aberrant

... i would only say it's okay, given that my favorite from Mr. Roboto is katsu curry.

I got my license in southern california and I thought the behind-the-wheel test is pretty easy. In fact, I have been told that getting a driver license in the U.S., in general, is pretty easy. Sure, different states and cities vary, but they are still in the "easy" category. Parking test in California is very chill. I'm not sure how the driving test in UK is, but I'm pretty darn sure the driving test in Hong Kong is far more difficult than that in the U.S. (just imagine the behind-the-wheel test is in the parking lot only -- that's what they do in the city that I am currently living)

That statement is correct when it comes to external funding (i.e. fellowships) for international graduate students. Given that you will be a Chemistry (or Science) student, you will find that most of the U.S. government funding agencies require their applicants or awardees to be U.S. citizens or legal residents. You can look up NIH or NSF fellowships for pre-doctoral students if you wish. Even if you are looking at private company's funding (which isn't a lot in first place), there is still almost 0 predoctoral fellowships for non-U.S. citizens. So, technically that statement up there ("international students almost never get any funding so they have to put all the money in all by themselves. So, for me, it's all about money") is correct, with the clarification of "they" probably refers to schools that wish to pay money for international students. While there is 1 science fellowship that I know of is eligible to international students, most of the international students who have their own funding are usually directly/indirectly funded by their home country (other than Fulbright) - Canada, Germany, Brazil, Hong Kong, China, and so forth. But again, those are usually competitive and there would be some sort of requirements to fulfilled, before getting the award (e.g. graduated from a home country university, or first honor standing, etc.)

It is only possible if both the program and a PI from biomedical engineering accept your credential to their program and their labs. I'm not sure if you can do that in your first year though. It would sound shady to almost anyone.

Haha. Well, not walking distance = big minus (e.g. lunch, or even dinner if you have to work late). I'm pretty sure no one is willing to give up their parking space for lunch (at least from my experience talking to people who drive and stay on campus until 5 pm or after).

Thanks for the update. We also got an update like this awhile back

this doesn't sound right to me. i thought it depends on the funding from each department. hence, you can have a department that accept half their students international, while the other department accept 1 out of 30 of their available slots, for example. plus, i'd say the percentage of acceptance from the application pool would be more meaningful than the vaguely called "number" here. after all, we are talking about probability here, aren't we? you'll just have to get excellent GRE and GPA, pretty much perfect in a sense, to have a shot in top tier schools / ivy league schools (ivies are not necessarily top, it depends on the field. but they are just as competitive.)

like kabelo said, vaccination documents are not required to get a F-1 VISA, but you will have to show that record in order to register / enroll for classes. Obviously, then, if you cannot enroll for the required number of units/credits as a full-time student, then you'll violate your F-1 VISA status, meaning that you are illegally staying in the U.S. Therefore, they generally will have you to take all the necessary vaccines in school / near by -- should you be missing any vaccines.

i have to disagree with this particular statement even if you counted all the chain restaurants possible on W. Tennessee and W. Pensacola. There are some restaurants, but you shouldn't expect that they are all high qualities or authentic. Given that you are/lived in SF, Chinese food here will generally disappointed you, with the exception of one or two places.

It should work, because I did that (both Mexico on foot and Canada by plane). Just make sure you get your plan right when you first go into the U.S. everything that you said will go into record, and when you re-enter the U.S. with an F-1, it shouldn't give you much problem as long as nothing sounds very abnormal to those DHS officers. For the record (and future references to anyone here), the interpretation of "outside of the U.S." varies, depends on the boarder and the officer. You would think that going to Mexico and come back to the U.S. would be legitimate, and I was warned by this DHS officer at Tijuana that, the way they interpret "outside of the U.S." is really "outside of the North America". Meaning that they consider Canada and Mexico as "part of the U.S." when it comes to this particular discussion on switching VISAs at the boarder. Don't loving doubt what I told you. I was the one who waited at Tijuana border (to go back to the U.S.) after waiting 2 hours in line, then told by DHS officers guarding/sitting in front of the entrance (to San Yisdro) that I need to be further evaluate due to the change of my VISA status, walk all the way back to their offices, waiting more than an hour to see an officer, argue with her about the definition of "outside of the U.S.", then finally, the boss of this officer granted me an "exception" to change my VISA at TJ-US border while they warned me with their own definition of "outside of the U.S.". Bonus: they allowed me to jumped in front of the line with a stamp/card attached, but of course, some other people won't understand why are you allow to jump in front of him/her, and cursed at you. Just a little story and experience on crossing the border at TJ.

