2018 Applicant Profiles and Admissions Results

[Budeer]

1 hour ago, Otinogonnyo said:

Well, the department I work in Harvard-affiliate hospital is Cardiology and UTSW undoubtedly has among the top 5 programs in cardiology and related research (Brown, Goldstein,Hobbs, Eric Olsen, Joe Hill to name a few. lnfact the entire Editorial Board of Circulation has been shifted to UTSW from Boston).So my PI may be biased in his opinion as well. But overall, I have heard good things about UTSW and although it is not a top-tier school, I would like to believe that it comes high on the Tier-II schools. 

All the best with your choice!!

Hi! Thanks for the info. Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate more on the Top tier and Tier-II you mentioned? So is top tier schools like Harvard, MIT, Stanford; and second tier schools are like Yale, Cornell, U Penn, U Chicago, Berkeley, UCLA  etc? Or are these all 1st tier schools? Not gonna lie I do care a lot about what people think of a school’s reputation/ prestige. Thank you so much! 

[siliconchins]

12 minutes ago, Budeer said:

Hi! Thanks for the info. Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate more on the Top tier and Tier-II you mentioned? So is top tier schools like Harvard, MIT, Stanford; and second tier schools are like Yale, Cornell, U Penn, U Chicago, Berkeley, UCLA  etc? Or are these all 1st tier schools? Not gonna lie I do care a lot about what people think of a school’s reputation/ prestige. Thank you so much! 

I think this is highly dependent on what you want to study. Also, there are places like Rockefeller and Cold Spring Harbor which have excellent programs but don't carry the same name recognition in the public due to the fact that they don't have any undergrads. 

Personally, I think that the best resource for finding out the quality of a program is to talk to your advisor or others in the field you want to join, as they will know the type and strength of research that comes out of each institution. 

[Otinogonnyo]

1 hour ago, Budeer said:

Hi! Thanks for the info. Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate more on the Top tier and Tier-II you mentioned? So is top tier schools like Harvard, MIT, Stanford; and second tier schools are like Yale, Cornell, U Penn, U Chicago, Berkeley, UCLA  etc? Or are these all 1st tier schools? Not gonna lie I do care a lot about what people think of a school’s reputation/ prestige. Thank you so much! 

Well the concept of Tier program is relative and as pointed out varies between programs! The exact words I told you was told to me by a former MD/PhD from UTSW. In academic circle,he mentioned UTSW has a good reputation.What that translates into industry-academic relationship and industry alone is something I have no idea either!

And the reputation of UTSW I have heard are from Cardiology folks(as I mentioned before) so I am sure will be skewed as they have a stellar Cardiology bench program.If you are really concerned about the prestige of the school,I would ask mentor or postdoc for their opinion.On another note,you can also look into the career graph of the recent graduate from the school and make a broad guess about the success of the school!!

 

[Budeer]

43 minutes ago, Otinogonnyo said:

Well the concept of Tier program is relative and as pointed out varies between programs! The exact words I told you was told to me by a former MD/PhD from UTSW. In academic circle,he mentioned UTSW has a good reputation.What that translates into industry-academic relationship and industry alone is something I have no idea either!

And the reputation of UTSW I have heard are from Cardiology folks(as I mentioned before) so I am sure will be skewed as they have a stellar Cardiology bench program.If you are really concerned about the prestige of the school,I would ask mentor or postdoc for their opinion.On another note,you can also look into the career graph of the recent graduate from the school and make a broad guess about the success of the school!!

 

Thanks for the reply! I did ask my current mentor and some other professors at my school about UTSW, all they said was it's a great school and well recognized in the biomedical field. They didn't say anything about "Tier" etc. I also looked at the career outcomes of students and communicated with UTSW associate director, it seems like it's fairly common for students there to find post-doc positions in schools like Harvard, Stanford etc., same case applies for those who found jobs in the industry. So it seems name recognition is not a problem. However, just out of pure curiosity, I'd like to know what people think of "tiers". If someone can give me a more specific answer or give some examples of "tier 1" "tier 2" schools, I would really appreciate it. I'm curious where UTSW or Northwestern (the only other school I got into) stand among other schools. I understand it varies from major to major, program to program, I'm just looking for a general impression. My apologies for asking so many questions. 

