aberrant

I personally think that it's only hard if one cannot see past the not-so-meaningful ranking. Who one works for/with for his/her PhD means more than the name/reputation of the school.

so are you looking for "international students studying in the U.S." or "canadian students studying in the U.S." to respond to your question?

I don't know if this is a cultural differences but many of the students at my school work in a research lab without getting paid. The point is to get the experience, not the money. So if money is really important to you that you may be hesitate to volunteer in a lab / work without getting paid -- this perspective may hold you back from going to a genetic program (since you can't really show them how bad you are into studying genetics other than through your SOP/PS.) Not sure if you are still in school or out of school for awhile, but I would never take online courses for programs that I'm interested in (simply because I do not know how the adcom would look at it). If you are in school still--take a few graduate level courses; if you aren't take graduate level courses at school(s) that near you. General concensus is that graduate level courseworks are less organized / structured, but you will be prepared through a classroom setting like this. I don't think #3 will help much unless you get to know a few faculty members in that school that are extremely interested in recuiting you to that school. If you are limiting yourself to certain locations (e.g. in-state) then certainly you will limit your options (as a lot of students are willing to relocate for grad school.) Also, some umbrella/intedisciplinary programs also consist of genetics-related research meaning that there are lot more opportunities out there. In your case, you'll just have to get more research experience, writer a "even better" SOP/PS, and get 3 stronger LORs to get into the in-state schools. Not sure if apply early helps. I think it is school-dependent, besides citizenship-dependent. But you definitely want to contact POI early and keep in touch with them. From what I observed in this forum, it helps to some degree.

In structural biology, I think 1 paper will be just fine (of course it's a plus if you have more). problem is that it takes a lot time (months to years) to develope a protocol, gain data, process data, and ultimately solve a marcomolecule structure/3D modeling regardless which approach you use. So, like most of the above, it mostly depends on your field.

I don't know if regional different matters. But let's see if this logic make sense to you. - Many grad school accepts fewer international applicants due to funding reasons. So if you are an international student, you are in an even-more-competitive pool when you apply to any grad schools. - Many people that I know started to do research when they were freshman / sophomore, some were even high schoolers back then (e.g. summer research). So it may not be a very good idea to explain in your SOP that why you have few research experience than the others. We all have 24 hrs a day, so we'll just have to play around our timetables for our own interests (e.g. sleep less, eat fast, walk fast, etc.). I once sleep 4-5 hours/day for months just to attend classes and do research. - Lacking the 4th year may put you in a disadvantage position--unless you have taken/currently taking/will take a few graduate level coursework to further prepare yourself (not saying this is a must, but people that I know did that). - Good side is that you have what they call "international research experience" (if this is what "regional differences" means). The reputation of your research programs maybe top-notch, but it will be a huge, positive factor if you can get 3 strong recommendation letters from researchers/professors/experts from science field (ideally system bio experts) that say great things about you (e.g. this person has great potential to do well in grad school, etc.) I think there are very few programs show bias to their former applicants, or they would have something like "former applicants who were rejected by us will not be consider for the next 3 cycles, if reapply". It can be tricky, however, that if you have not significantly improve your application profile if you reapply because impression plays a role (depends on person) and yet not every school changes their admission committee every year. Again, this is just my 2 cents and I could be totally wrong :/. But what I would suggest you to do is to get more research experience (hopefully independent in the near future) as soon as you can. If you have no intention to get a master, then work for a year as a full-time post-bac research assistant (or something) and apply in Fall 2013.

Program B. All the things sound better to me, with the exception of "ranking". I wouldn't put ranking into my consideration because it is not about where you go to grad school, but more about who you are working with. There are some most respectable PI in a "less highly ranked"/"lower ranked" schools. Program B covers almost everything in terms of funding, plus the lower daily expenditure in an area would be the reason I would choose B over A (assuming the weather and atmosphere are about the same).

