VirologyPhDinTraining

If you're meeting that many then it is overkill. Judicious reading is always a good idea, discussion, introduction and being familiar if there are procedures the lab uses all the time is a good place. As for dress, at interviews its not really the case, but there is definitely a casual atmosphere that makes you stick out if you overdress.

First, my situation isn't typical. So take what I will say with a grain of salt. I went with very business casual. Expensive jeans, nice white button down shirt and a blazer. I got into all programs I interviewed for as well. Now the reason I say take this with a grain of salt is that I walked in with a masters, multiple first author publications, 3 long, very strong letters of rec, two from people well recognized in their fields. And the real kicker is that I am now in a program I didn't even apply for. I would say that dress is the last thing I would be concerned about. I would practice interviewing, being able to talk fluently about any research you have done, and ask intelligent questions about their research (I would suggest, once you know who you are interviewing with read all pubs out of their lab in the as 2-3 years).

For guys, I wore jeans (brand new, and rather expensive) at all of my interviews (and a nice blazer and a nice button down shirt), and it didn't seem to hamper my results last year. Not saying you're wrong, just saying that I did have a different experience. I think if you show you take the process seriously that business casual, even jeans and a blazer, can work.

So, this isn't a question about applications. My PI asked me to write an email to another lab about getting cells they have. Their research was NIH funded, so they should give us a sample of them. Anyone ever write one of these emails? Any suggestions on how to frame it? What to say? Thanks!

All but one of the programs I interviewed at sent out forms you fill out, which makes it a lot easier.

If you don't get into a program doing a post-bacc is always a good idea. It definitely will help you get a third strong recommendation, research experience and maybe even a pub or two. Those are always great things to have.

No problem, it's part of the process. Your worries will be more assuaged when you start getting emails from programs inviting you to interview.

It's definitely hard to make a long move (I moved from midwest to the southwest), but, there are definitely some good programs in the south and southwest that support their students well, that are good programs, and you'd be a very good candidate for.

It's competitive, but you are also a competitive candidate. But you might want to add a couple more schools, because it never hurts to have more options.

The only thing that I would have advised against is having an art professor give you a LoR. Admission committees are most concerned about your ability to be a researcher, and an art professor may not be able to speak to that. Other than that I think your chances of getting interviews is good.

You should get lots of interviews. I think your biggest problem will be deciding which program you like best. Good luck!

I never said I was better than anyone, nor do I have an inflated since of my own abilities. I am not trying to make anyone sad, I am just giving my opinion based on their packet. I never said it was impossible for them to make it into a top program, but, they are also very competitive and their admission committees tend to be very stringent. If it's not helpful to tell someone to hedge their bets if they want to for sure start a program next fall, or possible ways to improve their packets if they are married to top programs, then I don't know what is. I may have been a bit more blunt than I should have been (years in the army didn't help this), but, I have seen a few people get crushed because February/March roll around and they have no interviews or offers. And as I said before, I think with great LoRs, and a well polished SoP will definitely go a long way towards improving their odds.

I didn't say that they did. I said that those who have deficiencies in their packet usually do. The GPA and low quant score are red flags to admission committees. To overcome this usually one has to show that they are more than just the numbers in their packet. Having talked to many professors who have and currently sit on admission committees, and reading what others have said, most in top programs will automatically reject packets with low GPA/scores without a second thought, unless they have a the ability to show that they are more than that set of numbers. I believe this person is on the edge of that, had they had a 75% or higher in quant that GPA would be a minor issue. I am not telling them not to reach, but to also look at other programs as well. I wouldn't want to find out that middle April they are left out in the cold. In the end it comes down to them having great a LoR, a well polished SoP and being good in interviews.

I mean, if you think so, but they don't have any first author pubs. Being in research for 3 years without a first author pub isn't what I would call good research experience. It's a lot better than nothing, but top programs, when you have deficiencies in your packet, want proof that you will both be committed and productive. They have shown the former, but not the latter. As I said, if I were them, I would cut a few of the top schools and would add a few middle tier institutions, especially if they want to do a PhD asap. Also I would still suggest retaking the GRE, a low quant score is a massive red flag for viro/immune programs. As for your comment about 50k+ on a masters? I have a masters and spent 0 for it. The only people I know who paid for masters were pre-meds who want to pad their GPA. Funded MS programs definitely exist, and can make an okay candidate into a top candidate.

Your GPA and GRE are too low for a lot of your list. Especially your quant score. The lowish GPA and low Q score will be major red flags. If you are married to these programs I would suggest getting a masters degree first. This would give you time to retake the GRE, get a couple pubs, and show you can cut it in grad school. If not, I would consider some 'middle' tier programs.

