bhmlurker

You'll be better off to ignore labels such as department of Genetics, Biochemistry, etc. Whether a lab uses mammals/rodents in their research is purely that PI's perogative (with institutional approval, of course). If you want to know whether you'll HAVE to work with rodents/animals, ask the PI whether he/she is taking any students, and if so whether the project requires animal work or it's all in vitro/test tube chemistry. Name of the department or graduate program doesn't mean squat, because nowdays NIH funding favors proposals that have a human disease relevance. 100% in vitro work is hard to get funded unless if a co-PI is handling all the in vivo portion of the project. Also, do you have a problem sacrificing animals, or are you against running assays on animal tissue homogenates/DNA/RNA also? I've met people who didn't want to sac animals, but have no problem running western blots on clarified liver homogenates. If this is the case, perhaps someone in the lab can sac the animals and prep samples for you ... in exchange for you doing something for them.

Don't worry so much about GPA. If they don't like your essay/letter, the GPA or GRE score is just an excuse to reject you. If they like your story, they'll look past GPA or GRE (as long as it's above the minimum). Calculate what your upper division course GPA would be (minus general ed classes) and mention that, if it's better. Also, being an international student isn't much of a problem, because you can be hired as a research assistant and paid as such. In my 6 years as a PhD student, I've seen some truly atrocious students get admitted. I thought I got lucky when I was admitted, and then realized that I wasn't so bad after all.

Biobio: Funding is super-tough right now for most profs, so PhD student slots aren't easy to come by even if you're a highly-qualified candidate. However, it was wrong what that UW prof did to you. If they want you the least they can do is to fly you and put you up in a hotel for a formal interview at their expense. Consider yourself lucky that you didn't end up in that UW prof's lab, because if this is how he treated you now, think of how he'll treat you when you're in his lab. I want to echo comments from earlier posters: Keep your email short and concise. PIs often have a short attention span and can't read long paragraphs. Make sure you include your CV but keep your letter of intent email short and sweet. During my PhD, no matter if it was my own advisor, a committee member, or some other faculty member, if I email them a long explanation about something, all I get back is 'ok' or 'sound good, do it'. Half the time they're reading and replying to emails on their Blackberry during a seminar. 6 years ago I was in the same spot as many of you. Didn't think my GPA, GRE score, etc were good enough, got rejected by a bunch of univs, and ended up accepting an offer to a PhD program which required me to move from San Diego to Alabama. Never thought I'd be living in the South. I ended up with a really great advisor/mentor, had a enjoyable thesis project, defended this past April, met my wife here and got married. Bottom line: Life has a funny way of working itself out. Keep pursuing your dream!

I think your strength is your research experience, which you need to emphasize when contacting profs/PIs at those schools, as well as in your application essay. Make sure you understand each paper which you co-authored front-to-back, as if you wrote the whole thing. One of the cheapest shots an interviewer will ask is 'what exactly did you do on this project?', in order to tease out whether your were just a pair of hands or that you actually understood the rationale for why these experiments were done. Look up faculty members at these universities, look at what they study, and contact the ones you actually find interesting. Do NOT apply to a school without reading some recent papers published by those faculty members and contacting them first. Also emphasize that you are not applying to PhD program right out of college, but you wanted to make sure that you like academia research as a lifestyle. Because you worked as a research tech, now you know this is the life for you (or something like that). Profs/PIs hate students who come and quit during/after the first year. It's a waste of their money and time. They want dedicated students who realize that doing a PhD is nothing like getting an undergrad degree. Don't worry so much about GPA, GRE score, etc. If a faculty member like you, they'll go to bat for you in terms of admission. A grad student only costs 25k a year plus health insurance, which is much cheaper than hiring a technician. If they have funding available for a PhD student and you impressed them, you'll get an interview.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Well done!

Are you sure that 1 year MS program isn't a BS/MS program for Brandeis undergrads only? That's usually the case. My suggestion is to not apply to MS or PhD program until you figure out first what to do with that degree. You only need a degree because you want to pursue a career which REQUIRES that degree. Otherwise it's a waste of your time. My opinion is that nowdays MS degree will only allow you to 1) teach at community colleges and 2) become Research Technician IV. To teach at a 4-year university or be a principal investigator, you'll need a PhD. It's perfectly ok to ask a department what their graduate students do after MS or PhD. Most departments track their graduates destination by %, be it academia, industry, etc. You need to know what you want do with the degree, though. Just because 80% of their graduates went academia doesn't mean the school's training is geared toward academia; it's just what their graduated decided to do.

