Bio-warrior

As far as I know, the latest interview weekend they offer for IGP is 2/9 (they may have a later date, but that was the latest of four that I know of). Hope that helps and you hear something soon! Vandy's other IGP dates are 1/19, 1/26, and 2/2.

While I agree that working in an academic lab will make the likelihood of getting published higher, I think publications and abstracts etc. are by no means necessary for admission to a competitive program so long as you have a solid application and good letters of rec. I also think working in industry allows a lot more opportunity to meet and talk to people from many different disciplines and forge meaningful working relationships that will broaden your technical horizons. Obviously all of this is company dependent but I am not convinced academia is any better or worse than an R&D position for bolstering one's application.

Hi all, 
I’m looking for some advice here. I’m looking to apply to molecular biology or immunology PhD programs. I graduate in March, a quarter early. However, I recognize my profile is not extremely strong and I’m a little lost as to whether I should apply this cycle (I really want to, but I feel like I may be wasting my time) or, I’d rather not take a year between schooling, but am considering applying for 2019. However, the criticism I receive most is that I’m too hard on myself, so I’m not sure if that’s the case in terms of my profile.
My stats are as follows:
GPA: 3.02 right now. Will have it to a 3.2 by graduation. Upward trend however and can explain in SOP
SOP will be well written. It will explain my GPA although will not be entirely focused on that. I love writing so this is going to be  lot of fun for me to do  
GRE: 160V, 155Q, 4.5 AW
Research: 2 6-month pharma lab research positions. I worked with influenza both times, and was in charge of leading my own projects, choosing what experiments to conduct to back up hypotheses etc. One position was working with antibodies against the virus and attempting to develop a method to quantitate viral proteins. I did a large amount of protein work during this time period. The second was using a chemistry based technique to observe the viral splitting kinetics. 
1 6-month cell/molecular/biochemical independent study project. This is more method development but again I have full scientific authority. This is an academic lab experience. 
LORs: I believe I’ll have two strong letters, and am still deciding who my third letter will be. 
My top 3 schools are University of Washington, Seattle. Boston University. Pitt. And I know it’s a total reach, but Penn. 
 
So I’m lost. I know my profile will be stronger if I take a year between and get a research position during that time, but I’d really prefer to apply this cycle. Im determined to attend graduate school, however, so I’m prepared to do whatever it takes. That being said, am I wasting my time applying this cycle?
Thanks in advance. 

Since you're applying to engineering programs (non-biomedical), you may want to refer to the "Applied Sciences & Mathematics" section of the forums as they can probably give you a much better outlook/feedback for your profile since many of us are applying to biological sciences programs and would not have the expertise necessary to answer many of your specific questions regarding your field. Here's a link: https://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/32-engineering/

Good luck!

