000

I am a neurobiology graduate student. If you are being honest with yourself about this? This really should mean a lot. You are at a major disadvantage with your GPA. I know that some programs will throw your application out immediately when they see it, but not all of them will. If you can get letters of reference from people who are as respected as Ed Boyden and Ann Graybiel, you should be able to overcome your undergrad record. Your recommenders need to address your GPA in their letters and say that it is not a good reflection of who you are as an applicant. Try to get all of your recommendations from people who are at this level of research. I can tell you that if you came to top-tier programs with glowing recommendations from these three people, you would be admitted somewhere. I am concerned that you're not able to get a technician position at MIT with anybody else... that suggests that there's more going on. Neuro labs in MIT/Harvard are not generally hurting for funding, and if you did a good job at your previous position, you should be able to "upgrade".

You're liable to hamstring yourself by preparing questions ahead of time. Good departments are looking for people who are bright and conversational in science. While particular questions about the program are fine, in some sense, the #1 thing faculty are looking for is for you to be engaged and quick on your feet with questions that pertain to what they've been talking about. You don't need to prep; you need to pay attention. If someone spends 10 minutes talking about their research, asks you if you have questions, and you ask a canned question about the graduate program... that won't reflect well.

Your background doesn't really matter, psychology with some biology coursework is certainly good enough... plenty of people get into neuroscience programs from psychology, biochemistry, physics, CS, and other disciplines. The biggest differences in those programs will be the interests of your cohort and your coursework, so apply to the programs that sound more interesting. I agree that you should pick one program at each school.

Absolutely not. Ew. Although I'll be down at HMS, so I'm looking at Brookline, etc.

VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [EDIT: Wait. This... might be a bad sign. Has anyone NOT gotten one?...] [EDIT 2: Okay, I'm just crazy paranoid. Hah. Sorry.]

Bwahaha, his reputation is divebombing. It's wonderful. It's like watching a car crash in slow motion.

Not essential at all. It can be nice, but I have central air and rarely use it; I just keep the windows open.

I've found it's really, really good for keeping in touch with people, and surprisingly enough, is actually pretty good for building professional connections. I completely ignored Facebook for most of undergrad, but after graduating, I've found that it turns into a great resource when you want to keep in touch with people who are now scattered across the globe. A few neuroscience interviewees spearheaded a sort of Facebook movement to get most of the students who were on the "interview circuit" at the top-tier programs into a group, and I can already see it being useful as we're launching our careers... it's like a small forum, where every member is a colleague in the same field at the same stage of their career. I'm careful not to post any information I wouldn't want public anywhere on the internet... because of that, I don't really pay attention to who I do and do not friend and I keep my privacy settings open.

It's really interesting to me how several posters have suggested it's a bad idea to get a PhD in ecology unless you know exactly what you want to research. On the cellular/molecular/developmental side of things, you're encouraged to rotate in different labs, and people switch subfields all the time between their PhD and post-doc.

I thought Looger's work on that paper wasn't in question? Or is there something else that happened?

The best bet is to find your options first, without worrying about how competitive you are. You can narrow it down later, before you apply. You should be able to cut out a decent number of schools just based on who is there doing what, regardless of how well they are ranked. I don't really know much about the competitiveness of chemistry programs, but those stats would likely keep you out of the best-of-the-best neuroscience programs. I think your faculty advisors will have a better idea of what other programs will be looking for.

It really depends what you're after as far as your environment is concerned. Obviously there isn't going to be much of a graduate student community there, and it's kinda in the middle of nowhere in particular (though close to DC) but you get to work on truly cutting-edge stuff. The labs are very small, and you apply directly to a lab, so you need to be certain your research interests are in that field. As far as professional development goes, it shouldn't be a problem at all to go there instead of a top neuroscience program, your work will be what counts and JRFC is highly regarded. Are you applying next year, or do you already have offers from these places? My research interests align perfectly with JFRC, but I decided that it's a better place to look as a post-doc (or JFRC Fellow, but I doubt it) than a place for graduate study, just because I prefer a more "traditional" university design and because I feel like I'd be able to get more out of going there later in my career. But for some people, a place like JFRC is really the best place they could go. If you do have offers, Harvard's CBS has a very similar research plan, but they're more mouse-focused on the whole.

Don't look at programs by name, look at them by who is working there. Think about what research you're interested in, and find the labs you want to work in.

For what it's worth, Windows 7 search works just as well as Spotlight, and Backup and Restore replicates the functionality of Time Machine (though it's certainly not as slick).

If that's true about SLP, then it definitely makes sense to go to your favorite location. But I just noticed your username... and I'd like to say, if this is still between SDSU and UW, your boy is nuts! I'm hoping you recently tossed a school from the deep south or something in there, because I can't imagine how and why someone could adamantly hate Seattle.

Oh, I certainly wasn't suggesting that relationships are not about compromise; quite the opposite, really. And I probably jumped the gun given that I do not have all the facts. But here we are comparing "does not like location, does not affect career, only lasts two years," versus "dramatically affects career prospects." Seems like a no-brainer to me. If he has an amazing location-specific job, or he has family that needs to be taken care of (not just that he wants to be able to see all the time), then that's a completely different situation. The way the OP presented it, she has a choice that rises above the others in the worst location. The boyfriend should jump at the chance to get this. In his situation, I'd swallow my opinion about location and never even attempt to convince my SO to go somewhere else for my sake, because her future is infinitely more important than where I live for two years.

You're not gonna like this, but if your boyfriend works from home, has been with you for seven years, and isn't saying with complete sincerity that you should go to the best program you get into even if it's in the middle of freakin' Siberia, you should really be re-evaluating your relationship. That's outrageous.

Harvard. No question whatsoever. Unless you're a sociopath, or you have really bad hygiene, or something. Then go to Stanford. But then, I am exceptionally biased, since I picked Harvard (PIN), and I didn't interview at Stanford To be a bit more serious, it really does come down to the faculty, so which program is better is going to depend on your particular interests, since both are so strong. The good news is that you can flip a coin and come out a guaranteed winner. PM me if you want to talk about more personal details.