Gap year(s) vs Masters vs straight-to-PhD... How did you decide?

[mockturtle]

I get what you're saying. When I first started on gradcafe, I was feeling that I would have a really hard time with the admissions process because of what I saw in everyone else on here.

 

Ultimately, though, you don't know anyone's full story. You don't know what they said in their SOP (or how they said it -- both arrogance and excessively passive writing are sinkers), you don't know what their letter writers wrote about them (even though people love to say they have "3 great LORs"), you don't know if their interactions with POIs/ program coordinators were thoughtful and mature.

 

Even the more concrete, accessible information (stats) that people provide aren't as well-defined as they might seem. When someone says they have "4 years of research experience", you don't know if they were generally working 10 hours/week or 40. You don't know if they were working with a postdoc (or another student) or if they had their own project. If they had their own project, did they have any say in designing it? With publications, it's even more ambiguous. I overheard another recruit at one of my interviews say that her PI was writing a paper but that she was going to be first-author, even though she was only formatting the references. In my lab, first-author means that the first-author wrote nearly the entire paper and it was edited and revised by the PI. GPA varies by institution -- more than anyone ever cares to say -- and it's truly awful that some talented individuals aren't considered because an honorable 3.1 doesn't stand tall in a forest of inflated 3.9's. GRE scores may be a more uniform measure, as everyone faces the same test, but institutions willingly admit that the GRE doesn't predict success in grad school. Hence, interviews serve a useful role in determining whether applicants are ready to be autonomous researchers.

 

Don't get stuck in the comparison game. I know it's rough -- you'll see those boards where everyone lists their stats and pertinent information -- but try to remember that a whole applicant can't be captured in an online forum reply box. 

I really needed to hear this, thank you so much.

I still think my application, as it is, would still probably not stand out from the pool next year (even with all the eloquent writing and polite first impressions in the world), and I want to do something about that, but you're definitely right about the subtleties of someone's qualifications and personality not coming through in a bunch of stats.

[velli]

If you're sure that research is for you, you should apply anyway. The only reason to actively decide to take a gap year is if you need to figure things out for yourself; otherwise, it's a backup plan in the case that you aren't admitted to a program (that you like, I guess, since you're looking for prestige). I applied this cycle with the mindset that I'd throw stuff at the wall and see what happened (I applied to seven programs and one postbacc research position). I think I'm one year removed from a similar position to yours -- this time last year, I had strong academics but a lacking science background. My science research thus far is entirely contained in one REU last summer and I have a pure math and premed background otherwise. (To make a long story short, I attend a rigorous institution where it's rather difficult to join a lab while enrolling in a full undergraduate course load.)

 

Here is my advice, mostly addressing your point that you're strong academically. My academics are the highlights of my applications (3.94 GPA, 170/170/4.5 GRE, 42 MCAT). I'm also a good writer and I know I have three good letters (two of which contributed to my previous REU applications and the third actually mentioned during one of my interviews), so I was able to communicate my intentions and qualifications very clearly. If you know faculty that can write strong letters for your case and you know that research is what you want to do, you will be a successful applicant. Get help with your writing if that's not your forte. I think if you're super concerned with prestige, you already know/have the numbers you need. You should apply to your top choices (no safeties) and also consider postbacc/gap year programs as alternates in case you need to reapply. This is probably irresponsible advice, but if you don't want to settle for anything other than a top 10 school, that's what you should do. 

[mockturtle]

If you're sure that research is for you, you should apply anyway. The only reason to actively decide to take a gap year is if you need to figure things out for yourself; otherwise, it's a backup plan in the case that you aren't admitted to a program (that you like, I guess, since you're looking for prestige). I applied this cycle with the mindset that I'd throw stuff at the wall and see what happened (I applied to seven programs and one postbacc research position). I think I'm one year removed from a similar position to yours -- this time last year, I had strong academics but a lacking science background. My science research thus far is entirely contained in one REU last summer and I have a pure math and premed background otherwise. (To make a long story short, I attend a rigorous institution where it's rather difficult to join a lab while enrolling in a full undergraduate course load.)

