immuno91

This hit the nail on the head. A retiring PI will understand that you need to prioritise finding a dissertation lab. Additionally, if you end up finding a lab that studies similar things and the retiring PIs lab has a useful technique, they'll usually let you rotate in their lab for a final rotation to learn that technique.

I feel like Imperial is consistently considered to be the best university for the sciences in London - certainly it has a fantastic scientific community.

As someone who actually studies virology, I feel like I can actually provide advice to you on this matter. First, I would scratch Vandy off your list. If virology is your thing, Vanderbilt will leave a lot to be desired - ever since Terry Dermody left their virology faculty has been lacking. There are four institutions that some consider to be the "top tier" for virology: WashU, Emory, Harvard, and Mt. Sinai. I don't know how much I believe that particular statement as there are plenty of other strong virology programs out there. University of Wisconsin - Madison has a strong virology faculty and I think University of Alabama - Birmingham and one of Tulane or LSU have relatively strong virology research (if you're looking for less well known schools). UCSF and UW are probably have the two strongest virology faculties on the West Coast. Duke MGM doesn't have the most virology faculty, but the people that they do have are pretty good. UNC also has a good group of researchers. If viral immunology and less well known schools are your thing, I think a fair amount could be said for the University of Vermont, which has a solid vaccine testing research group and a few virologists on faculty. The University of Rochester also has some good virology as well.

Sort of jumping off of what @Bioenchilada said, networking is really important and some schools (like UPenn) offer significantly better networking opportunities. Additionally, when you're looking for a job as you begin to wrap up your degree, it's not just your advisor that matters. One of the opportunities at larger, more well known schools (again, such as UPenn) is that not only can you have an advisor that will help get you to the next step, you can also have well known people on your dissertation advisory committee. These are people that will be writing you recommendations as well moving forward, and it definitely helps professionally (or so I'm told by upper year students...) if you have people that can make a phone call for you and have a reasonable expectation that whomever is on the other end will pick up. That said, obviously there are pros and cons to any institution and any personal situation, and it's up to you to really measure those considerations.

You've actually just put your finger on the entire point of the interview weekend. Well, not entirely, but mostly. For smaller programs, interview weekend are pretty important in identifying students that will fit well within the program community (some of these programs even have student interviews to drive that process home). It really becomes a matter of asking whether we're right for you and you're right for us. As a program with a 67% admit rate, our interview weekend actually separates out a fair amount of people and a lot of that is based on how people are seen to fit within the program, as well as their conversations with faculty.

In most cases you'll interview with 1-2 members of the admissions committee and then a few members of the faculty that are not on the admissions committee. Everyone normally writes up reviews and sends them on to the committee for consideration, from what I understand. Once the committee is meeting, it's obviously up to the members of the committee that you met with to advocate for you, as those that aren't there cannot.

So, we were discussing this at a dinner the other day, but I just thought I would post it here for everyone interviewing this year. Every year in Boston there is at least one person that comes to an interview without a jacket. Please don't be that person (I have faith in all of you because you care enough about the process to be on this site, but I just thought I would emphasize this). Remember to dress appropriately for the weather wherever you're going! Also, anyone interviewing at the University of Washington, I would highly recommend bringing a rain jacket instead of an umbrella. When I was there all of the students recommended rain jackets because the rain is more of a mist that you'll be walking through. And when I used an umbrella, I still got fairly wet, but the next day when I switched to a rain jacket things were good.

