VirologyPhDinTraining
-
Posts
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by VirologyPhDinTraining
-
-
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).
-
8 hours ago, kokobanana said:
I saw a couple of posts asking about what to wear for interviews. Here's my take on things, based on my interviews last year:
Do's:
Dress for the weather. You'll be miserable if you wear a skirt on the east coast this time of year.
Wear comfortable, but nice shoes. Girls - avoid heels. You'll probably walk around a lot. At Columbia, I was walking blocks between interviews, and there was snow on the ground.
Bring a bag or folder of some kind to hold a note pad or paper / pens in and a water bottle. Some schools give you some, others don't.
Bring water, you'll be talking a lot!
For Women - dress pants and a blouse plus blazer work great. Business suit was not needed at any interview I went to. I would personally avoid skirts - it's one more thing you have to hassle with and I've even heard that dressing too "femininely/sexy" (high heels, skirts) can make some interviewers uncomfortable. So dress like your clothes make you look neat, but aren't the reason why you are remembered (they should remember you for your awesomeness instead).
For Men - dress pants / slacks, a button down shirt, or a nice sweater if it is cold. If you wear a suit, just note that you'll probably be the only one!
Don't:
Wear tennis shoes or anything ratty to your interviews.
Wear jeans to interviews (it's business casual, but not that casual).
At most, you'll probably need only two "interview outfits" per weekend. Bring some more casual clothes too for recruitment events and traveling. Don't be afraid to re-wear your interview outfits. I bought two and wore them to all my interviews.
**And for recruitment events, some college town bar don't accept out of state licenses for people under 25, so bring your passport (if you have one).**And lastly, just remember that you want the interviewers to remember YOU, not what you were wearing that day. So if you think it's not interview appropriate, play it safe.
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!
-
4 hours ago, VoidInColor said:
I'm not sure if this is where I should ask, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Does anyone have advice on how to accept an interview offer? Writing professional emails has to be one of the most stressful things in my life.
All but one of the programs I interviewed at sent out forms you fill out, which makes it a lot easier.
-
28 minutes ago, kinseyd said:
Thanks for your input! I forgot to mention, I'm on trimesters currently so we are on winter break from Thanksgiving to New Years (great, I know!) so it is really hard to get in contact with my recommenders. Especially since 2 out the 3 are hard to reach under normal circumstances, anyway, let alone on a deadline. So I feel kind of shut out from applying to more programs at the moment. Do you think, if I don't get accepted anywhere, applying for a PREP post-bacc program would be most influential in making my application stronger? This would add another year of research experience.
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.
-
Just now, kinseyd said:
Yes, and definitely it would be difficult to adjust to the climate of the south compared to Minnesota haha. I will continue to take a look at some other programs. I really appreciate your input, it helped assuage some of my worries for the time being.
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.
-
1 minute ago, kinseyd said:
Is 5 considered too few schools? I mainly applied to schools in the midwest due to family reasons and affordability (I was considering U of Chicago in addition to Loyola but my undergrad is in Illinois and don't wish to spend the next 5+ years there
) and I avoided the Ivy leagues due to the fact I don't believe my app is competitive enough in the amount of research experience I have.
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.
-
1 minute ago, kinseyd said:
Yeah, I was concerned about that, too. But the only real LOR regarding my research experience I got get was from my Honors/REU advisor and my academic advisor, and I am not really close with the other biology faculty at my school since they are mostly ecology/evolutionary biologists. I figured my art history prof knows me the best on a personal level and can attest to my work ethic (since he was a professor I had when I was ill sophomore year) and I've done well in all his classes. The other choice would be my previous orgo prof, but I found that class to be insanely hard and she didn't like me very much.
Thanks a lot for your input!
Do you know if U of MN is considered a competitive program? I can't find admission stats on their website.
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!
-
58 minutes ago, blc073 said:
Hey friendo, you're coming off a bit arrogant. I would tone it down a bit before proceeding. We're here to help people, not make them sad.
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.
-
15 minutes ago, Bioenchilada said:
Lol do you honestly think that most people at top schools have first author pubs? I think rec letters are enough proof of a candidate being committed and productive.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Bioenchilada said:
I honestly think that this person covered their based with the schools they intend to apply to. Their GPA is not bad enough to warrant a 50k+ investment on a Master's, and they seem to have good research experience.
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.
- blc073, ballwera and LoveMysterious
-
3
-
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.
