samman1994

I made a post a while back regarding small schools versus big schools and their pros and cons. As stated, a PhD is a PhD, however, yes a brand name can help you a bit, but what's really important are the connections you can make at the bigger schools versus the smaller schools. All that being said, go solely off research and nothing else. Join a research program that you are really interested in, whether that be a big school or small school. Each one has its pros and cons, as stated earlier, and each person has their own preferance. I personally like smaller schools, but there are many that like bigger schools. Also I know lots of faculty members that didn't graduate from top 50 schools, so that statement is not entirely true. Now on to your application itself. The GPA is a bit on the lower end, but that isn't too big of an issue (if you have a reason why its low, or have high GRE scores and good experience, etc.). Your verbal GRE scores are good, but your Quant GRE scores are pretty low. The chemistry field really focuses on the Quant GRE score (for top schools, average scores in the 60s). I'd also bring up the AW a bit as well. now to give perspective, I have a 3.0 GPA, and have lower GRE scores than you, however I do have quite a bit of background research experience, and I still plan on applying to PhD programs. However, the reason for my low GPA is i screwed up my first 2 years (really wasn't ready for college), but I was able to bring it up. I plan to retake the GRE and do better, so to help support that statement. I'd say, depending on where you apply, you'd still have a shot at a PhD (if you really wanted). The biggest takeaway should be though, do you want a PhD? You can have a great career with a MS, or even a Bachelors in Chemistry. What is your future career or goal? Once you answer that, then go forward with that ideal in mind, and apply to research programs that interest you. If you really want a PhD in Chemistry, and you found some professors/program at a top tier school that really interests you, then I'd say go ahead and apply.

I actually did look them up. I think the majority of their work was primarily solid state, or something like that. I can't remember the details, but I recall looking up their structural biology and program, and didn't really like it that much.

I decided to try what you did as well, to make it easier when I apply, and it didn't work out for me. No one I asked for LOR agreed to write it earlier, they all told me when I decide to apply, just tell them and they'll write it for me then (and this was when I initially decided I was going to apply 2-3+ years later, instead of applying this year which is what I am doing now). Secondly, none of them (the writers) wanted me to see their letters (i.e. waive my right).

I've been using it so far, and you're right it doesn't exactly explain shortcuts, but it has really helped me narrow down where I'm slowest in my quant section. The answers section than explains the shortcuts, and I try to apply these shortcuts to the problem to try and solve them faster.

I'm imagine for your major they probably care more about your verbal than quant. I've seen instances where low quant scores have been ignored due to high verbal scores (since that's all they were looking for), and vice versa. However, in your case, I'd say your verbal isn't high enough for that. I'd recommend retaking the test as others have stated above. Bring the math up a little, and bring the verbal up as well. Based off your major, I'd focus more on the verbal than the quant. If you can get your verbal mid 60s, then a quant in the low 50s and high 40s might actually be acceptable (for your major).

Oh ok. I'm looking more into free (due to financial reasons), but thank you!

Is the empowerGRE program free?

Hello everyone, So I have about 2 weeks to prepare for my GRE, and my verbal is already pretty decent, so I'm looking to improve my quant. Has anyone used the 5lb book for quant? And if so, how helpful was it? I suspect due to the time I have, I will only be able to use this book to help improve my GRE quant score (meaning I"ll be banking everything off this). My main problem is just learning quick shortcut techniques to help improve my test taking speed. How effective is the book in doing this? If you only had time for one resource, is this a good resource to invest that time into? Thank you ahead of time!

