samman1994

Two different topics with two entirely different points. One, it is not contempt, even that statement does not show contempt, simply that I think a PhD does not define a persons intellect or prestige. I do not think people with PhDs are better or smarter than the ordinary person, and in regards to that topic, teaching as well. I have no problem with people who have PhDs, in fact as stated in what you quoted, I have nothing but respect for the amount of time and effort they put in. All this being said, at the end of the day, I don't care if someone does or doesn't have a PhD. Whether they have one or not is not going to make me like them or DISLIKE them. So I do not see how the two things you quoted are related at all. In the first one I state I don't have contempt for people with PhDs, and in the 2nd I state a PhD does not define a persons intellect or ability to teach better than someone without a PhD. Neither of those show contempt.

So I talked to my PI and some other professors, and they all recommended I do reach out to the POI and introduce myself. So I'm going to email my POIs, but I"ll take the more subtle approach of introduction and inquiry about the research instead of "selling" myself or asking about the school.

Well there are a few things to keep in mind. One, master programs definitely have lower requirements than PhD, like significantly lower. Secondly, it is a little more competitive for international students. Finally, GPA isn't everything, and previous experience in the field can make a huge impact on your application. I don't know about your particular field, so I don't know how much of an impact it'll make and what type of experience you'll need; however, there are practically forums for every subject on here, so you could direct your question to them, and people in your same major/department will be able to help you (although they could help you here too). Most of these even have a section that states "Application of said year", and you can put your stats there and schools you want to apply to, and you might find someone in the department you're looking for at that school that'll be able to help you out. Finally, you could also email the school grad coordinator and ask them what is the average GPA/GRE of a student entering their graduate program for a Masters. Anyways, hope this helps!

It's definitely not contempt, especially for those with higher GPAs (which doesn't matter for work anyways), and PhDs. If anything, I find myself on par with a MA in terms of experience and knowledge (this is based on my research lab, and those in department), but again, definitely not contempt. As stated earlier, the main reasons I was having trouble is I was going about it wrong, and my knowledge basis wasn't what they wanted. Honestly, the interviews that I did get previously (when I made this post), I don't know why I did. One of them told me to come back for a 2nd interview, only to tell me during the 2nd interview they weren't going to hire me because I didn't know how to use one of their machines, and they wouldn't do training (even though I told them I didn't know how to use the machine during the initial phone interview). As for QA/QC it's not contempt, just something I'd really like to avoid (which at this point doesn't seem possible), and someones got to do it. So for those that do, I have nothing but respect for them, it's not an easy job. If there is anything I have contempt for, it's the company. Job postings not stating what you would actually do at the company (saying research doesn't mean anything), so you have to google the company yourself and try to connect the dots what you would possible be doing. Job applications telling you to upload your CV/Resume, only to have you fill out all the information in your resume separately in their forms anyways. Trolling interviews where they make you do a phone interview, 1st interview, and 2nd interview only to tell you "oh you don't know how to use that machine, well we don't train here so sorry" even though you made your skills (and lack thereof) very clear in the initial interview. Telling you they want someone within the next 2 weeks, then calling you a month later telling you they want you to come in. Honestly, the entire process of just finding a job in this industry is very frustrating. In some ways, its a little better than retail (you don't have to fill out a billion questionairres or quizzes anymore), but in other ways it's just as bad (for reasons stated above). Anyways, these are things I definitely do not make apparent at the interview, as far as they are concerned, I'm actually quite grateful I got an interview (which I sorta am).

I had this feeling in my undergrad when I joined a research lab of entirely grad students. I joined my sophmore year, and I was still in general chemistry at the time, so I knew nothing about the project, research, lab, chemistry or biology (and it was a biochemistry lab). I had what I guess you could say was severe imposter syndrome because I literally understood nothing. I didn't understand the language, any of the concepts, anything we did in the lab, or any of the computer programs. I remember my PI told me to analyze some data we had collected, I stared at the screen for 30 minutes before I realized I had no idea what I was even looking at. Then one of the grad students explained it to me, and I still had no idea what I was looking at, or what they even said lol. One final thing that made it difficult was, all the grad students were so used to working with each other and at someone their level (someone who actually understands basic bio/chem), they didn't even know how to really help me, and thus primarily found me annoying initially. So now I looked like an idiot, and didn't know what I was doing in a lab I had just joined.That being said, 2 years later, I learned all the concepts (via personal and classes I took), and ended up becoming the guy everyone (including those same grad students) was asking questions to. I was initially worried as well when I thought about going for a PhD, because the general consensus is smart successful students go on for PhDs, and I definitely academically was not (3.00 final cumulative GPA). However, if there's one thing I learned in my undergrad is, determination and motivation beat intellect (if you define intellect by your gpa). The way I look at it, there is no way it could be worse than my undergrad, I didn't even know how to google properly or read research papers back then. I definitely think it'll be tough, but I look at as, I will persevere no matter what obstacle or difficulties come in my path during my program.

