International student applying to US graduate programs

[ltn]

Dear all,

 

I am a student from the Netherlands and I wish to apply to US graduate programs this year. However, as an international student I do not know how well my academic credentials compete against those of US students, or those of other international students. I was hoping that some people here could help shed light on this matter.

 

I am looking for graduate programs in biochemistry/molecular biology. My aim is to apply to one or more of the following programs: Stanford -biosc, UCSF-tetrad, UC Berkeley-MCB, Harvard-MCB, MIT-bio, Columbia-biochem, Yale-MCDB, Princeton-MB, and The Scripps Institute.

 

My academic credentials:

 

Undergrad Institution: B.Sc. (honors program) + M.Sc., both with the highest possible distinctions, from an average Dutch university.

• All 15-or-so universities in the Netherlands ranked approximately evenly, and somewhere within the top ~50-100 of the world.

Majors: Biomed, Chemistry

 

Overall GPA: minimally 3.85, but more likely somewhere around 3.95 for both my B.Sc. and my M.Sc.

• I haven’t officially converted my Dutch GPA into a US one, but I’m somwhere in the top 5% grade-range in my country.
   

GRE: I do not have my subject GRE scores or my general GRE scores yet, but I plan to do them later this year.

 

IELTS: 8.5 avg.

 

Research Experience: I have 2 years of fulltime research experience, of which one year has been at a mid-level Ivy university (not Harvard) in the US. I am third author on 1 publication, in a journal with an average-to-good impact factor.

 

Extra: I have been a tutor in biology and chemistry, and later on a chemistry teaching assistant for about a year. I have been awarded 4 competitive Dutch scholarships to study abroad.

 

Assuming that I receive average GRE scores, what do you think my chances are to be admitted to any of these programs, am I aiming to high? I am several years older compared to the average age of US students that are applying since I have already obtained my Masters degree, will this affect or harm my application? Finally, in general, do I inherently have an advantage or disadvantage to apply as an inertnational student (i.e. is the admittance rate generally higher for international students than for US students?)

 

Thank you for your help.

[Andean Pat]

Dear ltn,

 

I was an international applicant last season so my advice may shed some light on your concerns. First of all, what I have learned, especially in those top-20 schools you are applying to, is that scores are not that important. Admission committees are more interested in your promise as a scholar and a suitable fit for the department. In other words, you may have excellent credentials but that does mean you have high chances. Now that the mathematical part is done (except for GRE), take you time to work with your referees on their recommendation. Contact graduate students to understand what the department is looking for and so you can tailor your statement of purpose for each school. Work on your writing sample, which should show academic maturity and intellectual originality.

 

Furthermore, even if all of this is perfect, you may still get rejected, that is a reality. That is why be clear in you SOP that accepting you will be the best decision they will ever make!!!

 

As an international student I applied to top 50 schools-- if I am leaving my home, families and friends, I am leaving them for an excellent school, right? So weigh all the pros and cons. I did not apply to anywhere I did not want to go (although there was an excellent departmental fit).

 

Hope it helps!!!!!  

[aberrant]

I was an international applicant last season so my advice may shed some light on your concerns. First of all, what I have learned, especially in those top-20 schools you are applying to, is that scores are not that important. Admission committees are more interested in your promise as a scholar and a suitable fit for the department. In other words, you may have excellent credentials but that does mean you have high chances.

 

You mean "scores are important... but that does not mean you have high chances"?

 

 

Assuming that I receive average GRE scores, what do you think my chances are to be admitted to any of these programs, am I aiming to high? I am several years older compared to the average age of US students that are applying since I have already obtained my Masters degree, will this affect or harm my application? Finally, in general, do I inherently have an advantage or disadvantage to apply as an inertnational student (i.e. is the admittance rate generally higher for international students than for US students?)

 

As a current international grad student who's applied some of those schools on your list, your stats look great. What you need now is strong recommendation letters and SOP/PS, besides your GRE score. Remember that a good GRE scores may not necessarily grant you admission to these schools, a poor GRE scores can hurt your application, especially as an international student. Your age should not be a problem when it comes to grad school application. 2 years full-time seems minimal since you have completed a master program (I assumed it was a thesis program), maybe more research experience will help you out. You can expect that public schools in California accept fewer international students compare to private schools, or schools outside of CA, with UCSF as one of the most competitive schools to get in as an international applicant.