I have recently talked to some professors who from my department who isn't only big in the department and their corresponding fields, but also about how inferior the degree can be. By inferior, it means the curriculum for science PhD programs in UK are generally "easier". In the U.S., you are expected to take classes, past your qualification and dissertation exams, teach for a semester/a year, and more importantly, perform challenging research under the guidance of your PI, as oppose to full-time research without any exams other than the final dissertation defense (depends on the PI, you may/may not receive much guidance from your PI). That is one of the reasons why the PhD programs in the U.S. is generally "longer", and there is no guaranteed that you can graduate in a finite number of years, such as 4 years. For a quick example, this professor that I talked to who got his PhD in the UK, his only presentation and exam was his dissertation defense. My personal opinion on this option is to evaluate what do you want to do in your future in terms of career choice -- academia vs. industry. Here is the bottom line, if you want to go into academia, not only you will need teaching experience (even if just 1 semester), you'll also need to have independent research experience. In other words, you'll probably want to do a couple years of post-doc in the U.S. before applying faculty positions. Just a few things to think about, other than research (topic) interest, funding, and reputation of the school.

$1800 a month for 9 months before tax, let's assume this would be, in average, $1350 a month for 12 months. Let's also assume that there is zero tax in CA, then you'll just get the 100% of $1350 a month. Sure you can live in CA with that amount of money. The point though, like TakeruK mentioned, is to be as productive as a researcher and student while not significantly lower your quality of life. Everyone has different standard, and surely you can spent $100 on a sleeping bag and sleep in the lab every night. Walk over to the gym for a shower, use the restrooms in the lab building and take care of your other routines. You can totally survive with this kinda lifestyle, it's just not a lifestyle for me though. I can do this for a week or even a month. But for 5 years? I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure if I'll be happy without living in a reasonable yet comfortable lifestyle. I lived in neighborhoods near UCLA and adjacent to UCSD for the past 6 years. Finding a 1 bedroom apartments near those area for $1K or less is almost a miracle (not impossible). If you value private / own space a lot, then you can expect to pay ~$1200 USD a month for a 1 bd apartment, near these 2 campuses (walking distance / school city shuttles distances). You can obviously find something cheaper, but commute becomes your other consideration -- whether it is a problem of time or gas. Hence, saving money in that amount of stipend is doable if one lives on-campus graduate housing, or share apartment with a couple others. But still, you are looking at spending at least $400 +/- 50 USD a month for housing. Assuming you spend $5 a day for food, you basically spend $550 a month, and still managed to save $800 a month under the aforementioned assumptions. Is it worth it? I don't know about you, but not me. Which is why I think I'm blessed when I have +20K stipend outside of CA, since my rent for a 1 br is almost 1/3 of what I would have paid living in socal. Now that is "fine". TLDR-- sure you can "live fine on 21600 as a single person in southern california". But how do you define "fine"? That's the question.

Called me cheap but I only thank them in person with a handshake. Except for the ones from my home country who I met them through a year of exchange and research - played basketball with one and had lunch together with another when I went home again (I spent most of my time in the U.S.).

Not sure about this one in socal. With this amount of money, you'll definitely need to stay in graduate housing in order to save up money.

My friends and I who applied 20 or more schools only because we are international applicants and we didn't settle for safety schools. Technically, there isn't a thing called "safety school" (especially for internationals), but rather, school that fits ones research or not.

Try posting here (http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/19-meet-and-greet/) or look at the archive ()

1. Not sure if it is always, but mine is taxed (federal). 2. it depends on how school consider stipend and tuition. My school separates stipend from tuition waiver. Hence, going after 5 years at my school means that you'll need to get external funding (fellowship) or be a TA in order to get your stipend. Or you won't get paid even with the tuition waiver (you'll need to pay some portion of insurance, some university fees, and etc.) 3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are funded as a TA, you are supposed to TA every semester / quarter until you graduate. It is supposed to be 1 class per semester/quarter, but that doesn't mean 1 lab / section. For instance, you could be TA'ing 3 out of 10 sections in a class of ~300 students, depends on your subject / field.