Yeah I talked to my PI, and she personally knows the POIs that Id want to join, so she said I have a really good chance at that school. She also said the department I'm looking for is in their school of medicine department (and this is more of a biophysical lab), so she said most of the students there either have a very poor biophysical background, or don't even want to pursue that avenue, so they are definitely looking for people interested and proficient (relatively speaking in the field). So she told me I should be good in regards to those schools.

Thanks for the replies guys. I basically narrowed my list down primarily by research interest. After emailing the grad coordinators about the average student they admit at each school, it appears I basically have 1 safety school out of the 5, and I'm almost positive I'm going to get rejected from the other schools if I apply, but I'ma apply anyways and see how it goes. I.e. average gpa is above a 3.6 at almost all the schools, with GRE scores above 65%, and a publication (which I have none), and multiple years of experience. So I lack the gpa, gre, and publications. Anyways, worst case scenario is they just reject me.

Thanks for the replies guys. 1) Well the main issue was I wasn't even getting a lot of interviews, so that was a problem right up the bat. 2) Yeah, I've come to realize the job i want is in very high demand, but low availability I found the answers to why I wasn't getting any jobs. 1) I'm literally getting outcompeted by degrees and experience. All these jobs have PhDs and MAs applying for the same position, but whereas I only have 3, they can have up to 5-8 years of experience in multiple fields. 2) This is actually even more important than the first, most biotech/pharm companies only do hire via recruiters now a days. I found this out personally all too well when I went to a pharma company for an interview, and found out 90% of their entire R&D department wasn't even employed by the company, but by a recruiter. This goes for literally everything else as well manufactoring, QC/QA, troubleshooting, etc. (They do this so the company doesn't have to pay benefits to its employees and keep the costs down, basically its cheaper and easier to go through recruiters than direct hire). 3) Most companies do very little training now a days. If you are not already advanced in the field, they will most likely not want you (this is why most jobs tell you they want experience in the exact field you would be working in). I.e. if they want you to do analytical using LC/MS, and you are not proficient in it, they will not hire you. Since I've only been in one lab, I'm only proficient with a small set of instruments, not the entire spectrum of analytical instrumentation. 4) Finally they pay like garbage. I found out I've been putting my desired salary way to high for someone with an undergrad degree (I thought 40k a year was reasonable). They are looking basically around the 30k mark for anyone with no industry experience with a BS. Basically, they want an expert in the field that will require very little training, via a recruiter so you get no benefits (and aren't an employee of their company so they can cut you at anytime), and with a lot experience fooooor shit pay. I've basically come to the realization, the market is so saturated with MS and PhD students willing to accept lower wages to get jobs, BS just get the bottom of the barrel.

Ok I understand. Thank you for helping to clear this up. Again, I don't want to tell her to write it, just present the idea like nudge nudge I think it'd be cool to publish. But a better method might just be to ask her what's going to happen to the project, and where she thinks its going. Anyways, thanks again!

So I don't know how anthro/communi field works, but a huge factor in my narrowing my list down was actually how active the POI currently was. In my field this is based off of publications, and I found the majority of the people I had on my list (along with the schools) had barely published in the last 4 years. Also, at the end of the day I went based off of "Is there another school with a better program than this? Yes? Cut" I.e. I only wanted to apply to one ivy league, and Harvard was the best out of all of them, so I cut all the others from my list. I actually theoretically had around 15 schools, but then I just compared them to one another. I would have been ok at any of them, but it came down to, who had the most interesting program. Anyways hope that helps! You may want to factor in stipend money and location. I cut out new york city early on because of stipend/living issues. The school I was looking at paid very little relative to the living costs. Anyways hope this helps!

Hello, Thanks for the replies. So a bit of an update. I was able to narrow my list down to 6 schools as well (3+ professors each), but now I realized the hardest part is deciding which professor I'd like to join at each school. Applying to the school based on stipend, research, location, name, etc. is one thing, but deciding on the who to join from the 3 is a whole other issue. They all just sound so cool to me. One guy does DNA damage, another does virus work and RNA, another focuses on neurodegenerative diseases, but they are all things I'd like to do! Anyways my list came down primarily to who had the most interesting research, and so I sorta have most of the boxes checked as well: 1) Harvard (Big name school) 2) Scripps Institute (Relatively close to home) 3.4) UNC Chapel Hill and UN Conneticut (PI personally knows most of the people, pretty solid guarentee in from what she tells me, so safety school) 5/6) UN Michigan/Iowa state (Not exactly safety schools, but wanted to apply to more than just 4) Honestly, don't really have many cons. Cambridge is expensive, Connetiticut seems boring to live in, everything but Scripps is literally other side of the country from me. Michigan is cold. But these aren't really cons. Program wise, they are all amazing, and I'd be really down to go to any school from 1-4. My number one school is actually La Jolla instead of Harvard due to location (if the programs are both great, then I might as well take the one close to home). Anyways, now I'm just in the process of choosing a professor, and I realized my research focus is no where near as specific as I had hoped. Everything sounds really cool, all the labs sound great, and now I can't pick any out. Anyways, good luck searching!

