samman1994

What it really sounds like is OP did not research the field or the program he was applying to very well. The school does not make any program any higher prestige or more difficult, it simply provides more funding for the POI. Did you just apply to the school because of brand name? Because that's a terrible decision. Regradless, what's done is done. If you realize the degree is not something you want, or if you've realized public policy is not what you thought it was and want to change your program, then I think the best option here is to either try and integrate in the same school but different program (don't know how happy your POI will be to have you leave so early, but they may be chill about it), or leave the school and go through the application process itself (but no one likes a flaker). The biggest issue here is though, it doesn't sound like you know what you want entirely. I'd highly recommend researching every alternative you're looking at (including the field you are currently in), and seeing which interests you the most and pursuing that. Classes are honestly a very tiny portion of the PhD program, the majority being the research (even though I made a topic earlier making a big issue about classes), so don't judge anything of off that. Look at the research currently being done, and how that will apply to your future career goals (including the degree you're getting). Maybe you don't need a PhD for your degree, maybe a MBA will be perfectly fine. Again, it sounds like you don't know what you want to do, and thus, don't know what direction you want to take. I would think long and hard about what your future career goals are, and then base everything off of that (I made a post regarding this not too long ago). Also no need to be an asshole. It appears relatively clear where OP went wrong here, and the solution is not to just insult the person for it, but rather help them move past it.

The paper is about 90% my work, 10% work of the people before me. All conclusions on the paper are of my own, and I wrote the entire thing. In regards to editing, I have just been given feedback by others, all the editing and rewriting is of my own doing.

Not in poli sci, but this practice is common in every subject. One thing to keep in mind, many departments are looking less and less seriously at GRE scores with some departments removing them entirely (I think at Minnessota the astronomy department doesn't even accept it anymore). Research and work experience (in your field) is looked upon much more highly than the GRE. So it comes down to the value of each object in an application. Work experience in the field, LOR, GRE, and GPA are not all on the same level. Storytime: I knew a guy who barely got by with his undergrad at my local university. He started his own business, and started making quite a bit of money and had a very successful business. He wanted to go back to school though (his business basically become self-sufficient), and wanted to go to Harvard. His undergrad GPA was a 2.1, and from my knowledge he never even took the GRE (he probably didn't do well though if he did, he wasn't fond of studying, hated anything math that wasn't stats, and wasn't amazing in english). He got into Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Duke. From what he told me (now that he's there), if you have a successful high grossing business, then GPA, GRE, LOR, none of that matters to them. You just contact the right people there, they look at your business and Linkden, and you're in. Now I'm not saying the story above is common, but just trying to demonstrate every application is different, and thus, the weight of each portion of the application is different. For some applications, the GRE may be a deal breaker, for others, the GRE doesn't mean anything.

Hello everyone, I've started my application, and have come across the writing samples section, and had a few questions. All of my scientific writing from classes is relatively subpar (not much editing, low quality, etc.); however I have a lot of different abstracts from poster/conference presentations from my undergraduate research lab, including a paper I wrote regarding the entire project (I would only be submitting its abstract and not the whole paper since its over 20 pages). However, all this material is unpublished. Some of these abstracts contain specific project details though (site-specific residues responsible for dimerization for example), but others are relatively generic and don't say too much (e.g. for the paper, I simply state we solved the structure of this protein, found its dynamics, elucidated a mechanism, etc.). Regarding the paper, I could also submit just the introduction (again some sections are non-descriptive indicating structure and dynamics were solved, others are more detailed discussing structural changes observed in mutants at a site specific level). Are these acceptable writing samples? I'm planning on emailing my PI to ask permission anyways (since this is her research, and it is unpublished), but wanted to first make sure these are accepted writing samples in the first place. Secondly, should I submit the less descriptive or more descriptive samples (assuming my PI doesn't care)? The detailed ones aren't as specific as indicating entire mechanisms or specific data points, but do summerize a lot of our findings and observations. The generic ones do the same, but they are less descriptive. E.G. 1)The protein X mutant displayed structural change around the entire mutation site, but no dynamic change except at the mutation itself and residue Y. 2) Through Experiment A we investigate how the structural and dynamic differences of these proteins affects their binding via two protein X variants As you can see, #1 indicates exactly what protein we are working with, what changes were and were not observed at a site-specific level. #2 indicates an overview of what experiment we ran and why, but nothing really discussing our data. #1 is an excerpt from my introduction, whereas #2 is from the abstract of that paper. Again, assuming my PI doesn't care, what is a better indication of my scientific writing level? Which would be a better writing sample? Thanks ahead of time as always!

