zabius

Canada has been pretty safe from the economic issues of the last decade. However, the Canadian government has been cutting back on research too -- I remember a NRC cut / government mandated focus shift from pure / theoretical sciences to something that would have more economic / practical impacts. This is not at the scale of the US cuts though, but then again, our entire budget isn't at the scale of the US. That is, funding in Canada is generally lower anyways, so a small decrease won't have much of an impact. Graduate students are funded much differently in Canada too. When a prof in the US gets a grant, the school often takes a big chunk out for overhead fees. A grad student in the US cost much more than just their stipend due to this (and tuition). A grad student might cost a US school as much as $100,000 per year! But in Canada, the cost is usually much less, especially since our tuition ranges from $4000 to $6000 per year. So, I don't think there is a bleak future, at least in Canada, for funded MSc/MA/PhD spots. In the sciences, they would not stop funding grad students -- they might reduce the number of students accepted, but everyone will still have funding.
 
Anyways, I think this really depends on what you want to do with your life after grad school. If you want to be able to work as a postdoc abroad, and go into academia, then Canadian schools are already "unknown" enough that going to a smaller program will hurt you. Also, depending on your field and the schools you're talking about, the opportunities and resources available to you might be very different too. In my signature, you'll see that I went from a big school to a smaller, less funded program (Queen's isn't that small, but the program I went to was!) from BSc to MSc. Queen's actually did end up giving me the best stipend, and my main reason for choosing Queen's was to work with a specific prof. However, being in a small department in middle-of-nowhere-Kingston did make some things harder! For example, it might be hard to get guest speakers from other schools to come to Kingston (the only way here is to drive, take an unreliable train, or a really expensive flight from Toronto). The department/school, being smaller, might just not have the infrastructure to provide library support, computer support, etc. I was lucky that I still had access to UBC's Library services through my Alumni Card, since the Queen's Library did not subscribe to some important journals. I'm not trying to put down my former school here, I'm sure they are doing the best they can with the resources they have!
 
I would echo iowaguy's advice to go to the school with better opportunities as long as the stipend is enough to live on. Can you apply for external fellowships? What if you bring up the money issue with your advisors at your current school -- can they work something out? I can't imagine stipends being so vastly different in Canada -- I think the values of my offer just varied by a few thousand per year -- which is a substantial amount of our budgets right now, but in the long term, it might be a worthwhile investment.
 
As for foreign universities, I also looked at UK and Australia. These were nice because being Commonwealth countries, it's much easier for us Canadians to do the immigration stuff and my spouse would have been able to work there without any problems. However, the UK schools have very little funding for international students. Many programs I looked at basically said that we would have to win a fellowship to be able to study there. It seems like a competition at the level of an NSERC but there are also awards granted by the school as well (something like 1-2 dozen for the entire school). Australia had similar funding issues. The fact is, the best funding opportunities for most students is usually their home country! Even a good fully funded offer from aboard will probably cost you more in the long run for things like moving expenses, trips home etc. I'm not saying that it's not a good idea to go aboard, just that I wouldn't expect funding there to be any better. But definitely go if that's the best for you (whether that's research fit or just wanting to travel!).
 
Actually, despite what was said above regarding the funding in the US, I still think American schools are the best place for Canadians to apply for and get full funding. Even with the increased cost of them paying our international tuition, some schools out there will give pretty generous stipends and have the resources to help your research succeed too! Many US universities have budgets that dwarf the best Canadian schools! US Immigration has also made things a bit easier for Canadians (e.g. we don't need a visa, just apply for foreign student status). You could do what I did and stay in Canada for a Masters then go to the US for a PhD. There's lots of personal reasons why I did this but academically, it was because right out of undergrad, I wasn't sure if I wanted to spend 5+ years in grad school and the rest of my life in research so a MSc was a good way to test the waters. Be warned though, many US PhD programs don't recognize Masters for credit so you'd have to start all over again. On the other hand, you could also do a Masters in Canada then do a 3-year PhD in the UK or Australia.
 
Anyways, we might have the same undergrad school and although we are probably in different fields, we might have still considered the same schools. If you'd like, send me a PM and we can discuss more details that we might not want to put in a public forum!

Yes, yes, yes, and no.
 
I'm pretty sure that this would be in direct violation of both schools' policies, and you would most likely get kicked out of both programs once they found out (and they inevitably would... probably rather quickly). Maybe it's possible (I don't know much about European schools), but I'd imagine that most schools have rules in place which prevent you from enrolling in another institution while you are in attendance at theirs. Many schools here in the US make you agree to not accept any other offers when you formally accept theirs.
 
