StemCellFan

I'm not familiar with the microbiology field, however I think you might be aiming too high and being an international student adds another degree of competitiveness. 3 schools are too little of an amount to apply to, especially with schools that are in the top or middle/top tier like these. When I see a small school list like this it's typically from people who contact faculty to join a lab rather than go through a general admissions process, or they apply to a small number of schools due to financial reasons or geographical limitations. Or they have very niche research interests. Unless you fall into any of those categories, I would highly suggest adding a few more middle-tier schools to your list if you can. You should be aiming for 6-10 schools if possible.

I think it depends somewhat. I do not think undergrads who are applying are expected to have publications, but should have at least presented their research at a conference or completed a thesis if that's an option at their school. I went to a small state school that was focused on teaching more than research and I didn't get my first middle-authorship from my undergrad lab until after I worked as a tech for a year. Students publishing as an undergrad was uncommon at my school, but many of them presented their work at undergraduate or regional/national conferences. Maybe it's different if you go to a bigger school where PIs publish multiple papers a year? But, if someone worked as a research tech for a couple years in an academic lab, or did a post-bacc somewhere, I think there are expectations to at least have middle-authorship if not first or second authorship on papers that are at least in preparation or submitted. If someone is working in a non-academic research area like industry, I wouldn't expect them to have published. I think the most important thing is to be able to demonstrate that you are passionate about research and that you are able to describe your projects. Why is the research you did important? What broader impact does it have? What controls or methods did you use to get your results? What do your results mean? I think being able to demonstrate this is more important than a certain number of publications. I was told by multiple PIs that publications aren't expected but they are nice to have. They can make up for lackluster GRE or GPA, but they won't make or break your application. It's like icing on an already really good cake.

You don't need to retake it. Those scores should be good enough to get you through an initial screening.

What schools are you looking at? Your verbal is great and your quant is still hovering at 50%. I think with your research experience, the quant score won't hinder you too much if you can write a great SOP and get great letters of rec. I would definitely apply to a range of schools if you can. I would look into well-regarded flagship state schools, a couple top tiers like Harvard, Stanford or UCSF, and see if you can find a couple schools in the mid-tier. This will depend on what your research interests and career goals are, of course. I got into Wisconsin, which I consider a solid mid/high-tier choice, with a 48%/55% quant/verbal score and a lot of solid research experience. Also, there are a few programs in biomedical sciences waiving the GRE requirement, so I would take a look at some of their admissions requirements.

Unless you cannot find other programs with faculty you are interested in working with, I would suggest putting a couple schools in the mid-tier on there (maybe look at well-regarded flagship state schools). This is a pretty top heavy list. Also, some of these programs may be waiving their GRE requirements. I would certainly take the GRE because you might need it, but I would aim for 75%+ in quant and verbal for these top schools.

I second BabyScientist's remarks. I got C's in both introductory and organic chemistry courses (I wasn't doing great as an overall student at the time...) and still got into a lot of good programs. I think you have a good spread of schools on your list too.

If you're looking at the midwest specifically, I would also consider University of Michigan (PIBS program) and possibly University of Minnesota. UMich is a really good school and closer to the top-tier, I think, but still worth it to apply to. University of Notre Dame has stem cell biology researchers as well. Cincinnati Children's Hospital I already mentioned. If you're looking for more classical developmental biology/regeneration maybe look at University of Chicago, but you're looking at top-tier institutions again. Other places with Stem Cell/Regenerative medicine I know of are Stanford, UCSF, UCLA (Broad Institute), Harvard, Yale, Duke. I saw a recommendation for Boston University as a place for cell and regenerative medicine research but I didn't apply there because I wanted to stay in the midwest. I know California got a huge funding boost a while back to do stem cell research, so I would peruse any of the UCs you might be interested in going to and see if they might fit your needs. I would consider Davis, Irvine, and Santa Barbara as mid-tier choices. As for University of Wisconsin, I chose it for both professional and personal reasons (I'm from Wisconsin originally). I do think they have excellent institutions to do the work I want to do, everyone I met with was very passionate about both their work in stem cell biology and the translation/clinical implications of their research. I was also impressed by the different techniques everyone was using. They have training programs specifically for stem cell and regenerative medicine, including a fellowship students and postdocs can apply to, and I really liked their science outreach efforts. They also recently built a medical research complex in the school of medicine and public health and the labs/building looked great. On the other hand, Cincinnati probably had the best facilities for core services of any place I interviewed at though.

