aberrant

It can only say that you are a great instructor at its best, and it says nothing about your ability and reason to do research in grad school, which should be your focus in the next 4-6+ years. just my 2 cents.

No offense but MLS isn't that good. I gave them many chances to prove me wrong but the game is simply not intense and unimpressive. I remember when I first watch a MLS game on TV back in 2007, I fall asleep half way though the first half. Went to only 1 MLS game that was LA Galaxy vs. Chicago Fire, with both Beckham, Donovan, Abel Xaiver, Brian McBride and Cuauhtémoc Blanco. That wasn't even a great game neither because Beckham wasn't playing, Xaiver was out of shape, and Blanco didn't attempt to hop the ball in that 90 minutes of the game (Cuauhtemiña). A better game was LA Galaxy vs. Real Madrid, but again, those hardcore Galaxy fans killed the game. Henry was legendary, whether when he was playing for the Gunners or Barca. And that so-called "2 seconds" was really 2, 3 years that included the UEFA Champions League champion. That is definitely region-dependent. College baseball is generally bigger in the south because of the weather. And college football is simply the most popular of all college sports imho, based on the fact that I saw tons of people tailgate for college football game but not college basketball game here. All these competitions can be stream online and pay no dimes. I don't think there is a legitimate reason to get a year-pass / subscription other than one can only enjoy watching games in HD.

I would suggest you to consider programs that combine neuroscience / neurobiology and biophysics, simply because I doubt that there are actual, pure chemists working on neuroscience topics. i do know some biophysicists who were chemists in practice, and some of them study neuroscience topics. To be brief, it doesn't seem to be common to have a chemistry-based neuroscience program. biophysics programs is interdisciplinary and may take you closer to neuroscience based on physical science approaches.

I did not put my GPA on my CV but my resume. The fact that I listed schools that I attended means I have also listed GPA that I got at each school. You can also specify your UD GPA next to your overall GPA at university. As for grad school application, most applications require you to list your overall GPA for each institution you attended, with a few exceptions that asked for UD GPA or cumulative GPA (such that they did not split the GPA section based on the school(s) you attended.) If you are unsure about that part, always send an e-mail to the DGS. And I agreed with what fuzzylogician said, simply because they won't bother to give you a chance to explain how you get that cumulative GPA, even though it may be a simple calculation that involve credits/unit transfer.

As opposed to the first couple responses, I would only briefly mentioned my research experience (if necessary), and focus more on what and why do I want to go to this specific school for a PhD. I applied 25 schools including 6 schools that are on your list. though different program, many schools do require submission of a research statement for STEM programs -- only question here would be the length of that particular statement.

Unless you are lacking of research experience in a field that you wanna study, otherwise, a MS is not really necessary. While it depends on program(s) or even PIs, I would say it is generally true that MS programs are less likely to be funded -- just think of it as an investment to an employee who will be working for the lab/program/school for multiple years get try to get publish instead of a 1 or 2-year contract employee.

Wait... what? Have you consider biophysics programs and labs that does spectroscopy technique development / uses spectroscopy? just for the record, there are many different kinds of spectroscopy and I think that it is unlikely to find a lab that does every single spectroscopy possible (e.g. cell biologists / geneticists often use fluorescent spectroscopy instead of electron microscopy). I would say that it is very different to consider "physical biochemisty" as "traditional" chemistry. Research gets more interdisciplinary nowadays and therefore if you are going to do things that are "new spectroscopic techniques for biomolecules", then you probably need to know the physics of the technique, the biophysics and (bio)chemistry of the biomolecules, and the big picture of this particular biology/biological question. Therefore, if your true passion was chemistry but not the other stuff, then you'll probably consider programs and research that studies small molecules instead of biomolecules. Just my 2 cents.

being a former triton, I wondered why do you wanna get a PhD in first place. besides, what program(s) are you applying? bioengineering, as far as I know, are quite different than biotechnology, and the others. So one program may be more competitive than the others. If money isn't an issue, why not getting a MS before you leave La Jolla/UTC? by the way, I would expect engineers know how to code... given that there are significant numbers of non-engineering students know the basic (python), you'll have to be better than the norm.

How did you solve your problem? A negatively charged column? (DEAE = positive charge, hence it probably doesn't bind well with DNA/RNA-binding proteins)

Did you confirm that "there were a lot of DNA and RNA" by measuring your elution/elutant's 260:280 ratio? by desalting, do you mean a gel filtration/size exclusion? that can only separate the non-binding DNA/RNA if you are trying to break that electrostatic interaction, you can give ion exchange chromatography a shot.

Obviously, nobody should think that way. It's science, it's protein structure, it's time consuming. To make you feel better, I'm working on a project that is +1 year behind of our major competitor, yet I'm still working on it -- not for the sake of finishing it, but rather to learn more about this thing and apply it to a different system. Sometimes it is about luck, I think. Roger Tsien also beat the other group by publishing his GFP structure on Science 1 week before their competitors publish on Nature Biotechnology. He said that he may not win the Nobel prize should the referees further postpone their publishable work for a 3rd review.