[narcisso]

What I realized after applying to grad school is that it is really important that POI have available funding when you will be enrolling and are willing to recruit new grad students. So if you can find out that before applying, you can increase your chances by targeting groups and laboratories that have Ph.D. openings.

[Andean Pat]

You mean "scores are important... but that does not mean you have high chances"?

 

Emmmm.... no, I meant that scores are not as important as one can imagine, at least, as I said, for the schools that I applied.  What they looked into were SOP, letters and writing sample. I don't know if you can generalize this, of course, but I wanted to point out that not all adcomms evaluate applicants in the same way.

 

The first time I sat for the GRE I got good V and Q but terrible AW , so I asked all the POIs if I should sit for it again. None could give me a plain answer because they do not have a minimum requirement. Anyway, I sat for it again hehehe   and improved all my numbers (phew!  ).

 

Again, this is from my experience in only five schools. The point is that not all schools care about the same things. It is not only a matter of good numbers and the process is more complicated than we think. However, having good numbers is an excellent starting point!!! 

Edited March 2, 2013 by Andean Pat

[1FJG]

Emmmm.... no, I meant that scores are not as important as one can imagine, at least, as I said, for the schools that I applied.  What they looked into were SOP, letters and writing sample. I don't know if you can generalize this, of course, but I wanted to point out that not all adcomms evaluate applicants in the same way.

 

The first time I sat for the GRE I got good V and Q but terrible AW , so I asked all the POIs if I should sit for it again. None could give me a plain answer because they do not have a minimum requirement. Anyway, I sat for it again hehehe   and improved all my numbers (phew!  ).

 

Again, this is from my experience in only five schools. The point is that not all schools care about the same things. It is not only a matter of good numbers and the process is more complicated than we think. However, having good numbers is an excellent starting point!!! 

 

I think aberrant is responding as a science student POV. Just found out this one example: http://bbs.yale.edu/apply/faq.aspx

 

• What are the average GPA and GRE scores of admitted students?
• The BBS Program does not publish GPA or GRE data on our applicant pool. Our main guideline to applicants is that although a high GPA and high GRE scores are attractive to admissions committees, they do not guarantee admission. On the other hand, GPAs below 3.0 and GRE scores below 500 Verbal, 500 Quantitative, or 3.0 Writing are detrimental to your application.

you need good scores to make the first round cut in lots of science programs. there are also tons of statistics on that, too. if you can't make the cut, it is almost impossible to have the adcom review your essays, letters and so forth.

[ltn]

Thank you all for your help so far.

 

I am still not so sure how my credentials compare to those of other students applying to similar programs? Aberrant, you mentioned for example that 2 years of full-time research is minimal, whereas in my country it is quite a lot.

 

Since many of the programs I will be applying to recommend the GRE subject test, I am currently looking to register for it (to take it unfortunately I will have to travel abroad). Does highly recommend mean that they will disregard my application if I don’t send the subject scores in?

 

When I register they give me the option to sign up four institutions to receive my test scores for free. Still, would it be smart for me not to sign them up yet, just in case I mess up the test and get a horrible score? I can always send them afterwards, even though I lose a $100 dollars this way.

 

Warm regards.

Edited March 3, 2013 by ltn

[aberrant]

Thank you all for your help so far.

 

I am still not so sure how my credentials compare to those of other students applying to similar programs? Aberrant, you mentioned for example that 2 years of full-time research is minimal, whereas in my country it is quite a lot.

 

Since many of the programs I will be applying to recommend the GRE subject test, I am currently looking to register for it (to take it unfortunately I will have to travel abroad). Does highly recommend mean that they will disregard my application if I don’t send the subject scores in?

 

When I register they give me the option to sign up four institutions to receive my test scores for free. Still, would it be smart for me not to sign them up yet, just in case I mess up the test and get a horrible score? I can always send them afterwards, even though I lose a $100 dollars this way.

 

Warm regards.

Because you are looking at those top-tier programs, 2 years full-time is about the same as 4 years part-time (20 hours/week), which is what a lot of competitive students do when they are undergraduates in the U.S. I know a few people started doing research when they are in junior/senior in high schools, or 1 to 2 years before going to college in the U.S.