Beyond that, though, it is unethical and, as Iskawaran pointed out, could make you a lot of enemies at both schools. So, please don't try to do this. Pick the school that you like better (the UK school sounds like the clear winner... a prestigious program that is also well funded) and stick with it. Then, if you'd like, start a professional collaboration with the other school. That's legal, ethical, and not all that uncommon.

Definitely talk to the dean. 
 
Also note that meeting all the requirements for both programs usually means that you meet all the requirements for both programs exclusively, not combined. In other words, two MS's would require two theses, not one. And coursework wouldn't split between the programs- if each required 30 hours, then two MS's would require 60ish. 
 
Not you took 30-35 credits that would count for both degrees, and are planning on writing one thesis. 
 
Also, for the future or for others reading, please be proactive about your degree. If the person you're "supposed" to talk to isn't available, don't just let the issue drop. Push it and get someone else to talk to you or sign off on it. 

I applied to three schools this year. #s 2 and 3 were more prestigious than my #1 choice. 2 and 3 rejected me early. #1 had late interviews.
 
#1 sent out acceptances today, April 1, of which I received one! Suffice to say I was extremely happy with this news.
 
One of the four people I told asked me if it was an April Fools joke.
 
UGH.

I voted for School A. Like selecttext, I don't see very many benefits to school B.
 
At B, you would be the very first student of a new faculty member, and that's a risky position to be in. For one thing, she has never mentored a graduate student before and thus neither you nor she has any way of knowing whether or not she'll be good at it. It's entirely possible that she'd be a great mentor (there are many excellent young professors out there), but she could also be a terrible advisor. There's no way to tell, and no one that you can ask about it (since she has no previous students)... it's kind of a gamble. Also, as her first, you'd be like her "training wheels." She'll use the aspects of her mentoring style that did and did not work for you as a learning experience to help her improve her mentoring abilities for her next few graduate students. That's great for her future students, but not so great for you. Now, *someone* has to be the guinea pig, but do you want it to be you? Only you can really decide that, but personally I'd think it would be much more advantageous to work with an advisor who is more experienced in mentoring students. More experienced professors will also have more connections in the field, as you said, and that is hugely valuable... when it comes to landing a job (or even a postdoc) in the highly competitive world of academia, sometimes "who you know" is just as important as "what you know." And, as selecttext mentioned, you shouldn't assume that your being her only student would guarantee you plenty of 1-on-1 time. She's a new professor, and thus will likely be under a lot of pressure to churn out publications, bring in grant money, and get her name and research noticed at conferences so that she can secure tenure for herself later on. She might also have a heavy teaching load, as is typical for many new faculty members. As such, it's very possible that she'd get wrapped up in her own stuff and have less time to really focus on your stuff than you imagine. Or... not. It depends on the individual professor, really. But, in my opinion, being someone's "very first" is not an attractive option.
 
There's also the possibility that a new faculty member could be fired/not given tenure, or accept a job offer at a different school and move her lab there. Would you have a contingency plan in such a scenario?
 
Also, I think you might be getting a little too hung up on the primate issue. The research question is far more important than the organism that you choose to explore it in. My undergrad advisor worked on prairie dogs as a PhD student, then went through a wasp phase, and now works on spiders. She was able to do that because the type of research question that she was investigating ("What are the causes and consequences of the evolution of social behavior?") remained the same, and all three of those organisms were good model systems for the various studies that she was conducting. If the type of question that you are interested in can be adequately explored in primates, then why not? I don't think it would limit your career prospects any more than sticking with rodents at School B would. In fact, it would probably be beneficial to be able to say "I have experience working with both rats and primates" when you are applying for jobs. To me, it sounds more impressive than "I've only ever worked with rats and mice; they're all I know." As long as your command of your field is solid, the organisms that you have worked on in the past will probably not significantly restrict the number of universities that would hire you.
 
Furthermore, it sounds like School A would be more of a learning experience. You say that you'd have to master more new techniques if you go to School A, and that (in my opinion) is a good thing! You'll expand your scientific toolkit, and that will make more a more impressive CV that will then make you more broadly marketable when you're looking for postdocs and careers.
 
The only real "downside" I see to School A is the fact that the PIs are rather hands-off. But as long as they are not impossible to reach when you need assistance, you should be fine. Working independently is a skill that all graduate students should have anyway, in my opinion. Also, if there are a bunch of postdocs in the lab, they'd probably be able to help you with smaller things ("How do I use this piece of equipment?" or "Where can I find this thing that I need?"). That said, if you really don't thrive under that kind of working environment (everyone is different), it's something to consider and weigh heavily. But again, don't assume that the other professor would necessarily be very hands-on. She may be, or she may not be.
 
