less than a year of research experience..

[yolk]

I'm a rising  fifth-year senior exploring graduate programs for fall 2015 application. I'm somewhat of a green in the lab. I come from a non-science family and didn't have the pleasure of weaning off a pipette. I began studying microbiology midway through sophomore year, simply for job outlook sakes. I had my first wet lab experience last summer, where I was introduced to research and utterly seduced by science. For I was blind, but now I see.

 

credentials in brief,

 

studying microbiology at a midsize state, ~3.7 gpa, 75 percentile GRE scores

1 summer + 1 winterim REU, cancer genetics + viral mutagens, back-burner author in publication, 1 strong LoR from PI

1 summer in clinical lab, molecular hematology (fragment analysis, rtPCR, sequencing, exposure to dPCR and NGS technology), 1 strong LoR from MD lab director

beginning research in plant molecular lab (total of 3 months experience by the time I apply), 1 LoR from professor

 

12 months of tutoring organic chemistry

active in science journal club

I've networked well and have some, albiet weak, name connections to the programs I'm applying.

 

I'm applying to mid-tier MCB umbrella programs in the North East coastal region and hoping for the best. Is this realistic? I'm also teasing the idea of a post-bacc research assistant position at a reputable university, gathering experiences and narrowing interests, and applying to competitive programs after a couple years. This idea has been discouraged by most researchers I've talked too; they see it as a way of slowing down your career. I have to agree, I'd get awfully anxious to start my PhD.

 

I greatly appreciate honest, constructive feedback.

Edited August 15, 2014 by yolk

[ERR_Alpha]

Your stats are fairly similar to mine. I did have three years of "research" at my home institution- but it was just me and my prof so not typical as far as research goes. I was admitted to UConn MCB and Penn State BMMB and I was interviewed by Dartmouth, if that helps. My advice- know how to talk research, reach out to profs ahead of time, and know your area of focus.

Just look for some good fit schools and you'll do fine

[mop]

When I interviewed for phd programs it seemed to me that most every other applicant had 1 or more years of experience (I had three). Two is probably more common. So with the amount that you have, I think you can apply, but probably should have some backup plans, also apply to post bac/masters/anything to get you more research experience and apply again the following year. 

 

@ERR 3 years on paper is very good, especially if you had a letter to back it up. I don't think it is quite equivalent to yolk.

[Vene]

My impression was that graduate programs don't mind if you don't have extensive research experience, but they want you to have enough to know what you're getting yourself into. Write in your SOP about how much you enjoyed doing the work and that you genuinely want to continue doing research and I don't think you'll have a problem. I'd also add some upper tier programs to your list as long as the research they do interests you. Umbrella programs are good because I don't think they expect you to be as set on your exact research interests are non-umbrella programs.

 

And I agree to not do a post-bac, you're not deficient. If you were to try and get more experience get work experience instead.

[aberrant]

My impression was that graduate programs don't mind if you don't have extensive research experience, but they want you to have enough to know what you're getting yourself into. Write in your SOP about how much you enjoyed doing the work and that you genuinely want to continue doing research and I don't think you'll have a problem. I'd also add some upper tier programs to your list as long as the research they do interests you. Umbrella programs are good because I don't think they expect you to be as set on your exact research interests are non-umbrella programs.

 

And I agree to not do a post-bac, you're not deficient. If you were to try and get more experience get work experience instead.

 

My impression is slightly different. Briefly, you do want to have extensive research experience (2-3 years as an undergrad, or more) even if you are switch fields. Reason for that, nowadays, has to do with the cost of training someone who have little research experience and knowledge vs. someone who already have good fundamentals (or more) in the same aspects. Post-bac is not a bad option if you consider yourself "lack of research experience". Difference between post-back research experience and work (industry) experience is that you will be a bit more independent, more creative (science'wise), and learn more through troubleshooting problems that are more likely encountered in an academic research environment. Obviously, the difference between the environment in academic vs. industry has a lot to do with available resources and how one runs their lab/company. Unless one works at the R&D department in the industry, otherwise, as far as I understand, ones task is typically rather systematic and mechanical, which I don't think it will help anyone to develop as an knowledgeable and independent researcher (before going into a PhD program).

 

just my 2 cents.