strugglebus2k17

Keep in mind too that most schools are not requiring the GRE this cycle and the ones that do are heavily demphasizing it. 

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.

Hey, from your numerical stats you look like an excellent candidate and I'd say you'd have a good shot at the schools you listed. What it really comes down to now is if your recommendation letter writers will be able to step up and vouch for your ability and character. Also, it will be super important that you're able to articulate the big picture and significance of the research you did both in your statements and during interviews.
If teaching is important to you, you may want to consider non-medical center based biology programs. Typically, at medical schools, teaching is usually optional and your stipend is guaranteed through your research. At traditional universities with an undergraduate base, teaching is usually a required part of your compensation package. From my experience of interviewing at phd programs based in medical schools, there are less opportunities to TA, just by the lack of undergraduates to teach. Not saying that there are absolutely no TA opportunities, there are just less of them. I think Berkeley and Princeton would be great schools to apply to with your interests. I know Houston is very south and a little warm but Baylor College of Medicine has a stellar microbiome center with research faculty that closely align with your interests. Other schools with strong microbiology departments you might want to consider are: Harvard, UNC, University of Washington, Emory, UMich, Yale.

I don't think it would help your application, and in fact might hurt it. Talking about your SO, even briefly, probably doesn't belong in your application and may stand out in a red-flag kind of way.

Hey, I was in exactly your situation and I also had the same concerns. In undergrad, I did around 3 years of research in a neurobiology lab that investigates neuronal recovery after ischemia to the caudal forelimb area of the motor cortex. My career interests are in pursuing a totally different direction - mainly molecular virology and antiviral immunity. I've interviewed at four schools and was accepted at all four in their respective phd programs for my topic of interest. I did have a few interviewers ask why I did undergraduate research in neurobiology instead of virology to which I just explained that I joined a lab where there were ample opportunities for undergraduates. My PI was known to be a great mentor for undergrads and would offer a lot of independent research opportunities. Professors that you interview with will mainly want to see your interest/passion in science, if you have had  a significant research experience, and if you are able to communicate to others what you did and why it was important. You will also have to defend the work you did from probing questions. All in all, I think what's most important is if you are able to get a publication out of your work (which would be great! but also not an absolute), present at conferences, or make some significant contribution to the lab you joined to demonstrate that you did some science rather than wash lab dishes for all that time.

Hello, everyone! I’m an undergrad senior (zoology/EEB major) who spent the last 3.5 years working in an arabidopsis and algae phenotyping research lab. That happened to be where the job openings were, so that’s where I’ve been working ever since. Problem is, I’m applying to a PhD program in comparative biology and zoology, so sort of the opposite side of the spectrum. My question is: will the fact that my undergrad research experience was in plants hurt my application to zoology PhD programs? Thanks, and I apologize if I’m posting this in the wrong place - first time poster!

From my experiences so far in grad school (finishing up my Master's and just finished the decision of where I will attend PhD) I don't think it matters maybe what kind of research you have done as long as you have solid research experience. I definitely applied to labs where the research being done isn't necessarily things I have done before and I was a very competitive applicant based off of the fellowships I received and such.
Do you have publications that are going to come from your time in that research lab? Or presentations? Because I think those things go a long way in showing you are familiar with the workings of science and academia and greatly improve your application. Also you will have someone who has done research with you who can write you a letter of recommendation and that should help too. I think most professors understand that not everyone is going to have experience in the exact subfield they want to do their PhD in so I ultimately don't think it will hurt you. Some professors might not be as keen, but they might not be the type of professors you want to work with anyway.

If all else are equal you can use location/city to help make your decision. In science, both programs are top notch and well respected in academia. Though, I feel like upenn being an Ivy name will give you more 'prestige' back home. But that's just 'laymans' prestige. As far as other scientists are concerned, both are excellent schools! The reputation of the program/department will hold much more weight to your peers.

That matters much more for postdoc than it does for graduate school. I actually recommend joining a smaller lab with a junior to mid-career PI that will have time to really mentor you and teach you how to be a scientist. Then you can go for those HHMI labs when you're a postdoc and are ready to start being more independent.
I went to the more extreme end of the "early career" PI spectrum and joined a brand new PI's lab. If you pick a good one (which you should be able to figure out in your rotation), younger PIs and PIs with smaller labs are great. I have been better prepared for postdoc (or even a career in industry) than many of my peers that are in huge labs with well-known PIs. Make sure wherever you choose there are PIs that can teach you the way you learn best.

