What's their excuse?!

[cumulina]

I thought it would be extremely helpful for everyone (or at least entertaining), to see what reasons certain programs gave for turning down amazing applicants such as yourselves. 

I'll start. I contacted a few schools and the majority told me that my research experience is what raised concerns over my application and that another year of experience would push me over the hump(I had about 1.5 years when I applied). I was told, specifically, that my GPA/GRE was not a concern (3.5 GPA/161Q157V for context).Is this just a general response? I'm interested to see what other reasons are out there. 

 

Also, for those with heart warming reapplication stories, I'm wondering what you think made the difference the second time around. 

[biochemgirl67]

I think it really REALLY depends on the program/applicant.  1.5 years of productive research with a stupendous LoR is definitely more than enough.  Just depends on what you've made of it.  No one can really tell if the response you got was general or was a true reflection of your profile unless we know more about what you've done/where you applied.

[parafilm]

Well, I'm accepted and on my second round of applying, with about 7 years of research, a 3.1 GPA, 159Q 165V. It seems reasonable that schools want to see more than 1.5 years of experience, but of course I'm a bit biased. I work with interns and find that there's a world of difference between those with part-time research experience and those with significant, longer, full-time experience. I do feel like 1.5 years should be adequate for admissions, but there are going to be students with more, particularly since a solid number of applicants will have done research for a year or two between undergrad and grad school.

My GPA kept me out, no surprise there. Experience finally got me in, and frankly, I feel like "lack of experience" is the best reason (for the applicant!) to not gain acceptance. A low undergrad GPA is impossible to change (that's when it's time to look into MS programs), a low GRE score means a you have to study more and pay the fee and wait for the next cycle... but lack of experience means you just need to find a lab and get some more research in. Not only will this help you get acceptance, but you'll learn a lot, meet new scientists, and you will bring that knowledge with you to graduate school where it will help you finding a mentor and good project.

I know how sucky it feels not to get in anywhere. Been there. But in the time between undergrad and this coming fall when I start a PhD, I've gotten to do amazing non-science things that I wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. I also got to publish, really take on a fully independent project, make connections that will help me later on, and learned how to successfully drive a project. It feels like the end of the world and you're allowed to be bummed, but it works out in the end. If research/phd is REALLY what you want, you'll get there!

Edited April 6, 2016 by parafilm

[Bioenchilada]

4 minutes ago, parafilm said:

Well, I'm accepted and on my second round of applying, with about 7 years of research, a 3.1 GPA, 159Q 165V. It seems reasonable that schools want to see more than 1.5 years of experience, but of course I'm a bit biased. I work with interns and find that there's a world of difference between those with part-time research experience and those with significant, longer, full-time experience. I do feel like 1.5 years should be adequate for admissions, but there are going to be students with more, particularly since a solid number of applicants will have done research for a year or two between undergrad and grad school.

Frankly, I feel like this is the best reason (for the applicant!) to not gain acceptance. A low undergrad GPA is impossible to change (that's when it's time to look into MS programs), a low GRE score means a you have to study more and pay the fee and wait for the next cycle... but lack of experience means you just need to find a lab and get some more research in. Not only will this help you get acceptance, but you'll learn a lot, meet new scientists, and you will bring that knowledge with you to graduate school where it will help you finding a mentor and good project.

I know how sucky it feels not to get in anywhere. Been there. But in the time between undergrad and this coming fall when I start a PhD, I've gotten to do amazing non-science things that I wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. I also got to publish, really take on a fully independent project, make connections that will help me later on, and learned how to successfully drive a project. It feels like the end of the world and you're allowed to be bummed, but it works out in the end. If research/phd is REALLY what you want, you'll get there!

Definitely agree. I don't think 1.5 years of experience is enough, especially if it's only with one lab/one project. My friend with a 4.0,  high GRE, and 2 years of research experience got rejected from EVERYWHERE she applied to (10/10). They're also a stellar writer, but 1 project is just too little to talk about at the undergrad level. Did you get in someplace this round, or are you reapplying? 

[Eigen]

1.5 years of research experience is definitely on the low side, and unless offset by a particularly batch of work, is likely to raise issues. 

I'd actually say it's even worse if it's 1.5 years spread over multiple labs/projects, as that raises the question of whether the applicant has done long-term project work and has the stamina to carry projects through in graduate school. 

That said, 1.5 years is a good amount- it certainly won't get your application thrown out right away, but it's just not competitive with people who have 5+ years that are applying.

[Ferroportin]

5 hours ago, Bioenchilada said:

Definitely agree. I don't think 1.5 years of experience is enough, especially if it's only with one lab/one project. My friend with a 4.0,  high GRE, and 2 years of research experience got rejected from EVERYWHERE she applied to (10/10). They're also a stellar writer, but 1 project is just too little to talk about at the undergrad level. Did you get in someplace this round, or are you reapplying? 