In contrast, the only "upside" to School B is the fact that you get along with the PI. That's definitely something that you want, but you it's not enough to outweigh all of the potential downsides to B and upsides to A. School B is also probably the more comfortable choice because the research is more familiar to you, but you shouldn't necessarily consider that an upside. Leaving the comfort zone can be hard (I know that I hate doing it), but doing so will probably open you up to new experiences, skills, and opportunities that will ultimately help you later on.
 
I hope this was helpful. Good luck with the decision! :-)

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it!
 
However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere).
 
That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school.
 
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school.
 
Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it!
 
However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere).
 
That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school.
 
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school.
 
Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it!
 
However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere).
 
That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school.
 
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school.
 
Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it!
 
However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere).
 
That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school.
 
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school.
 
Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

Becoming a university professor is difficult... the job market in academia is terrible now, and there just aren't very many openings for professor jobs. To get one, you'll need not just a PhD, but almost certainly at least one postdoc position as well. Are you sure that's what you want to do? I only ask because you said "maybe a university professor?" It's a great goal to have, but it'll take a lot of dedication, so you should be sure that your heart is really in it before you invest so much time and energy (and money) in it. There's also a big difference between a professor position at a liberal arts college (which typically has a heavy teaching component to it) and a professor position at a large research university (which typically has a larger research component to it, obviously). The latter is what I'm going for, and so I know more about it. At a research university, a lot of your time as a professor would be spent writing grant proposals and other not-so-fun stuff... which is something to consider. I know a lot of people who only realized that several years into their PhDs, and many of them left their programs after deciding that they didn't want to do that. Anyway, I'm not trying to discourage you or anything... I'm just saying that you should think long and hard about the specific type of career that you want first, because that will determine which schools you apply to. There are many other things that you can do with a graduate degree in biology if you decide that a professor job is not what you want. Have you ever considered an adjunct lecturer position? Since you enjoyed your GA position last semester, I'm guessing that you enjoy teaching at the undergrad level more than you enjoy teaching at the high school level. There are adjunct positions at both community colleges and four-year institutions, and many of them require only an MS in the field that you would be teaching in. I don't have a sense of how good the pay is, but it probably varies a lot based on the area and quality of the school.
 
Anyway, if you want to get into a graduate program that is research-based (as opposed to education-based), it would be really beneficial for you to have some research experience under your belt. Grad school admissions are just so competitive these days, and students who have already done research (even if it was just for a summer as an undergrad) probably look much more attractive to an admissions committee. That said, a lack of research experience is not an instant "app killer." Here's what you can do if you want to become a university professor:
 
First, you'll almost definitely need to do a second master's program (one that is research-based and that has a written thesis requirement). Many PhD programs will be very reluctant to consider an applicant who has no experience in independent research, but master's programs are usually a tad more forgiving when it comes to previous research experience. Cast a wide net and apply to as many master's programs as you can. I recommend this because your lack of research experience will unfortunately put you at a bit of a disadvantage and so applying to numerous programs will increase the chances that you'll be accepted to one.
 
That said, it is a disadvantage and not a roadblock. To counteract it, make the other aspects of your application strong. Study hard for the GREs and try to get as high of a score as you can, retaking the test if you don't do so well the first time. Normally, I advise against taking the subject GREs because they're kind of useless (one's academic transcript should be sufficient to establish proficiency in the field of interest). However, if your undergrad coursework was more education-heavy than biology-heavy, then I think it would serve you well to take the biology subject GRE. Make sure to get strong letters of recommendation too. You'll likely need three; the person that you GAed under is a great option... she might not be willing to write it (and you should be understanding if she declines), but it's definitely worth asking her for a letter. Try reaching out to several professors from your undergrad or master's program too, or perhaps even a professional reference from the high school where you are working now. You want to choose letter writers who know you well as a person (not just a number in a gradebook), and who can speak to your strengths (hard worker, enthusiastic, pays good attention to detail, etc.). It's usually best to choose people with whom you have done research in the past, but that's not an option for you. So, instead try to choose people who can show that you have the same general skills that any good researcher should have (dedication, time management skills, work ethic, et cetera)... basically, you want to show the schools you apply to that you have what it takes to do research, even though that you haven't done any in the past.
 
The statement of purpose is another area to really focus on in your application. Use it to describe why you've decided to leave the field of education and pursue a more research-oriented career. What you really want to do here is show the admissions committee that you are not only seriously committed to this new path that you're embarking on, but also that you are genuinely passionate about the particular field of biology that you want to do research in. That said, do you know which field you want to go into? I'd advise figuring that out first before you apply. Are you a neuroscience person? A molecular biology person? Or perhaps an evolutionary biology or ecology person? You'll have much more success in your applications if your SOP is more focused. In fact, academic fit is probably the most important thing here... admissions committees will likely reject an otherwise impressive application (good GPA/GRE, good letters, etc.) if the fit between the student's research interests and the research interests of the faculty at the school just don't match. Thus, it's really important to (1) determine what your research interests are, (2) apply to programs that have faculty who do research in that area, and (3) convey your genuine interest in this area of study in your SOP. It also wouldn't hurt to contact potential advisors before you start your application to discuss your goals/interests and the possibility of working with them. In fact, I'd recommend doing this even if it's not required by the program for you to have an official application sponsor.
 
