From Liberal Arts to Molecular Bio - Insight Please?

[hifolks]

Basically, I need some insight into my situation from other people further along in their careers than myself. My story is that in 2007 I graduated from a liberal arts college with a BA in Liberal Arts, with emphases in philosophy, math and the history of science, with an overall GPA of 2.79. Ouch, I know. For all four years I was on medication (i.e. I had a prescription) for ADHD that I later realized I did not need to take. The side effects at the time made my life quite difficult, but I assumed that I had other unrelated troubles. This was not the case, as I have been medication free and happy since 2008.

Shortly after this realization came the realization that I wanted to be in biology. Now, I am at Johns Hopkins doing a part-time MS in Biotechnology and am carrying a 3.8 average. The pros of this program: the coursework is rigorous and I am really learning a lot. Furthermore, there is an option to complete a thesis. I am taking as many academic courses and hands-on laboratories as possible. The cons: the program is specifically meant to provide additional education to professionals in the field. Consequently, there is no internship component, no rotation/frequent research/publication opportunity component to this program at all - it assumes that you are at your job, having all of these opportunities professionally. For most people, this would be true. For me, it is not.

Now the problem: I want a full career in molecular/molecular cell biology. Realistically, that means pursuing an education to the point of a PhD, which I would gladly do, as I am happiest knee-deep in subject matter. To this end, I plan on pursuing the thesis option (I do not need to declare my intention until the end of the summer). However, my concern is that my application to any graduate school (top-tier or otherwise) will look unpromising, given that it is composed of a rather poor undergrad degree and a thesis-culminating but non-research master's. To fix this, I am applying to several internships for the summer; while it is still early, the only communication I've had so far has been one rejection. On the whole, this is quite worrying.

What do you all think? Assuming that I kept the same GPA at Hopkins, based on what you all have seen, are there schools/a tier of schools to which I might reasonably apply? All the promotional materials I have read, even for mid-tier schools, says something about 3.0 undergrad GPA. Furthermore, many of my competitors would be applying with either research, internship or even publication experience, to my mind making myself an even less compelling candidate.

Alternatively, I know several people who went from medicine to research. I would happily go through med school instead, and then move to a drug/treatment discovery role afterwards. Here, however, I run into a similar problem: same background. I know there are a number of post-bacc's to which I could apply, but I don't know whether the post-bacc or MS would be more useful for med school (and that's assuming that the post-bacc's would take me, given that most of the good ones seem to require a 3.2 GPA).

So, in closing, I am at a crossroads and would appreciate anyone's insight here, as my educational background prepared me to learn biology very well, and to navigate this kind of decision making not at all.

Thank you everyone!

[Eigen]

Honestly, you might be better off going back and working on a second BS in molecular biology- it shouldn't take more than 2 years or so, and will give you a chance to both get your grades up (undergraduate) and get some research experience.

I know people that have had problems with a sub-3.0 undergrad GPA... But then I also know people that have gotten in with it. I think a lot depends on the rest of your application- but with no research experience, you're going to have a lot of trouble, I would think.

[Ruiqi]

consider to take a GRE sub test in biology?

[hifolks]

Honestly, you might be better off going back and working on a second BS in molecular biology- it shouldn't take more than 2 years or so, and will give you a chance to both get your grades up (undergraduate) and get some research experience.

I've considered this. However, I'm ~halfway through my MS and am loathe to stop now.

I know people that have had problems with a sub-3.0 undergrad GPA... But then I also know people that have gotten in with it. I think a lot depends on the rest of your application- but with no research experience, you're going to have a lot of trouble, I would think.

Are there any similarities between those that have gotten in? And yeah, I am trying to beef up what would be the rest of my application. I have also considered waiting a year or two, provided that I could find a research position after graduating.

consider to take a GRE sub test in biology?

Definitely on my list. I've noticed that this is almost never a requirement, but I think in my case it would be a great idea.

[BassAZ]

2 things: first, you say you're doing a part-time Ms - are you working in research or a related Biology field or at some other job? If you have been able to secure employment in research and are able to demonstrate you dedication and drive in a research setting and have established researchers willing to vouch for you, you have a better chance of doing a PhD.

