2017 Applicant Profiles and Admissions Results

[sqxz]

7 hours ago, Proteinfolder said:

I'm an international applicant. Any comments/ feedback will be appreciated.

Undergrad Institution: Top 10 school in India
Major(s): Biological Sciences (Bachelor's+Master's)
Minor(s): Physics
GPA in Major: ~9.7/10
Overall GPA: ~9.3/10
Position in Class: Top
Type of Student: International male

GRE Scores (revised/old version):
Q: to be taken in june
V: to be taken in june
W: to be taken in june
B: 97 percentile (Biochem test)


TOEFL Total: to be taken in june

Research Experience: 1. 4 months project during 1st/2nd summer/winter. Mostly learnt different techniques and helped a grad student in my home institution.

2.  2 months summer project in a different institute (Computational)

3. Working in present lab since 2014 august (including summers) . Working on computational modelling/ simulations on protein folding. Will be working in wet lab on the same topic from june. So ~2.5 years by the time of application.

Awards/Honors/Recognitions: 1st rank during 2nd and 3rd year; Summer fellowship in 2nd year; Receiving a national fellowship (KVPY - given for top students pursuing   basic sciences) since 1st year.

Pertinent Activities or Jobs: Will be a TA for undergrad labs next year.

Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help: Nothing significant

Special Bonus Points: Taken lots of grad courses.

Any Other Info That Shows Up On Your App and Might Matter: 2 publications - one first author and one second author from current lab . One more in preparation - may be published before application.

I am working in the same lab for past 2 years (3 years by the time I graduate). Will this provide me any advantage over many short term projects?

My minor GPA is just 7.3/10. I know it is too low and I won't talk about it in my SOP. (It will just show in my transcript but I plan to not delve into it further). Will this affect my application?

Applying to Where:

I am planning to apply to some umbrella programs as well as some specific programs( My interest lies in biochemistry/molecular biophysics - protein structure/ folding in particular)
UC Berkeley

University of Chicago

UIUC

WUSTL

University of Maryland

UMass Worcester

UT Southwestern

Stanford

Washington Seattle

Any two out of MIT, Harvard, Yale, Duke, Caltech

This is not my final list. Will add more schools/ remove some.

Any suggestions on my list of universities??

 

To answer your question about your research experience, I think you're pretty well set. Adcoms like to see variety and depth in research experiences, and you have both. The long-term research experience should help you out in that you should (hopefully) get a better LOR from this experience than you would from a short-term experience.

To answer your question about your minor GPA, my first inclination was to say no, but actually I think it depends on a couple factors. In my experience, the higher the GPA, the less weight adcoms place on it. (I.e., if your GPA is good, then you're set, and the adcom moves on. If not, your application gets treated with higher scrutiny/"suspicion.") Most adcom members have neither the time nor the interest to go digging through your transcript to find the reason for your GPA. Accordingly, if the application does not ask you to list your minor GPA anywhere and it is not listed prominently on your transcript, then I think you're fine. Otherwise, some may see this as a yellow flag, especially for programs on the physical/computational/mathematical side of the biophysics spectrum rather than the biological/biochemical side.

Are you looking to be a computationalist/theoretician, an experimentalist, or both? This matters for your list of universities. The only other preliminary comment I have is that my program at UIUC is particularly friendly to international students.

[Bioenchilada]

9 hours ago, Proteinfolder said:

I'm an international applicant. Any comments/ feedback will be appreciated.

Undergrad Institution: Top 10 school in India
Major(s): Biological Sciences (Bachelor's+Master's)
Minor(s): Physics
GPA in Major: ~9.7/10
Overall GPA: ~9.3/10
Position in Class: Top
Type of Student: International male

GRE Scores (revised/old version):
Q: to be taken in june
V: to be taken in june
W: to be taken in june
B: 97 percentile (Biochem test)


TOEFL Total: to be taken in june

Research Experience: 1. 4 months project during 1st/2nd summer/winter. Mostly learnt different techniques and helped a grad student in my home institution.

2.  2 months summer project in a different institute (Computational)

3. Working in present lab since 2014 august (including summers) . Working on computational modelling/ simulations on protein folding. Will be working in wet lab on the same topic from june. So ~2.5 years by the time of application.

Awards/Honors/Recognitions: 1st rank during 2nd and 3rd year; Summer fellowship in 2nd year; Receiving a national fellowship (KVPY - given for top students pursuing   basic sciences) since 1st year.

Pertinent Activities or Jobs: Will be a TA for undergrad labs next year.

Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help: Nothing significant

Special Bonus Points: Taken lots of grad courses.

