samman1994

Actually looking at the students name (who's name is first author) is a really good idea, I hadn't thought about that. Although there are some PIs that sometimes put their own names as first author (but a simple google check should determine if its a student or PI). So thank you! Also, it pops up all the time in most of the journals I see in my field.

I'd basically say what green eyed stated. It may just be best to try and get a job in the field and see what really catches your interest. In the meantime you can look at different theories and programs and see if any of them catch your interest as well. In regards to GPA, most cut offs are at 3.00, but there are a lot of other factors that go into the application.

Oh ok, those are all things I sorta have to look up. I definitely am going to be discussing other departments and potential collaborations (since protein NMR itself is very interdisciplinary). The main thing I'm focusing at in terms of why this school over others (at least in SOPs), is going to be instrumentation and research of other faculty members (e.g. if they do xray or even have a cryo-ER machine, that'll be great. or if they have someone who does Mass-spec binding studies, that'll be great as well). I stated this in another post, but I think protein NMR is too focused. I think it'll be better if I focus my SOP on proteomics in general, and only use protein NMR as an example. But I'm definitely lacking research on the schools. I've been so focused on faculty members I forgot to check out the school itself. Thanks!

The structure of most of the programs are relatively the same (the ones for the schools I've looked at). So when he said the structure of the program is really important, I didn't exactly know want he meant by it, like which part of it is important.

Really? Damn, never would've thought in regards to industry, the brand name of UNC and Scripps were as big as Harvard. If that is the case, then I guess I will apply to Harvard. If they are on the same level of difficulty and prestige, then I wouldn't know which school to cut (if I only wanted 4). Thanks for the help guys. Question on the side, almost all the programs I've seen are relatively the same (i.e. most are 4 to 5 years, most require either yearly updates on research, or a a more detailed update in my 3rd year. Some have tests before I join, others don't have it). So I don't exactly know what you mean by "it's important to check the programs". Every program I've seen seems very similar to the other. What particular things should I look for?

I'm in a different field though as you know, and I'm still in the process of writing mine, so don't know how helpful I can be, but I'm down to take a look.

Hello everyone, So I've started to write my first SOP (one of potentially 4 or 5), and have started thinking ahead of the other SOPs and editing. Now I know you don't want to make a "fits all sizes SOP", and have one SOP for 5 schools, and I also know you don't want to just change names or small minor edits for each school either. However, do you: 1) Write one SOP, fine tune it, edit it until it's ready to submit. Then use simply it's format to rewrite your other SOPs (i.e. say if you have 5 paragraphs, each paragraph with one theme. Copy those themes for the new SOP. So the new SOP will have 5 paragraphs as well, with the same themes, but this time it's describing things of the new school you're writing to). In this way, you edit and fine tune one, and the edits for the other letters will be minor. Or 2) Write a SOP for each school from scratch. Depending on the facilities of the school and faculty, you may structure one letter completely different from another. Some schools may have more things you will want to discuss, other schools may want shorter letters, etc. However, this method means you'd need to heavily edit each letter individually.

Sadly, I don't know much about people in industry (which is where I'm trying to go to). I only those in Academia, and they generally actually come from a wide rang. Definitely a lot of ivy league schools (a lot of Harvard, Stanford, Yale), but also UNC, University of Toronto, etc. So really hard to say. And not exactly, I just want to give all the information out there. Personally, I think I don't have a chance at Harvard, so applying would be useless. Add the fact that I'd have to pay extra to send GRE scores, and that nothing really sets it out above the rest (as far as I know), and applying to it just seems financially wasteful (and I'm not in a great place financially). However, as I just stated, I don't know much about the field, or the application process, that's why I made a post asking for other peoples opinions. They may know more about Harvard acceptance than I do, and more about the industry than I do. So they may say that it's still worth it to spend the extra money and apply, even with my lower application.

