2017 Applicant Profiles and Admissions Results

[Microburritology]

1) Well, as I kept, and keep saying, future applicants should not be concerned about rankings in the first place to measure their likelihood of getting in. Definitely not.

2) Apart from you saying it, I honestly haven't found any reliable source which outright states NRC as "the most reliable source available". So sorry, would have to disagree with you on that one.

Definitely over and out this time.

1 minute ago, Bioenchilada said:

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

 

 

[Jmanny]

Hello! I am an incoming senior from the UC system. I am studying Chemical Engineering with a emphasis is Biochemistry.  My GPA at the moment isn't the highest right now, but I am working on increasing it. However, it won't be a 3.5 GPA by the time I apply. Are some of my choices for a Ph.D in Pharmacology/Molecular Medicine out of reach? I am an engineering major but I was trained as an organic chemist. Will the committee look at my GPA differently since it is relatively good for an engineer? 

Major: CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Minoring: CHEMISTRY

Cumulative GPA: 3.35

Type of Student: (Minority/Domestic Student)

GRE Verbal: 155

GRE Quantitative: 165  

GRE Analytical: 4.0

Recommendations: (1) Strong Recommendation from my PI, who attended UC IRVINE for his PhD and Post-Doc at Princeton, (2) Distinguished Professor from UC Berkeley that was my PI during the REU; (3) Very Strong Recommendation from my Chemical Engineering Professor that I've been working for 4 years 

Experience: 4 years of Undergraduate Research in Organic Synthesis, 4 years of Undergraduate Research in Biochemical Engineering, and Summer REU at UC BERKELEY (UC LEADS Scholar)

Fellowship: EPA P3 Undergraduate Research Grant ($15,000), Metropolitan Water District Undergraduate Research Grant ($10,000), and HSI-STEM Undergraduate Research Fellowship ($5,000)

Presentations: 4 oral and 6 poster presentations

Other unrelated EC's: PRESIDENT of my College of Engineering and Chapter PRESIDENT of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

Besides that, I am also a Gates Millennium and UC LEADS Scholar and have external funding (4 years of funding for PhD tuition - no stipend). 

Top Schools:

UC Berkeley, Boston University, Yale University, Vanderbilt, Weil Cornell Medical College, Tri-Institutional Program in Chemical Biology (TPCB), and Sloan-Kettering

Edited April 22, 2016 by Jmanny

[biochemgirl67]

5 hours ago, PlanB said:

Using rankings to select between programs, or to determine which schools to apply to for admissions, is kinda of a lousy approach. However, bare in mind, higher rank schools generally have more competitive admissions pools and, thus, gaining admissions is more difficult. 

Okay, new applicants.  This is 100% true.  And what was says earlier by this poster is also true about higher standards for international applicants.  Many schools don't touch international applications until they have sorted through domestic ones.  While I wouldn't encourage anyone to stay away from top tier schools, because hey, it's your money to apply, I would say you should cast a wide net.  Look at the numbers of the program and others on the same caliber to determine if you should apply... Many post average GPAs.  (Then we don't have to fight about it here.). Let's focus more on the crucial parts of the application.  In research experience, talk to your professors about what you want to do and if they have any suggestions or connections you can investigate.  So so much better than looking at rankings.  If you can't make a decision without consulting rankings, maybe you want to take a year off to understand how people construct their graduate education.  The most successful consciously choose places with important research in their interest field.  That does not include rankings... You can get a good idea by seeing where people from the program publish.

[Liverbird_93]

2 hours ago, Jmanny said:

Hello! I am an incoming senior from the UC system. I am studying Chemical Engineering with a emphasis is Biochemistry.  My GPA at the moment isn't the highest right now, but I am working on increasing it. However, it won't be a 3.5 GPA by the time I apply. Are some of my choices for a Ph.D in Pharmacology/Molecular Medicine out of reach? I am an engineering major but I was trained as an organic chemist. Will the committee look at my GPA differently since it is relatively good for an engineer? 