If, however, you don't yet know which field of biology interests you, I'd suggest taking a few graduate level courses as a non-matriculated student before you apply. You can probably do this at your local university, though I don't know exactly how to go about it.
 
Anyway, all of that will help make you more competitive for MS programs. You GPA is already very good. You just need to make sure that the other aspects of your application are also as great as they can be so that they counteract the lack of research experience. :-) Then, once you finish the MS, you could either go on to get a PhD or enter the workforce. There are a number of careers that would be available to you with just an MS.
 
If your undergrad degree is in biology, you could also apply for biology internships before you apply to grad schools. I don't know if there are many available for this summer (deadlines may have passed on many of them?), but there should still be some, as well as internship opportunities for the fall semester. These could give you a little research experience that would look good on your CV and boost your chances of getting into a good program.
 
I hope this was helpful! I think that you have a shot and should totally go for it if this is what you really want to do. The lack of research experience may be a disadvantage, but it's not one that would be impossible to overcome. It's also probably a little field-dependent. There are fewer specialized lab techniques in a field like animal behavior than there are in fields like microbiology and neuroscience. It may be harder to get into a lab that focuses in one of the latter two fields than it would be to get into a behavior lab. But, don't assume that anything is impossible.
 
Good luck!

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it!
 
However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere).
 
That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school.
 
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school.
 
Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it!
 
However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere).
 
That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school.
 
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school.
 
Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it!
 
However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere).
 
That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school.
 
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school.
 
Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

Becoming a university professor is difficult... the job market in academia is terrible now, and there just aren't very many openings for professor jobs. To get one, you'll need not just a PhD, but almost certainly at least one postdoc position as well. Are you sure that's what you want to do? I only ask because you said "maybe a university professor?" It's a great goal to have, but it'll take a lot of dedication, so you should be sure that your heart is really in it before you invest so much time and energy (and money) in it. There's also a big difference between a professor position at a liberal arts college (which typically has a heavy teaching component to it) and a professor position at a large research university (which typically has a larger research component to it, obviously). The latter is what I'm going for, and so I know more about it. At a research university, a lot of your time as a professor would be spent writing grant proposals and other not-so-fun stuff... which is something to consider. I know a lot of people who only realized that several years into their PhDs, and many of them left their programs after deciding that they didn't want to do that. Anyway, I'm not trying to discourage you or anything... I'm just saying that you should think long and hard about the specific type of career that you want first, because that will determine which schools you apply to. There are many other things that you can do with a graduate degree in biology if you decide that a professor job is not what you want. Have you ever considered an adjunct lecturer position? Since you enjoyed your GA position last semester, I'm guessing that you enjoy teaching at the undergrad level more than you enjoy teaching at the high school level. There are adjunct positions at both community colleges and four-year institutions, and many of them require only an MS in the field that you would be teaching in. I don't have a sense of how good the pay is, but it probably varies a lot based on the area and quality of the school.
 
Anyway, if you want to get into a graduate program that is research-based (as opposed to education-based), it would be really beneficial for you to have some research experience under your belt. Grad school admissions are just so competitive these days, and students who have already done research (even if it was just for a summer as an undergrad) probably look much more attractive to an admissions committee. That said, a lack of research experience is not an instant "app killer." Here's what you can do if you want to become a university professor:
 
First, you'll almost definitely need to do a second master's program (one that is research-based and that has a written thesis requirement). Many PhD programs will be very reluctant to consider an applicant who has no experience in independent research, but master's programs are usually a tad more forgiving when it comes to previous research experience. Cast a wide net and apply to as many master's programs as you can. I recommend this because your lack of research experience will unfortunately put you at a bit of a disadvantage and so applying to numerous programs will increase the chances that you'll be accepted to one.
 
