sabdo

That really depends on the lab. Some are affected and some, such as my lab, are not. My PI gets his funding outside of NIH so he is doing fine. You really should be addressing this to members of your prospective PI's lab. They should be able to give you details.

Their scholarship are 50% tuition cut + paid research up to 10K a year. Finding a research supervisor was easy for me as most of the professors are very receptive. A few are a little bit reluctant to taking on non PhDs, however if you make a good case they will usually take you. As for when to contact professors about research, you don't really need to until at least summer. Lots of professors will be still be dealing with PhD recruitment as first priority until then. If not, talking to them when you first come in will probably be the most open time. The professors would then be most fully aware of their capacities. That being said, don't wait too long either. As a MS, you can take research as counting for up to 2 courses worth of credit. So yes, they definitely want you to do research. I'm not doing a thesis for my masters, but you can start research at day one. However, it probably will take some training time to get to a point of doing real work. As for NIH/NSF cuts, I haven't experienced any thing regarding that.

Hey, I am a current Duke MS BME so congrats on your acceptance! Regarding Duke, If you're looking for an EE focus in BME, look no further. That is one of Duke's biggest focuses (especially imaging.) Also, for scholarships, there were 2 for my class. We have about 18 students for my year and it was another guy and I who got it. It would be reasonable to expect the same amount for your year, maybe 1 or 2 more. Feel free to ask me any questions about Duke.

Is there a PhD track for the MS program at MIT? If there is, then it may be worth going to MIT and backdoor your way into the PhD program. Granted, you would have to work hard initially to demonstrate your value, but I assume you would doing that at Princeton anyways. Also, if I remember correctly, MIT funds their MS students. If that's the case, then the finances wouldn't be such an issue. Either way, you can't really go wrong. I'm biased towards MIT but Princeton is also a top program. Good haul!

^ Only Berkeley-UCSF's and JHSU's CBID masters programs have interviews. Also, you will still be waiting a little while before you hear anything. Duke released their decision end of February last year. Berkeley started the interviews in late February too. Final decisions by Berkeley and other bioE schools were in mid March.

Um... Excuse me? UT Austin even better than a UC? Thank god I wasn't drinking anything while I read that sentence or it would have been sprayed all over my monitor. I may be biased by having gone to a UC for my undergrad. However, Berkeley is in the top 3 best electrical engineering schools in the country while UT Austin isn't even in the top ten. I realize every thing in the end has to with fit, blah, blah... However, I still wouldn't see people normally looking at UT Austin over Berkeley unless there was a very specific PI they were looking to work with. Plus, Berkeley is in California.

They have no idea what they are talking about. Assuming you have good LORs and a solid SOP you are damn competitive for a PhD in a top 20. Even though your GPA is fairly average, I can guarantee you that none of the MS kids in my year at Duke have anywhere near as many publications as you. Hell I don't even think most of the incoming PhDs do either. Also you have a chemical engineering background which BME programs like too. Let me tell you, if you can flesh your application out right and make your SOP paint a portrait of a person who can do amazing research at their school, you should be golden.

With 2 patents and 11 papers? Is that even a question? Apply!

1) First of all how is a 157 a 560 on the old score? It should be around a 730. This chart corroborates this: http://www.happyschoolsblog.com/old-to-new-gre-conversion-table-quantitative/ 2) I told some other kid this in a previous topic: but assuming the rest of your app is strong, stop worrying about the damn GRE! I got a 74% on quant on a 90% on verbal for my GRE and I got in to 3 top 10 BME MS programs (with academic scholarship for 1 of them). Now I don't know what kind of program you are applying for however, you just need to present the rest of your app as the right fit for your particular school. For example if your program is research based: if you show that you are someone who can do good research in your SOP, have solid grades and letters of rec, they aren't going to care about how quickly you do long division on a glorified SAT exam. I would only worry about your GRE if it was really low (like <700) because then you might reach some cut off limit. However, your score is simply average but not low to the point where you could be facing cut off issues. Just make sure the rest of your app paints the picture of someone who the university is looking for and your GRE will not matter.