Well just to clarify, the main thing I want to come across is, if she does decide to publish, it would be on her. As in, she would look at the data, the paper I've written, connect the dots, and publish it. There is not much data left to obtain (due to funding), so at most all she would do is assign a student to do all this for her. My only purpose would be to inform her 1) I think we have good enough data to publish and 2) the paper I wrote is already a good starting point, so there wouldn't be too much work left to put (although as you said yourself, it is still a large amount of effort and time). Really, I'd have no involvement in any of this. As I stated, as far as I am concerned, I have already left the lab. My only thing would be to come back and say, hey I think we have good enough data to publish. Not something we would do together, but something I would tell her to pursue herself (or assign another student too). I probably should have done this much eariler, but unfortunately I started talking to people as I was leaving, too little too late. Again, I still am in contact with her and the lab, so I feel like it isn't too late yet to have that discussion with her. What I'm thinking is, I do want to have sit down talk with her in general. She is involved with my job hunt and school searching, and now that I basically have my schools/professors that I'd go to down, and I think I'm close to securing a job, I want to meet up and just catch her up with everything before I permanently leave the lab. I think during that same talk, I'll just bring up what she thinks our chances are of publishing a paper on the project I worked on. Then tell her that I think we have enough data to do so, tell her specifically based off the paper I wrote, what could be published, and see what she says. I really don't want to bring up my authorship, I find it unnessicary. I feel like, she's seen my hard work and effort, and personally said the paper I wrote her is the best and most comprehensive/detailed she's ever received (and it was mostly my data in it), so I want to leave that judgement up to her. I trust that if she thinks I'm 2nd author, then I deserve and have put in the amount of effort for a 2nd author. So what do you think? A good plan?

Thank you for your response! So I theoretically have already left. I am currently looking for a job and looking for PhD schools. I didn't want to focus on the lab anymore so I'm on "unofficial" leave. I told my PI that I would still come to the lab to do some computational work until I find a job, but didn't want to start anything big. So I have shown up throughout the summer here and there to clean up, tie up loose ends, etc. However, I have not done anything big (experimentally speaking), since June. I have the key, but I think both I and my PI see my appearance in the lab only an indication I haven't found a job yet and want something to do, not that I'm exactly a part of the lab. My stance on the whole situation is: I do think we have enough material to publish, but it is ultimately up to my PI. The reason I haven't set up a meeting and had a serious sit down discussion is because I didn't want to come across as pushy. I think she knows (or at least by now I hope she does), that I think we have enough material to publish, and I imagine it would be obvious that I would support a publication with my name on it (be it any author). I didn't want to sit down with her and tell her what to do, but rather just get the message across that I think we have enough data to publish a paper; moreso than that however, is something you also touched upon. I also want to get that idea over to her that it doesn't need to be the top notch best paper in existence to get published, that I think what we have is good enough. Again, I do not want to come across as telling her what to do or how to think (or at least, I don't want her to feel that way). This is again why I have avoided a sit down conversation. I've chosen instead, to try and say it conversationally, and hope she gets the message. I personally feel at the end of the day, she knows whats best. It is her money, her publication, her name, her research. Honestly, I had no intention of even really talking to her about the publication, it was the amount of people (and my lab members), that told me I should that got me started on trying to send that message across. Again, I feel like my PI really doesn't have any interest or desire in this project anymore, and now that its funding has died out, I feel as if in her mind, the project has died. Since she doesn't care that much, and the paper won't fit her standards (which I think may be unfair for the situation), I'm afraid she may not publish the data, and it'll basically die. However, this is my effort and my time that I put in, and I don't want to see it go to waste, so I feel like I should fight for it. Also, in regards to 1st author or not, I did the data analysis for almost all the data that will go on the paper, and ran over 75% of the experiments that would go on it (so I do feel at least in regards to the work done, I would be 1st). For my undergrad, I had to write a small research paper discussing what I had done during the time in the research lab. I instead chose to basically write a paper on the entire project as a whole (again since I did most of the data analysis, I felt it was fair to throw that under my name as well, and my PI didn't object). I mean, I could be wrong with all of this, and maybe she does plan to publish it, it's just not anything she has demonstrated to me, or told me about. Anyways, I definitely feel like this is something that I want to fight for, but I don't exactly know the proper way of fighting for it. On one hand, you are correct, it is up to her and I have no right telling her what to do and how to do it. I look at it more, she gave me the privilege to work in her lab, and she owes me nothing for it (i.e. a publication). On the other hand, I also feel like it would be wrong for me to sit back and let the research and everything I've done the past couple of years basically die. Again, I have brought this up to her before, just never as a sit down conversation. I'm afraid if it comes down to that, at best she'll just say "yeah that sounds like a good idea" again, and at worst she'll get annoyed and pissed. Again, this is why I didn't know how to go about handling this situation. Everyone keeps telling me, "you should definitely try and convince her to publish, you've done a lot of good work", but none of them really say how. Anyways, I apologize if I sound a bit repetitive throughout this entire post. I just really want to show where I stand very clearly, and what I desire to achieve from this. Also I think it's important to note, if she does decide to publish, at this point in time, I would not be able to get involved that much in the writing (i.e. if she wants me to write some of it, or edit it, or analyze some data over again, etc.).

