aberrant

Just curious if anyone here at TGC is taking courses from edX (https://www.edx.org/) this semester/year. If so, what class(es) are you taking and why are you taking it? If not, will you consider taking one (or more) of the courses that they offer in the future?

Easiest: Politely reject their suggestion and fly solo. Other: Ask the prof. to see if such action violates academic integrity (to answer your reasons #5). If it is okay, then you can either: a. do what they suggest and play as a team player, or Complicated: b. keep your VERY IN-DEPT summary for your own review, and make a slightly dumb-down version of summary for the group.

Aside from the unknown GPA (you should e-mail the DGS to see how to do the conversion on it), your performance on GRE and TOEFL are competitive. As for evaluating your chances, I don't think anyone can make any guesses without knowing: 1. how well will you write your SOP / PS, 2. how strong will your LOR be, and 3. do you have a lot research experience in your area of interest. I would say the numbers that you've shown is great, but given that grad school application also consider the 3 categories that I mentioned above, you will have to be your own judge. Assuming your answers for the above are "great", "strong", "a lot", then you are likely to get into somewhere good without a doubt -- assuming that your area of research is big in University A, the PI that you are interested to work with at University B has funding to take you, or, University C has funding in general. (A <> B <> C). Find programs based on your research interest, and try not to focus on the ranking of the school(s).

Either be honest, or just leave it blank (I personally prefer the latter choice). And it is a case-by-case thing (whether this will affect their decisions or not). While I would supposed that most school don't care as much about where you are applying, I wouldn't say that no schools would factor this list in their decision making. I do know some schools use something like this to arrange interview date to avoid time conflict with another school. [some of them even have a specific section for this. i.e. Which of the following schools are you also applyng? (Please check all that applies).]

Given that you "have a very good idea of what I want to study. (Drug delivery/tissue engineering with a focus in neural regeneration)", will you still apply to schools that you mentioned above if a. there are no labs doing that kinda work, or b. there are no labs that are doing that kinda work taking students next year? Are you open to other topics, or you are insist that what you wanna study is the only thing that you wanna work on for your thesis? Because your answer to the question above will definitely change your list of schools a bit, if not a lot. And you should definitely talk the PI from those school who are working on such topic, and see if they are taking any students. Just to be aware that, for some industry, there is such a thing called "overqualified"; therefore/ a master's degree would be suffice. Considering that you have some research experience and your resume looks competitive, I wouldn't worry too much about the employment market at this moment unless you wanted to join the workforce now. Or else, think through what you want for your career; if you are going to grad school, then think again (about employment) by the time you are about to graduate from your MS / PhD study.

I don't think there is a finite value to define whether this amount of research experience is enough or not. The fundamental question regarding research experience and graduate school application is -- how to make yourself to be more competitive. In my opinion, it is not much about the time by itself, but rather the effectiveness and self-discipline of oneself doing research in the lab environment. Not only able to excel in research, but also being able to communicate with anyone regarding your work, and possibly think outside of the box from time to time. An applicant who has less research experience could be a competitive candidate (e.g. if one can learn things quickly and work well with others), while an applicant with years of research experience may not be competitive (e.g. if that person is hard to work with). I know that in my other posts I mentioned that usually competitive applicants have at least 2 or even 3 years of research experience (as a full-time undergrad) when they apply for grad schools, but that were a few assumptions that I made when I said that: - Assume that all the applicants are normal (able to work with others) - Assume that all the applicants have good/strong LOR / recommendation letters - Assume that all the applicants who ultimately going to the top-tier programs have similar academic standing / GRE - Assume that all the applicants have decent/good SOP - Assume that all the applicants progress (as scientists) similarly when they conduct research as an undergrad Then, and only then, the length of the research experience would make a different. Obviously, research experience weight a lot more than GPA / GRE in most applications (as long as you are above the minimum requirement for consideration), but I'd like to think that the quality of ones research means a lot more than the quantity of that. I'm not sure what kind of lab you were working for the past 4 years, nor your duties in the lab. But if it was somewhat related to molecular biology then I'm sure it won't hurt for your application. If it was completely different than what you want to study in PhD, then you may want to consider volunteer in an academic research lab for a long period of time (again, based on the above assumption). I'm not sure if 10 hours a week would help much, considered the numbers of experiments that you can do (and learn) in 10 hours. Undergrads at my alma mater probably volunteer/work at least 15 hours a week (I know this because most professors that I know of refused to take someone who can only work for 10 hours a week. 15 is a common minimum.)

I think that you should have the ability to weigh whether the research topic for the next 2 years or so is more important to you, or the possibility to get a good recommendation letter (or networking) from an established professor, who may help you in the future (job-seeking or grad school app). But just because a professor is established that doesn't mean he/she is willing to do all the good stuff for you. I would care more about the research topic itself, since this is what I'll have to deal with for the next 2 years all the time (and from what you have said, it seems to be guaranteed that you can work on that kinda stuff). If I have to do something that I'm not interested in, it might be challenging for me to be motivated all the time and work on things that I'm less interested -- even if I'm working for someone who is established.