 

Subject GRE is recommended / strongly recommended, but not required. Therefore, technically you don't have to submit it if you don't want to. If you have read posts from previous application cycles in the forum, quite a lot of students got into these schools without a subject test score. Yet, my perspective is that a good subject GRE score will help your chances, and a poor score will hurt. Therefore, my take is "play it safe" -- know the subject GRE score before sending it out, even if ETS offers it "free to send the report to 4 schools".

[ltn]

Because you are looking at those top-tier programs, 2 years full-time is about the same as 4 years part-time (20 hours/week), which is what a lot of competitive students do when they are undergraduates in the U.S. I know a few people started doing research when they are in junior/senior in high schools, or 1 to 2 years before going to college in the U.S.

 

Indeed, I have seen many former applicants on this forum with many years of research experience. At first I was blown away by it, but then I realized they were probably working part-time. In any case, I agree with what you say, although full-time research for me was closer to 60 hours/week.

I also noticed that highly qualified US applicants often minimally have two publications (with at least one as first author), in addition to numerous conference visits and poster presentations. This baffles me because I know several people that published twice during their entire PhD! In fact, I believe that the average publication rate for PhD candidates in Europe is under 2.3 publications per PhD. Did these highly qualified applicants I talk about bribe their supervisors or something..?

 

 

Subject GRE is recommended / strongly recommended, but not required. Therefore, technically you don't have to submit it if you don't want to. If you have read posts from previous application cycles in the forum, quite a lot of students got into these schools without a subject test score. Yet, my perspective is that a good subject GRE score will help your chances, and a poor score will hurt. Therefore, my take is "play it safe" -- know the subject GRE score before sending it out, even if ETS offers it "free to send the report to 4 schools".

 

I see that you are currently enrolled in a biophysics program, which means that you probably went through many of the processes I am going through now. Did you decide to take the GRE subject test? If so, what percentage did you get, and did you send in the results with your application?

 

Finally, I have to say that from all the credentials that I have seen and the programs they got accepted to or denied to, I could loosely extrapolate that the reputation of the undergraduate school matters (a lot). Whereas the US has countless top tier institutions for undergraduates (with HYPSM at the top end, and for example UCSD, UCLA, NYU and Un. of Boston at the lower end), Europe only has several universities that can compete. I can almost count them on one hand for the biosciences (Un. Of Oxford, UCL, Un. Of Cambridge, Un. Of Edinburgh, ETH Zurich, and the Karolinska Institutet). Sadly, being from the Netherlands, I never had the opportunity to enroll in one.

 

[aberrant]

I also noticed that highly qualified US applicants often minimally have two publications (with at least one as first author), in addition to numerous conference visits and poster presentations. This baffles me because I know several people that published twice during their entire PhD! In fact, I believe that the average publication rate for PhD candidates in Europe is under 2.3 publications per PhD. Did these highly qualified applicants I talk about bribe their supervisors or something..?

It depends on the field and the policy of each lab. In terms of fields, I know for sure that structural-based research often have lesser publications, whereas biophysical studies (such as interactions, ligand binding, etc.) can be published more frequently. Therefore, a publication isn't a must, which you may have expected. As for how to get published, it really depends on the lab. I know there are a type of PIs would place someone into the author list if they can contribute at least 1 figure in the manuscript (it could be a gel, a chromatograph, etc.), and also a type of PI would give someone the first author if he/she able to crystalize a protein / build a model from 3d reconstruction / etc. Hence, it varies. I also remember when I was applying grad school and lurking around this forum, I read a post that someone in biochemistry (or neuroscience?) claimed that she was published as a 2nd or 3rd author after about half a month, and all she did is running a gel. Yes, a SDS-PAGE gel.

 

 

 

I see that you are currently enrolled in a biophysics program, which means that you probably went through many of the processes I am going through now. Did you decide to take the GRE subject test? If so, what percentage did you get, and did you send in the results with your application?

I did take the GRE subject test, in chemistry though (as I was a chemistry major) and didn't do well in it (below 50%). I did so bad that I was rejected by Scripps (TSRI) even though I communicated with a POI in person, and was going to work in the lab for half a year before submitting my application. It sound stupid I know, but the website of some programs said that GRE subject test is required, so I was forced to send in my score. What I would advice you to do, however, is to contact the director of graduate admission / DGS (studies) / whoever, to confirm that subject test score is necessary. Since some others applied to Scripps last year did not submit the subject test score and still manage to get in.