Well I didn't want to detract from the main topic of the post, but appears it's a bit too late for that. It appears this is all from a womens (or females, I don't know which is appropriate when) perspective, so I guess I'll provide it from a mans perspective (actually, interesting enough, it feels normal writing "mans perspective", but doesn't feel normal using "womens perspective", like I feel like it's usually written as "females perspective", but I guess that is the whole point of this post). I think the main issue lies in the ignorance factor. As an example, I used to know very little about how other women were regarded in the work place. My assumption was always, well we all go through the same thing and are treated the same way. So my experience is no different than a womens. I think a lot of men actually think this way as well. So if a women were to come and discuss how they are treated differently, the men look at it as complaining. "Oh you're just being a baby, we are all treated the same". I worked with a lot of women in my lab, and my PI was a women. Hell most of the department were all women, and they used to discuss their previous work experiences and hiring process experiences as well. Their experiences were definitely different than any mans experience I had heard. The idea of looking at a women the same as a man is definitely a growing idea, but it is definitely not shared by all (whether subconsciously or consciously). The whole concept of equality of man and women is, there is no man and women. They are one and the same. Thus, a persons gender should not influence how they are hired or what job they get. They should be seen equally as a man, and treated no differently, both in the workplace and in language. Which is, I think, the whole point of this post. I.E. writing females perspective, but not writing males perspective. Now I think this is primarily because that is probably how I have always seen it, and thus how I write it, but I think it's important to wonder, well why is it written that way? Why do we address women as "female" in our writing, but men as "men" in our writing (or even speaking). Why are they written/spoken differently? Now I personally don't, and didn't, think much of it. I don't know, I've always seen it that way, so that's why I say it, I don't mean anything from it. But one could argue, it is used to separate or even bring women down. A way of thinking/speaking that has become ingrained in our culture. So when you use it, your use may be innocent, but you are inadvertently contributing to the "women hate". Now I cannot speak for the person who originally made the post, but I have always used women and female interchangeably. Not that I meant anything by it, but because I didn't even know there was anything meant by it. In retrospect, as given by the example earlier, I definitely do think it's weird men and male are not used interchangeably, but female and women are. I also did not know people did use this difference, to bring a women down. So all this being said, I think it's an important consideration to take into account. I think as a man, it's important to acknowledge I really don't know how women are treated (whether good or bad), and when it is stated how they are, it should not just be dismissed as "casual feminist bullshit". Anyways, that's my 2-cents. Edit: One thing I'd like to give some perspective on, at least for me personally, is this fight for women equality is completely different from my cultural and background experience. The fight here is for equal view (this extends to language, pay, work opportunities, etc.), but from where I am from, the fight for womens rights is for them to have the right to even live (comfortably). I'm used to more polarizing arguments fighting to let women walk in the street without being covered head to toe, or being able to even go to school with another man, so I miss a lot of the subtleties of these conversations. Not that I think the conversation is not important, but rather, these topics for womens rights are topics I am not used to and do not completely understand (I.e. since I'm not a women and the cultural difference).

That I'd say is definitely up the PI and not necessarily defined by the size of the school. You can have big schools with the PI hovering over your neck (you need to go through them for everything you do), and you can have small schools where the PI does their own thing and you do your own. Personally, I went to a smaller school, with the entire graduate program (for my department) consisting of around 15 people (to give you perspective). My PI threw me onto my project when I was an undergrad and basically told me to have fun. I was completely independent on my project (and the only person on it), to the point I wasted a whole year doing very little because I didn't even know wtf I was doing. At an interview I was getting at Caltech, I talked extensively with the lab students there, and all of them said their PI was always involved in their work (hovering, constantly telling them what to do, couldn't do anything without getting his approval first, etc.). So again, I'd say that is really up to your PI. Now that being said, there is definitely a resource problem. At bigger schools (speculating), they may have more resources available so you may have a more options to do what you want (experiment wise). Luckily my project early on had quite a bit of funding, so my PI was able to buy the instrumentation we didn't have, but I still had to go to her and tell her to buy it (and do to budgeting reasons this took quite a while). Despite this, I was constantly met with, oh we don't have this instrument, we don't have this machine, so I can't run this experiment, etc. So that is definitely a big difference.

