samman1994

I finally let my job know that I am leaving, and feel a lot more relieved that I no longer have to hide that fact. I also finished all the background searches, have picked my lab, and have even discussed my potential project and talked to all the lab members. Getting the schedule for the Fall Semester and the orientation programs makes me feel like it's finally real. This is it, and it's finally happening.

Hello everyone, So I'm just curious what sites you guys are using for your apartment searches. I'm currently using a mix of craigslist and apartments.com to get price ranges and find a good place to live. I've used various sites before, but often times they are unreliable and usually either have outdated listings, or have listings that are simply untrue, so I'm very skeptical about using random sites for my searches. I have found apartments.com to be the most reliable from all my previous searches/moves in my own city, but I am trying to expand and look at other sites that might show me more listings than this site. Any suggestions will be helpful! Thank you!

There is a thread here on sub-3.0 gpas and how they got in. I had a 3.0gpa and average (60 percentile GRE) scores, and as you can see, I did get rejected by some bigger name schools, but also got accepted into 2 out of the 5 programs I applied. However, I did have 3 years of undergrad research experience, and the field I had experience in and wanted to go into was somewhat of a niche, and that is percisely why I got offers from the 2 different schools despite my GPA and GRE scores. At both schools, it was specific faculty members who did this type of research that liked my experience so much, they told the schools to bring me in. At the school I ended up choosing, the school actually waitlisted me initially, but the faculty member themself wanted me so badly they decided to fund me entirely. I did also have a little bit of research experience in the industry as well, but don't think that played much of a factor. The thing to keep in mind, while both schools that ended up giving me offers are good schools, I knew where I'd probably get in, and where I probably wouldn't. Schools like Harvard and UNC are very big on academics, and thus I already expected my gpa itself would probably hinder my acceptance there (which it did), but schools like UConn and ISU aren't at the same level of Harvard and don't give as much importance on academics, which is how I got in for those programs. I myself actually went through the same thoughts you initially did and made a lot of posts here discussing whether with my 3.0 gpa I should even apply to a PhD program, let alone asking which schools I should apply to. My point in all of this is, keep in mind your level, and understand the field you're going into. There are many factors to the application/acceptance process for grad school, and gpa is only one of them. Your experience is huge, the school you apply to, the faculty members you talk to, your SOP, your letters, etc. So just because your gpa is slightly on the lower side, I don't think you should abandon all hope. And backup plan? Apply again with everything you've learned. I know rejections can be disheartening, but I've known people who applied to 20+ schools and got rejected from all of them, tried again the next year, and ended up getting into 3 different schools. I'd say if grad school is your goal, I wouldn't just give it up because it didn't work out this year. Hopefully you get in on your waitlist!

I'm in a similar boat, going from West Coast to East Coast. At the moment, I'm thinking of using POD storage units to move my stuff. I have too much for just my car trunk, but not enough for a UHaul or moving company. So a POD storage works out pretty well considering I am also planning on doing a road trip in the process of moving (i.e. so it'll probably take me anywhere from 6-10 days to get to my destination). POD moves your storage unit, then keeps it there till you get there, and then delivers it to your door when you arrive to your new place (so pretty convenient), especially if you don't have an exact date of when you'll be at your new place, but want your stuff immediately there once you get there. You also don't have to worry about getting any of your stuff jacked or driving in bad neighborhoods (since your car will be practically empty outside of clothes). I'd like to mention, I am planning on getting a few friends together for this however (for the road trip at least). This way when we finally reach my place, I also have a few buddies to help move my stuff to my new place. I have been contacting grad students there about safe but affordable places to live. I have also been asking about ease of drive and traffic (i.e. 20min away in LA really means 40-60min away in most places), and the place I'm moving to snows in the winter, so I need to know how well the streets are maintained. This has helped me create a budget so I can assess how much money I can spend on moving, how much money I'll need saved before my stipend kicks in, and how much money I can spend in addition to my stipend during the years I'm there based off my current savings. I plan on moving in about a week earlier than my program starts. This will give me time to move my stuff in, and travel around the city find the markets and places of interest, buy food and whatnot before I get busy with the program. I plan to fly in a month before that to find a place to live, sign some leases so that when I do officially move I"ll be set, and find grocery stores and whatnot so that I do have some place I can get food and stuff from when I first move in. As before, I have contacted the grad students as well, so I'll probably visit them during this month early trip just to introduce myself and say hi, and then actually hit them up and hang out with them the week before the semester starts. All of this is also related to my job as well. I started work on the 1st of November, so I plan to leave at the end of July (program starts on August 14th) so that it's a nice full cycle. None of these dates are set in stone (except August 14th), but just to give you an idea. I'm thinking of sending my storage unit out by the 23rd of July. My last day of work will be the 27th of July, and I will be leaving for my road trip the 28th of July. I plan to be at my new place by August 6th. This will give me 10 days to travel from coast to coast, which is plenty of time to sight see as well. It also gives me a week and a half before the semester starts, plenty of time to move in and get myself situated and set up. All of this is designed to help wrap up my job in a nice timely manner, leave plenty of time for my stuff to reach my new place, give me plenty of time to travel around, and plenty of time to move in. I want this move and transition from my old life to new life to be fun, and don't want it to be rushed and stressed. So I hope this helps!

