Apply for 2018, or wait for 2019?

[ktaylor11]

Hi all, 

I’m looking for some advice here. I’m looking to apply to molecular biology or immunology PhD programs. I graduate in March, a quarter early. However, I recognize my profile is not extremely strong and I’m a little lost as to whether I should apply this cycle (I really want to, but I feel like I may be wasting my time) or, I’d rather not take a year between schooling, but am considering applying for 2019. However, the criticism I receive most is that I’m too hard on myself, so I’m not sure if that’s the case in terms of my profile.

My stats are as follows:

GPA: 3.02 right now. Will have it to a 3.2 by graduation. Upward trend however and can explain in SOP

SOP will be well written. It will explain my GPA although will not be entirely focused on that. I love writing so this is going to be  lot of fun for me to do  

GRE: 160V, 155Q, 4.5 AW

Research: 2 6-month pharma lab research positions. I worked with influenza both times, and was in charge of leading my own projects, choosing what experiments to conduct to back up hypotheses etc. One position was working with antibodies against the virus and attempting to develop a method to quantitate viral proteins. I did a large amount of protein work during this time period. The second was using a chemistry based technique to observe the viral splitting kinetics. 

1 6-month cell/molecular/biochemical independent study project. This is more method development but again I have full scientific authority. This is an academic lab experience. 

LORs: I believe I’ll have two strong letters, and am still deciding who my third letter will be. 

My top 3 schools are University of Washington, Seattle. Boston University. Pitt. And I know it’s a total reach, but Penn. 

 

So I’m lost. I know my profile will be stronger if I take a year between and get a research position during that time, but I’d really prefer to apply this cycle. Im determined to attend graduate school, however, so I’m prepared to do whatever it takes. That being said, am I wasting my time applying this cycle?

Thanks in advance. 

[Neuro15]

Your stats are on the low side and your research experience is adequate but not outstanding. With the schools you have listed I would advise you to wait a year and put another year of research experience (preferably in an academic lab) under your belt. I know the feeling of just wanting to apply, but remember it’s a marathon not a sprint. 

[hopefulgradstudent999]

On 10/7/2017 at 10:14 PM, Neuro15 said:

Your stats are on the low side and your research experience is adequate but not outstanding. With the schools you have listed I would advise you to wait a year and put another year of research experience (preferably in an academic lab) under your belt. I know the feeling of just wanting to apply, but remember it’s a marathon not a sprint. 

Just curious as to why you said preferably in an academic lab? I think industry is perfectly acceptable route to bolster an application before applying to graduate school, plus the added benefit of making a legitimate salary.

[StemCellFan]

I second the advice to take a year off and work in an academic research lab to get more experience.  Industry does offer opportunities for building technical skills and can offer research experience (if you look into R&D specifically), but I think academic research labs will set you up better for publications, abstracts, and conference presentations on academic research.  I'm not discounting the work done in an industry lab, but in my experience, work that led to any sort of presentations, publications, or CV bolstering experiences was left to my superiors who held a masters or PhD.  

Edited November 16, 2017 by StemCellFan

[hopefulgradstudent999]

1 hour ago, StemCellFan said:

I second the advice to take a year off and work in an academic research lab to get more experience.  Industry does offer opportunities for building technical skills and can offer research experience (if you look into R&D specifically), but I think academic research labs will set you up better for publications, abstracts, and conference presentations on academic research.  I'm not discounting the work done in an industry lab, but in my experience, work that led to any sort of presentations, publications, or CV bolstering experiences was left to my superiors who held a masters or PhD.  

While I agree that working in an academic lab will make the likelihood of getting published higher, I think publications and abstracts etc. are by no means necessary for admission to a competitive program so long as you have a solid application and good letters of rec. I also think working in industry allows a lot more opportunity to meet and talk to people from many different disciplines and forge meaningful working relationships that will broaden your technical horizons. Obviously all of this is company dependent but I am not convinced academia is any better or worse than an R&D position for bolstering one's application.

[Bio-warrior]

I'm sort of in the same boat as OP. I've been out of college for about a year and worked in industry research for the same amount of time. There are many things I've learned and gotten to do in industry that I don't see myself having access to in academia. Another thing to note is how stringent industry is with certain things like protocols and process development, things that you can (sort of but not really) get away with in academic research. Of course, the same can be said of industry; there's many things that are de-emphasized in industry such as, oftentimes, the "doing of science just for science" aspect. All in all, however, I find industry to provide unique challenges and experience that I would definitely have missed out on if I had gone another route. I plan to make it very clear to the ad-com what strengths I've picked up that will bolster my success as a candidate/student for their program. I am hoping that will help me stand out even though I've no publications/authorship to speak of. 

[Neuro15]

6 hours ago, hopefulgradstudent999 said:

Just curious as to why you said preferably in an academic lab? I think industry is perfectly acceptable route to bolster an application before applying to graduate school, plus the added benefit of making a legitimate salary.

You’ll be in an academic lab for ~5 years for your PhD, it’s always nice to demonstrate that you know the environment you’re getting yourself into. But more so, being a tech in academia lends itself to being able to steer a project of your own independently more so than in industry. This of course varies though. If you’re a tech in academia washing dishes and taking care of mice than certainly an industry gig might be better. This is just from what I’ve heard from an Adcom member where I’m at, but like everything in science; it depends. 

[hopefulgradstudent999]

6 minutes ago, Neuro15 said:

You’ll be in an academic lab for ~5 years for your PhD, it’s always nice to demonstrate that you know the environment you’re getting yourself into. But more so, being a tech in academia lends itself to being able to steer a project of your own independently more so than in industry. This of course varies though. If you’re a tech in academia washing dishes and taking care of mice than certainly an industry gig might be better. This is just from what I’ve heard from an Adcom member where I’m at, but like everything in science; it depends. 

Yeah I think we are all actually getting at a pretty lesser talked about lesser recognized problem concerning the inter-undergrad grad schools years, namely, academic tech position vs. an industry position. I think the spectrum that both of the respective work environments vary wildly from being a dishwasher in an academic lab (low end of spectrum) to running an independent project and getting it published (high end). In industry I think even entry level researchers are brought on and immediately expected to contribute to the team they are a part of and possess or learn the technical abilities to do so. Industry also, typically not always, has almost zero regard for money thus they tend to have the absolutely cutting edge instrumentation and equipment to support conducting cutting edge R&D. I basically do no subscribe to the idea that spending the inter-schooling years in an academic lab holds any significant advantage over an industry job and, anecdotally, I think there does not exist an academic tech job that could've prepared me for graduate school like my industry job.