So I think your information looks good, but I would consider adding a couple more schools in the mid-tier to your list if you can afford to (I know University of Cincinnati Children's Hospital has a dev bio program which I interviewed at and enjoyed it). I would also make sure that your 3rd letter of rec writer is a strong one as well. Are you applying to University of Wisconsin? I'm going there for stem cell biology and feel free to ask me any questions.

I don't attend any of the schools on your list, but if you're not opposed to the midwest, I know there are strong institutions like UMichigan, UWisconsin, and UMinnesota. I don't know about early developmental biology, but Wisconsin has a program in genetics, there are researchers here who do dev bio research, and I believe they do a rotation system. I don't know if it's a semester of rotations or a year of rotations, though. UMich has an umbrella biomedical sciences program and Minnesota has a molecular, genetics, and developmental bio program also. WashU might also be a place you want to consider, and UChicago has a lot of dev bio researchers as well, though I don't know if they do rotations. I also want to give a shout out to University of Cincinnati Children's Hospital--they have a molecular developmental bio program there. I interviewed there last year and I really liked their facilities and first years spend the first two semesters doing rotations.

Do you have another person who knows you well who could write you an academic letter? I would much rather have a strong academic letter than someone who will write a mediocre ,or possibly negative, letter. You could open up communication with her and just ask if she is willing to write you a strong letter of reference for PhD admissions and hope she is honest if she says she's willing to write one for you. Although I would see if there is an alternative person you can think of. It might raise some eyebrows if you spent significant time in a lab and didn't ask that person for a letter, but if you have a solid alternative, it shouldn't matter as much.

Do you have any research experience? The biggest thing any program is going to interested in is whether you have done laboratory/research work before. So even if you managed to get prerequisite courses out of the way, you need to demonstrate to the admissions committee that you actually enjoy doing research work (either in a wet, bench setting, or dry laboratory work at the computer). I have heard of a GRE subject test being at least useful for people who haven't done an undergrad major/minor in a subject. Though I would also look into biology/chemistry classes at a local college as another option. I'm not sure of any post-bacc programs for coursework off the top of my head. I would definitely consider a masters degree before taking a plunge into a PhD program, in my opinion.

I'm one year too early! I'm very happy with the outcome of my cycle this past year and excited to start my program, but had some of these programs waived GRE requirements this past cycle, I would have applied to a couple more programs with my sub 50th percentile scores. Also, that extra 25 dollars is nice to have.

Have you identified an area of research you're interested in specifically? Have you found faculty at places like Harvard or Mount Sinai that do research you're interested in? Other than prestige, what is attracting you to these programs? Your numerical stats look good, but after a certain point it will come down to research fit, what your recommendation writers say about you, and how you structure your personal statements/statements of purpose (and if a school is a good research fit for you, that will be indicated in your statements). So I think by numbers, you probably would be competitive, but it's really hard to give any definite answers because admissions is more than the numbers on the paper and is such a crapshoot. I would also apply to more schools than just Harvard and Mt Sinai and not have prestige as your most important criteria for a program, but that's my 2 cents.

At this point, I think it's safe to contact schools you are waiting to hear back from. If they are your top choice, tell them that, and ask if there are any status updates on your application since the April 15th deadline is approaching really quickly. And that other schools you've been admitted to are also awaiting your decision. Hopefully this will give you some answers on your likelihood of receiving an offer or a rejection. But seriously, don't be afraid to at least ask them. I was on the waitlist for a few schools the year I was ultimately rejected everywhere, and around the first week of April is when I asked about my likelihood of being admitted to the program, and they told me that I would likely hear a rejection at this point and that the applicant pool was strong this year, etc.