 

 

 

Finally, I have to say that from all the credentials that I have seen and the programs they got accepted to or denied to, I could loosely extrapolate that the reputation of the undergraduate school matters (a lot). Whereas the US has countless top tier institutions for undergraduates (with HYPSM at the top end, and for example UCSD, UCLA, NYU and Un. of Boston at the lower end), Europe only has several universities that can compete. I can almost count them on one hand for the biosciences (Un. Of Oxford, UCL, Un. Of Cambridge, Un. Of Edinburgh, ETH Zurich, and the Karolinska Institutet). Sadly, being from the Netherlands, I never had the opportunity to enroll in one.

That is why you should look past the reputation / ranking of a school (especially the undergraduate ranking), and focus on the quality of the research. In fact, I don't think "HYPSM" are necessarily the top end -- they are strong/top in some disciplines, but not all of the disciplines. If anything, I would rather focus on the achievement/reputation of specific faculty members in a school, who may not necessarily be in "HYPSM".

 

And that's not entirely true about Europe neither. Like the situation in the U.S., schools that can "compete" is a relative term, and it really depends on your focus. Say biophysics, EMBL, Max Planck, University of Cologne, Imperial, etc. are also good programs with strong faculty members (e.g. Wolfgang Baumeister from Max Planck). 

[ltn]

I did take the GRE subject test, in chemistry though (as I was a chemistry major) and didn't do well in it (below 50%). I did so bad that I was rejected by Scripps (TSRI) even though I communicated with a POI in person, and was going to work in the lab for half a year before submitting my application. It sound stupid I know, but the website of some programs said that GRE subject test is required, so I was forced to send in my score. What I would advice you to do, however, is to contact the director of graduate admission / DGS (studies) / whoever, to confirm that subject test score is necessary. Since some others applied to Scripps last year did not submit the subject test score and still manage to get in.

 

What should be the cut-off score for me to send in my GRE subject test scores? I have read somewhere else that everything below 85% is not good enough. So what should I do in case I get, let’s say, an 82%?

 

 

And that's not entirely true about Europe neither. Like the situation in the U.S., schools that can "compete" is a relative term, and it really depends on your focus. Say biophysics, EMBL, Max Planck, University of Cologne, Imperial, etc. are also good programs with strong faculty members (e.g. Wolfgang Baumeister from Max Planck).

 

Although many infamous European institutes such as the EMBL, Max Planck, the Pasteur Institute, and the MRC LMB, perform excellent research in this field, they do not offer undergraduate education. I feel like for undergraduate education, university reputation can be quite important, since a lot of the Ivy-plus universities in the US tend to interbreed, even on a graduate level.

[aberrant]

What should be the cut-off score for me to send in my GRE subject test scores? I have read somewhere else that everything below 85% is not good enough. So what should I do in case I get, let’s say, an 82%?

I don't think there is a finite number and that is really your call. What I do know is that usually these schools want international applicants to have >80% subject GRE (>=50% for resident applicants). So it really depends on the program, which you may have to e-mail those DGS people for their advices. For sure though your general GRE scores play a bigger factor in terms of preliminary round when these top schools cut out big chunks of applicants based on general GRE scores and GPA, before reviewing the applications "carefully" (i've heard they look at each application for about 3-15 minutes depends on school and person.)

 

 

 

Although many infamous European institutes such as the EMBL, Max Planck, the Pasteur Institute, and the MRC LMB, perform excellent research in this field, they do not offer undergraduate education. I feel like for undergraduate education, university reputation can be quite important, since a lot of the Ivy-plus universities in the US tend to interbreed, even on a graduate level.

I'm not sure why you're bothered by the reputation of these schools, because, career-wise, what school you attend has little to do in terms of helping you literally getting a phd-required job. your PI, your research (publications), your recommendation letters, and your personal network do, however. Even if you go to a lesser known school for phd, you can still be a postdoc in reputable schools / locations, which means a lot more if you are going into academia. On the other hand, if a student graduated from a top-tier program with mediocre research and rec letters, they cannot go far in securing a post-doc positions in the most competitive atmosphere. Even if they can, chances are that student will not get renew after first year. Hence, it really is all about what you have learned and are capable to do during and after your phd. I know what I said might be different that what you thought, or some posts that you have read in this forum, but this is what you'll hear if you attend workshops in science conferences, talking to recruiters or PIs in person (may be with the exception with the old, conservative PIs from the ivy leagues just so that they can keep their tradition of interbreed?).

