aberrant

While the best thing to do is to physically visit your International Students Office, and the first option sounds a little weird, it seems to be appropriate to your situation. Solely because you do not have an SSN, and you won't have one until you get your SS card for on-campus employment. If you have an income within the U.S. during the year before (presumably year 2015) then you're supposed to file income tax return this year. I don't require remember what is the supposed outcome should you have an income in the U.S. as an international student and failed to file a tax return. I did forget to file my tax return twice in my first two years in the U.S. while working part-time on campus.

From what I gathered, "what had a particular applicant accomplished during that 1 year" is an important question. Since the time is relatively short compare to most applicants, it easily raised concerns by adcom that I know of (both inside and outside of the US). While admission for an umbrella program could be looking at things differently than a department-specific programs, being able show what a specific applicant have learned and done during that short period of time is extremely important. Obviously, whatever the applicant said in SOP / PS / research statement will be validated with/by his/her recommendation letter when appropriate (assuming one passed the first round of screening). This is actually important for the most competitive (in terms of numbers of applicants to acceptances ratio) programs when you cannot show your research-related accomplishment(s). OP probably has his/her reasons (e.g. exploring/discovering research interest), but at the end of the day, no PI that I know (+10 professors, if that means anything) would take risk by admitting a student who does have extensive experience/skills in previous research ("knows what research is"), or doesn't know what he/she wants to do ("coming into graduate school without knowing what specifically he/she wants to do"), or doesn't seem to be able to work in the environment for a long period of time. After all, PhD programs are typically 4-6 years (6-8 years for UCSF, last time I checked). When a student is accepted, it costs a PI's resource (i.e. time and money). Selecting and accepting students should be a "certain" thing, not a gamble. That being said, I think OP can 1) improve GRE quant scores, 2) consider taking subject GRE test to overcome the GPA concern, 3) continue to do research in current location until OP gets into grad school, 4) secure 3 strong recommendation letters, and 5) looking into labs around the country that do cancer biology-related research, who are also accepting students from other programs (e.g. cell biology / biochemistry programs instead of biomedical science / umbrella programs) that do not necessarily in the absolute top schools Good luck, OP. Hope that helps.

OP, I can think of three possible reasons that your profile looks not quite competitive. 1. Your GPA hurts you, whether that be the overall GPA or major GPA. For the programs that you are applying, which are the most competitive schools, I'm afraid you can barely passed by the first/preliminary GPA screen (3.0 is minimum requirement, but most students who are accepted by these school have at least a 3.2 GPA, probably 3.6 or above major GPA). The GPA requirement is stricter for international applicants. (I don't know if you are since you said you went to UBC and I assumed that is University of British Columbia) 2. Your quantitative GRE percentile definitely needs an improvement. For most science programs, you should aim for 80%. The GRE requirement in subject test is also stricter for international applicants, but for general test, 80% in quant is basically universal. 3. The real red flag of all is you research experience. Yes, you do have cumulative +3 years of research experience, problem is you switch your research (presumably lab as well) after just 1 year. Since you did research during your school year, I would assume that was considered a part-time research experience. For those programs, typical successful applicants would have worked in the same lab for at least 2 years during their undergraduate / master studies. Unless you are able to achieved a lot during 1 year of research in each lab (e.g. poster / seminar presentation of your work), otherwise, this particular section of your application is not particularly attractive. What @Bioenchilada pointed out regarding letters are also important. You need to have 3 strong recommendation letters from someone who can provide insightful comments on whether you can be a successful researcher in grad school / PhD. These letters are preferable from some "three" who are PIs that do basic research in academic settings. These are just a few things to think about. On the other hand, however, if you apply and award a national predoctoral fellowship before starting grad school, then you are guaranteed end up at somewhere.

I actually think that your post-bac working experience plus GRE subject test can outweigh your GPA. It isn't as bad as you think especially since you are a local applicant. I think that, if you can, try to get LORs from individuals who are doing academic / basic research instead of industry. One from industry is fine, but hopefully you have more LORs from PI instead of industrial chemists. I think that you just need a good general GRE score to complete the package. And based on your list, I'm sure you'll get in somewhere as long as you write a good SOP. If you have more than 3 years of research total, I think it is good enough that you can try to apply for Fall 2017.

