Well, that was $500 in application fees well spent... not.

[groverj3]

Well, here I sit ~$500 poorer and with nothing to show for it. I will, however, try to avoid the bitching and moaning. In the end, it's likely I was not selected to interview due to some catastrophic red-flag in my application.

 

Applied to 8 Molecular Biology/Biochemistry/Cell Biology PhD programs and managed not to get a single interview. Quite disappointing. I'm still waiting on an M.S. program at the University of Arizona. I feel as if I would be a great fit for that program due to it being centered around getting people into the biotech industry rather than academia and now having spent two years working at a biotech company (a CRO, really, but I mostly do real-time PCR centric stuff... so it's relevant). However, I have to wonder if whatever red flag was raised in my other applications will also be a problem here.

 

Things I had going for me:

1. Six years of lab experience in a variety of environments... plant genomics-related work (in undergrad at Michigan State), a summer at the University of Notre Dame working with Plasmodium falciparum (malaria parasites), and 2 years working in an FDA-regulated lab doing biodistribution studies of potential gene therapy vectors (virus-based) and stem cell lines.

 

2. The PI of the lab I worked in for four years at MSU, a professor that taught a class I did very well in and knew me personally, and our department manager at work (who also has a PhD in Biochemistry) all wrote me letters of recommendation.

 

3. Recognition on a journal article as an author. It wasn't a major article, but it's still something. Also, on a presentation given at a few conferences by another member of our department at work.

 

4. Experience with lots of different instrumentation (don't know if they care about this stuff, but it seems like a plus). Gas chromatography, HPLC, Mass spec, real-time PCR, etc...

 

In the end, you just can't overcome:

1. 3.3 undergrad GPA. A few hardcore science classes were low (couple of 2.5s in some biochem classes), as ashamed as I am to admit.

 

2. GRE scores were decent but not outstanding. The ETS took the liberty of deciding what I would have gotten on the new version of the test (which I did not take, as I took it back in 2010) and sending that out with my score reports. Surprise, my percentile ranks were over 10% lower on both Verbal and Quantitative than when I received my scores after taking the test. Something in the low 50s percentile-wise in Quantitative, and 60s in verbal after the adjustment. Strangely my 5 on the writing gained me 10% there for a final of 92% in that section (not that it matters). I'm still confused how they can justify that stuff. Nothing I can do about it though.

 

I suppose at this point, the only thing left to do is wait for Arizona and maybe look for some more M.S. programs that aren't done accepting applications. The prospect of paying for more school isn't all that appealing, but I will do what I have to in order to escape being an expendable lab tech making $15 an hour for the next 10 years before I have enough experience to leverage a pay increase. That's only assuming I ever gain any skills at my current job that would warrant a pay increase (very small department, very busy, no chance to cross-train, everyone has a well-defined niche).

 

Pretty disappointed, but not everything in life is going to be easy. Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate my goals. Doing research has always been my dream, but I wonder if I'm reaching beyond my ability level. I suppose there's always next year.

 

I'm going to develop some religion so I can pray for my final application 

[groverj3]

I would assume a decent course of action is to follow up with the programs I was not admitted to in order to find out what turned them off so much. I'll send some emails around after I get the bad taste out of my mouth from this.

Edited March 15, 2013 by groverj3

[midnight]

grover, although the GRE is only one component of your app, I really think you should study and practice as much as humanly possible and retake.

 

Given your field and some of your lower grades, you should really be aiming for 160+ (possibly higher) on the quant section. I wouldn't be surprised if it hindered you, at least somewhat. It seems like a lot of life sciences applicants have astoundingly high verbal and AW scores, too--which don't guarantee acceptances, of course, but they certainly don't hurt.

 

Good luck!

Edited March 15, 2013 by midnight streetlight

[eponine997]

In the end, you just can't overcome:

1. 3.3 undergrad GPA. A few hardcore science classes were low (couple of 2.5s in some biochem classes), as ashamed as I am to admit.

