Neuro PolarBear

Retaking it might improve your chances. I'd try to have both the verbal and quantitative scores in the 90th+ percentile for top programs. However, the GRE is just one small component of the application process. GPA, research experience and letters of recommendation, are all more important.

If your grades are good, which it seems like they are, then I don't think taking the subject tests would be that helpful, especially since the bio and math ones aren't that directly relevant to the programs you're applying to. Especially if you're interested in theory, I think a lot of the neuroscience programs aren't as concerned about your experience. That is, they'll gladly take students from physics and computer science backgrounds, since it's probably easier to teach them the biology than vice versa. Other programs that you could consider that have strong theorists are Brandeis (see the Volen National Center for Complex Systems), and BU (which has strong theorists like Stephen Grossberg and Michael Hasselmo, also see CompNet), NYU (David Heeger and Eero Simoncelli), or UT Austin (Ila Fiete, and Alex Huk). I think you'll find that many of these programs and theorists have interests that span both neuroscience and cognitive science.

If you're interested in theoretical/computational neuroscience you should consider the Gatsby unit at UCL or the theory center at Columbia. However, given that most of the programs you've listed above are EEB ones, I get the sense that you're more interested in that, and maybe you'll be able to know that for sure by the end of the summer. I think you have enough experience to apply now, as well. You can certainly apply this cycle and see how you do and then decide to take a gap year if you don't find a program that works for you. If you want to switch over to neuroscience, perhaps taking a gap year and trying to do some more research in computational neuroscience could be beneficial. You can also reach out to some professors/program directors at each type of program to see what they'd say about your amount of experience.

One of the three quantitative section was the experimental one, just like on the SAT. The scores you get on it don't actually count

I wouldn't report it, but it depends on the program and your background as an applicant. I also took it and didn't do as well as I would have liked (in the mid-80s% range but my cell bio subscore was way lower since I'd never taken a class on that). I ended up applying for neuro programs, some which may have said they recommend or even strongly recommend it, but I don't think not doing so hurt me and I got interviews at similar top-tier programs. I would probably only submit it if it's above 85 or even 90% for those top schools. I think I would also submit it if your science GPA is low or the graduate programs might not recognize your undergrad institute, but it's your call. It's probably more important from students at less well-know LACs or for international applicants. If you have a high GPA (3.8 or 3.9+), good general GRE scores (90%+), and good recommendations from professors you've done research with, I bet you'll get a lot of interviews! In other words, if you think it would help your application, I would probably submit it. I do think if it's on the lower side it may hurt you if everything else indicates that you're a super strong applicant. Also, the biochem GRE test is one tough test that covers an extremely wide range of subjects! The raw scores that get 99% are far far lower than any other subject test, so even if you thought you might not have done well, you might surprise yourself. Good luck!

Me too

I think it's good to branch out and go to a new place, for a variety of reasons! I'd probably go to Hopkins or Duke. I didn't interview at Duke, but I really liked Hopkins when I visited. It has some great faculty, including many young faculty that are at the perfect place in their careers to mentor graduate students. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Baltimore! Good luck with making a decisions. It sounds like you have a bunch of great options.

Yeah, that's correct. You can now only apply again as a first or second-year grad student, but not both.

I don't think spoon-feeding is the right word. I certainly don't have much of any experience applying to grants and fellowships (besides this one), but I think for something like NSF you really need to make sure that the rationale for the project, what and how you will do, what you expect to see, and how this will bring the field forward are all as explicit as possible. I'm sure your proposal did this, and even if the reviews can follow it, if there's anything that's left implicit, they'll ding you for it.

Well, you'll still be able to apply next year as a first-year at Cornell! Or you can apply the year after, you now just can't apply both years.

Also, in case people aren't aware, they're changing the eligibility requirements for future years so that you can only apply once during graduate school: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16051/nsf16051.jsp?WT.mc_id=USNSF_179 This doesn't apply to first year graduate students that applied this year, but it does apply to undergraduate seniors that applied.

Even if you start contacting them now, I wouldn't set up more than the first rotation. You won't know who you'll want to work with next, and if you interests change (after hearing faculty talks, more from other grad students, etc.) you don't want to be locked into other rotations and not get the chance to rotate with someone that you decide you want to!

Feng Zhang's lab is certainly the place to go to if you want to work on CRISPR. However, I personally can't imagine trying to do a graduate thesis on CRISPR at this point. The field exploded so fast in the past 3 years, and I can't imagine what it will be like in the next 4-5 years from now. Trying to get someone published without getting scooped seems almost impossible and more stress than it's worth.

Hmm, I'm not entirely sure what you're interested in, nor am I as familiar with the biology and genetics side of things. I would suggest trying to schedule some phone or skype conversations with the people you mentioned above, or email graduate students in their labs (or your student hosts) and see what they say about the lab (or ask their general opinion / if they can put you in touch with other students or professors). One person who I think you should definitely look into is Myriam Heiman at MIT. She did her postdoctoral work with Greengard and Heintz at Rockefeller and developed the TRAP method to purify mRNAs that are actively being transcribed and her works lies at the intersection of genetics / mol bio / neuroscience. I think she'd be a great person to work for. At Rockefeller, more on the neuroscience side, I'd also take a look at Vanessa Ruta and Gaby Maimon.

I would disagree with a lot, if not all, of these points. Both programs are consistently considered some, if not the, top graduate programs in the nation. Rockefeller is extremely well known within the scientific community, and traditionally has some of the best placement for postdocs and faculty positions. Moreover, trying to infer the utility of a graduate degree from each of these programs based on their arbitrary "global ranking" is laughable. I suspect Rockefeller doesn't do as well in the rankings you mention because it doesn't have as big of a program or as many labs and they are fairly spread out across many disciplines like cell bio, immunology, neuro, etc. However, the people it has, are true giants in the field and it would be a privilege to work with any of them. Doing so is not likely to put you in a worse position than if you went to MIT. What matters most (if you want to stay in science) is doing a PhD with the best mentor for you on an exciting project. The reason I'd recommend MIT is that they have many more labs so it might be easier to find one with a better fit for you, but if there's people at Rockefeller that you'd prefer to work with then you should go there!