That said, it is a disadvantage and not a roadblock. To counteract it, make the other aspects of your application strong. Study hard for the GREs and try to get as high of a score as you can, retaking the test if you don't do so well the first time. Normally, I advise against taking the subject GREs because they're kind of useless (one's academic transcript should be sufficient to establish proficiency in the field of interest). However, if your undergrad coursework was more education-heavy than biology-heavy, then I think it would serve you well to take the biology subject GRE. Make sure to get strong letters of recommendation too. You'll likely need three; the person that you GAed under is a great option... she might not be willing to write it (and you should be understanding if she declines), but it's definitely worth asking her for a letter. Try reaching out to several professors from your undergrad or master's program too, or perhaps even a professional reference from the high school where you are working now. You want to choose letter writers who know you well as a person (not just a number in a gradebook), and who can speak to your strengths (hard worker, enthusiastic, pays good attention to detail, etc.). It's usually best to choose people with whom you have done research in the past, but that's not an option for you. So, instead try to choose people who can show that you have the same general skills that any good researcher should have (dedication, time management skills, work ethic, et cetera)... basically, you want to show the schools you apply to that you have what it takes to do research, even though that you haven't done any in the past.
 
The statement of purpose is another area to really focus on in your application. Use it to describe why you've decided to leave the field of education and pursue a more research-oriented career. What you really want to do here is show the admissions committee that you are not only seriously committed to this new path that you're embarking on, but also that you are genuinely passionate about the particular field of biology that you want to do research in. That said, do you know which field you want to go into? I'd advise figuring that out first before you apply. Are you a neuroscience person? A molecular biology person? Or perhaps an evolutionary biology or ecology person? You'll have much more success in your applications if your SOP is more focused. In fact, academic fit is probably the most important thing here... admissions committees will likely reject an otherwise impressive application (good GPA/GRE, good letters, etc.) if the fit between the student's research interests and the research interests of the faculty at the school just don't match. Thus, it's really important to (1) determine what your research interests are, (2) apply to programs that have faculty who do research in that area, and (3) convey your genuine interest in this area of study in your SOP. It also wouldn't hurt to contact potential advisors before you start your application to discuss your goals/interests and the possibility of working with them. In fact, I'd recommend doing this even if it's not required by the program for you to have an official application sponsor.
 
If, however, you don't yet know which field of biology interests you, I'd suggest taking a few graduate level courses as a non-matriculated student before you apply. You can probably do this at your local university, though I don't know exactly how to go about it.
 
Anyway, all of that will help make you more competitive for MS programs. You GPA is already very good. You just need to make sure that the other aspects of your application are also as great as they can be so that they counteract the lack of research experience. :-) Then, once you finish the MS, you could either go on to get a PhD or enter the workforce. There are a number of careers that would be available to you with just an MS.
 
If your undergrad degree is in biology, you could also apply for biology internships before you apply to grad schools. I don't know if there are many available for this summer (deadlines may have passed on many of them?), but there should still be some, as well as internship opportunities for the fall semester. These could give you a little research experience that would look good on your CV and boost your chances of getting into a good program.
 
I hope this was helpful! I think that you have a shot and should totally go for it if this is what you really want to do. The lack of research experience may be a disadvantage, but it's not one that would be impossible to overcome. It's also probably a little field-dependent. There are fewer specialized lab techniques in a field like animal behavior than there are in fields like microbiology and neuroscience. It may be harder to get into a lab that focuses in one of the latter two fields than it would be to get into a behavior lab. But, don't assume that anything is impossible.
 
Good luck!

I'd try the director of graduate studies in your program. S/he is probably the person in charge of overseeing TA assignments in the department. If not, the DGS should be able to tell you whom you should contact.
 
It probably also wouldn't hurt to express your interest with the instructor of the course. S/he may very well have the final say over who TAs the course. It really depends on the program... at my master's institution, the DGS assigned students to TA the various courses in the department, but asked the students for their preferences. The instructors were also allowed to request specific students if they wanted to.
 
That said, be aware that your preferences may receive a low priority since you are an incoming first year student. Many schools will preferentially give the "good courses" to students who have been in the department for a few years already and use first-years as TAs for the basic, intro-level courses that nobody ever requests to teach. It's a seniority thing. The instructor may also preferentially choose one of his/her own students over an incoming student that s/he doesn't know well yet.

I'd count Duke out right away... there's no reason to enter an unfunded MS program when you have three fully funded PhD programs to choose from!
 
It also sounds like you should count UCLA out... if you don't think that the professors will be very supportive *and* you'd rather be in an engineering program anyway, then chances are that you wouldn't be happy there. I don't know what you mean by a "rigid job outlook," but if you mean that the program isn't good at placing graduates in the types of jobs that you're interested in, then you definitely shouldn't attend. You should pick a school that will provide with a supportive working environment, a solid academic fit, and that will prepare you for your dream career. From what you've said, UCLA sounds like it wouldn't provide any of that for you. Being close to home may be nice, but it's not worth making sacrifices in so many other aspects of your graduate education.
 
So, I'd think that the choice should really come down to WashU vs. Wisconsin. I'm not familiar with your field, so I can't say which one would be better for the type of work that you want to do. Someone else can probably speak to that. Is there any way that you could visit Wisconsin before the decision deadline? Visits can change everything and are the best way to get a sense of how well you'd fit in with the program and the school as a whole.
 
