Advice for a Chemistry Undergrad

[stef-fullerene]

Now that most people have finished their grad applications, and have hopefully heard back from some of the programs, I was wondering if anyone wouldn't mind lending some advice to a junior level undergrad? 

 

I'm trying to determine when would be the best time to take the general/chemistry GRE, how to determine which subfield of chemistry I want to study in the future, how to look for potential advisors, etc. 

 

So far I have only completed my general chemistry sequence, organic chemistry sequence, one semester of biochemistry, and one semester of analytical chemistry (starting my first semester of physical in fall 2015). I know I'm quite early in my grad preparation but I would really appreciate any words of wisdom.

Edited March 9, 2015 by stef-fullerene

[velli]

The best time to take the general GRE is whenever you want to within the a year or two before you apply to graduate school. It felt to me like a harder version of the SAT. You should already have the requisite tools to do well, even if it takes some practice/studying. The chemistry GRE is more complicated because it draws from upper level chemistry courses. Take it after you've finished most of your undergraduate chemistry coursework. It might be best to take it the summer before your senior year (if you're planning to go straight into grad school) or after your senior year if you decide to take a gap year. 

 

Do you have research experience? Spending time in a research lab is the best way to figure out what you'd want to do in graduate school. It's the only way to get a hands on feel for what you want to spend 5-6 years working on during graduate school. In addition, you'll need to make an exceptional case to earn an admission without a reasonably strong research background. If you haven't worked in a lab, you should think about what gets you most excited about chemistry. That's the easiest way to narrow down a general subcategory of chemistry. For example, if you don't love mathematics and physics to go along with your chemistry, you won't enjoy chemical physics research, whereas if you loved biochemistry, you should look into chemical biology or biochemistry labs.

 

Lastly, don't be afraid to take a gap year to figure it all out. Doing research is the only way to figure out what you like best and there's no harm in taking a year or two to explore your interests before committing to half a decade in graduate school. 

[ERR_Alpha]

If you need helping picking a specialization, look up some journal articles from various areas. What excites you? What bores you to tears? For me personally I can tell pretty quickly. I would look into REU/SURF programs to help you get more research experience as well. These can also get you exposed to more areas of research and help you realize where your passion is.

[Eigen]

Personally, I'd advice against picking a specialization too early. There's more and more overlap between subfields, and it's not really until after you've experienced multiple research areas that you have a solid idea of what you do and don't like. Advanced classes will help, as well. 

 

To be perfectly honest, I didn't even have a defined idea when i applied to grad school, and I'd taken the equivalent of an MS in coursework, and had 4 years or research experience. 

 

I knew there were things I liked, things I didn't like, and a general goal for my research- I liked biological/biologically inspired projects, and I liked working on things that had defined practical and applied outcomes. 

 

I ended up applying to different schools in different subfields- bioinorganic some places, instrumentation development others, and even some very biophysical programs. Also just some standard wet organic medicinal chemistry labs. 

 

Even when I started grad school, I'd courted several different groups in different areas, and picked the one that let me work in the most interdisciplinary area. 

 

At the professional level, there's not as much focus on "field". You're a chemist, and as such expected to be relatively fluent in all of the sub disciplines, and a lot of people transition from one to the other at various points in their career, depending on exact research interests and applications. 

 

Accordingly, my advice would be to work on developing a solid, well rounded background- and as mentioned, get research experience. It doesn't need to be exactly in the area you're most interested in long term, but it should be with a good advisor, and something that will get you some defined wet-lab skills, and see what a research environment is like. 

