<p>I've recently graduated with a BS in Biochemistry from a small women's college. I have some research experience from completing an undergraduate thesis in bioinformatics, and will most likely get my research published this summer (if not first author, second author publication). I am currently participating in a short term training fellowship in biomedical informatics at another local top-research university (may result in another publication). I have even worked in a hospital for the past year in a clinical unit (med/surg ICU) as a nursing assistant (not sure if it helps with biochem, but can't hurt).</p>
<p>I took a very heavy and demanding course load each 4 years (17-21 credits each semester, nearly every chem course offered, plus most upper-level bio courses, many unnecessary science electives), worked multiple jobs concurrently for 3 years, and volunteered/participated in student orgs every year. I have taken the GRE's and did relatively average, but do plan on repeating them once I have time to better prepare my self.</p>
<p>Here's my problem: I absolutely love science and want to pursue a career in biomedical research but my GPA (just shy of a 3.0) is not something I would be all too proud of. I'm afraid I may have spread my self too thin during undergrad, resulting in my low GPA.</p>
<p>My goal is to get my PHD in genetics (Fall 09 or 10), so I'm looking for advice on the possible routes I could take to achieving that. I've applied to post-bac research programs and research tech positions (still waiting to hear back). Would it be more beneficial to go the "tech" or post-bac route for a year or two then apply to doctoral programs?? Or should I try a MS program first?? Or repeat undergraduate courses for a better GPA?? Or any combination of the three??</p>
<p>Thanks in advance for your help!</p>
<p>Technician jobs are usually pretty useful for PhD admissions in the biomedical sciences.</p>
<p>If I were you, I'd probably do a technician position combined with a post-bac class or two -- just enough to raise your GPA to a 3.0 even. I don't think you'll get any greater returns by doing more classes and raising your GPA further, but many programs have a 3.0 GPA cutoff, and it would be wise to do enough postbac work so you aren't up against that GPA wall. If you get a research technician job at a university, you may be able to take classes at the university for free or at a reduced rate.</p>
<p>I don't think a master's would necessarily be advantageous over a tech job, and the tech job has the advantage that it's paid. :)</p>
<p>As a professor in a biomedical sciences program and the chair of an admission committee, I would suggest that a post-bac program is not relevant for graduate education. It is more important for you to demonstrate interest and ability in research. Hence, I strongly recommend that you pursue a technician post. Take a class or two if you have an area that you wish to explore or that you know holds you back in your research abilities.</p>
<p>Thanks for the responses!</p>
<p>Two more questions... (I didn't see these asked in any recent threads)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>How common/likely is it that a research tech working for a particular PI lands a doctoral spot under that PI? Basically, would it benefit me to seek out research tech positions in labs where I would be interested in doing my doctoral work?? and do they (admission committees or PIs or whoever has the authority to grant acceptance) ever favor applicants that worked in their labs with them?</p></li>
<li><p>Does it benefit you to apply to research tech positions that are out of state or long distances? (I know this may seem irrelevant or odd to ask) The reason I ask is because it would be relatively easy for me to get a research tech position in the city I'm currently located in, however I've read that graduate school actually like see "diversity" in work experience, including locations. How true is this??</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Also, if anyone has gone this route to get into a doctoral program in the biomedical sciences, could you mention some helpful tips or the pros and cons of this method?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Depends on the school. Some places are fine with hiring techs and accepting them as students. Others will refuse. I've heard stories about people at UCSD and Rockefeller that were techs but rejected as phd applicants. </p></li>
<li><p>I don't know if this is necessary. I tech'd in the same state I did my undergrad but am now leaving this area to be geographically diverse. Among other things. :) I've never personally heard anything about graduate schools looking for that kind of diversity, just for faculty or postdoc positions.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I'm not sure what kind of tips you're looking for. If you really like research and have ability to do it, you'll be great. Try to get into a lab that is supportive of your endeavors. I can't imagine many places would try to hold you back. Work hard, take on responsibilities, and be genuine. I don't know any true cons to tech'ing, except that maybe you'll get in a lab that only wants you to be the technician and not do real work (not likely if you show competence).</p>
<p>Edit: I didn't make a big deal out of choosing what lab I wanted to be a technician for -- I just needed the position. As it turns out, my PI is not very well known, but her postdoc work was with a famous PI. I also ended up having a good relationship with another well known PI who wrote my other recommendation letter. From talking with other applicants, one of the small hurdles that people from non-prestigious schools faced was having letters written from totally unknown scientists. As such, the people reading those LORs didn't know how to weigh the value of the letters. So while there is nothing wrong with working with a new PI, it doesn't hurt to be in a position to know more influential people.</p>