My second question is actually more of a statement, but here it is: if you're waffling between Med school and research, you should talk to a resource in your administration or even doctors/researchers about your desires. I assume the Profs. in your program already have their MD/PhD, so talk to them and get their opinion. You stated "I want a full career in molecular/molecular cell biology. Realistically, that means pursuing an education to the point of a PhD" - that's not entirely true. With an MS, you will be relegated more to the wet-lab side of science and can still pursue a career that will have a slight ceiling. While I'm not entirely sure that's the case right now (because of the lousy job market), you may need to get out there and do some work in the academic field, get someone established to vouch for your determination to pursue a career in science and then apply to programs. This is by no means a shoe-in make-up for a reasonably poor GPA but it gets your foot in the door and allows schools to make a determination as to whether you'd be able to succeed in their program.

I graduated with a slightly-lower-than-3.0 in Mol. Bio., did 4 years of research and had people write recs for me that allowed me to get into programs right now, so by no means is a sub-3.0 a kill switch. You just have to give adcoms a reason to look at you. Lastly, if you really do want to pursue a PhD, address it briefly in your personal statement. Indicate your undergrad is not indicative of your overall potential and point to the more current successes you've had to show that you've been able to show what you're more capable of.

[hifolks]

2 things: first, you say you're doing a part-time Ms - are you working in research or a related Biology field or at some other job? If you have been able to secure employment in research and are able to demonstrate you dedication and drive in a research setting and have established researchers willing to vouch for you, you have a better chance of doing a PhD.

No, currently I am not working in research. I've sent out I don't know how many applications, but no one is calling me back. If I could, I would do so for several years.

My second question is actually more of a statement, but here it is: if you're waffling between Med school and research, you should talk to a resource in your administration or even doctors/researchers about your desires. I assume the Profs. in your program already have their MD/PhD, so talk to them and get their opinion. You stated "I want a full career in molecular/molecular cell biology. Realistically, that means pursuing an education to the point of a PhD" - that's not entirely true. With an MS, you will be relegated more to the wet-lab side of science and can still pursue a career that will have a slight ceiling. While I'm not entirely sure that's the case right now (because of the lousy job market), you may need to get out there and do some work in the academic field, get someone established to vouch for your determination to pursue a career in science and then apply to programs. This is by no means a shoe-in make-up for a reasonably poor GPA but it gets your foot in the door and allows schools to make a determination as to whether you'd be able to succeed in their program.

Are you intentionally distinguishing research and academia? Either way, i agree that the experience would be invaluable.

I graduated with a slightly-lower-than-3.0 in Mol. Bio., did 4 years of research and had people write recs for me that allowed me to get into programs right now, so by no means is a sub-3.0 a kill switch. You just have to give adcoms a reason to look at you. Lastly, if you really do want to pursue a PhD, address it briefly in your personal statement. Indicate your undergrad is not indicative of your overall potential and point to the more current successes you've had to show that you've been able to show what you're more capable of.

How much weight do you think a completed, research-based MS thesis would add to my profile?

[BassAZ]

The only reason I emphasize academia is because you have a higher probability of publishing in academia. In industrial research, you have a better chance of being on a higher pay-scale and putting work into patentable projects but I don't think it generally helps your chances to get into an academic institution. My opinion is complete hearsay; I've never known anyone TURNED AWAY because they were in industry but I also don't think working in industrial research will bolster your CV as much as working in academia when it comes to adcoms evaluating you.

As for the MS, I apologize because I have no idea how it will help your chances of getting into a program. I CAN tell you that it will make you look better than if you didn't have it but how much or whether it will make a significant difference - I am not sure.

There's a lot more I could say but I would say this stuff would be the most important before you decide what branch of biology you're interested in and WHY you want to work on that particular sphere of biology.

[hifolks]

There's a lot more I could say but I would say this stuff would be the most important before you decide what branch of biology you're interested in and WHY you want to work on that particular sphere of biology.

Would you be willing to say some of it now?

[BassAZ]

Would you be willing to say some of it now?

