Preparing for the worse.

[Bonez]

 

 

 

Also, would it be wise to ask my recommends for  a copy of their letters? I would like to see exactly how good/bad the letters were but I also might need to ask the same people to write letters immediately if I want to apply for some sort of degree program this year.

 

 

Yes. You should absolutely ask your recommenders for a copy of their letters. Ideally, you should have done that before they were submitted. I've never asked for a recommendation from someone that wouldn't let me read what they wrote about me.  

[Applemiu]

Yes. You should absolutely ask your recommenders for a copy of their letters. Ideally, you should have done that before they were submitted. I've never asked for a recommendation from someone that wouldn't let me read what they wrote about me.  

 

I disagree. 

[shadowclaw]

Yes. You should absolutely ask your recommenders for a copy of their letters. Ideally, you should have done that before they were submitted. I've never asked for a recommendation from someone that wouldn't let me read what they wrote about me.  

 

Asking a recommender for a copy of their letter is somewhat in bad taste and might even greatly offend your writer. It definitely sends the message that you do not trust them to write a good letter. If I were a professor and my student asked to see a letter before I submitted it, I would tell them to look elsewhere for a LOR. If you aren't certain that someone will writer a strong letter for you, then you shouldn't ask them to. But of course that is just my opinion.

 

I agree with the general consensus that you should try to get into a research-based masters program, funded or otherwise. High grades in graduate courses will help offset your low uGPA (although to be honest, this still might haunt you even after getting a masters degree), and doing a thesis (as well as publishing your results) will help show the adcomm that you have the capability to be a productive scientist and successful student.

 

I second the idea of looking at state schools for neuroscience or biology programs. They aren't always funded, but they are inexpensive if you do have to pay.

 

 

 

[Eigen]

Yes. You should absolutely ask your recommenders for a copy of their letters. Ideally, you should have done that before they were submitted. I've never asked for a recommendation from someone that wouldn't let me read what they wrote about me.

That is horrible advice, in my opinion.

I would refuse to writes letter for someone who wanted/demanded to see it, and a great many faculty feel the same way.

There's a reason admissions committees won't take letters from students who did not waive their rights seriously. The letter is supposed to be an honest and confidential appraisal of you to the admissions committee.

[Bonez]

I disagree. 

 

Haha. Interesting. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want to see their recommendations. I certainly don't see why a boss, professor, etc. would look poorly on or be offended by someone asking to see their letters. You, the applicant, have a lot at stake in getting good letters. I'm not even so much concerned about a letter writer saying bad things in their letter. Your advisor, professor, or whoever probably had many recommendation letters to write, and its entirely possible that the letter left out important things that you have done or was hastily written. Why jeopardize your application with such a stupid, avoidable thing?

[blinchik]

I personally don't think that it's in poor taste to ask to see a letter after all the recommendations are submitted - before, for sure, as in that case, if you waived the right to see them, that would be very wrong. If you only see them after they are submitted, however, you're not reneging on that agreement. All three of my recommendation letter writers offered to let me read mine a few weeks after all the apps were submitted, as they thought it would be helpful for me to know their assessment of my research/other skills. I understand people have different viewpoints on this, though.

[blinchik]

But yes, I do agree that adcoms may not hold letters in high esteem if they know that you had access to them before submission.

[Bonez]

That is horrible advice, in my opinion.

I would refuse to writes letter for someone who wanted/demanded to see it, and a great many faculty feel the same way.

There's a reason admissions committees won't take letters from students who did not waive their rights seriously. The letter is supposed to be an honest and confidential appraisal of you to the admissions committee.

Interesting. Its pretty common in my laboratory group to review letters before they are submitted. I only had to ask one letter writer to see their letter, the rest said they would let me review them when they initially agreed to write the letters. Your opinion seems very foreign to me. 

 

I don't buy that ad coms don't take these kind of letters seriously. I didn't waive my rights to anything, and I haven't run into any problems. 

[Applemiu]

I didn't waive my rights to anything, and I haven't run into any problems. 

Since you had already read and reviewed the letters, why not to waive the rights? Extra security check?

[Eigen]

I can tell you for sure that admissions committees don't take the letters as seriously, whether you buy it or not is up to you.

I think the review of a recommendation letter before submission is ethically shaky too, but that's a bit more personal.

I think if you don't have recommenders that you trust enough, or have a good enough relationship with, to worry that they've left something out or are writing too many letters to give yours the time they need, then they aren't what I'd consider strong recommendations.

I know someone in Neuroscience who had a recommender rescind a letter, and decline any future work with a student on ethical grounds not even for asking to see the letter, but simply for providing the writer with some important aspects relevant to the letters purpose.

[shadowclaw]

I don't buy that ad coms don't take these kind of letters seriously. I didn't waive my rights to anything, and I haven't run into any problems.

 

I don't think it's so much that they won't take the letter seriously if you didn't waive your rights, but I think it could raise a red flag. What Eigen says is true - by waiving your right to see the letter, you are allowing your LOR writer to give an honest appraisal of you without the concern of retribution or awkwardness if something unfavorable is written. If you don't waive your right, it could imply that you have some negative quality that you don't want brought up in the letter. If you are otherwise a stellar applicant (great GPA, GRE scores, SOP, and lots of research experience), then it probably won't matter. However, if you are a marginal applicant, I think the adcomm would be concerned that you didn't waive your rights.