I had three publications publicly available at the time of my interviews and at a few of the programs that I interviewed at, my interviewers did take the time to look up the publications and grill me on them. I think if you have publications noted on your CV, there's always going to be a few instances where a faculty member quizzes you on those papers (especially as people start to look more and more at publication ethics and question that amount of work people did with the publication). I think the general principle on publications is that you're not necessarily going to talk about them (and if you can steer the conversation towards your unpublished research that you may be more comfortable with - do that). However, if you list publications and are asked about them, but then mess up your response or demonstrate a lack of knowledge, that is a bad sign (this was also advice that my old PI gave me before I started interviewing). Regarding your specific scenario, I would make sure that you understand the science and can discuss the science fluently, but then if asked what you did to contribute to the project be completely forthright. Again, a lot of interviewers will give you some latitude to direct the conversation about your research in the direction you want. However, there are always a few that will grill you on anything on your CV. One of my interviewers opened my CV on her computer and picked a research experience from my junior year of university (I was three years out of university when I applied) and started asking me very specific questions about the techniques I used. It definitely wasn't a universal thing, but I would say that out of 35ish interviewers that I met with during recruitment weekends, 4-5 definitely picked specific things from my CV to ask about.

Do you have published papers? If yes, know those papers inside out and upside down. If you get asked about a certain experiment that was done in the paper (say in Fig. 2) it doesn't matter if you only contributed to Fig. 3. You need to know everything you can about your own publications because any part of anything that has your name on it is fair game.

As has been said previously, it depends on the program. At some schools (example, Vanderbilt), the admissions committee meets after every interview weekend. The grad students said that nearly everyone on the first weekend gets in and then the numbers drop for each subsequent weekend. Other programs will have all of their interview weekends and then will notify people after. It really just depends on what the program does.

One of the G5s in my program straight up interviewed someone because her PI didn't show up.

Honestly, in some cases them knowing you have an appointment is up in the air. It's not unheard of for a PI to miss an interview.

Yes, and I'm telling you what I know as a former member of a BBS lab and currently enrolled student in a DMS program. There are plenty of labs that aren't in BBS. Galit Alter, Shiv Pillai, Todd Allen, Sarah Fortune, Sylvie Legall, Mike Brenner, and Ramnik Xavier are PIs that are not part of BBS - if you want a non-exhaustive list of names. Moreover, the comment about needing a mentor in your program is not entirely true. I know that I can join a lab outside of my program, the only rule is that two members of my DAC (including the chair) need to be from my program. The point is - yes, BBS is very flexible. But most other programs, at least within DMS, are also fairly flexible. Some may require out of program PIs to join the program, but a lot don't. Plenty of MCO students join labs based in Longwood that are not part of MCO. Some BPH students join labs in Virology and Immunology that aren't part of BPH. BBS is flexible, but there are non-BBS labs. However, any graduate student with sound reason can rotate in any HILS lab if the PI is accepting students. Half of my program has done out of program rotations that were (extremely) tangentially related to the program topic, but they were signed off on without question.

That's not entirely true - while they want you to be related to your discipline, you don't necessarily have to be and the relationship can generally be very tangential. In general, the rule is that you can rotate in any lab affiliated with the Harvard Integrated Life Sciences (HILS). Doing an out of program rotation is very easy and I've never seen one get turned down. BBS students rotate in non-affiliated BBS labs quite regularly. BPH students rotate in Immunology and Virology labs all the time. Virology and Immunology students regularly rotate in BBS labs that don't really do virology or immunology.

Jeans are absolutely fine for events like welcome dinners or trips to any bars/house parties that students may take you to. That said, wear a nicer pair of jeans. Most men that I interviewed with wore a tie to their interviews. During my last interview, I decided that I didn't care anymore and stopped wearing a tie - it didn't impact the decision on my application (I also wore some interesting colored clothing on this interview because I had run out of clean clothes after three interviews in one week). Generally, people wear more neutral colors/navy blue because that sums up business casual. Honestly, I don't think it entirely matters - the program administrator at Duke gave me a high five because I wore "Duke blue" pants to the first day of interviews. In general, if faculty are expected to be present (interviews, dinners/cocktail hours with faculty), I would go with trousers (not jeans), a button down shirt, and a sweater or blazer (a tie is up to you). The great thing about blazers is that they're easy to take off and hang up if the situation is more casual. For events with students, a pair of nice jeans and a more casual shirt (button down but not necessarily a dress shirt) will usually suffice. This is more or less what I saw from those that I interviewed with as well.