Hello everyone, So I've come across a problem that I don't quite know how to handle. Backstory: I joined a lab 3 years ago, within 2 years I finished the project I was assigned (I had one small part of a much bigger project), then decided to expand into the bigger project. All in all, I have largely finished the "bigger project" within the year, and have actually combined data from all the "smaller projects" and even written a potential conclusion about them (basically, I wrote a paper about the project already). Current Situation: Most people in our department are aware of this, since I have done mini collaborations throughout the 3 years with other faculty members (very small stuff, not enough to actually put their name on the paper). And they have all uniformly told me I should attempt to convince my PI to publish a paper. Considering how much work I have put in on this project, I would definitely be first author, and if I do say so myself, I think the paper will actually be a very significant paper. Dilemma: I have discussed this with my other lab members as well who are involved on the project, and they all agree it's time to publish. The problem is, my PI is very stringent on the quality of papers she will publish. She will not publish unless the paper is top notch and fully complete. There are of course some tiny details missing within our project, but again, definitely enough data to publish a considerably good paper. Bigger problem is, project has run out of money, so we can't even run the other experiments or obtain more data and fill in those tiny details. I have attempted to bring up the idea of publishing before, and all i have gotten back is "Yeah, that would be a good idea", but she's never actually gotten behind it. Furthermore, she actually has very little information about the progress of the project as of the past 2 years. I update her frequently on its progress, but in regards to priority, she has dropped my project and focused on something else (so she constantly forgets what we've discovered). It seems she has lost interest in our project for quite some time now, and now that its funding is done and I'm leaving (I was really the only person aside from one other lab member working on it), I'm worried this project will die with me, with no publication. She is the PI of course, and she has every right to decide whether or not she wants to publish her data or not, but again, I think we have enough data to publish, and well it'd be great for my name if we did. All that being said, I don't want to come across as pushy, again it is her decision. I have never had a sit down discussion with her regarding this, just stating it on the side every once in a while like "Yeah the data from these experiments are really cool, it'd definitely be a good paper to publish" to again her response usually be something along the lines of "Yeah that sounds like a good idea". I don't really know how to go about this. Again everyone tells me to convince my PI, but how would go about even doing that? I've already suggested we should publish before, and her response has been positive, but nothing has been done about it. Again I suspect this is because 1) Her interest in the project as a whole has basically died or 2) The project isn't 100% completed, and she won't publish a paper until we have answered every possible question (which we can't cause no funding). I don't want to come across as demanding, or selfish (i.e. publish this paper so I look good!), but it is something I put considerable effort into, that I really wouldn't want to go to waste. Any advice would be appreciated!

My reason for picking multiple PIs is if one of them screws me over (says they have room but doesn't, or their grant gets rejected), or something like that, I have a back up plan. If none of the POIs are even accepting students I wouldn't waste my money applying to the school. But I see what you're saying. A follow up question then, say we have a discussion about the research, I find it very interesting, and I state my position, my interest, my background etc. Would it be improper if I asked them if I they thought I would be a good fit to their lab? Or whether they would take me? Basically asking the "are they accepting students" question, but indirectly. Again, my whole point to reaching out would simply be: 1) that I would want to get to know them and their research a bit better, 2) so that they can know me and where I come from (so that they can hopefully become interested in acquiring me, thus giving my application a little weight), and 3) To know whether they have room/funding for me. I don't wish to waste my time going after a school or pursuing a PI that can't even take me on, even if they wanted to. Regardless, I understand your point of coming across more as a conversation about their research and my interests, rather than an inquiry about applying to the school and their lab. Thank you by the way!

Well my first email would be to state my intent (I'd like to apply for said program and would like to join their lab), and ask basically if they are accepting students next year, short and simple. From there, I guess I could send a second email discussing which part of their project I am interested in, discuss how it relates to prior experience, and hopefully try and demonstrate (rather than outright tell) that I'd be a good fit. So you'd advise don't message the other professors unless I've gotten accepted into the school, or the professor I want is not accepting students? I haven't quite picked one professor (from my list of 3) at each school, I assumed I'd first email them and see which one is accepting students, and narrow it down from there. I.e. if 2 of the professors aren't even accepting students, then by default I know which professor I'd pick to go after.

