BabyScientist

Also make sure those 5 aren't top tier schools. To have the best odds at admission, you should have a few top, more mid, and a few lower tier schools (I don't think "low tier/safety" really exists in grad school). If you can't find any lower to mid tiers you'd be interested in attending, and you would be okay with not getting in this year and applying again next year, that's fine. But you should try to look into people doing stuff you're interested in at non Ivy/Ivy-level schools.

I think you have a very solid application. There's nothing that jumps out as could hold you back. As long as you have great letters of rec and a strong SOP, your list looks fine. As I say to everyone, though, make sure you're actually interested in at least 3 faculty at each school. As far as school suggestions, I think Brandeis has great people doing membrane trafficking stuff. I think your special bonus points and any other info comments could both be looked at as very interesting by admissions committees. If cancer is relevant to why you want to go into research, you should mention that in your SOP.

It shouldn't matter. They just want an idea of if they choose to accept you will you have way better options or is there a good chance you'd accept the offer.

Seconded. It's really hard to just put all your eggs in the prestigious basket when it's so ambiguous what your odds are as an international student.

I think your profile is okay for those schools, but it's always hard to judge with international students. If you have the means, you might want to add a few more lower tier schools if you can find some with faculty of interest.

That is a very long list of really high tier schools. If you can afford it, go for it. But it also is almost impossible that you have enough faculty of interest at each of those schools.

I think your list is okay, but with the added factor of being an international student it's hard to judge. It sounds like you could really benefit from taking at least a year to work in a lab to bolster your application. It's not necessarily your GPA I'd be worried about, but working in a lab full time in a formal setting and not for a grade is VERY different from undergrad lab experiences. Your experience sounds pretty good, but especially if you yourself are saying that you don't think you're a strong enough candidate, you might want to take more time. Those insecurities can come through on applications and in interviews, and it would improve your odds. What's the rush?

Put time into what you're doing. It's not like you're expected to get a ton done, but the more you get done the more impressed they'll be. But it's not just get it done, get it done well. Quality over quantity. You probably also have to balance your classes, so function with that limitation in mind. Generally the PI is evaluating your motivation above all else, as well as your fit in the lab (socially, as well as with your interests). Grad students function fairly independently. A PI wants to know that he/she has students who are self motivated who he doesn't have to push to come to lab to finish that next experiment. I suggest expressing excitement about getting results. If you have the option to analyze the data tonight or tomorrow, doing it tonight because you just can't wait to see the results will look a lot better than waiting. Also expressing excitement about the research in general (duh). Also remember that PIs largely function as mentors. You can have a discussion about your interests and what you love about research in general. You should also be evaluating them and if you want them to be your mentor for half a decade.

I don't think you need to worry too much about your GRE scores, especially verbal. GPA will be the first thing they look at for cutoffs.

Couldn't hurt to put an "other awards" section on it or something. You probably won't be penalized for having a nonstandard CV category?

Is your GPA low enough that your GRE scores might help? Otherwise I don't think you need to spend the money on it.

I think you could really strengthen your application by taking a year or two to work in a research setting full time and get things like publications and presentations on your application. That being said, your application isn't bad. I think a strong SOP and strong LORs would bolster everything for you, though UCLA/UW/UMich are reach schools. You could mention your Tourette's and ADHD in your application if you think it's relevant, as well as your economic disadvantage. Some/most applications give you an opportunity to submit "additional documents" and I know people who used that space to explain special circumstances.

If you want to improve your odds of admission, you might consider taking a year or 2 after you finish your degree to get more research experience, publications, presentations, etc. Really you should post in/browse the "2019 Applicant Profiles and Admissions Results" thread in the biology list. It also gives you a guide for what information we might need to help answer your question.

I agree with StemCellFan's detailed response. Mine goes education, research experience, publications, abstracts, skills summary, and other experience. Research experience was essentially each lab. I put in a sentence describing the labs overall goal, and then bullets describing techniques used. Skills summary was a quick bulleted list of my general skills (ie histology, microscopy, data analysis with certain software, etc) Other experience was anything I did that I thought had any relevance. That included volunteering at a homeless shelter and working a customer service job (being able to handle people is always important).

Yes. Your research experience and who you're interested in working with should be relevant to your purpose in applying.

Generally publications can only help, not hurt you. If your application is otherwise good (which I think it is) you have as good odds as anyone at a top program.

I've been told by advisors who have been on admissions committees that schools like Harvard (including someone who was specifically in an adcom at Harvard) that can afford to be super picky have an administrative person do a first run through to remove anyone with lower GPAs and nothing else that stands out (ie a LOR from someone super notable, extreme circumstances explaining the GPA, a first author publication in Science, etc). Was also told by the program director herself that BU Neuro does this (probably less picky than Harvard). I suppose it's also program-dependent. Can't confirm, just what I've been told.

As someone who got into a top neuroscience program with lower numbers, your scores are great, your GPA is good.

I think you have a few more Ivies than are worth applying for on there... If you have the money then there's definitely no reason why you shouldn't go for it, though. I applied for 5 of those programs and am attending one of them, in case you want to know any specifics.

Gotcha! That's a cool resource. I was just wondering because making a spreadsheet with info like that is the crazy kind of thing I would do lol

Out of curiosity, did you put that list together?

I had a lot of mentors tell me I could reach higher than I could. Grad schools have become a lot more competitive since they applied (even my young new PI). If you're looking at California, you should add UCSB and UC Davis to your list as more mid tiers.

I have dealt with good PIs and bad. I have navigated uncomfortable professional situations in labs. I have worked in the same environment as a grad student without having that title. That doesn't make my knowledge of the way the laboratory research environment any less valid. It is not ill founded career advice, as it has worked for me and others in various situations. The poster doesn't post to get sage advice he/she will follow without question. The poster posts for opinions - opinions that will then be evaluated before their path is chosen. I can give my opinion based on my experience for how that poster should respond. That poster can evaluate the validity of my opinion. You can post your opinions. The poster can evaluate those as well. My role on this forum is to supply others with my opinion, because I can do nothing more than that. It's not up to me to judge or undermine other people's opinions, as you are mine, and therefore detract from the original question.

Generally what I do on my CV for my research experience is write a short blurb about what the lab does in general, and then use bullet points for what I do/have done there. Example: Smith lab: Exploring the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's with the goal of developing therapeutics. Cell culture (iPSC-derived astrocytes) Western blots Immunostaining Data analysis (GraphPad Prism, R)

5 top tiers is a lot to apply to. If you have the money for the application fees, go for it, but I would replace 1 or 2 of those with mid tiers