Pitangus

Maybe it's different for Cell/Molecular Bio programs specifically, assuming that's OP's interest, but many programs in my area of Biology (EEB/Organismal Bio) fund their thesis-based MS students for two or three years. I graduated from a broad Integrative Biology department that funded all of its MS students, including non-thesis students when enough TAships were available. Getting an MS is actually pretty common for people in my area who want to work for government and NGO research agencies or for consulting firms. Again, could be different for people that end up in the more biomedical industries, but either way I wouldn't say an MS in Biology itself or some of the Biology-related life science fields is uncommon. The main issue, as also mentioned, is whether OP knows why he wants an MS and whether he is just picking the first brand-name schools he could think of. It's not clear what specific programs OP has actually considered.

I rented from afar without visiting first, and it worked out fine for me. I rented from a known management company, not an individual, and asked the leasing office to give me a skype tour of the apartment, which they did. I did all of the paperwork and paid the deposit through the mail without issue.

I've enjoyed my time as a grad student. My experience may be unusual, but in my mind I got to spend five years being paid to do whatever I wanted most of the time. I made my own schedule, worked long hours when I needed to (i.e. summer fieldwork) and didn't work long hours when I didn't need to (i.e. the rest of the year). Like @shadowclaw, I got to conduct research that has direct implications for management decisions, which is what I wanted. And given that I never got to travel anywhere when I was younger, I enjoyed the opportunities to travel for conferences. And I liked getting to live on my own in a new part of the country for awhile. And call it blasphemy, but I found the whole process to be pretty easy. I had good luck in winning fellowships and research grants, so I never felt like a "poor grad student"; in fact, I put away almost $30k in savings during my time here. I picked a group of pretty low-key personalities for my committee, and my qual exams and defense were a breeze. My advisor was only ever concerned about results, so as long as I hit the milestones for productivity, she didn't care what I did or when I did it. When things went wrong with my research, I either spun what remained into something workable, or just used it as a lesson to move onto something more promising. I think maybe I just had the "right" personality for my program, and I went in knowing what was important to me, so I got what I wanted out of the experience. Grad school definitely isn't for everyone, and I would never encourage someone to consider it based on my experience. But for those who are already set on the idea, I think it's worth noting that some people do have a good time with it.

Seasonal field assistant/technician jobs are great for post-bac experience. The paid positions are easier to get if you have some relevant experience, but if you apply for a bunch and/or know someone connected to one then you can still get one. There are also volunteer/internship positions that usually expect less experience, if you can afford that. I worked a couple in the year between undergrad and grad school. I gained a bunch of skills so that I could hit the ground running with my grad school research. The TAMU job board is a nice resource for finding these positions: http://wfscjobs.tamu.edu/job-board/

One likely explanation is that the numerical scores were lower than the reviewers' average scores. An E refers to a range of 40-50 on the numerical scoresheet. It's possible to get all Es that are at the low end of the range, and if the reviewers' averages were higher, then the resulting standardized score (z score) will be lower than for someone who scored higher than their reviewers' averages.

I'm experiencing a somewhat similar situation. My boyfriend decided to stay in our home state in New England rather than move with me. He now has a good job and no reason to move. All he talks about now is how much he's looking forward to me moving back. It's always been the plan that I would move back when I finish my PhD, but now what once felt like a decision I had made now doesn't feel like a choice at all. I've been applying to every post doc, government, and consulting job I can find within 90 minutes of the city where he works. But I'm losing out on post doc positions to applicants that are already post docs. And I'm losing out on other jobs to people with bachelor's degrees and five years of temporary positions that likely count as more "relevant" experience than my research. Maybe I'll have better luck going forward, since I'll be defending (and therefore available) soon. But I've accepted that I'll likely graduate without a job. My only connection is for a possible adjunct position at a community college (which my advisor, unhelpfully, disapproves of whenever I mention it). I will be happy to be back in New England, but I'm not looking forward to the stress of not having a job, of figuring out insurance while I'm unemployed and not married. And I'm worried that I'll take the first job I can get, even if it's only minimally related to what I want to do.

Encountering the next stage of catch-22: successful applicants to postdoc positions are already in postdoc positions.

I realize people get frustrated and are just venting that frustration through the relative safety of internet anonymity, but yes, I always roll my eyes a bit at comments such as "Didn't want to go there anyways." Really? So you wasted money and effort (both yours and your letter writers') by applying to a program that you didn't want to attend in the first place? If true, that doesn't speak too well of your decision-making and resource-allocation skills.