Major: CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Minoring: CHEMISTRY

Cumulative GPA: 3.35

Type of Student: (Minority/Domestic Student)

GRE Verbal: 155

GRE Quantitative: 165  

GRE Analytical: 4.0

Recommendations: (1) Strong Recommendation from my PI, who attended UC IRVINE for his PhD and Post-Doc at Princeton, (2) Distinguished Professor from UC Berkeley that was my PI during the REU; (3) Very Strong Recommendation from my Chemical Engineering Professor that I've been working for 4 years 

Experience: 4 years of Undergraduate Research in Organic Synthesis, 4 years of Undergraduate Research in Biochemical Engineering, and Summer REU at UC BERKELEY (UC LEADS Scholar)

Fellowship: EPA P3 Undergraduate Research Grant ($15,000), Metropolitan Water District Undergraduate Research Grant ($10,000), and HSI-STEM Undergraduate Research Fellowship ($5,000)

Presentations: 4 oral and 6 poster presentations

Other unrelated EC's: PRESIDENT of my College of Engineering and Chapter PRESIDENT of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

Besides that, I am also a Gates Millennium and UC LEADS Scholar and have external funding (4 years of funding for PhD tuition - no stipend). 

Top Schools:

UC Berkeley, Boston University, Yale University, Vanderbilt, Weil Cornell Medical College, Tri-Institutional Program in Chemical Biology (TPCB), and Sloan-Kettering

If your stem grades are better than your cumulative GPA you've got a decent chance of getting interviews at the Tri-I and WCM. SKI is competitive as hell. Being a Gates Scholar will help, As for your presentations, were they conference, or symposium at your school? School symposiums don't count for anything. Feel free to PM me for advice, i went through this cycle this past year with similar stats to yours and i'm going to be attending one of the programs you've mentioned.

I say interview b/c that's the hardest part. Once you've got the interview your stats become irrelevant, the focus is on you being able to talk about why you feel the program is a good fit for you, and your past work. Being able to discuss your research in depth and show that you understand it. if you've got a 4.0 but can't carry a conversation you're not getting in

Edited April 22, 2016 by Liverbird_93
forgot to add key detail.

[Marshall]

A bit of an unrelated question. It is common and almost required in my field to contact POIs to see if they're accepting students & open up a dialogue to get you on their radar. Is it common in other bio fields? If so, when do you guys usually contact people? I've been planning on early-mid Aug, my main concern is getting people when they're still out in the field and not answering emails (so, getting buried) or contacting them when school is staring up and things are getting hectic.

[biochemgirl67]

8 hours 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 come above WUSTL/UChicago. 

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

 

There's a lot that bothers me about this post.  @Bioenchilada is making the point that different programs have different levels of competition AND that international students are generally considered AFTER domestic students.  That means there are less spots/funding for international students and subsequently have a harder time getting into better programs.  Also, U.S. News and World report is WIDELY considered to be an unreliable resource and many times flat out wrong.  You'd be much better using NIH funding levels like @PlanB keeps saying.  It's literally a REALLY GOOD IDEA.  So I've decided to do some of the work and show you that you can't just say that it's all down to the individual profile.  Yes, that does matter.  But money is tight here in the US and NIH funding level is a really good measure of competition in the biomedical field.

Above are the top 20 institutions according to NIH funding.  You can see that UChicago is NOWHERE on that list.  Obviously, this is not the only consideration in choosing a good place to get a graduate education (as faculty availability and mentorship is also huge and sometimes scarce at the tippy top institutions) but it's a good start on indicating where the most competitive SCIENCE takes place.

[biochemgirl67]

Dang it my photo didn't post.

[ballwera]

If you are going to choose grad. school based on rankings with dubious methods you are going to have a bad time... You're better off looking at specific faculty ( and how productive they are), productivity and funding of dept. (again a bit hard to judge because funding situations are fluid). Look at how productive students in the program are and where their alumni have gone. Also to any future applicants reading this thread you have to take everything here with a grain of salt. Everything you see here  is anecdotal based on ours and other's experiences. The only real concerns anyone should have about getting into grad. school are if your credentials are above the published cutoffs (even this is applicant dependent). Applications are holistic and everyone is usually looked at , i.e they don't throw out apps based on some arbitrary cut off. If you want real advice, talk to prof. at your home programs and many will be more than happy to help you out. 

[Bioenchilada]

28 minutes ago, ballwera said:

If you are going to choose grad. school based on rankings with dubious methods you are going to have a bad time... You're better off looking at specific faculty ( and how productive they are), productivity and funding of dept. (again a bit hard to judge because funding situations are fluid). Look at how productive students in the program are and where their alumni have gone. Also to any future applicants reading this thread you have to take everything here with a grain of salt. Everything you see here  is anecdotal based on ours and other's experiences. The only real concerns anyone should have about getting into grad. school are if your credentials are above the published cutoffs (even this is applicant dependent). Applications are holistic and everyone is usually looked at , i.e they don't throw out apps based on some arbitrary cut off. If you want real advice, talk to prof. at your home programs and many will be more than happy to help you out. 

