<p>I have a 3.26 cumulative gpa, with a 3.1 major gpa. I have one and a half years of research experience. One year for Neuroscience research and 1/2 a year in Chemistry research. I haven't taken the GRE General Exam yet, I'm studying for it now. Oh and I got a D in Biochemistry which was my only D ever. I was wondering if this will prevent me from getting into a Neuroscience PhD program? I'm planning to take the Biochemistry GRE Subject Exam and studying for the exam for 4-5 months.</p>
<p>what kind of neuroscience graduate program are you interested in?
Your record as stated does have rough spots and you will need good GREs and very good LORs from your research and undergrad profs. If you are a domestic applicant, you will be able to find a neuroscience grad program, but you may have to look for a program where you are a good fit.</p>
<p>Yes, I am a domestic applicant. Iâm going to apply to University of Cincinnati, Indiana University (Bloomington; Iâll apply to both the Neuroscience and Psychological and Brain Sciences programs), University of Maryland, UCLA, and Johns Hopkins University. I probably wonât get into the latter two, but I was told to apply to two reach schools anyway. By the way, I was severely ill around the second exam when I took that Biochemistry class which is why I got a D. I was wondering if saying that will help me any? Oh and like I said before I plan to take the Biochemistry GRE Subject Exam and I hope to do well to offset the bad grade in Biochemistry.</p>
<p>Oh and Iâm going to apply to Emory University and University of Minnesota too.</p>
<p>I think those last two might be beyond reach, unless you have had a fantastic research experience with amazing LORs. So unless the research or LOR part is stellar, I would suggest your reach schools be less prestigious than the two you chose.</p>
<p>Which two? UCLA and Johns Hopkins? Or Emory and University of Minnesota?</p>
<p>Sorry, I meant UCLA and Johns Hopkins.</p>
<p>What is the quality of your research experience? Did you work on independent projects? Any posters/publications/etc.? To make up for your GPA, you need this portion to really stand out for those two schools.</p>
<p>Well I didnât have any posters or publications. I honestly knew it would be a reach if I applied to UCLA and Johns Hopkins. But most people suggest applying to two reach schools anyway, you know? Itâs not like I expect to get into UCLA or Johns Hopkins. Oh and the D in Biochemistry really pulls my grades down, but like I said in the original post I was sick around the second exam. And please donât compare my gpa to other non-Science majors because hard Science, Engineering, and Mathematics are the hardest majors you can take. Sometimes I regret not going into Psychology, which I also love, because it would have given me a much higher gpa.</p>
<p>So, Mace, you would advise just focusing and saving money on other lesser ranked schools than applying to UCLA and Johns Hopkins? Oh and do you think I should say in my personal statement that I was severely ill around the second exam in Biochemistry? Which is one of the major reasons why I did so poorly.</p>
<p>I am in graduate school for neuroscience right now, so I was comparing your GPA with those around me and those I interviewed with. Your GPA is low for your two reach schools, but luckily graduate admissions focus on your research experience and LORs a lot, and it can help overcome a lower GPA to a certain extent. However, you might be better suited picking schools that are your level of âreachâ and not just an overall âreachâ, if that makes any sense. You might go a tier or so down from UCLA and Johns Hopkins which can give you a better shot at actually having a chance. </p>
<p>I give this advice because my reach schools were also at the same tier as yours, and looking back on it, I really had no chance. It was kind of a waste and I regret not choosing better âreachâ schools. Also, make sure you chose schools that actually have faculty you could work with. Johns Hopkins is great but if it does not have enough faculty doing what you want, there is no benefit for you. </p>
<p>In the end, only you know the strength of your own application. I personally regretted some of my choices, but my application could have been lacking what you have. Just know that those two schools will probably have an average GPA of 3.6 (or greater), 2+ years of research experience, etc. so that is why I stated you needed to stand out with some other aspect to get noticed. </p>
<p>As for your illness, did you have a strong upward trend after that D? They do look favorably on that. I cannot say what difference it will make discussing your illness if you did not show improvement afterwards.</p>
1 Like
<p>Well, that was my only D. And I took a similar class to Biochemistry my last semester in university and it was Cell Biology. I ended up getting a B. Oh and thanks for giving me a realistic look at my chances. I guess I should focus my energy and money to schools where at least I have a chance. Johns Hopkins wasnât THAT great of a choice for me with my research interests, but UCLA had a lot of professors in the field I want to go into. University of Cincinnati, Emory University, and University of Maryland have probably even more professors than UCLA that I want to work with. I was told I would be a âcompetitive applicantâ at Indiana University, University of Cincinnati, and University of Maryland. Of course I need to do well on the GRE which I am studying currently. </p>
<p>I was wondering if taking the Biochemistry GRE Subject Exam would be wise for me? I was planning to study it for like 4-5 months.</p>
<p>You may end up getting a masters first to prove to PhD profs that you are ready to commit and succeed before they commit time & funding to you.</p>
<p>I think you ought to take the GRE biochem test. If you pull a good score on it, you can allay the fears that admissions committees might have about your competence in biochemistry. If you donât score well, you shouldnât send the report as it would confirm their suspicions to the contrary.</p>