I would assumed that you are applying for a MS program since, as far as my understanding, many schools in Canada only accept students with a master degree for their PhD program. And, unfortunately, many schools do not offer funding for master students in Canada (that applies to a few international PhD students in separate occasion). If you cannot apply any fellowships from Korea to sponsor your education in Canada (goverment, Fulbright, etc.), you may consider applying PhD programs in the U.S. instead. You cannot do much other than improving your application package -- research experience, SOP, and probably GRE scores. Bottom line is that it will be difficult to get funding from your PI a year later if you are in a MS program. I could be wrong, but that's just my opinion.

I would consider workshops that related to what you are studying/want to study as "professional activities". Hence, I would put it in my CV but not in my resume (except for those that I attended at my alma mater, which I would also count them as extracurricular activities.) Adcom / School can always ask you for references (e.g. contact of the director(s) / organizer(s) of those workshops) and you should have it whenever they need them. Therefore, be honest with your CV and resume.

As far as I know, the scores that you get at the end were never absolute, and certainly there must be some uncertainty that lie within the score you read from the monitor after the exam. My guess is that from time to time, ETS adjusts the score (and percentile) based on the performance of other exam takers on a specific set of an exam. I supposed ETS created multiple versions of test/exams (both verbal and quant), therefore, when your wife saw that V = 164, Q = 146, it might means: 1. That V = 164, Q = 146 are estimated scores based on the average performance of all the exams (all different versions.) E.g. if you got 25 out of 30 questions right in verbal, you should get roughly 1XX points. But the problem here is that it includes the results from other exam versions, which, supposedly, have completely different questions. The final scores should be an indication on how one performed in that particular version/set of exam(s) by comparing to other students who also took the same version of exam, with exactly the same questions. 2. That V = 164, Q = 146 are estimated scores based on the average performance of the exam (of the same version), but ETS decided to update their database and estimation every time when there is a new batch of students took the same version.

Based on the current economy, I don't think a lot of labs / programs offer fellowship for masters students in bioscience, unless you happen to work in one of the rich PIs. You can be a TA to pay off some of your tuition, but you'll still have to pay some for your tuition fees (not to mention your daily expenditure). You should start writing a PS / SOP while asking a few people for strong LORs. Look for schools that offer MS program and pay attention to their admission requirement; talk (as in e-mail?) to professors that may potentially fund through your MS program.

Just curious, are you an international student? Because many schools categorize students into 2 groups - American citizens/green card residents and internationals. While the local pool is competitive, the international one is off the chart.

I would weight related (in your case, plant biology) research experience over plant biology coursework any day. For many science programs, it is okay if you do not have sufficient relevant courses under your belt as long as you have significant amount of relevant research experience by the time you apply for grad school. Obviously, the more "prepared" you are, the more competitive you will be (relatively speaking). If you are not working in a lab, then I would quickly find a lab to join and work as a research assistant -- whether if the PI is an established botanist or not, the question of being overshadowed should not be your concern in situations like yours. Just my 2 cents.

My experience was that the big headphone that was given weren't that helpful (I might have a relatively more sensitive ears than the others). I would suggest anyone who is sensitive to sound/noise bring their own (soundproof) ear-plugs, in addition to the given headphone that is given. Depends on the exam location (as in, crowded or not), It is possible that you hear people stepping in & out from time to time, and typing on their keyboards throughout your exam (The place that I took GRE used those old school keyboards that are loud). You may also feel the vibration through the table when your neighbors are typing on the keyboard (and/or tapping the table, slam the mouse/pen, etc. as he/she is frustrated by the question(s) that they encountered.)

Numbers are not the only factors to get into grad school -- your personal statement, research experience, and recommendation letters are very important as well (if not the most). I'm not sure why you only "worried" about not getting into, specifically, Stanford or Yale. Obviously, I'm not an Anthropology major, but I would expect that competitive applicants for these schools would have a higher GPA (including your overall/undergrad). In other words, while your GRE might not be as good as those who are considered "competitive" by the schools that you have mentioned, your GPA might hurt your more -- assuming that you do not have outstanding, extremely strong recommendation letters to even out your "numerical disadvantage(s)". ps1. not much info on Stanford Anthro's Ecology and Environment track @ the result search. However, the person (international applicant) who got an interview had 4.0 GPA, (I guess) +80% verbal and quant. ps2. there isn't "Environmental Anthro" at Harvard (as far as I can see from the dept. website).

try to post your question here, you may get more response: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/46-sociology/

Although I'm not a sociology major whatsoever, I personally think that these 8 upper division courses may not make you a well-prepared applicant for their masters program -- simply based on the assumption that a sociology major would probably take a lot more courses than a minor. (I took at least 13 upper division courses excluding labs for my major). If only the extra 3 courses that you'll be taking, or a total of 12 courses, would be similar or equivalent to the total coursework of a sociology major at your alma mater or another other school (like you have mentioned), then you might still considered as a less competitive applicant compare to a regular sociology major applicant, with similar research experience and academic performance like yours. If I am in your shoes, I will apply for the next cycle (or even the cycle after) and I'll take as many sociology courses (hopefully graduate level courses/coursework?) as possible -- so that even though my degree is minor in sociology, I would have been exposed and learned just as much as (if not more than) a normal / regular sociology major. Hopefully by doing that adcoms won't look down on my minor as a watered down degree/certificate in sociology.