One advantage that Wisconsin may have is the fact that there are multiple professors there that you could see yourself working with. It's a really good idea to not restrict yourself to a single lab. If you do, then what happens if your professor moves schools or is fired (assuming he/she doesn't have tenure)? Or what happens if you realize that the lab isn't a good match after all, or you run into other problems with your advisor? At a school like Wisconsin, where there are other labs working on topics related to yours, you could easily just switch over to a new lab group. That's something to consider. Would you be able to do that at WashU?
 
On the other hand, one advantage that WashU may have is the medical school. If you're thinking of a career in a field related to medicine, then a good med school can provide you with some very valuable connections and/or other resources. Is there a med school at Wisconsin? Would you say that [for you personally and the research that you want to do] the high quality of the med school at WashU would make up for its lower ranking in BME?
 
I know that I didn't give you a clear-cut answer here. I can't, really, since I'm not familiar with your field or your own goals and priorities. However, hopefully some of this was useful. It definitely sounds like UCLA and Duke aren't very good options, and that the best bet would be either Washington University in St. Louis or University of Wisconsin. It sounds like the funding packages from both of those schools are good (you only really need enough to make ends meet, and I'm assuming that both of those stipends are big enough for that) and it seems that the weather situation is similar for you (in that each school is in a climate that's not ideal for you, but probably not too terrible either). So, I'd probably not weigh those two criteria all that heavily when comparing WashU and Wisconsin.
 
Good luck with your decision!

If I ever get business cards, I would probably do manierata does and preface the card with something like "this might be really pretentious..." and hope that smooths over anyone who thinks the cards are stupid. But what do you mean by "non-grad students"? Do you mean post-docs and profs? Or do you mean people not in academia. If it's the former, then if you are really worried I would either do what manierata does, or wait until they ask for the card. Or you can leave the cards by a poster if you're presenting and let people decide whether or not to pick it up. 
 
I think it would be important to be smart on when to hand out your card. You wouldn't want to do it to everyone you meet, and I think it might put people in an uncomfortable situation if they don't want your card but feel like it would be impolite to refuse it. I would probably only hand them out at a conference if for example, someone comes up to me and we have a really interesting discussion about our research and we feel like we want to continue the conversation. So if it gets to the point where it wouldn't be weird to ask them for their email address, then it wouldn't be weird to offer them your card.

Based on the info that you've provided, I'd go with School B, for a couple of reasons:
 
1. I'd be wary of doing a PhD at the same school that you did your undergrad *and* master's at. You've already been enrolled there for 5-6 years most likely, and in that time you've probably taken away all that you can from the department and the university as a whole (in terms of course offerings, making professional connections, learning research techniques, etc.). Does School A really have anything more that it can offer you? It might, but probably not that much. My undergrad department has a strict policy of not accepting its undergrads into its graduate program for this very reason. I'd bet that you would benefit a lot more from a new school... you'll be exposed to different perspectives, expand your academic network through professors in a new department (and the connections that they may have elsewhere), and may be able to take courses in subjects not offered at your old school. You'd probably learn a lot there, and it would probably also look better to have more than one school on your CV.
 
2. Both schools sound like they're in great areas, with good facilities and similarly-sized programs... so obviously they're both good choices that are similar in a lot of ways. But School B is better ranked in your field (top 5ish vs. top 20ish), and so a degree from B could be really advantageous when you're out looking for postdocs/jobs after graduation. Check the job placement stats from both schools; I'd bet that both have excellent records, but B might be slightly better at placing its graduates in highly ranked institutions.
 
3. School B has several labs in your field of interest, which is really ideal. If you run into irreconcilable problems with your advisor there (it happens, unfortunately), you'd likely be able to switch over to one of those other labs and continue your research there. With several labs focusing on your specific area of study, you might also have good opportunities for collaborations at School B.
 
I know it's tempting to stay in a school and city that you're familiar with and where a lot of your friends are... but School B sounds like the better option academically. Moving to a new area can be daunting, but you'll probably get used to it rather quickly (and like you said, it could be a fun adventure of sorts). And if you make yourself available, you'll be able to make new friends anywhere. Also, 5 years is a pretty standard length for a PhD program in a biological science, so don't let that deter you from School B.
 
That said... what's the funding like at School B? You say that your POI at A is well funded, but didn't say anything about the funding possibilities at B. If funding is not guaranteed at B, then I'd be inclined to recommend school A instead. There's no reason to go into debt for a doctoral program, especially in neuroscience (a field which typically offers its students full funding packages) and especially if you have another offer that is funded. But if School B is offering you money and it's enough to live on in that area, I'd say go for B.

