<p>Here is the list of schools I want to apply to this Fall, dedicated Neuroscience/Neurobiology programs are the majority (except Stanford at which you apply to the umbrella biosciences program, then pick your dept. 2nd year).</p>
<p>I'm wondering if I'm setting myself up for failure with a 3.43 gpa, 1.5 year lab experience with a 3 month NIH research internship, and no time for the Subject GRE. Any thoughts? If I do stand a chance, what GRE general score should I be aiming for? Brutal honesty is best, if I need to take a year off to do more research, bring grades up, and take a Subject test, just let me know. Thanks!</p>
<p>I would add more schools to be safe. Ave GRE scores for Duke neurobio are 1400+, so neuro programs can be very competive. You dont need a subject test. My best advice is to score high on the GRE and apply broadly (geographic and level).</p>
<p>Dont apply to OHSU! If you search my posts you should see why, but basically they are having funding issues and there is way too much politics. </p>
<p>I would add some schools in the midwest and the east coast. From the data I gathered, most people get into 1/5 of the top 10-15 schools they apply too (even with perfect apps).</p>
<p>If you apply to more schools and more broadly, you will probably be fine (assuming a good GRE score).</p>
<p>There is no subject test for neuroscience - were you going to take the biology subject test?</p>
<p>I think that you should aim for a 1200+ at the least, as PhD programs tend to favor that. Of course, a 1300-1400 would be more competitive (I know in my field, psychology, a 1200 is like our minimum.</p>
<p>Try to score a 1300+ on the GRE general test, garner really strong recommendation letters, and write a strong personal statement that plays up your research experience. You can’t change your undergraduate GPA or how much experience you have to date, but you can make your package as strong as possible.</p>
<p>Also, a word about ‘safety schools’ - we don’t do ‘safety schools’ at the PhD level. PhD admissions is about fit with the department’s research, students, and professors, and when you want a career in academia, where you went to grad school is very important. So no, don’t add any ‘safety schools.’ You may want to add slightly less competitive schools that you may have a better chance of admissions to AND that are great fits for you, but don’t add any school to your list that’s not well-reputed in your field.</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice everyone. I’ve decided not to apply broadly geographically, since I only want to live on the West Coast. I figure this is potentially a 6 year commitment, so I better like where I’m living and have my support network (girlfriend, friends, and family). There are a couple schools that are “easier” to get into I’ve considered (Oregon State Uni. with no Neuroscience, would be Molecular/Cell Bio or Biochem/Biophys, and Washington State Uni. for Neuroscience). However, I would rather wait a year to apply a 2nd time to these schools that I really want to go to.</p>
<p>So I should be aiming for 1300-1400 GRE…higher than I was expecting haha, I figured 1200 would be appreciable, but I guess these schools are all really hard to get into. I’ll try my luck without the Subject test this year, and try to get into the (one) lab on campus doing neuro research, keep building my background in case I don’t get in and need another year to prepare. Thanks again for the advice.</p>
<p>“you can remove Berkeley and Stanford, to save yourself some money and time”? Are you saying they’re too hard for katatonic to get into or that you don’t like these schools? Stanford is tough, yes, but I don’t think Cal is totally out of katatonic’s reach. Maybe add UCSD too if you want to stay on the west coast.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t necessarily count the OP out on Berkeley and Stanford, his GPA isn’t that far below average and he may have offsetting factors like having done something impressive during his 18 month tenure in his undergrad lab. I would however agree with mtlve’s assessment that OHSU is a bad place to go for graduate school. I suggest that you add a less competitive school to the list just to hedge your bets.</p>
<p>Mr.Zoo, I know my GPA is below average. It was 3.65 before the latest Spring term, which I did poorly in and dropped it to 3.43 (I hate how one bad term in 3 years can screw you like that). I’ve looked into UCLA and UCSD as well and I may end up applying to them once I research them more and find if there are any (5+) labs that I would want to work in. </p>