In my bias opinion, when a PI is working on research topics aren't "hot", nor requires external funding to sustain productivity, then the PI is probably "old" -- not a good sign at all. You will meet people during your grad school career anyway (under normal circumstances), so "possible loneliness" should be a very small factor in the big picture. Some labs may have difficulty to secure extra funding, but that shouldn't stop you from applying funding for your own (i.e. predoctoral fellowship(s)). Also, co-PI is a possible solution should funding truly becomes your concern, which, in my opinion, should actually be your PI / your program / admin's concern but not yours (assuming they all want you to stay, of course). If you think that it is too risky to go to this school (as you said there are basically no other options/backups in this school), then you should reevaluate your current options and worst case scenarios. Do you want to TA throughout your PhD? Is it a deal breaker? The truth is, "old" isn't a description of a PI's age but the productivity of a lab. I wanted to work for this particular PI for my postdoc, who is now in his mid-70s. None of the other things matter as long as his lab is still active, I will for sure apply to his lab for my postdoctoral training.

This shouldn't be nationality specific, at least based on my experience. I know Pis (who are not from China or India) make their students to go to the lab on Saturday for lab meeting in the morning, and then it is up to you whether you will stay and work for the rest of the day, or the weekend. I also know PIs (who are from [originally] from China) does not micromanage their students, and let their students to take breaks when they want to. It all comes down to how a specific PI likes to run his/her lab, regardless of nationality or ethnicity. If you are going to a competitive program, then you are more likely to see hard working individuals regardless. Similar to what @Bioenchilada said, focus on the research fit and environment in the lab way more than the impact factor of articles that were published from a specific lab. There are many factors that influence where an article published (e.g. pedigree/reputation, topic, fields, connections), let alone journals can also have fluctuations in their impact factors over a 5-year period (i.e. Acta cryallographic section D).

I agree with most of the posts here -- 1.5 year is on the low end for most undergraduates, who are assumed to be working part-time in the lab. Depending on the location, kids work different hours, too (i.e. My peers and I at my alma mater often work 15-20 hours a week as a minimum, whereas undergrads at my current school often times consider 12 hours is "very high". Even the most productive undergrad that I have had works about 10 hours a week, including down time studying in the lab.) Friends of mine who got into the most competitive programs typically have 2.5 years of research experience back in the days (5, 6 years ago). If anything, I would like to believe that that number is more or less the same (if not more), consider that schools and more resources to educate/encourage high school students to start doing research at their local university during their junior/senior year (which also help to recruit them as undergrad). That being said, if you knew that is a decisive factor, you'll have to prove them wrong about their perception. Poster presentation, honor thesis, paper, anything would be helpful. I was in the same boat, too. I started doing research in my 2nd quarter of junior year (as soon as I decided to go to grad school after college), and knowing that I'll have 0.5 years of research experience under my belt doesn't help, I took a year off after my junior year and do research full time for 1 year. I then took the following year off and study overseas (most credits were transferrable), which include another half a year in a different lab to learn new techniques. Came back to the U.S. and finish my senior year and apply grad school. Very unconventional, but still got in somewhere (see my sig.). Back to the main question, one of the rejection that I got was basically "well, we basically have 600 applicants each year and all of them are amazing, However, we are only taking 60 students, and only 2 of them are international. And we have to turn you down because you didn't get a perfect GPA and high % in GRE (both subject and verbal) compare to other international students." I also had an application to this school (hint. Ivy league, application fee = $100) that never intend to send me a decision letter until I make multiple phone calls and e-mails -- just to learn that I was rejected (for whatever reasons) as if I was applying a darn job and heard nothing from the employer. I also do know that another rejection from another ivy league school was because of the verbal GRE was too low (41%). So even though I got some sort of "connections" at the time, my application didn't get pass the preliminary screen. At this stage of my career, these examples are just some of the experience that I share with my undergrads to scare them a bit about their future, especially "those premeds" who also considering grad school, or, rather, "indecisive"

Got it. In that case, I think you have made up your mind! Haha. Similar to many others, I treasure the "freedom" I can have in grad school. Especially nobody can be harsher on my work than myself. I don't need that extra micromanagement from the higher ups.

For the 2nd option -- will you see yourself network with PIs from "(the) another lab or two" should you join this particular PI? Reason I asked is because you can be working for your POI while still have a positive and professional relationship(s) with other PIs, who may not be in good terms with your POI. I personally don't think that should be a main factor that influence your choice. (Just talked to Ada Yonath today. She was in a situation where her postdoctoral PI was in a bad terms with her original POI -- but she was able to have professional/positive relationships with both individuals.) I personally would choose the program that has a lab perfectly fit my research interest and is able to accept me as a new student. If the above doesn't work, then I'll go to a program with multiple good options as my second choice -- reason being is that I can always do a postdoc in what I wanted to do later, assuming I have the quality to choose where I wanted to go (kinda echo what Eigen was saying).