I don't think it will significantly lower your chances. From my observation (which can be wrong), if a program recommends subject GRE score and some applicants submitted it, those applicants are either 1. did very well in the subject test, or 2. they did well in the subject test to a point where they can compensate their mediocre GPA. So for example, while applicant A has GPA of 3.6 that may seems less competitive than applicant B with a GPA of 3.9, if applicant A managed to get a >90% in subject GRE in his/her specialized field (biology / chemistry / physics / biochemistry), then my understanding is that this applicant A is just on-par with applicant B in terms of statistics. But again, there isn't a finite number for minimum % on subject test. What I do know, however, is that (according to professors from UCSD chemistry/biochemistry), UCSD expects qualified international applicants to have >80% in subject test, whereas Rockefeller University expects >90%. I think that for most, if not all, science programs, quantitative means the most. The closer to 99% the better, but it is not a must -- as long as you are greater than 80% you should be okay. On a side note, verbal scores can mean a lot to some schools. Therefore, you definitely want to do great in both verbal and quant sections for these schools. As for perfection, I think it depends on person. Before I took GRE, I didn't study any algebra/precalculus for 3, 4 years. Since there is no calculus or trigonometry, the materials are really just what you probably learned in secondary school / high school. To me, the biggest problem that I have is English, or the wording for the question. That actually cost me a couple questions, and I winded up getting a 84% that I was far from happy about it. That really depends then. It depends on how the adcom / PI see diversity as an important factor to their programs / labs. Some news report did talk about the interbreeding issues in ivy league schools, but I don't think that is always the case for schools outside of Ivy leagues. Just some quick examples here: https://urology2008-2012.ucsf.edu/blellochlab/people.htm http://coxlab.ucsf.edu/COX_WEB_SITE/people.html http://www.craiklab.ucsf.edu/members.html http://dumontlab.ucsf.edu/People.html http://www.neuroscience.ucsf.edu/neurograd/faculty/edwards.html#members http://biochemistry.ucsf.edu/labs/elsamad/people/people.html

I believe it means that you'll have to show interest in her lab in order to be accepted by the program. To tell her that you are still interested is pretty easy, right? Just be honest with her about how you're interested in her current research / new project, whichever one that you are more interested in. Assure that you are a committed and motivated student (if it hasn't be mentioned in your LORs), and how you are looking forward to work in her lab. You can also ask her if there is anything you can do now to prepare yourself prior to your work in the lab, such as asking her for a couple papers that you can read to building up your background knowledge in her current research / new project / project that she thinks you are a good fit. Just be honest with what you think. On the other hand, though. If you get accepted by this school and somehow you turn down the offer, you are very likely to burn this bridge considered how eager she wants a new graduate student for her lab.

I'm not sure if this person is one of your POI / PI that you wanna work with. If she is, then you should already know what she does; otherwise, quickly look at her lab website, research interests, maybe 1-3 recent publications, and see if you are interested in her research. If you do, tell her right away that you are very interested in her work, specifically <insert her research interest here>, and express how did you find it interesting, and how you foreseeing yourself working on that research topic under her guidance for the next 5, 6 years. You can also assure her that you will take the offer if you are accepted, and ask her seriously consider your application, or, ask her if she can do anything about your application (and she'll try to do what she can, of course!). good luck on your application and keep us updated