Hello everyone, So I made this post already as its own thread, but I realized this would probably be a more appropriate area to ask my question, so I'll just copy and paste it: So I officially have a list of professors at 6 different schools that I would be applying to for my PhD. Now I'm in the process of emailing them to see if they have room, are accepting students, and have available funding. My question is though, how do you proceed about doing this? Do you just email them "Hi Dr. Blank, I am interested in joining your lab for a PhD program this date, are you accepting students?" Or is it more involved? The lab I am looking at are all things I have done before in my previous lab, so I'm pretty sure I would already be a very good fit for the labs I am looking at. Furthermore, my application is not very strong, so I would like to convince these POIs that they want me in their lab, and that I would be a great addition to the school and their lab (so that they could personally push my application further). That being said, I have no idea how to go about this. There are a couple issues that I have that I was hoping you guys could help me out with. 1) I have a minimum of 3 POIs from each school, and I would theoretically ask them all at the same time if they have room or not in their lab (within the same school). However, if I am also trying to convince the POI that I would be a good fit in their lab, I don't want to basically email all 3 of them and go on about how great their lab is, and what i like about it and why I really want to join. The reason for this is, say all of them do have room, and say they'd love to take me on (after I go on about how amazing their lab is). Say I do get accepted in the school, and now there are 3 professors waiting for me to join their lab. If I pick one over the other, I feel as if it'll look bad (i.e. wait you told me my lab was the best and exactly what you were looking for, why did you join theirs then?). Or on the off chance they have a discussion (before I apply) and find out I told all 3 of them basically the same story (e.g. your lab is the best), in which case then I look fake, and none of them will want to take me on. Should I only ask 2 if they have room and that I'd like to join their lab, but try and sell myself to the 3rd one? Should I not even contact the other professors if my ideal one says they have room? I don't really know how to go about this, so any help would be appreciated. 2) How do I start? What do I say? Again, I'd like to see if the lab has room, and I'd also like to sell myself a bit. That being said, I feel like it would be rushing if I started out immediatly saying, Hi Dr. blank, my name is blank, and this is why I would be a good fit in your lab etc etc etc. I'd imagine you'd probably email and just say you have an interest in their lab and wanted to see if they had room and were accepting students, and if they agreed, then maybe go on and sell yourself? So 1st email is icebreaker intent to join, 2nd email is selling yourself? Again, I really don't know how to go about even contacting them, so any help here would be appreciated. My main concern is, this field is relatively small, and most of the faculty know each other across the country (that do similar research). This field is also where I plan to do my career in, so I really don't want to burn any bridges or give bad impressions. Thank you again as always!

Hello everyone, So I officially have a list of professors at 6 different schools that I would be applying to for my PhD. Now I'm in the process of emailing them to see if they have room, are accepting students, and have available funding. My question is though, how do you proceed about doing this? Do you just email them "Hi Dr. Blank, I am interested in joining your lab for a PhD program this date, are you accepting students?" Or is it more involved? The lab I am looking at are all things I have done before in my previous lab, so I'm pretty sure I would already be a very good fit for the labs I am looking at. Furthermore, my application is not very strong, so I would like to convince these POIs that they want me in their lab, and that I would be a great addition to the school and their lab (so that they could personally push my application further). That being said, I have no idea how to go about this. There are a couple issues that I have that I was hoping you guys could help me out with. 1) I have a minimum of 3 POIs from each school, and I would theoretically ask them all at the same time if they have room or not in their lab (within the same school). However, if I am also trying to convince the POI that I would be a good fit in their lab, I don't want to basically email all 3 of them and go on about how great their lab is, and what i like about it and why I really want to join. The reason for this is, say all of them do have room, and say they'd love to take me on (after I go on about how amazing their lab is). Say I do get accepted in the school, and now there are 3 professors waiting for me to join their lab. If I pick one over the other, I feel as if it'll look bad (i.e. wait you told me my lab was the best and exactly what you were looking for, why did you join theirs then?). Or on the off chance they have a discussion (before I apply) and find out I told all 3 of them basically the same story (e.g. your lab is the best), in which case then I look fake, and none of them will want to take me on. Should I only ask 2 if they have room and that I'd like to join their lab, but try and sell myself to the 3rd one? Should I not even contact the other professors if my ideal one says they have room? I don't really know how to go about this, so any help would be appreciated. 2) How do I start? What do I say? Again, I'd like to see if the lab has room, and I'd also like to sell myself a bit. That being said, I feel like it would be rushing if I started out immediatly saying, Hi Dr. blank, my name is blank, and this is why I would be a good fit in your lab etc etc etc. I'd imagine you'd probably email and just say you have an interest in their lab and wanted to see if they had room and were accepting students, and if they agreed, then maybe go on and sell yourself? So 1st email is icebreaker intent to join, 2nd email is selling yourself? Again, I really don't know how to go about even contacting them, so any help here would be appreciated. My main concern is, this field is relatively small, and most of the faculty know each other across the country (that do similar research). This field is also where I plan to do my career in, so I really don't want to burn any bridges or give bad impressions. Thank you again as always!

1) This is for general. I don't even use my schools proxy. Sci-hub gives me access to all the journals, whereas my school does not. 2) That's what I thought, but I've also found articles from 2014, or even 2001 that are not for free on pubmed. That's why I was confused, it didn't seem very consistent in regards to: older articles free, newer ones go to journal.

Ah I see,guess that makes sense. Thank you for the reply!

Well it just gives you stipend information. It will occasionally list insurance and scholarships, depends on if the person who made the post wanted to include it. But I've found it very useful for just a general search to see how much the school gives vs. living expenses.

Hello everyone, Found this site that states the stipend amount from different schools across the country based on the program. And even tells you if you get health benefits or not sometimes. Thought it would be useful! http://www.phdstipends.com/results Just type in your school name, and wala.

Thank you! Btw I don't know any of these people, so if anyone does, I'd greatly appreciate if you could just say a little about them. I'm in the process now of asking around my campus and seeing if any of the faculty know any of these people (whether I should avoid them or whether they recommend them), before I email them.