I definitely agree with this. The previous "argument" about rankings were not meant to tell future applicants to just go with it based on that. It was purely informative, just so they used reliable sources if ranking was of any relevance to them. Besides fit with the particular program, I think it's good to have an idea of how much funding there is available because this can sometimes affect progress and productivity. Student happiness is also important, but that's hard to gauge until the interview haha

[Microburritology]

International students: Umm wow, but NO, that's really delusional. International students are not "generally considered AFTER domestic students", they are considered SEPARATELY - The very point I've been trying to make. Ask me, I was one. International students are evaluated in the pool of international students, for the number of seats available for international students. 

In a given application season, in a given pool of international students, for a particular university, a particular candidate might have an easier time making the top 5% in the international pool (because of his university's recognition + GRE might stand out well from other international applicants), than he would making it to the top 5% in the general domestic pool with the same stats. So NO, he/she might not have a harder time, cuz applicants in the two pools are evaluated differently.

Rankings: I like the way you, as did bioenchilada, just made a broad statement about US News being "WIDELY considered to be an unreliable resource and many times flat out wrong". Okay, by whom? Many times, when? Again, any evidence, apart from individual perceptions? I've been seeking a strong source to make that case but sadly have found none. 

Also, I'm so glad you brought the NIH funding into your argument. Sure, they do indicate the amount of money being given for projects deemed investable by the NIH, but that quite doesn't perfectly proportionalize to a program's quality/rigor. You're saying NIH funding levels are a much better resource and are a good indicator of competitiveness of programs - am I then to assume that Pittsburgh has more competitive science ongoing that Stanford? Or even EQUAL? Plus, this doesn't take into account the private funding, AT ALL, which is huge for programs like Stanford, and many other private schools.

Lastly, for the last time, I can't even understand why ranking according to any metric, dubious or genuine, is factoring into "a person's likelihood of getting selected to a program". With that level of funding for the top 20 programs (on any list) seem to have, your problem really shouldn't be about funding, and your likelihood, along with your focus, should really just boils down to your profile. Basically, how strong and convincing is your profile for the adcom to say, "Yup, we want that student in our lab". And when it comes down to your profile, an international candidate which might seem invaluable to Harvard might not to Berkeley, or vice versa, for a million + 1 reason's.

Hence, my advice to the OP: You shared a list of program, ALL of which seemed achievable with your profile. Make your dream programs (based on research, PI, location, stipend, whatever) your priority, others your safety schools. And with his credentials, the safety schools seemed pretty reasonable.

 

12 hours ago, biochemgirl67 said:

There's a lot that bothers me about this post.  @Bioenchilada is making the point that different programs have different levels of competition AND that international students are generally considered AFTER domestic students.  That means there are less spots/funding for international students and subsequently have a harder time getting into better programs.  Also, U.S. News and World report is WIDELY considered to be an unreliable resource and many times flat out wrong.  You'd be much better using NIH funding levels like @PlanB keeps saying.  It's literally a REALLY GOOD IDEA.  So I've decided to do some of the work and show you that you can't just say that it's all down to the individual profile.  Yes, that does matter.  But money is tight here in the US and NIH funding level is a really good measure of competition in the biomedical field.

 

Above are the top 20 institutions according to NIH funding.  You can see that UChicago is NOWHERE on that list.  Obviously, this is not the only consideration in choosing a good place to get a graduate education (as faculty availability and mentorship is also huge and sometimes scarce at the tippy top institutions) but it's a good start on indicating where the most competitive SCIENCE takes place.

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Microburritology

[HopefulPHD14]

Maybe it's a good time for some of you guys to take a break and relax and come back in a few days....

These poor 2017 applicants are going to have to read through all of this.  

[Ph0t0_o_matic]

i just like how people think a mid-150s GRE score is so0o0o bad. ugh. give me a break. 

[Bioenchilada]

19 minutes ago, Ph0t0_o_matic said:

i just like how people think a mid-150s GRE score is so0o0o bad. ugh. give me a break. 