 

FYI though, both UCSF and Scripps are graduate school "only" -- they do not have undergraduate curriculum / coursework, nor do they offer bachelor degrees.

[ltn]

I don't think there is a finite number and that is really your call. What I do know is that usually these schools want international applicants to have >80% subject GRE (>=50% for resident applicants). So it really depends on the program, which you may have to e-mail those DGS people for their advices. For sure though your general GRE scores play a bigger factor in terms of preliminary round when these top schools cut out big chunks of applicants based on general GRE scores and GPA, before reviewing the applications "carefully" (i've heard they look at each application for about 3-15 minutes depends on school and person.)

 

Thanks! That is very helpful. So are you saying that if I do not get a high score on the GRE subject test, it would still be worth it for me to apply to all the top tier programs (that recommend the subject test), without submitting my subject test scores? Will this not significantly lower my chances?

 

For the general GRE, I am assuming that for a program like yours (and the ones I will apply to), the quantitative section is the most important. At the US institution that I attended, all my fellow colleagues had either received near-perfect or perfect scores on this section. This might be the hardest task for me so far, since I haven’t practiced any math in almost 5 years. I am currently starting to revise math a little. How long do you think it will take a math-simpleton to reach a level where he can get a (near-)perfect score on the GRE?

 

 

I'm not sure why you're bothered by the reputation of these schools, because, career-wise, what school you attend has little to do in terms of helping you literally getting a phd-required job. your PI, your research (publications), your recommendation letters, and your personal network do, however.

 

I think I might not have been clear. All I wanted to convey is that I believe it will be harder for me to get accepted to a top graduate program in my field, than another person with the exact same level of credentials, research experience, recommendation letters, and motivation, but who did his/her undergraduate degree at, let’s say, Harvard.

[aberrant]

Thanks! That is very helpful. So are you saying that if I do not get a high score on the GRE subject test, it would still be worth it for me to apply to all the top tier programs (that recommend the subject test), without submitting my subject test scores? Will this not significantly lower my chances?

 

For the general GRE, I am assuming that for a program like yours (and the ones I will apply to), the quantitative section is the most important. At the US institution that I attended, all my fellow colleagues had either received near-perfect or perfect scores on this section. This might be the hardest task for me so far, since I haven’t practiced any math in almost 5 years. I am currently starting to revise math a little. How long do you think it will take a math-simpleton to reach a level where he can get a (near-)perfect score on the GRE?

I don't think it will significantly lower your chances. From my observation (which can be wrong), if a program recommends subject GRE score and some applicants submitted it, those applicants are either 1. did very well in the subject test, or 2. they did well in the subject test to a point where they can compensate their mediocre GPA. So for example, while applicant A has GPA of 3.6 that may seems less competitive than applicant B with a GPA of 3.9, if applicant A managed to get a >90% in subject GRE in his/her specialized field (biology / chemistry / physics / biochemistry), then my understanding is that this applicant A is just on-par with applicant B in terms of statistics. But again, there isn't a finite number for minimum % on subject test. What I do know, however, is that (according to professors from UCSD chemistry/biochemistry), UCSD expects qualified international applicants to have >80% in subject test, whereas Rockefeller University expects >90%.

 

I think that for most, if not all, science programs, quantitative means the most. The closer to 99% the better, but it is not a must -- as long as you are greater than 80% you should be okay. On a side note, verbal scores can mean a lot to some schools. Therefore, you definitely want to do great in both verbal and quant sections for these schools. As for perfection, I think it depends on person. Before I took GRE, I didn't study any algebra/precalculus for 3, 4 years. Since there is no calculus or trigonometry, the materials are really just what you probably learned in secondary school / high school. To me, the biggest problem that I have is English, or the wording for the question. That actually cost me a couple questions, and I winded up getting a 84% that I was far from happy about it.