I think it depends on what you think you might want to do after your PhD. If you want to stay in academia then, at a topical level, Baylor has a stronger reputation for research. If not, then its important to look at what services the schools provide you with respect to career development. Apart from that, if the research fit is good for you at both places, think about which place you would be happier living in, and where you want to build your network.

Congrats! Am still waiting to hear back from NYU... Perhaps cos I'm an international student, it is probably harder for them to decide. 

Any insight into how Baylor College of Medicine vs NYU Sackler institute hold up in terms of biomedical research/tier? virology/immunology programs.

If you're interested in going into industry after academia, then what you'll be looking for will be different than other graduate students. You'll have to find PI's that are open and supportive of the idea knowing that you'll be going into industry after graduate school. Some PI's I've met with through my interviews were clearly more open about it than others. Some even have direct connections and will help you get a job in big pharmaceuticals after you graduate while others may be more biased about industry and try to keep you in academia. I feel like all three schools have excellent research strengths in the biomedical sciences - all with great reputations. I don't know about other states but in Texas, UMich and Northwestern are highly regarded, more so than University of Washington. That's just 'laymans' prestige. But of course, in academia, all three medical schools have excellent research programs.
I'm in the same situation as you and trying to decide between NYU Sackler or Baylor College of Medicine for virology/immunology. so if any of you have insight into those schools it would be greatly appreciated!
Some schools will publish where their students go after they graduate. At NYU, 70% go into industry while 30% continue onto postdoc. At Baylor, 70% go into postdoc's while 30% go into industry. So the culture at the two places are already different in what they will be best preparing you for.
Also, in my opinion, it looks better to go to graduate school at a different institution than where you did your undergrad. I think the same would also considered to be true for post-doc. You generally want a greater breadth of educational experiences from different schools than staying at the same place for all the stages of your education.

You could try the US News rankings or QS rankings if that's the type of stuff you're looking for. Or the Wikipedia list of R1, R2, etc.  

US rankings may be a starting point!It can be fairly misleading and it may be true that the Person who is a big name in the field is PI in a smaller university! The other ranking metrics too give a fair insight! To better answer your question, either of these schools are not Ivy-League or Stanford, UC(B and SF),MIT or Hopkins. Probably closer in stature to Duke, UMich, UCSD in biomedical research.
I am sure whether you choose North or South, both the 'West' are pretty solid schools and will make you a competitive applicant,basically you will not loose anything by choosing either of them!! I suppose it will boil down to Chicago vs Dallas or hot vs cold weather finally!

Thank you! 

Thanks a lot! That was very helpful.  

One thing I'd say is that honestly, I think that once you get to this caliber of institution, it all comes down to location/lifestyle fit, research fit, and ultimately, what you do in the lab once you get there (i.e. finding the right mentor who will help you succeed, being in a research environment conductive to your work style, etc). I think others have echoed this sentiment above. 
In terms of "tiers" strictly, I would agree with others who said that the absolute "top tier" would be more of the MIT/Stanford/Harvard/JHU followed really closely by Cornell/Duke/WUSTL/Columbia, but that both UTSW and Northwestern are solidly at the caliber of Wisconsin/Michigan/UW Seattle/Vanderbilt/etc. Of course this will vary based on your interests. But in terms of making a choice, I would go where you feel you (a) have the best opportunities for you research, and (b) where you think you'll be the happiest. I know that personally, my decision came down to the school I could see myself finding the right mentor and research environment for myself, and that lifestyle factors played a big role (as they should!). You really can't go wrong with either, they're both fantastic schools. But I'm a firm believer that the better supported you feel by your mentor and friends in your cohort, the better work you'll do, and the happier you'll be. 

I wore a blazer with pants and seemed to fit in okay. Majority of the other students wore blazers and something a bit more on the formal side. 
The interviews were great. Prof's were not there to grill you. The atmosphere was really nice. Had a few mixers and time to talk with faculty and current students.

For NYU Sackler? No. They didn't give that information out. 
I know around 20+ people are invited for interview each round. 