I think it's important to be realistic about your ability to make a difference and also the risks that comes to you for taking these actions. You are not helping anyone if you are acting ineffectively and harm yourself in the process.
I think it's admirable that you are passionate about these issues. I am too. But I think your naive approach here is likely to do more harm than good. More harm not only to yourself but possibly to the people you're trying to help as well. If you do get your idea up and running and people submit stories, how are you going to protect their anonymity? People often only come forward if they believe the offender (whether it's harassment or other misconduct) will be properly punished. If you promise or seem to promise this to people and you don't succeed, nothing good will happen. And the people that shared their stories are now at risk because of you.
No, the experienced people here aren't just telling you that your idea is bad because they want to protect the system or find excuses not to act. We are saying it's a bad idea because many of us have gone through similar processes or seen processes like this happen before. I completely agree with you that we should act when there is wrongdoing. I would even say that it is our moral imperative to do something if we have the power to do so. I just strongly disagree with your proposed method, mainly because I think it does more harm than good.
But I won't stop there. Let me tell you about what I know actually works! I spent 4 out of 5 years of my PhD program in my grad student government advocating for policy changes at various levels at my school. I am a big proponent of action and out of my colleagues on the government, I often land on the side of more action. We have had some successes in implementing important changes for our students. 
In addition, in my field, there were two major sexual harassment cases of faculty members that became public knowledge during my grad school career. In the end, both of these offenders are no longer employed at their schools. Student action definitely was part of the chain of events that led to these bad professors leaving their jobs, but it's not in the way you're proposing. So, instead, let me tell you a little bit more about what actually happened/worked.
First, it is important to remember that the people with actual power over the employment status of a professor are the administrators at their school. The specific administrators depend on how each school is governed. These administrators are charged with the duty of protecting their school and their community: that is, the faculty, postdocs, staff, students, etc. That is their priority and even if they have personal opinions otherwise, it would be in neglect of their duties to act against the interests of the groups they represent. 
So, an appeal for the administrators to "do something" has to take these considerations into account. What reason would these administrators have to entertain an appeal from random students across the country? It doesn't really matter what an external organization of students want---it would make no sense for a specific school's administration to cater to the requests/demands of a random group of students. Instead, the appeal must come from the groups the administrators represent or have consequences for these groups. So one external body that might sway the administrators would be the funders. Either the private organizations or the government (e.g. Title IX enforcement). These groups have impact on the campus community. This was what I was trying to leverage in my post above.
But another important group are the people at the schools themselves. The faculty at the school can influence the administrators. The students at the specific school can influence the administrators. And the students at the school can influence the faculty at the school to influence the administrators. But not an unconnected external group of students that have no power over the administrators.
In one of the cases I alluded to, the Title IX case found the professor responsible for sexual misconduct over several decades. The Title IX case complainants (the term for the people who bring the case to the Title IX office) were three people he harassed in the past and are now ranging from junior to senior scientists. After the investigation concluded and the result determined, the case became public knowledge and the media wrote about it. So there's no pretending it didn't happen. While the Title IX office determines the result of the investigation, it's another administrative body that decides the punishment. These bodies generally protect tenured professors so the original decision was a fairly light punishment. A lot of people in my field protested this injustice. Many from outside the department, but the things that caused a change were actions from people the administrators actually cared about. The grad students in the department all cosigned a letter stating that they do not feel comfortable with this faculty member in their department, advising students, teaching students. But perhaps the most powerful action, it was the faculty members in the offender's department that wrote a letter to the administrators that they lost confidence in their colleague to carry out his duties as a tenured professor and do not believe him fit for the department. This letter was signed by almost every faculty member in the department. Ultimately, because of these actions, the offender was asked to take early retirement, which he did. Note that despite these extraordinary actions against the professor, he was still not "fired". He "retired".
In another case, a very similar chain of events happened. The Title IX investigation found the offending professor guilty of sexual harassment. The administrators' punishment was a one year suspension and a committee would determine if the prof was ready to return after one year. During this one year off, the professor continued harassment via social media, so the suspension was extended another year. All of this published in the media. Even in the journal Science. Near the end of the two years, a committee of faculty members across campus was struck to determine if the professor was ready to return to campus. Through pressure from students on campus, the committee held many town halls and meetings with students to hear impact of this professor's actions on students. Many faculty members initially thinking the harassment was "minor" because it was not physical realised the mental and emotional damage done through testimony of students. I am not sure what their final decision was, but they noted to the professor that his return would cause a huge divide on campus. I don't know what else they said to him, but the offender decided to resign his tenured faculty position. Again, despite huge public and media coverage, strong testimony on campus against his return, the professor still resigned, he was not fired. And this result was an unprecedented outcome for a tenured professor.
In both cases, due process found the offender to be guilty. The administrators responsible for discipline chose something fairly light for the "convicted" tenured professor. There was public outrage and backlash from others in the field. People important to the administrators made arguments against the offender. And yet, the best we can get is that they were somehow convinced to resign or retire. And, still people in the field believe that this type of thing is not a problem. And there are still people who support the guilty party and think they were treated unfairly.
I don't mean to tell these stories to discourage you from taking any action. Or to make excuses for inaction. Instead, I want to make it more clear the obstacles in the way so that you can take proper actions that will actually help people. There is huge amounts of obstacles in the way and if you present yourself as a group able to help people, you really need to be able to deliver on your promise. If you are not doing your due diligence to ensure that you treat their information responsibly and actually lead to helpful results, you are going to cause more damage to the people that trusted you with their information. I also share these stories to convince you of a different path to action. I think the key step to convincing administrators is when their key stakeholders appeal to them for action. And their most important group are the faculty members. So instead of some likely ineffective watchdog type advocacy, I think it is far better to engage in efforts to encourage faculty members to support their students when one of them comes forward with information about a professor acting unethically and inappropriately. This could be education campaigns or other awareness. And when you do hear about a case in your field, you could provide moral and resources support for students in the affected department so that they can determine the best action they need to take for themselves.