Any Other Info That Shows Up On Your App and Might Matter: 2 publications - one first author and one second author from current lab . One more in preparation - may be published before application.

I am working in the same lab for past 2 years (3 years by the time I graduate). Will this provide me any advantage over many short term projects?

My minor GPA is just 7.3/10. I know it is too low and I won't talk about it in my SOP. (It will just show in my transcript but I plan to not delve into it further). Will this affect my application?

Applying to Where:

I am planning to apply to some umbrella programs as well as some specific programs( My interest lies in biochemistry/molecular biophysics - protein structure/ folding in particular)
UC Berkeley

University of Chicago

UIUC

WUSTL

University of Maryland

UMass Worcester

UT Southwestern

Stanford

Washington Seattle

Any two out of MIT, Harvard, Yale, Duke, Caltech

This is not my final list. Will add more schools/ remove some.

Any suggestions on my list of universities??

 

I think that if you get a great GRE score, you'll be range from a very to moderaltely competitive candidate for the programs you listed, the higher uncertainty being on the top 5/10 schools. Your SOP will still be critical. People with great stats can be rejected because they can't convey their interests in a convincing manner. Also, make sure that all the programs you're applying to have something that you want rather than basing it off of ranking. Doing the latter will definitely lead you to be unsuccessful in the top programs. You have to convince the adcom that there's something more that they're giving you besides a reputation.

[Marshall]

10 hours ago, biochemgirl67 said:

You could always apply to anthropology departments.  I'm no expert, but my Great Plains archaeology professor studied vertebrate remains at sites of like mammoths and dire wolves.

Wait, I just realized palaeontology is dinosaurs.

Ha, its not just dinosaurs. It's the study of fossils and fossils are the at least 10,000 year old remains of an organism.

The taxa I tend to focus on are generally between 100 million - over 300 million years old. 

My list (including the schools where their vert paleontologists are in the geology department) has been narrowed down to people who specifically do what I'm interested in. I'm looking to add a few more, but there might not be more folks whose interests align with mine.

 

Edited April 20, 2016 by Marshall

[biochemgirl67]

2 hours ago, Marshall said:

Ha, its not just dinosaurs. It's the study of fossils and fossils are the at least 10,000 year old remains of an organism.

The taxa I tend to focus on are generally between 100 million - over 300 million years old. 

My list (including the schools where their vert paleontologists are in the geology department) has been narrowed down to people who specifically do what I'm interested in. I'm looking to add a few more, but there might not be more folks whose interests align with mine.

 

Huh.  #themoreyouknow

Honestly, could you attend a conference this summer?  You could meet people whose work you're interested in and kind of have an "in" at the program.  You're not a traditional undergrad, so this might work really well.

[Marshall]

14 minutes ago, biochemgirl67 said:

Huh.  #themoreyouknow

Honestly, could you attend a conference this summer?  You could meet people whose work you're interested in and kind of have an "in" at the program.  You're not a traditional undergrad, so this might work really well.

Summer is field season for geologists & paleontologists. Our big conferences are in the Fall usually. The big 2 are at the end of September (which I'll head to that one if I have any POIs there, but it's the big geology conference so it's rare to have a vert paleontologist present) and the end of October.

Heading to them is not a bad idea if I have people I contacted in August who want to meet and talk in person.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2016 by Marshall
Had dates of conferences wrong.

[biochemgirl67]

1 hour ago, Marshall said:

Summer is field season for geologists & paleontologists. Our big conferences are in the Fall usually. The big 2 are at the end of September (which I'll head to that one if I have any POIs there, but it's the big geology conference so it's rare to have a vert paleontologist present) and the end of October.

Heading to them is not a bad idea if I have people I contacted in August who want to meet and talk in person.

 

 

That sounds like it might work really well for someone in your situation... you want to set yourself apart from other applicants and it might lead to some great leads.

[bornea]

@Eustice122, @mlc19 and other low GPA folks. It isn't the end of the world, I am a domestic male with a UG cumulative GPA of 3.17 and had several withdrawals on my record due to old issues. If you have decent research experience and good LORs you can make up for a bad semester (or two in my case) that took down your GPA. While I wasn't competitive to MIT, Stanford or Harvard I ended up doing pretty well. My recommendation is cast a wide net and apply to places you find interesting that might seem like a reach but make sure you have places that you feel confident that you will be able to get in to the program that has research that interests you. 

[Marshall]

2 hours ago, biochemgirl67 said:

That sounds like it might work really well for someone in your situation... you want to set yourself apart from other applicants and it might lead to some great leads.

