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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Having done research at Harvard for a few years, I would say a few things. First, there is collaboration, but it can be very cliquey. There are groups of PIs that work together and that's how it is. Regarding the graduate students that I know (most in BBS, n = ~20), what I would say is that there are grad students that are here to do the best that they can and be competitive within the program. Those are the grad students making it out in 5-5.5 years. There are grad students that are more relaxed and not focused on competing. Those are the ones that are on the 6.5-7 year track. There's a lot of opportunity, but you're expected to really work for it and want to compete, play the game, whatever word choice you use (and that's true whether you're a tech, grad student, or postdoc).
That said, regarding your specific concerns: I've never heard of someone's work getting sabotaged. And there may be competition between labs (just look at the competition between cancer research at MGH and cancer research at DFCI). But within your lab, I think the only competition that you may face is for your PIs time, and you'll probably find that anywhere.

Well, this is awkward.

95% certain it's b.s. Especially given that Stanford has been adamant about only interviewing people during their single interview weekend.

95% certain it's b.s. Especially given that Stanford has been adamant about only interviewing people during their single interview weekend.

Another possibility is that faculty members that you indicated you wanted to meet with may not be available during the first weekend you selected, but they will be around the later date - in which case it would probably be to your advantage to choose the other option

Another possibility is that faculty members that you indicated you wanted to meet with may not be available during the first weekend you selected, but they will be around the later date - in which case it would probably be to your advantage to choose the other option