ire1

I just received an email about volunteering for the UPenn CAMB interview weekend, so that might mean that they’re going to be sending invites pretty soon. Good luck to those that applied!  

Would it be possible to take a subject test? That might alleviate the impact of your lower scores. I think you have a LOT of research experience and a good GPA, but I don't know the impact a GRE that low could have on your chances. Have you checked the websites to ensure that they don't have minimums? Not a lot of schools do, but it's always good to be safe. 

Actually, just because I'm lucky enough to have you here, would you mind expanding on the skills that are particularly valuable for biotech?
 
 

I think that in terms of marketability, the differences are marginal at best. Go where you fit in best. 

I seem to be one of the only one on this thread crazy enough to say no to Harvard. I'll be attending Penn CAMB in the fall  

Slayyyy

You've travelled a lot, you've gone backpacking, you've had plenty of time. Others likely haven't, so why sweepingly say that travelling is a waste and you strongly advise against it? You're approaching it from one of many angles but others are in different positions coming at grad school from different angles. 

Pfffft. I've been working full-time for four years straight, I'm going to savor every second of my backpacking trip. Also if you equate travelling to "wasting time," you're seriously missing out. 

I totally disagree that travelling is a waste of the summer! If you have the time and money, do it! It's going to be very difficult to find that chunk of time during your PhD, you've likely worked your butt off to get into programs, and travelling is a wonderful way to grow and mature as a person. Sure, prep too if ya want, can't you do both?  Globally calling it a waste seems a bit closed-minded?

she need sum MILK

I would also say that I would strongly advise against wasting the summer traveling, hanging out with friends, or just hanging out. Unless you need to work full time up until the point you start, which is totally valid, you should not waste the opportunity to get as prepared for the semester as you possibly can. When I did my Masters, I tried to know exactly what was going to be expected of me. I spent the entire summer reading through all the materials for the classes I would be taking. It made the first semester much easier than it would have been had I not done so, because when time was tight and I had deadlines in one class that took a priority over another, I could refer to the notes from my readings. This is likely the last time for several years you will have to get ahead, because you will probably feel like you are perpetually behind for the rest of your graduate school career.

Fellowships will take into consideration your undergrad GPA. You don't want to make it seem like you stopped caring at some point, since it will be pretty obvious if your GPA doesn't match up with other semesters'. Of course, this can change if all the courses you are taking are extremely difficult lol
For me, I wanted to graduate with one of the highest distinctions to make my family proud, so that kept me motivated. 

First, I will echo what others have said: you will get out of your PhD what you put into it. The program you choose needs to be right for you. Look for PIs doing work you want to do. Forget courses, forget everything other than the work being done and whether or not it's the type of work that will keep you up at night. 
If both programs fit your needs, think about SF vs NYC. Rent is ridiculous in SF, but it's also high in NYC. However, I believe Columbia provides subsidized housing in Washington Heights. Does SF provide affordable housing? In general, it seems like there are west coast people and east coast people. If you know which type you are, the choice should be easy. 
As far as science goes, I was under the impression that Columbia pretty much invented modern genetics. Depending on the type of genetics you like, Columbia could be a great fit. In my mind, as someone reading papers everyday, I see more biochemistry coming out of UCSF. I'll just say, there are some amazing publications coming out of UCSF. There are also outstanding PIs coming out of UCSF. 
In the end, you're in a really great position and you will be happy either way. Ask yourself, 1) If my top three choices for labs don't work out, will I be happy with my fourth choice?, 2) Do I see myself living in NYC or SF for five or so years? 
I know this post is unorganized and prattling. I've had way too much coffee today. But I hope the general ideas are conveyed. Feel free to PM me if you would like bounce around ideas. 
Congratulations, regardless! You're in a very fortunate position. 

This thread is highly amusing.

I think they were just trying to tell you that the applicant pool was competitive and nothing personal.

Accepted to VCU BSDP!

I know UCSF doesn't guarantee housing but for a first-year, what's the likelihood of getting housing at Mission Bay? It's convenient to classes, so makes sense to try. Also, do most ppl who get mission bay housing opt to stay in it their second year, or move off campus? 
And final question, if you don't get on campus housing, what neighborhoods are best to look at for housing if your classes and labs are at Mission Bay? My criteria are closeness to mission campus, safety and cost. I won't have a car, so I'd like proximity to services like grocery store, too.
Thanks for your response!

Accepted to NYU with a 2.6 uGPA. Miracles happen. 

Wow, you're being really constructive here, bud. Give yourself a pat on the back. 

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.   

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? 

Given that I'm seeing a lot of discussion about prestige, I must point out that for your PhD, how people view your school is irrelevant. If the school is known to be incredibly good in your field (biomedical sciences), how your professional peers view the school is what truly matters. Sure, telling random people (or others outside of the field) you go to UCSF might not get the same reaction as if you told people you go to Princeton, but you shouldn't really be concerned by this, at all. This is coming from a person whose school is perpetually confused with Penn State. General people knew (and cared) more about my school when I went to Purdue lol

Another update: the lab I joined with plans of leaving May 2017 has now changed to my staying in the phd program. Yay!