I mean, it really depends on the schools you're applying to and the strength of your overall package. If the only "subpar" part of your app is your GRE and the rest is stellar, you can probably get away with a score in the mid-150s because the test is not THAT important. However, if you have a low GPA, your rec letters are meh, or you're lacking on to research side, itmll probably be to the best interest of the applicant to draw attention to his scores in a positive fashion (160+ and probably even 80th percentile+ subject tests)

[ilovelab]

2 hours ago, Microburritology said:

Rankings: I like the way you, as did bioenchilada, just made a broad statement about US News being "WIDELY considered to be an unreliable resource and many times flat out wrong". Okay, by whom? Many times, when? Again, any evidence, apart from individual perceptions? I've been seeking a strong source to make that case but sadly have found none. 

Also, I'm so glad you brought the NIH funding into your argument. Sure, they do indicate the amount of money being given for projects deemed investable by the NIH, but that quite doesn't perfectly proportionalize to a program's quality/rigor. You're saying NIH funding levels are a much better resource and are a good indicator of competitiveness of programs - am I then to assume that Pittsburgh has more competitive science ongoing that Stanford? Or even EQUAL? Plus, this doesn't take into account the private funding, AT ALL, which is huge for programs like Stanford, and many other private schools.

 

The US News rankings are considered unreliable by some people (myself included) because of the methodology used. There is no real difference between the top ranked med school or the 20th (for example). US news makes it seems as though there are clear differences. There isn't a big difference between the quality of the programs between #1 and #20. 

U Pitt has comparable science programs to Stanford. Stanford has the name recognition which is why everyone assumes its more competitive or it more prestigious to get your Phd from Stanford. I know it probably blows your mind that Pitt could be equal to Stanford in some areas, but its true.

NIH funding is a decent method to determine how competitive a school/programs are, but it also has its flaws.  For example, UTSW is a public school which according to NIH funding wouldn't appear to be very competitive but the programs at UTSW are just as difficult to get accepted to as U Mich/UW/UCSF/Yale etc even though it has a fraction of the NIH $$. They get a lot of private funding which is another reason they have a lot of international students. 

[biochemgirl67]

36 minutes ago, ilovelab said:

The US News rankings are considered unreliable by some people (myself included) because of the methodology used. There is no real difference between the top ranked med school or the 20th (for example). US news makes it seems as though there are clear differences. There isn't a big difference between the quality of the programs between #1 and #20. 

U Pitt has comparable science programs to Stanford. Stanford has the name recognition which is why everyone assumes its more competitive or it more prestigious to get your Phd from Stanford. I know it probably blows your mind that Pitt could be equal to Stanford in some areas, but its true.

NIH funding is a decent method to determine how competitive a school/programs are, but it also has its flaws.  For example, UTSW is a public school which according to NIH funding wouldn't appear to be very competitive but the programs at UTSW are just as difficult to get accepted to as U Mich/UW/UCSF/Yale etc even though it has a fraction of the NIH $$. They get a lot of private funding which is another reason they have a lot of international students. 

I would give you more than 1 reputation point if I could.  This answer is so on par.  Rankings are a really crappy way to compare schools, and the point was, if you must, funding agencies have a more straightforward determination than U.S. News and World Report.

Point is, look at the science, read the papers, and go find your fit from there.  Funding is important, as is mentorship, projects of interest, and a palatable location.  Apply broadly and you'll find a good home.  I can almost promise that.

[ilovelab]

44 minutes ago, biochemgirl67 said:

Point is, look at the science, read the papers, and go find your fit from there.  Funding is important, as is mentorship, projects of interest, and a palatable location.  Apply broadly and you'll find a good home.  I can almost promise that.

THIS! I feel like a lot of people applying look at arbitrary rankings and the name reputation of the school and not the things that will matter in the long run.. like location/mentorship. 

[Bioenchilada]

1 minute ago, ilovelab said:

THIS! I feel like a lot of people applying look at arbitrary rankings and the name reputation of the school and not the things that will matter in the long run.. like location/mentorship. 

It's also sad because a lot of people that apply purely for ranking end up getting rejected anyway because they can't effevtively explain why they want to go there.

