dopamine_machine

Hey, I wasn't able to access the pdf. Could you repost? Thanks for your help!

I definitely need to get my act together! I took the GRE in April and secured my LORs, but I really need to start my essays so that I have time to apply for grants in October! What about you?

I'm not actually sure! I know all of my programs that previously required GRE have permanently waived it as a requirement, but Biology programs were on track to get rid of GRE requirements anyways. I haven't been reading too much into Art History PhD programs but I would monitor them closely, as it is definitely a possibility. I ended up taking the GRE just to be safe though and if you are for sure applying this cycle, I recommend you do the same just to ensure that you have it as a back-up if programs you apply to end up requiring it.

Hey, I would love that! I'm still trying to figure out specific places to apply to and am having some trouble with finding schools/programs that specialize in stem cell biology

Wow thank-you for really breaking it down! It's super helpful to see what factors one has to consider when making such a big decision, as some things you mentioned I never even thought of (ie happiness and student housing costs). I'll reach out in the future if I have any more questions. I wish you all the best at Einstein!

Hey Lalapa, It depends on what subjects you are most interested in studying in those fields. I would suggest looking through departments/reading recent papers relevant to your field of interest and identifying faculty at different schools that you would want to do research under. From this point, you can start to deduce what your top programs will be. I personally don't find published rankings super helpful, because they don't show what your priorities are in a graduate school. Something I did which was super helpful was to identify factors that I want in a graduate program, score each program based off of those factors (subjective, but still helpful), add weights to each factor based on those factors' priority levels, multiply each program's factor scores with their respective weights, and then sum these numbers to create a final "score" for each institution based off of that, which you can arrange in numerical order to see what schools are best for your interests. If you want to rely on published rankings, I would suggest looking at programs ranked highly in both computer science and biology. Cheers

It really depends on the school and program. I disagree with gentvenus in that I think while engineering programs generally require the GRE, most biology programs do not anymore. This makes it rather difficult to see average GRE scores for biology students, as I am unsure what you mean: average accepted that sent their scores, average of accepted students (did or did not send scores), or average of all students applying to biology (accepted and not accepted). ETS has data showing that prospective engineering PhD students have a higher average quantitative score, but a lower average verbal score and average AW score than prospective biology PhD students (https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf). That being said, I did see your previous post about what schools you are considering. Most are GRE-optional or not reviewed, so wouldn't worry too much about your GRE score. I think for most schools that require GRE, having a 160+ in each category in combination with a 4.5+ AW score would be fine. GRE is really only used by biology programs to do three things: 1. Collect data on students to see if the GRE is impactful in determining graduate success (despite decades of data collection, some institutions are still unsure) 2. Weed out those with suboptimal scores (doing below 65-70% percentile is likely to worry reviewers at top schools). But this is by no means a definitive thing, as I know plenty of people who got into top programs in biology with suboptimal scores when programs required their submission. 3. A slight positive for admissions committees because they can see that you will be eligible to apply to certain fellowships if you choose to attend (some require GRE) Hope this helps!

I agree with CozyD, I think that there are a few ways that you could go about performing your search. We actually have very similar research interests, though mine are less focused on distorted cognitive function and more so on the genetic profile that leads to psychiatric disorders. While checking through the faculty at each school's web site has proven to be somewhat helpful, I have actually found that googling papers you are interested in and tracing authors/PIs back to specific institutions has been much more efficient and rewarding. Professor profiles on college websites can sometimes be misleading at first glance and by reading their papers, you can learn exactly what they are currently investigating instead of what they have done in the past.

Hey Neuroticneuro6, Only a few programs that I know of require GRE, such as MIT BGS, NYU Neuro, and Boston University GPN. While I am not sure, I'd assume not requiring a GRE largely signifies that the admissions committee does not place too much emphasis on those scores. GRE is mostly used as a prediction of one's ability to take graduate level classes; thus, as you already have a stellar GPA, I wouldn't worry about adding standardized testing to strengthen this portion of your academic profile.

