<p>I would suggest that this is a self selecting process and many people who would apply (like for medical school admissions) don’t bother due to the less structured nature of graduate school and the lack of financial incentive. I don’t think that higher acceptance rates translates into a less competitive process.</p>
<p>This is more than just grades, though. This is a relative new-comer to biology, aiming toward competitive programs. I think it’s reasonable to suggest considering the extra time (MS/staff position) both for the improvement in numbers AND the extra experience.</p>
<p>Though I graduated undergrad as a reasonably competitive applicant, the extra two years I spent doing full-time research were invaluable for the opportunity to refine my interests and goals and really build confidence in myself as a scientist. By having varied experiences in types of research, labs and mentors, I was far better able to know what I’m really looking for, or not looking for, in grad school. That extra maturity came through in my application, my interviews, and my ability to know which schools/labs would be the right fit for me.</p>
<p>For me, two extra years were more than worth the extra time tacked on to my education. Without it, I simply would not have known enough to make the best choices for my doctoral aspirations. Some time “off” spent really working to solidify my interests is more than made up for by entering grad school with certainty in my aspirations.</p>
<p>If you get to be a senior, you’ve done well, and found something you feel passionate about (and have experience to back it up), then go for it! That passion will shine through in your application and interviews. Grades will help you get your foot in the door, but it’ll be maturity and confidence that will make it or break it in many respects. Don’t be afraid to go for it straight out of undergrad, but also don’t hesitate to take some more time if you aren’t sure.</p>
<p>It isn’t about just <em>getting in</em> to graduate school, it’s about making the most of these opportunities and really giving yourself every open door possible.</p>
<p>Best of luck!</p>
<p>Excellent post Evo, imo.</p>
<p>EvoViro, did you receive a salary or stipend during the time you spent doing research after your undergrad? If you don’t mind, roughly how much was it? I think doing some extra research before grad school would be great but finding a job in this economic environment is pretty much impossible and it would be either an internship or a non-funded Masters degree, which means I would need to take out a loan, and I’m really trying to avoid that as much as possible.</p>
<p>Like EvoViro, I have also been working as a lab tech since college (4 years). I would recommend taking a couple of years (maybe not four, but certainly two years) to work as a lab tech. There are a bunch of benefits to doing this including salary, health insurance, free classes, opportunity to build relationships with new mentors, maturity, experience in the field you intend to work in for 40 some years, publications, conferences and many other benefits. I don’t know why you feel that finding a job in science in this economy is impossible- university hiring freezes don’t apply to lab jobs because they are paid out of the PI’s grants. I know my university is hiring more RAs now than before the economy collapsed. You asked about salary as a RA- I started at 32K and made it up to 41K but the really great thing about academic lab jobs is the retirement account (which I intend to cash in for grad school) because my particular university and probably others give you 10% of your salary into an investment account simply as a perk. You can imagine how that might build up over a few years. Moral of the story- if you aren’t going straight into a Phd, get a job as a lab tech and don’t do a masters.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the advice guys. I now know what I need to start considering and planning. I think that I would enjoy working in a lab after graduation so I can focus my currently wide spread interests. </p>
<p>I’ve noticed that a lot of schools don’t offer a masters in the life sciences. I don’t think a masters will be worth it. If I did decide to do a masters, it seems to make more sense to do so at my home institution where I know the faculty and could possibly get funding. Does this seem like an accurate statement?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. Our admin staff isn’t qualified to make those sort of determinations.</p>
<p>Too Bad! Effective staff personnel who understand the graduate program are invaluable!</p>
<p>Choosing to work in a lab before entering graduate school is a prudent choice to discover if research is the career path desired. Too many individuals enter graduate school merely to delay making choices about post-education career paths.</p>
<p>My personal experience:</p>
<p>My junior year, I took a class (evolution of infectious diseases) that flipped the switch in my head. Previous research experience had been in unrelated biological fields, so I was in no condition to try and identify what it really was I wanted to do with myself. When I graduated, I got in touch with the professor, hoping for some advice on who might be interested in hiring, and luck had it that he had the perfect position in his own lab. I spent a year as a full-time staff scientist (~$32k). When I realized I wanted an extra year off (for personal reasons), I decided to drop down to half-time staff to keep some income and benefits and cram in an MS (not normally offered by the department, but an exception was made in my case). There were still classes I wanted to take, so it made sense for me. I also TA’ed intro biology labs for some extra cash and to have the experience. </p>
<p>Another note: for anyone who is looking at taking some time off, I highly recommend discussing how much freedom will be involved with the job. If you will be simply a trained bench monkey, it will not be so rewarding. I was fortunate to have free range on a large project, and encouraged to be innovative and pose my own questions. Overwhelming? Yes. Rewarding? Most definitely.</p>
<p>Re: being a lab tech, the techs in my lab make more than the graduate students do (a fact the graduate students like to whip out when the techs whine about how wretched their lives are). ;)</p>
<p>I think working as a tech after undergrad is a better choice than a master’s program for most people, particularly because you often can take postbac classes, as belevitt mentions. It’s like a master’s, but you get paid for it!</p>
<p>I wouldn’t generalize it to saying a tech position is like a Master’s you get paid for. It can be, but a great many tech jobs are simply that: technical details. If you aren’t expected to really take on the roles of researcher and investigator, it’s a nice paycheck but you’re not necessarily better prepared to do independent research or pose your own questions. </p>
<p>Maybe the reason some techs don’t like their jobs is because they don’t have intellectual freedom of the graduate students. They do what they’re asked to do and that’s what they do, whether they’re particularly interested in it or not. There’s less sense of responsibility and investment. </p>
<p>I’ve been on both sides, while in the same lab with the same umbrella project. As a Master’s student, no lie that I really miss the paycheck, but I have gotten so much more out of the experience intellectually.</p>
<p>Yes, absolutely with the caveat that some labs are better than others for technicians, and the intellectual freedom situation should be carefully investigated by a potential technician.</p>
<p>I wasn’t being totally serious when I said that a tech job is like a master’s you get paid for. 
But I do think tech positions are often, but not always, a better choice than a master’s, particularly if the master’s is unfunded.</p>