factanonverba

My two cents about living in NYC - yes, it's gonna be completely different from California. But you are young, if you want to experience something different, grad school is not a bad time to do it! It would be hard to live in NYC at any other stage of one's career, but if the grad school gives you a good community, subsidized housing, etc. then I think it's a pretty good deal.

Hi guys, For those of you who have attended community colleges in the past, do you still list them on your academic CVs? In theory, if you have a bachelors and are in a PhD program, the CC degree doesn't really mean much anymore right? Do you think it is necessary to list all colleges one has attended? (Or do you think it is dishonest not to?)

I agree with @hurryskurry. Ultimately it's what you achieve in grad school that matters. And this will be heavily influenced by your PI, your cohort, and how happy you are in general. Also, GSK has a very strong name in academia especially in cancer bio, but I'm sure you already know that!

Thanks @jasbee, @siliconchins, and @StemCellFan for your input! I definitely clicked with the Stanford faculty better, although I really liked the grad students at MIT. (Not that I didn't like the Stanford students though!) This really helped! I think I am going to go with Stanford!

Hi guys, help me decide? I got accepted to both MIT biology and Stanford Biosciences (Cancer Biology), and I am so torn between these two. Below are my criteria so far, but I would like to get more input on this: 1. Program structure: MIT has a rigid program structure, I would take classes in fundamental areas of biology, have two semesters of TA-ing, three 1-month rotations, etc. Stanford is a bit more flexible as there is no TA requirement, there are some classes in cancer biology but there are other electives. Overall, I like the Stanford structure a bit more. 2. Classes: as mentioned above. I like the MIT classes because they seem to cover a broader spectrum of disciplines and I like that. Although the Stanford ones are not bad, they are just more focused on cancer bio. 3. Faculty choices: MIT has only ~50 faculty in the department, while Stanford has ~60 affiliated with cancer bio and hundreds more in the broader Biosciences program. I could work with any of the hundreds within Biosciences. I also made some really good faculty connections at Stanford and they already guaranteed rotation spots for me. Some of them even gave me their cell phone numbers so I can call them directly. 4. Research: Both places are doing amazing research! MIT has a lot of legendary PIs (Tyler Jacks, David Sabatini, Philip Sharp, Bob Weinberg, etc.) but they may or may not be suitable thesis advisors for someone like me who is an early career scientist and initially needs guidance. Stanford has more of a spectrum of senior, mid-career and young PIs so that might be a good thing for me? 5. Location: Boston/Cambridge is awesome! A lot of research/biotech/museums/music/arts etc. If I live outside the cities I can probably even get a one-bedroom at a reasonable price range. In comparison, Palo Alto seems pretty boring, and SUPER expensive to live in (impossible to live off-campus). 6. Weather: Palo Alto for the win! Mild winters, a lot of sunny days, not humid in the summer like in Boston. 7. Prestige: Are they comparable? Some people seem to think that MIT trains a lot of big thinkers in the field. What else am I missing?

You will be fine! Adrenaline is your friend

I think it's still definitely worth doing a practice interview with someone at your career center. Most career centers can conduct mock interviews for different situations, and it's likely that they have done them for prospective grad students in the past so they should know all the conventional interview questions and should be able to provide general tips. Not exactly the same, but I have done mock interviews in the past in preparation for research technician positions at my career center and they were quite helpful. Also, I think if you are passionate about your research, you should probably just let the conversation flow naturally! I don't think you can really come off as too enthusiastic as long as you don't sound crazy haha. I also tend to get carried away when I talk about my research and I have only had positive feedback from faculty interviewers so far. Just my experience though.

These are cool insights! Would you guys say it is a good idea to carry a notebook with you and jot notes during interviews? I carry it everywhere with me and write useful ideas down, but not sure how that would come off in grad school interviews.

FYI, I applied to Stanford Biosciences Cancer Biology, and I got an invite just yesterday afternoon (4:30pm Pacific time), so it is likely that they just started sending out invites. It could be coming soon!

What is the source of these numbers? That actually doesn't sound bad. Ratio-wise it's quite similar to what I have heard about several other programs such as Harvard BBS, which I've heard accepts 80-90% of students post interviews with a matriculation rate much lower than that (although I don't remember the exact figures).

Good to know! Thanks BiomedicalPHD.

Just got an invite from Stanford Biosciences! Actual interview period is March 1 morning to March 3 evening.

Also would like to know.

I should clarify - I have been invited to their open house, so I'm more curious about their post-interview acceptance rather than general selectivity.

Hi all, There are quite a few threads already about post-interview acceptance rates at other programs, but I for some reason cannot find much info about MIT Biology. How selective is the program post interviews? Also, does anyone happen to know how many people they typically invite to interviews (or to each of the three open house dates)?