biochemgirl67

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.

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

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.

Awesome advice guys @biochemgirl67 and @PlanB! I am so glad I posted here because I definitely feel like I have a better grasp of what I should do now. I'll probably get some of my professors' opinions to help me narrow down my final list after I create a long list. I'll keep you guys posted!

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

8 Months? That is crazy.  We will be LD from June - Mid September.  In September she will move back in with family while she looks for a job.  Luckily I will only be about 45 minutes away at that point and hopefully much closer once she starts a job.  

But yes.  Wedding drama hasn't started yet but I am sure it will begin shortly.... Hopefully we can get most of it out of the way this summer before grad school starts for me. 

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.

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.

I feel your pain. I'm getting married in July before grad school and the drama is through the roof. It turns out weddings can turn the most sane and rational parents into complete maniacs! I get to uninvite extended family from the rehearsal dinner and unschedule myself and my fiance from family reunion activities. We've got a wedding to throw and a honeymoon to go on people!

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.

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.

My sentiments exactly @biochemgirl67!! I'm trying not to be hated by "friends and family," but when it comes to paying for a wedding - spending money on food is the most! I've started telling people that if they come, they can't expect a seat, a meal, or some cake.  I just don't have the funds lol. 

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.

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.

The US News rankings are considered unreliable by some people (myself included) because of the methodology used. There is no real difference between the top ranked med school or the 20th (for example). US news makes it seems as though there are clear differences. There isn't a big difference between the quality of the programs between #1 and #20. 
U Pitt has comparable science programs to Stanford. Stanford has the name recognition which is why everyone assumes its more competitive or it more prestigious to get your Phd from Stanford. I know it probably blows your mind that Pitt could be equal to Stanford in some areas, but its true.
NIH funding is a decent method to determine how competitive a school/programs are, but it also has its flaws.  For example, UTSW is a public school which according to NIH funding wouldn't appear to be very competitive but the programs at UTSW are just as difficult to get accepted to as U Mich/UW/UCSF/Yale etc even though it has a fraction of the NIH $$. They get a lot of private funding which is another reason they have a lot of international students. 

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.

Dang it my photo didn't post.

I think that if you get a great GRE score, you'll be range from a very to moderaltely competitive candidate for the programs you listed, the higher uncertainty being on the top 5/10 schools. Your SOP will still be critical. People with great stats can be rejected because they can't convey their interests in a convincing manner. Also, make sure that all the programs you're applying to have something that you want rather than basing it off of ranking. Doing the latter will definitely lead you to be unsuccessful in the top programs. You have to convince the adcom that there's something more that they're giving you besides a reputation.

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 really wouldn't say graduate school apps are a crapshoot per se given that the expression makes it seem more luck-based which it definitely isn't. However, biochemgirl and I are just saying that based on the schools this person listed, their GPA is on the low side. A high GPA/GRE/glowing letters won't guarantee admission, but the chances are significantly greater... Like by a lot. Of course, a relatively low GPA won't prevent you from getting into any graduate schools, but admission might come from schools that the individual is not interested in.

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.)

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.)

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.)