bioinformaticsGirl

@Cal guy What type of Bioinformatics research are you interested in? I'm not very familiar with UNC's program, so I can't speak to that, but if you are interested in population genetics, epigenetics and gene expression, or biocircuits, UCLA is well regarded in those fields. There's also a $500+ Million challenge to help combat depression that just started the previous year. There are pretty exciting opportunities in precision medicine with crowd-sourced data, wearables, medical records, and mult-omics approaches. If you're interested in "Big Data/ML" in the Biosciences, the Institute for Quantitative and Computational Biosciences is very closely tied to the Bioinformatics PhD program. They have tons of seminars, classes, and professors who are developing ML methods for tackling new biological problems, so if you are all interested in that, UCLA would be a great fit!

Could also mean they've got some grant money but nobody to do the actual work. Happens a lot in my dept because the # of PIs >>> # of Grad. Students 

All right.
Applied to:
Caltech Biology, Stanford Biosciences, Berkeley MCB, and UCSF Tetrad
Accepted to:
Stanford Biosciences, Berkeley MCB, and UCSF Tetrad
Caltech never got back to me that after that online interview.
What was it you gleaned from that 10 minute window, Caltech? Fuck you.

Email is definitely OK. A call may be even better

I've been mostly holding off on commenting until I saw my pal @Bioenchilada post, so I figured I'd chime in as well.
Pretty much everything that Bioenchilada said was on point. Having gone to an Ivy League for undergrad myself, and knowing that prestige of school and overall funding =/= grad school experience or funding, I only applied to like 1 Ivy only for their program during my application round.
That being said, I'm now at UCSF and had some misconceptions before I even got here, so let me address some parts in the section I quoted above.
1. UCSF is TWO campuses - Parnassus and Mission Bay. There is literally a Biophysics program, there's TETRAD for more pure sciences research, not to mention powerhouses like QB3, etc. There isn't necessarily an engineering department besides the joint program with Berkeley, but I'm actually rotating in a bioengineering lab next quarter. So many innovations come out from UCSF because engineering research is being conducted here (with applications to medicine, obviously, but that are generalizable). 
2. On the money issue:
You're not going to graduate school to get rich while you're there. Whether it be NYC or SF, the cost of living in these desirable places is pretty much the price of admission to be in the theme park. I did originally have qualms about this, as I even calculated that at some other schools I might be able to save up about $20K across 5 years or mortgage a house, but is that the point of graduate school? Also, if I'm going to be somewhat destitute, I'd rather do it in graduate school, not when I'm doing a post doc (note, loads of post docs love being here, and they get paid even less than graduate students due to the UC-wide post doc union). As someone from a low income background, with no family to support me, it's not as bad as you think. Once you get over the mental barrier, you realize that even here people can live fine on our salary. I won't say it's necessarily comfortable or thriving, but it's enough to survive. You forgot 4 other important things that UCSF does to offset the cost. a. You get two years in heavily subsidized student housing. b. You get a $4K relocation-allowance which you can use for anything before coming to UCSF (helps to offset costs of moving). c. Some programs provide you with a laptop and other goodies for matriculating (some have additional housing funds). d. There is a cost-of-living allowance given to people that live off campus, and even then you can find off-campus housing for under $1000/mo. It might mean not having a single studio, but that's just the way it is. Final point: anywhere you go, fellowships do not supplement your income directly. Some programs might give you extra money, but this is incredibly rare as your stipend is set by NIH/NSF standards, so usually programs that advertise these bonuses do so because their stipend is on the lower end of the spectrum.  Now, I'm going to flip around some of your pros form Princeton.
3. Quality over Quantity. I'm not sure why you would put that as a pro, as if somehow UCSF's overwhelming amount of faculty is indicative of lower quality? You do realize that UCSF is the number one recipient of NIH funds, right? No school anywhere hires people without their own sources of income, and a scientist's ability to maintain funding is pretty much a straight correlation with the quality of their work or its impact. Obviously UCSF is a purely medical/science university so there will absolutely be an overwhelming amount of faculty to choose from, but that is not a sign of lower quality.
4. Tons of money and funding. Princeton may have a huge endowment, but you'll almost never see any of that money, especially since those endowments tend to be trapped in undergraduate services or things that don't spill over into your science. You may get better career services, free food, and other things, but graduate programs tend to be maintained through training grants, tuition remissions, and funding overhead. At any top program, you're going to see programs tell you that you're covered by the program for X number of years, and then your PI guarantees the rest of your funding; of course, in the case of something catastrophic, like your PI losing funding or leaving, top programs have mechanisms to still support you. So look out for that information from places you're interested in. 
Finally, I'm going to address this since it's so insidious.
Get.Over.School.Prestige.To.Non.Science.People.
I don't know why people feel like they need to somehow boost their egos by thinking that people not in the sciences need to recognize their school - as if that was a metric for anything. If I had listened to my family, I would have gone to Yale or MIT since they didn't know about UCSF; luckily, I know better and have no need to be used by family and friends as some talking point to other people they're trying to impress. I went where I thought I had the best fit with the program and my interviewing cohort, in addition to the science being conducted there and where I would be living for the next 5-6 years. Additionally, UCSF has huge recognition on the West coast in all circles. I also see that you turned down Harvard and MIT interviews; so really, if non-scientific reputation means anything to you, you should have taken those interviews, since while it seems that UCSF doesn't hold a candle to the prestige you desire, Princeton realistically pales in comparison to those other two as well, and even more in the sciences.