I have never heard of this being a concern at the graduate level. Undergrad and grad admissions are very different processes and there's no need for a department to boast about high matriculation rates or anything like that. Departments make the admission decisions and they don't care about university-wide matriculation rates and department-wide rates are used for planning purposes, rather than aiming to get the highest number possible. Or, put another way, there are always way more students that the department wants to accept than there are spots. This isn't just a nice thing they say on a rejection letter to make you feel better, it's actually true! 
Schools do want to know how they compare to other schools you're considering because it helps them plan. If they have 10 spots, they might normally make 15 offers, based on their past matriculation rates. However, if their top 10 candidates all say they are considering their main rival school(s) and they know that typically they get a lower rate when people consider these other schools, the school might plan to make a few extra offers. So they might make 18 offers instead, because if they have a ranked list of candidates and they wait until only 7 out of the original 15 accept to make the 3 extra offers, candidates ranked 16-18 might have already accepted offers elsewhere. Just example numbers here of course.
Also, sometimes they might want to nominate some candidates for university-wide fellowships that might have to go in before April 15. The department might have a limit on the number of nominations and they might not get to nominate someone else if their candidate(s) decline the admission offer. So they might want to gauge your level of interest before they commit to you. This question may be part of the process they use.
Finally, sure, there is a non-zero chance that a school will consider the fact that you are even thinking about other places as a reason to reject you. I think this is highly abnormal behaviour and it doesn't make sense for school to do. But no one can guarantee you it won't happen. My philosophy is to not plan for these extreme scenarios and not let unlikely extreme scenarios dictate your behaviour!
One exception though: It might make sense for a school to consider where else their applicants are accepted to if the school is typically a "safety school". If that safety school doesn't have a ton of funding so that they can't afford to go over (i.e. if they have 5 spots, they only have 5 offers and only make more once people decline). In this case, I can see why a safety school who is considering a candidate that got into their top schools already might decide to not make the offer right away because if the candidate sits on that offer, they can't offer it to someone else who is much more likely to accept. However, this is usually self-correcting, as lower tier schools tend to make decisions after the top tier schools so that candidates who are applying to them as safety schools already have offers and can withdraw or decline. Still, many schools may choose to contact the applicant and ask them about their level of interest in attending before simply rejecting them (after all, there may be other reasons why the candidate prefers that particular school over a top tier school they already have an offer from). 

Officially committed to University of Notre Dame Biology Ph.D. Program this fall! Looking forward to opening a new chapter in my life! Good luck everyone on your interviews around the country! Go Irish!

I applied for cell and molecular biology graduate program in several universities.
Thankfully I got some interview offers from graduate program I applied.
And what I thought strange was that I only got interview offers from graduate programs that are in Art and Sciences.
And I was rejected from all the programs that are in medical schools.(not MD)
I know that biological programs are largely interconnected and lots of professors are affiliated in both programs in medical schools and art and science schools.
I was wondering if students pursuing Ph.D in the field of cell and molecular biology have tendency to study in the programs under medical schools, making it more hard to get admission because of high competition. Or is it just admission committee's decision that I am more suitable for programs in the Art and Sciences?

Congrats on your interview invites!
In general, biomedical sciences programs that are under a school of medicine, are extremely competitive with a lot of applications.  One thought is that many bio undergrads come in as pre-meds but change their mind, so a PhD is an alternative for them, or they realize that they love research more than being a physician.  So studying in a program under a school of medicine fits their interests more.
Another thought is that programs under medical schools have more money and can award better stipends and funding opportunities.  I've noticed this while looking into programs at the same school (UIC and U of Cincinnati), but one is in Arts and Sciences and the other is under the medical school.  I was looking at a 2k-3k stipend difference just for attending a program under the med school.
Also, many biomedical sciences programs I've looked at (and all the ones I applied to) do not require a TAship so you can focus on research more.  If you want to go for one, the opportunities are there.
It is possible that you just ran into tough competition, or maybe the research you were most enthusiastic about in your SoP fell more in line with faculty in programs under Arts and Sciences.
So maybe it's a little bit of column A and a little column B.

UTSW is a well respected research institution for medicine and basic sciences in the US, especially in Texas region. It would be on par with other top 20 schools.
If you're interested in cancer research, Memorial Sloan Kettering/ Weill Cornell in NYC is a great option. MD Anderson UTHealth in Houston is another strong player in cancer research. I know that Baylor College of Medicine does a lot of collaboration with MD Anderson Cancer Center as well. Generally, anyone in the Houston Texas Medical Center doing cancer research will be wanting to collaborate with MD Anderson for the expertise in cancer for both basic research and translational clinical trials.
Obviously this is all anecdotal and take it with a grain of salt. My opinion will be slightly biased given that I did a clinical observership with the dept. of leukemia and stem cell research at MD Anderson and Baylor is one of my top choices. My bf interviewed at UTSW last month for their school of medicine and said he really enjoyed it. The faculty were welcoming and the facilities are top notch, right in downtown Dallas.