This can not be serious. Nor Cal and So Cal is hugely different. Besides, do you really think you'll have time to make a 10-12 hours round trip to LA during your studies just for fun (or six flags, or universal studio, or hollywood, or wherever-that-you-were-thinking-of-in-southern-california)? The only reason you think it is CON 'cause you don't seem to know anything about public universities. If by "cool" you mean reputable in whatever field you are in, they are definitely in the same par with some of the ivies, if not all of it. Just 'cause your POI is 65 that doesn't automatically makes him/her a CON. This statement does not justified whatsoever. I supposed this is a PRO to you but your statement stands no ground without any numbers (by numbers, I mean statistics). To me, this would be the tie-breaker. Just so you know, though, that Berkeley/Nor Cal in general is very windy and cold compare to So Cal. So please don't expect whatever you observe/see from TV shows like Baywatch, Joey, whatever that has the story based in West L.A. This is a bias statement. If anything, grad school to most people is stressful regardless where you are. Besides, you are also comparing with Berkeley, which used to (don't know if it is still the case) have the highest rate of students suicide/attempt suicide among top schools in the West. Less stressful? Yeah right. I personally would vote for MIT because I want to be a minority after all these years; Berkeley because I hate the extremely cold weather in MA.

assuming you have 15+9+9 = 33 weeks of experience as a full-time (40 hrs/week), you'll have roughly 1.26 years of research experience (20 hrs/week) as an undergrad when you apply. I think this number is on the low side for many bio science programs (I could be wrong since you're looking at top system bio programs). i assumed that the most competitive applicants would have at least 2 years of research experience when they apply. Also, a 4th years (or even 5th year) in the U.S. as an undergraduate is pretty common. In fact, 3 years to complete your bachelor degree is considered "fast". While taking an extra year maybe too long for you, it can only do you good by accumulating more research experience (so that you will be just as competitive as the others). of course, research experience isn't the only factor that determines your chances to get into grad school, as you may have already know through reading/research @ this forum. You can always have a combo of strong LORs, GRE scores, and PS/SOP(s) to compensate your relatively less research experience. i could definitely be wrong on this one, but the main difference is the advance coursework that you will be taking varies a lot. Your thesis may also focus on one approach over the other, even if two different students from different programs work for the same PI. I'll suggest you to post the same question at the biology forum, or wait for other grad students such as Eigen to give you a more accurate answer.

Did you call the DGS?

I personally encourage others to move to somewhere else (hopefully out of state) for grad school just to experience a new culture and learn to work with different kind of people (e.g. laid back vs. blue-collar vs. white-collar). These experience are necessary in the future, and it will only do you good. it doesn't make sense to me if it looks "bad" just because you take classes at a CC. the quality of the education you receive at CC is not different than a regular 4-year university (assuming it is U.S. accredited.) so, as a student, you would choose whichever best option for you to learn the subject. I went to CC, I took all my gchem and ochem courseworks at CC, I am a Chemistry major, and I got into somewhere. Just off the topic--I do agree that the learning experience that I have at CC is a lot better than my current school. Small class size education definitely make the learn process more efficient.

If you are looking at schools that follow the British education system--don't they accept students based on academic honor standing? Cambridge: At least a 2i honours degree from a UK university or an equivalent standard from an overseas university Oxford Biochemistry: Applicants are normally expected to be predicted or to have achieved a first-class or an upper second class undergraduate degree (or equivalent international qualifications) University of Toronto (UT): We consider applications from students who have achieved at least a B+ average in their last two years of study in an Honours/Specialist B.Sc. program. Applicants educated outside of Canada require a degree equivalent to that of a Canadian Honours/Specialist degree (i.e. a four-year degree) as described above. UBC: North American degree holders must have a overall average of B+ (76% at UBC) in your master's degree program. (If you are from Japan, you'll need a B+ average (or above) to be accepted into their master's program, and a B+ average (or above) with a master's degree to be accepted into their PhD program. So in other words, if you are looking at top-tier PhD programs in UK / Canada, 3.0 may indeed be too low for them. However, if you do well in your last 1-2 years of school with a +3.3 GPA, then you may be considered by programs like UT. Otherwise, you can always go for a master's program before you apply a doctoral program.

i could be wrong, but i doubt that you need to know everything from ochem for programs in immunology or pathology. i wouldn't take the class if I don't need it, or if it doesn't help much in my research in the future. if you have trouble to understand concepts, mechanisms, or theories from gchem / ochem, then you may have to memorize these things in order to do well in classes. and you definitely want to work on tons of practice problems to make yourself know all these things inside out. you will certainly have no problem to get into grad school. just because you get a few Cs will not be a detrimental factor to eliminate yourself from a phd program. however, getting into a top tier, most competitive programs might be tricky. i would say that as long as you do well in classes that are related to immunology or pathology, you will be fine. (assuming you have competitive GREs, great LOR and SOP).

just curious... if you hate presentations and public speaking, does that mean your program doesn't not require a verbal thesis defense?

