Importance of Admisson Factors

[wishful2]

Hello,

I'm applying to several top tier programs, my interests are Biochemistry and Biomolecular Chemistry with a focus on enzymes.

Is it obvious that the importance of these factors will vary from individual to individual depending on their scores and other factors?

Does this order of ranking seem typical?

1.LORs

2,Research and publication history

3 GRE scores

4. GPA

5. Rank of undergrad school (ie R1)

Thanks for any input.

Edited September 25, 2011 by wishful2

[wishful2]

forgot SOP!

[Eigen]

I'd put your SoP up there with your letters of rec- but really, both of these are "supporting data" for your research experience.

GRE scores- mostly matter with respect to you making the department/schools "cutoffs"... Past minimum values, no one really seems to care. Below those, and they can severely impact your application- hence, the weighting is variable. Assuming you've got decent scores, I would rank them below GPA in importance.

Really, the most important things are the past research experience, and one other factor you didn't mention- research fit. If you have a ton of research experience, but can't show how you fit into one or more groups in the university you're applying to, it won't be worth nearly as much.

[process chemist]

Lets be clear on LORs. If even one of your recommendors sounds anything but excited to write a letter for you, don't put them down as a recommender. I know a person who got a crap LOR from former professor who said pretty much said that, "this person is smart, but he/she is lazy and needs to be pushed" or "this person got an A out of my class, but was just ok in lab". Statements like these can really screw any application, regardless of GRE scores or transcripts. The guy had a 1450 GRE and a 3.8 GPA (UG), 4.0 (MS) and got rejected from all but one of his target grad schools. He got into Vanderbilt for Cancer Biology, but that was only because he did an REU with one of the profs, and he had to pull the student's application and fight for his admission into that year's cohort.

[wishful2]

Thank you for the feedback. In regard to research, do you have a guess how much lab experience a typical applicant might have?

process chemist: I accidentally clicked the -1 next to your comment when I intended to do the +1!!! - how stupid and clumsy of me, I sincerely apologize and do appreciate your positive input.

Edited September 28, 2011 by wishful2

[Eigen]

I can only give a few anecdotal examples-

I had 4 years of research experience when I applied for grad school. The undergrad from my lab who went on to grad school last year had 4.5 years. Several of the students in my cohort had 3-4 years of experience as an undergrad.

That said, I'd say a solid year+ of research experience would be OK, assuming you were in the lab a lot and really knew what was going on with your projects. The more experience the better, though. I think more and more programs are looking for "shovel ready" graduate students that they can take in and put working on projects right away. To have that level of readiness requires a decent amount of undergraduate research experience, so you can safely and productively start research ASAP once you get to grad school.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Eigen

[wishful2]

Thanks. When you say 4 years of research experience, does that usually mean 4 full time years of strictly working in a lab or 4 years at school with lab and research classes? I ask because I want to compare it to 6 months full time (no bottle washing) in a university lab.

[Eigen]

For me, that was 4 years of research ~15-30 hours per week, pretty much year round. No bottle washing- small synthesis projects for the first year or so, and then a larger project that became my undergraduate thesis. It was pretty much the same for the others I mentioned. That's not counting lab courses, but time actually doing research in an academic lab.

So not really either of the extremes you mention- it wasn't full time, but it was academic research, not lab/research classes.

When you say 6 months full time, are you talking about 50-60 hours per week full time? If so, that's a fair bit of research experience, but I'd say rounding it out to a year would help.

As much as the "time" from research experience, it's also about what defined skills you can mention/demonstrate. How many instrument systems are you intimately familiar with? How self directed was your research- can you lay out an experimental design/proposal? What enzyme assay/biomolecular extraction techniques are you familiar with? How synthetically versed are you? Laying out your skill sets can help a committee feel where you would fit into their program.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Eigen