RM17

I do something related to aging/longevity and will be joining a neuroscience program in hopes of continuing to study this, so I am somewhat aware of what's going on. If your career goal is research, you probably need a PhD or MD of some kind, but it does depend on what you want to do, and at what level you want to work. Do you want to look at genetic factors that promote longevity? Maybe go into genetics. Do you want to look in animal models? Probably some sort of biology or biomedical program would be a good fit. Do you want to work in humans? Neuroscience, psychology, or maybe an MD is perhaps the right choice. There is, however, a lot of overlap with many of these programs (and umbrella programs as mentioned above), and in PhD programs there may be faculty with a variety of expertise that you might be able to try out with rotations. If you're interested in the public health aspects, MAYBE an MPH could work for you but I don't know what exactly your options might be after. In any case, if you're not feeling a program, you can usually master out (as also mentioned by @blc073) - you're not conscripted forever! I might recommend looking for volunteer or paid research assistant position in the field you find most interesting and see how you like it. Being an RA has been really important in shaping my interests and convincing me that I was on the right track. You don't mention if you have any research experience, but if not, you might want to wait a year to apply because it will be very difficult to gain admission without any!

Got both a skype interview at McGill to the IPN rotation program and a rejection front Stanford today, so I guess that's a wrap for me - minus actually going to most of my interviews and ultimate (hopeful) acceptances, but it's nice to know where I stand...

Also - they tend to know what your interests are from your app. Last year I met with some folks I wasn't particularly interested in but I was worried I'd have to "fake it" when it came to talking about why I wanted to work with them. i sometimes think that it's a good litmus test for programs to see if you can talk about your work in a slightly less technical way and articulate your interests to people outside your field as well as inside it. Some of my more fun conversations were with faculty whose research interests didn't align with mine!

I don't think it'll matter much - once you've made it to the interview stage, I think they're mostly making sure that you are who you say you are, can talk about your research intelligently, and aren't some heinous asshole; getting the interview is really the main hurdle! Maybe if they need to cut down the pool and are looking towards the bottom of their list after offering to several people they'd go back to stats, but I think that if you've received an interview your stats have by and large been OKed.

I think to some extent it's a crapshoot, and to some extent, slightly like what @jmillar said, it's about "fit" of the program -- both for highly ranked and slightly lower ranked schools. I also think that, in some cases, a program being highly ranked overall does not necessarily correlate with it being a good fit for one's specific research interests. It also depends what kinds of applicants they're looking for in a particular year; for example, one of my friends who entered a neuroscience PhD program a few years ago said that a lot of cogneuro people were admitted his year to the program, and that in the subsequent year there was a bit of a bounce-back in the opposite direction. I was rejected from UCSF (but have received interviews from a solid lineup so far), which was probably among the "best" programs I applied to, but it wasn't super high on my personal list because I am already in a rather specific branch of human neuroscience research. If I had been invited I would've been intrigued and excited to see what kind of fit it looked like from the inside, but there aren't that many faculty there that fit my interests, compared to other programs on my list. It's probably possible for the opposite to be true -- for your research interests and experience to be a better "fit" for more highly ranked programs than for some of the lower ones, regardless of your other credentials. I don't know what kind of work you do or want to do, or if this is at all the case with your situation, but it's a scenario I could imagine. By and large, I don't think ranking is as important as the PI you're working with; although it is true that funding and resources tend to cluster in "top" programs, some of the best faculty in certain fields are at seemingly random schools. I don't know how much of that actually answers your question (sorry haha!), but it's just something I think about a lot (especially as a full-time RA of a couple years who has had a lot of time to hone my interests)...

Congrats! Here are a few threads from this year about prepping for and what to wear to interviews:

Ahhh congrats! Here's hoping there's good news on the horizon for more of us.. Sometimes it's almost better to miss the call, at least when they leave a message - last year I had some kinda awkward phone calls borne of the fact that I was not prepared. And also probably ~as a millennial~ I'm not good at talking on the phone anyway lol...

I brought mine last year, and I have to say, I barely used it (although I did have to use it a bit one weekend to work on an abstract). I am, however, 1) not a student or particularly able to work remotely and 2) the owner of a very old, clunky laptop that is more trouble than it's worth to carry around... I think I'm going to get a tablet because it makes sense for me for a few reasons and bring it instead. It was nice having something other than my phone to look things up on, ultimately, but my laptop personally was a huge hassle...