Yeah, definitely.

I'm still trying to gauge my situation. I'm not sure how schools will view it..

[Smoop]

Undergrad Institution: Big state school
Major(s): Dev Bio

Overall GPA: 3.16

Type of Student: 

Domestic white female
GRE Scores (revised/old version):
Q: 160
V: 161
W: 4.0

Research Experience: 

 

1.5 years as a undergraduate in an evolutionary genetics lab, completed a senior honors thesis

2 years as a RA post-bacc in another evolutionary genetics lab at an ivy league school, (will be 3 by the time I would start)

 

Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Distinction in major

 

Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help:

Will be co authored on a paper by time I apply. Hopefully will also have a first author paper submitted by time I apply

Special Bonus Points: 

Strong letter from undergrad PI, strong letter from 1 famous PI and another prominent PI in the field 

 

Any Other Info That Shows Up On Your App and Might Matter:
Mentoring high school students in STEM fields

 

Applying to Where:

 

Still figuring out a complete list but tentatively so far:

 

Stanford - Biology

UCSF - TETRAD

UCB - IB

UCD - Integrative Genetics & Genomics

UCLA - Genetics & Genomics

UCSD - Biology

NYU - Biology

UW - Genome Sciences

 

[Microburritology]

Hi! I did my undergrad from India too, graduated with a slightly lower GPA than yours. Your profile seems strong, good job on the subject test (although I wish I could've told you sooner that it doesnt do much for your application and saved you a headache and a ton of money), and with a good GRE general score + strong SOP you should do pretty good at most of the schools you've listed. I applied the last cycle to a couple of schools on your list, got through to Yale, and so if you need any help, guidance, or need me to read through your SOP, don't hesitate to message me 

As to your list, I would say apply to these:

MIT (hard)

Harvard (little hard, but should be achievable)

Yale (is achievable)

UC Berkeley (is achievable)

University of Chicago (is achievable)

Washington Seattle (is achievable)

WUSTL (easy - safety)

UIUC (easy - safety)

UPenn (easy - safety)

On 4/20/2016 at 11:27 PM, Proteinfolder said:

I'm an international applicant. Any comments/ feedback will be appreciated.

Undergrad Institution: Top 10 school in India
Major(s): Biological Sciences (Bachelor's+Master's)
Minor(s): Physics
GPA in Major: ~9.7/10
Overall GPA: ~9.3/10
Position in Class: Top
Type of Student: International male

GRE Scores (revised/old version):
Q: to be taken in june
V: to be taken in june
W: to be taken in june
B: 97 percentile (Biochem test)


TOEFL Total: to be taken in june

Research Experience: 1. 4 months project during 1st/2nd summer/winter. Mostly learnt different techniques and helped a grad student in my home institution.

2.  2 months summer project in a different institute (Computational)

3. Working in present lab since 2014 august (including summers) . Working on computational modelling/ simulations on protein folding. Will be working in wet lab on the same topic from june. So ~2.5 years by the time of application.

Awards/Honors/Recognitions: 1st rank during 2nd and 3rd year; Summer fellowship in 2nd year; Receiving a national fellowship (KVPY - given for top students pursuing   basic sciences) since 1st year.

Pertinent Activities or Jobs: Will be a TA for undergrad labs next year.

Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help: Nothing significant

Special Bonus Points: Taken lots of grad courses.

Any Other Info That Shows Up On Your App and Might Matter: 2 publications - one first author and one second author from current lab . One more in preparation - may be published before application.

I am working in the same lab for past 2 years (3 years by the time I graduate). Will this provide me any advantage over many short term projects?

My minor GPA is just 7.3/10. I know it is too low and I won't talk about it in my SOP. (It will just show in my transcript but I plan to not delve into it further). Will this affect my application?

Applying to Where:

I am planning to apply to some umbrella programs as well as some specific programs( My interest lies in biochemistry/molecular biophysics - protein structure/ folding in particular)
UC Berkeley

University of Chicago

UIUC

WUSTL

University of Maryland

UMass Worcester

UT Southwestern

Stanford

Washington Seattle

Any two out of MIT, Harvard, Yale, Duke, Caltech

This is not my final list. Will add more schools/ remove some.

Any suggestions on my list of universities??