Oh ok, thank you! My project leader seems like a nice guy, and he's answered everything very detailed so far (nothing like that's how we always do it). I'm almost positive he didn't even mean to come across the way he did when he responded he's not changing the procedure. I just came to the realization from that, that I may be overstepping my boundaries, or coming across as annoying, etc.. There is clearly a different dynamic here than academia, and I just wanted some help understanding the dynamic, so thanks to everyone who gave feedback!

Thanks for the feedback guys! Well now I'm glad I didn't email him. I'll just lay low for a while, try to get myself properly situated, and then discuss potential alternatives when I really get in the flow of things. I really like the -1,0,+1 idea, and I'll try to follow that format as I progress. Although one final thing, once I do get situated and in the flow of things, is it best to email your suggestions and advice? So they can look at it and answer it in their own time. Or could you just discuss it as your discussing the project direction, or in the middle of just running an experiment, etc.

Hello everyone, So I've recently started my new job, and I've already come across.... a potential misunderstanding. It's a research position, and I work in a group of 3, the PhD project leader, and me and another research associate. From my understanding, the project leader comes up with a way to direct our project, and our job is to basically follow that procedure. However, this being a research position, and me being new, I've been trying to provide alternatives e.g. "Why don't we do this instead" or "Why aren't we doing this"? Now these questions are simply me trying to understand what we're doing in the lab, and why we're doing it. I don't want to just blindly say, yeah I can do this, I want to understand why we're doing it, and why we aren't doing an alternative (usually my alternatives don't work or are impractical, but that's exactly what I'm trying to find out). The problem is, he printed out a "project design", which is basically a sheet telling us what the next step in the project is, and it states we are going to take our samples and run them on a reverse-phase column to try and find separate the precipitate from our protein, then run SDS-Page gels to find out whether the precipitate is our protein (basically one approach to our problem). I pointed out, why can't we simply filter out the precipitate, then resolubilize it and run it on SDS-Page (what I thought to be an alternative to would save us time and money). His response was literally: "listen buddy, I'm not going to rewrite the design, this is what we're going with ok". Now I wasn't asking to rewrite the entire design, but rather I was trying to understand why we're going with this technique in particular (versus what I was stating). After I told him this, he told me because filtration was a poor method of trying to separate the precipitate from soluble protein, and reverse phase was the best (basically my method doesn't work, his does). Which is fine, that is exactly what I was looking for. However, his response came across as if he sounded annoyed, or I don't know, thought I was just trying to one up him or say my idea is better. In reality, I don't entirely know what we're doing, but I also want to contribute, and these questions are a way for me to do both. I don't want to come across as trying to tell him what to do, or take his place and be the project leader, or think I'm smarter than him etc. I just see myself as a researcher who works under him, but also alongside him, and don't just want to be a drone who says yes master and does w.e. he says. This got me thinking, maybe there has simply been a misunderstanding. I could just email him, apologizing if my question annoyed him or something, and state my intention in my questions are only to understand what we're doing and why, and that I have no desire to rewrite or overwrite the current project design. If he likes my idea, great than we can rewrite the design, if my idea doesn't work, great he can explain to me why my idea sucks, but my intent is not to tell him what to do. But, I could simply be misunderstanding the dynamic. Maybe my role is to simply comply, and every once in a while state an objection or a thought. Maybe you don't tell your project leader your thoughts and ideas for alternatives, I don't know. This is my first job in an industry setting in the research lab, so my understanding of the dynamic is just coming from academia. Frankly, I don't know any people in industry, all from academia, so I really don't have anyone else to ask. So before I went forward and sent an email, I thought I'd get some feedback first. I want to have a friendly enjoyable dynamic within my group and project leader. I don't want to come across as a smartass, or annoying, and whatnot, especially not my first week!. Should I email him? Let him know where I'm coming from and continue asking questions and providing alternatives? Should I shut up? Like stop reading these articles, stop asking me questions, just follow the protocol that I've designed. Or should I lay low? Just follow along for a couple weeks/months, get myself really situated, then start getting involved like this. Or is that not how it works at all? Is my job as a research associate only to assist and follow the project leader and nothing else? Thanks ahead for the feedback ahead of time!