I haven't really looked at the program (do they require me to TA, do they do rotations, etc.). For me, those don't really matter. In my field, you are funded whether you TA or not, sometimes you are required to TA for a few semesters by the program, other times it's optional. Each school has labs that are relatively similar, cant really say one is over the other. They all focus on protein NMR, just different biological systems (some of them look at DNA, others RNA, others proteins), but I don't actually have a preference. The thing is, Harvard has nothing special over the other schools except for Brand Name. In regards to location, UConn is pretty close, with a good program. In regards to funding, the stipend is a little higher than most, but that's primarily because Cambridge is expensive. In regards to funding, Harvard is probably better funded than most, and it may be easier for me to get my desired professor as such; however, on the flip side, there is probably more competition there. If there is one thing I've noticed, the smaller lesser programs appear to be in higher need of you could say... specialized students (the field is small, and most people in the field don't actually work on this), so having a student who has prior experience is actually hard to find. So smaller schools, less funding, but higher chance of getting into desired lab. Bigger schools, more funding, but more competition and I stand out less, so may be harder to get into desired lab (although, this is probably true for every field). Let me put it this way. Harvard would be nice to go to (well funded, nice name so may be easier to get a job), but thats it. For me its more of a, well if I don't really care that much if I go to Harvard or any other school on this list, and I have a pretty good chance at getting into these other schools, and probably not a very good chance at getting into Harvard, then should I even waste my money? The GRE says 4 schools, well if I cut out Harvard that would make things incredibly easy and cheaper. It's just a matter of, based of how I feel, and my specs, should I cut out Harvard? Or should I still apply and say, well might as well try, who knows, I might even get in.

sorry never looked up lsu, can't help you there.

Hello everyone, So this is a general question regarding papers. Some papers are really obvious when there are collaborations, who did what on the paper, other times its a bit more tricky. Usually for bigger papers, it goes something like this: A, B, and C designed experiments. A, D, and E conducted experiments. F analyzed the data. B, D, F, and G wrote the paper. The problem is, if I'm looking at say author G, they didn't appear to design, conduct, or analyze the experiments and data, they only wrote the paper. So is it safe to say this paper does not reflect what their lab does? Or say You are looking at author B, they designed the experiments and wrote the paper, but again, same question as author G. Now you might say, well look at their lab, see the research and techniques they use, and you can find out which part of the paper they did. The problem is, take author G. They didn't do anything but write the paper, but the paper is exactly in line with their other publications that they have personally done, and as described by their research interests on their page. So when I read this paper and go, oh this is really cool, whatever lab did this I wanna be a part of, and I'm like ok lets see which lab did this. Then I realize, oh shit, thats a lot of labs, and the person that I thought was doing this hasn't apparently done anything but write the paper. Anyways, my main question is, how do you normally interpret these statements at the bottom or at the top of these papers? What do they mean "designed experiments", "conducted experiments", "analyzed data", etc. How do you find out who is responsible for most of the work, and who is just a collaborator, who ran an experiment or had a small role in it? Usually this would be by who is first author, second author, etc. But usually most PIs put their name last on papers, or the corresponding authors name last, and their own second to last (usually corresponding authors are indicated). But in this scenario, author G was also the second to last author, even though apparently he only wrote the paper. So it's becoming really hard for me to find out what papers are actually author G's work, and which ones are just collaborations. Any help would be appreciated!

I don't exactly know what you mean? If its in regards to how interested I am, it's about the same as the other schools. In regards to how well do I fit into the research at that school, again about the same as the other schools. These schools, research wise at least, are all at the same level for the most part (for what I'm looking for and my skill set). I don't fit better at one school over the other per se. In regards to @moiselle, there is a thread where people post their application and get evaluated there, nobody will really see it here. However a quick glance, GPA is good, but GRE is a bit low (for international at those schools, you'll want at least above 60%). Research experience is also a little bit on the lower side. I'd say if you can bring up your GRE score, you'll have a decent shot at those schools. And in regards to potential schools, choose schools based of research interest, not whether you can get in or not (I mean I chose harvard, and only now am I contemplating not sending an application because it might not be worth it).

Damn 10 people? I don't think some of the departments (sub-departments) I'm applying to have 10 people. But thanks for letting me know, now I have plenty of time to look them up and prepare.

Oh ok. I'll look them up then and see how many professors I should start looking at for each school. Since I'll be explicitly stating some professors in my SOP who's research interest me, I hope they would put them on the committee. Especially since I'm changing majors, I'm not super knowledgeable about all the fields of the major i'm going into, so if they brought people who's research focus was outside of mine, I'd be screwed.