 

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Microburritology

[Bioenchilada]

On 4/21/2016 at 8:50 AM, Microburritology said:

Hi! I did my undergrad from India too, graduated with a slightly lower GPA than yours. Your profile seems strong, good job on the subject test (although I wish I could've told you sooner that it doesnt do much for your application and saved you a headache and money), and with a good GRE general score + strong SOP you should do pretty good at most of the schools you've listed. I applied the last cycle to a couple of schools on your list, got through to Yale, and so if you need any help, guidance, or need me to read through your SOP, don't hesitate to message me 

As to your list, I would say apply to these:

MIT (hard)

Harvard (little hard, but should be achievable)

Yale (is achievable)

UC Berkeley (is achievable)

University of Chicago (is achievable)

Washington Seattle (is achievable)

WUSTL (easy - safety)

UIUC (easy - safety)

UPenn (easy - safety)

 

Lol your denominations of what safety schools are is a bit triggering, not because I'm going to UPenn, but because I disagree with how you classified the schools. Like, UC-Berkeley has a better biochem program than Harvard and is usually tied with MIT, and you referred to it as achievable. I think that MIT, Harvard, and Berkeley are extremely hard schools to get into, regardless of your credentials. Also, UPenn's program is more competitive, and I believe more selective than UChicago's, so I wouldn't classify it a safety. Labeling an Ivy League school a safety is simply misleading because they tend to have very strong and competitive programs in a wide range of fields. Like, if I were to redo your list, I'd say that that the only safety school is Washington Seattle, or even UChicago as well. UPenn and UIUC are top 15 programs, so they should be classified as "match" school along with WUSTL. The other ones are definitely reach schools. 

[ilovelab]

16 hours ago, Smoop said:

Undergrad Institution: Big state school
Major(s): Dev Bio

Overall GPA: 3.16

Type of Student: 

Domestic white female
GRE Scores (revised/old version):
Q: 160
V: 161
W: 4.0

 

Stanford - Biology

UCSF - TETRAD

UCB - IB

UCD - Integrative Genetics & Genomics

UCLA - Genetics & Genomics

UCSD - Biology

NYU - Biology

UW - Genome Sciences

 

I would consider applying to more schools just to be safe. A lot of these programs don't take very many students each year (except UCSF Tetrad). Your only concern is your lower GPA but you have more than enough research experience to make up for it. 2 of your 3 letters will be come from PI's you've done research with so that's a plus. Have you considered genetics programs at Hopkins/Michigan/Duke? If you can afford it I would apply to more schools. 

[HopefulPHD14]

16 hours ago, Smoop said:

Undergrad Institution: Big state school
Major(s): Dev Bio

Overall GPA: 3.16

Type of Student: 

Domestic white female
GRE Scores (revised/old version):
Q: 160
V: 161
W: 4.0

Research Experience: 

 

1.5 years as a undergraduate in an evolutionary genetics lab, completed a senior honors thesis

2 years as a RA post-bacc in another evolutionary genetics lab at an ivy league school, (will be 3 by the time I would start)

 

Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Distinction in major

 

Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help:

Will be co authored on a paper by time I apply. Hopefully will also have a first author paper submitted by time I apply

Special Bonus Points: 

Strong letter from undergrad PI, strong letter from 1 famous PI and another prominent PI in the field 

 

Any Other Info That Shows Up On Your App and Might Matter:
Mentoring high school students in STEM fields

 

Applying to Where:

 

Still figuring out a complete list but tentatively so far:

 

Stanford - Biology

UCSF - TETRAD

UCB - IB

UCD - Integrative Genetics & Genomics

UCLA - Genetics & Genomics

UCSD - Biology

NYU - Biology

UW - Genome Sciences

 

We have pretty similar stats.  I had a slightly higher GPA, nearly identical GRE, 2 years of undergrad research and 1.5 years of industry research with 3 strong letters of rec.  You can see from my signature which schools I got into.  

I think your 2 years of research at an Ivy are stronger than my post bac research in industry, but for the most part I think we are pretty similar.

I would keep those programs but also pick one or two fallback schools just in case.  Good luck. 

[Microburritology]

Haha, you conveniently ignored pretty much every other factor in determining an applicants selection likelihood to a program, except ranking and "Ivy League" status. Really?!

1)  Applicant Profile: "regardless of your credentials?" LOL. You need to remember that all the adjectives you use for a program and its selection (extremely hard, more competitive, etc.) differ not just by the programs ranking, but also on your background/profile. Whats extremely hard for you might be different for someone else, when you take international students, and even more when you take south east asian students into the mix. Not only does Berkeley have A TON more of collaborations on life science projects/exchange programs with universities in India than Harvard, they also recognize more otherwise "unknown" universities. Further, If he's from the university I think he's from, he'd have a much better shot at Berkeley cuz not only has it taken students from that university, but it has made some major collaborations with it in the past. In such a scenario, just because Berkeley has a better biochem program than Harvard does not mean Berkeley would be tougher than Harvard for him, it would in fact be much easier.

