Kaede

All my friends (including myself) didn't take subject GREs, and we all got to top programs. I was also a little bit worried because most programs explicitly say that "subject GREs are highly encouraged), but at the end I think it doesn't really matter.

Accepted to NYU with a 2.6 uGPA. Miracles happen. 

They're both very different! I think they cater to very different students and the reason I applied to both is that I could see myself in either environment - either big or small.
I'm happy to continue this conversation through pm. I'm still making my decision but I'm leaning toward one of the two due to my past educational experiences.

I got accepted to Stanford for Genetics!! I thought for sure after the interview that I didn't stand a chance. Best day ever!

This post is appalling for many reasons, but it bothers me that you think that you don't need a PhD to go into many of these fields.
Are you telling me you don't need a solid understanding of how to interpret data in a rigorous scientific context when you're a science journalist conveying to the public whether a study is legitimate or not, or whether its findings are correlative? Well that explains why we have so many popular science posts claiming that "scientists have proved that intelligence comes from the mother" or whatever crap is in the media nowadays.
Are you telling me you don't need a rigorous foundation in scientific analysis for science policy, when Trump has now stated that the future of the EPA is dependent on whether politicians (who likely have zero experience with rigorous analysis of scientific data, or any data at all) are able to find the EPA's data conclusive?
Sorry not sorry, but we need scientists (WITH PhDs) in these fields more than ever.

This post is appalling for many reasons, but it bothers me that you think that you don't need a PhD to go into many of these fields.
Are you telling me you don't need a solid understanding of how to interpret data in a rigorous scientific context when you're a science journalist conveying to the public whether a study is legitimate or not, or whether its findings are correlative? Well that explains why we have so many popular science posts claiming that "scientists have proved that intelligence comes from the mother" or whatever crap is in the media nowadays.
Are you telling me you don't need a rigorous foundation in scientific analysis for science policy, when Trump has now stated that the future of the EPA is dependent on whether politicians (who likely have zero experience with rigorous analysis of scientific data, or any data at all) are able to find the EPA's data conclusive?
Sorry not sorry, but we need scientists (WITH PhDs) in these fields more than ever.

This post is appalling for many reasons, but it bothers me that you think that you don't need a PhD to go into many of these fields.
Are you telling me you don't need a solid understanding of how to interpret data in a rigorous scientific context when you're a science journalist conveying to the public whether a study is legitimate or not, or whether its findings are correlative? Well that explains why we have so many popular science posts claiming that "scientists have proved that intelligence comes from the mother" or whatever crap is in the media nowadays.
Are you telling me you don't need a rigorous foundation in scientific analysis for science policy, when Trump has now stated that the future of the EPA is dependent on whether politicians (who likely have zero experience with rigorous analysis of scientific data, or any data at all) are able to find the EPA's data conclusive?
Sorry not sorry, but we need scientists (WITH PhDs) in these fields more than ever.

Well thanks for the honesty I suppose. I'm going to be blunt with you, so try to not take offense, but you seem awfully arrogant. Some of your points are valid and I agree with; there are currently too many PhDs being trained. At this rate it's not sustainable, it's simply not. But to say a PhD is not worthwhile unless you stay in academia is silly and myopic, and should someone choose industry over academia that does not make them any less of a scientist. Many PhDs are choosing industry and alternative careers simply because they find academia is not an attractive option. Being on an entirely soft money salary fighting tooth and nail for grants in order to feed your family isn't exactly everyone's idea of a stable career, and if you can't see that then perhaps you should reflect on the current climate of academia a bit more. You know what percentage of PhD graduates end up in tenure track positions? It's low. While academia was once the default path, it's quickly becoming just the opposite and schools are changing to reflect that. 
You are exactly the the type of person I am looking to avoid for rotations. I hope during the course of your training you take off your blinders, because your narrow mindedness is something that is not a great character trait. 

Does it bother anyone else that schools like to start out the career path options presentations without mentioning going for a career in academia?
Why the heck would you go to grad school for your PhD if that is not your goal. I'm sick and tired of that shit, you don't need a PhD for consulting, you don't need a PhD to become a science writer, you don't need a PhD for an industry job..
Schools are letting in too many people, at every interview I've been to, I've met tons of smart people, alternatively, I've also met people that make me think "Why are you here?". I hear stuff like: "I'll be picking a mentor and doing rotations with people whose personalities mesh with mine" are you kidding me? -- I'll be doing rotations with people who are going to challenge me and push me to the edge - I'll be going with my gut feelings on who I choose to work with and it will purely be based off of their science. 
There are TOO many PhD's awarded, have you seen the statistics on PhDs on welfare (not just Biology PhDs to be fair but all in the USA) something like 30 percent on welfare. 50 years ago there were about 600,000 Bio researchers, now there are 6-7 million, it's not sustainable.
Schools need to clean up their acts, Masters degrees need to be funded not paid for by students - that can solve two problems: replicability as MS degrees can be focused on reproducing data and not novel data generation; it can also give an avenue for all the people who want to do what I would call "soft" stuff with their degrees. PhDs should only be given and encouraged for those who have raw talent and can become peers with professors not every person who applies.
If science does not keep you awake a night and doesn't wake you up in the morning... good luck.
When I'm a PI one day, I will not even let a student who does not want to become a SCIENTIST anywhere near my lab, not even for a rotation. Some of the people on this website and IRL just make me cringe, somebody needs to scientifically slap them with the truth.
What are your thoughts? Are you getting your PhD without the intent of at least trying to become a PI or Lecturer? Why? 