Also, if you don't want to go through them all. This is my personal list for schools I will be looking into/applying to. I want a lab that does protein structure, dynamics, and binding using primarily NMR. Not interested in developmental methods. I also want a school that has a minimum of 3 people that fit that criteria. These schools fit what I am looking for. Stars basically are ideal picks, the eh means well, I'm eh about the school, but they are my back ups if the first 4 don't work out. Those are the names of the professors I'd be willing to work with that fit my criteria. *Scripps institute (Jane Dyson, Peter Wright, Kurt Wuthrich, Takanori Otomo) *Harvard (Victoria D'souza, Haribabu Arthanari, James Jeiwen Chou, Gerhard Wagner) *University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (Sharon Campbell, David Williams, Andrew L Lee, Qi Zhang) *University of Conneticut (Dmitry Korzhnev, Irina Bezsnova, Andrei Alexandrescu) Iowa State University (Julien Roche, Amy Andreotti, Vincenzo Venditti)[eh]

Hello everyone! So I am finished with my searches for schools, and thought I'd share them here in case anyone else was looking into doing protein NMR. I made a list of every single professor, and a general gist of their research. I found many professors interests on their web/lab page was outdated, or straight up misleading (professor says they do NMR, but you can only find one NMR paper among 30 crystallography papers). Other times its unclear how much of it is application vs. development of methods, so this i think is a decent list to clear things up. So I will just post some general techniques of how I searched and a little bit of how to navigate my notes. 1) I looked at every professors publications from 2015-2017 (present day). A total of 3 years if you count our year as almost over. 2) All NMR is liquid NMR unless stated otherwise (i.e. if I state protein structure and dynamics using NMR, I am referring to liquid NMR) 3) Many professors have not actually had many publications within this time frame, thus my analysis of what they do might be a little weak (if there are only 3 papers within this time frame, can't really sum up the lab very well). The general format is: what kind of macromolecule do they focus on, what biophysical methods do they use, and is it application or developmental. If so, how much. By the way, it's a long list, so you may want to just word search the school or professor. That being said, here is the list: Joel Schildbach (John Hopkins)- Focus mostly on DNA/RNA and gene expression. Does occasional structure determination, usually uses crystal or SAS, very little NMR. David Shortle (John Hopkins) - Focus mostly on Protein structure/folding. However appears primarily focused with computational/theoretical rather than application. Vincent Hilser (John Hopkins) - Focus mostly on Protein structure. Very little NMR, more use other biophysical methods Juliette Lecomte (John Hopkins)- Focus mostly on Heme and small molecule interactions. Uses NMR, but primarily 1D and sometimes 2D looking at developmental/theoretical small molecule effects. Karen Fleming (John Hopkins)- Found very little on actual use of NMR, mostly does SANS Joel Tolman (John Hopkins)- Developmental, but also plenty of application as well. Focuses on NMR primarily but does X-ray crystallography occasionally as well. Focus on proteins only. Jane Dyson (Scripps Institute)- Focus mostly on Protein-Protein and some RNA-Protein interaction. Almost entirely NMR, structural and dynamic interactions. Peter Wright (Scripps Institue)- Exactly like Jane Dyson. In fact, almost every paper J. Dyson is in, so is Peter Wright, but they appear to be two different labs. (Super Collaborators?) Kurt Wuthrich (Scripps Institute)- Focus on RNA/DNA protein interactions. Uses primarily NMR. Does 1D 19F probes, but also 2D,3D work. Takanori Otomo (Scripps Institute)- Focus on protein-protein, does a mixture of both NMR and X-ray (usually both). Primarily focused on structure (no publications after 2015). Nicolas Fawzi (Brown University)- Focus on protein-protein/protein-RNA structure, dynamics, and binding. Mostly NMR and microscopy. Structure, dynamics, and binding. Wolfgang Peti (Arizona University)- Focus on protein-protein interactions. Uses both NMR and X-ray (leans more on Xray than NMR). Mostly structure/binding, sometimes dynamics. Rebecca Page (Arizona University)- Exactly like Wolfgang Peti. In fact, almost every paper Peti is in, Rebecca is in as well. But again, they appear to be 2 different labs. (I'm starting to see a trend) Victoria D'Souze (Harvard)-Focus mostly on RNA-protein structure, dynamics, and binding. Uses almost entirely NMR. Haribabu Arthanari (Harvard)- Focus mostly on protein-protein/protein-RNA structure and binding. Uses almost entirely NMR. James Chou (Harvard)- Focus mostly on protein (transmembrane) structure and binding. Uses almost entirely NMR. Gerhard Wagner (Harvard)- Focus mostly on protein structure, binding, and sometimes dynamics. Uses mostly NMR. Developts NMR methods as well, but is mostly application. Collaborates with other Harvard members stated above often (his own papers appear to be more developmental though) Karen Anderson (Yale)- Mostly focuses on immunoassays and genes. Very little structural work, mostly X-ray crystallography. Found almost no NMR. George