I got to meet a few people from my program (a coordinator, and a few students) during my interview visit. I'm very lucky that a lady going to give me some of her furniture for free. Which is awesome! I AM an IKEA fan, but the closest one is 3 hours away so the only way for me to get any furniture from IKEA is buying online and ship it to my front door. Other than IKEA, I'm planning to get my mattress and other things online through Walmart -- even though there is one within 30 minutes (local) drive, since I don't have a car, I will, once again, have them ship things to my new apartment.

You can take this comment as a grain of salt since 1. this may not apply to cell+structural bio research, 2. you heard this before/already knew this, and 3. this is way off from answering your question. What I would do is to study the biophysics of my "subject" (e.g. protein, cells, w/e) while I'm waiting to solve the structure of it. Biophysics vary from the ligands/substrates binding activity/behavior, binding characters/specificity, interactions with another (same/different) protein/cell, stability of the "subject", specific function(s) of the "subject", etc. You can do all these things ("small experiments") without knowing the structure of your "subject". However, knowing both the functions/biophysics and structure will ultimately allow you to draw the big, entire picture about your "subject". So may be you can do that while you're waiting for your data from the structural-determination experiment(s) ("big experiment(s)"). Meanwhile, I think you should try to get hands-on experience on those structural work even if your PI isn't in that field. It will help a lot when it comes to troubleshooting problems (e.g. sample preparation) and data analysis (after data acquisition). Assuming that your collaborator will not do any work on solving the structure (a.k.a. you are on your own), you will definitely need to know the basis of the experiment in order to help you to solve the structure (I guess EM is a semi-exception?) But regardless, solving any structure is extremely time consuming (except watson-crick base paired DNA/RNA) so if you can prepare yourself in that part then you'll be prepared when you actually got the data from the "big experiment" and try to solve the structure.

I personally don't think it is a problem, especially when it is not on your transcript. When you apply to a graduate program, they tend to ask you all these questions, such as "were you on an academic probation" and so forth. If your answer is yes, they will have give you enough space to explain yourself. Your "minor misdemeanor", imo, should not cause you much trouble to get into a masters program assuming that you will have a good personal statement / statement of purpose, GRE scores, and so forth. If you are worried, you can always ask these director of graduate studies / graduate program coordinator at different schools to see how do they evaluate situations/applicants that have similar experience.

For my school, I would say +80% of the chemistry (male) TAs wear jeans, and the rest wear shorts. Most of them wear tees or long sleeve checkered shirts.

As a student, it is not my problem if an instructor / TA give me an evaluation that is piece of cake and I do well at it. However, I would find it unfair if getting a 96% in an exam, for example, turn out to be a C, because clearly whoever wrote that exam didn't do a good job to differentiate the top students / bad students from the norm (or, into a normal distribution). Will your situation be different if you give out exams/quizzes/assignments that are difficult in the first place, so that you will never have to consider "curving down" the average? Obviously, if the standard deviation of an evaluation (e.g. exam) is small, that means this particular evaluation does not differentiate good/bad students from the norm. Thus far, I don't have a trouble to maintain a SD around 20 (out of a 100). ps. I'm TA'ing a class with +200 students. So all the comments that I've made are based on a class size of +200. pps. bimodal distribution may occur if the difficult of a particular evaluation is mediocre / easy, and yet you have to categories of students -- 1) those who have talented/work hard and understand the material well; 2) those who gave up / slack off / fell behind

This is my experience as an undergrad TA: The average of the class (for my school) is B/B- for lower division classes, B-/C+ for upper division classes. I would like to think of a scale that is roughly like this 94-100% = A/A+ (or minimum = 94%) 90-93% = A- (or minimum = 90%) 86-89% = B+ (or minimum = 86%) 82-85% = B (or minimum = 82%) 78-81% = B- (or minimum = 78%) 74-77% = C+ (or minimum = 74%) 70-73% = C (or minimum = 70%) If my professor wants the average to be a B- then I'll curve the exams and quizzes to 78%. The easiest, not so accurate way to do that is to shift whatever the class average is to 78%. So if the class average for an exam was 70%, everyone will get this extra 8% for that exam. My professor would not curve down the average, however. So if the class does well throughout the quarter/semester then they'll get whatever grades they have, without curving it down.

I think you should post your questions here: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/34-economics/