Not sure about other colleges in San Diego, but if you are applying UCSD, then the area is generally safe. At least I have seen people (both men and women) went jogging between 3 - 5 am, if that's said anything. There are some on-campus graduate housing, but as far as I recall, the main graduate housing is off-campus -- 5-10 minutes walk across I-5. As for off-campus housing, there are plenty options, predominantly around UTC area, where the major apartment complexes are within 1-7 minutes walk from the city shuttles (Arriba, Nobel), besides a few MTS buses. UCLA is by Westwood, and that area has numerous of things going on - hookah bars, restaurants, theatre, couple different things that you can do down the street. Off-campus housing can be 1 block from / around the campus (a portion of it would be frat/sorority houses). I would also considered it to be safe. For the record, tho off-campus, In-N-Out burger is within walking distance. During game night (whether it be UCLA football / basketball), you can expect to see students to hangout around the area until 1 or 2 am, the earliest. USC is at the southern edge of downtown L.A. I do not consider that area to be safe. There are a few news stories about that neighborhood over the past couple years, including a carjack that killed 2 international chinese graduate students awhile back. Most people tried to live somewhere else other than downtown L.A. (the closest would be Korean town, for example). Not sure about graduate housing since the campus itself is pretty small. But I would imagine that there are limited off-campus housing that are walking distance, couple blocks away from the main campus. Off-campus apartment can be equally expensive (for UCLA and UCSD), but I would argue that apartment near UCSD has better value (i.e. for the same price, the quality is better). I have never been to Davis, but I like UCLA campus the best. Yet, I would consider San Diego the best city in the country. The weather, the ocean, the people (ps. San Diegans, not necessarily the ones from elsewhere), the food are all great. Feel free to shoot me IMs if you wanna know more.

chances of ESPN playing rugby in the U.S. are slim. I would suggest you to stream sports events online. many websites are free -- you just need to have a flash player installed to watch it. However, if you are looking at major tennis tournament, then you can expect ESPN would play it. There are also other channels that play sports -- FOX Sports, FOX Soccer, Speed (Car racing), SPIKE (MMA), beIN Sport USA, etc. currently in my 6th year since I moved to the U.S., i'm not a huge fan of "American sports" per se. I do occasionally watch NFL, NCAAF, and a few NHL / MLB games on TV. I am, however, a basketball fan (both NBA and NCAAB), soccer (La Liga, Premiership, many others), MMA (Pride/Dream, UFC, etc.), car racing (F1, Nascar, Le Man, WRC), and many other sports. One good thing about staying in the U.S. is its time zone. Last year NBA season was shortened. I can wake up on Saturday and Sunday morning catch the first game of Premiership at 7:45 am EST, then the next couple games until 12-1 pm EST, when I switch to La Liga (or Serie A if there's a good match up) and watch all the games until 5:30-6:30 pm EST. THEN, I switch to watch NBA until 10:30 - 11:30 pm (sometimes 12:30 pm EST if there's a game starts at 10:30 pm EST). With the occasional featuring NASCAR, MLB, NFL, NCAAF, and NHL on TV. Since I'm here for grad school I attended all the home basketball game for the season -- but I'll stop attending given that the team is terrible. Also went to a football game (NCAAF) and tailgate with friends once.

As opposed to biotechie, I'm less optimistic about your chances based on the number (1.5 years). Depends on the the people who are on the admission committee, some pay more concern on the quality of your paper (should you be published) -- quality of the work, what part of the published work did you do, how much citation of that publication you get, were you working on a hot topic with bazillion competitors, or a topic that have very few groups/labs study that making one easier to get published, etc. I know a few people from my alma mater and current school put more attention on evaluating applicants, while there would probably be quite a lot of people just acknowledge the fact that one has a publication (or two) under his/her belt -- just because s/he contributed a SDS-PAGE gel and a western blot. While I'm would like to think that you will get in somewhere (assuming you'll have great LORs and strong SOP/PS), you may want to prepare for the worst scenario for not getting into the top schools (I just saw your list on the other thread, and one of them is my alma mater). imho, if you are applying UCSF, and money isn't an issue, you definitely should consider other schools that are on par with it, given that UCSF is extremely2 competitive. though my perspective came from my experience as an international applicant and knowing a couple other friends (both local and international) that applied grad school in the past couple years.

during my undergrad, I tried not to go home that often because of money issues (have to cross the North pacific / gulf of Alaska / etc.) So I did go home once every 2.5 / 3 years. Now I'm in grad school, I decided to go home once, for 1 - 1.5 months, and that would be after my 2nd year prelim, sometime near the end of the summer (given that in my field, summer is almost always the most productive time when you are not distracted by coursework and other stuff). However, I'm also into traveling and therefore I'll travel to Europe after my qual exam at the end of my 3rd year. I'm still planning to travel at the end of the summer for the same reason.

was on the same subforum ()

if you are planning to audit a class, why does it have to receive credit? i thought auditing is simply the same as sitting-in a class = "go into a classroom, listen to the lecture, and bounce whenever you want". i have yet to sit-in at any classes as a grad student, but I did that a lot as an undergrad. -- both undergrad and grad level coursework. and I didn't just sit-in for 1 or 2 classes, I sit-in the most, if not the entire course (10 weeks), took midterms and etc.

you can take the subject test and not send the score to the schools -- until you know what your score is. if it is a good score, why not? if it isn't exceptionally good, then you can consider not sending the score. if money is a concern, then I would not take it just because it is not mandatory.