I don't exactly know how rotations work. Are they mandatory? How many labs do you have to rotate around? Also, I don't know how the interview process works. Is it based on who is on the grad committee during that time (i.e. it could literally be anyone in the biochem/chem program)?

I wouldn't assume that quite yet. I'd say the only time you can make an assumption like that is when the POI literally says for you to tell them when you apply so they can personally look at your application and move it forward. Saying she's excited for you to have her in the lab just means, "I'd like to take you if you got in", not, "you're in". There is also a big difference in getting into her lab, and getting into the program. Even if she wants you in the lab, there is no guarentee you'll get into the program (at least, not because of her). And even then, as stated above, there are occurrences of POIs that want you in, but then you get there and they don't have room or funding available (from what I've seen, this is usually due to their grant getting rejected. Also keep in mind, almost a full year has passed since you applied and a lot changes within a year for a lab). I think the most important thing to state though is, even if the POI says they'll personally get you in, even if you think you've overqualified for the school or something, even if they're super excited for you to join their lab, there is never a guarentee for anything. You could potentially get rejected at every level (they want you in the lab, you don't get in the program, you get into the program, they don't want you in the lab, etc.) So apply on the basis there are other peoples labs you'd like to work with, so if that doesn't work you have a back up. Also apply with the full expectation that no matter what the POI says or no matter what you think, you could still get rejected. This is why I'd advise when you're picking schools, pick them on research interest, not names or ease of getting in.

Hello everyone, So I've come to the point of writing my SOPs, getting my LORs, and looking at application processes. I have come across a little problem however. I have 5 schools on my list Iowa State, Harvard, UNC, UConn, and Scripps Institute I have faculty at both Iowa State and UConn who were interested in taking me in, and told me to contact them when I applied so they could personally see my application and get me into the school. Now I'm planning to retake the GRE this October, and you can send your results to 4 schools, so I'm thinking all the schools but Harvard. My GPA is 3.00, and my previous GRE was 149Q/155V/4.0AW so I don't really have even a semi-decent application. I do have 3 years research experience (no pubs), and am going into a field that is a continuation of what I had done prior (I assume this is why the faculty members at those schools were so interested), but that's about it. I feel like I have a really good chance at Iowa State and UConn (especially with the faculty help), and a maybe at Scripps and UNC (probably not, but I still want to try). Now all the schools on my list are sorta at the same level in terms of research interest, I would be absolutely fine going to any school on that list. Location wise, UConn or Harvard would be nice (you have Boston, New York City, Providence, lot of cool historical cities nearby) and Scripps (relatively close to me, so it'd be a really small move). Again, these are small preferences though, research and getting into the school are priority. All of that being said, I'm thinking of not even applying to Harvard at this point. I'd have to pay extra to send over the GRE scores, and the application fee itself, and from all the other people I see applying to Harvard and how good their GPA and GRE scores are, while having plenty of publications, I honestly don't even think I really have a chance. There is again the potential of what appears to have happened at the other schools, there aren't a lot of people going or interested in the particular field I'm going into, and since I have experience in that field it does make me a bit desirable, but I don't know if it's enough to get me in. So.... Should I even apply to Harvard? Or should I cut it out and focus my efforts into the other 4 schools?

at least 5? That's quite a bit, I'd say 3 is a good number, don't think you'd need five. But he is right on the other point, don't apply to a school just because of it's reputation and name, make sure to apply because the faculties research really interests you. I'd also recommend narrowing the list down a little bit, maybe down to just 5. Keep in mind you want an individual SOP for each school, it costs quite a bit to apply, and you will have potential interview conflicts. So the more schools, the more time, money, and potential problems you'll have.

they don't have to be. I think the best networking is when you can combine the two.