Congrats on making your choice!

That's what I was hoping people would say, because I feel like working in the hospital helped me narrow down what kind of career I wanted. Plus, I feel like it would be a waste to just discard so many of my extracurriculars when they did help bring me to the point I am at today in terms of my research goals. Thanks everyone

Hi virusologii, How is the NYU program across departments when the neuroscience department seems to have different requirements (i.e. GRE) in comparison to the rest of Sackler? I've been really confused for some time now on the flexibility component of the NYU Biology program and would love some insider advice/info. Thanks for your help

Also, I think I wouldn't pay attention to the rankings above that people voted. I know mine was committed in error before reading your situation and I find myself unable to change my answer with your choices in scope. I corroborate a lot of the information that others have said on this topic, so I think focus more on the comments

Honestly, if UNC is unfunded, I definitely would choose one of the other programs, as the difference between UNC and the other programs is likely negligible. I would pick the place that is best for your research goals (aka in line with what project you want to work on) and I know that McGill and UBC are both pretty great for worldwide reputation (I'm from SoCal and I really like those two schools). As per rankings, It does appear that Waterloo is the second best of your choices, which is something to consider (though, who will really care about rankings when you're in year 4 of your PhD). Hope this helps

I know that this topic is super old, but I figured that my question didn't require an entirely new topic. If I did volunteer work in a hospital/helped found a non profit, do you think that would be a positive or negative thing to include for a biology PhD program application? I don't want to give the impression that I'm pre-med, but I am super interested in the capacity of my future research for drug development (my hospital experience showed me that I like translational research, especially since I'm into stem cell modeling in neurological conditions). Also, while the nonprofit I held a leadership role in wasn't actively involved in research, it was a public health initiative to limit the spread of preventable diseases, thereby kind of playing to the same tune as both share the common goal of reducing disease symptomology. I hope that my CV shows that I like research (I will have worked in the same lab for 3 years when applying; 3 current WIP/soon to be submitted publications), but am interested in human applications

You are such a kind soul! Thank-you so much for this. I feel that life always has a strange way of making things happen, so I wouldn't be surprised if I take on too many conferences in graduate school ? First of all congratulations on being almost done with your Masters! I know you will make it work and once you finish everything, take a big break this summer because you deserve it! I can only imagine the stress of trying to finish a masters during a time where you can't even go into lab. Second, congratulations on committing to a PhD program! Have you heard any updates about the Fall at UIUC? I hope the pandemic is contained for the most part by the Fall so you can have a good transition and get to know your cohort (though, this is definitely doable online if for some reason things aren't up and running).

I'm trying to be productive but things are really starting to take a toll on me. I've been trying to ready myself for graduate school applications this Fall with studying for the GRE, meeting with old and current mentors, and writing my statement of purpose while working remotely. However, things feel like they are starting to spiral out of control, with my GRE being only 3 weeks away and the deadline for a review article I am assisting in writing starting to inch closer and closer. I feel like I want to work in the present for my own sanity and for the sake of my career, but I keep future-tripping and thinking of what the Winter may bring during application season and its negatively affecting my focus. I have been lucky to have a substantial amount of experience in research, but I always wanted to present at a conference and for some reason things never really worked out. This year, I finally got the opportunity to submit an abstract to a large national conference taking place in the Fall and was about to pay a pretty hefty price for annual membership, but the conference is now likely to be cancelled and I'm unsure if submitting an abstract is worth it at this point. On top of this, I feel virtually desensitized to much of how the pandemic has affected my personal life. I graduated from undergrad right as things were starting to go into lockdown and haven't even had the time to think about culmination/when I will be able to see my friends again. I honestly feel like I have been adding more and more work into my daily routine so that I can avoid dealing with things that make me feel sad, but then I constantly feel let down by my inability to focus on the work I decide to do.

