How did I Fail so Hard?

[structuralBio]

I know posts like this must come up all the time, and it may be in the wrong sub forum, but...

 

I need to know why I didn't get in anywhere. I was nervous about only applying to 4 schools, but when I got 3 interviews I thought I was safe. I know in retrospect I should have applied to at least 10, even if they were shitty places I didn't really want to go, but I still want to know why I failed, what can I do better when I re-apply?

 

I applied to all biophysics programs:

 

Stanford structural biology: rejected w/o interview

UCSF integrative program in quantitative biology: interviewed, rejected 3 weeks later

Florida State program in molecular biophysics: interviewed, rejected 3 weeks later

Johns Hopkins Program in molecular Biophysics: interviewed, haven't heard back in almost a week, given that the others rejected me I can only assume I am rejected here too.

 

my background:

 

degree: B.S. in Biochemistry

School: Clemson University (a half-way decent large research university)

GPA: 3.75

GRE: 160 q, 163v, 3.5 AW

 

research:

 

been working in a lab since freshman year, heavily committed during sophomore and junior year

got an REU as a freshman working in NMR

did research internationally for a summer

had a job that was vaguely scientific for 1 summer (working in crop research for the USDA)

 

The biggest weakness that I could tell I had immediately was that my research at my university was unrelated to biophysics (it was plant molecular biology), as was my internship. the only research experience i had here was 1 summer internship. Unfortunately there is only like 1 lab at my school that does anything related to biophysics. I also have no published papers, and my GRE's were only ok-ish  (78% q, 90% v, 35% AW) except AW which was abysmal (but I've heard no one cares about?) not to mention I didn't take a subject test. 

 

I think it's too late to get a post-bacc or any lab monkey position in biophysics and to get more experience I would have to just volunteer. 

 

Any feedback for my improvement would be awesome but specifically I want to ask:

 

 - were my GRE's really that bad and do I need to retake?

 - is it my lack of a lot of direct experience in this field what got me rejected?

 - should i give up on biophysics and just apply to cell/molecular biology programs next time where I have a more relevant degree and experience?

 - does not having a published paper make me a weak candidate? 

 - what is usually the minimum number of schools you need to apply to usually to guarantee acceptance to at least 1? 10? 15?

 

I'm just really disappointed because this was what I knew I wanted to do for all four years of undergrad and now I feel like a worthless failure. I refuse to let this happen again.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Honestly, I think your resume is pretty damn impressive. GPA is high. Once you get above 3.7-ish I don't really see the difference. I have a 3.97 and I really don't see much of a difference between mine and yours. 

 

GRE scores are good. Verbal is very high for a science major. Quant score I guess isn't great. But I think it's stupid to reject someone for a 160 on the quant. I could see maybe if you have a sub-155. 

 

The interning, research, etc is very impressive. You're obviously dedicated and have a lot of research experience. Sure, it isn't in your field of discipline, but I think it's close enough and the fact that you've done a bunch of research demonstrates that you're capable. 

 

Clemson is a good school. It's not Harvard or MIT, but I don't think that really matters. I consider it a well respected school. 

 

Overall, your application isn't perfect. You could have a 4.0 from MIT with a 170 quant score, but I really don't see that as being necessary. I think 3.75 from Clemson with a 160 quant, especially with all the experience you have, is just as good. 

 

I'd also add that you applied to two very elite schools (Stanford and JH) but then you also applied to two very practical schools in Florida. I guess you could have applied to a few more, but I find it disappointing that you didn't get in. You definitely deserve it. I guess the encouraging thing is you were good enough to get interviews at 3 out of 4. Did something go wrong at the interviews? That's all I could really think of. 3/4 interviews and 0/3 acceptances after interviews. Maybe you did something "bad" during the interview? 

[fuzzylogician]

I hate to say it but since you got 3 interviews out of 4 applications, I don't think this is about your application packet. Clearly, your application was intriguing enough for these schools to want to interview you. That would indicate (I think) that you are good enough to get your foot in the door, and that all these schools were considering admitting you despite the weaknesses that you list above. The fact that all of the rejections came post-interview make me think that perhaps you didn't handle the interviews well. It's hard to guess what the issue might have been without knowing more, though. My first guess would be that since you say you have less experience in the field you are apply to, that this was a concern for the schools; maybe you didn't do a good enough job convincing them that you know enough about the field or that you'd make a good candidate for it? Maybe they had concerns about your grades that you somehow failed to assuage? These are pure guesses, of course. 