The retrosynthesis classes itself should probably do, alongside your TA in ochem. However, I would strongly advise you freshen up on your Ochem before taking the class (especially if you've skipped mechanisms in organometallics). The class will probably assume you know a lot of the basics, and may or may not draw out every single mechanism or resonance when covering reactions. I would also strongly advise doing some type of synthetic research (I don't know if your summer projects or research where in this field). The retrosynthesis classes combined with TAing in OChem (very interesting you were allowed to TA a class you didn't take) should be enough to prove that you know OChem, and the lab will prove you know how to actually use it (chemistry on paper and in the lab are day and night differences). Add the Chem GRE and you should have no concerns. The only thing you may need to be aware of is a lot of grad schools do have specific criteria (i.e. you need to have taken class X). Now considering your experience and background, they may end up overriding that requirement and state you don't need the class to get in. So just something to be aware of.

Oh god, what has this thread become. All it took is one butthurt OP and everyone is at each others throats. What I do think is interesting however is the debate regarding differences between men and women on a mental/emotional level. I think everyone can agree, there are very clear differences physically between men and women, but are there any differences mentally/emotionally? And if so, do these differences impede or help the individual in the field? It is interesting that those that take a stance there is a difference, and that it is this difference that has accounted for mens success in the field make these claims. Where is the evidence for that? Do you have evidence that women are mentally different than men? Do you have evidence that this mental difference is why men are successful in the field? Or why there are less women in the field? That is a psychological debate, that I don't think there is an answer for. While one may claim women and men are mentally different in thought, I don't think you could define the difference, nor state whether it is a good or bad thing. However, I do think you can claim that this "idea" has definitely impeded the progress of women in the fields of STEM for the reasons that everyone has stated above. There is definitely evidence that this typing of thinking not only exists, but has had a detrimental impact. Also, I'd just like to note, I find the arguments women are not good for science for reasons of they're slower, more emotional, etc. to be the same type of rhetoric slave owners used to have for their slaves back in the day. That they thought just because of the color of their slaves skin, these individuals must be dumber, or lack the capability to learn. This is also why I'd caution you against slandering an entire gender with these type of fallacious insulting arguments. You may not realize it's insulting, but it really is insulting when you tell a women they cannot do something because they are a women and have too many "emotions", just like it's insulting to tell a black person they can't go to school because they're black, and that means they're not smart enough for school. Discriminating on race is racism, discriminating on gender is sexism, and as stated above, I don't see any evidence why one should either.

1) yes and yes. Professor could try and convince committee you're a valuable asset, and that may be enough for them to accept you 2) No. All I can find online is the deadline to submit materials is April 1st. Although you should easily be able to call/email them and find out. 3) Depends on the deadline. If the deadline is months down the line, it might be that they haven't even reviewed your material. However, it doesn't have anything to do with whether you submitted a month before deadline, or a few days. They will view all the applications a good time before the deadline, and send out acceptances a bit before the deadline as well. If the deadline is coming up, and you have not heard from them, then unless the PI is willing to fund you completely (i.e. they want you bad enough and have funding), then you're either on the waitlist or have been rejected. As stated, it all depends on the deadline. I would personally call and just ask them if they've already sent out acceptances. Good luck!

wanted to add, it also depends on your school. One of the schools I applied to gave me until the 20th to accept their decision.