If that is the case then I highly advise you look at getting a 2nd Bachelors degree, this time in something related to agriculture. I don't know how related leather engineering is to agriculture, but I think it would be very beneficial, career wise and cost wise for you to go for a 2nd BS degree. Since your going into something slightly different, and you have a low GPA, and you're international, and no experience in said field, I find your chances at pursuing grad school very slim (I wouldn't even apply personally). That being said, if you did get a job and say worked in agriculture (the side of it you want to go to school for) for like 5 years, then you might have a decent chance at applying for grad school (experience matters a lot). So my advice would be, either go back to school for the field you want to pursue, or get a job in the field you want to pursue, but regardless I think the time will probably be about the same (degree would take maybe 2-4 years depending on how many credits you can transfer, and work you'd need I'd say at least 3+ years in the field). I of course, am not in the field so this is all speculation on my side. Also, a thing on the side, I understand parents know best, but sometimes what parents want is different than what you want, and I'd prioritize personal interest over my parents any day in regarding to this. Personally, my parents always wanted me to go to medical school and be physician, but I have no interest in that. Instead I went for a Chemistry degree. My parents thing wasn't a money thing, but more of a title/cultural thing. First and foremost they didn't understand you could have a PhD (be called doctor) and not be a physician (they didn't know you could have PhDs in anything other than science/physics and medicine), and really they just wanted the title (if you're not a doctor, what are you doing with your life thinking). Secondly, the country I'm from, the title of a physician is very prestigious. Not that it isn't here, but a physician is seen as the holy grail in life (we have a lot of doctors in our country). They never could become a doctor, so they wanted me to become one. So my advice would be follow your dreams and your passion, because as long as you do that, I don't think you'd ever be wasting your time. So if you do decide to get a job in the agriculture field and enjoy it, then do it. Stay a couple of years, enjoy your life a bit, again it's not wasting time if you're enjoying it. You might decide you don't even need to go back to school and are happy with the position you are in. Masters and PhDs are not for everyone and aren't even required for every field/career. Maybe all your career needs is a BS, maybe you don't even need a degree for your career. Regardless, do what makes you happy, and follow your own path. The only time you waste time, is when you are doing something that makes you unhappy.

I actually had that mindset when I first started at my university and joined my research lab as an undergrad, and I sorta regret it now. I think it really brings down the whole university experience and hinders networking potential. Making friends at university enhances the experience a lot (especially if you take classes with them and they go through the same stuff you go through), and creates really good networking opportunities (since these people will probably be going into the same field you're going to). I think it's actually really important to make friends in school during your time there.

Thanks for the feedback aqua.I think I understand where my main mistake is here. I thought proceeding with this entire process with the attitude of, I know what I want to do and how I want to do it, would show that I'm motivated and focused. But really, it appears its primarily a detterent because it makes the schools (and POI) think that I don't want to do anything else (i.e. I'm too focused). I think the biggest issue following from that is, it's coming off that protein NMR is a requirement, not a preference. Now for me, ideally I'd want a protein NMR lab, and will try and navigate my route that direction as much as possible (e.g. choosing to do rotations in labs that focus on that), but I definitely do not want that concept (requirement vs. preference) to get confused in my POS. I'd also like to add (personally), I really don't want a lab that just does protein NMR. I want a lab that uses multiple instruments, but focuses mostly on NMR (e.g. why my email asked the POI if they used other instruments even when their focus is NMR). I also stated in another post that I'd like to join a lab that has a small developmental/theoretical side so I could see a little bit of that as well. I like to have one primary big focus, but I also really want to dabble my hands into a lot of things as well. At the end of the day that's what I really want to get across. I've done protein NMR work, and I really liked it, and I'd like to continue it, while expanding my horizons to include other instrumentation and biophysical methods. I think for all these reasons, there is no point to email the POI. Doesn't matter which part of their project I like now, by next year they may be moving in a completely different direction with it, they may have a new project I might like. Really, it's not even up to me, I'll join the lab, and try and join a project I like, but it'll be up to the funding, available space, and POI what they choose to assign me. Using their specific research in my SOP will give me the problem I have now, it may come across as too focused. I want to show the school I've done my research, but I can do that by stating the labs, or just a brief summary of what they do, not specific project details. I guess a question that arises form all of this is, do you think protein NMR is too focused for my SOP? Each school may have at most 2 to 3 members that do that kind of research, and I don't want the school to think "oh well if those 2 or 3 faculty members don't have room, he won't be interested in anything else, so we don't want somebody like that". Should I expand my focus to be just proteomics in general, and only use NMR (and the faculty members) as an example? E.G. I like biochemistry and think proteins are cool, key factors in disease bla bla bla, your school has a great NMR and crystallography facility with a variety of researches such as X Y and Z that have really interesting research (maybe only discuss in brief about one of the PIs research) versus I like protein NMR and think its cool and has a lot of potential for drug design. NMR has lots of benefits bla bla bla your school has researcher X Y and Z that focus on this and use your NMR facility (discuss instrumentation in a bit of detail) that look at (discuss projects of X and or Y) One is generally discussing Biochemistry and proteins as my focus, and discusses the facilities they have there that would just be great in general for disease and proteomics (and if look at it that way, you go from 2 to 3 faculty members to literally 30+). The other is discussing protein NMR as my focus and how great their facility and those researchers are for my focus. One is very focused into a particular sub-field (structural biology of proteins and biophysical technique of NMR as the theme, with researchers X Y and Z as examples), the other is more general (basically all of proteomics as the theme, with structural biology and biophysics as examples).