[eeee1923]

I would also try to take the ACS Subfield exams (analytical, organic, physical, biochem, etc) to give you a better idea of what the subject test would be like

[Whisky-with-a-Y]

My advice for the Chem GRE: Hmmmmmm. I took the test very early, before my 2nd semester of PChem, any inorganic or instrumental, so I could apply very early to grad school. My results would have been fine if I had stuck to my game plan of only answering questions I knew, but I abandoned that when I sat down (poor choice on my part). The optimal time to take it is as late as possible (october-ish I think), but it will delay your applications a bit if you want to submit your scores. Also, you might have to automatically submit your scores if you take it later, meaning the scores will go directly to the schools and not you first. If I had to take it again I would sign up for the test in the summer of your junior/senior year, that way PChem should be done, which takes up a decent chunk of the test. Most students will not have every class complete that is covered on the test, so strategy is very important. Don't answer a question you don't know as it will count against you. Lastly, don't freak out if you don't do too well or have time to take it. I got in to some great schools without submitting my scores (every school I applied to), and I know a few other students, personally, who got into Ivy's without a Chem GRE.

 

Regular GRE: Take it over the summer or when you don't have much going on. The test is easy to do decent on, tough to do outstanding on. I studied for 2 solid weeks and was happy with my scores. Review some basic algebra, geometry, and really practice verbal. Chem students consider that to be the least important part, but it looks good to do well in that subject. Shoot for at least 70th percentiles in all. 

 

Getting Into Research: Eigen summed it up pretty well. Meet up with a few different professors, maybe ones that you really like and have them explain their research to you, they love that stuff. Do a little research on your own and try to get an idea of something that sounds interesting. Don't be afraid to hate what you are doing. If you start in an organic lab and dislike it, get out early. There is no law that states you have to do something you dislike. I spent a year and a half in an inorganic lab before I finally moved on and it was a large waste of time. The schools and professors that do a lot of collaboration are a good start as you can get a taste of a few different areas. In the end, don't think that just because your did 1 thing in undergrad means that you have to continue that in grad school.

[stef-fullerene]

Thank you for all of the advice. I guess I will aim for taking the GRE during summer of 2016, once I've finished p-chem and inorganic. Right now I'm in an organic lab that I'm not too crazy about but it's good experience and I don't think I'd be qualified for analytical or physical lab work just yet.

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Personally, I'd advice against picking a specialization too early. There's more and more overlap between subfields, and it's not really until after you've experienced multiple research areas that you have a solid idea of what you do and don't like. Advanced classes will help, as well. 

 

To be perfectly honest, I didn't even have a defined idea when i applied to grad school, and I'd taken the equivalent of an MS in coursework, and had 4 years or research experience. 

 

I knew there were things I liked, things I didn't like, and a general goal for my research- I liked biological/biologically inspired projects, and I liked working on things that had defined practical and applied outcomes. 

 

I ended up applying to different schools in different subfields- bioinorganic some places, instrumentation development others, and even some very biophysical programs. Also just some standard wet organic medicinal chemistry labs. 

 

Even when I started grad school, I'd courted several different groups in different areas, and picked the one that let me work in the most interdisciplinary area. 

 

At the professional level, there's not as much focus on "field". You're a chemist, and as such expected to be relatively fluent in all of the sub disciplines, and a lot of people transition from one to the other at various points in their career, depending on exact research interests and applications. 

 

Accordingly, my advice would be to work on developing a solid, well rounded background- and as mentioned, get research experience. It doesn't need to be exactly in the area you're most interested in long term, but it should be with a good advisor, and something that will get you some defined wet-lab skills, and see what a research environment is like. 

 

I disagree. I'm in chemical physics, and we don't even speak the same language as organic chemists do. Hell, even biophysics and biochemistry (listed separately in our chemistry department's research!) don't speak the same language and their papers read nothing alike. I'd say that its best to pick the general direction early because you want to gear yourself towards study in each subfield - learning how to run TLCs is useless in physical chemistry but essential in organic while learning computer modeling with MatLAB is useless in organic chemistry but almost a requirement in physical chemistry.

Edited March 13, 2015 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[Eigen]

You say that, but there's no skill like speaking all of those langauges, and personally I don't think I'd survive professionally if I didn't.