In academia yes, in industry no. The medical device industry has been taking a major beating. It is very difficult to get a job with simply a BS in bioE/BME. Now the prospects are definitely better if you're getting a graduate degree but it still is no walk in the park. My best advice is to get into a school that has very good connections with the biotech/med industry. It is the best approach to getting a job.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Relax about the GREs! They are really not that important with respect to the other aspects in your app. Research experience, GPA, SOP and LORs are way more important than the stupid GREs. Don't believe me? I got into Duke (with scholarship), Penn, Berkeley/UCSF and BU with 74% quant on the GRE. I did get 90% on the verbal but that section doesn't even matter anyways. My point is: Don't apply avoid applying to the top schools just because you just have an avg quant score. You have to understand what each individual school is looking for. If you're applying to a research based school, what is going to be more representative to them of a good researcher? Your statement of purpose, LORs, and your performance in hardcore science classes or how fast you can do inane arithmetic multiple choice questions? The GRE is just a screening tool. As long as they believe you can make meaningful contribution to their program, they will want you. Like you, I seriously stressed about my GREs because I had an average quant score when I began applying. At certain points I wondered if it was even worth bothering despite that the rest of my application was strong. Well, I really wish in retrospect I hadn't spent so much time worrying about it because it ended not mattering. It would have saved me a lot of heartache and increased the quality of my life at the time. Anyways the take home message is: the GRE is BS. If the school believes you are what they are looking for, they are not going to care about an average GRE quant score. I mean, would you?

I'm at Duke for BME and they don't have strict requirements regarding engineering backgrounds. I have friends both in the MS and PhD programs that have degrees in biology, chemistry, and neuroscience. Just as long as you can demonstrate you can handle the math, you should be OK.

Hi Guys, I just started my MS in BME at Duke and I had a question regarding joining labs. I was wondering if it is a significant drawback to join the lab of a relatively new assistant professor vs that of an established professor? Essentially, I have a project offered to me from an established professor in BME. Although the project is interesting, it isn't exactly what I wanted to do. On the other hand, there is also an assistant professor who I don't know much about who has really cool research that is more inline with what I wanted to do. I guess my dilemma can be boiled to: go for established professor with research somewhat inline with what I want to do vs assistant professor who is doing the kind of stuff I want to do?

I believe Ghanada will have this one covered.

Are you applying for master's or PhD? Also do your grades have an upward or downward trend? Your gpa should be okay for the top 10/20 chem E schools for an MS (especially if unfunded). That being said I would focus on making those connections with professors because the LORs are important (The people you mentioned sound OK). Your gpa should be fine as long as you've got a solid SOP, some good letters, and a decent GRE. However If you're going for PhD, you better start doing some serious research...

^^^ I have lived over 10 years in San Diego and trust me, you need a car. Unless you want to simply stay in the UTC area for the entirety of a PhD, you need a car. Personally, I would pick UCSD over UCLA. The engineering department is stronger overall and UCSD has a nice vibe. However, I also hate LA so I may be biased.

83% acceptance rate. Essentially 5/6. Overall, definitely did not expect this!

This. I don't understand how anyone could just dismiss it as research politics. This is way beyond simple politics, this is ILLEGAL. There is no self respecting department that wants plagiarism and theft on them. Of course, you don't want need to create a scene, but you definitely want to address this. As a lawyer, I definitely trust you would be able to handle this situation and get yourself a new adviser. Also, I'm quite surprised by how many people are so complacent with this kind of scenario. I could never sit down and wave the white flag when all my hard work has been stolen from me. Even more so when the law is clearly on my side.

Wow that's a tough one. Hopkins is one of the holy grails of medical school so that's got to be a tough one to turn down. On the other hand though, UW is a still a top 10 school that many would kill to go to. I would probably pick option #2 because both of you get to go to the top schools in your field.

I know the way that most places who offer those kind of packages do it by giving money for a part time masters. For example, I have a friend who works at Chevron and they pay 75% of tuition for a part time MBA. I have another friend who works at HP for whom they give $10,000 for a part time masters. Obviously, for these kind of companies the universities have to be local since they would be expecting you to work full time. Therefore, anticipate to be doing a lot of night classes. However, the financial offer as well as the existence of such a program depends entirely on the company. Also, I believe certain companies allow will pay for you to do a full time masters somewhere (I think Intel does that). However, then you have to sign a contract that you are going to work X number of years afterwards or else you have to pay them back for your education.

^Hahah Way to downplay his internal struggle. But seriously, I'm a UCSD alum (chemE) and I loved it over there. Both UCLA and UCSD are tied at #14 for CS so either choice is going to be good. However, between LA and SD, I would pick SD any day.

First of all, are you referring to the Scripps in La Jolla? Because if that's so, it is very well respected. There is some pretty serious research coming from there. Notably Pete Schultz works there and he founded several successful companies locally. He is very well respected in the biotech field of San Diego. Also, regarding US world news report: love it or hate it, it is the most respected ranking system. That's what employers look at when they want to know what the top 10 schools are. So yeah, it definitely counts for something. Now it's pretty pointless for evaluating the differences between for example #15 & #18. However, it is very useful for evaluating the difference between a top 10 school and a top 25 school.

Ohio State is ranked #28 for chemical engineering.

Short answer: yes there are PhD programs were you can work full time on the side. They will take longer (~7 years) so you have to be OK with that. I have a friend who got his PhD in electrical engineering from USC while working full time for JPL. Now I don't know the specifics of how that works however, I do know for a fact that it is possible.