Hello everyone, I was having this discussion with one of my colleagues the other day, and thought it was interesting enough to discuss it here as well. We were discussing the difference between big schools (e.g. ivy leagues, UCs, etc.) versus smaller schools (state schools, private schools, or just lesser known schools overall) to apply to for PhDs. Each has its pros and cons, and overall different culture/social atmosphere. Just some very basic academic differences: Big Schools: Pros: Overall a bigger program, more resources, potentially bigger name faculty members, along with a big brand name can help your application for after your PhD/Undergrad program, as well as having more opportunities for interesting research with the potential for more publications. Cons: All of this comes at the expense of less interactions/access to your PI/Professor (I know this is true in regards to classes, but I don't know if it applies to research as well). Furthermore, there is much more competition at bigger schools, meaning you will stand out less than at a smaller school. Smaller Schools: A smaller program meaning less research opportunities (you can have great faculty members here as well). This however comes at the benefit of being much more intimate with the faculty and staff at the school. Allowing for potentially less networking opportunities than at a bigger school, but enabling stronger networking connections than at a bigger school. Overall though, from my experience, it comes down to culture and social atmosphere of the school. I personally prefer smaller schools much more. I find they care a lot more about individual students than bigger schools (at every level). A perfect example of this can be when I emailed say a small state university vs. Harvard regarding enrollment and programs. Harvard simply linked their site (literally harvard.edu) and said all the information will be there (not very helpful at all), whereas the small state university wrote me a long thing thanking me for my interest and providing in depth details regarding the various programs they have. Now of course this is probably because Harvard probably gets thousands of emails every application season that is identical to mine, whereas the smaller school may receive only a few hundred. So one side is overloaded and can't really go into detail with every email (it would take forever), whereas the other can go in depth and get personal with every single email (since there aren't that many). This goes for the faculty as well. Smaller schools have faculty that are much more excited and interested to take you on (before you even get accepted). At smaller schools I have been able to have intimate relationships with most faculty in my department, as well as the staff members in administration, all the way up to the dean of the school himself. In regards to the grad students, there is also a much smaller class, meaning the entire departments grad students are all very close/friends with one another and sometimes even have big group hangouts with other grad student departments (e.g. Chemistry and Biochemistry going out for bowling or something). Regardless, it's all really a matter of preference at the end day. It's like saying do you like huge urban cities like New York, or smaller rural areas like... I don't know farms or mid america. They each have their pros/cons and it's up to each individual and what they like. And this all comes from my personal experience (which isn't much compared to others on this forumn), so your experiences may vary So what is your personal preference and why? I just touched upon the very basics, but there is a lot more involved and different between big and small schools.

I primarily took practice timed tests. I did do a few practice problems (timed) for the most part, but they weren't super helpful. The test questions from the practice test were pretty good, but again, my timing didn't really improve throughout them because my technique didn't change. I'm looking for something that will help me change my technique. Now the paid programs do exactly that, but I'm looking for something more along the lines of basically free. I've looked at youtube videos, but most don't really go into detail (they just give you a tease and say here go to my site to pay to get real information).

I did that prior, but my main problem is how I approach the problems. I approach each problem as completely brand new, and try to create an equation (or relationship) for the problem that will help me solve it (rather than plug and chug). But this method takes too long. Now Magoosh and Princeton and other sites have fine tuned methods for dealing with problems quick and easy, but again, most of these can cost anywhere from 50-200 bucks, and I'm already having a problem paying to retake the GRE in the first place. So trying to find another approach other than taking timed practice tests (that didn't work out too well last time).

Hello everyone, So I plan on retaking the GRE in less than a month. The last time I took it I scored relatively low on my quant (150), and am looking to score higher; however, this was basically because I ran out of time. Now I know the GRE is basic concept memorization for the quant section. I know it's primarily knowing which questions to skip and to plug and chug (because it's a bullshit test). I don't have a lot of money to spend on these GRE programs however. I'm curious, what would be the best way to learn how to speed up my test taking ability and to learn simple techniques for the quant section, without selling my soul? I know there are cheap books out there with a billion problems, would that be the best option? Do a lot of problems and see the connections between them and hope practice speeds me up? Any help will be appreciated, thank you!

Yeah don't do this.... ever. Unless the person who wrote it has explicitly told you either to do so, or that it's fine to do so. As others above have stated the various reasons why it's a no no. Personally, I waive my right to even see the letter (even though none of the professors have told me to do so). I want them to know whatever they right is confidential, and I want a pure honest opinion from them (even if it may not be the best one).

