Epigenetics

Guys can we all please chill. There are many stereotypes going around on this thread, both about Harvard and about Baltimore. People are apt to be offended by such generalizations, and they have also been used in positive ways as well as negative ones. Wishing you all the best with your waiting games, let's just support each other to get into the best program for each of us!

Guys can we all please chill. There are many stereotypes going around on this thread, both about Harvard and about Baltimore. People are apt to be offended by such generalizations, and they have also been used in positive ways as well as negative ones. Wishing you all the best with your waiting games, let's just support each other to get into the best program for each of us!

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. 

Guys can we all please chill. There are many stereotypes going around on this thread, both about Harvard and about Baltimore. People are apt to be offended by such generalizations, and they have also been used in positive ways as well as negative ones. Wishing you all the best with your waiting games, let's just support each other to get into the best program for each of us!

Can we all please chill with overwrought stereotypes of major institutions? As someone who went to Harvard for undergrad and now works in an HMS lab, and is applying for PhDs, there are great things and awful things about Harvard. Also in your stereotypes, you're making a hilarious equivalence between medical research and biological/biomedical research. It's very hard and frankly incorrect to connect research into surgery techniques to research on DNA or the cell. Also just saying an institution "was amazing in the history" ignores what it currently is, frankly when a lot of those discoveries at JHU were being made Stanford was like 20 years old, so let's all chill.
I applied to only six schools, but I applied to them because there were faculty there that I wanted to work with on topics I'm working on. Most graduate programs are defined by your PI, as I've learned working full-time in a lab the past two years. If you're just choosing for "reputation" or in spite of it, you're going to miss great opportunities.
I can tell you for certain BBS is a program that will let you do anything you want pretty much, and it is incredibly student-dependent in outcomes. In that way it's similar to the Harvard undergrad experience. But the idea that you're just a PI's bitch or not doing good science... you literally can't make such broad statements because every lab is different. Let's chill with overgeneralization plz.

Can we all please chill with overwrought stereotypes of major institutions? As someone who went to Harvard for undergrad and now works in an HMS lab, and is applying for PhDs, there are great things and awful things about Harvard. Also in your stereotypes, you're making a hilarious equivalence between medical research and biological/biomedical research. It's very hard and frankly incorrect to connect research into surgery techniques to research on DNA or the cell. Also just saying an institution "was amazing in the history" ignores what it currently is, frankly when a lot of those discoveries at JHU were being made Stanford was like 20 years old, so let's all chill.
I applied to only six schools, but I applied to them because there were faculty there that I wanted to work with on topics I'm working on. Most graduate programs are defined by your PI, as I've learned working full-time in a lab the past two years. If you're just choosing for "reputation" or in spite of it, you're going to miss great opportunities.
I can tell you for certain BBS is a program that will let you do anything you want pretty much, and it is incredibly student-dependent in outcomes. In that way it's similar to the Harvard undergrad experience. But the idea that you're just a PI's bitch or not doing good science... you literally can't make such broad statements because every lab is different. Let's chill with overgeneralization plz.

Can we all please chill with overwrought stereotypes of major institutions? As someone who went to Harvard for undergrad and now works in an HMS lab, and is applying for PhDs, there are great things and awful things about Harvard. Also in your stereotypes, you're making a hilarious equivalence between medical research and biological/biomedical research. It's very hard and frankly incorrect to connect research into surgery techniques to research on DNA or the cell. Also just saying an institution "was amazing in the history" ignores what it currently is, frankly when a lot of those discoveries at JHU were being made Stanford was like 20 years old, so let's all chill.
I applied to only six schools, but I applied to them because there were faculty there that I wanted to work with on topics I'm working on. Most graduate programs are defined by your PI, as I've learned working full-time in a lab the past two years. If you're just choosing for "reputation" or in spite of it, you're going to miss great opportunities.
I can tell you for certain BBS is a program that will let you do anything you want pretty much, and it is incredibly student-dependent in outcomes. In that way it's similar to the Harvard undergrad experience. But the idea that you're just a PI's bitch or not doing good science... you literally can't make such broad statements because every lab is different. Let's chill with overgeneralization plz.