Well, I've already made back up plans for if I get rejected from all the schools. I've currently joined a small start up biotech company, and as far as they are concerned, I'm here to stay for at least a few years. My role in this company is quite diverse, and thus, there is a potential I may use a large variety of instrumentation, definitely boosting my "SOP/resume". If I don't get in this year, I'm planning to stay at my job, learn hopefully as much of the instrumentation as possible, and reapply with a more in-depth SOP. If anything, for me its not a matter of time, but rather just disappointment. I've already told everyone I'm applying (close family and friends), already told me previous PI and lab mates(that I still keep in touch with), and I've been designing everything in my life around it (money to save, places to possibly move, one final major vacation before I go, etc.). So getting news that I've been rejected from all the schools and basically can't go next year, I wouldn't look at it as much as time wasted, but rather more of a feeling of failure and disappointment. To the UCSD, yes, but if I wanted to actually work at the Scripps labs (which are the ones whos research I'm interested in), I'd have to join scripps. I could join a UCSD research lab, and do a collaboration at scripps, but that would be it. In regards to UCSF, and the other schools, they didn't have enough researchers. My minimum was at least 3 researchers who I'd like to join, UCSF for some reasons has decided to give the entire NMR facility to only 2 people, and both UCLA, UCB, and Irvine didn't have enough researchers (at least compared to the programs I'm now applying to). Keep in mind, there may have been schools that had great programs, but the 5 schools I'm applying to simply have better programs than the rest. If I had more money, I definitely would apply to some UCs.

I find it far easier to read PDF documents than word documents (I find higher clarity, easier to zoom, etc.). It may not be as professional in academia, but in the industry, PDF is definitely far more professional than a word document. You never want to upload your resume as a word document, always as a PDF. It looks sleeker, easier to read, if you have some designs they'll actually look nice in PDF vs. looking like crap in Word, etc. My assumption is academia has the same standards. Also, I don't think it matters much about which version of word you use, all new word programs should be able to read old word documents; however, word is definitely more prone to having corruption in its file vs. PDF. I've never had a corrupted PDF file, but have had plenty in Word (not as common in new word programs, but very common in older word programs), having programs randomly close on me, randomly corrupted files, etc.

PDFs can be changed as well. Its more of a formatting thing however, and just easier to read, that makes them more professional.

Hello everyone, Is it better to upload your SOP as a PDF or a text document (e.g. word)? I'm assuming PDF just because it's more professional, but just wanted to make sure. Thank you!

Thanks for the feedback! Sadly, those scores are after I retook it, and there is not enough time to retake it. I have had my SOP reviewed by people here, and other MS and PIs at my university. Almost all of my grades improved in both Chem and Math after my 2nd year (my GPA was abysmal my first 2 years, then I brought it up). My only hope for the schools I'm applying to is, the research I did in my undergrad is very similar to everywhere and everyones lab I'm applying to (that I've reached out to), so I'm hoping maybe that will be enough, but I understand they are long shots. There weren't any UCs that really caught my interest, and I don't have the money nor want to go into debt for a MS. I'm hoping I can shoot straight for a PhD at the schools I'm applying to. However, that being said, I have had a professor tell me at Iowa State that he has already talked to the faculty about me, and he even told me specifically what program to apply to so he can get me in. At UConn, my previous PI is very close with the people I am interested in joining, so she told me she would talk to them about me so they would at least look at my application (so it won't go under the radar). So as far as I look at it, I have what I hope are 2 safe schools, and 3 long shots. Honestly, I will be happy with either school, all the schools in my list are schools/labs I am very interested in joining

Ah I understand. Thank you.

I assumed the "percentile" will only be different compared to what I saw. I.E. I got a 156Q but that could be the 50% or 60%, or maybe lower depending on how well everyone else did.