As the author of the quote being discussed here, I think it would help you if I put it into context in which it appears in my guidebook on preparing and applying successfully to graduate school. Mostly importantly, please note that I do not imply that all POIs want students to contact them before applying to their graduate program, only that some insist on this, and that in most cases it makes a significant difference. Since in the vast majority of cases, you will not know your POIs personal preferences, you should do the wise thing and try to make that pre-application contact. But, it isn't just for the sake of improving your chances of being accepted!  There are at least three main reasons why this contact is very important, in the majority of instances.
First and foremost, you need to find out whether this person is even interested in taking a new graduate student next year. Most commenters on this forum appear to understand this can be relevant. Most faculty members go through periods, from time to time,  when they simply are not in the market for a new student. Reasons abound. They might have already made a commitment to another student for next year. They might already have as many graduate students as they can effectively manage and supervise at one time. Perhaps they will be out of town on a sabbatical leave for all or most of next year. Maybe retirement is looming within the next few years and its time to start downsizing. A loss of research funding, pending litigation, terminal illness… Like I said, reasons abound. And if you don’t find out whether this person is open to taking a new graduate student next year, you might end up wasting a lot of time, money, and hope on a fruitless application. This happens to thousands of applicants every year. The chances of being able to tell from someone's lab website or a departmental website whether they are taking new grad student for the upcoming year is very slim. I would like to emphasize that this is usually the only good reason to indicate to a POI that you are contacting them. It should be pretty obvious that if you tell someone you are contacting them to get your foot in the door, that will be seen as an attempt at manipulation and chances are you will be shooting yourself in the foot.
Another important reason to contact a prospective supervisor before applying is to get some kind of impression of what he or she is like as a person. Remember that the faculty members in any graduate program are all different individuals. Different people deal with their students in different ways. A graduate student/supervisor relationship with each one of them would be different. You want to spend the next few years working with someone you like. Interpersonal compatibility is very, very important. Most graduate school applicants don’t give this very much consideration, probably because they fail to realize just how symbiotic the relationship is between graduate students and their supervisors. Many promising students end up with a supervisor who turn their grad-school experience into a nightmare. Many of those unfortunate students will quit graduate school before finishing, not because they are incapable of earning their Masters or Ph.D., but because working with their supervisor becomes intolerable for one reason or another. A significant proportion of students who begin a doctoral degree will quit before finishing, and the most commonly cited reason those people give is interpersonal conflict or disagreement with their supervisor (POI). Here is a reference, if you want to see some data on this: W.F. van Gunsteren, Helv. Chim. Acta., volume 99, pp. 755-759. There is no guarantee that when you email to find out if they are taking students, there will be enough subsequent communication between you and the POI to give you any insight to their personality and abilities as a supervisor, but there are ways to make it more likely that there will be some follow-up communication. Those tactics are beyond the scope of this discussion, but if someone want's advice, please contact me and I will try to help.
A third reason for making contact before applying is simply to make yourself standout from the crowd a little. Most other students who apply to work with the same person will simply send the required application materials to the program. They will not personally contact this person, or do anything else to make themselves stand out. They will be relying only on how they look on paper. You will be far ahead of them by giving your POI a reason to remember you, before they even get to see your application file. This can happen automatically when you call, because it is so rare for applicants to have the good judgment to do so. You might be surprised to know how frequently it occurs that a faculty member implicitly accepts a new graduate student before he or she even sends in the application materials! In just the past few days I have heard from at least 4 recent clients (I provide a academic advising and career planning consultation service) who have already been told by their POI that they will be accepted -- and the application deadlines aren't until December or January. During my 28 year career, I have known this same thing to happen to hundreds of grad school applicants. It's also how I myself got into a PhD a program in 1988. And here, you can read about a particular case, where a student with a GPA of 3.27 was accepted into Cambridge University, despite his grades being below their cutoff. He succeeded only because he contacted the POI. 
I am confident that many readers of this forum will have seen graduate program websites that actually urge potential applicants to contact their POI before applying. Do not assume that program websites that do not explicitly make this recommendation are trying to discourage it.
One last thing... this discussion began with someone alluding to the widely variable advice that students hear about applying to graduate school. There are reasons for all that inconsistency. That is a different topic, however. If someone wants me to elaborate, I would be happy to do so.

US employment for US-trained biomedical PhDs in 2008: (This includes the entire workforce not just new PhD graduates)
 
23.4% Post-Secondary (College) Teacher
15.7% Pre-College Teacher
14.6% Non-Research Scientist
11.5% Sales and Marketing
11.4% Research Scientist
11.0% Health-Related Occupation
1.3% Technician
0.8% Manager
 
 
When PhD students are about to graduate, they are asked to fill out the Survey of Earned Doctorates. One of the things the survey asks is what your plans are after graduation. According to the 2010 results, 46.3% of life science PhD graduates had definite plans for a postdoc and 19.5% had a definite commitment for employment.  Of those that had an employment commitment, 49.0% are with academe and 24.6% are with industry/self-employment.
 

The median basic annual salary for new biological/biomedical PhDs with employment commitment by sector in 2010:
 
$49,250 academe
$79,333 industry
$64,412 government
$62,501 non-profit organization
 
 
The median basic annual salary for new life science PhDs with postdoc commitment in 2010:
 
$38,138
 
 
I write more about this in the article noted below. I also cite my sources in the article in case you want to examine the original documents.
 
http://www.bioveracity.com/2012/10/01/do-life-science-graduates-work-where-they-want/

Taylor Swift

The Big Bang Theory. All of my hate.

Actually, I would counter to say that's not always the case. Where you POST DOC is most important for doing well in academia. You need to be productive and publish lots to be successful, but you should focus on getting a good education to be a good postdoc. My PI is not yet well known as I am his first student, though I think he will be in a few more years. However, I'm getting a killer education, and it's going to help me kick ass and get a good post doc, hopefully in a big name lab. Once there, the goal will be to put my skills to the test and do as much of the best science that I can.
@ITISRED, if your programs do rotations, you should pick a school that has several PIs you're interested in. Not just one.