Dude you're the one telling us to be deliberate about where we apply for faculty and fit and shit, and you applied to 17 programs?!?

Can we all please chill with overwrought stereotypes of major institutions? As someone who went to Harvard for undergrad and now works in an HMS lab, and is applying for PhDs, there are great things and awful things about Harvard. Also in your stereotypes, you're making a hilarious equivalence between medical research and biological/biomedical research. It's very hard and frankly incorrect to connect research into surgery techniques to research on DNA or the cell. Also just saying an institution "was amazing in the history" ignores what it currently is, frankly when a lot of those discoveries at JHU were being made Stanford was like 20 years old, so let's all chill.
I applied to only six schools, but I applied to them because there were faculty there that I wanted to work with on topics I'm working on. Most graduate programs are defined by your PI, as I've learned working full-time in a lab the past two years. If you're just choosing for "reputation" or in spite of it, you're going to miss great opportunities.
I can tell you for certain BBS is a program that will let you do anything you want pretty much, and it is incredibly student-dependent in outcomes. In that way it's similar to the Harvard undergrad experience. But the idea that you're just a PI's bitch or not doing good science... you literally can't make such broad statements because every lab is different. Let's chill with overgeneralization plz.

Dude you're the one telling us to be deliberate about where we apply for faculty and fit and shit, and you applied to 17 programs?!?

Wayyy too much negativity in here for a Saturday people 

Dude you're the one telling us to be deliberate about where we apply for faculty and fit and shit, and you applied to 17 programs?!?

Dude you're the one telling us to be deliberate about where we apply for faculty and fit and shit, and you applied to 17 programs?!?

I love being in BBS. It was my top choice, and the interview weekend confirmed every expectation. We have a cohort of 75, so it is not hard to find a group of friends. 
The coursework is amazing. We are required to take 32 credits of courses: eight credits are required (BBS 230 and BBS 330), 24 credits are for electives. I can take courses through any science department at Harvard, MIT, Brown, and Tufts. The lecturers are all leaders in their fields: I've had lectures from George Daley, Phil Sharp, Bob Horvitz, David Altshuler, George Church, etc. Contrary to popular belief, the teaching here is amazing. 
Everyone in BBS is fully funded throughout their PhD. There is no question about funding. Everyone gets the same funding regardless of how long they have been here. In addition, the stipend for Harvard BBS is around $5k higher than the stipend at other Boston universities. 
The lab work here is outstanding. There are over 800 labs in which BBS students can work. I can work in the Harvard Quad, Beth Israel, MGH, Boston Children's, Brigham, Broad, Wyss, DFCI, Harvard College, etc. The lab work itself is what you make it. I've completed two rotations and I am currently in my third. My first was in yeast genetics. I told the PI that I was interested in autophagy, so I was put on a project looking at selective autophagy. The PI was always available to chat, but he really just left me alone with a grad student and we went to work. I set my schedule and got good work done. My second rotation was in cancer biology. I told the PI I wanted to look at metabolism in cancer, so I got put on my own independent project looking at the role of a specific pathway in breast cancer. Again, the PI could meet whenever, but I was independent with the guidance of a graduate student. My third rotation is at MGH working on the human genetics of neuropsychiatric disorders. My PI does several things, but I told him my interests and now I am on a project doing exactly what I said I wanted to do. In short, research here is incredibly independent with enough guidance to learn what you need to learn. Many PIs want to train graduate students, not use them for free labor. I feel like I am in an environment to learn how to be a scientist.
Many BBS graduate students do great things. I know one who is the senior scientific advisor at the White House. Another is in Bob Weinberg's lab. My PI is a Harvard graduate. I'm also on the executive board for the Harvard Biotechnology Club, and many of the speakers we bring in are BBS graduates. 
There are a lot of student clubs. I am always being invited to free events with free alcohol and food that are put on by other students. Student life here is great. Boston and Cambridge are also amazing cities with a lot of culture. 
But anyway, it doesn't sound like Harvard BBS is right for you, so good luck at Hopkins! 