I definitely agree that attire isn't overly important, within reason, although I understand the concerns of folks especially who don't have experience interviewing for jobs and/or with the weather in an area they'll be visiting. I also agree that it's super important to be able to talk about your own work, why it interests you, and what you want to do in grad school - that is, after all, why they're bringing you in, and what will be the deciding factor the admissions decisions. However, I don't think you need to read every article for every person you're interviewing with - I did this for my first interview, and I found it to be overkill (and I also got into all schools I interviewed at). I would definitely familiarize yourself with their biosketches, and read more for the people you're really interested in - maybe a couple articles and a few more abstracts. Though there was a lot of time for me to ask questions during the interviews, and though I did speak to why the lab environments of the people I wanted to work with were interesting and a good fit for me, there just wasn't that much time to get into the nitty-gritty. It was almost like explaining my research to friends and family, albeit slightly more technical - but only a couple people I met at each school had an in-depth knowledge of my field of study (and vice versa). I'm definitely not advocating going in blind, but depending on the school you could be meeting with 5-10 faculty members, and that is A LOT of reading...like with everything else, though, if it makes you feel more comfortable (and you have the time), do it! I wouldn't say, though, that you should agonize about being underprepared if you can't get to all of their recent papers.

That was one of the most shocking parts of leaving California for college - I marveled to all my friends that I didn't need even a light sweater when I was out late at night in the summer. They all thought I was crazy, but "layers" had been the mantra of my youth, and it was definitely necessary year round when I was growing up...

I think that's probably about right. I know that for one of my interviews, we had 2 days of activities (like, 1.5 of interviews) and at a certain point we had some down time and they basically told us we should change then because the rest of the evening was casual...we like, had a poster session/mixer with grad students and faculty, then hung out with current students. I honestly think that as long as you are 1) not wearing jeans to your interviews (although I saw people doing that...don't know how it worked out for them...) and 2) not wearing super-distressed, revealing, and/or offensive clothes (like, I don't know, racist statement tees), at any point during the recruitment weekend you're probably totally fine. Unless one of your interview events is a hike with faculty/students/others (which is the case for one of mine), in which case I guess that's out the window lol Also layers, always layers. Even if you're going to California -- I can attest to the fact that it is a big state and not all parts of it are warm all the time

I also work with human research participants, which I feel like helps when it comes to having generally "presentable" clothes that you are used to wearing in a work setting. I wear dresses almost exclusively in the summer (in part because it's too hot to think of wearing anything else lol), though in the winter I get lazy and wear skinny ankle pants like every day haha. I'm honestly pretty excited to wear them again at my California interviews. And maybe my Penn interview if I'm brave enough -- last year I wore a skirt/blouse and dress/blazer as my 2 outfits in a cold place, and I don't remember freezing too badly..I'm not brave enough to do that in the upper midwest though haha. I definitely think it's a benefit to wear something you're comfortable in! Just in general, having clothes you know fit you and know you can wear all day without tugging or pinching or itching is a huge plus. So much of interviewing is uncomfortable, and knowing your clothes won't be can go a long way.

Hmm, I probably wouldn't, but that's not to say you can't. I found my conversations with faculty to be relatively casual -- they asked me to explain my research, but in many cases, they weren't necessarily in my area of expertise so I gave them the short version and we mostly chatted about other things... For those who were in my field of expertise, figures and such would likely have been unnecessary, since they knew what I was talking about without visual aids I do human neuro research, though, so the utility of this may vary by field...

Yes, and I haven't heard anything yet. No one on the results search appears to have either. On the flip side, Wisconsin sent out their interview invites over a week later than usual; I guess they just like to keep us on our toes.

I applied to a couple programs that rejected me last year, and this year I've received interview invitations for those schools. I don't know if/how much they consider previous applications - they obviously have a lot to do during admissions time - but if they do I think they would look favorably upon improvement and the commitment that takes. Of course it's hard to say for sure, but it's definitely not something that rules you out! EDIT: I am in a very different (STEM) field so YMMV (came here from recent activity) but I HOPE that what I said is somewhat generally applicable!