2015 Applicant Profiles and Admissions Results

[wickie]

A question I hope someone can answer.  I replied to an invite a couple days ago and I had the choice between the weekend of Feb. 6 and Feb. 13.  I decided on Feb. 13 do to work stuff.  However, another school I applied also gave me an invite (today) for the same weekend and it's the only weekend they do it.  I emailed the Prof and asked him if I could switch weekends from Feb 13 to Feb 6, so I can go to both places.  I told him that I have a conlict in my schedule but I would still make it the original weekend if things couldn't change.  Did I do the right thing? I honestly sent the email before I even thought about, I was excited.  I just don't want to leave a bad taste in their mouth.  Any advice or words of wisdom is welcomed

[elkheart]

Hey wickie - small world. I literally just did the exact same thing two minutes ago. The only difference is I emailed a program coordinator rather than a prof.

I was hesitant. But I decided to do it because I figured we're all adults here. They know I'm applying to other schools, and they know scheduling is tight. Like you I told them that a switch would be nice, but I would still attend the day I was scheduled for if they were unable to make it happen easily. The ball is in their court.

Could they get upset? Maybe. But  I doubt it. I wouldn’t. Either they can easily accommodate or they can’t. Doesn’t seem like a problem to me.

NINJA EDIT WHILE I'M WRITING THIS:

The second school just replied. "There is still space available that second weekend. I have reset your interview date in the application. Please log back in and select the new date and you should be set."

Booyah.

[gliaful]

A question I hope someone can answer.  I replied to an invite a couple days ago and I had the choice between the weekend of Feb. 6 and Feb. 13.  I decided on Feb. 13 do to work stuff.  However, another school I applied also gave me an invite (today) for the same weekend and it's the only weekend they do it.  I emailed the Prof and asked him if I could switch weekends from Feb 13 to Feb 6, so I can go to both places.  I told him that I have a conlict in my schedule but I would still make it the original weekend if things couldn't change.  Did I do the right thing? I honestly sent the email before I even thought about, I was excited.  I just don't want to leave a bad taste in their mouth.  Any advice or words of wisdom is welcomed

I don't know exactly how you worded your emails, but this sounds fair and thoughtful to me. Hopefully it works out for you.

Where are you interviewing?

[wickie]

I don't know exactly how you worded your emails, but this sounds fair and thoughtful to me. Hopefully it works out for you.

Where are you interviewing?

[peachypie]

Yeah, I know. 

 

I went through this process last year.  In many ways it is better to receive a rejection ASAP.  It is easier to get past it and move on.  I recieved my last two rejections late in the game: one at the end of March and one April 13.  Talk about torture. 

I mean if you are sitting here and have no interviews at this point, the chance you get an interview and an acceptance for bio programs is low.  if you have some sense you realize this long before an actual rejection.  i don't get the difference between knowing for yourself and officially hearing from the school.  especially with the results search on this website which can clearly show you if/when interviews go out.  i guess i still don't know what the difference of a rejection is between it being assumed and it being official.  

[wickie]

He emailed and he's going to call tm so we can figure out the schedule. Still feel like a dick. But it will hopefully pay dividends. The interviews are asu neuroscience a Rosalind Franklin for the same. Asu had multiple dates

[berba9]

Effectively rejected by my top 3 progams - UCSF, MIT (no surprises in either), and Wisconsin-Madison     

I really thought my stats were good enough for Wisconsin, and I really really liked the work of my POI there, but I should've maybe listened to that other thread...

 

Edited January 24, 2015 by berba9

[MDPhD]

I'm not sure why there's an emphasis placed on "mostly Ivy League places," as fit matters more than general prestige, but competitive programs will usually expect at minimum one full year of research, if not more - I don't think 5 months is adequate at all. That being said, I would strongly recommend getting in contact with someone who can better evaluate your application as an international applicant - since you're going to be a research trainee, hopefully someone at the lab you'll be working at will be better equipped to answer your questions than the members of this forum.

Thank you so very much for your valuable advise. I appreciate your help. I completely agree that some programs are far better than many Ivy-League programs. Thanks also for highlighting it. The fact goes that I will be a research trainee for 1 year and according to my mentor I can extend it and do research as a paid Post-Doc Fellow in his Lab if he finds me good but since I am inclined on doing a PhD I was weighing the option of a good Competitive program in USA. And one more question I needed to ask is do the Letter of Recommendation of Post-Docs working in a laboratory work?? I suppose I need 3 LoRs but I can gather 2 of them from Scientists but short of one so was wondering the same. 

