Bioenchilada

Have you seen any particular programs that appeal to you?

I just PM'ed you.

I'll take a look at it.

Well, I obtained the information I posted from a Harvard faculty member that has been involved in admissions for many years. Of course, if the program states that it is REQUIRED for everyone to submit a subject test, then no one is excused. However, if it is simply recommended, your school's prestige might "save" you from having to take the test, if your GPA is decent. This is only because they become more familiar with the school's grading policy if they have some form of tie with it or many applicants have been from that particular school. Same thing applies with the GRE. If you have a 5.0 from MIT, then the relevance of your GRE is lowered because you come from a prestigious school. I'm not talking about the impression that the GPA makes, but rather the adcoms familiarity with the school and its right.

I believe going to a better school lowers the impact of GPA/GRE and excuses you from taking subject tests.

Purdue has the highest ranked analytical chem program and I'm a student there, so you can ask me questions if you'd like.

That won't be a problem then!

/bump/ (I'd still like some input on my SOP. I also need assistance cutting down some stuff. )

What field is this for? I might be able to help.

Preach it.

LOL that picture killed me. I'm mainly concerned about my GRE haha

What would you say a good GRE/GPA is for top programs? I mean, you could argue that someone that's younger will be able to get more out of their degree because they'll likely spend more time in the workforce. Also, taking a 7-year gap from school, although spent doing research, is still rather unusual. Not by any means a bad thing, but I've heard from many people that the older you get, the lower your chances. Of course, that doesn't mean it's impossible for someone older to get in, as your friend showed.

I mean, a lot of "overqualified" people get rejected all the time. I also think age factors into admission, and he was probably already in his upper 20's. Regardless, are you essentially saying I have no shot at top schools?

Typically, no. However, that might depend on how different they are.

I thought you always had to waive your right of seeing the letter. o.o

Okay! Thank you very much for your advice, it's extremely comforting. :)

I can give it a shot.

Hey! I was curious about how much leverage a LOR from a very well connected and incredibly famous scientist can give you in terms of admission. Like, if the letter is good, will that give me an edge over other applicants-- especially at the university at which this person works?

I think you have a decent shot at some of the schools you're applying to. I don't know how high your GPA should be for schools like UChicago, but I think it'll be about average. GREs tend to have a smaller role than GPA, so I won't address that (Your scores are pretty good). In terms of research, I don't know how much experience the typical applicant has (I have 3 years of experience), but what matters is being able to make sense of your research and understand the greater purpose of each project. Ideally, you should get all your letters from people that have personally supervised some form of research, but if your non-research recommender knows you well, you should be good in that area.

Why are you not applying to Harvard Medical School? I assume that having 2+ years of research there would probably be VERY beneficial in terms of admission.

How much research experience would you say you have overall? (In months) Also, who's recommending you?

GPA/GRE are not as important as your research experience, LORs, and fit into the program. I think your stats look fine. What kind of research were you doing? Did you have your own project? Most importantly, being able to explain why you used specific techniques is more important than listing them. Also, why are you adding a fourth rec letter? More than 3 usually doesn't help unless the additional recommender truly has something exceptional to say about you.

How many years of research would you say you have done? (Some schools ask this information) Do you attend a top school? Who is recommending you? Regardless of your answers to the questions above, I think that you should have a pretty good chance at top programs given that you have a lot of research experience and have a very high GPA. Some people say that a score higher than the 80th percentile should be attained in every section to be "competitive", but I think that after a certain point, the GRE doesn't matter anymore. For example, Cornell asks for a score higher than a 308 for their Comparative Biomedical Sciences program, after that I think there would be no real benefit in having a high GRE. Some people postulate the hypothetical scenario in which two IDENTICAL candidates are compared and the GRE is used to choose the better candidate. In reality, it is unlikely that there will be someone identical to you given that at least your writing style should be unique... Bottomline is, I think you're good, but if you want to give the GRE a second try to attempt to get a better score, go ahead.

What kind of schols have you been getting emails from?