Yep. I don't know if it's happened to me specifically, but I did end up withdrawing my application from a couple places that invited me to interview because I already made a decision at that point. This opened up a spot for other applicants to be invited out who may be admitted and attend those programs. So I can see why a school would have a waitlist for those purposes.

My two cents is that you should go where you think you will be happiest. I think it's important to love the place you are living in and that you can build or have a good rapport with the faculty, the department, and fellow students. When you're thinking about schools like Columbia and Harvard, the difference in prestige here is negligible, so I wouldn't think about prestige as a factor in this scenario. You can't go wrong with either program, but it sounds like you enjoy the program and location for Columbia over Harvard, which I think are important factors to consider when making your decision.

I also want to second CozyEnzymes and say you should look into UW-Madison. The program I'm attending this upcoming fall, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, offers an opportunity to do a summer internship with a biotech/pharma company (with advisor's permission of course). I also just learned about the Biotechnology Training Program here. There are a number of companies here which have a good rapport and tie to the university, and students have had success finding jobs in the field as well. In general, I think any university that has a good number of biotech companies in the area may have the opportunities you are looking for. In addition to the above stated universities, maybe look into the Boston/Cambridge area, like Harvard, MIT, Tufts, etc? I know that region has a lot of biotech companies, so maybe you'll find some programs there as well. This will also depend on what you are interested in studying.

Hmmm. They're all good choices. I would sit down and think about what your top priority is when picking a program and what it is about a program that will make you happiest. Things I've heard people tell me is that you should have a number of faculty (3-5) that you can see yourself working with, and that you think could be excellent mentors and the research is interesting. Other things to think about is how you think you fit in with the grad community, stipend and living expenses, graduation rates (how long does it take to complete), program structure (how much coursework is required? TA requirement? How are prelims and rotations structured?), and if you would like living in that area for the next 5-7 years. I know for me, I ranked my priorities as such: 1) my SO can find a job in their field 2) availability of faculty of interest/rapport with faculty/faculty research 3) graduate student success 4) overall research strength of the area I'm interested in 5) location and stipend 6) program structure 7) rapport with current students and fellow interviewees (they might be in my cohort!) 8) reputation/ranking

I also only applied to programs that use a rotation system. This is because I wouldn't want to jump into a lab for the rest of my PhD career and find out that the PI and I don't mesh at all. I would carefully look at Harvard's researchers and see if there are any options at all in case things don't work out with this PI. I would be more inclined to go with MIT because of the options available, but your mileage may vary. As far as opportunities and reputation, both are great schools and you can't go wrong with either. Good luck!

Congratulations!!! Cinci was my second choice after Wisconsin, and it was really hard for me to say 'no' to them. I loved my visit there and the facilities/core at the Children's Hospital is amazing!

I've been in this situation before. I worked as a research tech for a few years after applying and not getting in anywhere. I think it helped me to A) bolster my overall research experience and publication/presentation record, letters of rec, etc. and B ) help me define my research interests so I could find the graduate schools in which I felt I would be a good research fit. Research fit is so important, so this helped me tremendously when I tailored my SoP for the programs I applied to. I noticed during my interviews that an overwhelming number of fellow interviewees were either in a post-bacc program (NIH IRTA, PREP, etc) or in their first or second year working as a research tech. There were some straight from undergrad, but not many. I definitely would look at research tech positions where you can work on a project as independently as possible (not doing routine labor or bench work) or look into post-bacc programs that give you this experience, and then re-apply next year or the year after when you're ready. If your goal is a PhD, I don't think a masters is necessary in your case. I noticed you are working in your same lab. Maybe consider looking into other labs to work in if you need an additional letter of rec from someone who can vouch for your ability to do research and succeed in graduate school. All of my letter writers were individuals I worked with in a research capacity and they spoke highly of me. Get some more experience under your belt, really research the schools you want to go to, make connections, and if necessary, retake the GRE. I think you'll have better luck the next time around!