Interestingly, I am doing the opposite move. I am going from the South West to the North East. It really depends on what you want to take. UHaul told me they would charge around $2000 for one of their typical medium sized trucks to take cross country. I have been looking into moving companies at the moment, each one is different so I haven't been able to get an average price yet. The main issue is what I'm taking. I originally planned for a small UHaul just for the basics (pots, pans, books, clothes and sheets, etc.), I was going to buy all my furniture in the place I would move to (so couches, bed, chairs, tables, maybe even tvs). However for the price UHaul is charging me, it really isn't that much more to just get a moving company. With a moving company, it would be around the same price to take what I was before+furniture. So for me, I'm currently contemplating just getting my furniture here at home, and then getting a moving company to take everything to where I'd be going. Also means I don't have to drive straight to my new place, and can do a little cross country fun and take my time getting up North (and less stress and hassle). Again, really depends on what you want to bring, and your budget.

Really depends on who you are, who your girlfriend is, and how committed you are to this relationship. I will speak frankly for myself. I am currently in a relationship for over a year, although I've known this girl for over 7. I have chosen a school that is on the East Coast, whereas she will be residing on the west coast, and due to the low stipend, I might be able to visit once a year. I am severely conflicted. On one hand, I do love her and would love to stay with her, and even sorta see a future for us. I still find myself too young, and mentally not stable (maybe mature might be a better word) enough for a serious committed relationship like that. I don't question whether or not it is something I can do, I question whether it is something I will want to do. The idea of me being with her is extremely appealing, but the idea of me being with other women is also appealing. At the moment, since I am physically with her, the former is so strong that the latter isn't even really a thought. But given time and distance, I cannot honestly say the idea of being with another women, one that I can physically be with, will not become the stronger feeling. While I am not going to break up with her because I love her, I am also keeping an open mind on the future and taking things one at a time and seeing how things go as time progresses. I think the most important thing is, be honest with yourself. I think if you do that, then when the time comes, you will know what the right answer is. In regards to other peoples experiences, there are a lot of threads on here about this topic (like a lot). Since this was a concern of mine, I have gone through them, and the general consensus is, it's hard but doable if you both really want your relationship to be successful.

Well I ended up choosing UConn (School 1). At the end of the day, I talked to some people in the field, and they really said School 1s program was the equivalent of School 2. These people also didn't know the people at School 2, but had heard of the individuals at School 1 and knew they had good connections in the field. So at the end of the day, location did play a big role for me. If the programs were the same, School 1 seemed like a safer bet, and moreso than that, I actually wanted to live in School 1. I decided I'd be far happier at School 1 than School 2.

Anyone else attending UConn Health this year?

Apologies, did not see this earlier. I heard back approximately the very end of February beginning of March. I was put on the waitlist at the time.

Hello everyone, I know there are a lot of people making their choices next week, and many currently on waitlists. I was hoping by creating a list of schools you picked, and schools you rejected, it can give hope to those on the waitlist for said programs at the school (at least before the April 15th deadline). I have decided to go to UConn Health for Biomedical Science. I rejected ISU BBMB program (if you are on the waitlist for the BBMB program, then there is now an available spot open)