I'm not sure if you're saying something specific to wearing suits (or business formal attire generally - which I would agree with, you don't need to wear a suit), I would certainly encourage wearing business casual. I can only recall one interview that I went on where people did not dress business casual (UW Pathobiology). Moreover, I can provide anecdotal evidence that a PI at Harvard remarked to me about his being less than impressed with one of his interviewees dressing on the casual end of the spectrum. In summary: business casual, good; business formal, if you feel like it.

I think historically Harvard Immunology, Virology, and Neuroscience (and apparently SBHT?) interview on the same weekend. I'm not sure if that will be the case this year because at least one of those programs is interviewing MLK weekend (which is early-ish).

Each DMS program sends out invitations separately. Neuro went first, two more were released today, and BBS is coming tomorrow (I think?). Sadly, I'm not sure what the schedule for SHBT is so I can't be of any help. EDIT: To be clear, the programs that do phone notifications are doing them over the course of a one or two days.

Sorry to have alarmed you - I should have phrased better. Definitely talk about your research because it sounds like you've done really good research in your lab(s?). Just also make it clear that you're interested in other labs in the program as well. The general thing I was told, while applying, is that they want to see people interested in other labs besides the one that they came from (if you come from within the HMS community). Edit: Also, as a note, if you're really interested in neuroscience, Harvard HILS allows you to apply to up to three programs (two of which can be in DMS), I believe - without raising the application cost (3 apps for one fee). So you could probably apply to BBS and PiN (and one other if you're really committed).

So, I worked on a fellowship at HMS for a few years before applying and had letters from two people on the BBS admissions committee that I worked with. I'm not sure if anyone told you this, but whatever you do - do not talk about how you want to work in one of the labs that you're currently in. Apparently for the majority of members of the admissions committee this is a massive red flag. Moreover, if you're at Harvard, you'll get a long talking to about how it's very much discouraged for you to rotate in, much less join, a lab that you worked in prior to grad school (rumor has it that the DMS leadership makes PQEs even more hellish than usual for people that opt to do this).

Is there a reason you're interested in applying to UPenn CAMB and Harvard BBS as opposed to UPenn Immunology and Harvard Immunology? It just seems that, given your interests and the other programs you're applying to, those may be better fits.

Did your old PI from UTK write you a letter for your Vanderbilt application? Apparently Vandy sends letters to all of your letter writers as well (I was confused because my boss told me about my Vanderbilt admission before I had even checked my email - he also said Vandy sent him a nice letter).

A few things, not all of them are the nicest comments: 1) Research is probably one of the fields that requires the most self-motivation. If you're not passionate about your current work and it shows (which it sounds like it does with you - especially if it's to the point where your mentors comment on it), that's going to be a difficult hurdle moving forward. If you don't like the projects that you're working on, "lemons into lemonade" seems to be the best cliché phrase that can be used here. 2) If you want to reapply and apply places that are leading the field of cancer immunotherapy - whether it's Sloan Kettering, UPenn, UW/FHCRC, or Harvard/DFCI - you're going to need three letter that are excellent. If you have any doubts about your letter writers you need to find new ones. A letter saying that you did well probably is not going to get you an interview at programs that are leaders in the field. Stop worrying about credentials. If the individual is someone that can attest to your research experience, then a strong letter from them would almost certainly be better than a generic or weak letter from a department chair somewhere else (and if they can't attest to your research experience, that's a different issue). 3) The GRE thing is something you recognize. Part of me wonders if for higher level programs international students need higher GRE scores - I can't really comment on this. 4) This goes back to the self-motivation thing - are you willing to do a lot of work over the next nine months to get to a place where you are competitive? Do you know how to make the most out of your next year? I'm not certain where else you interviewed, but if you have good stats and the functional equivalent of a doctorate already, I just don't see your GRE score being the complete dealbreaker here (I'm also quite firmly of the belief that statistics aren't the end all, be all of the process - unlike our resident biostatistician). Moreover, if you did interview other places, maybe asking what went wrong there is something you should do sooner rather than later.