So I know that hospitals and departments involved in clinical research like biostaticians who can decipher large amounts of data and information from large patient studies. I don't know how computational biology could play into this, but the mathematical background could help with modeling. Otherwise, I know a lot of clinical research is being driven by the private sector (industry) and these skills could be useful in that area too.

Thanks!! I can't wait to start at Madison! I don't think it would be a mistake, but I would make sure there are other professors you are also interested in rotating with while you're at Sinai, and that the prospect of joining these other labs excites you, too. It's possible that this professor may take on a different student (and therefore not have room in his lab for you). Another possibility is that during your rotation you'll realize that although he has a great track record for mentoring students, your personalities just do not mesh. I, personally, wouldn't go somewhere because of a specific PI, but because there are multiple PIs I would love to work with. Another thing to consider is if you don't join his lab, you could always ask him to be on your committee! This may just be me being cautious, but I know that even if the school is prestigious or the lab is one of the best in the field, if the PI and I do not get along, I would be absolutely miserable in my program. And this will be my life for the next 5-6 years. Good luck in your decision! Thanks!! I don't live far from Madison now and have a few friends from high school who went, but I didn't experience the campus until I visited! I was really impressed with their research, biomedical sciences and life sciences programs. I can't wait to start! Go Badgers!

Congrats!! Prestige, outcomes, and research aside I think it's important to pick a program you see yourself happy at. In my opinion, happiness will trump anything else, unless you can handle being in an environment that's just ok for 5 or 6 years. I think it's important that you mentioned the community, because what will do you when you are not in the laboratory and focused on research? I know for me, I need to unwind at some point and I'm social. So I want to be with a cohort who I get along with. I also think it's very important to find faculty who are excellent mentors provided you are at least interested in the research they are doing. You just need to pick up the right skills to succeed in a field you find interesting with an excellent mentor, and that is the key to success. Out of the two choices, which are both great programs it sounds like, I would be inclined to pick Harvard. But this is based on factors I prioritized when picking a program. I don't think the area in which you get your PhD matters--what matters is what you do while you are getting your PhD. The skills you gain (techniques, problem solving, presentation skills, grant writing, etc) and success of your research (in the form of publications in excellent journals) is what will matter in the end. Industry, especially, is going to place an emphasis on the laboratory skill set you developed as a student. It's also important to gain skills in networking as that will help you secure a job after the dissertation!

Biostatistics is an exception, but for common laboratory techniques I've found it more helpful to either learn it from a lab mate or collaborator who is well-versed in it or self-teach myself the necessary background information for it (either from textbook or a publication on the protocol) before applying it. As I'm learning on my own or with the help of a lab mate or collaborator, I'll take notes. But taking a "techniques course" covering techniques that I may never use or may not use until 4 or 5 years from now isn't all that helpful to me. I'm a hands-on learner in the lab, but everyone's mileage may vary. Say I get a protocol from someone on a specific protein purification procedure (An His-tagged protein or something), I'll ask for the reagents I need or a buffer list, follow the protocol, and from there look up what these buffers are specifically doing on my own time. Some programs I've seen use coursework in the first year to weed out students or get everyone up to speed with a general molecular and cellular biology, but as a tech, I've been applying these principles to my research already and learning the information I need as I go. So I guess a class covering the central dogma in depth isn't something I see as particularly useful at this point. During my interviews I asked how the classes are structured and how they are taught. I've found that some require a lot of memorization (i.e. know the glycolysis pathway like the back of your hand) and others are more discussion-like where the class reads peer-reviewed journals coupled with the week's topic and discuss them. Exams were also structured in a way that you have to devise experiments to attack a question. You are there to do research, and I think too much coursework or a focus on it can detract from it. If I go in wanting to learn cell signaling pathways, specifically g-protein coupled receptors and their downstream signaling cascades as they relate to my transcription factor of interest, I'm not going to be as concerned about the glycolysis pathway I had to memorize in my first year biochemistry class. These are only my preferences though. Some students may really enjoy the classes and want more instruction.