@justwonderin I'm going to be quite frank with you here, because I think that's the only way it'll get any points across. A person can tell a lot about you from the way you argue and debate a topic. I think the better question shouldn't be why another person got in, but rather why you didn't (this will help if you're planning to apply again next cycle). This way of thinking that you have, could have potentially reflected across on your SOP (one of the most important pieces of your application), and that alone could have potentially been the reason why you did not get in. This is of course speculation, I have no idea how or what you wrote in your SOP. Regardless, their is a severe flaw in the logic and argument flow that you are having in this post, and it may have potentially reflected in your SOP; and thus, may be a potential reason your competition got in with a "similar" application while you didn't. You made a post regarding how people feel towards gender discrimination in the application process. Many stated they don't think it exists, and thus, asked for proof it does exist before they can tell you how they feel about it (I.E. I can't really tell you how I feel about the earth being flat....because it's not flat). You replied you don't have evidence to support your claim, but you are sure it is a thing. Then people came and provided evidence how you are wrong about your claim in the first place. You replied by basically "I don't have evidence, I'm right". As you can see, that is the argument form of a toddler, you aren't right because you feel you are right and you definitely aren't right because you saw one (or more) examples of your claim (that is generalization). This is not a science thing (even though you commented on STEM), this is the proper logical flow of thought. As far as I can see, you applied to a school, didn't get in, then conjectured the reason your competition got in was because of their gender, and then came here asking what we thought about a topic that some don't think even exists. Then when people provided evidence that your assumptions are wrong, you basically said "No, I'm right, so tell me how you feel about it". This is exactly what flat earthers do. They don't have evidence the earth is flat, evidence is provided that the earth isn't flat, but they then proceed to tell you that they "know" the earth is flat and ignore all further evidence or logic you provide. See, you come across as what I would call "flat earther logic", which is not highly valued in academia. So if your SOP gave off that "flat earther logic" vibe, that may have been potentially been a valid reason why you didn't get in. Also, downvoting people instead of providing a proper counter-argument is also very child like. You're tethering on the edge of basically trolling in my eyes. If you are trolling, then ignore all the above, and thanks for wasting our time. If you are not trolling, try and see why your post and responses got such a negative response, and see what you can improve about yourself and your way of thinking.

You only cited 1 example source (hence n=1) for your assumptions/post. Sure exaggeration, premise is still wrong. Conjecture is conjecture. Unless you have done a study blind (or can find evidence thereof) of 2 applications that are completely similar in every conceivable way except for the gender of the applicant (which by the way, don't know how you can tell just by a name), and the female applicant does get in but the male doesn't, and then can prove that this was from a gender bias. Then and only then, can you make the statement you are making as fact. As for now, it is a conjecture. One that from all the responses, is an incorrect one. I'd also like to point out, I am not stating my own opinion here. I am stating what others are arguing for to help you understand what they are trying to say. I have explained my own stance in my original post.

"it exists but doesn't play a major role" that is from my own personal experience from my post (thank you for reading it). It is rare to find someone with a "similar" application. Considering all the factors in an application, I'd say yes, it's rare to find someone who has similar worded letters, a similar networking, similar SOP, similar scores, etc. There are a lot of factors there. In terms of sources, don't have any, don't think any is needed for the conversation at hand. I don't need to sources to tell you getting hit by an asteroid is slim, it's assumed. I don't need sources to tell you it's rare to get an application that is similar in every single factor to yours. Especially considering I doubt you saw every single detail of that persons application. Especially since you stated their gender was the sole reason for their success, not their application. Issue is not sensitive. I don't see anyone particularly upset by the question, but rather the assumptions you made as "facts" in your original question and responses. Nobody is strongly opposed on a moral level. Nobody is saying gender should be discriminated, just saying it isn't (at least in regards to being for women against men). No one is having a moral discussion here, they are all trying to correct you and tell you gender discrimination for women against men does not exist in STEM. The evidence is literally in all the responses made to your post. Also, "I cannot begin to react to anything you said without having verifiable proof of the premises first" is basically the response to your initial post.

There are many many factors that influence acceptance to a school. The other persons letters could've been different, their SOP different, maybe they had better networking. Regardless, it is very rare to find someone with even a "similar" application. As stated prior, many say it doesn't exist, while I state it exists but doesn't play a major role. In your particular example, unless you knew exactly that their letters were the same, that their SOP was the same, and every other thing was the same, I don't think you can say your applications were "similar" and that gender was the sole cause of that persons success. I'd also say that the issue is not sensitive, but rather the way you worded it was plain wrong. What do people think about discrimination in STEM? The first statement should be is there gender discrimination in STEM, not what people think about it. Why does nobody discuss this? Well if it doesn't exist, not much to discuss then. It seems like an important issue. If it did have a major impact on applications and did exist, then yes it would be an important issue. The problem is 1) From general consensus this does not apply in most fields of STEM so 2) no point in discussing it and 3) Not an important issue because it doesn't exist. Thus, people rightfully so asked you to explain yourself and provide evidence. Also, I don't think anyone is strongly opposed on a moral level, but rather on a factual level (they disagree not because they think it's right to discriminate based off gender, but because they think that gender discrimination in grad applications does not exist)

