BabyScientist

So long as there are at least 3 faculty at each institution that you'd be excited to work with, I think your list is fine.

I don't see it hurting, but I doubt they would really look at it unless it was in their field and they were interested.

Why do you want a Master's at all? I was always told that, in science, you do an MS if you're not sure you want a PhD or not sure of what you want to study. You can get into PhD programs directly with a bachelor's in the US. Also, if you're only a rising sophomore, I'd say don't worry about it until maybe midway through your junior year. For now, join a research lab at your school and start contributing to actual research.

It sounds like you'd be a solid applicant for PhD programs and would have a unique perspective. I've enjoyed my experience thus far. I love research, and it's what I get to do. Best aspect: Freedom. I guess this depends on your mentor but mine is very open to my ideas and I, with guidance, mostly make my own decisions. My day is dictated by what I want. Worst aspect: Frankly, you'd make a lot more as a PT. The PhD stipend is, on average, around $30k a year. So you're making around that much for 5-6 years, then if you do a postdoc you make maybe $40-50k a year for the 3-5 years of that. Unless you want to go into industry, then you could make a lot more after your PhD. That being said, I love what I do and am not doing it for the money. If you truly hate what you're doing, and enjoy the research you're doing, it sounds like a great idea to apply for PhD programs. And I admire your commitment to finish what you've started. Good luck!

There was a PhD student in my former lab who did exactly this. I imagine it depends on the field you want to study, and MS vs PhD. There's a chance when you come back you'll want to do research again for a bit before applying, though, just to boost your chances.

I would focus more on research and lighten the courseload. Admissions committees don't scrutinize the courses you took each semester, and don't know the difficulty of any one class over another at your school. Take courses that will provide you with knowledge and skills for your interests. Prove to the admissions committees that you know how to apply what you've learned through your research.

I'm happy to give it a read. I have a pretty good idea of what admissions committees want to hear

Focus on getting research experience. If you can work in a lab and make significant contributions (research papers, conferences, etc)

If your research background is weak anyway, I highly recommend getting more research experience before applying to graduate school. Ideally find a lab where the PI seems to care about/gets to know their lab members

What was your GPA? Often, experience will trump GPA in most fields.

It all depends on the strength of your statement of purpose and your letters of rec. Your GPA will definitely hold you back at schools that have GPA cut offs, but I know someone who had under a 3.0 and got into USC for a bio PhD. Contact faculty you're interested in working with in advance and build a relationship - that should help too if you have someone pulling for you on the inside.

I've never heard that applying to too many can decrease your chances, and I don't know how the schools would know.... I think 5-10 is the standard number, but that's only if there are 5-10 schools with faculty you're actually really excited to work with. Don't focus on how many schools you apply for, focus on finding faculty working on things you're interested in, and only apply to the schools that have 3 or more faculty members you'd want to work with. What I did was think of areas I'd be happy to live in for an extended period of time, then look up schools in that area and look at all their faculty and their research interests. Then I made a list of all the faculty I'd be excited to work with at each school and decided which schools to apply to based on how many faculty there were that I wanted to work with. Of course make sure you're not applying to all/mostly "top-tier" schools.

It's more than enough. Honestly, it's unnecessary. A 3.3 is just fine. Aside from improving your GPA, though, it'll be good if you can prove that you have an understanding of biology/neuroscience, so it's good if the classes you took were in that realm. There's someone in my neuro grad program with a physics BS and I think a 3.1 GPA who spent 2 years working as a programmer for a physics thing and is now doing computational neuro.

Regardless, congratulations! It sounds like a great option.

That's amazing! The PI must really want you.

I know someone who had a LOR be the culprit of all her rejections. Undergrad prof said he was happy to write one. After getting so many rejections, she was able to get insider input on why and it turns out that prof wrote something blatantly false, but a red flag, about her. Our suspicion is that he either didn't remember her at all when he agreed to do it or that he was rewording a letter he wrote for someone else and didn't change that part. Never know what might happen.

The stipend question is legitimate. It may be worth contacting someone in that department and asking what the stipend is. As for TAing, find out where their funding comes from - is your stipend dependent on you TAing every semester? These are things to consider. I'd worry less about programming, especially since grad students tend to be too busy to go to most things.

I didn't do a master's so I can't speak too much to this, but from what I can tell they actually look at undergrad grades even if you have a masters. 3.5 isn't despicable, but it's also worth setting your bar at working with a top scientist rather than going to a top school. Maybe you don't get into a top school, but you get into a mid tier school and work with someone great - you could end up at the same place regardless. I don't like when people start with "my dream is to go to a top school" because TOP school shouldn't be the dream. The dream should be to go to graduate school at all to study some important thing and figure out something others haven't. Down the line, the science you do, the connections you make, and the skills you gain will benefit you beyond just what a "top school" would, so focus on going to a school with research you're interested in and strong mentorship - those matter more. Good luck.

It's more of a psychology/neuroscience hybrid program. If the program allows you to work with the same faculty/faculty you're interested in, then it doesn't necessarily matter which program you're in.

http://www.phdstipends.com

The withdraw is almost definitely not the problem. Most schools scrutinize your transcript a lot less than you'd think. Your GPA is great, your GRE scores are probably fine. The SOP is a great place to start. Did you list techniques and projects you did? Comma separated lists are not the way to go. Did you adequately describe your interests and emphasize why do graduate school at all? Also consider LORs. Did any of your writers seen in any way hesitant? One red flag in a LOR is enough to put someone out of an interview. Also, we're those 2 years experience during undergrad or after? During undergrad holds less weight than being full time after undergrad. Did you have publications? Presentations? The best next step is to work full time in a lab for a year or 2 and get publications/presentations out of it. More research experience is always better, and publications/presentations show that you know how to carry out projects fully.

A fantastic letter from a new PI outweighs a generic letter from a famous PI.

They don't want to admit people who don't want to come to the school. If you respond to the email and tell them you're not at all on the fence and very excited about attending this school, they will likely admit you. Only do this if you do truly want to go to this school.

It's a rejection. It says that if you want to improve your application for the future, you can contact then in late spring to find out what you can do to be a better applican next time.

It depends on if you want a formal postbacc program or a tech job. Both are equally valuable if you get the right one. As an international student I don't think you qualify for any NIH programs, and I imagine it depends on if you need a visa and if the employer is willing to sponsor you. It's really hard to say what the chances for admission are especially since I don't know the visa situation. If you want a tech job, that's just a matter of emailing faculty anywhere who you're interested in working with and telling them you're looking for a technician or RA position as a postbacc. Alternatively you could find out which universities have formal postbacc programs and apply for those.