 

I think if you don't have recommenders that you trust enough, or have a good enough relationship with, to worry that they've left something out or are writing too many letters to give yours the time they need, then they aren't what I'd consider strong recommendations.

This. You should be able to tell what people will write a great letter for you. If you can't, it means either you haven't cultivated good relationships with your professors and advisors or you haven't been a good student or researcher. The resulting letter from someone you can't trust to right a good letter won't be very good, even if you get to see it or even make changes.

Edited February 1, 2015 by shadowclaw

[GeoDUDE!]

There is so much speculation in this thread: aren't we supposed to be scientists? 

 

I don't know how they adcoms would react, but I do know that is the norm for applicants to never see their letters. I have never seen any of mine. 

 

Doing something abnormal could be good or bad... but I think its a hardcase to sell that it's a GOOD thing to not waive your rights.

[shadowclaw]

There is so much speculation in this thread: aren't we supposed to be scientists? 

 

Thanks for reminding us of this. We ARE supposed to be scientists, and you're right, I don't think very many people here actually know for sure how adcomms view LORs without rights waived (myself included). Those who do probably only know how their own school handles it.

 

We also shouldn't be making statements like "It worked for me, therefore it works for everybody" because as scientists we all know that anecdotal evidence isn't very useful on its own.

 

[Eigen]

You're right, I can't say absolutely, but I know admissions committee members at around a dozen schools who have said everything from "I read letters without waiving very, very carefully to see if there's anything between the lines" to "I consider the letters completely useless if he right to view was waived."

Accordingly, I feel comfortable extrapolating that it does, in fact effect how admissions committees view the letters.

[Vene]

Doing something abnormal could be good or bad... but I think its a hardcase to sell that it's a GOOD thing to not waive your rights.

Generally, I work under the assumption that whenever I'm being asked to waive a right that it's not a good thing. I did for my application season as it does me no good to fight it. But, it just strikes me as skeevy that in order to obtain higher education you functionally have to discard a right provided to you by law.

[blinchik]

To bring the discussion back to Yuangyang, it is perhaps possible that the letters were not as strongly written as they could have been. I'm not sure if there is another way to end that speculation if not by asking the letter writers about them and/or seeing the letters. Unless I have misinterpreted something, since all the apps have been submitted, he wouldn't be reneging on that agreement.

 

If the relationship isn't as open as it could be, however, I do see how that could backfire pretty spectacularly. Anyone have any better ideas?

Edited February 1, 2015 by blinchik

[Bonez]

I know someone in Neuroscience who had a recommender rescind a letter, and decline any future work with a student on ethical grounds not even for asking to see the letter, but simply for providing the writer with some important aspects relevant to the letters purpose.

 

This seems ridiculous, and the recommender sounds overly pompous. Would this recommender object to viewing the students CV prior to writing, because its contains "important aspects relevant to the letters purpose"? Goes to show that academia has its share of wankers. 

 

 

 

You're right, I can't say absolutely, but I know admissions committee members at around a dozen schools who have said everything from "I read letters without waiving very, very carefully to see if there's anything between the lines" to "I consider the letters completely useless if he right to view was waived."

 

That's why I don't buy what you say. Is "about a dozen" an acceptable n for all admissions committee members? I doubt it. I think your certainty is dubious at best.  

[ERR_Alpha]

There are some things that are slightly out of your control for applying. LORs are one of them. You need to pick people who you're confident will write you a good letter, but some schools even specifically ask "what are applicant xyz's short comings?" in the form letter. EVERYONE has shortcomings. The program has to decide if yours are so big that they doubt your ability to complete and thrive in the program.

Personally, I would advise against not waiving your rights. I believe it's in poor form. I would email your recommenders and ask if they think there's anything you could improve upon for graduate school. That will give you a good indication where they stand with you.

[Yuanyang]

I've said this before: I might never know for sure why I was rejected. Sure, its probably obvious to most on this board what is the problem with my credentials but from experience, admissions department are loathe to tell you the reason straight. From grad students I talked to, adcom heads, and professional admissions counselors, they all seem to make this process seem more like voodoo rituals rather than science. There is just too many social and bureaucratic nuances that will affect your chances of acceptance, maybe even more than just merit. 

 

I'm actually torn. On one hand, I've learned my lesson that if most people on this board said that you need to do something you better well listen. On the other, this guy did exactly the same thing as I did (worked as a lab tech), got interviews, and also read his own LORs beforehand. Admittedly he has a better Undergrad GPA than mine.I already know what one of my LORs looks like, it looks like a generic letter of rec from a super busy PI with my name added in ad lib.