Getting in to a school is one thing - why do you want to pursue graduate school? The desire to get in to biology and not want that ceiling is fine enough for posting here but why would you want to devote another 6-8 years of your life to this? What specifically drives you; biology, being pretty multi-disciplinary, ranges from bioinformatics to evolution to medical research. Is there are particular branch, subject matter or person you're interested in working with? Make sure to analyze the schools you're interested in, the people that you may want to work with and the NUMBER of people that are doing research that might interest you. Obviously none of this is written in stone - my friend came in to her PhD wanting to do immunology, HATED her rotations and now is doing very exciting work in neurobiology. But make sure to take the ever abstract "fit" in to your equation when you're looking at schools and applying to programs.

Not to put down any particular school or classroom setting, being in a lab for 40-60 hours a week is another beast and you should know exactly what you're getting into. It can be pretty darn frustrating, especially when many times you're doing something no one else has done - the let-down of continually failing can be very frustrating for some people.

The fact that the MS isn't completely research, wet-lab based may be a detriment but it's much better than nothing, and the fact you're doing well in those classes should probably quell any fears program directors would have that you cannot handle the book-learning that comes from the PhD program in question. In the current education market, it seems like schools are looking for known quantities, those individuals with research under their belt and some biology background.

I should say, none of this is to get you down or dissuade you from pursuing a PhD. These are all questions and things you will encounter and something you should have in mind before you sign off that the PhD is exactly what you want to do.

Sorry this is pretty scatter-brained, I'm doing it in between reading a paper that is literally boring me to tears.

[hifolks]

Getting in to a school is one thing - why do you want to pursue graduate school? The desire to get in to biology and not want that ceiling is fine enough for posting here but why would you want to devote another 6-8 years of your life to this? What specifically drives you; biology, being pretty multi-disciplinary, ranges from bioinformatics to evolution to medical research. Is there are particular branch, subject matter or person you're interested in working with? Make sure to analyze the schools you're interested in, the people that you may want to work with and the NUMBER of people that are doing research that might interest you. Obviously none of this is written in stone - my friend came in to her PhD wanting to do immunology, HATED her rotations and now is doing very exciting work in neurobiology. But make sure to take the ever abstract "fit" in to your equation when you're looking at schools and applying to programs.

Not to put down any particular school or classroom setting, being in a lab for 40-60 hours a week is another beast and you should know exactly what you're getting into. It can be pretty darn frustrating, especially when many times you're doing something no one else has done - the let-down of continually failing can be very frustrating for some people.

The fact that the MS isn't completely research, wet-lab based may be a detriment but it's much better than nothing, and the fact you're doing well in those classes should probably quell any fears program directors would have that you cannot handle the book-learning that comes from the PhD program in question. In the current education market, it seems like schools are looking for known quantities, those individuals with research under their belt and some biology background.

I should say, none of this is to get you down or dissuade you from pursuing a PhD. These are all questions and things you will encounter and something you should have in mind before you sign off that the PhD is exactly what you want to do.

Sorry this is pretty scatter-brained, I'm doing it in between reading a paper that is literally boring me to tears.

Actually, this is pretty good advice. Your question of "What, exactly...?" is where I am right now. I initially thought I wanted to be in bioinformatics, but after a wet-course (they are offered, but as electives) I realized that I really liked the benchwork. So now part of where I am is trying to figure out exactly what I want to do - I was a pretty good algorithmist and enjoy reading comp bio articles, but at the same time I've enjoyed all my straight bio analytic work as well (by that I mean those assignments where we are asked to provide explanations for given phenomena, as well as every lab course I've taken). Another way to phrase my dilemma is something like "I'm good at one thing, I enjoy another as well; should I buckle down and focus on the thing I'm good at?" This problem, of course, doesn't just affect my future decision making - I need to have a thesis proposal by the end of this calendar year, at the latest, and before I can decide on an idea I need to decide on what kind of idea it should be.

I apologize that this is kind of rambling, but it does reflect my thought process.

Incidentally, are you originally from AZ? If so, me too

[Haustier]

Definitely do not go back and get a bachelor's in biology...that would just be insanity. I would suggest finishing the masters at John Hopkins followed by getting an entry level research position (you may have to settle as a technician to begin with) at like a national lab or within industry like at Novozymes. Learn some of the techniques, get some good letters of recommendations, try to get your name on a paper (even 2nd or 3rd author would be ok) and then try applying to a PhD program. This route would only take a yr or two, hopefully...and you're making some money at least. My understanding is that for most programs, the research experience and related LoR can trump all other factors including GPA and GREs