. I wouldn't have gotten into this if I'd joined an immunology only program, and I've had way more opportunities in this interdisciplinary program. The other ones I know about allowed us to rotate in labs of faculty across different departments, meaning you could access faculty in both immunology and cancer bio. Feel free to message me about them.

First of all, leave your parents out of it. They aren't the ones who have to go this school, you are. This isn't undergraduate where the school name recognition means something, Now it's your PI's name that matters, not the school. Secondly, don't judge by name recognition. While yes, some higher tier schools attract professors who have better output, there are a lot of excellent PIs at "lower tier" schools because they like the environment there better.
Now that we got that out of the way, look at the list of schools you are considering. Which schools did you only look at because your parents wanted you to go to? Did you actually like those programs, or did you make yourself like them because you knew your parents would like them? If you can't find at least 2 labs with research you can see yourself being excited about and enjoying for the next 6 years, eliminate them. Do this for every school on that list. Then look at the peripherals, like student life. Do you think you will like being at that school or in that area for the next 6 years? Keep the schools where you have multiple labs with research you can honestly say you can see yourself doing and where you think you might be happy.

I'm going to be honest with you, your GPA is really low for most of those schools. When translated to a 4.0 scale, it comes out to just under a 3.0. You have a lot of good research and great test scores, but your GPA is going to hurt you. I would diversify. Don't limit yourself to just big name schools, because you are doing yourself a disservice. Actually, go to pub med, and search for the topics that you are interested in studying. What labs are producing the most papers in the highest impact journals? What labs are looking at something really novel? Ask people in your field what schools they would recommend. Talk to the PI you're working for, ask him his opinion. Don't apply to a school just for name recognition, because at this level it can only do so much for you.

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.

@Luptior
Your verbal score is low, but it will not preclude you from admissions at top programs. If you have stellar research experience, excellent LORs, and a SOP that ties everything together, then you can get into top programs with a below average GRE and GPA. 
When I was preparing my applications, I followed Cornell's advice: "Each application is evaluated as a whole rather than on just one aspect of the package. However, North American students with a grade point average below B are rarely admitted. The median undergraduate grade point average for admitted students is about 3.5. Similarly, verbal GRE scores below 153 (or combined verbal and quantitative GRE scores below 308-310) usually preclude admission, unless there is substantial evidence of potential for academic excellence (for example, superb grades or outstanding research productivity)."
 

If you get rejected from the schools you applied to, it would most certainly not be because of your numbers. I think you have a competitive application and encourage you to maybe apply to 2 more schools (?) it just feels like your list is rather short and entirely top tier. Also, don't ask the post-doc nor the senior scientist for the letter if you're already asking the PI, get another person.

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.

First, I think you're applying to too many schools. You should apply to 8 at most since interviewing will be a hassle and I don't think you can write a convincing SOP when you're trying to cover all of your bases. Also, why 5 rec letters? That seems excessive. 

To be honest, scientists have their own opinions about others work. To the point that I've seen highly published well known scientists in screaming matches on conference calls.  As long as the science is sound, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Remember, if the science is truly THAT BAD, there would be no funding and no publications coming from the lab. 

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.

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.

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.

You're aren't going to like this, but a gap year will be best for your application. An extra year of 40 hour weeks will really let you mature as a scientist. Right now you barely if it all are meeting what adcoms consider to be "required" amounts of research and it will show if you get to the interview stage. I'm not sure what your intentions are after grad school, but you are potentially leaving prestigious schools on the table because you want to rush into grad school. In all honesty, a gap year isn't wasted time when you are talking 4-5+ years of graduate school plus postdocs. Just my 2 cents. 

There's is no doubt that you will get in, the question is more when and where. I think that if you want to aim for schools with more resources and prestige, you should consider taking a gap year to increase your amount of research exposure and potentially acquire a recommendation letter from another PI. It would be ideal if your three letters came from people that have supervised you in a research setting since your professors cannot fully assess your capacity to conduct research. With your current credentials, I'd advise to get apply to a wide range of schools to increase the likelihood of getting in, though I wouldn't apply to placed that you'd be unsatisfied being at. 