2) Competitiveness: Saying that "UPenn's program is more competitive, and I believe more selective than UChicago" is very broad and vague. Please remember that you are a domestic applicant and he's an international applicant. Different pools, different competition levels, and again different perceptions especially when you're talking of private universities. He might be at the top of the international pool (he probably will with a high general GRE score) while someone domestic with the same stats might be in the average section of the domestic pool. I also personally believe UChicago is in fact far more selective than UPenn.

3) Rankings/Ivy League: I'm talking of graduate programs in the life science, and I'm sorry, but "Ivy League schools tend to have very strong and competitive programs in a wide range of fields" is actually misleading by way of vagueness. Every Ivy Leagues does have some strong programs, but in life sciences Darthmouth & Brown are nowhere in the top 20, and were not even my safety picks.

Even if you take the rankings into play, your argument is still flawed. According to US News Biological Sciences Graduate programs, UPenn is ranked 19 (same as UW Seattle), and UIUC 30th, both not in top 15. Berkeley is indeed tied with MIT, but is 4 spots below Harvard for biochem graduate programs. I know you're heading to UPenn, but WUSTL and UChicago are both far ahead of UPenn, even if you take your ranking argument into consideration. The only field where UPenn comes in top 10 is Immunology and Infectious Diseases programs at 6, thanks to Perelman School of Medicine.

 

On 4/21/2016 at 10:32 AM, Bioenchilada said:

Lol your denominations of what safety schools are is a bit triggering, not because I'm going to UPenn, but because I disagree with how you classified the schools. Like, UC-Berkeley has a better biochem program than Harvard and is usually tied with MIT, and you referred to it as achievable. I think that MIT, Harvard, and Berkeley are extremely hard schools to get into, regardless of your credentials. Also, UPenn's program is more competitive, and I believe more selective than UChicago's, so I wouldn't classify it a safety. Labeling an Ivy League school a safety is simply misleading because they tend to have very strong and competitive programs in a wide range of fields. Like, if I were to redo your list, I'd say that that the only safety school is Washington Seattle, or even UChicago as well. UPenn and UIUC are top 15 programs, so they should be classified as "match" school along with WUSTL. The other ones are definitely reach schools. 

 

[Bioenchilada]

On 4/21/2016 at 2:34 PM, Microburritology said:

Haha, you conveniently ignored pretty much every other factor in determining an applicants selection likelihood to a program, except ranking and "Ivy League" status. Really?!

1)  Applicant Profile: "regardless of your credentials?" LOL. You need to remember that all the adjectives you use for a program and its selection (extremely hard, more competitive, etc.) differ not just by the programs ranking, but also on your background/profile. Whats extremely hard for you might be different for someone else, when you take international students, and even more when you take south east asian students into the mix. Not only does Berkeley have A TON more of collaborations on life science projects/exchange programs with universities in India than Harvard, they also recognize more otherwise "unknown" universities. Further, If he's from the university I think he's from, he'd have a much better shot at Berkeley cuz not only has it taken students from that university, but it has made some major collaborations with it in the past. In such a scenario, just because Berkeley has a better biochem program than Harvard does not mean Berkeley would be tougher than Harvard for him, it would in fact be much easier.

2) Competitiveness: Saying that "UPenn's program is more competitive, and I believe more selective than UChicago" is very broad and vague. Please remember that you are a domestic applicant and he's an international applicant. Different pools, different competition levels, and again different perceptions especially when you're talking of private universities. He might be at the top of the international pool (he probably will with a high general GRE score) while someone domestic with the same stats might be in the average section of the domestic pool. I also personally believe UChicago is in fact far more selective than UPenn.

3) Rankings/Ivy League: I'm talking of graduate programs in the life science, and I'm sorry, but "Ivy League schools tend to have very strong and competitive programs in a wide range of fields" is actually misleading by way of vagueness. Every Ivy Leagues does have some strong programs, but in life sciences Darthmouth & Brown are nowhere in the top 20, and were not even my safety picks.

Even if you take the rankings into play, your argument is still flawed. According to US News Biological Sciences Graduate programs, UPenn is ranked 19 (same as UW Seattle), and UIUC 30th, both not in top 15. Berkeley is indeed tied with MIT, but is 4 spots below Harvard for biochem graduate programs. I know you're heading to UPenn, but WUSTL and UChicago are both far ahead of UPenn, even if you take your ranking argument into consideration. The only field where UPenn comes in top 10 is Immunology and Infectious Diseases programs at 6, thanks to Perelman School of Medicine.