Thanks a ton to you for your help!! All the very best for your application!! (Y)

 

I think blinchik makes some good points. I will just add one thing since you say you are planning to pursue a MD after the PhD, you should really be looking at MD-PhD Dual degree training instead. You would probably be a more suitable applicant for this sort of program and it would save you a lot of time then to do them separately.

Thank you so much for your input. Actually Md-PhD is a pathway for US students who go to med school. I already graduated from med school in December, 2014 so unfortunately I will not be able to apply for the same. MD-PhD saves a couple of years I know but then again my country doesnot have such a combined degree and I cannot join Med School in USA now so had to look for PhD and MD separately. Thanks a ton for your help. All the best for your Application (Y)

[Crucial BBQ]

I mean if you are sitting here and have no interviews at this point, the chance you get an interview and an acceptance for bio programs is low.  if you have some sense you realize this long before an actual rejection.  i don't get the difference between knowing for yourself and officially hearing from the school.  especially with the results search on this website which can clearly show you if/when interviews go out.  i guess i still don't know what the difference of a rejection is between it being assumed and it being official.  

Results are only helpful if you apply to the typical gamut of schools and programs.  The program that waitlisted me last year only has one item in  Results, and that is the one I submitted.  Another program I am reapplying to, a flagship state research university, only has one entry for my program, and that is from 2012.  Another school only has one entry, too, from 2009; there are only four entries for the entire university.  Another program at one of the top UCs does not show up in the entire Results history. 

 

One of my programs does not do interviews, but brings admitted students to the campus.  Three of my programs are Master's, they don't interview as far as I know.  To top it off, six of my programs have app due dates that have yet to pass:  EEB, marine science, and a few others have later app due dates from the rest of the Biology/BioMed/Neuro programs.  

 

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that no interview means no admittance.  Sure, if you run the gamut of typical programs you can probably get an accurate idea of this being true or not.  The difference for me was that the official decision gave closure. There was no more wondering if I were being waitlisted, last in line, a mistake, and so on.   

[peachypie]

Effectively rejected by my top 3 progams - UCSF, MIT (no surprises in either), and Wisconsin-Madison     

I really thought my stats were good enough for Wisconsin, and I really really liked the work of my POI there, but I should've maybe listened to that other thread...

 

I feel like everyone underestimates how hard it is to get into the University of Wisconsin....  I'd put UW-Madison over UCSF in that ranking for mol bio.  I don't know your stats so I can't comment on that but that thread is unfortunately extremely inaccurate and filled with emotional and no fact based comments.  I'm a scientist so I only like to discuss evidence based information  Call me crazy.  I'm glad you have interviews though, if you are international it may explain why many of the public universities have rejected or assumed rejected you.  You cost more to a public insititution than a private one.  Looks like you have Duke and UNC, best of luck.

[peachypie]

Results are only helpful if you apply to the typical gamut of schools and programs.  The program that waitlisted me last year only has one item in  Results, and that is the one I submitted.  Another program I am reapplying to, a flagship state research university, only has one entry for my program, and that is from 2012.  Another school only has one entry, too, from 2009; there are only four entries for the entire university.  Another program at one of the top UCs does not show up in the entire Results history. 

 

One of my programs does not do interviews, but brings admitted students to the campus.  Three of my programs are Master's, they don't interview as far as I know.  To top it off, six of my programs have app due dates that have yet to pass:  EEB, marine science, and a few others have later app due dates from the rest of the Biology/BioMed/Neuro programs.  

 

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that no interview means no admittance.  Sure, if you run the gamut of typical programs you can probably get an accurate idea of this being true or not.  The difference for me was that the official decision gave closure. There was no more wondering if I were being waitlisted, last in line, a mistake, and so on.   

Your situation appears failry unique and you are correct in that I do not account for masters programs in this thread.  I assumed, and it appeared, that most of the people wanting an official rejection had applied to PhD programs and many of the programs they listed were ones that historically would be interviewing currently (even some have already had interviews) or would be within the next few weeks.  Thus for your typical biological science program at a fairly competitive school most app due dates were 12/1-12/15.  Most of those programs begin interviews in January and go through February with a few last rounds into March. 

