<p>Getting ready to apply for grad schools, having a tough choice deciding on the 10 to apply to, mostly out of fear that I will only apply to prestigious schools and be turned down. I feel pretty competitive but I'd like some confirmation that I'm not shooting too high here.</p>
<p>White Female 21
Finishing two B.S.s, Chemistry w/ a concentration in Biochemistry and Biology w/ a concentration in Biotechnology.
GREs (V86% Q74% AW80%)
2 years of research in an organic synthesis lab, with no publications yet but several poster presentations
Several scholarships and other awards but no big name ones
GPA 3.86</p>
<p>Looking to apply to the Biomedical Engineering/Bioengineering Programs at:
UCSD
UC Berkley
UCLA
Scripps
Brown
Cornell
U Delaware
MIT
U Penn
GA Tech</p>
<p>Though I'm thinking of taking one or two of these off and replacing one with Hopkins and one with maybe an easier to get in school VT maybe.</p>
<p>The only ones I'm sure I like the research of is MIT, U Delaware, and Scripps, the others I haven't had a chance to look at specific people but the programs are great.</p>
<p>So is this list too ambitious, my Q scores a bit low for engineering but I made sure to select programs that are a bit more bio/chem focused because what I really want to do is apply my Bio and Chem knowledge to make things. (tissue engineering, stem cell research, genetic engineering etc.)</p>
<p>I am afraid that at most of the programs you list, you will be competing with BME majors with significantly higher quantitative GRE scores (Delaware might be the exception). While it is well-known that GREs are not a good measure of ability to be a good Ph.D. candidate, they are used to make a first cut on graduate applicants in highly selective programs. If you are applying to 10 programs, make sure that you apply to at least 3 which you think would be happy to attend but that are not so selective as the majority of your list. Remember that you need not only to be admitted but to be offered an assistantship to fund your Ph.D. studies.</p>
<p>I have had a number of cases where my highly qualified undergraduate advisees made the mistake of applying only to highly selective “name” programs in physics only to be rejected by all of them for no apparent reason. There are just so many applications in these programs and it is almost random whether you are admitted. In their case, I was able to get them into a very respectable Ph.D. program at a university that is not quite so selective with a phone call directly to the graduate program director. It is better if you make a judicious choice at the time of application so that you don’t have to scramble.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, my Q score isn’t horrible for most of these programs, it’s just on the low end of the accepted range and in many cases my V and AW scores were at the high end. In addition, not as many people are applying for these programs as say traditional chemistry or physics PhDs.</p>
<p>This field is such an applied science and a relatively new one at that, that schools that have this program tend to be high tier schools, other than U Delaware and perhaps Clemson, I didn’t find any suitable programs from schools that might be easier to get in. I would hate to apply to all these and not get in or to have no choice because I was only accepted to one. </p>
<p>Do you have any suggestions to other programs that would be good? I’m also thinking of applying to Dartmouth for their BME&Biotech PhD but that’s not exactly easier to get in to. Ohio State and Vanderbuilt looked good initially but their programs seem a bit too Eng focused rather than Biomed.</p>
<p>Well, just looking at the students admitted for Fall 2014 at my university’s (Illinois Tech) BME Ph.D. program, I see that the average GRE Q score is about 87% and for domestic students the V score is in the mid-80%s as well. Your GPA is very good though.</p>
<p>Your list of 10 schools is making me paranoid. I have 3, maybe 4, schools I’m looking at actually applying to for a BME PhD, because I’m picky about the research I want to do. No overlap in our lists, though - I’m looking at Northwestern, Northeastern, and USC (and possibly CMU) at this point.</p>
<p>It’s fine to be picky, IMO, as long as you accept the real possibility that you won’t get accepted into any of them. I say that in a positive way. For some students, it’s better not to go to graduate school at all than go to a program that is not a near-perfect fit. I was in that camp.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s where you should start cutting the list down, then. PhD applications are all about research and who you work with - it does you no good to apply to Georgia Tech if there’s no one there doing interesting research, good as the program may be.</p>
<p>For graduate admissions, I think there’s nothing wrong with a super top-heavy list. It’s not like undergrad, where you kind of have to go to one - with graduate school, you can work in the interim and improve your application to be more competitive, and it’s usually better to wait a year or two so you can get into a better program than to accept a lesser program simply because you don’t have to wait. So even if your Q scores are a bit lowish, I still think it’s okay to have a top-heavy list - as long as the research is there. (When I was applying, I applied only to top 15 schools in my field.)</p>