[Bioenchilada]

2 hours ago, PlanB said:

Many of you have questioned the validity of the US news rankings and with good reason. Microburritology, do you any thing about the ranking methodology that US news uses to discern between programs in the biology sciences?  Surveys are sent  out to academic biologist that ask them to rank the quality of the program from 1(bad) to 5(outstanding). Programs are then ranked based the average score received  in these surveys. Using these surveys to rank grad programs is dubious at best. The problems associated with this methodology are easily recognizable by anyone. This methodology does not take into account the amount of NIH funding received  by the department, student placement after graduation(why do we go to grad school, right?), the publication rate of the school,  academic strength of the applicants, or even the difficulty of gaining admissions. Plus, the opinions of industry scientist are completely ignored. And this sample is inherently biased towards programs that have produced a lot of academic scientists in the past. As these academic scientist are more than likely to give their Alma mater the thumbs up. So, these rankings are self perpetuating and are not grounded in any thing substantive.

US News Biological Sciences ranking methodology:

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/science-schools-methodology 

And let me understand this correctly. Pitt gives more NIH funding than Stanford, but Stanford is some how better for biomedical research. Why, b/c its name is Stanford? Give me a break, that is hearsay. If Stanford is doing better Science then why do the PIs at PITT get more funding from the NIH?  The PIs at Pitt are doing as competitive, if no more competitive science, than faculty at Stanford. Your points have been consistently been based off of dogma. Not any hard facts. And the vast majority of research funding at Stanford, like any university, is public funding.  

 

Your post made me preach. You can also add the fact that their dataset is basically incomplete. A lot of the specialties within their rankings have less than 10 schools.

[PRR]

Hi everyone! First time posting here!

My problem is that I feel very average. I'm a domestic female who goes to a top 25 research school..My GRE scores are 159V/162Q/4.5W ,which I know are very respectable but i don't know if they are actually competitive. I have a pretty solid 3.7-3.8 GPA which I am proud of, but I once again feel is average compared to many people here.By the time I graduate next year, I would have had 3 full years of research experience(1 year in a lab that doesn't fit with my current interest[it was just my first attempt at getting my foot in the research world, and I did learn a lot!], 1 summer program, and ~2 years by graduation in my current lab), but this seem to also just be very standard. I don't have any publications yet, but I'm hoping to convince my PI to take me to and let me present my work at a national conference later this year.

I'm interested in Immunology/Cancer Biology (specifically I love me some hematopoietic stem cell/T cell/B cell malignancies!), I currently work in a myeloma lab and will be doing my senior thesis in this lab.I also did a summer program last summer in a lab that works on hematopoietic stem cells. So I definitely would say I have experience in this field I'm interested in!

My letters of rec would come from firstly and obviously my PI, whom I trust to write me a great one, and one from my immunology professor, whom I seek advice from a lot and is on my thesis committee, and one more that I haven't decide who to ask (I have several people in mind that I know will write me great letters, but I just don't know who will be the best to ask).

The schools I'm most interested in as of now are (I'm still adding to the list, these are just my top choices/dream schools!):

Stanford, UCSF, UWseattle, WUSTL

I don't know whether I'll apply to their cancer program/cell bio/general bio or immunology program yet, as I'm getting to know these program more! And obviously these are top schools, but I of course want to aim for the best program for my field.

SO, for those that read all the way until here, do you guys have any comments/advice for me? Any schools with great immuno/cancer programs that you would recommend me looking into? Please be honest and thanks so much :)!

[biochemgirl67]

4 hours ago, Diapers said:

Hi everyone! First time posting here!

My problem is that I feel very average. I'm a domestic female who goes to a top 25 research school..My GRE scores are 159V/162Q/4.5W ,which I know are very respectable but i don't know if they are actually competitive. I have a pretty solid 3.7-3.8 GPA which I am proud of, but I once again feel is average compared to many people here.By the time I graduate next year, I would have had 3 full years of research experience(1 year in a lab that doesn't fit with my current interest[it was just my first attempt at getting my foot in the research world, and I did learn a lot!], 1 summer program, and ~2 years by graduation in my current lab), but this seem to also just be very standard. I don't have any publications yet, but I'm hoping to convince my PI to take me to and let me present my work at a national conference later this year.

I'm interested in Immunology/Cancer Biology (specifically I love me some hematopoietic stem cell/T cell/B cell malignancies!), I currently work in a myeloma lab and will be doing my senior thesis in this lab.I also did a summer program last summer in a lab that works on hematopoietic stem cells. So I definitely would say I have experience in this field I'm interested in!