 

 

US News is not the most accurate ranking system out there. NRC and Ph.D.org + funding sources are far more reliable. You're right Penn Biology ( the program with the grad school and the one you applied to) is not the strongest program; however, the program he is talking about IS within the Perelman School of medicine, which ranked #3 for research, if going by US News. Penn's biomedical research and medical school, has a better reputation than UChicago and WUSTL. Like, I'd honestly look for reputable sources before starting a rankings argument lol

In conclusion, your statement that WUSTL and UChicago are "way ahead" of Penn is simply erroneous. They're either comparable, or Penn has a better biochemistry program.

 

(Also, selectiveness does not equal better. UChicago's Cancer Biology program was more selective than Penn's but by no means better.)

[Microburritology]

Once again, rankings are the LAST measure we should be using to measure up the likelihood. What's erroneous is to assume that if "according to xyz source, ABC program is higher ranked than than DEF" than somehow this equates to ABC program being tougher to get into than XYZ for everyone. Wow, whatever happened to different profiles and backgrounds having different weightage to different schools.

Just because you use NRC and Ph.D. org (or because they rank your school higher?) does not mean they somehow become "far more reliable" than US News. Any premise to support that hypothesis? Or you just didnt find them to be accurate enough for your purposes? LOL.

Umm, the fields we're talking about fall under UChicago's and WUSTL's graduate schools, not medical schools. How fair is it then to compare UPenn's medical school to theirs when their medical school isn't even involved in graduate studies? If a university is strong in a particular field for graduate studies, US News ranks it irrespective if of which school in that university offers it, like it did for the immunology and infectious diseases program. In NO OTHER field of graduate study does UPenn come above WUSTL/UChicago. 

Oh but US News is not accurate, according to you. Sorry 

On 4/21/2016 at 2:54 PM, Bioenchilada said:

US News is not the most accurate ranking system out there. NRC and Ph.D.org + funding sources are far more reliable. You're right Penn Biology ( the program with the grad school and the one you applied to) is not the strongest program; however, the program he is talking about IS within the Perelman School of medicine, which ranked #3 for research, if going by US News. Penn's biomedical research and medical school, has a better reputation than UChicago and WUSTL. Like, I'd honestly look for reputable sources before starting a rankings argument lol

In conclusion, your statement that WUSTL and UChicago are "way ahead" of Penn is simply erroneous. They're either comparable, or Penn has a better biochemistry program.

 

(Also, selectiveness does not equal better. UChicago's Cancer Biology program was more selective than Penn's but by no means better.)

 

[Microburritology]

@PlanBUmm the GPA from Indian schools doesn't convert on a 1 - 1 scale. According to World Evaluation Services, my GPA was an 8.6 and that converted to a 3.65. I don't know his individual grades but estimate his to convert easily to a 3.9 or higher, which definitely is a competitive GPA for international students.

Even if it did translate to a 3.7, you would advise him to stay AWAY from highly competitive programs, not taking into consideration anything else? Research, papers, letters, nothing? Like WTF happened to people here?!

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Microburritology

[Bioenchilada]

28 minutes ago, Microburritology said:

Once again, rankings are the LAST measure we should be using to measure up the likelihood. What's erroneous is to assume that if "according to xyz source, ABC program is higher ranked than than DEF" than somehow this equates to ABC program being tougher to get into than XYZ for everyone. Wow, whatever happened to different profiles and backgrounds having different weightage to different schools.

Just because you use NRC and Ph.D. org (or because they rank your school higher?) does not mean they somehow become "far more reliable" than US News. Any premise to support that hypothesis? Or you just didnt find them to be accurate enough for your purposes? LOL.

Umm, the fields we're talking about fall under UChicago's and WUSTL's graduate schools, not medical schools. How fair is it then to compare UPenn's medical school to theirs when their medical school isn't even involved in graduate studies? If a university is strong in a particular field for graduate studies, US News ranks it irrespective if of which school in that university offers it, like it did for the immunology and infectious diseases program. In NO OTHER field of graduate study does UPenn make the top 10. 

Oh but US News is not accurate, according to you. Sorry 

 

It's relevant because there are many schools, like UPenn, that have GRADUATE (Ph.D) programs within their graduate schools AND their medical schools, and they may be ranked differently. 