I have no experience with Duke, so I can't offer you a comparison... but I did my undergrad at Cornell and have nothing but great things to say about the university and Ithaca in general.
 
Cornell is a great university. I think that, to the "average ear," it has more name recognition than Duke. It might be different in your department, and of course both schools are well known in academia. But I'd bet that, if the rankings really are similar in your field, that "Cornell" might look slightly better on your resume... it just has that Ivy "wow factor." But, prestige is pretty trivial in the long run. Cornell is a great place to study... it has an incredible library system and tons of other resources. You'll definitely have everything you need to excel there.
 
People will likely tell you that you shouldn't go to Cornell because it's cold, but honestly it's not that bad. If you have a good coat and remember to layer, you'll be fine. Honestly, it doesn't even snow as much as people might expect... it has a pretty average climate by central New York standards. If you head a few hours north towards upstate NY, that's where it's uncomfortably freezing and way too snowy. But Ithaca's fine... it's chilly from November-March, but the summers are wonderful.
 
Ithaca's relatively small (at least from my perspective... I'm used to large urban areas like NYC), but it has a lot of character. It's an especially great place to live if you're socially/politically liberal (it's a very liberal town). The music scene is also pretty good, and there's a ton of good food (many great ethnic restaurants and loads of places to buy organic/vegan/gluten-free/etc. foods if you're into that). If you enjoy nature, you'll also love Ithaca... there are tons of gorges and hiking trails around, and some other really nice natural areas (many owned by the Cornell Plantations). Many of the people that I met there were very outdoorsy, so if you have an outdoors hobby you'll likely be able to find activity partners there.
 
Ithaca's also only 5 hours from NYC, and not much further from several other major metropolitan areas in the Northeast. I don't know if that will really matter to you, but I know people who have active collaborations going on with professors at institutions in those areas... if that's something you might be interested in, then Cornell's central location might be a perk!
 
That said, one thing that I noticed about Cornell is that it does seem to attract a large number of overly-competitive students. This probably depends on the department, and I have no idea what the dynamic is in Environmental Sciences. My home department (Entomology) was fantastic-- very supportive and collegial. But I did know people in several other departments who complained about the competitive atmosphere. It might be more pronounced among undergrads, though... pre-medical students can be vicious! I do know of a grad student in a humanities department who said it was too competitive for him too, though. Ask current students in your program what they think!
 
Again, I know nothing about Duke... but I can say that Cornell is fantastic. If the fit is there and the program is good, then I think it would be a fantastic choice. But, Duke might be too. My advice would be to visit both (if you haven't already) to get a taste for the atmosphere of each, then go with your gut feeling. It sounds like either way, you'll end up somewhere nice! :-)
 
Also, for what it's worth... I did my master's at a different school in North Carolina (about 4 hours away from Duke), and I'd never live in the south again. The area and culture just weren't a good fit for me... too hot, too rural, and too conservative. Those are just my preferences, though, and I'd bet that Durham is a lot nicer than where I was living. You might also find those qualities (hot, conservative, etc.) desirable for all I know! I really can't say. That's why I think you should go with your gut after visiting... pick the school that's giving you better vibes.
 
I hope this helps!

Personally, I would have told him a while ago... like, during the application process (something along the lines of "I don't think this is the right place for me, so I'm thinking of applying elsewhere").
 
I don't think there's any real value in waiting until later to tell him... he and the rest of the department are going to find out eventually anyway, so might as well just tell them now. They shouldn't hold it against you; if they get upset about anything, it might be because you waited until now to tell them (they may interpret the fact that you've been applying to another school "behind their backs" as something that's a little underhanded). I'm not saying that this was your intention, but there is the risk of it coming across this way. What you definitely don't want to just leave without telling your advisor and committee at all! I'd let them know your plans right away, especially if you think that your advisor will need time to find another assistant for his fieldwork. Also, why take the qualifying exams if you're not going to stick around at School A? It seems like a waste of time (for you and the people administering it).
 
If you explain it in terms of doing what's best for your career, they should be understanding about the whole situation. I doubt that they would let this influence how they grade your work in the class that you are taking. Good luck!

That does sound like a lot of advisees! I agree with everything that kaister said, but want to emphasize that you should also consider your own work style. Are you [generally] pretty independent and self-motivated? In a big lab, you'll almost certainly need to be. This doesn't mean that your advisor can't/shouldn't help you or answer your questions when needed, but you'll probably need to do a lot of the work unsupervised and not count on constant feedback from your advisor. If that sounds like you, then great! I think working independently is a skill that all graduate students should have anyway, but not everyone thrives in that kind of working environment. If you'd prefer a mentor who is very hands-on during all steps of the research process, you might not be happy in such a large lab (just because your advisor will have such little time to devote solely to you-- he has 17 other students to attend to, plus his own work/grant writing/teaching load/etc.).
 
