<p>I just want to hear back from a New York school. Columbia and Cornell, please want me :/</p>
<p>@biochem2012 </p>
<p>I agree. Also, I think its extremely difficult to measure the qualities that make a great researcher. It definitely has something to do with intelligence and creativity, but I highly doubt a GRE score can determine who is “smarter.” Even if it could, the differences between the scores are slight and probably only have any real world meaning when the differences are greater than a standard deviation (and I think the SD ~ 150 per section). </p>
<p>My point is, the admissions committees know this. This is why going with “who you know” may not be such a bad alternative. The GPA and GRE scores just makes their jobs slightly easier, and I think the greater the number of applicants to a program, the more they will rely on it.</p>
<p>MIT’s website says they will contact applicants when their apps are complete. Has anyone been contacted?</p>
<p>Personally, I think your research experience (papers) and who writes your rec letters matters more than anything. If you get one or two stunning rec letters from well known professors and also have great experience with multiple papers, you’re in anywhere.</p>
<p>I have not heard anything from MIT. (I submitted everything mid-Nov)</p>
<p>I think that besides rec letters, the most important part of your application is your essays. The essays allow you to show off how well you can communicate about science, which is in integral part of grad school. I believe (hope) that adcoms recognize that different applicants have different opportunities to perform high quality research. So while publications can boost an application, ability to discuss your research intelligently is also important. Even if that research was just trouble shooting something that is simple (like western blots), expressing what you did clearly and passionately can make up for the lack of publication.</p>
<p>I completely agree. It’s important to love what you do, and to be able to communicate exactly what it is about research, even with the challenges, the setbacks, the “I’ve done this 100 times so WHY isn’t it working on try 101,” inspires you. If we can’t be excited about science now, how are we going to be excited about it when we are struggling poor grad students?! :)</p>
<p>You guys seem to be a bit worried about grades and GRE’s. I work for one of the top virologist in the field and she has extensive understanding of admissions to top programs. In all likely hood anyone applying to top programs have at least a 3.3 or better GPA and decent GRE’s (minus me haha I suck at tests of silly nature). That being said, the ADCOM will not really pay much attention to these two factors because most of the time everyone will be close to equal, so they are really irrelevant–unless your GPA is sub 3.0. Most if not all grad schools care about one thing–Research Experience. If you have a decent amount of research experience and good grades no program should be out of reach–unless you’re a total whack job.<br>
Also remember we are about to get ourselves into a field where the pay is minimal and funding is drying up! Be happy to get an interview, but remember 10 years down the road our salaries will be cracking 60k—if we’re lucky! A Ph.D in science means that you really like science, and quality of life isn’t extremely important. B/C your buddies that majored in business or went to law/med school will have substantially less financial stress and much more job security. So don’t be too worried I’m certain that everyone on this forum will at least get an interview and from that point on it’s your game to lose!</p>
<p>@AliG89</p>
<p>Your GRE scores are not something to rave about but I wouldn’t say it’s a drawback. You will pass the initial screening with those scores. Wouldn’t worry about it. Assuming your LORs and SOP are good, I’d be very surprised if you didn’t at least get an interview.</p>
<p>FYI, I know someone who got into Duke last year with a 3.2 GPA and a 1200 GRE if that makes you feel any better. Obviously each program is different but Duke is nothing to scoff at and her low GRE scores didn’t keep her out. 