I would say going back to undergrad may not be the way forward, but maybe something that can facilitate transition would be (a master's level program). Depending on interests, something like an MPH (ideally one at a public health program that allows for independent research) would allow her to gain some credibility (an MPH is also a degree that can complement an MBA and can be used to allow her to work in more health-oriented fields that may not be bench based, such as working for an organization like the Gates Foundation or CHAI).

In what may be a surprise to nobody, I'm going to disagree with those preaching about GPA. About myself: I graduated from a liberal arts school with a 3.5 GPA and a 3.4 BCMP GPA. Admittedly, I had 2.5 years of full-time research experience by the time I applied. Counterpoint: my undergraduate research experience consisted of a nine month thesis project. My GRE was a 163/163 for those curious about that. Now, having had the opportunity to work (and have candid conversations) with a faculty member on the Harvard BBS admissions committee, I'll say my piece. GPA and GRE matter in the screening process. But they don't have to be amazing. The general rule that I've heard for screening applicants is a GPA above 3.5 or 160+/160+ on the GRE. One is forgivable, but missing both won't do. Fortunately, one of these can be rectified somewhat easier than the other (GRE scores are easy to move, GPA not so much). Should people with lower GPAs apply more broadly? Yes. But let's stop saying that GPA is a be all, end all here. It's not. Maybe for some of the less lab oriented sciences (stats, biostats, bioinformatics), GPA is much more important. But for lab-based sciences, programs that are ultimately bench focused, there's a reason that you see a reasonable number of people getting into top tier programs with 3.5 GPAs while a lot of people with 3.8 GPAs or whatever are getting rejected pre-interview. That being said, there are likely some programs that value GPA more than others. The best way, in my opinion, to assess this is to see what the program says about GPA on its website. If the program is showcasing high mean/median GPAs for interviewees/accepted students, then they probably care more about GPA than your average program. If the program, however, is just reporting a range (Stanford Biosciences: 2.88-4.00) or doesn't say much (Harvard DMS: "There is no minimum GPA..."), then they're probably looking at other things a little more closely. Moving on to other parts of your application, the most consistent piece of advice that I've received is that your letters are by far the most important part of the package. This is the reason why it is critical to have faculty members (if the work was done in an academic setting) or senior supervisors (ideally with a doctoral degree in a non-academic setting) write them. The commentary I've heard is that it's the letters that will make or break getting invited to an interview (hence why it's important to have people that know your work write the letters - what does this mean if your PI doesn't know you that well? Maybe see if a post-doc that does know you well can prepare a draft for your PI to edit/sign). Some of the comments in this thread have been focused on getting people to improve their package. Advising people to find the best letter writers (non-postdoc letter writers) is probably some of the best advice that can be given. It's certainly better than the GPA commentary. Research experience is probably the other most important factor. There are a fair number of programs that place a premium on having post-bacc research experience - and I think every faculty member knows that working full time in a lab for a year is much different than working full time in the summer/part time during the school year. However, I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of your resume/CV in the process. That is your opportunity to convince the admissions committee that 1) you have significant experience, 2) you can articulate it briefly, and (program dependent) 3) that you have other interests besides science (because guess what - these programs want good scientists, but they also want to foster a great community within the program; half of my interviews spent more time discussing my experience as a college athlete than my research experience). I know that my PI edited my CV 3 or 4 times before I was ready to submit it. Also, it's worth tailoring your CV to certain programs. I applied to programs at JHSPH and UW that were based in schools of public health - as such, I put more emphasis on my experience working abroad on public health related projects in the CVs that I sent to those schools. Of course, all this being said, if you can't remedy the deficiencies in your application by the time to apply (your GRE isn't 160/160, that third letter hasn't really fallen into place), then it may be time to reevaluate your chances at some of the higher ranked programs. And certainly, in the meantime, you should look at other programs that may not be as highly ranked (though I'm curious as to when BU, Sinai, and UMiami became top tier - they're good, but let's not get carried away). But absolutely don't discount higher ranked programs because of GPA. This is probably the most holistic admissions process you'll ever encounter. That is something to be taken advantage of.