<p>Personally, I donât think that your grade point is that low, but why focus on it now; itâs the one part of your application that is set in stone. Has your year of research experience been in a directly related area to your intended graduate work? If so, I think you could significantly improve your odds by asking your current PI for a letter of introduction to a faculty member you would want to work with for grad school. Beginning a professional relationship with this person now would ease your concerns about admissions and that person may lead you to others in the same field, potentially even others in less competitive departments.</p>
<p>I was just wondering that when applying to a graduate school in the neurosciences, if it would be alright to include, in my application, that I have multiple sclerosis and discuss about the experiences I have had with this disorder as well as the machinery/neurological tests (EEG/MRI/Spinal Tap) that I have taken.</p>
<p>I am not an academic, I am a parent, but I have surfed this site and other educational sites in researching my kids options. In what I have read, I would not recommend that you reveal personal health history. It seems like TMI, however, my one of my DDs has a fellow student with a similar health issue and a strong physical disability and I wonder if their is a certain PC component where they might like to check that box?</p>
<p>The risk is that they donât accept you because they are subconsciously concerned about your health affecting your progress. The upside would be that they look twice at your app to be politically correct. It might get you looked at a second time. </p>
<p>It definitely seems to not be wise for students who have had all the normal ups & downs to explain their storyâŠâmy GPA is 3.3 not 3.8 because my family member died, because I was assaulted, because yadayadayada.â Sounds really harsh, but now that I have followed for years, especially the med school SDN site, it is nothing new, and becomes a series of distracting excuses. No one wants to hear excuses and whilst it is each writers real life and true story, after reading hundreds of stories, it begins to sound like an excuse. You would have to shape your story differently. Not to be confused with excuses and TMI, but how you have arrived at a passion for neuroscience.</p>
<p>Your case, ljalkasm, is different than the excuses, but you would really have to tie it in to where you are going with your degree, how MS has shaped your passion, etc.</p>
<p>I have my story similar to what ljalkasm and somemom have conversed
My story goes as: I somehow got mood and anxiety disorder. Further, while treating doctors were fooling around experimenting many drugs on me to add to difficulty, creating its own side-effects in form of cognitive dysfunctions. I am bent upon reversing it by hook or crook. I donât believe that doctors, clinics, hospitals, how highly reputed they be are capable of and equipped with knowledge and donât believe in clinical methods. I want to find out the biological reason that the doctors dont go by. For that I strongly feel researching that in sophisticated state-of-art laboratories and unlimited free access to variety of journals and books that are commonly available in universities. </p>
<p>I have all my degrees in mathematics. I myself realized that I should be doing research. My UG lecturer too commented about me âI dont know how he would doing in exams but I will say he will be doing well in research.â But I fared well in my UG. </p>
<p>Given this situation of combination of need and resources or research instinct, how to get into a university having excellent laboratories? Which universities in the US have sophisticated laboratories? What more should I be needing beyond knowledge in math? I believe knowledge in 4 fields are important - mathematics, computer science, psychology, neurobiology.</p>
<p>Why not start your own thread rather than revive a 3-year-old thread?</p>
<p>In any case - first of all, if you are interested in PhD work in the biomedical sciences, I wouldnât go in with the presumption that you âdoctors, clinics, [and] hospitalsâŠ[are not] capable of and equipped with knowledgeâ or not believing in clinical methods. Itâs hard to determine exactly what you mean from this sentence, but the practice of medicine is mostly based upon decades (centuries?) of scientific study. Moreover, physicians increasingly are attending to physiological reasons behind mental health and mood disorders, rather than social or psychological reasons.</p>
<p>Physicians often have to experiment with different antidepressants/anti-anxiety meds not because they donât know what they are doing, but because different ones have different side effects and effectiveness in different people. They are trying to find the right cocktail that helps you with minimal side effects if possible.</p>
<p>Anyway, to do this kind of research you need to get a PhD in the biomedical sciences (or an MD, but I would say a PhD for you). Mind you, you wonât be doing cutting-edge research next year - you have to get the PhD first, and you may be contributing to some during your doctoral study years but you wonât be directing your own lab or anything. Math is important for this field; whether you need to take classes in something else depends on what kind of PhD you want. I would say given your interest in biological science, you probably need to take some classes in biology - probably at the very least 5-7 courses. You also need to get at least 2-3 years of research experience in the field by working or volunteering as a lab technician or research assistant.</p>
<p>I dont know how to move the posts to separate thread? Could the admin do it?</p>
<p>//"âdoctors, clinics, [and] hospitalsâŠ[are not] capable of and equipped with knowledgeâ or not believing in clinical methods. Itâs hard to determine exactly what you mean from this sentence." Because, doctors themselves accept that we are working by trial and error approach. This is because they dont have the knowledge. In textbooks or anywhere else it is usual to see ignorance about mechanism of any single antidepressant or lithium, etc. They are just assumptions and presumptions. </p>
<p>// âpractice of medicine is mostly based upon decades (centuries?)â but they dont have current research knowledge. Research is several years ahead of practice. </p>
<p>//Doctors fail in choosing medicine because they donât translate research in area of psycho-pharmacogenomics to clinical practice.