 

Also, I would not recommend applying to schools that you don't want to go to. What's the point? Actually, this makes me wonder if the problem with your application this year was the fit, and that it became clear during the interviews. As an applicant from another field, you want to demonstrate that you understand how the new field works, that you can define a reasonable (in scope, feasibility) research question(s), and that you know what schools are good places to study that question (and why). Perhaps that didn't come through as clearly as you'd hope. The fact that you only applied to 4 schools and are already talking about applying to ill-fitting schools makes me think that perhaps you could have done a better job researching programs to find ones that really fit what you want to study. I would be willing to bet that there are more than just a handful throughout the country. So maybe the problem was in your ability to communicate why you chose the schools you did? (But, of course, this is another guess.) 

 

ETA: In addition to these guesses, it's worth noting that sometimes it's really not about you. There are more good applicants than spots in good programs, so you could have done everything right and still drawn the short stick. There is not much to do about this situation except try again, and in the meanwhile get more experience and perhaps apply more broadly next time. 

Edited March 13, 2014 by fuzzylogician

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I hate to say it but since you got 3 interviews out of 4 applications, I don't think this is about your application packet. Clearly, your application was intriguing enough for these schools to want to interview you. That would indicate (I think) that you are good enough to get your foot in the door, and that all these schools were considering admitting you despite the weaknesses that you list above. The fact that all of the rejections came post-interview make me think that perhaps you didn't handle the interviews well. It's hard to guess what the issue might have been without knowing more, though. My first guess would be that since you say you have less experience in the field you are apply to, that this was a concern for the schools; maybe you didn't do a good enough job convincing them that you know enough about the field or that you'd make a good candidate for it? Maybe they had concerns about your grades that you somehow failed to assuage? These are pure guesses, of course. 

 

Also, I would not recommend applying to schools that you don't want to go to. What's the point? Actually, this makes me wonder if the problem with your application this year was the fit, and that it became clear during the interviews. As an applicant from another field, you want to demonstrate that you understand how the new field works, that you can define a reasonable (in scope, feasibility) research question(s), and that you know what schools are good places to study that question (and why). Perhaps that didn't come through as clearly as you'd hope. The fact that you only applied to 4 schools and are already talking about applying to ill-fitting schools makes me think that perhaps you could have done a better job researching programs to find ones that really fit what you want to study. I would be willing to bet that there are more than just a handful throughout the country. So maybe the problem was in your ability to communicate why you chose the schools you did? (But, of course, this is another guess.) 

I agree that it might have been the interview (I said it first). It won't allow me to like posts. Says I maxed out but I don't remember liking many. Anyway, yeah it must have been something during the interview process. Perhaps lack of "selling" or confidence. 

 

Regarding your second paragraph about lack of fit, are you saying he/she didn't express the right fit in the interview or the statement of purpose/application? Obviously if he/she got an interview, the SOP must have expressed a potential for fit. Perhaps the things written on the SOP and the things said during the interview didn't really seem to match. 

Edited March 13, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[fuzzylogician]

Regarding your second paragraph about lack of fit, are you saying he/she didn't express the right fit in the interview or the statement of purpose/application? Obviously if he/she got an interview, the SOP must have expressed a potential for fit. Perhaps the things written on the SOP and the things said during the interview didn't really seem to match. 

 

Actually I had several experiences during my grad school application process where I was interviewed by schools that I was not a great fit for, I assume because my application was quite strong and they were intrigued. I did a somewhat reasonable (I think) job of demonstrating fit with those schools in my SOP, but really I later came to realize that they were in fact pretty poor fits. The main question in those interviews, and it was asked several times in different ways in all of them, was "why did you apply here?" -- this was of course also a question asked by other schools where I was a better fit, but not something that the interviewers dwelled on once I gave a satisfactory answer. I said pretty much the same things as in my SOP, and I don't know how convincing they were. In fact, they convinced me that the schools weren't a good place for me, but I don't know if it was convincing to them. I ended up withdrawing my applications to all those schools after the interview because I realized that indeed they weren't good fits (and I already had offers from better fitting schools) so I don't know what would have happened, but I am willing to bet I would have gotten rejected from at least some of those schools. If I were on the adcom, I'd reject me. 

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Actually I had several experiences during my grad school application process where I was interviewed by schools that I was not a great fit for, I assume because my application was quite strong and they were intrigued. I did a somewhat reasonable (I think) job of demonstrating fit with those schools in my SOP, but really I later came to realize that they were in fact pretty poor fits. The main question in those interviews, and it was asked several times in different ways in all of them, was "why did you apply here?" -- this was of course also a question asked by other schools where I was a better fit, but not something that the interviewers dwelled on once I gave a satisfactory answer. I said pretty much the same things as in my SOP, and I don't know how convincing they were. In fact, they convinced me that the schools weren't a good place for me, but I don't know if it was convincing to them. I ended up withdrawing my applications to all those schools after the interview because I realized that indeed they weren't good fits (and I already had offers from better fitting schools) so I don't know what would have happened, but I am willing to bet I would have gotten rejected from at least some of those schools. If I were on the adcom, I'd reject me. 