So I'm going to put this on here before this thread before the new cycle of people get here... THIS IS TOTALLY 100% TRUE.  You, before you apply and even begin to look at programs, need to sit down with yourself and decide what are your priorities.  Do you want a med school attached?  Do you want a highly independent program where you are left to your own devices?  Do you want a program with mostly famous PIs?  What type of location do you want?  What is your personal life like and how will this affect where you live, work expectations, etc?  How do you want to handle your finances?  Do you want to commute or live next to campus?
Once you get done with priorities, you need to decide where you'll be competitive.  I think either people have no idea (and therefore apply to like 12-15 schools) or overshoot and apply to too many top programs for their profile.  Your most important aspect of your profile is your research experience.  Was it long-term?  Did you get results?  Did you do conferences/papers/poster sessions/presentations?  NO COURSEWORK WILL BE APPLICABLE HERE.  I've sometimes seen people try to pass a class-based project off but it doesn't count, unfortunately.  Not unless you wrote a grant or paper or something that then got accepted by the NSF/NIH or a journal.  Now, we've talked before about if GPA is important.  Simply put, it is, but it isn't the end-all, be-all.  If you're going for Harvard/MIT/UCSF/Caltech/Rockefeller, you're going to need a great GPA.  Although adcoms do know that personal situations, course difficulty, and other things can affect it.  Generally speaking *FOR TOP PROGRAMS*, over a 3.5 is good, 3.75 and up is great, and 3.9+ is fantastic.  However, if your science/major GPA is higher than your overall, make sure you point that out on your CV.  Mine was, and significantly.  (3.76 cGPA/3.86 science GPA)  GPA matters, but if you have a low one, get great recommendations!  It'll go a long way.  Actually, just have great recommendations in general.  3 from your supervising research mentors would actually be ideal.  Grad school is much less about classwork than research and your GPA can demonstrate your academic success.
It's really important to be honest with yourself about where you're competitive.  If you're not, you could end up with a disappointing cycle.  But the most crucial part is to combine your priorities with institutions where you'll be competitive.  Myself, I applied to 7 places and I actually should not have applied to UCSF and Stanford based on my priorities... I wanted to live with relatively low financial debt during this time with a relatively high quality of life in an interesting area.  Based on my knowledge of the Bay Area, that would have been difficult to do with the cost of living there.  But all in all, I think that I chose schools at which I was relatively competitive and was fairly successful.
If you narrow it down like this, you will have an easier time deciding on where you want to go.  I have had a really clear vision of how I want to live for the next five years.  I want to have a supportive environment with a PI that is around to help mentor me through this.  I want to be able to live near a city center to be close to the excitement of city life.  I don't mind having to have a car.  I want to be able to afford to live where I live without huge credit card bills.  I want an institution with a good name/reputation so I can go to a good post-doc.  I also want an institution with a high degree of collaboration and dynamic research in molecular signaling in disease.  It actually hasn't been a difficult decision thus far and I only have the final interview which is in NYC (and I'm like 90% sure I'm not a NYC girl :P).  And I would NOT want to do more than the 4 interviews I have so far.
Good luck, young padawans.  (Oh and feel free to PM me if you want.  I'm just going to be relaxing all summer anyway)

I don't think you need that much research experience for a Master's program, so I think you will be okay for getting into a Master's program, but I don't know about UMass Boston specifically (mostly because I know nothing about this school). Diversify your application and apply to a few more schools, and I think you may stand a chance. Also, when looking at stats it is more important to look at what type of applicants the accept rather than how many. They should have the class profile or FAQ with relevant information up on their website, so I recommend taking a look at that seeing what the average GPA is and how many of their accepted applicants have sustained research experience. That will give you a much better estimation of your chances than acceptance rates alone.
Edited To Add:
So I looked at the UMass Biology MS requirements, and it sounds like they don't expect you to have any research experience, just a really strong academic background. You can also contact the department and ask for the information I mentioned.

Experience outweighs GPA and GRE, without doubt. You can get into a top graduate program with low stats if you have strong enough LORs and enough research experience. 
If I were in your position, I would take two years off to work in a biotech lab where you are getting paid. Look at it this way: graduate programs want students who are prepared to work. If you have two years of experience in a real job in which you work rigid hours, you will be much more attractive to top graduate schools. 
Save your money, work for two years in a biotech lab, then apply to a wide range of programs (a safety, two mid-tiers, and some top-tiers). 
Good luck! 

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.

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.

I think that you're applying to too many top programs and your stats are really not up to par with the caliber of the programs. You don't need a publication to get into those schools, but you'd benefit from getting more experience. Have you taken a lot of upper level biology courses? Because not doing so could hurt you in admissions since your background is Chemistry. Of course, this changes if you plan to do biochem. Your GPA is not bad by any means, but it'd be average at best for the programs you're applying to. Your rec letters would also probs not help a lot since you only have one from a PI. In my opinion, I think that either you apply to a broader range of schools, or you work on strengthening your profile. I really don't know how international admissions work, but I've heard it's typically significantly more competitive.