Ferroportin

In the same boat here - didn't realize notifications had gone out until this morning. Called them today and now just waiting for them to send me the email again...

The best questions to ask are ones that will help you gauge the quality and fit of the program to your interests. Remember, the opportunity to ask questions isn't to impress your interviewer but for you to have a chance to better assess whether the program matches your interests and will support you well throughout the next 5-6 years. For example, in all my interviews I asked about the career prospects of their recent graduating classes. I wanted to stay in academia but was concerned about the current status of the academic landscape. So as I was interviewing, one of the things I was looking for was a program that had a strong record of supporting students that want to pursue alternative career paths (biotech, consulting, policy, etc) to keep my options open. So I would say just make a list of what's important to you and form good questions around those aspects.

Like you mentioned, most interviews should be fairly casual and conversational. However, this can all be based on luck and whoever ends up interviewing you. I was asked at one interview why I didn't want to pursue an MD since my CV had some clinical and public health experience on it. We literally spent over half the interview just discussing about why I should not pursue an PhD, but rather get an MD and do research without practicing medicine. I've heard of people getting interviewers that wanted them to do a chalk talk of their research or draw out signaling pathways for them. I've also heard of interviews where the faculty member completely disregards the student's research/field as irrelevant or wrong. I had an interview where the faculty member did not want to hear about my research at all. In one of my favorite but more stressful interviews, my interviewer started talking about his research and background info in his field and then asked me to come up with hypotheses given the information he had laid out. He was really encouraging and the interview was really engaging, but nonetheless, it was stressful at the time. In this end, its going to be a mixed bag with a dash of luck depending on who you get. There's only so much you can do to prepare for the interviews - just know your research well and be able to explain the logic behind the big picture. If you get any interviewer who is just hostile or disrespectful to you, it's ok to bring that up with the program coordinator. After all, if the program coordinator brushes you off or doesn't care that you brought up a genuine concern to them - then perhaps they might not provide the best student support when you're actually in the program.

I attended the first interview weekend of Berkeley's MCB program last year and got an offer two days after. From what I was told by the current students, the adcom extends offers after the first weekend to students that they are confident about. For the ones that they aren't 100% sure on, the adcom waits until the second interview weekend is over before deciding whether or not to extend an offer.

My interviews were all fairly casual. Depending on the school, I interviewed with around 3-6 faculty - sometimes split across two days, sometimes in a back to back 3 hour block. I only read papers by my interviewers for my first interview and quickly realized this provided absolutely no benefit for me. For my subsequent interviews, I stopped reading papers and would only read their short research bio on the program website the night before so I knew their general field and focus. As others have mentioned, you may get faculty that you have no interest in or are in a completely different field - but for me these were usually the most fun as we just chatted broadly about research and focused on non-science topics. All my schools also gave me a folder to carry around that included my interview schedule and miscellaneous materials. I wrote down my questions on a piece of paper and stuck them in the folder to look at in between interviews to refresh my mind. I never once got a normal job interview question - the flow was usually some light banter at the beginning, then I talked about my most current research project while answering interjecting questions, then listened to the faculty talk about their research while answering questions, and finally asked my own questions about the program or the faculty at the end. As others have pointed out, the interviews are usually only 30 minutes long. This time goes by pretty fast while you're in the interview and the goal is to run out the clock while making the best impression. Above all, you want to convey that you understand the logic and scientific basis of your research and that you weren't just a tech that mindlessly did what a post doc told you to do.

Some let me choose and some only gave one interview date. Scheduling was one of the big issues for me last year and I ultimately turned down a few interviews as there were only so many weekends available during interview season. If you can get your hands on potential interview dates for each school, I would recommend pulling up a calendar and trying to see if you can fit all the interview dates of the schools you really want to attend. This will end up helping a lot if you have a bunch of schools that offer two interview dates.

All of my phone calls were followed up by official email invites. The calls were just a nice touch and it was pretty much always from someone on the admissions committee calling to let me know early before the emails were sent out. If you miss it, it's not a big deal at all.

Congrats on submitting your apps everyone! If it helps at all, I put the dates and mode of communication for my interview invites last year in my signature as a general reference.

I think you have a very strong profile, but as you've pointed out, your GPA is going to be your Achille's heel. It's hard to say whether or not your GPA will prevent your application from even being reviewed (some people on this thread say yes...others say no...) but regardless, I would just make sure you explain it well in your SOP. I would also suggest adding UCSF to your potential list of schools. They have a strong neuro program there (plus cost of living is on par with Berkeley and Palo Alto anways).

I agree with this. This way you can get your first LOR from your current PI, the second from an undergraduate professor, and the third from the PI you tech for. Those were the LORs I had applying this recent cycle and they definitely helped me throughout the process.

I recently graduated from UCSD for undergrad and am currently working at UCSF (starting the BMS PhD program in September). In regards to SF rent, it's going to cost around $1,000 - $1,500/month for a single room in a shared apt. If you want a studio, it'll be $2,000+ a month. That being said, I would opt for the UCSD tech position. If you're upfront with your PI that you are looking to apply to graduate programs in a few years and would like to strengthen your research experience, they'll likely let you take on more responsibility and have a larger part of a project. Not sure what @harcerz is referring to when s/he says that too many students are working in research at UCSD. Most of the students working in the labs are undergrads anyways who are working limited hours. Being in full time research will definitely help your grad application and help you develop research skills/critical thinking.

My program's been quiet too. I think it's probably fairly common for them to wait until their matriculating class is finalized and then relaying the same information to everyone at the same time.

The number of years of experience applicants claim they have can often be misleading as well. During my undergrad, I gained "2 years" of experience but in reality only went into lab ~15 hours a week. So if the 1.5 years of experience was from part time research consisting of a couple hours a week, I definitely agree that it's on the low side and would likely hurt your chances. However, I do think that 1.5 years of FULL TIME research would be a decent amount and sufficient for getting into good programs.

Given your descriptions of the two school, I also think UGA is a better choice. The overall fit seems much better and it seems like there's a greater chance that you'll be happy there. Name recognition shouldn't matter too much - if anything you can do well at UGA and just do your postdoc at a name brand institution.

Usually the program coordinator or whoever gave you the news that you were admitted.