Solely from the numbers that you provided I think you will have no problem to get into a MS program in UCs, probably schools in TX and MI, too. What I would do is to talk to POI that are willing to take MS students and see if they are willing to fund you. I'm not a neuroscience major so I don't know how neuro people run their labs, but in general, science labs @ SD are willing to accept MS students. You can always be a TA to lower your regular expenditure, primarily your tuition fees. You don't have to apply a MS in neuroscience though. Switching field(s) for 2 years and get a MS may make you a more comprehensive scientist (whether by taking different approaches or just different aspects/viewing to a problem) -- to prepare for your PhD in neuroscience next time you apply.

I don't think your GPA is as much of a problem as it sounds compare to your research experience. Although I don't know if your "UC" is referring to the University of California school system, University of Colorado system (supposed to be CU), University of Cincinnati, etc. However, I'm pretty sure that few months of lab experience won't make you a competitive applicant for most of the doctoral programs. If you are applying to Cal / UCLA / UCSD, you are competing with applicants who have years of research experience when they apply. People that I know who got into these school with different concentrations had 1.5-2 years of research experience prior to their admissions. Your GRE scores can improve a lot better if you are a domestic applicant, either your verbal or quant sections (hopefully above 80% for quant). You can either get a job that allows you to do more research as a post-bac, or go for a MS to accumulate more research experience. For you cannot boost your undergrad GPA much, I would go for a MS and hopefully get a 4.0 in my grad GPA (besides writing a good thesis and hopefully getting a publication or two during my 2 years of MS studies.)

I agreed everything Eigen and UnlikelyGrad said. Just to keep in mind that what you think about the reputation of a/your school is just relative. From my understanding, reputation of the undergrad institution doesn't mean much to most of the adcoms, even if you are from one of the ivies (it helps, but not much). The more competitive applicants are usually the big fishes in small ponds - not the other way around. Therefore, you may either want to briefly explain your low GPA on your SOP and/or do really well in your GRE exams (especially the chem subject test, even if it isn't required for some programs). i know a few people (students and profs) who are/were in analytical chemistry came from a physical chemistry background. therefore you should also consider that. Another possible option for analytical chemistry is Univ. of Arizona. http://www.cbc.arizo...ulty_analytical

@Sarahmarie: Congrats on your multiple acceptances for your applications. I see that your "Location" is in Florida - do you know any cities that can get a used car in a relative cheap price? It seems to me that cars in Tallahassee are very pricey, for people posting on craigslist have their price tags significantly higher than the price suggested by Kelly Blue Book... @113: Haha well I wonder if you can give me some pointers with the housing over there... what are the chances to live extremely close to campus in a 1 bedroom without paying +$600/mo? Also, what makes Tallahassee sucks in your opinion (Besides "you need a car to get around" and the safety issues in the evening)?

Who's going there?

wonder boy

emmm has replied to your exact same question in another thread. "I'm sorry, but your scores are quite low, and you say your GPA is also low. Even for appliciants with great records, competition is especially tough for international students. You might need to consider retaking the GRE and reapplying. Also, not having gotten any interviews (even Skype interviews) does not seem like a good sign. Your research experience sounds great, but you need to have an overall strong package, and your GRE might really be hurting you (and the TOEFL seems low to me also, though I am not very familiar with the scoring scale for that ...)." While we don't know your GPA, - you definitely want to have at least a 100 on your TOEFL iBT - you want to retake your GRE so that you get at least a 80% in your quantitative section, and 48% (4.0) in your Analytical Writing section.

Roman Polanski

six pack

I got 1 out of 20 so far. Don't trip. ps. I'm a science major for science program tho. So I may not feel the same way for I don't know how competitive your interested program is.

Bear Mountain

Resident Commission