hurryskurry

I'm confused by this. If the trades are necessary, but dying, then the supply of labor for those trades will increase as wages for those trades increases. Especially since automation may possibly take over 800 million jobs worldwide by 2030. Trades don't produce knowledge, so they can't be a source of long term growth. Trades operate on existing technologies, they don't create new technologies or transform economic sectors. Think about the discovery and research into GFP, restriction enzymes, or CRISPR, all which started as basic science research, and resulted in transforming technologies, which wouldn't have happened in industry. And an actual real concern might be the appropriation of funds, rather than the total amount.

From your post it sounds like you've answered your own question, and GSK is the right choice for you. Picking for prestige is probably widely considered a bad reason to pick a school.

I feel like you guys might be overthinking this

Wanted to ask again, how necessary a car is in Ithaca. Talking with grad students, it seemed as if there were several who didn't have a car, or didn't use it to get to the university on a daily basis.

In terms of biomedical research I might actually place UTSW above some of those schools. I might be biased, because I do research there, but the breadth of research is really amazing. If the number of HHMI investigators could be used as a proxy for research strength I think UTSW has more than Duke, UNC, WashU, and Vanderbilt combined. I am not saying you should make a decision based on that, because I’m still trying to choose between UTSW and other schools, but I think in terms of sheer amount of biomedical research UTSW is very strong.

I think you should also consider how enjoyable each location is, and the students you met there, because you're going to be spending half a decade there.

UTSW has 14 HHMI professors, and WashU has 2, that's one metric, but probably comes down to a lot of factors and what you're personally looking for I think

People often switch fields. One of the professors I interviewed with did his phd in mammalian development, and his post-doc in plants. A lot of people will switch model organisms. Some people switch whole fields. You want to change it up ideally, because the key is to learn how to do science, rather than to learn a specific skill set. http://www.sciencemag.org/features/2015/08/transitioning-fields-between-phd-and-postdoc

Most of my interviews so far have been with faculty whose interests were different from mine. To me they have just been conversations about science with someone. My interviews have largely been a similar experience to going to the dinner at a faculty members house and chatting with different faculty members, except in an office and they generally ask more about my research. Even when I've known about their research, they usually just say "let me just tell you about what I'm doing" so there's never really much point in me researching it ahead of time. To me it's just a chance to see what's going on at the school, to see another scientist's perspective, or another aspect of the field. I pretty much find all questions in biology interesting on some level, so I think there's always some aspect of their research I can get excited about. Imagine going to a seminar on a topic you're unfamiliar with, trying to understand why its important or they're passionate about it, and then thinking up possible interesting questions to ask. This past weekend I spent an hour talking to a faculty member about his research, which I had absolutely no interest in going in. The next day I thought: he would be a good PI to rotate with. So I think even if you don't have an initial interest, just be open to it, because you might be surprised and find it interesting.

I believe that in biomedical research UTSW is generally regarded favorably. It is probably considered the next lower tier. Those schools are what like generally regarded as top 10 schools whereas UTSW is a top 20. UTSW doesn't have undergraduates so there's going to be less name recognition. Are there any PIs in particular you're interested in?

A grad student and a post-doc in my lab both interviewed at Baylor, I think their general impression was that Baylor is a more challenging program, in terms of things like classwork. I think the general impression is that UTSW has more research and publications, but it might be biased, because the people I asked work or are students here.

Mine was this past weekend. I currently work at UTSW so I can probably tell you anything you might want to know. UTSW has very strong biomedical research. It's probably the strongest biological research institution in Texas, and in the surrounding areas. The school is growing as well.

Did you interview already? I think they are looking to fill ~70 spots, and each of the six days has about ~30 or so; historically I think they've had a little trouble bringing people to Texas I believe. So I think they assume many people will go elsewhere. But this is really off-the-cuff.

For the professor part I think it depends. Adjunct professors get paid very poorly. But at one of my undergraduate institutions instructors made ~70k, and at my current institution assistant professors make ~120k. That's not bad. Even 70k is enough really to raise a family on if you're responsible (at least in Texas it is), even without a partner. I think the questions to ask are 1.) how competitive those jobs are, 2.) what are the steps it takes to be competitive for them, and 3.) how much work is involved. Then you could weigh the answers against your interests and passions to get an idea of how feasible it is for you, or whether you want to pursue that path or not. Off the cuff, I would assume the job market is tougher and more competitive for behavioral ecology, evolution, and conservation biology, because those fields have less direct biomedical or industry relevance.

You should be fine, especially with a strong letter from your PI. I have a similar situation as you, except mine is more non-traditional.