What specifically has you disliking molecular biology? In my masters degree I worked in collaboration (as a co-PI) with a neurobiologist. She did electrophysiology, which is about as neurobiology as you get. In order to get her new NIH grant she has had to move away from that and into RNAseq, in situ hybridizations, IHC and transgenic mice to further her research. Talking to other neurobiologists at SFN last year this seems to be the trend. Molecular biology is easily applied to neuroscience and you'll find that many are moving to use of those techniques in their research. Also, you are aware that while grad school can determine your path, it doesn't lock you in. You can do postdocs after you graduate in neuroscience.

I would whole-heartedly agree with you. As I said in my first post though, I think if this person wants to get into a top program/work with the top people, it is best for them to think about getting a masters in the field they are interested it. If they do well in an MS program it will show that they have the drive and ability to succeed in a graduate program, and should show that they are a productive research, which can override any concerns about a weak GPA from undergrad. I used myself as an example, just because it was what I did, and quite a few people I know, and it helped all of us continue on to bigger and better things, so to speak. For me, it allowed me to overcome a middle of the road GPA and research experience and find a lab that I am happy and excited to be in. But, it is just my opinion and they should of course consider all options, such as post-bacc, industry, or applying to "lower quality" schools, along with considering the pros and cons of an MS. And to add to what you said: The only reason why I chose to work with this professor is because I have already had the chance to meet them, get to know them a bit, and because I know their former students and colleagues. This has allowed me to make an informed decision about if I believed their lab would be a right decision for me. I, along with many others here, think that rotations are almost always the best bet. And would encourage anyone who applies to a program to apply to one that isn't dominated by one person, but one that has a diverse faculty that broadly fit their research interests.

Yes, quoted the wrong person. My laptop, unlike my PC, lags even using chrome browser. Apparently I miss clicked. Right now I won't say in public, though, in my area of virology I am with the top person in my field at the university he just moved to. If you really want to know I am more than willing to share in PM.

I would suggest doing a masters in neuroscience. First it would almost certainly increase your GPA and doing a masters project should allow you to get some very good LoR and show dedication to the field. My GPA and GRE was better than yours, but think 3.3/3.5 and I had a lot of let downs. I did a masters and because of the connections I made, and the research I did I was actually approached by one of the top PIs in my field to join his lab for a PhD.

Interviews tend to be hard enough to talk about everything in the short periods that they allow anyway. As was mentioned I doubt it would come up. OP: It's not a positive or negative thing, I would just not mention it, and if it comes up I would say something to the effect that it was time you took to explore your options and make the best decisions when it came to graduate school. It's a big decision, and one that shouldn't be entered into lightly. If you can spin it towards you sounding more mature and thoughtful, it is always to your advantage.

I think this is a chicken/egg argument. A lot of top labs recruit students from other top labs. My current PI (whom I just started with, think top of field level PI) gets at least 5 emails a month from other PIs looking to see if he has any students that are close to graduation and are looking for a postdoc. It's a great in, if you have it, couple with having a PI that has money to send you to national and international conferences, it's probably the surest way to get a top postdoc. If not, being at a well funded and well respected program also helps a lot. I came from a lower middle tier MS program, from an institution that didn't invest much in their graduate school, and getting money to go to conferences was a hassle wrapped in a fight. Newer PIs, just like older PIs, have risk involved, though they are inverse. Older PIs tend to have an easier time getting funding, but may be less motivated to publish, as they tend to be very secure in their positions. Whereas younger PIs may be highly motivated to publish and collaborate (to get tenure, to get funding, to get recognition), but may not be able to bring in the grants necessary to offer what older PIs can (money for travel, summer appointments if your university doesn't provide them, etc). In the end I think it comes down to being able to make a judgement based on a lot of factors as to who will be your best fit. And that really does require the student to really get to know the PIs that they might want to work with and see if they are on the same wavelength, so to speak. PS. I navigated the faculty admission process, and am now making myself at home at my new university after defending my masters thesis.

So, this is an argument I have seen a few places on the internet, but there is never much of a resolution, so I thought I would ask it here: Is it more important to have a PI for your PhD that is top of their field (think hundreds of publications, editor of top level journals, member of NAS or RS, universally respected), but at an institution that isn't consider top of the field? Or is better to be at the top institution (think Ivy or top 3 public), but not necessarily being mentored by the top person in their field? For sake of argument, facilitates, money, etc are if not equal, at least comparable.

Up until this week I haven't even heard of this process. Details so far have been sparse, and I can't find anything online about it. I want to know if anyone knows anything about this process in general.

Has anyone heard of faculty admission of a student? Since early this week it seems that I have started a process I have no idea about.