Integrative Biology's interview event is Feb 2-3. Invites typically go out during the first two weeks of Jan.

EEBB is an interdisciplinary program that doesn't hold its own interviews, but most of the departments that are part of EEBB do. What department did you apply to?

Looks like you need to line up a faculty sponsor for your application. This is common with many Ecology/Evolution/Wildlife/Conservation programs: you are accepted into the program and directly into a lab. For some programs, including mine, your application will not even be considered by the admissions committee if you are not sponsored by a potential advisor. In that case, your letters need to be tailored to your potential advisors. You need to demonstrate that you have read and understand the advisor's research, and that your interests fit in with the lab. If the potential advisor describes current projects on his/her webpage, then write about how you would be qualified to work on those projects. Advisors want grad students who will hit the ground running and not spend months waffling on ideas. They want their first-year students to be ready to develop research questions and plan their first summer field season (if applicable).

I served on my department's admissions committee for a year, and the AWA score wasn't really considered so long as it wasn't less than a 4. And no one was rejected based on GREs alone: applicants with noticeably lower scores tended to be lacking in other areas as well. For admission, the GRE in general was less important than research experience, strength of LORs, and perceived match to the potential advisor's lab. That said, it was given more weight when nominating applicants for the college- and university-level recruiting fellowships because the selection committees for those fellowships are known to give it more weight (presumably because it's easier to compare across departments).

I'm applying for non-academic jobs, but I agree that it is stressful not having any idea about timelines and when/if to expect any feedback on an application. For government jobs in particular I worry about getting screened out by HR before someone in the relevant department even looks at my application.

Old topic, I know, but I recently applied for a government position that requested a resume. I decided to make a new resume specifically for this position. I managed to make all of the relevant things fit under the Experience heading of the resume by sorting them by position and focusing on the skills gained/demonstrated. For example, instead of having a list of pubs, I had a bullet point under my grad school position that said something like, "Communicated results to broader scientific and public audiences by publishing in peer-reviewed and trade journals." I did the same sort of condensing and converting for presentations, grants, awards and any other things that are usually just listed under their own headings on a CV. By doing this I was also able to cut my 4 page CV down to a 2 page resume. As mentioned above, I also worked key words and phrases from the job ad into the resume (and cover letter), so that if HR sorts applications using some sort of software first, then I wouldn't get automatically booted for not having a "relevant" application.

I second chaparral's responses and would add that you should first line up your letter of recommendation writers and make sure they can submit their letters by the deadline. If you've already done that then definitely apply.

As posted above, there are many PIs studying animal behavior outside of programs specifically called "Animal Behavior." In addition to Ecology or Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior (EEB), other possible department/program titles to explore are Biology, Biological Sciences, Integrative Biology, Zoology, Fisheries and Wildlife, and Neuroscience (this might be a good option for the psychology angle). You will need to look at what the faculty are researching, not just the program name. For example, I am in the Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior program and the Integrative Biology Department at my school, but my lab studies wildlife behavior.

You have to be enrolled in a graduate program in 2017 in order to accept an NSF GRF in 2017, so you should apply to both during the same admissions cycle. The NSF only allows deferrals in rare cases of military or medical complications.

Are you planning to choose your Proposed Graduate Institution (proposed/current grad program) and Field of Study (primary field + subfield) based on your current research? The NSF doesn't hold you to your proposal project, but you should note these elements of the NSF Merit Review Criteria (presented in the NSF GRFP solicitation): "4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities? 5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?" Ideally then your proposal should mention how your proposed program/institution is a good fit for your proposed research. If there is an obvious mismatch between your proposal and the proposed program or field of study, then that could weaken your application. It's true that the NSF GRFP is about funding the student rather than the project, but the proposal is still important for demonstrating an applicant's ability to propose a thoughtful project that is significant but also feasible given the applicant's background and the proposed program's resources.