I understand. It appears I'll only be potentially hurting my chances while gaining very little from it. Thank you for everyones advice by the way! This was the whole reason I made this thread. I didn't want to burn any bridges or create negative connections before I even get involved in the field. So thank you again!

One thing to note by the way, the POI that did reply, the work they are doing now was unpublished. I discussed their previous published work and asked what they were doing now, and he discussed the current status of the project and it's direction. I was very interested in previous work they had done, but their new direction is not exactly what I'm looking for, so it helped me to realize maybe this lab isn't the one I'd like to pursue (one could argue you don't even need to know this until you've been accepted), but I understand what you're saying. Thank you for all your advice by the way!

Thanks for the feedback. 1) Yeah I realized that after I sent it, I should've said "am" applying since that is the case 2) I probably should have gone into more detail with who this is, but my PI has collaborated with this PI before, so I thought a detailed description might make them remember, oh its that lab (although again, I probably should have stated who my PI is explicitly) 3) Well that is the main thing I'd be interested in working on in their lab, so they may not be accepting students for that project, but I want her to know that's the project I'm interested in. Sorta show that I have read her publications and looked at her page, that I do know what she's talking about (e.g. didn't just go, oh protein nmr that sounds cool). 4) This I think may address a couple issues. She has not published anything on this project, and from her grant proposal, honestly this project has already theoretically been done and finished (I have read papers from a few years ago that already discuss exactly what her grant states, and answers the questions her grants ask). That being said, there are different approaches she can take, different things she can look at in the same pathway, that may not be explained in detail in a simple grant outline. I am interested in working on this pathway with this protein, but as it stands, I don't know where in the pathway we would be working on. I have a few potential ideas, but all just hypothetical. Finally, I want to show her my knowledge of the field, that I know what is known and what is not known in the field (I've done my research basically). Again, this is all because there are no papers regarding this project (from her), so I don't exactly know what she is doing with this project. I don't mean it to come across as a challenge or to question her research, but more along the lines of, I really don't know what she is doing regarding this project. The stuff her grant says has already been done before, so I don't know what she's doing (I assume she's not going to be answering the same questions those papers did, but if it's not that, then I don't know what it is). I don't know if its the way I worded it, but I really didn't want it to come across as challenging. 5) The purpose is 3-fold. I want to introduce myself first and foremost (as I stated), but I also want to know more about their research. As stated, the research for this lab sounds very interesting (in fact I'd say ideal), but that all depends on what the lab is actually doing as of right now. I got an email from another POI that I emailed today, and found out they are now approaching their project a completely different way (one which I have no interest in pursuing anymore), that was different from their previous publications. Finally, I plan on using this in my SOP. I want to explain (in my fit) why I'm interested in the school and it's faculty members (maybe the faculty member is approaching the problem in a way that really fits well with my skill set and interest). I feel like it'll show (in my SOP), that I not only am a good fit for the faculty, but that I've also done my research. A deeper reason aside from all this is, I want to create an early relationship with the POI if possible, and hope they can get interested in me joining their lab (e.g. I may not be accepted yet, but if they like me enough, they may influence my chances). It is possible they will just reply "email me when you get accepted" in which case, I understand, but I did at least try.