The number of years of experience applicants claim they have can often be misleading as well. During my undergrad, I gained "2 years" of experience but in reality only went into lab ~15 hours a week. So if the 1.5 years of experience was from part time research consisting of a couple hours a week, I definitely agree that it's on the low side and would likely hurt your chances. However, I do think that 1.5 years of FULL TIME research would be a decent amount and sufficient for getting into good programs. 

[aberrant]

I agree with most of the posts here -- 1.5 year is on the low end for most undergraduates, who are assumed to be working part-time in the lab. Depending on the location, kids work different hours, too (i.e. My peers and I at my alma mater often work 15-20 hours a week as a minimum, whereas undergrads at my current school often times consider 12 hours is "very high". Even the most productive undergrad that I have had works about 10 hours a week, including down time studying in the lab.)

Friends of mine who got into the most competitive programs typically have 2.5 years of research experience back in the days (5, 6 years ago). If anything, I would like to believe that that number is more or less the same (if not more), consider that schools and more resources to educate/encourage high school students to start doing research at their local university during their junior/senior year (which also help to recruit them as undergrad).

That being said, if you knew that is a decisive factor, you'll have to prove them wrong about their perception. Poster presentation, honor thesis, paper, anything would be helpful. I was in the same boat, too. I started doing research in my 2nd quarter of junior year (as soon as I decided to go to grad school after college), and knowing that I'll have 0.5 years of research experience under my belt doesn't help, I took a year off after my junior year and do research full time for 1 year. I then took the following year off and study overseas (most credits were transferrable), which include another half a year in a different lab to learn new techniques. Came back to the U.S. and finish my senior year and apply grad school. Very unconventional, but still got in somewhere (see my sig.).

 

Back to the main question, one of the rejection that I got was basically "well, we basically have 600 applicants each year and all of them are amazing, However, we are only taking 60 students, and only 2 of them are international. And we have to turn you down because you didn't get a perfect GPA and high % in GRE (both subject and verbal) compare to other international students." I also had an application to this school (hint. Ivy league, application fee = $100) that never intend to send me a decision letter until I make multiple phone calls and e-mails -- just to learn that I was rejected (for whatever reasons) as if I was applying a darn job and heard nothing from the employer. I also do know that another rejection from another ivy league school was because of the verbal GRE was too low (41%). So even though I got some sort of "connections" at the time, my application didn't get pass the preliminary screen.

At this stage of my career, these examples are just some of the experience that I share with my undergrads to scare them a bit about their future, especially "those premeds" who also considering grad school, or, rather, "indecisive"  

[cumulina]

I do agree with you guys. The quality and level of involvement make a HUGE difference in terms of research experience. My first year I was doing maybe 20 hours/week and the past half year (new lab) I've been involved 40-50 hours/week, and being involved full-time is a totally different ball game. My guess is the adcoms picked up on that.

 I've reached out to two programs, I applied to, and they've encouraged me to keep in touch with them, they want to "track my progress" and to actually reapply next year. So I'm very hopeful for the next cycle. either that or this could be the bait of the century

[Bioenchilada]

12 hours ago, cumulina said:

I do agree with you guys. The quality and level of involvement make a HUGE difference in terms of research experience. My first year I was doing maybe 20 hours/week and the past half year (new lab) I've been involved 40-50 hours/week, and being involved full-time is a totally different ball game. My guess is the adcoms picked up on that.

 I've reached out to two programs, I applied to, and they've encouraged me to keep in touch with them, they want to "track my progress" and to actually reapply next year. So I'm very hopeful for the next cycle. either that or this could be the bait of the century

You stated that you had 6 rejections and 1 acceptance in the past. Are you going to decline their offer and reapply? If so, why?

[cumulina]

2 hours ago, Bioenchilada said:

You stated that you had 6 rejections and 1 acceptance in the past. Are you going to decline their offer and reapply? If so, why?

Well I pretty much applied to the program because there was this one guy I wanted to work with, and I've been talking to him a bit and it looks like he won't be taking new students. I was a little interested in a 1-2 other people, but after the interviews it looked like they were taking their research in directions that differed from my interests. am I being too rash?? 

[biosci]

I also think that LOR's can play a really big role, so try to make sure your letter writers really know you and your strengths. 

[Bioenchilada]

40 minutes ago, cumulina said:

Well I pretty much applied to the program because there was this one guy I wanted to work with, and I've been talking to him a bit and it looks like he won't be taking new students. I was a little interested in a 1-2 other people, but after the interviews it looked like they were taking their research in directions that differed from my interests. am I being too rash?? 

Not really. You shouldn't go to a school that doesn't have something that you want to do.

[breadwinner]

A long long time ago back in September I had a rather vague idea of what I wanted to study and also of how closely my interest had to match that of the PI I applied to work with. A few weeks ago I got a rejection from UC Davis's EEB program (fortunately after I had gotten into my top choices) that actually specified a reason in the rejection letter. Their reason was "no available faculty member in the specified research area". I found it kind of hilarious but nice that they included this. But it also made me realize how naive I was about my interests just a few months ago because when I looked up the faculty member at UC Davis I specified I realized he was doing something vastly different than what I wanted (I'm studying ant sociality and genomics, he studies (solitary!) orchid bees).