[siliconchins]

39 minutes ago, Budeer said:

Thanks for the reply! I did ask my current mentor and some other professors at my school about UTSW, all they said was it's a great school and well recognized in the biomedical field. They didn't say anything about "Tier" etc. I also looked at the career outcomes of students and communicated with UTSW associate director, it seems like it's fairly common for students there to find post-doc positions in schools like Harvard, Stanford etc., same case applies for those who found jobs in the industry. So it seems name recognition is not a problem. However, just out of pure curiosity, I'd like to know what people think of "tiers". If someone can give me a more specific answer or give some examples of "tier 1" "tier 2" schools, I would really appreciate it. I'm curious where UTSW or Northwestern (the only other school I got into) stand among other schools. I understand it varies from major to major, program to program, I'm just looking for a general impression. My apologies for asking so many questions. 

You could try the US News rankings or QS rankings if that's the type of stuff you're looking for. Or the Wikipedia list of R1, R2, etc.  

[Otinogonnyo]

1 hour ago, Budeer said:

Thanks for the reply! I did ask my current mentor and some other professors at my school about UTSW, all they said was it's a great school and well recognized in the biomedical field. They didn't say anything about "Tier" etc. I also looked at the career outcomes of students and communicated with UTSW associate director, it seems like it's fairly common for students there to find post-doc positions in schools like Harvard, Stanford etc., same case applies for those who found jobs in the industry. So it seems name recognition is not a problem. However, just out of pure curiosity, I'd like to know what people think of "tiers". If someone can give me a more specific answer or give some examples of "tier 1" "tier 2" schools, I would really appreciate it. I'm curious where UTSW or Northwestern (the only other school I got into) stand among other schools. I understand it varies from major to major, program to program, I'm just looking for a general impression. My apologies for asking so many questions. 

US rankings may be a starting point!It can be fairly misleading and it may be true that the Person who is a big name in the field is PI in a smaller university! The other ranking metrics too give a fair insight! To better answer your question, either of these schools are not Ivy-League or Stanford, UC(B and SF),MIT or Hopkins. Probably closer in stature to Duke, UMich, UCSD in biomedical research.

I am sure whether you choose North or South, both the 'West' are pretty solid schools and will make you a competitive applicant,basically you will not loose anything by choosing either of them!! I suppose it will boil down to Chicago vs Dallas or hot vs cold weather finally!

Edited March 7, 2018 by Otinogonnyo

[Budeer]

34 minutes ago, Otinogonnyo said:

US rankings may be a starting point!It can be fairly misleading and it may be true that the Person who is a big name in the field is PI in a smaller university! The other ranking metrics too give a fair insight! To better answer your question, either of these schools are not Ivy-League or Stanford, UC(B and SF),MIT or Hopkins. Probably closer in stature to Duke, UMich, UCSD in biomedical research.

I am sure whether you choose North or South, both the 'West' are pretty solid schools and will make you a competitive applicant,basically you will not loose anything by choosing either of them!! I suppose it will boil down to Chicago vs Dallas or hot vs cold weather finally!

Thank you! 

[synapticcat]

On 3/7/2018 at 2:24 PM, Budeer said:

Thanks for the reply! I did ask my current mentor and some other professors at my school about UTSW, all they said was it's a great school and well recognized in the biomedical field. They didn't say anything about "Tier" etc. I also looked at the career outcomes of students and communicated with UTSW associate director, it seems like it's fairly common for students there to find post-doc positions in schools like Harvard, Stanford etc., same case applies for those who found jobs in the industry. So it seems name recognition is not a problem. However, just out of pure curiosity, I'd like to know what people think of "tiers". If someone can give me a more specific answer or give some examples of "tier 1" "tier 2" schools, I would really appreciate it. I'm curious where UTSW or Northwestern (the only other school I got into) stand among other schools. I understand it varies from major to major, program to program, I'm just looking for a general impression. My apologies for asking so many questions. 