 

Being able to talk theory with a chemical physicist and talk delivery mechanisms or enzyme kinetics with a biochemist is a valuable skill, and I would argue that getting a PhD in Chemistry means you can pretty fluently read a paper from any journal in the spectrum, and analyze it pretty well. When it comes to papers, for that matter, you'd be surprised how far afield you'll be asked to review things. I've helped review papers from J Chem Phys and J Phys Chem through some electrial engineering and molecular biology stuff.

 

I would also say in modern organic chemistry, outside of some of the most traditional labs, MatLAB is quite useful, to take an example from your post. You can say either case is useful, I'd say a well-trained chemist, regardless of subfield can run a TLC and explain the theory behind it as well as use MatLAB. And a biophysicist isn't going far if they don't keep up with current biochemistry publications, and a biochemist isn't going far if they don't keep up with current biophysics. Some of the journals may use different terminology, but you'd better know both pretty fluently.

 

I just finished helping one of our chemical physics groups set up a shlenk line. They've got a need to synthesize some very specific things, and it's easier for them to set up and do it themselves rather than find a collaborator willing to devote the time to it. They have the basic skills necessary from a well rounded undergrad, and all they needed was google and a bit of help with the initial setup.

 

I also spent a pretty interesting couple of months teaching one of our theoretical electrodynamics groups how to purify and analyze DNA... They were interested in getting some measurements to couple to their theoretical calculations for charge transfer. And again, they had the skills necessary to pretty quickly pick up the lab work, because they were well rounded.

 

When our group is looking for someone, we'd prefer someone that can do syntheis, work with biological systems, has a solid stats background, and can do mathematical prediction and modeling. We really don't have a lot of interest in getting people that have specialized so much they can't easily branch out as the situation requires.

 

That said, it may also be an age/time in degree thing. I notice our first and second years are much more insular in their interests, and it really seems to hurt them in terms of networking with the faculty and other researchers.

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

You say that, but there's no skill like speaking all of those langauges, and personally I don't think I'd survive professionally if I didn't.

 

Being able to talk theory with a chemical physicist and talk delivery mechanisms or enzyme kinetics with a biochemist is a valuable skill, and I would argue that getting a PhD in Chemistry means you can pretty fluently read a paper from any journal in the spectrum, and analyze it pretty well. When it comes to papers, for that matter, you'd be surprised how far afield you'll be asked to review things. I've helped review papers from J Chem Phys and J Phys Chem through some electrial engineering and molecular biology stuff.

 

I would also say in modern organic chemistry, outside of some of the most traditional labs, MatLAB is quite useful, to take an example from your post. You can say either case is useful, I'd say a well-trained chemist, regardless of subfield can run a TLC and explain the theory behind it as well as use MatLAB. And a biophysicist isn't going far if they don't keep up with current biochemistry publications, and a biochemist isn't going far if they don't keep up with current biophysics. Some of the journals may use different terminology, but you'd better know both pretty fluently.

 

I just finished helping one of our chemical physics groups set up a shlenk line. They've got a need to synthesize some very specific things, and it's easier for them to set up and do it themselves rather than find a collaborator willing to devote the time to it. They have the basic skills necessary from a well rounded undergrad, and all they needed was google and a bit of help with the initial setup.

 

I also spent a pretty interesting couple of months teaching one of our theoretical electrodynamics groups how to purify and analyze DNA... They were interested in getting some measurements to couple to their theoretical calculations for charge transfer. And again, they had the skills necessary to pretty quickly pick up the lab work, because they were well rounded.

 

When our group is looking for someone, we'd prefer someone that can do syntheis, work with biological systems, has a solid stats background, and can do mathematical prediction and modeling. We really don't have a lot of interest in getting people that have specialized so much they can't easily branch out as the situation requires.

 

That said, it may also be an age/time in degree thing. I notice our first and second years are much more insular in their interests, and it really seems to hurt them in terms of networking with the faculty and other researchers.