OP -- did you ask if your POI are accepting students in the coming academic year (or next year)? [just realized I'm echoing what St Andrew Lynx said] You can have all the professors that you are interested in, but the other decisive factor other than research fit, quite realistically, is lab vacancy, which depends on funding, lab space, available projects, several other "small" factors. Back in the days, is was very uncommon to have lab rotation in chemistry programs anyway. Therefore, you should consider having lab rotation is a "bonus". But whether a school offers lab rotation or not, you should still be able to identify labs that you are interested in AND will accept new student(s). That being said, it maybe a good time to start make a list of labs that you most wanted to join, and start e-mailing these PIs and see if they are taking students. Some professors may take you and put you as a TA, so if TA is an issue of yours, then that is something else consider -- but hey, at least you know this particular PI is accepting student(s). On the other hand, some other PIs may not be accepting students due to various reasons, therefore it is good to have a list of PIs that you want to work for, and put strikethrough on those labs that are not accepting student(s). IF you have already finalized a list of POIs who are accepting new students, congratulations -- you got very little things to worry about.

OP, I have little to no knwoledge on genetics / neuroscience-related field, but if you know enough about CRISPR and interested working with it / using it in cells, then Feng Zhang is the person to go. Not only did he "win" the pattern war on using modified CRISPR in human/eukaryotic cells, he also seem to be a very fair person (e.g. includes his then-graduate student in the patent application as co-inventor) with broad network for collaborative research (structural biology with Riken, bioinformatics with Eugene Koonin at NIH, etc.). Not to mention that when Nobel prize awards the discovery and application of CRISPR-Cas9 enzyme in either Chemistry or Medicine, Zhang will very likely to be one of the three winners.

OP may also want to consider TA duties and the path to get your degree (e.g. candidacy exam format, etc.), which may swing your decision favors one over the other. Don't think / not sure if Rockefeller has TA duties/requirements. To some people who want to focus on teaching after getting their PhDs may make a difference.

Understood. You'll be fine as long as you briefly explained the times when you were not doing research, and you should be fine (I know a few folks from the Chemistry program at my current school had jobs before applying graduate school, actually. So your case isn't as sketchy as I would have thought). Last time I check, GRE subject test score helps to a certain extent. Back in 2011/2012, I have been told by my LORs that +50% in subject test, for local students, are pretty good. So if you actually getting a 75% in a subject test, by the same standard, should be pretty impressive (whereas international students are expected to have a minimum of 80% or above, depending on schools). Higher percentile in subject test doesn't hurt for sure. In your personal statement, you'll need to address why you are applying a specific program (and/or schools) to pursue a PhD degree. So before you building a list of schools for application, you should consider a few things, such as your career goal -- does your "dream job" requires a PhD degree (in this case, in Chemistry)? Does it matter if your degree is from a top 10 program? How about a degree from a non-top 25 programs but from a famous / huge PI (a "big fish in a small pond" scenario)? Or would your "dream job" requires a PhD degree regardless of where you are getting your degree from? I think those questions will help shaping the list of schools that you should consider applying without breaking your bank (FYI, I did break my bank). Keep in mind that you want to do research that fits/interests you, so you definitely want to look into individual PIs research at a specific school/program, before actually applying to the program (e.g. I would apply to a "less known" school with 3 or multiple PIs that work on interesting things than a "most competitive" school that has only 1 PI that works on the same interesting topic). You can ultimately cut down your list based on locations and other personal preferences. Hope it helps!

That would be a biased and outdated statement. I'm in my 4th year in Tally, living close to FSU main campus, and shootings are NOT common. Armed robberies happen, but the numbers that are reported decreases in recent year or two (this, however, could possibly related to how TPD "covers up" some of the incidents, hence not reported to the public/news). In general, one should avoid walking on the street alone late at night, which applies to a lot of other cities in the U.S. regardless (such as L.A., where I lived for almost 2 years at one point). Bottom line is that the city has make major improvements and development in the South side of the FSU main campus, creating "College Town", a district that has new (and expensive) housing for undergraduates to live in luxurious apartments with nearby bars and restaurants. In other words, these improvements in theory make areas near campus safer than the past. If you have been to Nashville, TN before, then consider the Capital of Florida is chasing the status, development, and establishment of the Capital of Tennessee. ps. Despite the location is still consider "the South", gun rights on campus is a huge debate and generally speaking, many people who work on FSU campus opposed the idea of open carries on campus, while some people who don't actually work at FSU main campus have different opinion. Lastly, Tallahassee is moderately democratic imho, FSU is definitely democratic, but features undergraduates who are from other parts of the States and different political views.