 

I will not ask for copies of my LORs, I might still need my rights waived to apply for the few MS programs in neuroscience that are still accepting applicants. Some in this thread have already recommended a few programs which I am looking into. If none of those pan out, then i'll spend the summer re-taking courses I failed and try to apply for an MS in fall 2016 (as i mentioned earlier). In the meantime, I have to re-consider living conditions (Boston's a shit place to be a renter), jobs, and how to break the news to family and friends. I wouldn't call this a new opportunity- it doesn't feel new at all.

 

I also maintain that 50K isn't a small amount of money.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Yuanyang

[ballwera]

Either complete an ENTIRE postbacc sequence or do a masters part time. If you dint have a huge upward trend in the last few semesters, 2 classes isnt going to get it done. Does MIT offer any tuition remission, because I wouldn't be paying for anymore education.

[neuropanic]

Sorry, but that GPA is a huge red flag. A lot of the people with "low GPAs" getting into schools are people with close to a 3.0. I would be really surprised if you got in anywhere without first doing another degree/program of some sort. You have to pass your classes in grad school, and I would be skeptical that you truly understood your field if you have a GPA that low. The class I made a C in, I made a C because I didn't understand and didn't have the time to put into it to understand, and that prof operated on a C- curve. Grades do show a lot.

[Yuanyang]

I should mention that the position that I held at MIT no longer exists. I have limited income and no tuition assistance.

 

Some have suggested to find another research job. I have looked for other positions at MIT and else where, got interviews, and no offers. I do not anticipate getting another research position, but I will have to work full-time/part-time to pay for coursework or a MS.

 

Someone also suggested I go to Australia and try to enter grad school there. I'm not sure of the merits.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Yuanyang

[ilovelab]

I should mention that the position that I held at MIT no longer exists. I have limited income and no tuition assistance.

 

Some have suggested to find another research job. I have looked for other positions at MIT and else where, got interviews, and no offers. I do not anticipate getting another research position, but I will have to work full-time/part-time to pay for coursework or a MS.

 

Someone also suggested I go to Australia and try to enter grad school there. I'm not sure of the merits.

  What about research positions at Mass Gen (they have a major research division), Boston University, Boston Childrens Hospital, Harvard medical school etc. There are research positions available at all of those institutions. In a couple of months the current lab tech/research associates who applied to graduate school will be leaving so new job postings will be online. Also what about biopharmaceutical companies? They value research experience over grades which you have plenty of. There have to be start ups in the boston area that you could search. Here a few links for start up companies and jobs: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.startuphire.com%2Fi%2Fjobs-at-Biotech-startups%3Fi%3D8&ei=JbnOVMP7DtTVoATek4HwCg&usg=AFQjCNFheFCES5YzuANKOcMEpzSiMlJgZg&sig2=iIEvvp8A8vyzu987CFwNQg&bvm=bv.85076809,d.cGU

https://angel.co/biotechnology ( try to find the websites for these start ups (the ones in your area), they will have job postings for sure if they are expanding).

 

  Don't bother looking at Australia. You would be a foreign applicant, we've pointed out in this thread and in others the international students are set to a higher standard.  Your 2.3 GPA will screw you over. At Cambridge if you didn't get a 3.5 for undergrad you won't even be considered. The schools in australia aren't Cambridge but you won't get in. Its not worth the time and money.

 

 Have you considered a PSM (Professional Science Masters Degree):  Most of the programs can be done part time, and have some sort of paid internship either in a research lab or a bio-pharmaceutical company.

[Applemiu]

 

I will not ask for copies of my LORs, I might still need my rights waived to apply for the few MS programs in neuroscience that are still accepting applicants. Some in this thread have already recommended a few programs which I am looking into. 

 

Check this one too:

 

http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/Psychology/Grad/masters/behav_neuro/index.html

[Yuanyang]

Check this one too:

 

http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/Psychology/Grad/masters/behav_neuro/index.html

 

Minimum requirements are an undergraduate overall GPA greater than 3.00 and at least 15 credits of Undergraduate Psychology, Neuroscience or equivalent courses. Both of which I don't have.

 

 

 

  What about research positions at Mass Gen (they have a major research division), Boston University, Boston Childrens Hospital, Harvard medical school etc. There are research positions available at all of those institutions. In a couple of months the current lab tech/research associates who applied to graduate school will be leaving so new job postings will be online. Also what about biopharmaceutical companies? They value research experience over grades which you have plenty of. There have to be start ups in the boston area that you could search. Here a few links for start up companies and jobs: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.startuphire.com%2Fi%2Fjobs-at-Biotech-startups%3Fi%3D8&ei=JbnOVMP7DtTVoATek4HwCg&usg=AFQjCNFheFCES5YzuANKOcMEpzSiMlJgZg&sig2=iIEvvp8A8vyzu987CFwNQg&bvm=bv.85076809,d.cGU

https://angel.co/biotechnology ( try to find the websites for these start ups (the ones in your area), they will have job postings for sure if they are expanding).

 

 

 

I have applied to more than 50 job postings in the Boston area and in the US. I've gotten interviews from HMS, Boston Medical Center, and Transnetyx. I've applied to every Job I can find on Linkedin. No offers.

Ever since i got the layoff notice, I've been looking for work. That was almost 10 months ago. 

Edited February 2, 2015 by Yuanyang