Hi mitochondria_1, I wanted to ask you why you chose Albert Einstein in the end? I am applying in to the 2021 cycle and some of my top program choices are the ones you were deciding between (JHU, NYU, Mount Sinai, Albert Einstein). What made you choose Albert Einstein in the end of the day and turn down the other offers (especially Mount Sinai, given its location in Manhattan, stipend, and subsidized living)? Thanks for your help!

Hi all, I wanted to ask for your opinions on what type of programs I should choose. I am interested in stem cell models for neuropsychiatric disorders; thus, the research is somewhat interdisciplinary depending on the school. I have a pretty strong background in this field with approximately 3 years and a few pending publications. Upon researching graduate schools, I have found that I am interested in faculty in multiple departments. For example, I was looking at two programs at NYU (Sackler): 'Neuroscience & Physiology' and 'Stem Cell Biology.' While looking at both programs, I saw that many faculty were available as mentors in both departments. However, I actually found that the stem cell department had more researchers whose work I was interested in conducting. Another complicating variable in this situation is that NYU 'Neuroscience & Physiology' requires the GRE, unlike the 'Stem Cell Biology' program. I have yet to take the GRE and was planning on taking it solely for my NYU application, as none of my other programs require it. Would having a 'Stem Cell Biology' PhD be detrimental to my ability to score a Neuroscience postdoctoral position after my PhD, or is the work I publish in my PhD more important? Additionally, if my background and SOP are heavily neuroscience-based, which is my general college background, will this negatively impact my application to the 'Stem Cell Biology' program at NYU? If you were in/are in a similar predicament, what would you do and why? Thanks for your help

OMG I would be utterly fuming! I think you should email that school and all other schools that you rejected your offer to and hope that one of them will let you resubmit. It is unprecedented times, but canceling a program this late in the game is a bad move and it deserves legal ramifications in my opinion.

Hi all, I saw this on another forum and I thought this would be helpful for future admissions cycles. PROFILE: Type of Undergrad Institution: Major(s)/Minor(s): Undergrad GPA: Type of Grad: Grad GPA: GRE: V /Q /AWA Any Special Courses: Letters of Recommendation: Research Experience: Teaching Experience: Subfield/Research Interests: Other: RESULTS: Acceptances($$ or no $$): Waitlists: Rejections: Pending: Going to:

Prompt: As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position that you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mankind remains to be one of the most successful species on the planet Earth, having the ability to conquer the environment and rise above the everyday harsh conditions that accompany the wild. In harnessing this power, the human species developed technological advancements that allowed it to have more power in the world and be less likely to succumb to predation in the natural realm. In this essay, I will argue that technology has allowed humans to adapt to daily life in a way that is healthier, more efficient, and more successful. This efficiency of human function is what ultimately ensured the success of the human population, allowing humans to do more complex things at greater scales than one could do without such advancements. One of the main technological advancements that we know helped the human species succeed is the cultivation of fire. Fire allowed humans to have a source of warmth in Winter seasons, as cold conditions limited where populations of humans would be able to live. Fire also allowed humans a way to cook food, preventing bacterial contamination that might bear negative consequences on an individual’s health. Mastering the creation of fire helped mankind conquer an entirely new terrain, allowing humans to live in arctic climates with temperatures that would normally be lethal to humankind. Instead of technology causing early humans to deteriorate, technology actually helped humans survive in difficult environments. In addition to gaining the technological understanding of harnessing fire, another important advancement was the creation of weapons. Gaining the ability to hunt animal prey with stone weapons allowed early humans access to a diet consisting of nutrient-dense meat, in addition to their earlier vegetable diet. Over time, these weapons would undergo a lot of trial and error, constantly adapting to become more efficient and allowing humans to protect themselves in the wild. Such adaptation showcases the ability of humans to use their brains to develop more efficient means of survival, something which accounted for the successful proliferation of humans across the world. Moving forward to the modern era, one can see that technology is all around us. We live on a planet where humans can travel almost anywhere that they desire, given that mankind has conquered the sky, the ocean, and is now expanding outside of this world and into Space. Instead of constantly being happy with what we have already achieved, humans have actually shown great stability in their ability to create new and better methods to perform functions of everyday life. For example, the advent of the computer was an incredible feat, allowing humans to initially solve simple math problems and relay information through use of a word processor that allowed for editing, unlike its typewriter predecessor. However, computers continued to adapt as mankind thought of new uses for them. One such major development was the creation of the Internet, ultimately going on to become the largest repository of information ever created in the history of the human species. The Internet, even today, continues to grow into new markets with new technological achievements, such as the development of applications for use in healthcare, private businesses, and biological research. While some people might argue that many humans are becoming complacent in the stability of modern life, this stability is a product of centuries of development, all intended to make life the way that it currently is. Even with the current success of the human civilization, mankind has a lot of room to develop. Many diseases and human pathologies are not adequately understood, leading many people to lead very difficult lives. While modern medicine has grown to understand many aspects of diseases that plague the human population, future advancements will hopefully seek the eradication of cancer, cures for HIV, potentially the end of psychiatric disorders. Technological tools that help researchers study such models are also being created every day, with computer scientists creating programs to analyze a vast repository of information that researchers collect in studies. Technological advancement is one of mankind’s most valuable assets, as it has allowed humans to conquer their natural habitats and make everyday life more stable. However, instead of growing complacent in this stability, the history of the human species has consistently shown that the human penchant for advancement is part of our species’ DNA.