My thoughts: Sure, it's possible that you could have gotten into a higher-ranked program if you took a gap year and got some additional experience. It's also possible that you could have gotten into a higher-ranked program if you performed better on the GREs and in your undergrad courses. But did you want to retake the GREs? Or complete a Masters degree or post-bacc courses to get a better GPA on your record? You've already said that you really preferred not to take a gap year. So I don't think there's any benefit in dwelling on the what-ifs that could have arisen from doing things you didn't want to do. You say that you love the atmosphere of your current program and the research, which all sounds positive to me. When first starting a grad program, all you have is the accomplishments from your previous degree, so I understand that it can be hard not to think about them and want to compare them to those of other new students. But I think that as you continue into your second year and continue making research progress, you will begin to focus more on that and less on your (and your cohort's) past record. If the research being conducted in your program matches your interests well, then you should be able to thrive and avoid the stigma of "academic inbreeding" by doing good work and demonstrating that this program was a good fit for you.

This has been my experience as well. For example, I have a ~10K USDA grant listed on my CV because it is specifically a graduate student grant, and I am the "Project Coordinator." I've also listed the rest of the small research grants that have been awarded directly to me, as well as fellowships/scholarships like the NSF GRF. However, I don't list my advisor's ~$500K NSF grant because I am not a co-PI, even though the project idea resulted from my thesis research, and I therefore provided writing/data/graphs for the proposal. So I am relying on my advisor to convey my contribution to the proposal in future letters.

I understand your frustration OP, and you advisor doesn't seem all that reliable, but like Eigen I can also see why she dropped the ball in this case. My advisor has a habit of using vague subject headings and changing topics mid-email thread, which leads to her forgetting things even a week later. So when it comes to deadlines that require advisor letters/forms, I make sure to create a new email specific to the deadline and what is needed, and send that a week ahead of time. Fortunately my advisor is good about responding to emails, but if she wasn't, then as others have suggested I would get into the habit of mentioning important emails during lab meeting or by calling her. For now, I agree with the advice of responding by asking her what is the best way to send her reminders. If she says email, then again you should start sending more specific emails and plan on following up on important emails whenever you meet in person. If a deadline is 2-3 days away, and you haven't gotten a response from her, then that would be a good time for a phone call reminding her that you sent an email about letter XX due on XX and would like to confirm that she received it. Hopefully she has a daytime phone number that she answers.

I think it's only worth it if the compromise isn't going to be much of a sacrifice anyways. For example, I'd be fine with a no guests rule because I never have guests visit me anyways. The room size wouldn't bother me either; I only care about not having to share space. That said, it sounds like the room is in someone's house and would require sharing the rest of the house with them, so I would say no to that no matter what the price. So if you know the details of the arrangement are going to be a problem for you, then it probably won't be worth it.

I took the Biology test because one program recommended it, and I thought it would help ensure that the admissions committees wouldn't discount my very high GPA because I attended a relatively unknown liberal arts college. I scored in the 95% overall and 98% in my subfield (Ecology and Evolution), but honestly I don't think it affected my outcomes at all. At least I didn't waste any time studying for it, but I did waste the money. I've since served on the admissions committee for my current program (which doesn't require or recommend a subject test), and the subject test scores didn't come up at all. If not required for a program, I would suggest submitting a subject test score only if it's >85% or if it's on par with or higher than your general GRE percentiles, especially if you have a high GPA (>3.8). Based on my experience, I'm inclined to think that a decent subject test score is really only likely to help a student with a lower GPA or general GRE; I think it is more likely to hurt a very strong application than help unless the score is high (>90%).

Yeah, if I remember correctly, the ranking is done at the panel level, so your point about the relative sizes of the applicant pools for different fields makes sense. By "diversity criteria" I meant things like home state, undergrad institution, race/ethnicity, etc.

A slight clarification to this: In previous years (and probably now as well), each reviewer assigned an application a numerical score of 0 - 50 for IM and BI. I don't have the old reviewer's guide in front of me, but it went something like... 40 - 50 = E 30 - 39 = VG 20 - 29 = G 10 - 19 = F 0 - 9 = P So you can see how the letter scores can be misleading on their own: a numerical score of 39 would give one applicant a VG, while a 40 gives another an E, but the two scores are only one point apart. The Z-scores are the standardization of the numerical scores. The formula is something like: Z-score = (applicant's score - mean score from that reviewer) / std dev of reviewer's scores If you imagine an applicant who scored all 40s from reviewers who gave high average scores, then it makes sense that there will be applicants who scored all Es but did not win an award/HM. Also, the diversity criteria only apply to applicants ranked in Quality Group 2 when it comes to deciding who gets an award vs an HM. Applicants in Quality Group 1 (the top group of applicants according to their ranked Z-scores) all get awards no matter what their background.