 

2. GRE scores were decent but not outstanding. The ETS took the liberty of deciding what I would have gotten on the new version of the test (which I did not take, as I took it back in 2010) and sending that out with my score reports. Surprise, my percentile ranks were over 10% lower on both Verbal and Quantitative than when I received my scores after taking the test. Something in the low 50s percentile-wise in Quantitative, and 60s in verbal after the adjustment. Strangely my 5 on the writing gained me 10% there for a final of 92% in that section (not that it matters). I'm still confused how they can justify that stuff. Nothing I can do about it though.

 

You CAN overcome a low GPA, but you might want to consider going into a terminal masters program, some offer funding, particularly those at non-PhD-granting institutions.  The other slightly more expensive option (though perhaps less time consuming) would be to retake some of your pre-reqs for better grades.  I had a friend do this, after her second application cycle failed, she got into her first choice on her third attempt.  I had similar things happen with my GRE, but given that the score that got me into my terminal MA wasn't going to get me anywhere else, I had to retake it anyway.  

It's true that programs will use GPA and GRE for "hard cuts" but from everything else you say, once you get passed that point, you are a competitive applicant.  

 I suppose there's always next year.

Yes^  And you can probably gather from this forum that you are not alone in this respect.  My mind has been blown by the number of people with extremely high marks and qualifications who strike out the first time, and similarly, by the level of success others have had with a second application cycle.  

Good luck

[selecttext]

$500 for 8 applications is in fact a good deal...just sayin'.

[rool37]

I know someone who did not get admitted to PhD programs because their research was varied and the schools felt as though she couldn't commit to one type of field. 

 

I had a lowish GPA from undergrad and was rejected from PhD programs my first application round. I instead went to get my Master's and gain more research experience. Most schools will put more weight on your ability to perform well in a Master's program, since they are graduate level courses, and less on undergrad GPA and GRE scores. 

 

Good luck!

[w8inggame]

Ditto on the good deal, I spent significantly more than that on 6 apps. Anyway just retake the GRE and reapply next year. So many people can overcome average GPAs on this forum, with your experience it shouldn't be too hard.

[PaperTowels]

I can really relate to the feeling of spending a whole bunch of money on fees, postage, exams and then coming away with nothing, I was there too the first time I applied.

 

Try not to see the $500 as wasted - it was a risky (but worthwhile) investment (which unfortunately didn't work out, but could have), you didn't know whether you'd get in and I'm sure you'd do it over again if you went back. Try not to worry so much about what is wrong, but focus on what you can improve. For instance, you can't help your undergrad GPA - so stop worrying about that and think about getting more experience, publications, networking, research skills, test scores (you can take the subject GRE to buff up your application), essays and interview skills. Try to be honest with yourself and think about what you could have done better, and do so.

 

Oddly, you sound like a much better applicant than I was in everything except test scores, and the fact that I managed to intern with a famous professor and get a recommendation from him.

 

I was quite disappointed at first, too. I was just an undergrad and it was basically impossible to get a job in my situation, so it terrified me. So I figured I owed myself to give it another go, and work as hard as I can, and if I don't get in again, who cares, I gave it my best shot.

 

In the end, I must have done something right since I got much better results. One school that previously rejected me put me at the top of the list the second time around. I don't mean it as a boast- it's just that if you stick to it and hang in there you can improve your odds dramatically.

 

And if you don't get it on, it's not the end of the world. There's many avenues that close with a graduate degree- it's hard to change careers when you're overqualified for all the entry jobs.

[child of 2]

5-6 years from now, when you're making bank, $500 will seem like chump change you would use to buy girl scouts cookies.

 

no disrespect for girl scouts.

Edited March 15, 2013 by child of 2

[cleverfool]

In the end, you just can't overcome:

1. 3.3 undergrad GPA. A few hardcore science classes were low (couple of 2.5s in some biochem classes), as ashamed as I am to admit.

This you absolutely can overcome. I applied to biochem programs with a 3.08, and some Cs in science classes (and a terrible major GPA, if anyone had bothered to calculate it). I have several acceptances. You just have to work really hard to make the rest of your application stellar, so they don't even look at the GPA as important.

[groverj3]

Thanks for the words of encouragement, guys! I'm going to be looking for some more masters programs over the weekend, though, in Biochem or Molecular Bio they are few and far between. If that doesn't work out then it's time to find ways to boost my application.