Thank you for the reply! Interesting enough, it seems the test center companies know very little about anything outside the test itself. For example they said my scores are sent immediately (as in right after I clicked send scores) and that I wouldn't be able to see where I sent them online. But another thing that has come up. So I checked online to see my score, and they're not up. Now I know the AW takes about 2 weeks to get graded, but the Quant and Verbal are graded immediately, so why are they not up on ETS?

Hello everyone, So I recently took the GRE, and chose to send my scores for free (to 4 schools). I had previously looked up the school codes, but was not allowed to take anything in with me, so I had to search the schools up using their search system. I was able to find every school, but there are a couple questions I have. 1) Does each department have a different code? If so, if I just sent it in general to the school, will they forward it to the appropriate department (based on the major I stated I was applying to before I took the exam)? Or can I call graduate studies and tell them which department to send them? 2) How can I check if the code is correct? I.E. is there somewhere on the GRE site that will show which schools I picked to send them too? Since I already have all the codes, if I check and see all the codes are right, there won't be any reason for me to call the school. 3) How long does it take to send? They told me the scores are sent immediately, but what about the AW? Are the scores sent one by one (first Q/V then AW)? Or are they all sent at once (so once they have AW scored then they send everything)? Based of the answer, how long should I wait before I call to make sure the school has received my scores? 4)Finally, will the scores automatically fill in my application, or will I still have to enter them manually for my application (and the school just verifies I didn't lie based off the scores they received from the ETS)? Thank you ahead of time!

Update to my last post here. Practice Previously: Test scores ranged around 154V/153Q to 156V/156Q Actual Previously: 155V/149Q Studied a bit, retook the GRE: Practice Test scores ranged (only worked on bringing my quant up): 154Q-158Q Actual: 155V/156Q My issue was speed, I practiced just trying to speed up taking the exam and learning which questions took too long and which I could skip. So my studying wasn't about learning how to do the problems, but rather than getting faster at them.

Thanks! Any other feedback on my application and chances in general (regarding the schools and programs I'm applying for)?

Ok thank you!

I'd say you have a good GRE score, combined with the GPA, you shouldn't have any problems

Undergrad Institution: State University (CSUN)Major(s): ChemistryGPA in Major: 3.05Overall GPA:3.00Position in Class: About averageType of Student: Male, domestic GRE Scores (revised):Q:156V:155W: Not graded yetResearch Experience: 3 years with one Biochemistry lab (no publications yet)Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Presented at 3 conferences, only author (aside from PI). All posters. Won first place in all of them.Pertinent Activities or Jobs: Private tutor in Chemistry and Math for 3 years (mostly high school level, but have taught a little bit at college level too). Recently got an R&D job at a start up Biotech company looking at protein structure and protein formulation (related to my PhD program). However, don't know if I can put it in my SOP since I just started this week. Special Bonus Points: My letters are rec are from Biochemistry, Physical Chemistry, and Synthetic Chemistry (so wide range). One letter of rec is from my PI (Biochemist), the other is from someone I did a collaboration with (P. Chemist), and the final one is a professor I took a class with (Synthetic Chemist). Both the professor and collaborator told me they wanted to write my rec letter. So I assume I have strong rec letters across a good spectrum. Applying to Where:Iowa State University- BBMB- Structural Biology and BiophysicsScripps Research Institute- Structural Biology and BiophysicsUNC Chapel Hill- BBSP- Same as above Harvard UConn- UConn Health- Biomedical Science

I'm planning on applying to Scripps as well, going into Structural Biology and Biophysics.

Hello everyone, The question is the same as the topic. I took the GRE 2 months ago and received a score of 155V/149Q/4.5AW. I decided to retake it to try and get a better quant score and got 155V/156Q/AW not graded yet. I've decided to send the better score, but should I send my previous score as well? I know my 2nd score isn't amazing, but I definitely think a 7 point improvement is good, but that would also be at the expense of showing that I got a 149Q on my first GRE, which is abysmal. Is it worth spending the extra money to send? Would it actually be determinental because it demonstrates how low my first score actually was? Or does it really not matter that much because my scores aren't that great, and its not that amazing of an improvement? Any feedback would be appreciated. Happy Halloween and thank you!