-
5 hours ago, biochemgirl67 said:
I'd like to point out to all the impressionable applying students, especially those coming straight out of undergrad, that "top person" is so subjective. It's in flux and it's not a real thing. Don't choose schools/programs based on a PI (not saying VirologyPhDinTraining did, just that someone with a master's is more focused/mature in their training and therefore more successful in making those kinds of decisions) because there are so many things that they don't tell you in undergrad. How do you like to be mentored as a growing scientist? 90% of you don't know (and you shouldn't!) and will find out during rotations. What do you want to study? So many of you think you know (I did and now I'm kinda falling in love with viruses) and end up in something else. Do you want to work in an established lab or a new one or something in between? Do you want your PI to foster a sense of community by trips to bars and parties or do you want someone who is more hands-off? Do you want your PI to jump in and train you or do you feel more comfortable doing that with a senior lab member?
For someone who has not been in grad school before, fame of the PI should be last on your mind. If you already have a graduate degree, chances are you have your life a little more figured out and can make a decision like that and not regret it, just because you're more informed. But younglings, keep in mind that fame does not equal grad student success. It doesn't negate it, but there are a lot of ways to be successful in grad school, and it's not always by going to the top school/program and working with the "top" PI in the field. Choose a school/program where you fit in and a PI that will be a good mentor. Don't make decisions on fame and prestige if you barely have any experience in the field. And I know, it feels like you have a lot when you've worked in a lab for 2+ years, but do yourself a favor and give yourself as many options as possible because you might just want them in about a year from now.
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.
-
8 hours ago, Bioenchilada said:
I think you quoted the wrong person lol
Where will you be doing your PhD now? I thought you were applying this cycle
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.
-
On 10/5/2016 at 3:17 AM, jasss_ said:
Hello! Feedback appreciated. Thanks.
Undergrad Institution: Top public school
Major(s): Biochemistry
Minor(s): Math
GPA in Major: 3.86
Overall GPA: 3.89
Position in Class: High
Type of Student: Domestic female
GRE Scores (revised/old version):
Q: 170
V: 169
W: 4.0
B:
Research Experience:2years in a biochemistry lab at school, focus on NMR and then modeling of biochem pathways. Small lab, no publications produced. PI will write rec
Summer work in a biophysics lab at BU medical school. NMR focus. PI will write rec
leader of iGEM (genetic engineering competition) research group at my school this past summer. Will culminate in a synthetic biology conference in october. again, advisor will write rec.
Awards/Honors/Recognitions:
Dean's list, intermediate honors (top 20%), phi eta sigma honor society
Pertinent Activities or JobsiGEM project leader, peer advisor to freshmen, TA for general chemistry lab for a semester.
Special Bonus Points:My recommenders all are enthusiastic about writing letters. One of them has told me that i could 'get in anywhere i wanted' although I am hesitant to believe that - would like to get an outside opinion!
I know I have strong GPA+GRE, but my question is whether or not my research experiences are strong enough?
Applying to Where:
Here comes my very long preliminary list.. Definitely have a lot of top/"big name" programs here, my issue is finding more targets. One criteria i am dedicated to is location: East coast or west coast. Other criteria i am slightly more flexible on.
- Harvard bbs
- MIT biology
- UCLA biochem
- Scripps
- Cornell Weill
- UCSF BMS
- Stanford biochem
- UC Berkeley biochem
- UC Davis BMCD
- UCSD biological sciences
- Tufts BMCD
- Others i'm considering: rockefeller, mt. sinai, upenn, columbia, uc irvine, yale, johns hopkins
I know this is too many schools so I would appreciate advice on how to narrow it down!
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.
-
5 hours ago, ballwera said:
I feel like it at least has to be addressed because it will definitely come up during interviews.
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.
-
On 10/3/2016 at 9:51 PM, biotechie said:
Actually, I would counter to say that's not always the case. Where you POST DOC is most important for doing well in academia. You need to be productive and publish lots to be successful, but you should focus on getting a good education to be a good postdoc. My PI is not yet well known as I am his first student, though I think he will be in a few more years. However, I'm getting a killer education, and it's going to help me kick ass and get a good post doc, hopefully in a big name lab. Once there, the goal will be to put my skills to the test and do as much of the best science that I can.
@ITISRED, if your programs do rotations, you should pick a school that has several PIs you're interested in. Not just one.
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.
-
Just now, Bioenchilada said:
Wait, what's your question?
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.
Dressing for interviews
in Biology
Posted
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.