 

 

 

I think I might not have been clear. All I wanted to convey is that I believe it will be harder for me to get accepted to a top graduate program in my field, than another person with the exact same level of credentials, research experience, recommendation letters, and motivation, but who did his/her undergraduate degree at, let’s say, Harvard.

That really depends then. It depends on how the adcom / PI see diversity as an important factor to their programs / labs. Some news report did talk about the interbreeding issues in ivy league schools, but I don't think that is always the case for schools outside of Ivy leagues. Just some quick examples here:

https://urology2008-2012.ucsf.edu/blellochlab/people.htm

http://coxlab.ucsf.edu/COX_WEB_SITE/people.html

http://www.craiklab.ucsf.edu/members.html

http://dumontlab.ucsf.edu/People.html

http://www.neuroscience.ucsf.edu/neurograd/faculty/edwards.html#members

http://biochemistry.ucsf.edu/labs/elsamad/people/people.html

[arnds]

Thanks! That is very helpful. So are you saying that if I do not get a high score on the GRE subject test, it would still be worth it for me to apply to all the top tier programs (that recommend the subject test), without submitting my subject test scores? Will this not significantly lower my chances?

 

For the general GRE, I am assuming that for a program like yours (and the ones I will apply to), the quantitative section is the most important. At the US institution that I attended, all my fellow colleagues had either received near-perfect or perfect scores on this section. This might be the hardest task for me so far, since I haven’t practiced any math in almost 5 years. I am currently starting to revise math a little. How long do you think it will take a math-simpleton to reach a level where he can get a (near-)perfect score on the GRE?

 

 

 

I think I might not have been clear. All I wanted to convey is that I believe it will be harder for me to get accepted to a top graduate program in my field, than another person with the exact same level of credentials, research experience, recommendation letters, and motivation, but who did his/her undergraduate degree at, let’s say, Harvard.

 

As an international student with similar credentials and who applied to some of the universities you applied to, I have only one thing to add. Subject GRE is more important than most people would tell you. You must have excellent GRE scores (both general and subject). Not taking Subject GRE really hurt me; so don't make the same mistake. And if you wanna concentrate on biomedical sciences, you better concentrate on other schools like Tufts, UVA, UAB, IUPUI, Rutgers which apparently don't have the same lustre of ivy league, but have great programs on the discipline and more importantly good funding .

[lmayumi]

Hey fellow Grad ppl,

 

my name is Luisa and I am from Brazil. I am a MSc. student at a prestigious university in the capital of the country (Brasilia University). I finish my dissertation in February next year so I will apply for 2014 fall semester at this end of this year.

 

Here in Brazil we have funding agencies that enable us to go abroad to pursue a PhD degree. I have been in the lab since undergrad and I had the chance to know several prominent researches of my area. One of them recommended me for the EBI director and Berkeley professor Chris Somerville. 

 

I have been early accepted into Illinois( Urbana/Champaign) and Berkeley since I have brazilian funding and full scholarship, however my dream is really Wisconsin (Madison). I don't know any faculty in madison and every lab I sent an e-mail to did not respond. 

 

Do you think I should apply to Madison and risk losing Illinois or Berkeley? Is it really hard to get into Madison Biochem program (IPib) ? 

 

I have already taken the GRE and got average scores (V=157 Q=152) and my TOEFL is scheduled for next month. 

 

Help guys, what do you think I should do? 

 

Aww, my Undergrad GPA is 3.3 and my grad (masters) GPA is a impeccable 4.

 

 

[hustlebunny]

Hey Itn, I got accepted into a top 30 school, my GPA is a beast, research, leadership etc but I think what helped was showing that I excel outside the academic environment as well. Get involved socially, volunteering etc... my GRE Q is terrible.. good luck

Edited March 22, 2013 by hustlebunny

[ltn]

Thank you all so much for your help so far, especially aberrant.

New events have radically changed my position; I have been accepted into a molecular biology program at the University of Cambridge under a fully funded scholarship. I am currently in quite a tough spot, and I have a hard decision to make.

The reason why I haven’t accepted the offer yet is two-fold:
1) I would rather do my PhD in the US
2) The project that I will be doing my PhD on isn’t my favorite research topic

The second reason is most important to me. However, it has been told to me by US graduate students that it is hard to say if I would get my favorite research topic once I have been accepted into a US graduate program. There are generally maximally only two or three topics (out of ~30) per department that interest me. It is uncertain whether any of these labs will have space for me during my enrollment year, and there could be though competition for a spot with other graduate students that share my interests.