That makes sense. They know you don't seem to fit, but your credentials are so impressive that they want to see if it's worth a shot. 

 

As for the OP, I would guess it's one of two things: 1) Something went wrong during the interviews. This is a complete guess as I don't know anything about your personality. Maybe it was a lack of confidence, you didn't sell yourself well, or there was something off-putting about your personality. I really would have no way of knowing. 2) Like fuzzy said, everything is impressive but you just don't show a strong fit. You got 3/4 interviews because you have a very impressive resume, but you just didn't show a good fit. 

 

I assume you'll be applying again next year. Of course, you can do things in the meantime to improve your resume (retake GRE, get some relevant research experience) but I really don't think your credentials are the problem. Probably just spend the next year figuring out what you want to do. More self exploration than resume enhancing. Research the hell out of schools and find the perfect ones. Write an amazing SOP that shows no doubts about what you want to do and where you want to be. Maybe take some interview practice courses/lessons. Read about the interview process. Another idea would be to contact the 3 schools that did interview you and ask them what went wrong. You have nothing to lose. 

[memyselfandcoffee]

i agree with other posters that if you got interviews, your application pack and stats were considered good enough. I also think you should definitely consider your interview skills and consider how good a fit these schools were and/or if you did a good enough job a) convincing the schools you were a good enough fit and B ) that not having research experience in your particular sub-field was not an issue. However while i do you think should consider this of course, I also think that being rejected from 3 schools may not necessarily mean you have poor interview skills. They most likely interview more than they admit and so you for all you know you were close just not close enough. I would say to give yourself  a chance you need to apply to more schools, but also I would agree with fuzzy that you shouldn't apply to places you don't want to go to-what's the point? A Phd is long enough and challenging as it is--- being somewhere you don't want to be or that isn't good fit with research interests would make it unnecessarily hard

Edited March 13, 2014 by memyselfandcoffee

[fuzzylogician]

Another idea would be to contact the 3 schools that did interview you and ask them what went wrong. You have nothing to lose. 

 

Yep, this may work and you indeed have nothing to lose. I'd wait until after April 15 so (1) the grad school app season is over and everyone is freer (2) it's clear (and you should make it explicitly clear) that you're not challenging their decision or appealing it, but instead are interested in improving your application for next year. You may not get a straightforward answer out of anyone, but it's worth a shot. Another thing that may work if you had a personal relationship established with a POI at any of these schools is to talk to them in person (on the phone/skype) -- you might get feedback that they wouldn't want to put in writing. 

[armchairette]

Yep, this may work and you indeed have nothing to lose. I'd wait until after April 15 so (1) the grad school app season is over and everyone is freer (2) it's clear (and you should make it explicitly clear) that you're not challenging their decision or appealing it, but instead are interested in improving your application for next year. You may not get a straightforward answer out of anyone, but it's worth a shot. Another thing that may work if you had a personal relationship established with a POI at any of these schools is to talk to them in person (on the phone/skype) -- you might get feedback that they wouldn't want to put in writing. 

 

All prior posters gave spot-on advice.  I'd like to throw out taking an improv class if there are any in your area.  Practice thinking on your feet in truly bizarre situations can help build confidence, poise, and skill for interviews.  

[DerpTastic]

It sounds like something possibly happened at the interviews (as previous people already mentioned). 

 

Since your background was biochemistry and you applied to biophysics, how strong is your background in physics? Did you take extra physics classes?

[obaka]

Did your adviser or someone else in your lab help you practice for interviews? You should get also get suggestions from them on how to "sell" yourself/your background to another field.

[thegirldetective]

All of the above advice is great (it was probably something to do with how you interviewed; there are probably more than 4 schools in the country that are a good fit for you, etc.) but I wanted to address one point:

 

 

I think it's too late to get a post-bacc or any lab monkey position in biophysics and to get more experience I would have to just volunteer. 

 

Not true! It's too late for some but not all postbac positions, and it's definitely not too late for lab monkey positions. But it will be too late soon! Start applying asap.

[nugget]

All prior posters gave spot-on advice.  I'd like to throw out taking an improv class if there are any in your area.  Practice thinking on your feet in truly bizarre situations can help build confidence, poise, and skill for interviews.  

 

If you're looking for some free or low-cost ideas to practice improv speaking, look for a local Toastmasters group in your area. I've heard some great things about it from other people.

[nugget]

Not true! It's too late for some but not all postbac positions, and it's definitely not too late for lab monkey positions. But it will be too late soon! Start applying asap.