One thing I'd say is that honestly, I think that once you get to this caliber of institution, it all comes down to location/lifestyle fit, research fit, and ultimately, what you do in the lab once you get there (i.e. finding the right mentor who will help you succeed, being in a research environment conductive to your work style, etc). I think others have echoed this sentiment above. 

In terms of "tiers" strictly, I would agree with others who said that the absolute "top tier" would be more of the MIT/Stanford/Harvard/JHU followed really closely by Cornell/Duke/WUSTL/Columbia, but that both UTSW and Northwestern are solidly at the caliber of Wisconsin/Michigan/UW Seattle/Vanderbilt/etc. Of course this will vary based on your interests. But in terms of making a choice, I would go where you feel you (a) have the best opportunities for you research, and (b) where you think you'll be the happiest. I know that personally, my decision came down to the school I could see myself finding the right mentor and research environment for myself, and that lifestyle factors played a big role (as they should!). You really can't go wrong with either, they're both fantastic schools. But I'm a firm believer that the better supported you feel by your mentor and friends in your cohort, the better work you'll do, and the happier you'll be. 

[Budeer]

14 minutes ago, synapticcat said:

One thing I'd say is that honestly, I think that once you get to this caliber of institution, it all comes down to location/lifestyle fit, research fit, and ultimately, what you do in the lab once you get there (i.e. finding the right mentor who will help you succeed, being in a research environment conductive to your work style, etc). I think others have echoed this sentiment above. 

In terms of "tiers" strictly, I would agree with others who said that the absolute "top tier" would be more of the Harvard/MIT/Stanford/JHU/etc, but that both UTSW and Northwestern are solidly at the caliber of Duke/UNC/UWash/Vanderbilt/etc. Of course this will vary based on your interests. But in terms of making a choice, I would go where you feel you (a) have the best opportunities for you research, and (b) where you think you'll be the happiest. I know that personally, my decision came down to the school I could see myself finding the right mentor and research environment for myself, and that lifestyle factors played a big role (as they should!). You really can't go wrong with either, they're both fantastic schools. But I'm a firm believer that the better supported you feel by your mentor and friends in your cohort, the better work you'll do, and the happier you'll be. 

Thanks a lot! That was very helpful.  

[hurryskurry]

In terms of biomedical research I might actually place UTSW above some of those schools. I might be biased, because I do research there, but the breadth of research is really amazing. If the number of HHMI investigators could be used as a proxy for research strength I think UTSW has more than Duke, UNC, WashU, and Vanderbilt combined. 

I am not saying you should make a decision based on that, because I’m still trying to choose between UTSW and other schools, but I think in terms of sheer amount of biomedical research UTSW is very strong.

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by hurryskurry

[strugglebus2k17]

Any insight into how Baylor College of Medicine vs NYU Sackler institute hold up in terms of biomedical research/tier? virology/immunology programs.

[Budeer]

13 hours ago, hurryskurry said:

In terms of biomedical research I might actually place UTSW above some of those schools. I might be biased, because I do research there, but the breadth of research is really amazing. If the number of HHMI investigators could be used as a proxy for research strength I think UTSW has more than Duke, UNC, WashU, and Vanderbilt combined. 

I am not saying you should make a decision based on that, because I’m still trying to choose between UTSW and other schools, but I think in terms of sheer amount of biomedical research UTSW is very strong.

 

Honestly I think so too, the numbers of Nobel prize winners and HHMI members were brought up many times during my visit there. And it’s indeed very very impressive. I’m actually leaning towards joining UTSW. 

[siliconchins]

Just received unofficial acceptance from Princeton MolBio, which makes me think that the official notice is coming out soon! That's officially a wrap for me on hearing back from programs. Good luck to those still waiting to hear back!