Another thing to consider is physical space and lab equipment. One of the labs that I applied to was also on the large side (14 students total, 6 of which are PhDs), and my POI told me upfront that he'd love to have me, but even finding enough bench space for me to work on would be difficult. The lab also has a limited number of computers and microscopes available-- far fewer than there are students who need to use them regularly. I don't know what the situation is in your lab of interest, or what type of equipment you'd potentially need to share/compete over, but it's something to consider (you should ask some of the current students about this). It's not an insurmountable issue, but it could be a big inconvenience... especially if a majority of the current students will be in the lab for a while (i.e. they're years away from graduating).

I agree with everyone who said that they would choose the overall program over the advisor. Your relationship with your advisor is an important one, but [like others have mentioned], what happens if she switches to another school? Or what happens if you find that you don't like working with her after all (you won't know until you actually start)? Then you'd be stuck in a program that you don't really like with no viable Plan B.

For what it's worth, I did my master's at a school that I really didn't like (in a department that was pretty mediocre and a geographical area that I couldn't stand)… and did so because I thought it would be worth it to work with my advisor, who's well known in my field. Well, it turns out that the advisor (however brilliant he may be) was a terrible mentor who basically just didn't care at all about my project. I finished the project on my own, but was pretty miserable. If I had chosen a school with an overall better program, I could have just switched labs or at least found support from another faculty member, but that wasn't available to me at this school.

Basically, I chose advisor over program and regretted it. Your results may vary, but it's something to think about.

I do, unfortunately. But the nature of the situation and the attempts at lies and deception that followed my discovery of the cheating quickly took away any bad feelings I initially had. You have done nothing wrong -- they have. You should not feel bad about taking action. You're not being unfair to these students. Rather, you are being fair to the rest of the class who actually spent the time doing the assignment and being honest. Remember this when the proceedings wear you out (there will probably be a long process of fact finding and appeals following you report), and also make sure you have support from the instructor in charge or your advisor, just in case. You did the right thing by reporting these students.

Hey, another EEB/behavior person! Good to see more of us around. I'm currently a first-year at UT Austin, so if you have any questions specific to that program I'd be happy to help. Zabius' advice is generally pretty much what I was going to say, so I won't repeat it again. I also didn't bother taking GRE subject tests at all, and I don't think that counted against me at any of the programs I applied to (including Cornell, UC Davis and UT), so I wouldn't worry about it. In fact, no one even asked me about it. I'm pretty sure a Master's in biology will be enough to demonstrate that you know your stuff. 
 
Your CV looks really solid aside from the GRE stuff to me, and I agree that most programs really do not care much about GRE as long as it passes a certain cutoff. When I was applying and interviewing, I really found that fit and talking to prospective PIs ahead of time about my interests and their work were the thing that either worked for me or against me. Past a baseline level of qualification, which you look like you're at to me, a lot of getting acceptances at grad school is about finding a lab that your interests and personality fit neatly into. As far as I can tell, you're not doomed at all--you're a solid candidate and well ahead of the game. Follow Zabius' advice and check in occasionally with your prospective PIs and the people who are writing you letters and you should be fine. I cannot emphasize this hard enough--getting into these programs is really all about finding a PI who is excited about your interests and who you are excited to work with. Most of them don't do rotations, so you'll be admitted to a particular lab. You want to make sure that a) the lab that you want to join wants to have you too and b ) that it's a good match for your interests. 
 
One warning about Davis--when I interviewed there, they told me the Animal Behavior graduate group cannot guarantee funding for its students and that the grad students there need to secure their own TAships through applications. They said this was because the graduate group isn't formally affiliated with a department (the way, say, the Psychology graduate group is) and so they can't set classes aside for AB TAs. That put me right off the program and immediately dropped it to last place on my priority list, personally. I don't know whether their financial situation has changed any in the intervening year, but I thought I'd pass that tidbit along in case you hadn't heard. 

As a master's student, I taught several genetics labs on my own (i.e. the supervising professor wasn't normally around). I told my students to just call me by my first name, because anything else would be weird. Most complied, but one student kept calling me "Professor [Firstname]." When I explainer to her that I wasn't actually a professor, she just called me "Mr. [Firstname]." I said that "Mr." was still too formal, so she moved on to "Sir." I get that she was trying to be polite, and had probably been raised to address people in this manner... but it was weird for me. Especially since I was raised in a part of the country where the most common way to address a stranger is, "Hey, you!"
 
Eventually, we compromised... I let her call me "Captain [Firstname]." We both thought it was funny. A couple other students even joined in. I love it when a group of students has a nice sense of humor (now if only their work ethic had been just as good...).