If I were you, I would 1. start volunteering in CDB. keep your research experience grow. i doubt that it is a good thing to have an academic / research gap for a long time. 2. start looking for LORs immediately. Informed them about programs that you are planning to apply, etc. Keep them in touch with a monthly / bimonthly updates, until the application cycle begins (which should be sometime around late August - early October, depends on the programs). 3a. start to look for schools and programs that you want to apply. Look at those CDB programs and see if any PI's research matches your interest. Put them on a list, and build a list of schools and PIs that you specifically want to work for. You can filter schools out based on many things -- location, weather, environment, etc. 3b. consider applying predoctoral fellowships if possible/necessary/you wish. 4. after building up a list, you can cut the list down by various methods: - send/give the list of schools that you are interested in to your LORs, and ask them for opinion -- whether if it is a good program, a long shot, a program with little funding, a program has little reputation in CDB that may bothers you. (remember, ask them if they are willing to write LORs to all/some of these programs on your list) - eliminate school(s) based on the number of POIs per school. Not a very wise idea if you are planning to apply to a school that just has 1 POI -- we never know if this POI has funding / space / good to work with. If things don't work out between you and your POI during your first year, then you may be stuck in an unhappy situation. - contact POI with your credentials and questions. express your interest, and see if they are taking any students next year (or the year after, depends on individual program's curriculum). 5. start writing a draft of your SOP / PS, ideally it is transferable to other schools, if not, then, that is what it is since different schools ask different questions. General questions usually including "why do you choose our program", "why do you want to get a PhD", "what makes you a good potential PhD student / researcher", etc. 6. schedule your GRE exam(s). General GRE = requirement, subject GRE = depends on programs. Most programs "strongly advise" you to take subject GRE, but it is not mandatory. 7. schedule your TOEFL exam if you are an international applicant. 8. study for your GRE (if necessary). Start passing your SOP/PS to people you trust, get feedback, and keep fine tuning it. 9. Write/build your CV and resume. 10. keep e-mailing / in contact with your POI, maybe research the programs more, etc. 11a. keep doing your current work. prepare yourself for GRE (prep test), etc. 11b. talk to other people that can help with your grad school application / application process, whether it be professors, grad students, just basically people have experience in it to build your knowledge. 12. make a plan B just in case things don't work out

When you said "academic position", do you mean being a professor? Given that being a professor nowadays is almost a second option, would it still worth your time to pursue a PhD for something other than being a professor? Is a PhD necessary to get a position other than being a professor? Would you settle for being a research scientist in the industry, given that you may or may not be able to "design (your) own problems and solutions"? Being a graduate student not only get to do research, but also have to learn various things, from writing manuscripts to writing a grant proposal. Do you foresee yourself doing that occasionally in the next 5, 6 years? What about in a long run as a professor, when you have to write regularly and less lab work? Finally, do you think that you'll be able to "survive" the next 5 or 6 years, starting from taking classes (and possibly teaching) for the first 1 or 2 years, reading papers routinely and give presentations throughout your PhD, study for prelims / qual exams at the end of your 2nd / 3rd year, and still being productive in research? Some people may find the idea of multitasking dreadful, and I think that if someone cannot "enjoy" these things, they will have a difficult time to do well in grad school.

To get you started, how about asking yourself "why do I want to go to graduate school?" along with "what kind of program / degree do I want to get from graduate school?", and see what you can come up with? by the way, what exactly "(your) field of study" is? If it is just biochemistry, are there any disciplines / topics / subjects in biochemistry that you find them interesting?

not sure about getting loan, but did you look up fulbright when you apply schools overseas?

Call me crazy, but back then I informed 2 of my LORs (including my PI at undergrad) a year before I apply grad school (that was because I was out of country for that year). And then I informed my other 2 LORs (including my PI during my time outside of the U.S.) in Spring of the same year when I apply grad school. While I know them pretty well personally, I don't know well enough about the two non-PI LORs' schedule, which would be the reason why I setup a time to meet up with them to talk about my plan to go to grad school -- a list of schools, program(s) that I want to apply, how willing are they to write my letters, etc. (ps. I applied 25). So things worked out well for me, I keep them in touch occasionally, and more regularly when application windows opened, mainly to send them friendly reminders.

I personally think that having a recommendation letter from a non-PhD degree holder to evaluate you as a PhD applicant is detrimental to your application. I would expect that if you are currently working in a lab, your PI would write you a LOR if you two are in good terms. I'm not sure what makes it difficult for you, nor what do you mean by "they aren't cooperative", however.