 

Yeah maybe its because of being new since new students usually don't get to do alot of out of field things. However I think its kind of unreasonable to think that you have to be able to know *anything* from chemistry. I mean, a guy in materials or biophysics is not going to be able to understand a total synthesis paper and the opposite is true too, but thats OK since their jobs are different.

 

Or maybe its because I learn slowly and can't handle too much information lol. Gotta break it down into nice compartments.

Edited March 13, 2015 by SymmetryOfImperfection

[ERR_Alpha]

I'll put my two cents into this debate, I suppose.

 

While it's true you don't want to specialize too early, it doesn't hurt to have an idea what you want to do. As an undergraduate, you should take as many chemistry classes in as many areas as you can. (I also took advanced math and physics courses) You'll never know what lab you'll land in as a graduate student, or even beyond. I always knew I wanted to do biochemistry. I took a variety of classes (from Cell Biology to Modern Physics, and a ton of chemistry in between) and they all kept pointing me back to biochemistry. If you had asked me as a senior undergraduate, I would join some sort of protein lab in graduate school.

Now, here I am- a first year graduate student. I rotated in two protein based labs- one straight up biochemistry, and one enzymology/structural biology. I also rotated in an analytical lab. Joining a program that allows you to do rotations will let you explore your options. I had a friend who came to my school completely set on doing organic synthesis- then he rotated in the enzyme lab and loved it. You never really know.

 

The lab I landed in (fourth rotation) is very interdisciplinary. My advisor describes it as "physical, analytical, and biological all rolled into one". Granted, there's nothing really more I can do about my background now- but taking all of those classes definitely helped me out. I'm in a chemistry lab but I'm actually a biochemistry student, which is grouped with molec and microbio, so I can't really speak to the reading papers debate. I do know that I could probably make sense of a synthesis paper, maybe. Bioinformatics papers still confuse me to no end. My department is very collaborative, so if I ever needed help, I could reach out to another graduate student or faculty member. (One of my friends is big into genomics, she's really helpful!) In my opinion, you don't have to speak all of the 'languages', but you do have to know enough to ask someone. 

[epinephrine]

I'm with Err and Symmetry here.

I get that talking all the languages is a skill, but I could really extend that to any point. You should know all three of the natural sciences, and math, and coding... and so on. I think it's perfectly alright to choose a specialization early as long as you accept the interdisciplinary nature of all of the sciences right now, and then 'learn the languages' that come with the field. For example the theorist is usually conversant in physics, math, and coding, and usually some other field of chemistry too. And a nucleotide chemist is in organic chem, and biochem. And so on. As Err said, you need to know enough to ask someone.

But getting back to the topic at hand, I think even if you do choose to specialize, there's usually a lot to explore even within a sub-field as long as you don't get really really really focused (which I actually do think is a bad idea). I don't think it takes that much to zero in on a sub-field in some cases. For me it was really easy to figure it out, and it wasn't like I was chasing after the idea of specializing, I just found something I liked way above everything else. I also decided, after choosing to specialize in theory, to do a summer internship in a fluorescence imaging group just to make sure I was really really sure. It got to a point that the professor I was working under got so sick of my attempts to 'fit in', he ended up making me do a short theoretical project for his group. That said, as far as courses are concerned, it's never a bad idea to take courses that aren't in your specialization, you never know where an idea might hit you.

Don't stress too much over the subject GRE, it's a pretty easy exam. I studied for a couple of days for it using a princeton book, but I realized while actually writing the paper that what helped way more than my couple of days of studying was random pieces of information from undergrad courses that I didn't even know I had stored away in my head. I still screwed it up, but that's because in my country we have to take the paper based test for the subject GRE and I miscalculated the time it would take to fill up the answer sheet :/ :/

The regular GRE is like the easiest exam in the world. If you've reached the end of your undergrad in chemistry, there's really no way you need to study for the quant exam.