jayeyesee

A 3.72 is not considered low by any means for graduate school admissions. Maintain your GPA, focus on your research experience, and obtain great LORs and you're golden.

You really need to work on that GRE score. A low GPA coupled with a low GRE risks the possibility that your application might not even make it past the pre-screening phase even if you are applying to a low demand field. History programs stress the verbal section a lot more than the quant but your quant is low enough that it's going to raise a giant red flag with adcoms. A 142Q translates to the 19th percentile. You should at least try to break the 50th percentile barrier for both to be somewhat competitive. That means scoring above 150 for both sections.

I think your GRE scores are fine and I wouldn't bother spending more money to take another test. The GRE is arguably the least important part of an application and I don't see your chances improving by much (if any at all) if you re-take and score in the 99th percentile.. The general consensus is that high GRE scores won't get you in but low GRE scores will keep you out. A 3.33 won't keep you out of doctoral programs... But it will be a blemish on your application (especially at the top programs). It's good that you are taking a year off to gain more research experience. Is the lab that you are working in during your year off the same lab as your undergrad lab? If not, be sure to establish a relationship with the PI in your lab (not just the postdoc that will be mentoring you). I would also start scoping out the department and establish relationships with professors in the department. Tell them what you are studying, your future plans, your research interests and most importantly, ask them if they have any advice for you and your journey through the application process and eventually graduate school. Some professors won't be very receptive but don't be disheartened. There are many professors who take mentoring seriously and will accommodate you. Do you have a list of which schools you are looking at? Keep in mind that neuro programs are very competitive (in my undergrad institution, it is the most competitive area in the biological/biomedical sciences dept.). By the time you apply, you'll have about 1.5 years of research experience which from my experience (on interviews) is a bit on the lower side. Your applicant pool will probably have about 2-5 years of research experience by the time they apply. Doesn't mean it will keep you out but just wanted to give you a rough idea of your competition. If you can publish that would be great.. Although I don't know how feasible that is within 4-5 months of starting in your new lab. I think one way you can really strengthen your application is to secure external grants that will fund you in graduate school. I wish I had done this when I applied. Apply for NSF grants, NIH grants, etc... If you have an external source of funding, schools will be more inclined to take you since they will not have to pay out of their own pocket to fully fund you and it shows you are capable of securing grants before even starting grad school which is a big PLUS.

Read over the application instruction very carefully. Does it say anywhere to report your best scores for each section? If not, I would just report them as they are.

Do you have any interest at all in practicing medicine or are you dead set on becoming a professor? (If you have no interest in practicing medicine, why would you apply to medical school?) Even if you have made up your mind that you want to be a professor, I would advise you to go the MD route. MDs can do research and they can be professors. They have all the privileges that PhDs do AND then some (direct involvement in clinical research is probably the biggest one). Also job prospects for PhDs in the academic sector look bleak since so many more PhDs are being pumped out than there are academic positions. As an MD, you can always practice if the professorship route doesn't follow through, although this also depends on if you have any passion for the healthcare industry. Also, it's much easier to get into the MSTP (MD/PhD) program as a medical student than as a graduate student (some schools like my institution bar any graduate students from entering the MSTP to prevent prospective students from using it as a backdoor entry into medical school). Talk to the MSTP program director at Georgetown and ask if you would be able to enter the MSTP program in your first or second year of medical school. Also ask how likely it is that you'll be admitted. They should have some idea considering they have all of your academic information. If you try to enter BU's MSTP program as a graduate student, more likely than not you'll be turned away. If you have your heart set on BU, be sure you are well informed about your chances of entering MSTP as a graduate student. You don't want to go to BU and realize later on that you wanted a MD after all. Doing an MD after your PhD is extremely inefficient and costly. DO NOT go the sequential route if you can avoid it. With that said, keep in mind that at BU, you'll probably be fully funded whereas in medical school, you'll rack up ~$200,000 in debt. If you get admitted to the MSTP program, this won't be an issue since your medical tuition would be covered.