A second important aspect to consider is that I can start my PhD at Cambridge this year already, and that the total time to obtain the PhD will not take longer than 4 years. Conversely, if I do my PhD in the US, I will have to wait a full year before I enroll (my application year), and then the PhD will take approximately 6 years.

I have really valued your input so far, and I was wondering if you could assist me in my decision, maybe by clarifying aspects that I have not considered above.

Regards,

ltn

[Andean Pat]

OK, I this is the third time I write this because I do not want you to take me the wrong way. So let's see if this time I can speak my mind without sounding too harsh. If I do, forgive me in advance. 

 

What I see is this: first you wanted reassurance on applying for a US program. Now you do not know whether to accept a PhD offer at Cambridge. You are talking of one of the top 5 universities in the world. Fully funded. Top of the world. Fully funded. If you didn't want to go there, you wouldn't have applied  

 

In other words, not only you seem to be very smart but also intellectually mature so as to be accepted in one of the best programs in your discipline. What I do not understand (sorry if I unleash my monster) is why you need us to convince you or to reassure you that you are making a good decision? I mean, this is not about a topic (you can do a better topic in a post-doc) or a matters of years (4 or 6 is not a great difference), this is about you having the guts of doing what you have already done once: you applied to cam. Great! Now make a choice. You got in. Decide. You can do this!!! If you applied it's because you want to go there, so go!!!! And if you do not want to go because of ANY valid reason, you do not need to explain ANYONE that you rejected an offer to cam. It's your call.

[aberrant]

I have recently talked to some professors who from my department who isn't only big in the department and their corresponding fields, but also about how inferior the degree can be. By inferior, it means the curriculum for science PhD programs in UK are generally "easier". In the U.S., you are expected to take classes, past your qualification and dissertation exams, teach for a semester/a year, and more importantly, perform challenging research under the guidance of your PI, as oppose to full-time research without any exams other than the final dissertation defense (depends on the PI, you may/may not receive much guidance from your PI). That is one of the reasons why the PhD programs in the U.S. is generally "longer", and there is no guaranteed that you can graduate in a finite number of years, such as 4 years. For a quick example, this professor that I talked to who got his PhD in the UK, his only presentation and exam was his dissertation defense.

 

My personal opinion on this option is to evaluate what do you want to do in your future in terms of career choice -- academia vs. industry. Here is the bottom line, if you want to go into academia, not only you will need teaching experience (even if just 1 semester), you'll also need to have independent research experience. In other words, you'll probably want to do a couple years of post-doc in the U.S. before applying faculty positions.

 

Just a few things to think about, other than research (topic) interest, funding, and reputation of the school.

[ltn]

What I see is this: first you wanted reassurance on applying for a US program. Now you do not know whether to accept a PhD offer at Cambridge. You are talking of one of the top 5 universities in the world. Fully funded. Top of the world. Fully funded. If you didn't want to go there, you wouldn't have applied

 

The application to Cambridge did not go as it would in the US. Instead of applying to a program, you directly apply to a supervisor that you would like to work with (since there is no courses you need to take, but rather you start with research directly). It is up to them to decide if they want to hire a student. My first choice supervisor declined my application, but another supervisor was interested in me, and offered me the scholarship.

 

The topic I originally wanted to pursue was much more applied science (bioengineering), whereas the project I got offered is medically oriented. Not only do I like the first topic better, but I also think that the skills I would learn there are much easier transferrable to a career in industry, if I ever wish to pursue one. For the second topic, this is very hard to say. I am afraid that the skills I will learn there will only be valuable in a very narrow field within academia, and that even if I wanted to switch topics I would be forced to stay within very limited boundaries.

 

I have recently talked to some professors who from my department who isn't only big in the department and their corresponding fields, but also about how inferior the degree can be. By inferior, it means the curriculum for science PhD programs in UK are generally "easier". In the U.S., you are expected to take classes, past your qualification and dissertation exams, teach for a semester/a year, and more importantly, perform challenging research under the guidance of your PI, as oppose to full-time research without any exams other than the final dissertation defense (depends on the PI, you may/may not receive much guidance from your PI). That is one of the reasons why the PhD programs in the U.S. is generally "longer", and there is no guaranteed that you can graduate in a finite number of years, such as 4 years. For a quick example, this professor that I talked to who got his PhD in the UK, his only presentation and exam was his dissertation defense.