To give you my experience I began receiving invites to interview in December and into early January.  I interviewed January-March but by this time had received all my interview invites.  I was accepted into my first program at the end of January and by Mid-March within a week of finishing my last interview I had received my final acceptance.  I made my final decision in mid-March. 

I realize there are going to be different circumstances per the program.  To be honest I don't factor in Masters programs in these threads mainly because they are so different than PhD in terms of interview, application and acceptance process...as well as funding and all the other things that play a major role into matriculation.  I go by the average applicant most of whom have completed their apps and deadlines had passed. 

 

I get that you applied to smaller programs with less evidence seen in results and you are a masters applicant mostly as well as having applied to programs with late deadlines. 

So under those presumptions...why would anyone be freaking out about not getting an interview in your situation if A. your program doesn't give interviews and B. none of the deadlines had passed yet or just recently? 

Clearly the people saying "I just want to know I'm officially rejected" have some reason to believe they aren't admitted be it that interviews have been posted and/or they are seeing results in the results search for their program, otherwise if I were you I, wouldn't be worried nor would I be posting about wanting an official rejection since it's so easy to simply reject someone when its not even a situation that would be happening yet.

[peachypie]

Please source your "many articles" that show otherwise. 

I'm sorry you feel forced to have to migrate to GOD FORBID inland america where clearly life sucks. 

You know its risky to take a student on that A. requires additional government visas....as well as has agreed to PAY because that money isnt actually guaranteed. 

Also diversity is different than you think it is.  When the government may give you additional funding its for diversity of domestic applicants from classicly underrepresesnted groups in the field, not from international necessarily. 

I haven't seen any schools that take more international that domestic applicants, though I'd be happy to look at the stats you reference.

Endowments in the billions do not come from tuition or what they are charging in excess of international applicants. 
endowments come from notable alumni and faculty who have profited from the education they received there and have decided to show the importance of education at that school or program through financial donations.  It also benefits alumni to help make sure their insitutions remain top notch in the field since it means their degree is maintaining its value.

[GeoDUDE!]

I spent 10 seconds to find hundreds of articles on the financial advantage for institutions to take foreign grad students.

http://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/studying-abroad/why-universities-want-international-graduate-students

Read the third topic before you post. It's a recognized website, actual data, and there are thousands more. Just because you don't like what I said doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

Here's another short read.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-American-Universities-Want-International-Students&id=743127

It's sad that you don't even grasp the basic concepts of federal education incentives or how the educational system works, yet you invest a significant portion of your life into it. Do you're homework on the topic, these are facts. I can post tons of other sources but you can as well in seconds.

 

 

You realize those are for professional degrees and not for PhD programs, which most departments finance their students? Also, it took me 5 seconds to google UCLA biology graduate program and see that they only 10-15% of their incoming classes are international. 

 

Lets have a little bit of intellectual honesty here, this isn't republicans arguing about climate change. Its fact that international students in california can never establish residency and therefore if they want to get funding their PIs or department must pay their out of state tuition for the duration of their program.  What % of PhD students in biology pay for their degree out of pocket? All of your arguments (both posts) clearly lack the context that peachypie's and the person she is addressing with her post. 

 

If you are going to be so condescending, your going to want to be correct. People online might not care, but in whatever graduate program you end up getting into, the people in your department will see right though you. 

[Vene]

A problem with your analysis is that international graduate students in biosciences don't pay tuition and there are funding sources which require anybody put on the grant be a US citizen. I'm sure international students will bring in money for programs like a MBA, but not so much when tuition is waived and a stipend is provided.

[peachypie]

That's incorrect. I attend a state public school. The graduate program in biology is unfunded but there are loans or scholarships available. My lab are full of internationals from the Middle East. They became citizens eventually, but they paid international tuition which is higher than domestic. Here is an article about California schools accepting large numbers of out of state students and internationals to increase their revenue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/19/university-of-california-_n_851121.html

The problem is we are talking about funded programs.  Not unfudned or masters programs.  A competitive program in the biological sciences will 100% fund its applicants.

If you are comparing paying domestic to paying international then it doesn't make a difference, but most people in the thread, are applying to programs who fund their students fully. 