I quote what is mentioned in article about neuroscience/ neurobiology in wiki that impressed me and offered me great hope: The rigorous way in which fundamental processes of the brain are being discovered by employing research fields â neuropsychopharmacology, molecular neurobiology, molecular imaging, psychiatric genetic, nutrigenomics, pharmacogenomics, etc., is creating a field on par with other âhard sciencesâ such as chemistry, biology, and physics, so that eventually it may be possible to repair mental illness with ultimate precision. </p>
<p>//Directing a lab means I should be assuming faculty positions - Associate Professor, etc. I am not interested in any. I dont find any reason to direct a lab. That could be met by working in like-minded lab(the lab or principal investigator working in the area I wish to).
MD? No way, same stereotypical work. I believe they mug-up more than being analytical. </p>
<p>// You have not answered to mu query: Which universities in the US have sophisticated laboratories?</p>
<p>// Cant I do this kind of research in PhD? </p>
<p>// Courses, ok. But when this â2-3 years of research experience in the fieldâ has to be done? Before PhD? [You mean UG then research experience, then eligible for PhD?]</p>
<p>Queries concerning Graduate Program: </p>
<p>1) Does PhD study involve an independent research or work for supervisorâs research? </p>
<p>2) How would the things learnt in some UG from distant field be useful in PhD; e.g., UG math in neuroscience PhD?</p>
<p>3) How would you define âresearch skillsâ? How can one assess oneâs research aptitude?</p>
<p>4) Is survey and review of literature done as part of the program. If so, when? Presumably, after that training part? </p>
<p>5) How is a research topic allocated or accepted? Does the committee or supervisor contemplate the validity of that topic? </p>
<p>6) While most universities outside the US, especially Europe, require a masters degree, what is the reason for requirement to be just an UG degree at your uni and the US at large? </p>
<p>7) I want some measure to gauge the level of UG education in the US. What is its duration? Which system is being followed: semester system? Is the curriculum syllabus fixed or according to taste of instructor?</p>
<p>8) How would biology courses offered at PhD or Grad level be different from that in UG?</p>
<p>By the way, juillet are you senior PhD researcher or postdoc or have uni position?</p>
<p>I may be a bit too much when asking about your academic position, but which field are you working/ researching in - biomedical/ neurobiology? </p>
<p>What are advantages of directing a lab? Could that not be met by working in like-minded lab(the lab or principal investigator working in the area I wish to)?</p>
<p>Iâd advise you to be very mindful of the current PhD system. Honestly, you may want to instead retake some classes and maybe a special masters program and apply for medical
(you might have a better shot with D.O.)/dental/pharmacy/podiatry school. Going to grad school in the biosciences often results in permanent postdocing for 40k a year until you give up and go into another field (often high school teaching). One of my friends told me a recent chemistry PhD with an elite postdoc from MIT was working at a mid-grade community college. Sad.</p>
<p>Actually if you want to do research, an MD/DO is often a better choice. The degree is broader and allows you to view the clinical impacts of the research rather than just tunnel vision views on one esoteric sub-field of biology. It allows you to work in clinical trials in pharmaceutical companiesâwhich are inherently much better paying, stable, and frequently more interesting than drug discovery.</p>
<p>A bioscience PhD essentially has no transferable skills outside of academic research. A lot of industry research is being done overseas. Also what many people donât realize is a neuroscience biologist isnât of much help in the research world. Most drug discovery involves organic/medicinal chemistry and chemical engineering. Itâs the physicians doing the clinical trials that do all the âbiologyâ in the research, and PhDs typically arenât qualified to do such roles.</p>
<p>If you take some extra math and do a Msc in biomedical engineering youâd probably improve your employment opportunities drastically. Building medical devices is a better skill.</p>