Let me just point out that you're coming off as very condescending when posting here. The National Research Council is more reliable independent of whether or not Penn is ranked higher, I don't know why you keep implying that I'm biased for one reason or another. This is because it is simply a more sophisticated data set that is constructed from collecting data over a time period of 10 years, more or less. Not only this, but it is involved with the National Academy of Sciences to some extent, and their rankings are constructed using statistics (i.e regression analysis) as well as surveys, unlike US News. Ph.D.org uses NRC data. If you actually put some effort into looking things up rather than running your mouth, you could compare and contrast the difference of opinion when addressing the NRC and US News, especially for graduate study. While one is regarded as the "golden standard" for ranking systems, the other is continuously under scrutiny. In fact, US News is so flawed that it doesn't even publish an extensive list on each of the individual specialties, which is more important for graduate study than the "general ranking". FYI, Penn is most definitely in the top 10 for the following fields/specialtes: Immunology and Infectious Disease, Cell and Molecular Biology, Cancer Biology, Gene Therapy and Vaccines, etc.. 

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Bioenchilada

[Bioenchilada]

16 minutes ago, Microburritology said:

Once again, rankings are the LAST measure we should be using to measure up the likelihood. What's erroneous is to assume that if "according to xyz source, ABC program is higher ranked than than DEF" than somehow this equates to ABC program being tougher to get into than XYZ for everyone. Wow, whatever happened to different profiles and backgrounds having different weightage to different schools.

Just because you use NRC and Ph.D. org (or because they rank your school higher?) does not mean they somehow become "far more reliable" than US News. Any premise to support that hypothesis? Or you just didnt find them to be accurate enough for your purposes? LOL.

Umm, the fields we're talking about fall under UChicago's and WUSTL's graduate schools, not medical schools. How fair is it then to compare UPenn's medical school to theirs when their medical school isn't even involved in graduate studies? If a university is strong in a particular field for graduate studies, US News ranks it irrespective if of which school in that university offers it, like it did for the immunology and infectious diseases program. In NO OTHER field of graduate study does UPenn make the top 10. 

Oh but US News is not accurate, according to you. Sorry 

 

Also, it's true that two candidates might have different likelihoods to get into a program. The candidate that we're discussing has great credentials, that is not in question. However, he/she is an international students, which will typically make admission more difficult, even with great credentials. What I'm saying is that top 10 schools are already difficult enough for domestic students, even if they have a 4.0, perfect GREs, and great rec letters. Thus, it will be even more difficult for an international student. Even if a candidate has a higher chance of getting into a top 3 school for x/y reason, the overall likelihood of admission is still low because of intense competition. 

[Bioenchilada]

21 minutes ago, PlanB said:

Based on what you have presented in your profile it is hard to anticipate your competitiveness to any of the programs you have stated; especially until you take your GRE.   Your GPA on a 4.0 scale translates to roughly a 3.7, which is not the most competitive GPA for international students.    All of the programs you have mentioned are very competitive, for any applicant(not just international students).  Based on your profile, I would stay away from highly competitive programs such as MIT, Harvard, ect. Just an opinion. 

P.S. For your reference, the differences between Upenn, Chicago, and Washington St. Louis in life sciences are nominal at best. 

Okay, I disagree with you in that this person needs to "stay away" from highly competitive programs. I think he has a pretty good shot if the rest of his profile is on par, which it definitely is. 

[Microburritology]

I might be coming off as condescending, but that's the frustration coming out of reading misleading/discouraging comments to someone with a great profile, who hasn't even begun applying yet, solely based on two factors which actually come at the bottom of the checklist: rankings, and GPA.

I keep implying, cuz you keep saying "Upenn is better if not equal in this that and that and no matter what" without any factual evidence. 

So many loopholes from your last paragraph. What makes you think US News does not have sophisticated data? Oh golden standards, by whom? Under continuous scrutiny, by whom? So far I haven't read one admissions office release bad news specifically about US Rankings, but here is a statement released by University of Washington Computer Science and Engineering department on the NRC rankings: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3197

 

22 minutes ago, Bioenchilada said:

It's relevant because there are many schools, like UPenn, that have GRADUATE (Ph.D) programs within their graduate schools AND their medical schools, and they may be ranked differently. 