[peachypie]

That's incorrect. I attend a state public school. The graduate program in biology is unfunded but there are loans or scholarships available. My lab are full of internationals from the Middle East. They became citizens eventually, but they paid international tuition which is higher than domestic. Here is an article about California schools accepting large numbers of out of state students and internationals to increase their revenue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/19/university-of-california-_n_851121.html

Your article is for undergraduate admissions in the UC system, not graduate...which is an entirely different bag.

[Vene]

That's incorrect. I attend a state public school. The graduate program in biology is unfunded but there are loans or scholarships available. My lab are full of internationals from the Middle East. They became citizens eventually, but they paid international tuition which is higher than domestic. Here is an article about California schools accepting large numbers of out of state students and internationals to increase their revenue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/19/university-of-california-_n_851121.html

I also attend a state university and all of our bioscience grad students are funded. Undergrads pay tuition, but not grad students.

[peachypie]

One masters applicant posting many times in the last few pages doesn't mean there are tons of masters students. 

I don't check results thread, unfunded phds in bio are rare in many of the top schools.  Top 30-50 would be all pretty much 100% funded.

Also your is possessive, "you're incorrect" is what you  meant to say.

I don't know your state school.

I never said I was from california.  I'm not an LA native, so I don't know why you are faulting me for that or how it factors into your argument.  There have been aarticles from UC system schools in bio that show they post about 10-15% international students, so I haven't found any at about 40% as you had mentioned.

You must be basing your whole understanding of graduate schools on UC system which isn't fair to assess all the programs in the country off of the public system in california which probably is working with a tighter budget for all of its schools in the system that are working at full capacity.  I'm not choosing to ignore reality, but I don't think that your initial comment that international applicants actually give school money is an approrpriate assessment for many PhD in biology graduate programs, at least at the more well-funded schools.

[abluefox]

There are plenty of people posting strictly for masters programs, just the last few pages have been by crucialbbq and there were many before. There have also been people that put funding issues or non funded positions on the results thread. So again, you're incorrect. My state school is well known but not prestigious like USC or UCLA, which is interesting because any LA native knows both schools are dominated by Chinese and Indian internationals. Either you're not from California or you're choosing to ignore reality.

Ted Binsky I think the important thing is to realize is the context of your response. You replied to peachypie's comment to berba9 who if you look at what programs they applied to are all funded PhD programs. So in berba9's specific case, it likely cost more to public schools to fund him/her than a private school.

[peachypie]

Oh really? One of the Los angeles based schools that's part of the CSU system? Which one is it? Because I can tell you ours isn't.

I don't think vene ever said they went to an LA based school that is part of the CSU system. 

[GeoDUDE!]

 which is interesting because any LA native knows both schools are dominated by Chinese and Indian internationals. 

 

This is false. UCLA says that 10-15% of their incoming class is international (biology graduate program). They say this on their website. I lived in LA for 18 years. My mom teaches at USC. USC is a private institution which has nothing to do with our discussion.

 

Just because someone is asian does not mean they are international. LA is home to many asian americans.  There are many asian americans in the UC system. Your observations would make more sense if every asian person was also international, but a majority of them aren't. If that is your assumption, it's incredibly bigoted.  

 

You are making claims without any relevant numbers.

 

You have not stated a valid argument. 

 

If you go to a state school in LA (one of the many CSUs, too many to list, or UCLA, UCR, and UCI) you have to realize the difference between the UC system and the CSU system. The CSU system is centered on undergraduate and professional degrees. Their aim is not scholarship. There are only a handful of PhD programs in the entire CSU system (over 20 colleges).  Do you think there are many unfunded PhD students in STEM  in any of the UCs? Do you know how embarrassing that would be for them when they claim they are flagship public research institutions? The people who run the UCs care just as much about prestige as any other vain college system ( Ivy League).  

Edited January 24, 2015 by GeoDUDE!

[Vene]

Not as a UC, I'm on the east. However, when I was applying to programs I did my research on them and they definitely provide stipends for their PhD programs. I could see an unfunded masters, but masters are very much a minority. Hell, my program only offers a masters if you fail to complete a PhD as you cannot be directly admitted into it.