I think they release invites the first week of January! I think that's what they did for a lot of programs last year. 

Can we all please chill with overwrought stereotypes of major institutions? As someone who went to Harvard for undergrad and now works in an HMS lab, and is applying for PhDs, there are great things and awful things about Harvard. Also in your stereotypes, you're making a hilarious equivalence between medical research and biological/biomedical research. It's very hard and frankly incorrect to connect research into surgery techniques to research on DNA or the cell. Also just saying an institution "was amazing in the history" ignores what it currently is, frankly when a lot of those discoveries at JHU were being made Stanford was like 20 years old, so let's all chill.
I applied to only six schools, but I applied to them because there were faculty there that I wanted to work with on topics I'm working on. Most graduate programs are defined by your PI, as I've learned working full-time in a lab the past two years. If you're just choosing for "reputation" or in spite of it, you're going to miss great opportunities.
I can tell you for certain BBS is a program that will let you do anything you want pretty much, and it is incredibly student-dependent in outcomes. In that way it's similar to the Harvard undergrad experience. But the idea that you're just a PI's bitch or not doing good science... you literally can't make such broad statements because every lab is different. Let's chill with overgeneralization plz.

Can you please not take over this thread with rambles? By this point, I would think that you'd know that generalizing is wrong and you should avoid doing it at all costs. Also, basing your opinion on inaccurate information and hearsay makes it rather weak and, some would say, wrong. 

Dude you're the one telling us to be deliberate about where we apply for faculty and fit and shit, and you applied to 17 programs?!?

Dude you're the one telling us to be deliberate about where we apply for faculty and fit and shit, and you applied to 17 programs?!?

Red flag - lol - go focus on some research please.

I guess I would just point out that your assessment of Harvard BBS is not an opinion, rather an inaccurate description. 
My advice would be to be careful being overly critical of institutions during your interviews. It's a definite red flag. 

Can we all please chill with overwrought stereotypes of major institutions? As someone who went to Harvard for undergrad and now works in an HMS lab, and is applying for PhDs, there are great things and awful things about Harvard. Also in your stereotypes, you're making a hilarious equivalence between medical research and biological/biomedical research. It's very hard and frankly incorrect to connect research into surgery techniques to research on DNA or the cell. Also just saying an institution "was amazing in the history" ignores what it currently is, frankly when a lot of those discoveries at JHU were being made Stanford was like 20 years old, so let's all chill.
I applied to only six schools, but I applied to them because there were faculty there that I wanted to work with on topics I'm working on. Most graduate programs are defined by your PI, as I've learned working full-time in a lab the past two years. If you're just choosing for "reputation" or in spite of it, you're going to miss great opportunities.
I can tell you for certain BBS is a program that will let you do anything you want pretty much, and it is incredibly student-dependent in outcomes. In that way it's similar to the Harvard undergrad experience. But the idea that you're just a PI's bitch or not doing good science... you literally can't make such broad statements because every lab is different. Let's chill with overgeneralization plz.

Can we all please chill with overwrought stereotypes of major institutions? As someone who went to Harvard for undergrad and now works in an HMS lab, and is applying for PhDs, there are great things and awful things about Harvard. Also in your stereotypes, you're making a hilarious equivalence between medical research and biological/biomedical research. It's very hard and frankly incorrect to connect research into surgery techniques to research on DNA or the cell. Also just saying an institution "was amazing in the history" ignores what it currently is, frankly when a lot of those discoveries at JHU were being made Stanford was like 20 years old, so let's all chill.
I applied to only six schools, but I applied to them because there were faculty there that I wanted to work with on topics I'm working on. Most graduate programs are defined by your PI, as I've learned working full-time in a lab the past two years. If you're just choosing for "reputation" or in spite of it, you're going to miss great opportunities.
I can tell you for certain BBS is a program that will let you do anything you want pretty much, and it is incredibly student-dependent in outcomes. In that way it's similar to the Harvard undergrad experience. But the idea that you're just a PI's bitch or not doing good science... you literally can't make such broad statements because every lab is different. Let's chill with overgeneralization plz.