Edited March 9, 2018 by siliconchins

[Yonster]

Has anyone else committed to JHU CMDB? I don't see a lot of mention of JHU around here

[ks414]

Anybody hear from NYU Sackler yet? 

[strugglebus2k17]

52 minutes ago, ks414 said:

Anybody hear from NYU Sackler yet? 

Yeah, I interviewed last weekend and heard back on Wednesday

[dude3d30]

3 hours ago, strugglebus2k17 said:

Yeah, I interviewed last weekend and heard back on Wednesday

I assume you got accepted? Did you get reinvited back for another visit? On which date, may I ask?

Edited March 10, 2018 by dude3d30

[strugglebus2k17]

2 hours ago, dude3d30 said:

I assume you got accepted? Did you get reinvited back for another visit? On which date, may I ask?

Yeah I was accepted! The revisit is two weeks from now on March 21st. 

[dude3d30]

25 minutes ago, strugglebus2k17 said:

Yeah I was accepted! The revisit is two weeks from now on March 21st. 

Congrats! Am still waiting to hear back from NYU... Perhaps cos I'm an international student, it is probably harder for them to decide. 

[factanonverba]

Hi guys, help me decide?

I got accepted to both MIT biology and Stanford Biosciences (Cancer Biology), and I am so torn between these two. Below are my criteria so far, but I would like to get more input on this:

1. Program structure: MIT has a rigid program structure, I would take classes in fundamental areas of biology, have two semesters of TA-ing, three 1-month rotations, etc. Stanford is a bit more flexible as there is no TA requirement, there are some classes in cancer biology but there are other electives. Overall, I like the Stanford structure a bit more.

2. Classes: as mentioned above. I like the MIT classes because they seem to cover a broader spectrum of disciplines and I like that. Although the Stanford ones are not bad, they are just more focused on cancer bio.

3. Faculty choices: MIT has only ~50 faculty in the department, while Stanford has ~60 affiliated with cancer bio and hundreds more in the broader Biosciences program. I could work with any of the hundreds within Biosciences. I also made some really good faculty connections at Stanford and they already guaranteed rotation spots for me. Some of them even gave me their cell phone numbers so I can call them directly. 

4. Research: Both places are doing amazing research! MIT has a lot of legendary PIs (Tyler Jacks, David Sabatini, Philip Sharp, Bob Weinberg, etc.) but they may or may not be suitable thesis advisors for someone like me who is an early career scientist and initially needs guidance. Stanford has more of a spectrum of senior, mid-career and young PIs so that might be a good thing for me?

5. Location: Boston/Cambridge is awesome! A lot of research/biotech/museums/music/arts etc. If I live outside the cities I can probably even get a one-bedroom at a reasonable price range. In comparison, Palo Alto seems pretty boring, and SUPER expensive to live in (impossible to live off-campus). 

6. Weather: Palo Alto for the win! Mild winters, a lot of sunny days, not humid in the summer like in Boston.

7. Prestige: Are they comparable? Some people seem to think that MIT trains a lot of big thinkers in the field. 

What else am I missing? 

Edited March 11, 2018 by factanonverba

[jasbee]

9 minutes ago, factanonverba said:

Hi guys, help me decide?

I got accepted to both MIT biology and Stanford Biosciences (Cancer Biology), and I am so torn between these two. Below are my criteria so far, but I would like to get more input on this:

1. Program structure: MIT has a rigid program structure, I would take classes in fundamental areas of biology, have two semesters of TA-ing, three 1-month rotations, etc. Stanford is a bit more flexible as there is no TA requirement, there are some classes in cancer biology but there are other electives. Overall, I like the Stanford structure a bit more.

2. Classes: as mentioned above. I like the MIT classes because they seem to cover a broader spectrum of disciplines and I like that. Although the Stanford ones are not bad, they are just more focused on cancer bio.

3. Faculty choices: MIT has only ~50 faculty in the department, while Stanford has ~60 affiliated with cancer bio and hundreds more in the broader Biosciences program. I could work with any of the hundreds within Biosciences. I also made some really good faculty connections at Stanford and they already guaranteed rotation spots for me. Some of them even gave me their cell phone numbers so I can call them directly. 