My suggestion is to search Pubmed for some subject keywords, and see who publishes the most high impact papers in that sub-field. Email that prof/PI and see if he/she has funding for a PhD student. Don't apply to a school because it has a nice name. NIH funding is really tight right now, so if you apply to a school without looking up advisor/mentors first, you might be stuck rotating and choosing between labs that actually have funding. For that matter, prof/PIs move around from time to time, so contacting them is important so you don't show up just as they're leaving to go to another university. Any decent person will reply to your question instead of ignoring your email, so don't be shy.

Have you already communicated with BioEng PhD graduate program directors at various universities, to see whether your profile is truly "not competitive" as you said? You may be surprised that you are actually better than you think you are. Unless if most of them tell you 'no, we will not consider you because your application is too weak', I think you have a better chance than you think. Here in Alabama, plenty of people from China and India get admitted to biomedical research PhD programs without an post-baccalaureate degree. In your application letter and CV, make sure you emphasize what skill sets you have and try to show proof of your skilled work. Many PhD students and post-docs get hired because they have skills that a lab does not have, and the professor wants that expertise. Even if your skill is common (western blots, DNA/RNA isolation, etc), a skilled pair of hands is quite useful and you're cheaper to hire as a PhD student (25k/yr) than a full-time research technician (35+k/yr). My recommendation is to look at the list of faculty members within each department or program, read their papers, and see what you're interested in studying. A school's name or reputation matters more for undergrad, MBA, law, or medical schools, than it does for PhD programs. Your PhD advisor/mentor's prestige and fame will matter more than the school itself. Besides, do you really want to spend 2-4 more years of your life than you need to? Unless if the university allows you to continue to PhD program after you complete your Masters, I see no reason to do so unless if your GPA is poor, which you said yours weren't. I asked this very same question 6 years ago when I graduated with Bachelor's degree and was told by a professor 'No, don't waste your time. You aren't getting any younger, and time is the most valuable asset you have.' She was right and luckily I got into a PhD program despite subpar GPA.

Good God, what's this world coming to? I can't top that, Genomic Repairman, other than that once I almost got to pull the Heimlich maneuver on a female interviewee who choked on steak. Yes, I'm not kidding, the applicant ordered steak. Although it was on the menu, it was a Cheesecake Factory kind of place. I thought people usually watch what other people order and play it safe, in order to act professional. Not this lady, nope. Eventually she quit during her second year. Another time I went to lunch with this idiot who proudly proclaimed that he's also applying to UPenn, and if he got into UPenn he wouldn't come here. Well, the SOB ended up here, despite my best attempt to relay that info up the chain of command and c'block him. For the next 3-4 years I don't think I've ever heard him ask a single question at dept seminar. What a royal waste of a stipend slot.

My recommendation, as with any institution, is for you to go to that dept's website and see what their primary and secondary appointed faculties study. Go to pubmed.gov and search for their work, read their latest papers, see if their style is what you're interested in. It'll also allow you to gauge the journal that the investigator typically publish in.