Beardsley (Yale)- Focuses on DNA-protein interactions. However has not published since 2014, and work prior is from 2007 or before. Most of his publications are form the 80s-90s. Do not know if he is active in research anymore Andrew Miranker (Yale)- Focuses on protein-protein interactions, structure, and dynamics. However, uses very little NMR, primarily CD and MS. Patrick Loria (Yale)- Focuses on protein structure and dynamics. Uses primarily NMR in conjunction with some computational methods as well. Elias Lolis (Yale)- Focuses mostly on protein-protein structure/binding. Uses primarily X-ray crystallography, but also does NMR sometimes. Lynette Cegelski (Stanford)- Focuses on in-cell solid state NMR to observe biofilms and small molecule effects on E. Coli strains. Elisabetta Viani Puglisi (Stanford)- Focuses on RNA-protein interactions and structure. Uses NMR and X-ray (however most of her NMR papers are from 2007, her more recent papers are all X-ray) Joseph Puglisi (Stanford)- Focuses on RNA-Protein interactions and structure. However does not focus on any one method (uses NMR, fluor, Cryo, xray, etc.) Leonard D. Spicer (Duke)- Focuses on DNA-Protein interactions. Primarily Crystallography but also does In-Cell and Solution state NMR. (Most publications are old however, only 1 in 2016, 1 2014, then 2013, the rest are in 2010). Terrence Oas (Duke)- Focuses on protein structure and dynamics. Uses primarily NMR. Pei Zhou (Duke) - Focus on protein structure. Uses primarily X-ray crystallography, and occasionally NMR. Hashim Al-Hashimi (Duke)- Focuses on Protein-RNA structure, dynamics. Uses primarily NMR. Kevin Gardner (State Collge of New York)- Focus on protein structure, binding, and dynamics. Uses primarily NMR and some computational. Ranajeet Ghose (State College of New York)- Focus on protein-RNA/DNA structure, binding, and dynamics. Uses Primarily NMR and some computational. Sharon Campbell (UNC Chapel Hill)- Protein Structure and dynamics using primarily NMR and some computational methods. David Williams (UNC Chapel Hill)- Focus on Protein-DNA structure, binding, and dynamics using primarily NMR, but also fluorescence and computational methods. Gary Peliek (UNC Chapel Hill)- Focus on protein structure in-cell. Uses a variety of NMR methods including 1D 19F methods. Appears to be more focused on developmental side however. Andrew Lee (UNC Chapel Hill)- Focus on protein structure and dynamics using primarily NMR. Qi Zhang (UNC Chapel Hill)- Focus on RNA-protein structure, dynamics, and binding using primarily NMR. James Cole (UN Conneticut)- Focus on RNA-protein and protein-protein binding and structure. Does not use NMR, uses Crystallography. Dmitry Korzhnev (UN Conneticut)- Focus on protein-protein binding, structure, and dynamics using primarily NMR and computational methods. Interesting to note, did not observe NMR dynamic experiments, just computational dynamic simulations. Michael Gryk (UN Conneticut)- NMR but focus more on computational than application. (Very good for anyone looking into computational) Irina Bezsnova (UN Conneticut)- Exactly like Dmitry Korzhnev, except appears to do more experimental dynamics using NMR. Also, on same papers as Dmitry. Again, 2 different labs. (Starting to believe these types of people are probably married or something) Andrei Alexandrescu (UN Conneticut)- Protein-Protein binding, structure, and dynamics using NMR. Carolyn Teschke (UN Conneticut)- In-cell protein-protein structure and binding. However uses a variety of biophysical techniques (mass-spec, CD, fluor), does do NMR, but very little of it. Rachel Klevit (UN Washington)- Protein-protein structure and binding. Uses primarily liquid NMR, however appears to have done solid-state in the past. Gabriele Varani (UN Washington)- Protein-RNA and protein-protein structure and binding. Uses primarily liquid NMR, but does solid-state occasionally as well. Kevin H. Mayo (UN Minessota)- Protein-protein and protein-small molecule binding and structure. Uses primarily NMR. Gianluigi Veglia (UN Minessota)- Protein-protein binding, structure, and dynamics. NOTE: This lab appears to be more focused on developmental/theoretical than application. They do mostly liquid NMR, but also solid-state. Again, focus on all papers is both development and application. Ian M. Armitage (UN Minessota)- Cannot find any publication after 2015, and even those before it have very little to no NMR. David Ferguson (UN Minessota)- Cannot find any publication after 2015. Publications before that are primarily synthesis, some small molecule-protein binding and structure using primarily 1D and 2D NMR. Jeffery Urbauer (UN Georgia)- Focus on protein-protein binding and structure. Uses primarily NMR. Art Edison (UN Georgia)- Appears to be almost entirely development of NMR methods. Found very little application. James Prestegard (UN Georgia)- Focus on protein structure, binding, and dynamics. Is about 50/50 development and application. Arthur Roberts (UN Georgia)- Focus on protein-protein binding and structure. However, recent papers (2012+) use very little NMR. Okuno Cavagnero (UN Wisconsin)- Focus on protein-protein structure and binding. Uses primarily NMR. Lab appears to be 50/50 developmental and application. However very few papers within the past 4 years (2012+) so hard to say how much it is now a days. Katherin