<p>If i was so inclined, I would post bac or get a master’s first if I was set on going to the best of the best. As it is, I want to get grad school over and done with and go on to industry, securing a decent job by 28 or 30. I don’t want to take a gap year, or anything else that would delay the process. I don’t mind going to a lower tier program as long as the research is good, that’s all that matters. I’m sure at least one of these will let me in, I would just rather have a choice than be left with the one that let me in. I want to apply to at least one more school that’s a better bet like U Delaware, who has a really good program and good research. Not getting in is not an option.</p>
<p>What really worries me is a guy who just graduated last year from my group, had done research since freshman year, had publications, Goldwater recipient, great GPA, three stellar recommendation letters, applied to all the best organic synthesis programs, only admitted to a single one. He was literally perfect in every way with one exception, he bombed the GRE. I didn’t bomb it, I did pretty well, my only problem is being compelled to go back and check my work in math and running out of time but it worries me that they think so highly of that when supposedly it’s not that important.</p>
<p>@nanotechnology I’m really interested in STEM cell research and tissue engineering. These schools seemed particularly good in that area, I am removing Scripps because they’re a great school but they didn’t seem to have enough of this kind of research, but I’m adding Dartmouth in its place, so that didn’t help me eliminate difficult schools at all. Some of these comments really have me worried, I thought I was a pretty decent contender but the way some people make it sound, I’m in trouble. How do you feel about your chances?</p>
<p>@ItsJustSchool - I just found out yesterday afternoon that I got the Marshall, so I wasn’t factoring that into my plans yet. I’m going to do a masters in bioengineering at Imperial College London, then come back to the US for a PhD. So now I have to decide if I should continue with my US applications and defer or wait a year to apply for PhD programs.</p>
<p>@FuturePhDinBME - Grad school chances are so hard to predict. There aren’t such clear cut factors like there are for undergrad, and fit is a big factor. And for the quantitatively comparable data that there is (GPA and GRE), different programs look at it differently. I agree with what other people have said, though, that it’s not worth applying to somewhere you don’t actually want to do a PhD. I’m feeling better about my chances after getting a fellowship; maybe that will make up for my low GRE AWA score! Overall, though, I have solid research experience (4 years) and GRE, 3.98 GPA, and some great letters of recommendation. Worst case scenario, I probably end up staying at Northeastern for my PhD.</p>
<p>Continue with the applications and defer. Humans/Americans ALWAYS buy on the rumor/sell on the news. Applying from Imperial College, you will have to include what little experience you will have had there at that point (the news), and you will likely be using the same recommenders anyway. Applying from here, you can ride the crest of the Marshall wave (the rumor) and simply ask for an understandable deferral. Plus the process will be done. Completed. No apps to write/worry about while trying to wring the most out of your UK experience.</p>
<p>@futurephdinbme, I would dialog with specific groups/professors. Dialog? Yes, share your hopes, dreams, and poster papers. Be curious and inquisitive about their research. Ask specific questions about motivation for or extension to specific recent publications. Imagine yourself in their group. You may have bandwidth to only cover 1-3 professor/groups, so take some time over this break to identify 6-8 judiciously with maximum overlap.</p>
<p>Ask your current mentor about fit- not just research, but personality, ability to effectively delegate & supervise, and research style. Ask around your home institution. See if you can get an email introduction. During the first months of the year, develop a relationship with the 1-3 Principal Investigators you have identified.</p>
<p>A shotgun, arms-length approach to this process is neither necessary nor wise. Developing a relationship can give you a head-start on your research, and may provide a pull from inside your target institution. And, you will have used the process not only for them to vet you and put in a good word on you application for admissions, but also for you to vet them and narrow your decision in a very personal way.</p>
<p>Grad school success is about INDIVIDUAL fit, not institutional/student fit. Admissions are made through the Academic department, not through the Admissions Department. If having you in their lab is a logical conclusion of an ongoing dialog or collaboration, you really have the best possible situation. If they are looking at documents and letters, they may come to an equitable conclusion, but wouldn’t it be better if the process was more three-dimensional and information-rich, and more of a natural consequence? For many satisfied graduate students, it is (for most, it is not- I grant you that).</p>