Since I just defended my dissertation recently, I felt compelled to offer some advice to new biomed PhD program applicants and students. Although many of you may already be aware of the following, I hope it'll be useful for at least some of you: 1. Acceptance is more dependent on NIH funding than the strength of your application. In past years, generous NIH funding allowed the acceptance of a lot of students. Because biomed PhDs in the US are usually fully funded (tuition, insurance, and stipend), a dept will only accept as many students as the # of PIs who can support them for the whole duration. Here (which shall remain unnamed), we went from taking 100+ students a year (total of all biomed PhD programs plus MSTP) to 60. 2. Your minority and citizen status matter a lot in terms of acceptance. Foreign students have the hardest time getting in, since they do not qualify for funding such as F31. Minority ethnicity students are favored in terms of NIH funding, and they used to (if not still) get automatic funding via minority supplement if the PI already has a R01. Depts and PIs often will accept a minority applicant for no other reason than that it's free labor, even if the student is boneheaded. 3. Your life does not hinge on getting into grad school. For some of you, not getting into grad school may very well lead to another career path which turn out to be very rewarding and successful. Plenty of PhD students soon find out it's not the life for them, and they quit to go on to other pursuits in life, be it med school or what not. 4. Finding a lab will be a challenge. As a follow-up to #1 and #2, just because a dept accepted you does not mean you get to work with any faculty member in the dept. The current funding situation caused a lot of labs here to not take new students. This may mean that you'll end up studying something you didn't plan on studying. Don't worry - it happened to me too, and it worked out for me in the end. 5. Apply to places that you normally wouldn't consider. For those of you living on the East and West coast, consider applying to schools in the Midwest and the South. There are a lot of great research being conducted at many institutions, and competition isn't as fierce. If your app isn't top 5 or 10%, I would strongly recommend it. I used to be a West coast guy and ended up in the South. 6. Your advisor's mentoring ability is more important than fame. Talk to former or current students, and ensure that the lab you join is not a factory where one conducts the same assay over and over for 4 years. While you may end up with a lot of papers, those papers will also be full of co-authors, and none of them can explain clearly the original rationale for the study. Many high-powered labs have PIs who dictates which experiment to do next, which honestly is a crappy way to train a grad student, resulting in the latter having a poor grasp of the big picture. For a PhD, you'll want someone who can help you grow as a researcher, and someone who can take you through the whole process, from study design (most important), implementation, data analysis, and manuscript writing. Now there are plenty of high-powered famous PIs who are also good mentors, and a more junior faculty is not guaranteed to have more time to mentor you. In short, investigate each PI thoroughly before you commit to joining his/her lab. 7. Balance life and research. Don't do what I did - spend all your time in the lab and go home only to sleep. You'll eventually burn out and may even end up depressed, which will end up killing your creativity and productivity. Maintain a good balance of productivity and hobbies outside school. Make friends with fellow grad students so you can commiserate over your shared miseries. Curb drinking - there's better ways to spend your hard-earned stipend. Note this does not mean you should only put in 40 hours a week. I recommend 9-10 hours a day, with a mandatory lunch period to clear your head. Work half day on Saturday on most weekends, and keep Sunday free to relax. 8. Try to match your work day with your boss. Just like out in the corporate world, no matter how productive you are, it's easier for your boss to find you and see you being productive if you're in when he/she's in. Try to sync your work day schedule with your boss. This means if he/she has a family, he/she will likely come in early and leave early to pick up the kids. You should try to wake up early too. In my case, my boss tends to come into the lab to chitchat and also brainstorm on ideas for follow-up experiments, because he's often in meetings or busy once the day starts. It may very well be the best time to catch him/her. 9. Don't compare yourself with other students. Work on self-improvement and don't compare yourself with other students. Just as other students get accepted despite having a poorer application, other students will finish their PhD despite having done less work. Life is not fair; know it and get over it as quickly as possible. Some fields (protein structure, crystallography, animal models) take a long time to get enough quality data to publish, while other fields can crank out papers all day (non-primary cell culture, doing a gazillion MAP kinase immunoblots). Focus on your own work and be happy for other students as you attend their public defense because you are required to. Remember Yoda's words: Hate leads to suffering. That's about it for now. Good luck to everyone here.

As a former PhD student in a lab with a side project which was tobacco company funded, my take on this is that PLOS' policy errs on the side of caution but paints with too broad of a stroke, so to speak. As far as I've seen, there are plenty of tobacco company-funded research which appears to be equally well-designed and controlled experiments as any other. I've seen this both first-hand and through Pubmed. Plenty of studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke exposure impacting the pulmonary and cardiovascular systems. No punches were pulled. In my lab's case, the company gave out the money each year and basically had no hand in anything we did. By this logic, every paper published by a person convicted of academic misconduct, fraud, and falsifying data should be retracted. However in almost every case, we would see that the person only perpetrated fraud in some of the published articles. If the fraud him/herself isn't even tainted 100% of the time, why would external research funded by an evil entity be assumed to also be evil 100% or the majority of the time? The logic doesn't hold. There's definitely tobacco company-funded research which are iffy, and in my opinion those are typically restricted to epidemiology or controlled exposure human studies. When it comes to basic science/mechanism level work, it's pretty clean for the most part. If I design an experiment to expose macaques to 1 part per billion or 1 ug/m^3 second-hand tobacco smoke for 1 hour and found that to have no effect on lung cancer induction, it should be obvious that the negative result is due to the ridiculously low treatment dose and duration, and unlikely due to me being a fraud. If anything, the failure of some individuals to see the logic here should be enough cause for the scientific community to examine their work for breakdown in logic.