My letters of rec would come from firstly and obviously my PI, whom I trust to write me a great one, and one from my immunology professor, whom I seek advice from a lot and is on my thesis committee, and one more that I haven't decide who to ask (I have several people in mind that I know will write me great letters, but I just don't know who will be the best to ask).

The schools I'm most interested in as of now are (I'm still adding to the list, these are just my top choices/dream schools!):

Stanford, UCSF, UWseattle, WUSTL

I don't know whether I'll apply to their cancer program/cell bio/general bio or immunology program yet, as I'm getting to know these program more! And obviously these are top schools, but I of course want to aim for the best program for my field.

SO, for those that read all the way until here, do you guys have any comments/advice for me? Any schools with great immuno/cancer programs that you would recommend me looking into? Please be honest and thanks so much :)!

You are more than competitive at the schools you have listed and also similar schools.

You could also include Emory, Harvard, Vanderbilt, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, Rockefeller, Yale, Weill-Cornell, and Columbia.  Like I said, you will be more than competitive.  You can apply directly to specific programs if you want, but it can also be more flexible to apply to umbrella programs.

Also, you want as many research letters as you can manage if they'll all be excellent.

[Bunny_sua]

I'm really worried about my shitty GPA, I would really appreciate any advice on if there is some chance for me to get in any of my choices, I don't want to spend money on impossible schools for me to get in :/ 

Undergrad Institution: Top school in Brazil
Major(s): Biomedical Informatics
Minor(s): n/a
GPA in Major: 8.1/10
Overall GPA: 6.6/10  (the average gpa in the program is 5.1 tho, don't know if it helps)
Position in Class: top 10
Type of Student: International female
GRE Scores (revised/old version): didn't take it yet (will take in September)
TOEFL Total: 107

Research Experience: No publications, 2.5  years as an undergrad RA (1y in an epidemiology lab and 1.5y working with proteomics/bioinformatics) and 1 summer internship at NYU also with bioinformatics
Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Got a full governmental scholarship to study abroad for 1 year
Pertinent Activities or Jobs: Worked in the college enterprise for biomedical informatics (its like a company for bmi but only with students) .... I also tutor kids...
Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help: all of my work were presented in 3 symposiums

Special Bonus Points: I should be able to get 2 great recommendations from my previous profs, I'm doing my final undergrad thesis with an awesome prof also, so I'm doing my best to get another good recommendation with him.

Applying to Where: 

• Concordia University - CS: Bioinformatics
• U. of Calgary - CS: Bioinformatics
• U. of Guelph - Bioinformatics
• Saarland U.(Germany) - Max Plank Institute: Bioinformatics
• U. of Toronto - CS: Bioinformatics
• UBC - Bioinformatics

Edited April 24, 2016 by Bunny_sua

[PRR]

1 hour ago, biochemgirl67 said:

You are more than competitive at the schools you have listed and also similar schools.

You could also include Emory, Harvard, Vanderbilt, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, Rockefeller, Yale, Weill-Cornell, and Columbia.  Like I said, you will be more than competitive.  You can apply directly to specific programs if you want, but it can also be more flexible to apply to umbrella programs.

Also, you want as many research letters as you can manage if they'll all be excellent.

Thanks for responding! The schools you listed are definitely on my radar and will look into them more. 

Regarding rec letters, when you say as many research letters as I can manage, do you mean literally as many as possible?

Like i mentioned, I have worked under 3 different PIs (including my current one), and I know all of them can write good things about me. For sure I'll ask my current PI for a rec letter But, I am in this dilemma on deciding if I should actually ask  one or both of my two previous PIs for letters.

I actually have by chance read a rec letter my first PI wrote for me when I applied to my summer program last summer, and it was 2 full pages single space full of nice things said about me in her intro to bio course as well as as her research student. I do keep in close contact in her, but my concern is that I definitely grew a lot as a student, scientist, and person since then, and I don't know if a rec letter from her will reflect where I am currently. She also works in a completely different field.  She is a wildlife biologist!

Then there is my summer PI, who I know really liked me. He literally told me I was the best summer scholar they have had and wanted me back in his lab this summer. I am also very close with the graduate students that were my direct mentors, and I know they will vouch for me if this PI were to write my letter. My concern is that I had very minimal personal interaction with this PI. He actually was gone a whole month during the 10-week program, so all he knew of me was basically my results that happened to be good; he doesn't know me as a person, work ethics, etc. I only emailed him once since the summer program when I had to tell him that I want to stay in my lab now at school for this summer and thus cannot go back to his lab. I did try to mention what I have been up to, etc. in that email.