4. Research: Both places are doing amazing research! MIT has a lot of legendary PIs (Tyler Jacks, David Sabatini, Philip Sharp, Bob Weinberg, etc.) but they may or may not be suitable thesis advisors for someone like me who is an early career scientist and initially needs guidance. Stanford has more of a spectrum of senior, mid-career and young PIs so that might be a good thing for me?

5. Location: Boston/Cambridge is awesome! A lot of research/biotech/museums/music/arts etc. If I live outside the cities I can probably even get a one-bedroom at a reasonable price range. In comparison, Palo Alto seems pretty boring, and SUPER expensive to live in (impossible to live off-campus). 

6. Weather: Palo Alto for the win! Mild winters, a lot of sunny days, not humid in the summer like in Boston.

7. Prestige: Are they comparable?

What else am I missing? 

How did you feel you fit in with the current grad students and the other applicants (because a subset of them will be your cohort for 5+ years)?

[siliconchins]

1 hour ago, factanonverba said:

Hi guys, help me decide?

I got accepted to both MIT biology and Stanford Biosciences (Cancer Biology), and I am so torn between these two. Below are my criteria so far, but I would like to get more input on this:

1. Program structure: MIT has a rigid program structure, I would take classes in fundamental areas of biology, have two semesters of TA-ing, three 1-month rotations, etc. Stanford is a bit more flexible as there is no TA requirement, there are some classes in cancer biology but there are other electives. Overall, I like the Stanford structure a bit more.

2. Classes: as mentioned above. I like the MIT classes because they seem to cover a broader spectrum of disciplines and I like that. Although the Stanford ones are not bad, they are just more focused on cancer bio.

3. Faculty choices: MIT has only ~50 faculty in the department, while Stanford has ~60 affiliated with cancer bio and hundreds more in the broader Biosciences program. I could work with any of the hundreds within Biosciences. I also made some really good faculty connections at Stanford and they already guaranteed rotation spots for me. Some of them even gave me their cell phone numbers so I can call them directly. 

4. Research: Both places are doing amazing research! MIT has a lot of legendary PIs (Tyler Jacks, David Sabatini, Philip Sharp, Bob Weinberg, etc.) but they may or may not be suitable thesis advisors for someone like me who is an early career scientist and initially needs guidance. Stanford has more of a spectrum of senior, mid-career and young PIs so that might be a good thing for me?

5. Location: Boston/Cambridge is awesome! A lot of research/biotech/museums/music/arts etc. If I live outside the cities I can probably even get a one-bedroom at a reasonable price range. In comparison, Palo Alto seems pretty boring, and SUPER expensive to live in (impossible to live off-campus). 

6. Weather: Palo Alto for the win! Mild winters, a lot of sunny days, not humid in the summer like in Boston.

7. Prestige: Are they comparable? Some people seem to think that MIT trains a lot of big thinkers in the field. 

What else am I missing? 

As much as I'd like to tell you to come join me at MIT, it seems from what you're writing that you have already decided that Stanford is a better fit for you. Once you get to a certain point, it doesn't really matter where you go, only that you put out good work. If you feel that the faculty choices, mentoring style, and overall focus of Stanford over MIT, then you should go there. Also keep in mind that people like Bob Weinberg are no longer taking students. 

Since I didn't apply to Stanford and am not too familiar with the program, I can only give my perspective about MIT. From my point of view though, once you get to the level of MIT, Stanford, UCSF, Harvard, etc., you don't really have to worry about prestige. 

[nwa5fz]

Was put on the wait list for UCSD's Biomedical Sciences Program (BMS) - does anyone know the chances/reality of getting off it? The email seemed hopeful, but I'd like to move forward with another school if it's unlikely I'll get off the waitlist.

Thanks!

[siliconchins]

2 hours ago, nwa5fz said:

Was put on the wait list for UCSD's Biomedical Sciences Program (BMS) - does anyone know the chances/reality of getting off it? The email seemed hopeful, but I'd like to move forward with another school if it's unlikely I'll get off the waitlist.

