Jump to content

heistotron

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by heistotron

  1. Dipping in GPA anytime in the past year would probably be looked at with a lot more leniency than at any time, to an extent, so you have that going for you at least. Talking to people from top 5-10 BioE programs, a 3.59 is roughly around the "minimum" GPA that they'd still consider acceptable for a traditional student. The fact that you have first authored paper, extensive research experience, and even a biotech internship makes you extremely competitive, so I would definitely not not consider applying to the top programs. That being said, it's still worth noting that some of the tippy top programs e.g. MIT/Caltech/Berkeley are still very GPA centric even with their claims of holistic admissions and not caring as much about GPA. All that really translates to is they're not necessarily looking for someone with a 4.0, but all else being equal (to the extent you can have something like this) a highly qualified applicant with a 4.0 is more likely to edge out someone with barely a 3.8. Fortunately, head-to-head matchups rarely if ever happens and not having a very high GPA is far from a disqualifier, but it still does put you at a disadvantage since there are a lot of people with both high GPAs and extensive research experience (if not necessarily first-authored papers). What this means application-wise, is that I would apply to an equal number of programs between the top 10 and top 20, and still apply to at least 3 programs at top 30 or below as programs you'd have a much better shot of getting into. I know all too many people even with high GPAs and lots of research experience apply to programs ranked 1-10 and getting 0 admits since luck is still a factor in the end. You can definitely update applications with fall grades, especially for BioE programs that don't issue interview invites/acceptances until mid January at the least, but from my general understanding this would still have little to no effect.
  2. Applied last year with a far worse profile and still got into a few top 10 programs, so I think you can bank on getting into the majority of your top choices. ChemE PhD admissions is highly competitive but your profile would be above average for admits even at places like MIT and the majority of admits are also direct from undergrad. I also didn't take the GRE.
  3. For PhD programs, departmental reputation > general university reputation in terms of research/industry/academia prospects and student body quality. US News Rankings are generally more reflective of academic perceptions of departmental quality than most other rankings, but they still fluctuate from year to year so I wouldn't worry too much about the actual ranking. In terms of research quality & industrial prospects, there is likely minimal difference between Delaware v.s. Purdue, but if you're planning on academia the program at Delaware is definitely more prestigious and the faculty even more well-connected. Going by departmental reputation, your programs would roughly go: Delaware > Penn > Boulder > Purdue (with Delaware being a cut above all the others and Boulder being closer to Penn than Purdue as Boulder's been closer to top 10 than top 20 and steadily climbing upwards still these days). I don't think Boulder is too hot on catalysis (could be wrong) but it's definitely one of Delaware's strong points and UPenn has some good faculty there as well. At this point if it's all the same to you Delaware would be the best choice overall as it will best set you up for academia (while having unparalleled industrial connections with DuPont, Dow etc.) and Penn as a second choice as it's departmental reputation is comparable to the other choices and its brand name is an extra icing on the cake for general networking purposes(ChemE academia will still respect Delaware > Penn though).
  4. I'm not sure what the chances are of getting off a wait-list from a BME PhD Program in normal times, and how that might change at current times. Hopefully things will work out soon enough - one of my friends that was wait-list at a top 20 bioengineering program was told that he would be notified about final wait-list decisions by early April.
  5. According to results page it's been more than a couple weeks since their last PhD offers went out, and it looks like the number of acceptance posts are comparable/if not exceeding previous years. There were people who heard back today from the PhD program and they were wait-listed. However, it looks like they're still releasing Masters offers. Sorry not to have better news ?
  6. Someone mentioned you could do a post-bacc and that's a worthwhile situation. I'd also start applying for jobs, especially engineering/technician/research associate/quality control roles, ideally in biotech companies, as any full-time work experience greatly strengthens an app. You can even poke around in your department/home institution labs to see if anyone would be willing to hire you as a lab technician for full-time. The next time you apply, I'd also apply to more schools, including more lower-ranked programs. BME looked extremely competitive this year so and it's hard to say you didn't get in solely because you didn't have the credentials, so applying to more programs will help with this.
  7. Based on Gradcafe history, looks like UMichigan ChemE has a habit of admitting a few people every week from mid-Dec until mid-late March.
  8. You're right I'm not sure if this is their regular timeline, and I did resort to Gradcafe for that one post. That being said I have heard of people receiving interviews/admits even within ~5 days of the final application deadline and some programs do this to varying degrees e.g. UC Berkeley.
  9. Congrats! How is this possible though - don't SEAS PhD applications just closed 5PM yesterday?