This totally depends on what you are looking for. I went to UCSD for my undergrad. My husband went to Princeton. Two totally different worlds. Princeton is great if you want to research basic science. UCSD and UCSF are better for translational work but still very very strong in basic science as well. Keep in mind that while UCSD isn't quite as bad as UCSF, it is still crazy expensive. It's not way cheaper. You'll be totally fine on the stipends you listed, though. It really comes down to what program you think is the best "fit" for you. These are all top tier institutions and you'll get a great education no matter what. 

This is a good summary of the review process: https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/presentations/lh/MRev_DOE_EERE1_26_10.pdf
There are 5 different ratings you can get, which correspond to E/VG/G/F/P:
Excellent Outstanding proposal in all respects; deserves highest priority for support
Very Good High quality proposal in nearly all respects; should be supported if at all possible
Good A quality proposal, worthy of support
Fair Proposal lacking in one or more critical aspects; key issues need to be addressed
Poor Proposal has serious deficiencies
Other people on the forum said that you are actually given a raw score which is converted to the 5 categories listed above. Even if you get all E's, if you are on the lower end of the E category, your total "point" score can be less than someone who doesn't have all E's. I haven't seen anything to verify this, so it may or may not be true!
However, according to their website, the reviews only make up part of the decision. The Program Officers have the final decsision and consider other "external factors" such as
 different approaches to significant research and education questions  potential (with perhaps high risk) for transformational advances in a field  capacity building in a new and promising research area  achievement of special program objectives The Program Officers are recommended by NSF to support riskier proposals, and particularly noes that are different in some aspect to what has/is currently being funded.
 

This is a good summary of the review process: https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/presentations/lh/MRev_DOE_EERE1_26_10.pdf
There are 5 different ratings you can get, which correspond to E/VG/G/F/P:
Excellent Outstanding proposal in all respects; deserves highest priority for support
Very Good High quality proposal in nearly all respects; should be supported if at all possible
Good A quality proposal, worthy of support
Fair Proposal lacking in one or more critical aspects; key issues need to be addressed
Poor Proposal has serious deficiencies
Other people on the forum said that you are actually given a raw score which is converted to the 5 categories listed above. Even if you get all E's, if you are on the lower end of the E category, your total "point" score can be less than someone who doesn't have all E's. I haven't seen anything to verify this, so it may or may not be true!
However, according to their website, the reviews only make up part of the decision. The Program Officers have the final decsision and consider other "external factors" such as
 different approaches to significant research and education questions  potential (with perhaps high risk) for transformational advances in a field  capacity building in a new and promising research area  achievement of special program objectives The Program Officers are recommended by NSF to support riskier proposals, and particularly noes that are different in some aspect to what has/is currently being funded.
 

I got the fellowship! Incredibly excited  I ended up logging into the website once it was back online - still not sure why I never got an email, but it all worked out in the end
E/E E/VG E/E

After you accept you'll have to submit a "declare fellowship status plans" form that lets you change institution and field of study. 

How is that possible?

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

I'm sorry to hear that :/ During one of my interviews, one of the professors gave me some really good advice when selecting a school. If you're interviewing at these schools, there isn't a wrong choice. They all have top notch research, and it doesn't really matter where you go, because you'll have the same opportunities no matter what. It definitely sucks to be rejected, but you seem like a capable person. Just remember you get to decide your own future.

I'm sorry to hear that :/ During one of my interviews, one of the professors gave me some really good advice when selecting a school. If you're interviewing at these schools, there isn't a wrong choice. They all have top notch research, and it doesn't really matter where you go, because you'll have the same opportunities no matter what. It definitely sucks to be rejected, but you seem like a capable person. Just remember you get to decide your own future.

A potential PI just emailed me congratulating me on getting admitted into Stanford Bio, but I haven't actually heard back yet!

My application journey ended today. Very likely will choose Tri-I. Thank you guys!

Most of these programs know who they intend to admit before interviews. These interview processes aren't actual interviews, they're recruitment weekends. Also please don't give me nonsense about "there's only 4-6 spots" no, there's 4-6 final spots after people matriculate on average per year, but the programs admit many more people than that. I know some programs can be more narrow but that is not standard.

Accepted to NYU with a 2.6 uGPA. Miracles happen. 

Congrats! I got it as well.

I got accepted to Stanford for Genetics!! I thought for sure after the interview that I didn't stand a chance. Best day ever!

This is definitely false. I interviewed at programs where they interviewed 40+ people for 5-6 spots. 
Also, there's really no need for hostility. I was interested in them. I had a number one school for academic + personal reasons, I thought it was a reach...didn't even expect an interview. Visited, loved it, knew I would go if I got an offer and I got in. It's not some conspiracy...

Accepted to Harvard BIG last Friday 

Got an offer via a phone call from BBS. Good luck to everyone!

Got an email from MIT CSBi offering an interview for the next weekend !!!???
Do not lose your hope too early guys. I guess there is indeed a waiting list.

First acceptance!
University of Washington- Biomedical Informatics!