 

My personal opinion on this option is to evaluate what do you want to do in your future in terms of career choice -- academia vs. industry. Here is the bottom line, if you want to go into academia, not only you will need teaching experience (even if just 1 semester), you'll also need to have independent research experience. In other words, you'll probably want to do a couple years of post-doc in the U.S. before applying faculty positions.

 

I agree with this. However, a major difference I have seen between graduate students in the US and in Europe is that most graduate students in the US will have started their PhD after their Bachelors degree, whereas PhD students in Europe generally hold a Masters degree (like me). Thus, most students will have had time for two more years of courses and research.

 

I am not sure if I have what it takes to make it all the way in academia. To be safe, I would rather keep my options open and pursue a degree that make me easily marketable. More importantly, I generally enjoy research that has applied aspects to it better than pure fundamental research.

 

I am fairly sure that I will want to return to the US after my PhD. Will it be much harder for me to get an (academic) job in the US after a PhD in the UK?

[Andean Pat]

The application to Cambridge did not go as it would in the US. Instead of applying to a program, you directly apply to a supervisor that you would like to work with (since there is no courses you need to take, but rather you start with research directly). It is up to them to decide if they want to hire a student. My first choice supervisor declined my application, but another supervisor was interested in me, and offered me the scholarship.

Yes, I know I also know about the PhD difference between England and the US (I applied for an MPhil at Cam but was unsuccessful due to funding issues ). What I mean is that having a PhD from Cambridge is somehow in your plans, although the topic is not the one you prefer. I feel (and this is an idea I have) that after Cambridge you will be able to have excellent post-doc/academic positions. Now, maybe you should speak to graduate students at cam right now, or recent PhDs to see if you can tailor the program to your needs. If you can, then welcome to the US!

 

tell us what you decide

[compiler_guy]

Hey fellow Grad ppl,

 

my name is Luisa and I am from Brazil. I am a MSc. student at a prestigious university in the capital of the country (Brasilia University). I finish my dissertation in February next year so I will apply for 2014 fall semester at this end of this year.

 

Here in Brazil we have funding agencies that enable us to go abroad to pursue a PhD degree. I have been in the lab since undergrad and I had the chance to know several prominent researches of my area. One of them recommended me for the EBI director and Berkeley professor Chris Somerville. 

 

I have been early accepted into Illinois( Urbana/Champaign) and Berkeley since I have brazilian funding and full scholarship, however my dream is really Wisconsin (Madison). I don't know any faculty in madison and every lab I sent an e-mail to did not respond. 

 

Do you think I should apply to Madison and risk losing Illinois or Berkeley? Is it really hard to get into Madison Biochem program (IPib) ? 

 

I have already taken the GRE and got average scores (V=157 Q=152) and my TOEFL is scheduled for next month. 

 

Help guys, what do you think I should do? 

 

Aww, my Undergrad GPA is 3.3 and my grad (masters) GPA is a impeccable 4.

 

First of all, perhaps you should open a separate thread. You might get better responses.

 

Please note that getting accepted to a prestigious PhD program in the USA in universities like Urbana-Champagne in Illinois and UC Berkeley is not easy for international applicants or even for US applicants. Therefore it is possible that if you defer your application and apply again next year you will not get accepted to these universities. So I suggest you choose one of the universities that admitted you, and not risk it.

[j_grad]

Hello

I am an international applicant. I was on a student exchange program in the U.S in the year 2011. That research experience was one motivating factor to pursue my Doctoral Studies in the U.S. After I returned to  my home country I took the GRE and the TOEFL. 2nd attempt at the GRE was 313 (159 Q, 154-V, 4 AWA). TOEFL iBT 094.

I am the rank holder in M.S program from the reputed university and also have had a 10 month research job at one of the best universities in my home country. 

I really do not understand what is the clue to get a positive offer letter from the Grad school. I intend to study Pharmacology with a focus on Stem Cells.

 

Suggestions are welcomed!