  10. Both GPA and the quality of research experience fall under a continuum - there aren't strict cutoffs for GPA in most top programs. That being said while most students in top 20 programs will have GPAs above 3.5, it's still likely the case a 3.7 is more competitive and would help more than a 3.5 for example. But admission committees are unlikely to be concerned about a 3.7 versus a 3.65.
  11. This is great! I do want to note though, that for a lot of schools outside the top 5, accepted GPA doesn't necessarily mean enrolled GPA (which is usually lower). Understandably, the strongest candidates (usually with very high GPAs) will be admitted at a lot of programs, but are less likely to commit if it's not a UC Berkeley/Caltech/MIT etc. Thus, even schools in the lower top 10 e.g. UT Austin may see a drop between accepted GPA and enrolled GPA, as candidates who are not as strong and without as much offers are more likely to commit. In their 2017-2018 data, UT Austin's average accepted GPA was a 3.88, but had an enrolled GPA of 3.83. Source: https://gradschool.utexas.edu/admissions/where-to-begin/admissions-and-enrollment-statistics Mind you, they're not big drops to begin with at a top 10 program like UT Austin, but less competitive programs are more likely to see bigger differences between average and enrolled GPAs. What this means is, if you see an average accepted GPA that makes you hesitate to apply to a program, more often than not your chances aren't as bad as you think. Finally, people that post results + stats on Gradcafe also heavily skew towards the most competitive/highest achievers and may not fully represent the applicant pool. Still, there are some exceptions like MIT in the provided link with an average GPA that's pretty much in line with official stats.
  12. I can't help but think places like Columbia/UPenn would be great in terms of tissue engineering research. They both have strong BME programs and their proximity to medical campuses only help (from my understanding a lot of faculty are funded by NIH grants).
  13. I'll start: Undergrad Institution (approx. rank/reputation in STEM): R1 Public, US News Top 100 for National Universities (top 50 for ChemE grad schools) Major(s): Chemical Engineering Minor(s): Biological Engineering GPA in Major: 3.84/4.00 Overall GPA: 3.79/4.00 Demographics/Background: International Male, Asian GRE Scores: haven't taken; practice tests consistently 165Q Q: xxx (xx%) V: xxx (xx%) W: x.x (xx%) LOR: 1x strong (from main PI), 1x good (from summer REU), haven't decided 3rd (probably from instructor I TA'd for) Research Experience: 2.5 years materials science research in undergrad, 1 summer REU in biocatalysis Publications/Abstracts/Presentations: 5x posters (including regional & national conferences), 1x oral presentation Awards/Honors/Recognitions: 2x poster prizes, year-long research fellowship & travel award from my home university, engineering scholarship Fellowships/Funding: Ineligible for everything as international ? Pertinent Activities or Jobs: ChemE tutor and TA'd a couple classes, Other Miscellaneous Accomplishments: N/A Anything else in your application that might matter (faculty connections, etc.): One of my recommenders did their postdoc at MIT, but I feel this holds true for a lot of recommenders Research Interests: Catalysis (either protein based e.g. biocatalysis or materials-based e.g. zeolites, porous materials) Institutions/Programs: All for PhD in ChemE Loooooong shot (UC Berkeley already discourages internationals from applying to begin with) : UC Berkeley MIT If lucky: UC Santa Barbara UMinnesota UW Madison UT Austin Northwestern Columbia UPenn Johns Hopkins Should have a reasonable shot at: Cornell CU Boulder UWashington UArkansas UVA *How I feel about my chances are based off of discussions with my advisor, as well as having seen admission stats/class profiles at programs that release them Comments:
  14. I agree with @daromi A 3.5GPA seems to be the "cutoff" for the most tippity top schools and even so, upward trajectories are very favorable and the entire application is still likely to be considered holistically. Anecdotally, I know a couple people with <3.6GPAs and no publications still get into CU Boulder's PhD program in ChemE -- your chances for CU Boulder seem to be very solid.
  15. With the looming recession it'll be good to cut down on costs. The ballpark cost difference between your two programs looks to be about $70k (Northeastern total) v.s. $160k (JHU total). Northeastern BME is no Johns Hopkins, but it's still a very well-respected program with strong industrial placement & connections. And if you later decide on pursuing further grad school through a PhD/MD, then you'll be glad you have $90k less in loans than you'd have had otherwise. I don't know what to comment in terms of coursework difficulty, but I would think that doing well at Northeastern in terms of coursework and even research perhaps will set you up very well for getting into top PhD programs in BME or solid jobs in industry.
  16. Curious as well. My uni's department (R1) has a fairly even mix of cancer biology, biofuels, catalysis, computational and modeling, materials, polymers, and even process optimization. The one thing my department does not have is electrochemistry (afaik this field is becoming more and more uncommon amongst ChemE departments). Amongst applicants, I'd wager the most popular research field would be some form of bio-engineering, whether it be in biomaterials, biocatalysis, protein engineering/therapeutics, and synthetic biology.
  17. Stats are Ok but there are much bigger questions. What are your research interests? Are you aiming for masters or PhD programs? You definitely have very reasonable odds at chemical engineering programs ranked 50-100 and I would apply to a few higher ranked ones as well. But most important thing is to figure out what you actually want to work on and that's not something people can easily recommend without you providing more info.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use