@TakeruK Of course, and that is the primary problem going on here. I definitely think this exists, although not to the extent OP is presenting it as. As stated, there is an unconscious bias, and I have seen people (not schools per se) attempt to counter-act this bias, but I don't think that is a "fair" solution. While I do not have a solution to the unconscious bias, I think that is the primary problem that needs to be eliminated and focused on, not graduate committees trying to potentially counter-act this problem.

Since you mentioned STEM, I'll comment on the Chem/Biochem aspect of this. My undergrad PI was part of the grad committee, and was actually in charge of accepting who got interviews, who got in, etc. This is from my 3 year experience within that lab seeing the applications, who got interviews, and who got accepted. Out of the 20+ faculty members in the department, I would say only 1 had a bias against the female gender. He was primarily against women scientists, but it was also for this reason he was almost never on the graduate committee (or any committee really, most people sorta avoided him). In contrast, there were definitely 5+ faculty members who had a bias against male genders. Not that male genders are bad scientists, but rather they thought their should be more female scientists in the field. So do you want to know what the problem was? There were less female scientists applying in general compared to men. Now if you want to debate why that is, that is a whole other topic, but that is the sad truth. We couldn't try and even the playing field even if we wanted to. Most of the females who applied to the grad program were from the Biology department, and sorry to say, someone going from Chem to Chem grad program will beat them 9 times out of 10. There were very few females in the Chem and Biochem department in general. However, the most interesting aspect of this story? In general chemistry, the number of females vs. males in undergrad was actually pretty even. However, once you started looking at 3rd and 4th year, that number had swindled down to a ration of 3 to 1 in most scenarios (men vs. women). I don't make stats here, nor assumptions, just stating observations. On average, most women changed their majors than men did from this observation. Why they did that I don't know. From my understanding, most of them went into biology or psych. So while the undergrad starting was a 1:1 ratio, that ratio changed by the time they graduated usually either 2:1 or 3:1 (men vs. women). This of course meant if everyone applied to grad school, naturally there would be more male applicants. Now my school did have a bias, and we did try to bring in more women, but their just weren't enough qualified applicants for that. I will say this, yes there are many sexist scientists. I have seen a couple myself. I have heard their stories. Many male scientists out there who impede the progress of female scientists just because they are female. However, there is also definitely a counter acting force to this, where many facilities are actually trying to bring in more female scientist. In addition, I have also seen many female scientists do the same to men scientists. Is this fair? No. Not for males, nor for females. Gender should not play an issue in applications, nor how you are treated in your field. It is unfair to both genders. However, this is actually a very small and minor issue. While gender does play a role at times, at the end of the day, you could be pangender or one of the other million genders, it doesn't matter. If you're application wasn't good, it wasn't good. If you lacked proper experience, or had a low GPA, or poor scores, you weren't getting in irregardless of your gender. Also as stated, it was 5 out of 20+ that at the school who had a bias. Out of that 5, maybe 1 of them would be on the committee at any given time. So all in all, gender doesn't really play that big of a role "whole new tier of schools available". What is a bigger issue that does play a big role, is ethnicity, not gender. Especially towards Hispanics/Latinos and other minorities. That does open up a "whole new tier of schools" for a person. Ivy leagues are notorious for accepting lower tier students that are minorities, just so they can say they are "ethnically diverse". This doesn't just happen on a educational level (e.g. financial aid). In California, almost all questionnaires will specifically have you indicate if you are latino/hispanic. Not tell us your ethnicity, just tell us if you are or are not latino/hispanic. That's it. You will see this question both for financial aid and for applications. I'm not trying to start another topic/argument here. Just stating gender isn't really an issue in terms of bias and the argument for "Equality of Opportunity vs. fair competition" (which is what you are arguing is being done here).