OP should change the first post back to 2017, instead of 2019. Or else responses from others will be very different. Is OP international student? The competition for the international students pool are way different than residents / local students. My opinion is that your profile isn't quite competitive for international students. If the last time that you have published was at 2012, then what have you been working since 2012? Is it possible to generally summarize what have you been doing since 2012? Often times, programs will require you to explain if there is an academic / research gap. Since you graduated in 2014, it has been 4 years since you last published, but you only have +2.5 years research experience -- that is actually more sketchy to me than the GPA itself.

I would like to know if there are any updates regarding OP's situation by chance. I think there are some good speculations made by St Andrews Lynx, but ultimately, OP will have to ask that "Why" question to his (my assumption) PI. One thing for sure is that nobody is "wrong" in this case. Not the OP, nor his PI. Although I maybe (very likely to be) the confrontational type of person, I would have ask my PI why did he/she dismiss my proposed research without consideration. A simple "it will distract you from your current work" is an acceptable answer to me, although I may disagree with it and may find ways to do it anyway (e.g. extra hours in the lab). [The other day, my PI and I had a discussion on one of the experiments that I'm rushing to push for a publication. My PI speculate that my specific experiment will suggest a certain conclusion that I strongly disagree with -- prior performing a thorough experiment and collecting any experimental data. With a follow up back and forth Q&A, I determined to prove my PI wrong by doing an extra experiment that ultimately took me (an extra) 3 hours (results = to be determined, will fit my data tomorrow). I think the key is to communicate clearly and directly with your PI, and work without any wonders that may negatively impact you in any possible way. I also think that it is valid to be skeptical and question your PI's words / decision(s) when you have reasons to support your skepticism / argument. There are certainly times that you know your research/project better than your PI, and sometimes your PI can be wrong/make mistakes, too. Nobody is perfect, and us PhD students are certainly not sheeps that blindly follow whatever our PI says. Just my 2 cents.

It definitely helps. What I noticed, however, is that one PI (PI #1) would collaborate with another PI (PI #2) often because the PI #2 has the skills and knowledge to perform experiments that PI #1 cannot do (reasons can be funding, skills, etc.), but with the data/support from PI #2, the hypothesis (it's science after all) originated from PI #1 can be significantly strengthen through collaboration (leads to potential "bigger" paper, grant, etc.). As a result, PI #1 would proposed a collaboration with PI #2. It seems to me that a single collaborative project are somewhat difficult to equally benefit both labs of PI #1 and PI #2. So if you ever noticed any labs / PIs are long-term collaborators, they must have more than 1 collaborative project that, in a long run, make research from both parties mutually beneficial. Example can be: Natural organic synthesis lab with a biochemistry lab; a cell biology/biochemistry lab with a bioinformatics lab or a structural biology lab; a computational chemistry group with a biochemistry/biophysics lab; etc. That being said, goes back to your question in the very first post and your most recent post -- it helps if they already have something in mind. Go ahead and follow up with them! For the concerns that you may have, I would just say that as long as you keep yourself professional, you will be just fine despite all the possible obstacles (interpersonal'wise, research'wise, etc.)

I personally know a few friends with co-PIs. 1st friend's situation is similar to what @St Andrews Lynx said: he works for PI #1 all time (structural biology & biophysics), despite the fact that he has a PI #2 (physics) listed. 2nd friend has a co-PI where he spend 60-70% in the lab of PI #1 and the rest in the lab of PI #2, he works on a collaborative project. 3rd friend had a co-PI -- my PI and another PI for a collaborative project. Ultimately, however, that project is done before he completed his first year, so he simply joined my lab. In other words, to have actual co-PI / co-advisors, the two PIs are very likely needed to be working as a pair of collaborative partners. I, at one point, was hoping to be co-advised by 2 different labs of interested so that I can learn things from two different disciplines. After talking to both POIs, however, they basically said that "because we haven't established anything before, so we basically have no experimental data for grants. Because there is no grant on this potential/possible collaborative project, it is unlikely that this collaboration will happen." Often times, our research topic(s) are restricted by funding issues.

I generally agree what @biotechie said, and about this statement: I would doubt that your mentor's name and reputation can help you get published much more -- if you don't have the data, their name means nothing I know for a fact that a "big" PI can at least get you an interview for a post-doc position at another "big" PI, top-tier schools or not. And I know for a fact that your school reputation doesn't mean as much as outsiders thought for a post-doc position. Ultimately, it is about your quality of work (also suggested by another professor at HMS -- your personality, your eagerness and willingness to learn and accomplish tasks, and how challenging your PhD project was [this prof gives a thumb down to "easy" PhD projects, when a student took over a well-established project and publish the work(s) with "little effort"]). That observation is highly field-specific, besides the fact that you are assuming everyone is competitive enough to get into top-tier programs (I differentiate "programs" from "schools"). I know enough PIs move from top-tier institute(s) to "relatively lower tier" schools because of monetary reasons, and authority in a specific department. So a "non-top-tier" school doesn't necessarily mean they have less successful PI (and/or mentors). To echo what biotechie says (in a way), under ideal scenario, you want to work for a big fish, regardless the size of the ponds. That fish better matched your personal research interest, and hopefully, is a good mentor.

