CozyEnzymes

I don't really have any advice on your stats/background, but this list is coming along. I applied to UNC BBSP and am going to UW-Madison for biochemistry in the fall. I personally cut UCSF from my list since their app was expensive and they didn't really have anything for me, but your outlook may be different. I would recommend adding Emory - and have you looked at Vanderbilt? Their IGP had a lot of neuro-related stuff and had by-far the nicest program directors/staff! Plus the app is free.  
As far as mentioning the reason for your interest, I think it's a good idea - just don't lay it on thick with the platitudes. If those interactions with people suffering from neurodegenerative disease are what sparked your interest in the field, then you should say that! In many cases, committees are looking for authenticity... they can tell when people are being fake, so don't worry.  One last piece of advice - don't worry too much about the GRE writing sections. I was sweating bullets going into the test, got a slightly above average score and it never caused me a bit of trouble! It's more important to be above the threshold where people will say, "ah, this score is really bad." Beyond that, it doesn't matter. 

So here is my situation.
I am currently finishing my 1st year of my MS in Biology. I am a research assistant and next academic year I will be a teaching assistant. This means my entire MS is virtually 100% funded. My wife and I had twins 4 weeks ago and we are currently 5-6 hours away from our family.
I have applied, and been accepted, into a few MBA programs recently. This would allow us to move back closer to home, allow me to work full time, and get my MBA degree.
Anyone ever been put in this situation of having to decide between fields and such? If so, how did you handle it? Any and all input and advice is welcome!

If I am getting your point correctly, I want to share my experience with you. Last month I am also confused for my future. But now I am fully satisfied with my decision. Currently I am doing BS in Biological Science from Southern California University of Health Sciences. There are provide multiple courses, you can also check for your future point of you.

I interviewed for Emory's BCDB and two of my friends are joining the molecular biology and genetics programs. I was really impressed with the quality of education and research opportunities that students at Emory had access to - I'm really happy for you! Best of luck in the fall!!

This is a good answer. I have too many RPGs/MMOs that I'm looking forward to FINALLY being able to sink a little time into. Hurray for one last summer of complete freedom!

I am not an engineer but one of my friends got her master's degree in ChemE last year. I'm not really familiar with either of the programs you applied to but her's was a thesis master's. She got a job with a decent salary coming out (around 80k? I think) and she's happy with her decision. I wish I could offer more help but I just wanted to share that success story in case it could influence your opinion. Personally I would choose the field I was most interested in working in. There are a lot of different directions that biomedical engineering can go that ChemE doesn't really cover, so I would consider that aspect as well. Best of luck! 

What a great idea for a thread! Thanks for starting this. :) I'm 95.9% sure I'm heading to UW-Madison's Integrated Program in Biochemistry this fall, and I'm really excited for it. I haven't signed the papers yet since I'm having a last chat with one of the admissions committee members this week. It's a big move for me (13 hours from my undergrad) - it's really exciting but nervewracking at the same time! 

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 personally didn't like Nashville because it was very expensive to live and also downtown areas seemed kind of .... grungy and gross, and not really a nice place to live. I know that Durham is kind of a sketchy town but I have a friend who lives there and he's very happy there. Honestly I think both areas are fairly good. Probably neither of them are as diverse as NYC but near the universities you'd probably find a good quality of life in that respect. Durham's in the Research Triangle so there's a good amount of diversity in that area that I know of. Also, the program I applied to (Duke Biochem) had a LOT more international students so that may be something to look into to compare the two. I also agree with the other poster that since Duke's research reputation is really good, that might outweigh some potential cons as well.
Sorry if this wasn't entirely helpful but maybe it will give you some more insight. Best of luck in choosing!  

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 personally didn't like Nashville because it was very expensive to live and also downtown areas seemed kind of .... grungy and gross, and not really a nice place to live. I know that Durham is kind of a sketchy town but I have a friend who lives there and he's very happy there. Honestly I think both areas are fairly good. Probably neither of them are as diverse as NYC but near the universities you'd probably find a good quality of life in that respect. Durham's in the Research Triangle so there's a good amount of diversity in that area that I know of. Also, the program I applied to (Duke Biochem) had a LOT more international students so that may be something to look into to compare the two. I also agree with the other poster that since Duke's research reputation is really good, that might outweigh some potential cons as well.
Sorry if this wasn't entirely helpful but maybe it will give you some more insight. Best of luck in choosing!  

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.   

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.   

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.   

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.   

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.   

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.   

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.   

Just talked to Stanford Biochem, all of their interview invites were sent out by yesterday.
 @KR Marksmen

Just talked to Stanford Biochem, all of their interview invites were sent out by yesterday.
 @KR Marksmen

Heard back from Vanderbilt IGP this morning with three interview weekend choices (Feb 3-5, 10-12, 17-19). Has anyone heard from Stanford Biochem or MIT Biology yet? 

I got an email from UW-Madison IPiB last night! They offered Feb 2-4, Feb 16-18 and Mar 2-4 for the interview dates. 

Email. It said it was from Dr. Meta Kuehn, the grad program director, but the "from" line said Amy Norfleet (his assistant I think.)