I have lived in LA for the past 10+ years. While I did not go to UCLA for school (too expensive), I have gone to school within the region, have worked in the LA area, and have taken some summer classes (not for UCLA) at UCLA. So I'll try and address a couple concerns. Price: LA is very expensive. Your stipend will not be enough to live on your own here (unless its 35k+). There are plenty of apartments in the West LA region however, so you shouldn't have any issues with housing. Furthermore, most students and even residents usually room with someone else here, so you shouldn't have too much difficulty finding roommates (can't speak for their quality though). Food here is actually a bit on the cheaper side (compared to the rest of America, especially fruits), so that shouldn't be a problem. Most of your stipend will go to housing, so budget appropriately. Public Transportation: Public Transportation is good, but unreliable here. You name a place in West LA, and you will find a bus that frequents it quite often (business hours only). Busing also runs pretty late, although it does come much less often later at night. If you plan properly, you will not need a car here. We also have an underground metro/train station, and while dirty, it is very efficient and on time/frequent. However, with so many bus routes, if you really want to travel through LA, you will potentially have to take multiple buses. So while it's not difficult to travel through LA via public transportation, it can be time consuming. There is always uber/lyft though too. City Life: Well you've come to the right place. West LA has a looooooot of things to do. You'll never really run out of things to do here, and even long time students/residents will often find hidden gems. There are plenty of events, nightclubs/bars, museums, etc. Something is always going on. We have mountains and oceans, waterfalls and "rivers" (more like trickles of water now), and it's always sunny. So plenty of time to go out and explore. A large variety of culture (chinatown, little tokyo, etc.), amazing ethnic food from all over the world (you think of the country, we probably have it), and a large variety of ethnic celebrations and traditions (street wide events for some ethnic holidays). You will never run out of things to do here during your program. Also, this is just West LA. Once you consider the rest of LA, well....doesn't matter how long your program is, you won't be able to explore it all. Opportunities: LA is a great opportunity for career growth. There is a booming tech, biotech, and finance sector here. Plenty of opportunities for networking and pursuing your dreams and careers (even for small businesses). UCLA has access to a lot of these resources, and finding a job afterwards (depends on major of course) within the LA area should be relatively easy (we have industries for almost all the majors). Competition is of course high/tough, but the opportunity for growth is there. Traffic: If you do have a car, keep in mind, this is a big issue in West LA. People schedule their entire jobs and life around rush hour and traffic.I have actually rejected multiple job offers just due to how bad traffic was during the hours they were offering me. It is very common to usually drive 1-2hr home (when the route is 20-30min without traffic). Traffic is bad for your health, and wastes needless gas. Sadly, all of LA has this issue, so there is no going out of it. Outside of the traffic and housing prices however, LA is a great city to live in and explore. While a car would be nice, it is not necessary (although personally, I highly recommend it).

I was waitlisted at one of my schools. 2 weeks later I received an acceptance offer from the school under the terms that I join a specific persons lab. Basically, the school didn't have funding for me, but one of the faculty members wanted me badly enough he attained full funding for me from his grant, so I got into to the program!

I have to travel/go on vacation at least every couple of months. Doesn't have to be anything big, could be driving to another city for a weekend. And it doesn't have to be very far, could be just a 2-3 hour drive away. Really helps me unwind, relax, and refresh. I also love the beach. Everytime I'm stressed, I love to drive down to the beach and just sit there and relax for an hour or 2. I also always gave myself immediate breaks whenever I needed them (i.e. if things get too stressful, I would just drop everything and just take a stroll or walk outside. This could be as short as a minute or up to 5 minutes). This was especially true in the lab, sometime when my 3-week to prep samples would fail their experiment, I just drop everything immediately and take a stroll outside.