(And your GRE scores aren’t even that low)</p>
<p>i don’t know where everyone is getting their information but, why would the most subjective part of the application be the most important?? essays/personal statements should be and are the least important part of the application process.</p>
<p>“The personal statement part of the application can be useful to admission committees to get a feel for who you are and why you want to go to graduate school, so it should clearly written, concise, and specific to the school to which you are applying. However, most graduate admission committee members would agree that the personal statement is the least important part of the application – a fact that is always disappointing to students who spend so much time crafting their statements! Most undergraduates have not been an author on a research paper, but if you have, that’s a plus. Lastly, all universities are committed to increasing diversity in biosciences graduate training, so if you feel that you would contribute to the diversity of the group of admitted students, be sure to indicate that on your application.”</p>
<p>more info here…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/group/biobridge/pre_phd.shtml[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/group/biobridge/pre_phd.shtml</a></p>
<p>I don’t think most applicants consider their essays to be the most important parts of an application. We spend so much time on them because we’re probably freaked out about saying something wrong and doing more harm than good. :)</p>
<p>I feel like the people posting that GPA/GRE do not matter are in denial. GPA and GRE matter a whole lot, particulary GPA. I would say that a low GPA could be overlooked only if the applicant has research that is truly groundbreaking and clearly demonstrates a talent in research. Few people in undergrad actually have done this type of work. </p>
<p>A strong SOP does not grant you admission. I was told this by an admission committe member.</p>
<p>GPA/GRE scores are important. Sure, there are many examples of 4.0/90%+ students being rejected from programs. But this doesn’t not mean numbers did not matter. GPA/GRE are only a part of the application as well as many aspects other factors such as research experience, letters, personal statement, research interest, attended school, nationality, race. But numbers do matter. Like many of you have alluded to, GPA/GRE serves as a cut off at the very least. Another common use for numbers is looking at your grades in relevant courses.</p>
<p>For the most part GPA/GRE is a great way to judge the quality of the student. Generally speaking, the quality of student between a 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9 student is mammoth. And the GRE is “useful” in that it is a common standard. </p>
<p>For admissions, I feel that it comes down to being “impressive”. I have a 3.5-6. I feel my GPA is one of my weaknesses, I don’t think it hurts my chances, but I’d like to think of it as not being very impressive.</p>
<p>@biochem2012, if you say that landing a research position and publication is more or less based on luck (i also believe this) then why would letters/research be more important than GPA/GRE, something that involves less luck??</p>
<p>[Stanford</a> - HHMI Pregrad program](<a href=“http://pregrad.stanford.edu/phdfaq.html]Stanford”>http://pregrad.stanford.edu/phdfaq.html)</p>
<p>i think the GPA/GRE thing is good to separate the undergrads from each other, but when it comes to people like me who have been out of college for a while and have a lot of research experience, it becomes less of a factor. the only real common denominator among all applicants is the research experience, publications, and letters.</p>
<p>and btw, GPA is a pretty bad metric to assess quality of applicants to PhD programs.</p>
<p>^“bad”… please elaborate.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the program. For instance, I personally know the head of the Sackler Institute at NYU and he told me that they erase the GRE scores before anyone on the admissions committee sees it. The only reason they require it is because the graduate division at NYU requires every grad student to have GRE scores.</p>
<p>On a much happier note–I just got a UCSD Chemistry/Biochemistry invite!</p>
<p>Does anyone know what the % of people who are offered interviews is? I’ve got an interview at UNC-CH BBSP and Indiana which I’m extremely excited about, but I’d like to know where that puts me in terms of acceptance… hopefully this question makes sense!!</p>
<p>i just don’t think GPA accurately reflects the success someone will have in science, which really has nothing to do with being book smart.</p>
<p>I’ll elaborate on what I meant. Do GPA and GRE matter? Yes! Nobody wants a candidate with a 2.0 GPA who scores in the 20% on the GRE. But beyond a GPA of 3.5 and a certain GRE score to prove you’re not dumb, even the best school don’t care what your scores are.</p>
<p>My point is, let’s say I work in a lab with a Nobel prize winner as an undergraduate, and he/she writes very good LoRs, generally. That LoR is going to have BIG sway because of name recognition. It’s a drastic example, but I continually hear from faculty at my school that my chances are good because “so-and-so” wrote me a LoR.</p>
<p>Here is just my fifty cents:</p>
<p>Internal recommendation >= Strong LOR/GPA/GRE/PS/Research exp > Strong LOR/research exp + moderate GPA/GRE > Stong GPA/GRE + moderate/neutral LOR/research exp > Strong GPA/GRE no research exp > nothing</p>
<p>Everyone is welcome to revise this equation</p>