Aside from these PIs, I also have three other biology professor biology in mind that I know could write me great letters. One is my immunology professor like I mentioned in my post earlier. He is the professor that I trust the most for advice and inspiration, and I do visit his office frequently! He is also on my senior thesis committee, so he is aware of my research. He knows my aspirations/goals and how much they mean to me. I also did very well in his class, not just only grade wise I promise! I was very engaged and showed my interested in the subject. The two other professors I have in mind are similar in that I also am doing very well in their classes(Cell Bio and Cancer),am very enthusiastic,participate a lot and visit their offices pretty often too.

Basically, I know I have all these people that I trust will be able to vouch for me via rec letters, but I have no idea which ones to ask other than my current PI... A lot of schools say the require 3 and only 3, but some says 'at least' 3, so what does that mean? Can I send more than 3? SHOULD I send more than 3?

Who would you choose if you were in my shoes?

Edited April 24, 2016 by Diapers

[biochemgirl67]

5 hours ago, Diapers said:

Thanks for responding! The schools you listed are definitely on my radar and will look into them more. 

Regarding rec letters, when you say as many research letters as I can manage, do you mean literally as many as possible?

Like i mentioned, I have worked under 3 different PIs (including my current one), and I know all of them can write good things about me. For sure I'll ask my current PI for a rec letter But, I am in this dilemma on deciding if I should actually ask  one or both of my two previous PIs for letters.

I actually have by chance read a rec letter my first PI wrote for me when I applied to my summer program last summer, and it was 2 full pages single space full of nice things said about me in her intro to bio course as well as as her research student. I do keep in close contact in her, but my concern is that I definitely grew a lot as a student, scientist, and person since then, and I don't know if a rec letter from her will reflect where I am currently. She also works in a completely different field.  She is a wildlife biologist!

Then there is my summer PI, who I know really liked me. He literally told me I was the best summer scholar they have had and wanted me back in his lab this summer. I am also very close with the graduate students that were my direct mentors, and I know they will vouch for me if this PI were to write my letter. My concern is that I had very minimal personal interaction with this PI. He actually was gone a whole month during the 10-week program, so all he knew of me was basically my results that happened to be good; he doesn't know me as a person, work ethics, etc. I only emailed him once since the summer program when I had to tell him that I want to stay in my lab now at school for this summer and thus cannot go back to his lab. I did try to mention what I have been up to, etc. in that email.

Aside from these PIs, I also have three other biology professor biology in mind that I know could write me great letters. One is my immunology professor like I mentioned in my post earlier. He is the professor that I trust the most for advice and inspiration, and I do visit his office frequently! He is also on my senior thesis committee, so he is aware of my research. He knows my aspirations/goals and how much they mean to me. I also did very well in his class, not just only grade wise I promise! I was very engaged and showed my interested in the subject. The two other professors I have in mind are similar in that I also am doing very well in their classes(Cell Bio and Cancer),am very enthusiastic,participate a lot and visit their offices pretty often too.

Basically, I know I have all these people that I trust will be able to vouch for me via rec letters, but I have no idea which ones to ask other than my current PI... A lot of schools say the require 3 and only 3, but some says 'at least' 3, so what does that mean? Can I send more than 3? SHOULD I send more than 3?

Who would you choose if you were in my shoes?

Hmmm... the immunology professor does sound like a good choice because he is on you thesis committee.  Have you talked about how your current work with him connects to your goals?  The only thing I'm worried about (and someone else can chime in and support or oppose me) is that if you don't include LoRs from your research experiences, the adcoms will look at your CV and ask themselves why.  (Also, with the summer PI, you could mention someone who worked with you quite closely and actually tell him the things you think they witnessed.  Your work ethic, your commitment, etc.)  It's very important to ask ANY of these people to write you a STRONG letter, not just a letter.  The last two lecture professors I wouldn't bother with.  So if you have an faculty advisor, ask them who you think would be better... wildlife biologist (with an updated info email to help her) or thesis advisor.  Honestly, I think I would go with current PI, summer PI, and capstone advisor, but get someone else's opinion on what they would rather see.  Go to your current PI and just straight up ask; they'll be honest with you.

