seunghwane

Sure Caltech undergrads are weird, but are they more weird than MIT undergrads? :wink:

I just accepted Caltech's offer. I would really love to take a look at the student apartments but I didn't get to. Maybe I'll do a third visit?

As long as we're talking about neuroscience, I would not choose Chicago over UCSF, no matter how specific your interests are. There are a few schools I would choose over UCSF, but Chicago isn't one of them.

Yeah if I were you, I'd not go to a school that had a bunch of recruits visiting with their daddies and mommies. Seriously, WTF?

Harvard has accepted people really long time ago.

How much money is $32000 in NYC compared to $27000 (annual) in LA if housing only costs 700 dollars/month?

So have you decided?

Unless you're interested in cognitive science, I'm not sure what is so great about Doug Hofstadter. He is a writer (pulitzer prize is not even a science prize) and definitely not a neurobiologist (he has 0 publications in pubmed). Also that ranking is very flawed, as it has arbitrary weight factors and only 4 out of the top 10 would generally be considered to be among the top neuroscience programs by most neuroscience PI's. In addition, I'm not even sure how they got a lot of these numbers. The amount of money HHMI gives out is not even publicly disclosed and many of the top schools have many neuroscience labs that are funded heavily by HHMI, which gives the most generous sums of money.

So far: 8 interviews, 3 acceptance, 3 non-interview rejections, 5 rejections total

There is no primate facility at UCSD. I don't think there is one at Salk either. For primates, I think Bill Newsome's lab at Stanford is probably the best bet but not for immunological questions in the CNS. Carla Shatz at Stanford, however, is a great person for that, as her lab first suggested the role of MHC class I in the CNS. I don't know if Caltech has primate facility but I know Paul Patterson works on immunological questions in the CNS. Finally UC Davis has one person who works on a topic EXTREMELY pertinent- David Amaral. He has shown in studies with monkeys and humans that autism is caused by antibody-mediated (IgG) loss of GABAergic neurons. He would probably be a perfect person to work for but I would not go to any school based on one person. EDIT: SALK DOES HAVE MONKEYS BUT I DO'NT KNOW IF THEY DO NEUROSCIENCE EXPTS IN THEIR MONKEY FACILITY.

So far: 8 interviews, 1 acceptance, 1 non-interview rejections

It was me. See above. Did you hear back from any schools yet?

I just heard from UCSF and MIT.

11 applications 8 interviews 3 non-interview rejections 7 acceptances after interviews 4 rejections total So far: 5 interviews, 1 non-interview rejections

I just heard my first rejection from Columbia. After I emailed the admission office about the interview dates, they told me that I was not one of the people who received emails about the invitation, implying that I was rejected. First one sure hurts.

Astaroth, it's a lost cause. Without having any knowledge of neuroscience, he pontificates about the status of the field. Even though I am being recruited by the Harvard neuroscience PhD program, I realize that I have no knowledge to make such grand statements about my own field, let alone a completely unrelated field. Besides, the fact that there is no proof against something does not, in any way, argue for that something. I would restate Russell Bertrand's teapot allegory, but I suspect it will go right over the heads of superstitious. It's also irrelevant how long a problem has been thought of. Plenty of brilliant people of the old believed in nonsensical things and the fact that Aristotle believed in something doesn't add to the argument at all. People used to believe that earth is in the center of the universe, that the world is flat, that the plentary orbit was a perfect circle, and so on.

That must be so agonizing to wait until summer. I already feel tormented even though I have two interviews lined up because I want to know my schedule for other interviews.

Neuroscientists are getting there. Consciousness is a difficult thing to define, but decision making is not. In the end, it comes down to semantics- if you are using fuzzy words and concepts, then it is inherently scientifically not testable. Using a reductionist point of view, you can tackle these problems, which is what researchers like Bill Newsome of Stanford and Howard Hughes Medical Institute are doing by studying animal models.

What? You don't like the talking snake either I assume?

My undergrad institution was my safety too. Bottom line is, if you want to go to school this year and don't have the one and only school you want to do your PhD at (I'm not sure why anyone would have this but it's probably field-specific), more is better to a point.

Totally true. But I did apologize for the other faux pas, so perhaps you can excuse me on that one.

I didn't mean to offend anyone. Sorry about that. I am just of the opinion that, if the goal is to get into a desirable PhD program this year, one should apply to more than 5 schools, especially given the option to waive fees, and free travel (for some). Idiotic was a very poor word choice... I just think that it'd a bit unwise for most and not the most ideal advice.

I can only conclude that you're an idiot and that this is a total waste of time to debate, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and give you some evidence on Feynman's religiosity, or lack thereof. From one of his books: paraphrased from the video: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=f ... =N&tab=wv# Finally, please take your own advice and read more books for facts, rather than conjuring them up in your mind. Unlike your field, my field of study doesn't really require that I read many "books" per se, so you don't have to worry about my future, but I sincerely worry about yours given your tendency to make up facts.

Richard Feynman is religious????? Now I've seen everything. FYI, he has written many books, which I have read, and it is VERY clear that he was not a practicing Jew, but I'm sure that will go right over your head. Obviously given your penchant for making up facts about scientists, I am going to go ahead and dismiss other names as well (Murray Gell-man in particular, which I find doubtful). Please stick to philosophy and let the scientists discuss facts about scientists.

It is irrelevant what you think about QM; it is true as far as scientists are concerned. Whether you define that as faith or not is, once again, unimportant. Please read the article you are referring to again. What Einstein referred to as "God" was not the Yahweh of the Judeo Chrstian faith (e.g. a personal God) , but rather a philosophical/pantheistic metaphor. This is a quote from Einstein: He denied being an atheist, which is obviously the scientifically sound thing to do, given the difficulties in proving that there is no God.