Hey Sam, I'm not in the mechanical engineering field, so I can't attest to any programs specifically. But I will say that faculty is the most important factor in choosing a PhD program! Even if your program is 4 years, if you are not interested in the project/have a bad PI, it will feel like an eternity in comparison to having to do an extra year at a different institution. From here, I'd definitely consider prestige/funding, depending on what career path you want to go on outside of grad school. I definitely think that time-to-degree (TTD) statistics are important, but I wouldn't place it above the other important things, as long as you are finishing around a 5 year time-line. Good luck with everything!

Hey shahrezsyed, I think this might be pretty hard to tell. What I will say is that it is worth trying! I think there is a lot of opportunity to explain circumstances, especially if your LORs bring it up. Was there any forward trajectory in your GPA in later semesters/quarters? Additionally, was your biology GPA higher than your cumulative GPA? If GPA was not improved, I think that getting a good GPA in a masters in biology would help, as it would show that you can succeed in graduate courses and pass the year 2 qualifying exams. I also wonder if your PI knows people in the department and might be able to talk to someone about your promise in research. While most programs rely on GPA, many just use it to weed people out from the applicant pool so as to avoid reading as many applications. A personal contact with the admissions department might make or break your application, depending on the school. Having 2 publications is incredible impressive, which makes me think that you have a shot despite your GPA, as it shows you can and will likely publish well and will be able to finish your PhD on time. I know it may seem like the end of the world now, but having experience in biology research will make you stand out, way more than a GPA could ever do. With increased years out of undergrad also comes less focus on your undergraduate GPA. I wish you the best with the application process and hopefully we both end up at interview weekend (I'm applying to Weill in the Fall as well).

I've personally heard great things about programs! Are you in the chemical biology or the computational biology TRI-I program? I'd recommend looking at where the PI's you're interested in working under publish, as well as how much experience they have with PhD students in their labs. Do the PhD students in their labs publish every year? If not, their median time-to-degree (TTD) may be higher. Does your current PI know anything about any of the labs you are looking at in both programs? I'd also pay attention to general TTD statistics for departments if it's important to you. I know Rockefeller's curriculum is super personalized, which would be an amazing experience if their were a lot of different classes you wanted experience in. Lastly, I'd look at the funding each of your PIs have. Are the funding offers from both institutions comparable? Do both programs offer equally subsidized housing? I know Columbia biology programs and graduate housing are usually located in Washington Heights, which isn't always an ideal location since its pretty far North of a lot of Manhattan and isn't in the safest neighborhood.