Well the sole answer is just money. I'd apply to more schools if I could afford to. In regards to the other point, I know for my career I definitely want a MA or PhD, but again money reasons. MA you need money, PhD they give you stipends.

From my job searches, it's not even really about your degree, but your experience (for the industry). What kind of instrumentation and techniques do you know. In the field of research, most of the jobs I've found are either in Bioinformatics/Computational or usually Cell/molecular bio (immunohistology that sorta stuff). So I'd say get as much experience in your PhD with the widest variety of instrumentation you can find, it'll really help your job search if you want to go into research for the industry. Academia is a whole different ball game. Edit: Didn't realize this thread is from '13

@Structuralbioguy putting huge font will gather attention, but the negative kind. If you're looking to do structural work, I'd reccomend John Hopkins and Harvard on that list as well, they do some great structural bio/biophysical work on proteins (especially if you're looking into solid-state work for TM proteins+nano disks). Out of curiosity, who did you do research with at USC? If you're looking to move to Canada, I'd highly recommend University of Toronto. They would've been my first choice (I'm going into structural bio/biophysics), but GPA was too low to apply. In regards to your application, it's pretty solid. GPA is nice, GRE scores good, subjects sucks but who cares most people schools don't even look at that (just don't send it to them). Plenty of research experience in the field you'll be looking at. Also out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to work at Amgen would you?

I second what those above have said. I'm not going to attempt to understand why the person said what they did, or judge their character,(many potential factors), but from my searches, you're application is not only good, I'd say it's really good. I think if you get good GRE scores, you'll not only have a chance, but a pretty good one. In fact, I'd say don't look at lower schools. The general trend here appears to be, most people with really good applications (such as yours), actually end up getting rejected at some lower tier schools because the schools think you won't pick them (since you can get into better schools). Regardless, of why they said the statement, its bogus. Edit: I have a 3.00 GPA and low GRE scores, and no ones told me not to apply (even though I'm pretty sure I won't get into my top school picks). So gives you some perspective

Made a separate post about this a while ago. When you do bad, you feel terrible initially. Makes you feel like you're not good enough, you're an idiot, you should just give up grad school, etc. But then you realize the GRE is garbage, and that it's only one part of an application (a part that many departments are starting to look less and less at). So even if you do retake it, regardless of your score, I'd say apply to the schools and fuck the test. It's a stupid test, everyone knows it, it's just something that needs to be done.

So made a few more changes 1) Rewrote the entire intro 2) Discussed my role in the research and my thought process (rather than I did then, then this, then this). I now explain why I do what I did. 3) Went into even more detail on my focus. Discuss only one faculty member now, and what role I would have in their lab and where I could fit in. 4) Cut out out the entire instrumentation paragraph, and made it only 2 sentences describing how I would use the instruments and for what purpose. 5) Rewrote the conclusion to display a more detailed focus for my future career.

Yeah with that word count that can be difficult. If there is one thing I've sorta come across writing my own SOP, is that you have to be very selective about what you want to talk about (especially in your case). I came across the issue that my SOP was more like a resume instead of a story. I listed a lot of general techniques and skills that I knew, and wanted to learn, but I didn't go into detail for any of them due to page limits. So instead, I cut out a bunch of stuff out, and focused on the most useful skills that would relate to my field, and instead went into detail with them. This also really helped my transitions as well, and made my SOP as a whole more organized. So instead of saying, I've become responsible, mature, learned organization, trouble shooting, critical thinking, maturity, etc. I decided to focus on just trouble shooting, organization, and responsibility instead. Bringing my list down to 3 made it a lot easier to link them together, and discuss them in more detail by showing how I am organized and responsible (rather than stating it).

Yeah, I was personally thinking #2 as well, it flows better and relates to my SOPs theme as well (structural biology and biophysics). Thanks for the feedback guys!

Well naturally I wouldn't word it exactly like that, these were merely examples of how detailed or specific I should be (e.g. I would never just say I want to cure disease by seeing how proteins work)

Thank you!