Questions about Biosciences PhD Programs

[nrsnyder]

Hey all, I didn't see a thread for general questions about PhD programs in bio and so I figured I'd start one.

 

My questions are:

 

Is quant or verbal a more "important" section on the GRE for these programs? I can see the importance of both so I wouldn't be surprised if they are weighted equally, but I'm curious.

 

Also, there's a lot of talk about applying to certain research groups and the advantages of making sure you're a good "fit" for the group. However many of the big schools with strong bio programs have you apply to a larger program such as a "Biomedical Sciences Department" and don't require that you have a lab picked out beforehand. Does this lead to a greater emphasis on stats since your research experience doesn't need to be a fit for a particular lab?

 

Finally, to sort of build on the last question, how important is it for previous research experience to be in the same field as your program? For instance I am applying to Immunology programs but all my previous research experience has been in either diagnostic assay development or biochemistry.

 

Thanks, and I know these issues are more complicated than the questions imply. Just trying to get a feel for making my application the strongest it can be, as I only really have interest in going to grad school if I make it to a top 10 program.

[Admissions Advice Online]

Hello,

 

For most PhD programs, the quant section on the GRE is by far more important than the verbal. However, for BIO PhD programs both are really important. Also, as you may know, a BIO PhD has so many different sub specialties that research is almost always expected to prove to the admissions committee that you have really thought out your future. Without meaningful research admissions to a top 10 Bio program will not happen. - Admissions Advice Online

[bsharpe269]

A PhD program expects you to fit well with the program, regardless of whether you apply through an umbrella program or to a specific PhD program. You should be able to discuss your interests in detail and how the resources at that university best enable you to pursue your research goals.

 

Honestly, odds are that your particular research interest will only be emphasized at a couple of the top 10 schools so you will probably one have 1-2 schools to apply to if you decide you must attend a top 10. There is little point to setting that standard since it is entirely likely that top 20 or top 30 schools will be just as strong or stronger for your research interest, resulting is just as good of networking and career options. For example, only 2 of the top 20 universities in my field are strong at all in my research. I would be seriously hurting my career options by attending a top 10 university that has relatively poor research in my subfield.

[nrsnyder]

A PhD program expects you to fit well with the program, regardless of whether you apply through an umbrella program or to a specific PhD program. You should be able to discuss your interests in detail and how the resources at that university best enable you to pursue your research goals.

 

Honestly, odds are that your particular research interest will only be emphasized at a couple of the top 10 schools so you will probably one have 1-2 schools to apply to if you decide you must attend a top 10. There is little point to setting that standard since it is entirely likely that top 20 or top 30 schools will be just as strong or stronger for your research interest, resulting is just as good of networking and career options. For example, only 2 of the top 20 universities in my field are strong at all in my research. I would be seriously hurting my career options by attending a top 10 university that has relatively poor research in my subfield.

How specific do you need to be in "research interests". I'm pretty adaptable and am interested in more than just a single research topic. I'm not trying pigeonhole myself into anything too early but I also understand the benefit of being able to prove you will make a good fit. I'm trying to find the right balance.

 

I'm by no means trying to say a top20 or top 30 school can't be strong within certain sub-disciplines but because I don't have my heart set on any one research topic I'd rather go to the overall better program. More importantly though, I'm specifically interested in top programs because it's better for my career. I don't have a whole lot of desire to stay in academia and will be looking to go back to industry or move into business development/consulting for pharma and biotech pretty quickly after I graduate. In this case I suspect I'll get the most out of my PhD if it has the "glamour" of being from a big name school. Otherwise I would be way more interested in some of the smaller but just as effective/productive programs.

[nrsnyder]

Hello,

 

For most PhD programs, the quant section on the GRE is by far more important than the verbal. However, for BIO PhD programs both are really important. Also, as you may know, a BIO PhD has so many different sub specialties that research is almost always expected to prove to the admissions committee that you have really thought out your future. Without meaningful research admissions to a top 10 Bio program will not happen. - Admissions Advice Online

 

My questions were posted under the assumption that I have fairly strong research experience to accompany my scores. Basically what I'm asking in regards to research is this: can someone who has spent their time doing primarily biochem research still get into a top immunology program or vice versa?

[Vene]

How specific do you need to be in "research interests". I'm pretty adaptable and am interested in more than just a single research topic. I'm not trying pigeonhole myself into anything too early but I also understand the benefit of being able to prove you will make a good fit. I'm trying to find the right balance.

 

I'm by no means trying to say a top20 or top 30 school can't be strong within certain sub-disciplines but because I don't have my heart set on any one research topic I'd rather go to the overall better program. More importantly though, I'm specifically interested in top programs because it's better for my career. I don't have a whole lot of desire to stay in academia and will be looking to go back to industry or move into business development/consulting for pharma and biotech pretty quickly after I graduate. In this case I suspect I'll get the most out of my PhD if it has the "glamour" of being from a big name school. Otherwise I would be way more interested in some of the smaller but just as effective/productive programs.

Here's my advice for that, don't worry one bit about the ranking, worry far more about the connections the professors have. Work for a PI who collaborates with companies and who files for patents in addition to publishing in journals. And nobody in industry gives a shit about top 10 versus top 30.

[nrsnyder]

Here's my advice for that, don't worry one bit about the ranking, worry far more about the connections the professors have. Work for a PI who collaborates with companies and who files for patents in addition to publishing in journals. And nobody in industry gives a shit about top 10 versus top 30.

 

Good idea.

 

Any idea on whether or not the big consulting firms care? It seems they only do on campus recruiting at the top 10.

[Vene]

Why are you looking at consulting firms if you're interested in a biology PhD? It's entirely the wrong skillset.

 

That said, I can say that I have worked at a fortune 500 in the midwest (region may be relevant) and although there were people there with degrees from top universities there were also people with degrees from state universities. There were also a number of people who graduated from small private universities in the area (obviously their bachelors degree, as said universities don't tend to offer doctorates).

[nrsnyder]

Why are you looking at consulting firms if you're interested in a biology PhD? It's entirely the wrong skillset.

 

That said, I can say that I have worked at a fortune 500 in the midwest (region may be relevant) and although there were people there with degrees from top universities there were also people with degrees from state universities. There were also a number of people who graduated from small private universities in the area (obviously their bachelors degree, as said universities don't tend to offer doctorates).

Untrue. I've spent a lot of time researching this career path and if you want to PM me to discuss it go for it, but the short of it is big business firms recruit heavily from top schools for their bio/pharma/healthcare departments. 

[Vene]

Untrue. I've spent a lot of time researching this career path and if you want to PM me to discuss it go for it, but the short of it is big business firms recruit heavily from top schools for their bio/pharma/healthcare departments. 

I'm just sharing my experience, again, it may well be a regional thing as there simply are not as many top 10 or top 20 universities in the midwest so instead of recruiting at MIT a fortune 500 may recruit from UW-Madison instead.

[nrsnyder]

I'm just sharing my experience, again, it may well be a regional thing as there simply are not as many top 10 or top 20 universities in the midwest so instead of recruiting at MIT a fortune 500 may recruit from UW-Madison instead.

 

I totally agree with that. The thing I was trying to disagree with was the "consulting and PhD require completely different skill sets" point.

 

I actually wouldn't be surprised if your experience is fairly standard, a lot of areas take pride in their local universities and hire directly from there. 

 

The main thing is I know a lot of consulting and VC firms in my area like to hire directly from UCSF and Stanford using on campus recruiting. This is why I'm concerned about getting into a similar "big name" program.