This list is a good start for you to narrow down what you are interested in. Just because you stated that, for example, you are applying this program because you are interested in protein regulation and expression", it doesn't mean that you cannot change your field of research -- you can still go through lab rotations to learn about various researches and labs, and make the "final" decision. There is no absolute commitment there when you write your SOP, but it is necessary to show the adcom that you know what you want to study and why you want to study. That being said, I doubt that you can tied those 4 (or more, since you end the list with "etc.") things together, because they are very different. Stem cell differentiation, for example, will limit yourself being a "good fit" to many programs, because there are more programs using stem cell and differentiate to a specific cell type for other studies, than the differentiate itself; protein regulation and expression -- what system and mechanism are you interested in? Eurkaryotes vs. prokaryotes? Some are more interesting than the other, and some are less known than the other -- you'll have to be slightly specific than that. However, ultimately, you just need to know what and why you are interested in a specific field (or subfield). Lastly, do not make it general just so that you think it will boost your chance to be accepted. It can only make your application profile worse.

OP is in a very competitive program (if I recall correctly, it is notoriously difficult). So I'm not surprised of hearing what you said, from your program. I think budget has something to do with it. And, wasn't couple years ago there was a wave of people applying to graduate school due to poor job market? I wonder if the same group of people are leaving for non-health issues/reasons. Ours is a small program, and we have one or two folks left in their first or second year. I think it is mostly because of the incompatibility of research interests, however. Yet, so far, those who graduated from our program were able to get a job in industry, or getting a post-doc position in academia/industry. Haven't heard anyone do anything else thus far.

I am curious why the actual title ("R1") matters to some of you folks who are looking into academia? I know that I still want to go into academia, so when I look at a list of possible schools, I won't pay as much attention whether that school is "R1" or "R2" (they no longer use such classification anyway). But let's say IF I do consider whether a school is R1 or not -- does it REALLY indicate what you expect, though? For most people, resource and funding are the most important factors. Here is the (old) definition of a R1 institution: "The 1994 edition of the Carnegie Classification defined Research I universities as those that: Offer a full range of baccalaureate programs Are committed to graduate education through the doctorate Give high priority to research Award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year Receive annually $40 million or more in federal support" Does the department that you are interested applying contribute significant portion of the criteria? I mean, a school can receive +$40M from the federals but it doesn't mean that your department of interest receives it. Maybe a school has a huge emphasis and advancement on a particular field of research (e.g. Engineering / outside of your home department) that makes the school qualified as R1, but your department did not actually contribute nor benefit from it (resource'wise). To me, I don't have to be in an R1 school to begin my academia career as an independent PI. In fact, in my field, it maybe a good idea to start out as a TT assistant professor at a R2 / R3 and build our work up. If R1 does mean something to me -- I'll move to somewhere else when opportunity comes. I know enough PIs move from one place to another for money reasons, and it isn't as rare as you would have thought (granted, they are all good researchers). So the fact that, in my field, there will be +400 applicants for 1 TT assistant professorship regardless of what "tier" the school is, made me believe that when I'm into the job market, I will apply a range of schools, both inside and outside of the U.S. Whether I'm staying in the U.S. or not, the connections that I have thus far will certainly help strengthening my research (and accessible resource) in the future through collaborations. And with the scarce budget in the U.S., moving somewhere else for the same academia path might actually benefit me as a researcher just to get my foot wet. If you are concerned about the quality of students, then I have seen worse students at a R1 school (I went to a R1 for my bachelor and doing a PhD at a different R1 school).

It shouldn't affect much. Any research/work experience can only help your application, along with other factors.

I don't think there is a standard grade in chemistry/biochemistry/biology/biophysics courses. what standard is a "B or above" grades, just because you really need to try real hard to fail a class. For that reason, my experience in graduate level courses (both current institution and alma mater) do not have a grade inflation-type of situation. Average is likely to be a A-, but definitely not A. One thing that is always in many professors mind is one should pay more attention on research than coursework in my field (and related fields). I have heard plenty that a B+ / A- is good enough. Getting straight As only telling them that one isn't working "hard enough" in the lab.