biochemgirl67

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'd say that you focus more on research and personal fit rather than the amount of top tier publications put out of by the lab. If you hate the research or the environment, it'll affect your performance and motivation, which will then impact the work you publish. Since you're already going to a school you don't want to go, I'd suggest going with the lab you feel happiest with, regardless of research output. 

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.

You're very right.  I don't know why everyone is downvoting your comment, especially since honesty is essential before this guy goes and spends all that money and time on applications.  @Dank you could take the Biology or even better biochemistry/Molecular Biology subject test to put off your GPA issues.  NO LETTERS FROM POST DOCS.  That is not an option.  If you don't have any letters from a faculty member that has overseen your research or a supervisor in industry, you are 100% going to need to diversify a lot. Maybe focus on fit and reach out to potential mentors beforehand to not waste your time. 

Another thing to consider is that public schools often have less spots/funding for international students (If OP is one??) than private universities. Weill Cornell was one school that was pretty explicit in stating that nationality plays a very small role in admission decisions due to having a large amount of non-federal funding for graduate students. This probably varies from school to school, but it does appear to be a general trend I've noticed. You can always look to see if a program you're interested in publishes its percentage of incoming international students. You'll notice those numbers tend to be larger at private schools (for the most part) than public ones, but overall still pretty small percentages. 
That said, these top 10-20 schools are highly competitive for all applicants and even more so for internationals, private or not, so diversifying your target programs would most likely be a smart move regardless. With your research experience/publication track, I wouldn't completely rule out top programs, if you can find a few with good research fits, but I wouldn't put all my grad school dreams on them.

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.)

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.
 

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.
 

I really appreciate your encouragement. Since, I've got the time I'm definitely going to look into a broader range of programs, including the ones you've listed above. I think I have been really hard on myself. 

I definitely agree with @biochemgirl67. You should really reconsider since you'll be unhappy if you end up at a place you didn't want to go and, on top of that, wanted to avoid grad school. But, do as you please.

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!

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!

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.

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.

I accepted the offer from Notre Dame. Excited to start my PhD!

I think before the applications are in and options are still open, it's really important to be honest.  After the applications are in and it's a done deal, however, it might cause undue stress on the poor person sitting there thinking oh my god what am I going to do.  Right now, honesty can change something.  After submission, it's kind of just up in the air and not in the applicant's hands to worry about.  Most people will search out other options by the end of January if they haven't heard back if they overshot in all their programs.
Basically it's a timing thing of whether or not I think it's worth it to tell the person their choices don't have a great chance of working out to their best advantage.  And all these people apply to the top 10 programs but honestly don't realize the whole game is a fit search.  I did not like any of the more "prestigious" schools I visited more than or as much as Vanderbilt.  The school you don't consider your top choice (Vanderbilt for me) may actually be your top choice in the end so people might as well diversify their list based on fit.  So yeah, I wouldn't tell some poor anxious applicant he wasn't gonna get in anywhere if he had already submitted.  But now, I would definitely be more blunt about how your record, precluding special circumstances, does indeed affect your acceptance.

I know a few people in similar situations. Your friend might need to complete a biology post-bac program to fulfill the necessary coursework to even apply for biological grad programs. While completing classes she needs to find a good lab to intern or work part-time for. She needs to keep in mind that she's competing for spots that many others have spent years working for through 4-yr undergrad programs plus extracurricular lab experience. 

I kind of did this. I had a bachelors degree in non science, and then decided to become a scientist but I had no background so went back and did a new bachelors at 25. If she wants to pursue it through to the PhD level, I think with 2-3 years of sustained lab and course work you can totally get accepted to top programs as I seem to have managed. But I think you need at least 2-3 years of experience (post bacc or new degree) and learning and even that is cutting it close. And you need to get into the lab as soon as possible and excel in science coursework. This will also confirm or deny the idea that the field would even be a good fit for her. 
Also, this story about a couple who went from non-science to science after the wife was diagnosed with a disease is pretty amazing and inspiring. https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2016/02/17/husband-and-wife-race-cure-her-fatal-genetic-disease/SLnmAndVfrq9XO1NnLIgkL/story.html

Agreed, but seriously can reporters please stop saying that people inherit genes that cause disease? One of my biggest pet peeves by far. 

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.)

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!

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.

just got an offer, 98% sure i'm going to go!!!!