Also, don't fall into the trap of applying to 10+ schools.  You have a good profile and will drive yourself NUTS going to all the interviews.  Really do a lot of groundwork and even email current grad students if you really want to scoop.  I would apply to 8-10 maximum.  I applied to 7 and got 4 interviews... the travel just gets so exhausting.  And because I had chosen schools to apply to that were good fits for my goals (except Princeton, but that was a dream to interview at since I was 15), I actually ended up going to a school I LOVED the first weekend.  I also did some location vetting before I applied to weed out areas I knew I wouldn't be comfortable in.  For instance, over the summer in Boston, someone mentioned that I should see Yale before applying.  My radar went off and I got in a rental car with some of my program friends and took off... You can guess that I didn't feel like it was a good fit because I scratched it.  I also didn't want to live in Philadelphia (I'm in the small town Midwest and knew it would be too much for me) so I scratched UPenn.  I kept Rockefeller because I felt their research quality outweighed how much I didn't want to be in NYC.  And I kept 2 California schools on the list due to their quality even though I knew I would have to live in more debt than I was comfortable with in North Cali.  Once you get to a certain level, many schools offer the same stellar opportunities and it becomes 100% about fit.  And fit is more than just science.

[PRR]

59 minutes ago, PlanB said:

 

From my interviewing experiences, summer projects do not contribute as much to your applications as long-term progression made on a research project. I would try to get letters from your current PI, your past summer research advisor, and your immunology professor. If I were you, I would also consider retaking the GRE this summer; I had comparable scores to yours at my first attempted and ended up doing  much better on the second attempt. I am not sure what you are considering to be a top 25 research school, but going to a reputable undergrad will definitely help you in the admissions process. Your application is definitely within the reach of UWseattle. For immunology research, other top schools include Emory, UCSanDiego, UCLA,  Mount Sinai, PITT, and UMICH.  I think Stanford, UCSF, WUSTL are  definitely a reaches, however, not impossible based on the application you have presented.

Thanks for your comment. I am 80% sure I'll just stick with my GRE scores, but I will seriously think it over to decide if I need to retake it over the summer. I know I could do 2-3 points better on the Quant, but for my verbal score I think I got very lucky already.... the option of retaking is definitely still on my mind nevertheless. I don't think my scores right now will hurt me that's why I am okay with not retaking. 

My school is one of the top 25 ranked universities on usnews (I know I know, but i'm just using it to reference my school).

I definitely am aware that the schools I listed are reaches for me(as they are for many others), and the schools you listed are also very very great schools! Do you have any non-reach suggestion for me? I guess I am not asking for "safety schools" but for good schools that are within a short reach instead of a long reach?

Thanks again!

[biochemgirl67]

17 hours ago, Diapers said:

Thanks for your comment. I am 80% sure I'll just stick with my GRE scores, but I will seriously think it over to decide if I need to retake it over the summer. I know I could do 2-3 points better on the Quant, but for my verbal score I think I got very lucky already.... the option of retaking is definitely still on my mind nevertheless. I don't think my scores right now will hurt me that's why I am okay with not retaking. 

My school is one of the top 25 ranked universities on usnews (I know I know, but i'm just using it to reference my school).

I definitely am aware that the schools I listed are reaches for me(as they are for many others), and the schools you listed are also very very great schools! Do you have any non-reach suggestion for me? I guess I am not asking for "safety schools" but for good schools that are within a short reach instead of a long reach?

Thanks again!

If you apply to 8 ish schools were you are competitive rather than a sure thing, you will have 3-6 good options come interview time.  I think you can reasonably apply to schools you listed and schools of their same caliber.  Both the others that I listed before and that @PlanB listed will be really good choices to look at to try and narrow down your list.  Don't worry so much about long reach v. short reach (the difference is minute and you will probably have schools of both on your final list).  As long as you don't have your hopes set on one school only, you should be fine.  Just don't get starstruck with one particular school (like I did with Harvard) and keep an open mind as you investigate.  If you were to apply to say WUSTL, Stanford, UCSF, UW, Vanderbilt, Emory, UPitt, Weill Cornell, UCLA, and Yale, you would have a good mix of interviews.  Right now, you might want to have a running list of ~15 schools then pare it down to 8-10 based on your evaluations of their research focus, funding, location, and graduate placement.  The list I have above is just what I personally consider to be varied and doable.  Don't be too hard on yourself and focus on writing really good applications to each and everyone