Applications for the biosciences (including biomedical sciences) usually open in mid-September to mid-October. Grad school applications are not like med school applications where there is a central system for handling all of the applications (AMCAS). Each individual grad school will open their applications when they decide to open it (which is usually mid-September to mid-October) and they will establish their own deadlines. Most schools usually enforce a deadline of December 1st. Some schools have deadlines as late as January 1st. It is important to remember that most schools will require that you have everything submitted BY the deadline... Meaning official GRE scores and transcripts must arrive in the school mail by the deadline. I believe there is more leniency with letters of recommendations. As for requirements, most schools do not set official GRE and GPA cutoffs. Grad school adcoms look for more than just stellar numbers such as research experience and letters of recommendation. Remember, they are looking to see if you are not only capable but ready to handle the demanding nature of graduate school and doing well in your undergraduate coursework is not necessarily the best indicator of that. However, some would argue that top programs may set unofficial cutoffs and your application may not be looked favorably if you don't meet a certain GRE/GPA. (e.g. UW MCB this year sent an e-mail saying they were looking for applicants with GPAs above 3.5 and GRE scores above the 88th percentile). With that said, you should start looking into the programs you are interested in. Start going through school websites and their department pages. Look for faculty members you might want to work with. How many international students they accept. (Remember that it is even tougher for international students to get into US grad programs because of funding issues). Look into research areas of interest and how abundant or limited those areas are in the schools you are looking at. You want to ultimately see if the school will be a good fit. Do not be blinded by the name or prestige.

Wow.. I literally got a headache from reading this. Bottom line, both are top notch schools in this field. You are putting way too much emphasize on USNews rankings. Most people would dismiss USNews rankings anyway. You really can't go wrong with either school. I'm sorry but a lot of people are probably rolling their eyes reading this. You will be a fully funded graduate student at either school. With 35k, I'm sure you can afford to live on your own (perhaps in graduate housing?) but if you really want to live with your parents and save some money, that's up to you. I really hope this isn't the primary factor in deciding between these schools. I have never heard of Stanford being an afterthought in chemistry. You repeatedly say rankings aren't everything but it sure sounds like it is to you. Probably another eye roller here. Are you insinuating that a degree from Stanford in your field (which you even mentioned is ranked within the top 10 in the almighty USNews) is going to limit your job opportunities as opposed to a degree from Berkeley. Here's something you should consider... Fit. Which school seems like the best fit to you? And I'm not talking about the convenience of living with your parents. Consider research interests, faculty members, curriculum, avg. time it takes to graduate, etc... Again, they are both top notch schools and I don't see how you can go wrong with either. EDIT: April 15th was almost a month ago? How are you still making this decision?

lol i think the difference is almost 300 dollars ($698 for the efficiency apartments vs. $972 for the regular 2 bedroom apartments). i'd rather save 300 bucks per month than have a living room. my friends are gonna have to live with socializing in my bedroom lol (if i get lucky and am assigned to the efficiency apartment). incoming biosciences graduate student btw!

Fun thread. I'm currently working as a research associate in a lab so everyone from my advisor to my labmates were pretty much right there with me from when I started the application process to when I got admitted. My program starts in late September so I gave my lab an August 1st exit/leave date. I figured it will be good for my mental health to get away from anything research related for a good month and a half before I devote the next 5 to however many years of my life to it. I'm planning to stay with friends in NYC for about a month before I come back to California. Gonna be honest, not gonna enjoy the horrid humidity in the east coast during the summer but I just absolutely love the city.

This is seriously inspirational and one of the main reasons I applied to PhD programs. Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you!

Yep, same result. Sucks too because my PI is a huge fan of UW and really wanted me to check out their program (if I got an interview). I always wanted to go to Stanford so in the end I think everything worked out for the best. Well if you are worried about passing the initial screening, you should really consider re-taking the GREs, especially if you haven't taken the new GREs. I actually really like the new GRE format a lot better than the old one. Applications don't open until September-October so you have plenty of time to get those GRE scores up.

as virion said.. pretty sure you're going to need to get your GRE scores up to be competitive for UW. They do seem to be numbers focused compared to other top programs.

A graduate student in my lab is pretty much in that situation. She is being mentored by two PIs and splits her time between the two labs (it really doesn't help that the labs are so far from each other). As you can imagine, the rewards can be great (more opportunities for publications, growth as a scientist, etc...) but the drawbacks are nothing to scoff at. Long hours, overwhelming expectations, two PIs to please, etc... I really do feel the graduate student is being pulled in every direction possible but she seems to be doing okay. Heck, she might even get out earlier with all the data she is producing lol.

Congrats on your offers! As for the schools you are waiting to hear from.. I am 99% sure UCLA (ACCESS), USC (PIBBS?) and Scripps are done. Even if you were waitlisted without an interview (although getting waitlisted without an interview is extremely rare nowadays), they probably have a pool of waitlisted candidates that interviewed to choose from if they do not meet their matriculation number. April 15th is fast approaching and it would be extremely rare for a graduate school to still be inviting people to interview this late in the game. A postdoc I know did get accepted without interviewing to several schools around this time but this was like 8-10 years ago lol.

@greenertea any idea where you think you might go?