First off, your opinion is not truth. 
First off, lets talk about your example of journalism. In this day and age, do you honestly think it's a bad thing to have well educated scientists writing about science for the general public? There's a reason that's part of NIH and NSF's outreach goals (communication to the general public). 
Consulting? Depending on what you want to consult about, having a PhD is a valuable credential and well spent. 
Looking back at your original post, your arrogance is astounding. You seem to be sure that you know better who to allocate to projects (masters students vs PhD students) than people who have experience managing researchers. You seem to think that as an applicant, you're in a position to say who should or should not be allowed into a program, moreso than the people who are actually writing grants to fund those researchers. 
Personally, I don't look for someone who's life is dedicated to science. I think that's an attitude that leads to burnout. I also don't just pick students who want to go into academia. I pick students who I can forge a good professional relationship with, and who have a positive attitude, a good work ethic, and who have interests outside of our research. 
And as for your comment on picking advisors:
That's the advice I give to every one of my undergraduates applying to grad school, and what I gave to every prospective graduate student I met. Attrition from people who didn't pick based on a god mesh of personalities is huge in grad school- and grad school is about training and learning, and you do that best when you have a good fit of personality with the person you're working for. I can guarantee the mentor is picking people they mesh with in return.

THIS post made me cringe, so I'm here to scientifically slap you with the truth (whatever that means.) PhD's can be used for so much more than jobs in academia - in fact, it's actually absurd to think that everyone should try to pursue an academic career, since as you said many individuals who go to grad school are not well-suited for it and there is an over-saturation of PhDs compared to the academic jobs available. To imply that people who pursue careers outside of academic are not SCIENTISTS is quite frankly ridiculous, especially for scientists in industry. Is the person who directs R&D for a drug company not a scientist? What about biochemists and analytical chemists working in the food industry? Would you turn these jobs over to individuals without intensive training in a PhD program? These jobs are not "soft" by any estimation and I have no idea why you would think that in the first place.
Also, you seem to hold the outdated belief that the only way to get a worthwhile graduate education is to suffer for five years under the most challenging professor to work with. I hate to break it to you, although that statement may have had some validity fifty years ago, it's no longer true in any way. Yes, it's important to work with a PI who is well-respected in your specific subfield of interest and who publishes frequently in good journals, but your educational experience will be much better overall if you choose someone who works well with your learning style and can improve your ability to engage as a scientist. Like you said, the goal is to cultivate raw talent and bring the student up to become a peer to the professors they work with. Choosing a compatible PI personality-wise not just about being happy - it's about being productive and getting the training that helps you advance to that level. Please don't suffer in the name of trying to be the best. Rank means nothing in grad school; it's all about what you do for yourself.
This elitist attitude - you should really try and check it before entering a grad program. Otherwise, you're going to wash out very fast when you have an inability to "roll with the punches" and consider ideas that challenge your worldview. Also, if you're only interested in academic careers, treating your cohort like trash behind their backs is a great way to burn those bridges you might need to secure a tenure track. You may think you're better than them, but science is an enterprise of people - you've got to get along to get ahead.   

I got mine this morning! thanks!

That's really dumb. GRE scores shouldn't matter at all by this stage. Actually, that test is a scam and should be thrown out altogether.
 

First acceptance!!!
Duke Biochemistry! 

I have been admitted to every program I've interviewed at thus far and I have yet to have a conversation about a professor's work other than them speaking with me about it at the very end. I haven't even really gotten a chance to ask intelligent questions about their work because time runs out by the time we start talking about their research. Are my experiences outliers?

Just got into UCI Cell and Molecular Biosciences!

Accepted to Weill-Cornell!  So happy!

I just got accepted to UC-Denver Biomedical Sciences Program and Weill Cornell IMP!

Accepted to Duke MGM program!!  Still waiting to hear back from UNC BBSP, but I know they have more interview weekends coming up.  I'm hoping to hear by next week.

Accepted to Harvard MCO with fellowship!

Accepted to Cornell BBS! 
Definitely a huge relief, as this ended up being the only school I got an interview for. 
Was definitely thinking that things were really bleak a while ago but now that's all changed!

I'm nursing a 102 degree fever that refuses to go down and coming to terms with the idea that it probably isn't a good idea to drive tonight to my interview...
And suddenly I get an email that I got into Harvard BBS!!!!!! 
Happy, feverish mess = me. 

Accepted to Harvard MCO with fellowship!

I disagree. I go to a small liberal arts college that almost no one has ever heard of and have published once (not first author, not a great journal) and I've gotten interviews to top programs. You just have to find some way to stand out to adcoms.

I disagree. I go to a small liberal arts college that almost no one has ever heard of and have published once (not first author, not a great journal) and I've gotten interviews to top programs. You just have to find some way to stand out to adcoms.