I understand what you're saying, but from my experience recently in the job market (this is for BS degrees though, not PhD job market), it seemed the major job market was biology/biomedical sciences in big pharma. Most of the jobs wanted someone who knew PCR and cloning work, or how to work with mammillian cells. Few jobs really cared much for instrumentation outside of Mass-Spec or HPLCs. I've been applying to programs that have interesting structural biology labs, and haven't been looking too much into their programs (i.e. what type of classes do they have, how many years it'll take, rotations or not, etc.).From what I've seen, structural biology can fall into a broad range of categories depending on the school. Most of the time it falls into Biochemistry and molecular biology departments. Sometimes it falls into Chemistry and Biochemistry departments. By the way, interesting note (to you at least), the situation I am having above is actually with Iowa State. I'm applying to the BBMB program, but the persons lab I want to join told me to apply to the Chemistry program (he said much more funding, its bigger, better to get in), but he also told me I'd have to take 6 upper division chemistry courses as well but some of them were NMR so I might find them interesting. My concern was what if I got rejected by the BBMB program, but accepted into the Chemistry program, and wanted to know if there really is a big difference (which according to you, there are differences in classes, but if anything it's a good difference). Thanks for the feedback as always!

Hi Eigen, I understand where you are coming from, but on an upper division/grad level course, Chemistry and Biochemistry courses are day and night difference (at least the ones I've taken). Yes Biochemistry incorporates organic and physical chemistry, sometimes immensely, but Chemistry courses do not incorporate biochemical aspects. I've taken 2 grad level chemistry classes, and they both focused on synthetic chemistry. Yes there were some aspects of biochemical molecules (i.e. using amino acids in synthesis) but that is about the extent of its connection to my field. The 2 grad level biochemistry courses i took, instrumentation used for structure determination of macromolecules and an entire course on protein folding and protein-protein interaction. Yes aspects of physical chemistry, analytical chemistry, and organic chemistry were used in both courses, but the primary focus was its implementation on proteins, viruses, etc. on macromolecules. What I'm trying to say is, the focus of these classes, and how useful it will be to me and my field can differ wildly. Yes I could take a course on physical chemistry that focuses on the exact quantum mechanics of an IR or UV, or I can take a course that describes how modern drugs are designed through various screening methods by various assays and instruments. On a more specific focus, yeah I can take a course on a small molecule determination using NMR, or a course on protein structure determination using NMR (huge differences). Case in point, both in my undergrad lab, and in my current job, the 2 biochemistry courses I took have helped me understand and do my job better 100 fold. The chemistry grad level courses I took haven't really helped me at all. There is a difference between covering the basics (which is what you do in your undergrad), and specializing in a field (synthetic chemistry for O-Chem, physical chemistry for quantum mechanics behind instrumentation, etc.). As stated, there are some cool NMR and instrumentation classes that I could take that would be under chemistry, but the majority would be synthetic or inorganic, which would be a bit unrelated to what I'd like to focus on (structural biology, unless you want to focus on synthesizing peptides). Again, not that Chemistry PhD would be useless for a Biochem focus/dissertation, just that a Biochem PhD would be immensely more useful/helpful. However, I only have experience in my courses/classes during my undergrad (all this is based off of that), and the stories my previous PI has told me (she strongly advises I do not do a Chemistry PhD because I wouldn't like the courses I'd take). Again, I think it would be stupid to basically not go to grad school just because I don't like the courses, but I also don't want to be miserable either. However, as stated, my experience is limited, and while it may seem I'm disagreeing with you, I'm just discussing my experience with these courses, and am really just trying to understand outside of my school, is it really that much more different? From what I've garnered in my previous experience, it seems at a graduate level Chemistry and Biochemistry courses can be really different. One final thing to note, I really want to focus more on cellular/molecular bio aspect too. I feel in a Biochem course, I'd be able to focus on cellular/molecular but also on organic/physical (at least to their extent to biochem and instrumentation); whereas I feel as if Chem would really limit my focus to synthetic and the quantum of the instrumentation. Thank you for your feedback by the way!!!