Thanks!

I would email them and ask how many people usually get off the waitlist/your position to gauge how likely it is. 

[StemCellFan]

21 hours ago, factanonverba said:

Hi guys, help me decide?

I got accepted to both MIT biology and Stanford Biosciences (Cancer Biology), and I am so torn between these two. Below are my criteria so far, but I would like to get more input on this:

1. Program structure: MIT has a rigid program structure, I would take classes in fundamental areas of biology, have two semesters of TA-ing, three 1-month rotations, etc. Stanford is a bit more flexible as there is no TA requirement, there are some classes in cancer biology but there are other electives. Overall, I like the Stanford structure a bit more.

2. Classes: as mentioned above. I like the MIT classes because they seem to cover a broader spectrum of disciplines and I like that. Although the Stanford ones are not bad, they are just more focused on cancer bio.

3. Faculty choices: MIT has only ~50 faculty in the department, while Stanford has ~60 affiliated with cancer bio and hundreds more in the broader Biosciences program. I could work with any of the hundreds within Biosciences. I also made some really good faculty connections at Stanford and they already guaranteed rotation spots for me. Some of them even gave me their cell phone numbers so I can call them directly. 

4. Research: Both places are doing amazing research! MIT has a lot of legendary PIs (Tyler Jacks, David Sabatini, Philip Sharp, Bob Weinberg, etc.) but they may or may not be suitable thesis advisors for someone like me who is an early career scientist and initially needs guidance. Stanford has more of a spectrum of senior, mid-career and young PIs so that might be a good thing for me?

5. Location: Boston/Cambridge is awesome! A lot of research/biotech/museums/music/arts etc. If I live outside the cities I can probably even get a one-bedroom at a reasonable price range. In comparison, Palo Alto seems pretty boring, and SUPER expensive to live in (impossible to live off-campus). 

6. Weather: Palo Alto for the win! Mild winters, a lot of sunny days, not humid in the summer like in Boston.

7. Prestige: Are they comparable? Some people seem to think that MIT trains a lot of big thinkers in the field. 

What else am I missing? 

Congrats on your acceptances!!  I can only tell you things that stand out to me as I would make my decision.

1.  I'm not all that interested in classroom teaching as much as I am into research and mentorship, and I think a TA would distract me too much.  Therefore I would prefer a program that doesn't have a TA requirement.  Stanford would win for me.

2.  Coursework is probably the least important factor for choosing a program since I don't see it as that important.  The only classes I care about is probably a grant writing course and maybe an ethics course.  I would probably go with the one that's either more flexible or doesn't have a lot of coursework I'm required to take.

3.  Stanford seems like the winner here.  The fact you've started making connections with some of them and building such a good rapport is a good sign!

4.  For this, my inclination is that you want to do your graduate work in a lab with a PI who can provide the right amount of guidance you need.  Some of the powerhouse labs with legendary PIs are very busy and maybe aren't conducive to the mentorship you need to succeed as a grad student.  From what it sounds like here, Stanford is the better pick for your graduate studies, and then moving into one of the legendary PI's labs for your post doc (if that's where you see your career going).

5/6.  Eh, Boston/Cambridge would appeal to me more because of how expensive Palo Alto is and I would like to live off campus.  This would almost be a deal breaker for me, but I prioritized cost of living, location, and stipend compensation over some other factors (and why I didn't even consider applying to anywhere out of the midwest).

7.  I think MIT and Stanford are pretty comparable for prestige.  You can't go wrong with either, really.

Other things to consider is if you fit in with the culture of one program vs another.  Did you get along better with the students at one or the other?  The faculty?  Are you more social or non-social, and would one program give you more opportunities for social events?  Also, does one have better student outcomes than others and can you see yourself having a successful career?  MIT and Stanford are both amazing programs/schools, so I can see students being successful at both.

Edited March 12, 2018 by StemCellFan