 

Here is my advice, mostly addressing your point that you're strong academically. My academics are the highlights of my applications (3.94 GPA, 170/170/4.5 GRE, 42 MCAT). I'm also a good writer and I know I have three good letters (two of which contributed to my previous REU applications and the third actually mentioned during one of my interviews), so I was able to communicate my intentions and qualifications very clearly. If you know faculty that can write strong letters for your case and you know that research is what you want to do, you will be a successful applicant. Get help with your writing if that's not your forte. I think if you're super concerned with prestige, you already know/have the numbers you need. You should apply to your top choices (no safeties) and also consider postbacc/gap year programs as alternates in case you need to reapply. This is probably irresponsible advice, but if you don't want to settle for anything other than a top 10 school, that's what you should do. 

God damn that's a quite a respectable spread of admissions/interviews, congratulations.

 

I'm definitely kicking around the idea of applying to at least a few places this fall, just in case of a miracle. It's just going to feel like a silly pointless expense, in terms of both money and time, if none of it pays off in the end, you know? For the record, I can't boast of a 3.94, more of a 3.85, but you clearly got into the places you did based on much more than that.

 

I'm not limiting myself to top 10, exactly... but top 25, maybe? There's probably not all that much of a realistic difference there, however, in terms of likelihood of admission, so I don't know if I can consider that a great boon to my chances. I appreciate the danger of applying to only top schools, but my thinking is that I could always compromise with safeties when applying after a gap year or a few, since by that point I probably couldn't exactly expect much more.

[stygldbby]

For what another anecdotal contribution is worth, I was also pretty nervous about not having enough relavent research experience (2 summer REUs and a semester on campus by application submission) to apply straight out of undergrad but decided to just go for it anyways. Even though my experiences were short and my future research goals are pretty different from anything I've previously done, things seem to be working out so far! I've learned from the interview process that (most) grad schools are really looking more for potential than anything else at this point (I say most because there are def some schools that strongly prefer more established researchers).

I agree with Velli. If you have the other, more easily quantifiable stats (a 3.85 is def very impressive by the way!) you're already in a pretty good place to further convince adcoms that you're worth investing in through your personal/ research statement. I was actually surprised how important your SOP can be in the whole process since I was always told numbers, lors, and experience basically make everything else "fluff". But I've always been a pretty decent writer and have had multiple adcom members tell me they were impressed by my SOP so selling yourself well can go a long way too!

[Octopus28]

Thought I'd throw in my two-cents into this discussion. I always knew I wanted to go back to grad school for a PhD, but knew my credentials were not strong enough to get me into a programs straight after undergrad. I talked to my undergrad adviser and he told me to gain experience in the field. I've been in the biotech industry for  3 years and have been working on a Masters in Bio. You gain insight on how to work in lab efficiently and effectively. Grad schools also like that you spent time in a lab, because many students end up disliking bench work. I would strongly recommend at least 1 year break even if you have the credentials. You'll learn a lot about yourself

[neuropanic]

What do you guys think about a combined 5 year BS/MS program? Currently applying to one as we start Fall of junior year.

[mockturtle]

On 2/23/2015 at 5:38 PM, stygldbby said:

For what another anecdotal contribution is worth, I was also pretty nervous about not having enough relavent research experience (2 summer REUs and a semester on campus by application submission) to apply straight out of undergrad but decided to just go for it anyways. Even though my experiences were short and my future research goals are pretty different from anything I've previously done, things seem to be working out so far! I've learned from the interview process that (most) grad schools are really looking more for potential than anything else at this point (I say most because there are def some schools that strongly prefer more established researchers).

I agree with Velli. If you have the other, more easily quantifiable stats (a 3.85 is def very impressive by the way!) you're already in a pretty good place to further convince adcoms that you're worth investing in through your personal/ research statement. I was actually surprised how important your SOP can be in the whole process since I was always told numbers, lors, and experience basically make everything else "fluff". But I've always been a pretty decent writer and have had multiple adcom members tell me they were impressed by my SOP so selling yourself well can go a long way too!

Oh wow, you guys are going to get my hopes up!!

 

Without tooting my own horn too terribly much, I do think my writing skills are one of my assets, so I'd hope for that to help me in some small way, at least. However, I still don't feel I can necessarily count on that (or my other specs) to gain me admission into somewhere like UCBerkeley or WashU or anywhere else really phenomenal, and that's the source of my worry. In fairness, maybe no one can "count" on admission to those places, but I'm not sure I even come close.

 

Congrats on your great acceptances too, by the way!