I don't think there is a finite number and that is really your call. What I do know is that usually these schools want international applicants to have >80% subject GRE (>=50% for resident applicants). So it really depends on the program, which you may have to e-mail those DGS people for their advices. For sure though your general GRE scores play a bigger factor in terms of preliminary round when these top schools cut out big chunks of applicants based on general GRE scores and GPA, before reviewing the applications "carefully" (i've heard they look at each application for about 3-15 minutes depends on school and person.) I'm not sure why you're bothered by the reputation of these schools, because, career-wise, what school you attend has little to do in terms of helping you literally getting a phd-required job. your PI, your research (publications), your recommendation letters, and your personal network do, however. Even if you go to a lesser known school for phd, you can still be a postdoc in reputable schools / locations, which means a lot more if you are going into academia. On the other hand, if a student graduated from a top-tier program with mediocre research and rec letters, they cannot go far in securing a post-doc positions in the most competitive atmosphere. Even if they can, chances are that student will not get renew after first year. Hence, it really is all about what you have learned and are capable to do during and after your phd. I know what I said might be different that what you thought, or some posts that you have read in this forum, but this is what you'll hear if you attend workshops in science conferences, talking to recruiters or PIs in person (may be with the exception with the old, conservative PIs from the ivy leagues just so that they can keep their tradition of interbreed?). FYI though, both UCSF and Scripps are graduate school "only" -- they do not have undergraduate curriculum / coursework, nor do they offer bachelor degrees.

It depends on the field and the policy of each lab. In terms of fields, I know for sure that structural-based research often have lesser publications, whereas biophysical studies (such as interactions, ligand binding, etc.) can be published more frequently. Therefore, a publication isn't a must, which you may have expected. As for how to get published, it really depends on the lab. I know there are a type of PIs would place someone into the author list if they can contribute at least 1 figure in the manuscript (it could be a gel, a chromatograph, etc.), and also a type of PI would give someone the first author if he/she able to crystalize a protein / build a model from 3d reconstruction / etc. Hence, it varies. I also remember when I was applying grad school and lurking around this forum, I read a post that someone in biochemistry (or neuroscience?) claimed that she was published as a 2nd or 3rd author after about half a month, and all she did is running a gel. Yes, a SDS-PAGE gel. I did take the GRE subject test, in chemistry though (as I was a chemistry major) and didn't do well in it (below 50%). I did so bad that I was rejected by Scripps (TSRI) even though I communicated with a POI in person, and was going to work in the lab for half a year before submitting my application. It sound stupid I know, but the website of some programs said that GRE subject test is required, so I was forced to send in my score. What I would advice you to do, however, is to contact the director of graduate admission / DGS (studies) / whoever, to confirm that subject test score is necessary. Since some others applied to Scripps last year did not submit the subject test score and still manage to get in. That is why you should look past the reputation / ranking of a school (especially the undergraduate ranking), and focus on the quality of the research. In fact, I don't think "HYPSM" are necessarily the top end -- they are strong/top in some disciplines, but not all of the disciplines. If anything, I would rather focus on the achievement/reputation of specific faculty members in a school, who may not necessarily be in "HYPSM". And that's not entirely true about Europe neither. Like the situation in the U.S., schools that can "compete" is a relative term, and it really depends on your focus. Say biophysics, EMBL, Max Planck, University of Cologne, Imperial, etc. are also good programs with strong faculty members (e.g. Wolfgang Baumeister from Max Planck).

Family med isn't? That really depends. But for a 3rd year onward MD students or MD in residency, for sure they don't have time for PGA. Depends on your residency, i supposed. My friend doing his at ER and he could be in a 15-hour shift, starts at 6 / 7 pm. As for your question about chemistry PhD in the chemistry board, I also made a respond. Given that you like quite a lot of different subjects (biology, poli sci, environment sci, ecology, chemistry, etc.), I would suggest you to take more hardcore classes on these subjects to see if you actually love it, before consider applying graduate school. The truth is, lower division classes often dumb down the materials so that others who need this specific course the fulfill some other requirement can get it over with. Also, you wanna go into grad school / professional school with the right reason.

is you again. i happened to be a former chemistry undergrad. The bottom line for a chemistry PhD, in general, is to complete the series of general chemistry, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry, some labs in gchem, ochem, pchem, and maybe some biochemistry and/or electives. In other words, dropping an ochem class for now is one thing, not taking it by the time you are admitted to a program is another. People that I know who accepted by chemistry programs tend to finish most of these aforementioned series by their junior year, and taking electives / graduate level physics/chemistry/biochemistry courses in their senior year. given that you are considering dental school, medical school, phd in biology, and now, phd in chemistry. i don't think there's an answer for you until you get to know the subject better. until you get a sense of what it's like to do research all the time and remain your intererst in biology/biochemistry/chemistry after taking advance level of bio/biochem/chem courses, graduate school isn't for you simply because you just need to be mentally prepared for these programs.