Let me just point out that you're coming off as very condescending when posting here. The National Research Council is more reliable independent of whether or not Penn is ranked higher, I don't know why you keep implying that I'm biased for one reason or another. This is because it is simply a more sophisticated data set that is constructed from collecting data over a time period of 10 years, more or less. Not only this, but it is involved with the National Academy of Sciences to some extent, and their rankings are constructed using statistics (i.e regression analysis) as well as surveys, unlike US News. Ph.D.org uses NRC data. If you actually put some effort into looking things up rather than running your mouth, you could compare and contrast the difference of opinion when addressing the NRC and US News, especially for graduate study. While one is regarded as the "golden standard" for ranking systems, the other is continuously under scrutiny. In fact, US News is so flawed that it can't doesn't even publish an extensive list on each of the individual specialties, which is more important for graduate study than the "general ranking". FYI, Penn is most definitely in the top 10 for the following fields/specialtes: Immunology and Infectious Disease, Cell and Molecular Biology, Cancer Biology, Gene Therapy and Vaccines, etc.. 

 

UGH. BUT THEY ARE NOT EVALUATED ON THE SAME SCALE!!! If it's difficult for domestic students, that DOES NOT make it automatically more difficult for international students. Different pools, different metrics, and different evaluations. The overall likelihood of admission is not evaluated the same way for domestic students and international students, and I learnt it the hard way, and confirmed it from the admissions director at three different schools. I myself wished I had known earlier so I had applied to more competitive programs. Exactly why these statements are frustrating me.

18 minutes ago, Bioenchilada said:

Also, it's true that two candidates might have different likelihoods to get into a program. The candidate that we're discussing has great credentials, that is not in question. However, he/she is an international students, which will typically make admission more difficult, even with great credentials. What I'm saying is that top 10 schools are already difficult enough for domestic students, even if they have a 4.0, perfect GREs, and great rec letters. Thus, it will be even more difficult for an international student. Even if a candidate has a higher chance of getting into a top 3 school for x/y reason, the overall likelihood of admission is still low because of intense competition. 

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Microburritology

[Microburritology]

Nonetheless there's actually NO use discussing the merit of rankings because it's his profile which makes it easy/difficult for him, not the ranking of any school by any methodology. If his remaining profile is just as good, he should have a good shot at the schools listed. I do maintain that his application might be evaluate differently based on his international status, but that definitely won't make it always harder for him. International pools are byzantine to evaluate, with so many more complicated details/factors involved.

Over and Out.

[Bioenchilada]

1 minute ago, Microburritology said:

Nonetheless there's actually NO use discussing the merit of rankings because it's his profile which makes it easy/difficult for him, not the ranking of any school by any methodology. If his remaining profile is just as good, he should have a good shot at the schools listed. I do maintain that his application might be evaluate differently based on his international status, but that definitely won't make it always harder for him. International pools are byzantine to evaluate, with so many more complicated details/factors involved.

Over and Out.

The only reason I'm frustrated is because you're coming off as entitled and you don't even bother to look up the things I'm talking about nor address most of points that I state. I'm not going to write a page long post about NRC v. US News because that will not only be time-consuming, but it's also likely that you'll nitpick and just reply to the silliest discrepancy. The fact that you're so confident about the reliability of US News makes it even more annoying that you're saying that the school I am attending is FAR inferior to others, and is not a Top 10. Educate yourself, please. 

Over and Out. 

[Microburritology]

@Bioenchilada,

Entitled = No. Just wanting the new kid to make the best decisions.

US News = Reliable? = Yes.

UPenn far inferior? = Definitely not. I wouldn't even use the word inferior, since UPenn is highly prestigious. When you talked about rankings, I just said it definitely does come below the other programs in the rankings of life sciences graduate fields. I went to UPenn for my interview too, interviewed with one faculty at Perelman, and it was hard for me to turn them down, if it makes you feel better

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Microburritology

[Bioenchilada]

5 minutes ago, PlanB said:

You are going to UPENN. Noam Chomsky went to UPENN.... 

I'm not questioning the prestige of my school, at all. haha

7 minutes ago, Microburritology said:

Entitled = No. Just wanting the new kid to make the best decisions.

US News = Reliable? = Yes.

UPenn far inferior? = Definitely not. I wouldn't even use the word inferior, since UPenn is highly prestigious. When you talked about rankings, I just said it does come below in the rankings of life sciences graduate fields. I went to UPenn for my interview too, interviewed with one faculty at Perelman, and it was hard for me to turn them down, if it makes you feel better

I'm not saying that US News is not reliable at all, but there are WAY better ranking metrics for graduate programs available which should be used instead of neglected, as you keep doing. Like, you fail to even fact check or look up information about what I'm arguing. You keep saying that X school is less/better than the other without using the best tools and instead relying on places that don't even bother to even compare more than 10 schools for most biology specialties. 

 

I just want future applicants that are concerned about ranking and the quality and strength of their desired Ph.D program to use the most reliable sources available, which would be funding and the National Research Council. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Bioenchilada