wildman (UN Wisconsin)- Focus on protein-protein structure, dynamics, and binding using NMR. John Markley (UN Wisconsin)- Focus on protein-protein structure and binding. Uses primarily NMR, but does a little developmental/computational as well. Rams Ramamoorthy (UN Michigan)- Focus on protein (transmembrane) structure and binding. Uses a combination of solid-state and liquid NMR. Does developmental as well, but mostly application. Randy Stockbridge (UN Michigan)- Could not find any NMR publications from the past 4 years. Focus on RNA structure using mostly X-ray crystallography. Tomasz Cierpicki (UN Michigan)- Focus on proteins and small molecule-protein binding and structure. Uses a combination of x-ray and NMR. Erik Zuiderweg (UN Michigan)- Focus on protein-protein binding and structure. Uses primarily NMR but x-ray crystallography as well. Did not see any experimental NMR dynamic experiments, but does computational dynamic modeling. Jeffrey W. Peng (UN Michigan)- Focus on protein-protein and protein-small molecule binding, structure, and dynamics using NMR. Rama Krishna (UN Alabama)- Focus on protein-protein structure, binding, dynamics using primarily NMR and x-ray crystallography. They also do develop on the side. However, publications are few (only 4 from 2011+) Jun Zhang (UN Alabama)- Focus on protein-protein and protein-RNA structure, binding, and dynamics using NMR. Margret Johnson (UN Alabama)- Focus on protein-protein structure, binding, and dynamics using NMR. However, publications are few from the past 4 years (only 4). Russel Timkovish (UN Alabama)- Focus on protein-protein binding and structure using primarily NMR. However, publication are few from the past 4 years (only 3). John Bushweller (UN Virginia)- Focus on protein-small molecule and protein-protein structure, dynamics, and binding using NMR. Linda Columbus (UN Virginia)- Focus on protein-protein structure and dynamics. However most recent stuff does not use NMR (2014+), and the older stuff uses NMR sparingly. David S. Cafiso (UN Virginia)- Focus on protein-protein structure and binding. Uses a combination of NMR and EPR (about 50/50) Charles M. Grisham (UN Virginia)- Does not have any publications past 2001 Joshua Wand (UN Pennsylvania)- Focus on protein-protein structure, dynamics, and binding using NMR. Also does a little bit developmental on the side. Heinrich Roder (UN Pennsylvania)- Focus on protein-protein structure and binding using primarily NMR. Not many publications however in the past 3 years (only 4) Walter Englander (UN Pennsylvania)- Focus on protein-protein structure and dynamics. However, uses primarily Mass-spec, occasionally NMR. Few publications in the past 4 years (only 4) Afua Nyarko (Oregon State)- Focus on protein-protein structure and binding using NMR. However, few publications in the past 4 years (only 5). Victor Hsu (Oregon State)- Focus on protein-protein interactions. Uses primarily MS. However, only 2 publications the last 4 years. Julien Roche (Iowa State)- Focus on protein structure and dynamics. Uses primarily NMR, and sometimes X-ray crystallography. However lab is also developmental. Appears to be 50/50 development and application. Amy Andreotti (Iowa State)- Focus on protein-protein structure, binding, and dynamics using NMR. Vincenzo Venditti (Iowa State)- Focus on protein structure and dynamimcs. However, only 3 publications the past 3 years (joined the school in 2015). Uses primarily NMR and xray scattering. Matthias Buck (Case Western Reserve)- Almost entirely computational Michael Zagorski (Case Western Reserve)- Has not published since 2008 Blanton S. Tolber (Case Western Reserve)- Focus on protein-rna structure and binding using primarily NMR. Dorothee Kern (Brandeis)- Focus on protein-protein binding, structure, and dynamics using primarily NMR and occasionally SAXS. Thomas Pochapsky (Brandeis)- Focus on small molecule-protein structure and binding using NMR. However only 4 publications the past 3 years. Judith Herzfeld (Brandeis)- Is almost 90% developmental. 10% Focus on protein structure and dynamics using primarily solid state NMR. Jack J. Skalicky (UN Utah)- Focus on protein-protein structure,binding, and dynamics. Uses 50/50 NMR and xray crystallography Peter Flynn (UN Utah)- Only 1 publication after 2008 Bethany Buck-Koehntop (UN Utah)- Focus on DNA-protein structure, binding, and dynamics. However does not use NMR often. Has only published 4 in the past 4 papers 5 years. Arthur Pardi (UN Colorado)- Focus on protein-protein structure, binding, and dynamics using NMR. Loren Hough (UN Colorado)- Focus on protein-protein structure, binding, and dynamics using NMR. However mostly focuses on in-cell function or developmental, NMR is not the focus of the lab. David Jones (UN Colorado)- Focus on protein-protein and protein-small molecule binding and structure. Uses primarily X-ray crystallography, and occasionally NMR. Tatiana Kutateladze (UN Colorado)- Focus on protein-protein binding and structure using primarily NMR. Does x-ray crystallography as well. Beat Vogeli (UN Colorado)- Focus on protein structure and dynamics using NMR. 90% developmental, 10% appliaction. Matthew Cordes (UN Arizona)- Focus on protein-protein structure and binding using NMR. However 3 publications in the past 4 years. If you have any questions please let me know! I hope this was useful!