[peachypie]

Vene mentioning hers doesn't somehow make the rest funded, which is my point. The public grad bioscience schools that aren't USC or UCLA are expensive and accept large volumes of internationals to make money. I know this from being in the front row at my institution. The cal poly and csu system has grants and scholarships, but is largely if not completely unfounded graduate bioscience programs. It's well known that California and other coastal states with prestigious universities like New York, Washington, California, Massachussetts etc. accept a significant international and out of state student body to increase there revenue. Also, I have seen plenty of posts on the results thread regarding an offer of admission but no or low funding. If you don't believe the huffington post, graduate websites,and actually vote and learn the bills being passed then you are dense and not choosing to accept reality. Many schools are filthy rich and it's because many of their departments accept internationals who pay triple normal tuition.

I'm going to presume you got to a CSU school system, which means its not a research university as others from california and specifically LA have pointed out.

USC is a private school, how does that work into your argument about money?

There are plenty great UC system schools that provide a fully funded bio PhD, these include: UC-Davis, UC-Irvine, UCSF, UCLA etc etc. 

Again when I went to UCLA biology faq admission page they said 10-15% of their graduate students are international.  That is on the higher end.

I'm going to use a website you provided to me:

http://www.topuniversities.com/where-to-study/north-america/united-states/graduate-study-us-guide-international-students

Here it says that around 15% of all graduate students in the US are international...not quite at the 40% you quoted. 

It also states there that the highest percentage go to engineering followed by business, then physical and earth sciences, mathematics and computer science for accounting for most of them...biological sciences didn't even get a nod for being a large percentage of those 15%. 

I don't understand where you get that I'm dense, I continue to present data and links to sites that show what your claims are that don't appear that accruate.

Most people getting their PhD are going to a research institution, biological sciences are almost always some of the most well-funded programs at a research university.  I can't speak to schools that aren't research, such as CSU schools since those are the exception, not the norm.

I applied all over the country, and got fully funded at all of them.  Public and private. Coastal and not. 

[GeoDUDE!]

The csu I graduated from is considered a research institution which is different from an undergrad 4 year public school. Again, their grad program is unfunded. For having a mother that works at USC you don't show much knowledge of its demographic. My friend attends there as an international petroleum engineer student. He tells me how hard it is to communicate in his lab because there are almost no people there with a similar background. All of them are from India, China, and the Mid East. I also have done research there at USC, and I can tell you that their Eng department are dominated by Chinese internationals, and it's actually a feather in their cap while recruiting. UCLA also boasts about there significant international Asian population. Both schools use this as a way to boast and recruit oversees. I'm local so I see it and person and read about the finances about recruiting grad students internationally. It's only about money, it's nothing personal.

 

So you go to SDSU? That's the only CSU that is offically recognized as a research institution. I wouldn't call San Diego the same city as Los Angeles, despite how big LA county is. 

 

 

USC is a private school. This is not relevant the conversation. This entire argument started from you saying you doubt the idea that it costs more for a PUBLIC institution to take an international student. Engineering programs are mostly professional/industry related programs. An MSc(engineering) or MEng is considered a professional degree, even with a thesis.   Those types of programs are mostly self funded.  Its 60 grand a year regardless of where you live at USC. But even USC mostly funds students in PhD programs. The reason they can take more international students is because they are a private college (and there is no difference in cost).

 

There are surely many qualified (if not more) international students applying for US phd programs, but at public schools the department must decide if an international student is worth 2 domestic students, so only the very best of best tend to get in.

 

Ted, you have provided no data that is relevant to your case. Perhaps because you go to a school that is criminally underfunded (all the CSUs) you have a more jaded outlook than the statistics seem to suggest about the relevant programs. 

Edited January 24, 2015 by GeoDUDE!

[mop]

Ted you should also

 

I'm not buying that. There are plenty of articles that suggest the opposite is true. In California, for example, Berkeley, UCLA, and other top public schools have an overwhelming international population. Some above 40% at some of schools are foreigners. The reason is because international students in many cases are willing to pay absorbatant tuition to attend the program; in some cases triple the standard tuition. This doesn't include the money that the state and federal government allocate schools advocating diversity. In fact, all of my California applications had me write a diversity essay because they profit from taking in minority and international populations. You can google hundreds of articles on this topic. As a west coast student, it's disheartening that public institutions value international students over domestic and force many natives to move to inland America. The entire game involves money, not diversity. Do you really think that schools would take excess internationals if it WASN'T financially advantageous? Look at the worlds top institutions, all have billions in endowment and it's mostly because of their tuition rates and their large foreign population who pay vastly more than Americans do.

Ted you should realize all UC/CSU admissions have outlawed any affirmative action from Prop. 209 passed over a decade ago.