It depends on who you are. I have known a lot of people who have chosen schools strictly because they are away from home, but I also know people who have done the opposite. I have known people who did go away from home, only to regret it later. There are primarily 2 reasons for this: 1) It can be difficult going into a new place/environment, not knowing anyone, financially on your own (especially if this is the first time you're living on your own). Having friends/family nearby can be a great emotional/financial help. I know some people became accustomed to it eventually, but they do regret their decision overall (can't change the past). This really had less to do with the place they went, and more to do with their personality. They felt uncomfortable in the new city with all the unfamiliar faces, they never really found their niche, and were generally introverts to begin with. It made transitioning to a new unknown area very difficult for them. 2) Depending on who you are and your lifestyle, their can be a big difference between urban life and rural life. There are a lot of schools out there that are basically college towns (i.e. the majority population of the city is the college, the stores and facilities are designed for the students, the city revolves around when the school is in session). This may be great for some people who are looking for some isolation, or looking for a small town. Some of these schools are in the middle of nowhere and have nothing around for miles and miles. This is also perfect for someone looking to settle down, or has a family, or just likes the peace and quiet, and isn't really into the big city life. This also includes terrain as well. If you absolutely love hiking and swimming, maybe consider how you would feel in a place with flat terrain with only plains (i.e. the Midwest). If you love clubbing and partying, maybe consider how you would feel if you went to a small city that really didn't have those things. Personally, I chose schools based entirely on their programs, but they all ended up being very far away from home. Honestly, I'm excited. I personally love to travel, sometimes even alone backpacking cross-country or in foreign countries. So going some place unfamiliar where I don't know anybody, really isn't a problem for me (I actually find it exhilarating). Financially, it is a slight concern for me, and this has had some influence in my decision for which school I want to go to (i.e. having a saving cushion is important for me since I will be alone). A bigger concern for me is lifestyle however. I do love hiking (I go hiking every week), and I love walking on the beach (do it almost every other day), so going to the Midwest on just a geographical level has been some concern for me. I also live in a big city. I do go clubbing/dancing frequently. Going to a small town with either very few or basically no clubs/dance floors is somewhat of a concern for me as well. As a whole, going to someplace like the Midwest would be quite a lifestyle change for me, an issue that has had a significant impact on my decision for schools. Because at the end of the day, if you pick a place and hate living there, you're only options are either to make do, or leave and re-apply for schools next year (the latter is not an option I am willing to make). One final thing I forgot to mention, this is 5 years of your life. I have been told by a lot of people, "don't let location decide your choice" or "it's only a couple years, you'll be fine". Personally, I've come to realize this is all a load of bogus. While I understand program is important, I find location/happiness in said location to be just as important. And 5 years is not a small amount of time to me.

Thank you all for your replies. I am looking to do protein NMR, yes. However, there are computational and developmental aspects I could explore, that would be very easy to explore in School 2 vs. School 1. I have no relatives/friends in the locations for both schools. School 2 I do know one or two people that live a few hours away. While I understand it can be boring, I think it really comes down to personality though as well. I live in LA right now, and we have a lot of great clubs. However, I do know a lot of people that also stay home and do nothing, primarily because the clubs have long lines, can usually be costly, and they just aren't the type to go out clubbing. I don't need clubs/bars everynight, or even high end ones, just a city with a decent nightlife if I did want to do something (in all reality, I may actually go to the club maybe 2 or 3 times a year at most). I don't need a great beach, I'd be okay with just having an ocean I could visit a few times throughout the summer, or maybe if I just really miss it (literally just need sand and an ocean, nothing fancy). I also like that there is mountaneous terrain up north for skiing and hiking (depending on the season). While the other school does have a younger population, and amazing school spirit (which is a big plus for me), there is relatively not much to do in the city itself (all plains as well). There is absolutely no clubs, with mostly breweries and a handful of bars (and I don't even really drink). There is one bowling alley, a few movie theaters here and there, and that's about it. Now there is a major city about 20 miles away, but nothing nearby (whereas Hartford is pretty close to Farmington, and even West Hartford is pretty nice). I like having a lot of options for things to do. I don't want the main option during the summer time to be, hey you want to visit a brewery? Grab a few drinks? I like the option of, hey wanna just go to the beach? Wanna go to the big city tonight? Wanna go to a club? etc. So while I understand Hartford and the surrounding area does not have amazing quality clubs/bars (especially apparent in the reviews), I don't need high quality, i just need it to exist (same with the beaches). Although my other school is ISU, and they have Des Moine which is relatively close by (20miles).