 

It's called a lab monkey position? lol.. While scrolling to the bottom of this thread I saw caught sight of the word lab monkey and assumed someone was being facetious. hahaha

[kechemukwa]

If it makes you feel any better I'm in the same boat. I've been rejected from 3 schools post-interview now. One professor (at UC Irvine) was kind enough to tell me what I did wrong. I was too quiet and didn't ask enough questions or give him a good feel for my personality. He said that while my background and experience made me a good fit for his lab, other kids had equally good experience and because they opened up more during the interview and gave him the opportunity to better know them as a person and professional, they got the gig and I didn't.

 

I got rejected from another school (Cornell) because I couldn't attend the interview weekend (they didn't pay enough to allow me to make the trans-Atlantic trip) and had a short Skype interview instead, which caused similar problems (ie: they couldn't get to know me in a 30min Skype interview).

 

The third (Georgia Tech) rejected me because my POI wasn't taking new grad students this year and only offered me the interview as a courtesy. I wish he had told me this when I contacted him before applying....

[structuralBio]

It sounds like something possibly happened at the interviews (as previous people already mentioned). 

 

Since your background was biochemistry and you applied to biophysics, how strong is your background in physics? Did you take extra physics classes?

I did take some CS that wasnt required, and an extra semester of P chem (didn't learn much, but they dont know that) and a third semester of physics as well as a biophysics survey course, so I got in as much as I could, but maybe not enough.

[structuralBio]

Thanks for everyone's feed back. I feel a little better knowing it wasn't my application, but probably my confidence in the interview (I felt like everyone else was better than me and a little beat down from the start). At least these things I can change next time

[takeabreak]

I don't have much else to add, other than...hang in there!!!!! I didn't apply to programs in your field but suffice it to say, the last couple years have been a bumpy ride from getting into my dream school, to having to LEAVE it for various reasons, re-applying, not getting in anywhere, and re-re-applying in this round and finally getting in somewhere. Just hang in there; my friends and professors always said there's a silver lining in all of this and I know it may not mean much right now but just...hang in there. 

Also, not to go Dr. Phil on you, but this video may provide some peace of mind. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html

 

You haven't fallen hard because otherwise your face would still be buried in the ground. You are looking up and ready to reconfigure things even though it means life is going to pan out a wee bit differently for you for the time being! In due time, you will end up exactly where you belong and you will love it and you'll look back at this day and this post and all will be good. 

hang.in.there. 

 

[bsharpe269]

I will also be applying to biophysics programs in the fall and am currently working on a masters, doing work in a biophsyics modeling group. 3 of those 4 programs are some of the top programs in the country. Are you interested in staying experimental? I think that some of the programs you applied for are known for their computational work. Rutgers is known for their experimental work so you may have luck there. What exactly do you want to study? and did you apply to the programs that specialize in that?

 

I definitely dont think it was a lack of background in physics because biochem is a perfect background for biophysics/structural biology. If you give some more info on your research interests and how detailed or vague you made them in your SOP then I would be happy to try to help a bit more!

[structuralBio]

thanks, the Steve jobs speech was quite encouraging actually

[victorydance]

Man, applying to science Ph.D.s seems a lot harder than many social sciences. It feels like there is an 'extra' step involved in the process because you have to actually get X prof to accept you. And that means either establishing a relationship beforehand, or nailing your interview. Sounds tough.

 

That being said, next cycle I would spend a bit more time researching prospective schools and applying more broadly (don't read this as applying anywhere...there are definitely more than 4 universities out there that are good fits for virtually any field). Your application is pretty solid, but 4 schools doesn't leave much room for error. It also might help trying to be more aggressive making connections with potential profs beforehand. 

[Vene]

Man, applying to science Ph.D.s seems a lot harder than many social sciences. It feels like there is an 'extra' step involved in the process because you have to actually get X prof to accept you. And that means either establishing a relationship beforehand, or nailing your interview. Sounds tough.

I think it's easier when a program expects you to do rotations, but you definitely still need to connect with a professor or two.

[structuralBio]

I think it's easier when a program expects you to do rotations, but you definitely still need to connect with a professor or two.

in biophysics and biochemistry almost all programs require at least 1 rotation, usually 3, so you don't have to make sure you have 1 professor who is absolutely dead set on taking you, but you do need to convince all of them that you are qualified and that at least some people in the department share similar interests in research and that you would fit in with the department and current grad students. I know that for instance in chemistry, you generally don't do rotations so you have to get at least 1 professor to be dead set on taking you, and I'm glad I'm not in chemistry because that's a huge commitment for both parties to make based on only a 45 minute or so interview.

[kechemukwa]

I've always been under the impression that most chem programs were more rotational, then again I'm not a chemist. I've never seen a program in Ecology that did rotations, you always need a prof who wants you in their lab to be admitted to the program.

[structuralBio]

I've always been under the impression that most chem programs were more rotational, then again I'm not a chemist. I've never seen a program in Ecology that did rotations, you always need a prof who wants you in their lab to be admitted to the program.

that's just what i heard from some chem majors in my classes, i could be wrong