<p>Belevitt - I was only in one lab for 10 months, not working on a project, plus my current 3 month internship brings my total “lab-time” to only slightly over a year, most of which was not actually working on a research project. This probably wouldn’t be favored well by the most competitive programs on my list (i.e. Berkeley and Stanford). Is the funding the only issue with OHSU for you belevitt, or something more?</p>
<p>i’m nearly 100% convinced that getting into graduate school is about your LORs and who your research advisors know / your own contact base. get yourself out there and get good LORs from your advisors and you should be fine.</p>
<p>re MolSysBio, I’m more than 100% convinced that getting into a good graduate school is NOT ONLY about LORs and research experience, you will need a good GPA score first, that’s the bottom line.</p>
<p>Mr. Zoo, adding UCLA for neuroscience is NOT making the OP’s list any easier. It’s one of the top programs in the country – often listed as the number one program.</p>
<p>Katatonic, all you can do is try. You’ll have no way to judge the quality/effectiveness of your LORs. If you want to make sure you get into a program, add a couple of lower ranked programs. Remember: it’s all about meshing with the department.</p>
<p>to be honest, the whole gpa thing is most relevant to those who come from lower ranked schools or to those applying to lower ranked schools. </p>
<p>my advisors, all three of whom sit on admissions committes for two different programs at a top institution back up that statement. subfields of the biological sciences are often very small communities – the more you make yourself known in the community, the better your chances are of getting in.</p>
<p>students from my school are routinely accepted into top graduate programs with 2.9 - 3.2 gpa’s. if i remember correctly, molliebatmit said something similar for MIT students a while back.</p>
<p>if I remember correctly, someone on this forum said his program at MIT mainly admits 4.0ers</p>
<p>MolSysBio if you think 2.9-3.2 GPA are “routinely accepted into top graduate programs”, then it just shows how little you know about graduate programs and very ignorant.</p>
<p>seriously your cocky statements do not stand. you are “100% convinced” just because you heard about this from two of your advisors? I’m pretty sure you misinterpreted them, what they meant is that when they review applicant packages, GPA is not very important — that is because all of the applicants reached them (for committee review) have good GPAs, therefore they will focus mainly on LoR and other criteria such as research experience. Applicants with low GPAs will get filtered out in the early stage</p>
<p>What do you consider to be “good GPA?” I mean if an applicant has GPA close to 3.5ish, isn’t that competitive for solid schools (maybe not MIT or Harvard) considering the GREs and other aspects of the application are also good.</p>
<p>While those with GPAs under 3.0 are filtered out, often by the university so the department never sees those applications, a 3.43 is NOT a bad GPA. Although it’s not great, it is good. A lot also depends on the particular undergrad institution and the major. </p>
<p>The OP has done an NIH research internship plus other research, something that’s highly desirable. If the OP gets a glowing recommendation from a PI at NIH, that makes him/her a strong candidate for a number of places. If I remember correctly, I think a few people on the biomedical acceptances thread got into great programs despite GPAs in the 3.4-3.6 range. That’s a monster thread, though, and I’m not going back into it to check – it will take me days. Maybe if those people are still posting on this forum, they will chime in.</p>
<p>MolSysBio – It is not clear where Katatonic did his undergraduate work. If it is a top school then his GPA might be OK. If it is a lower ranked school then I think for the schools he has listed his GPA could be a deal breaker.</p>
<p>I’ve got to side with Mr. Zoo on this one. Low GPAs do get applicants filtered out, again depending on the school Katatonic is applying from. I think Mr. Zoo is just trying to be helpful by giving Katatonic an honest assessment of the situation.</p>
<p>Katatonic – I hear you when you say that you want to stay on the West Coast. But the MidWest really isn’t that bad, some parts are better than others. I enjoyed a year in Iowa City, I’ve heard good things about Madison. It also has the advantage of being less expensive to live in. I think you should open up your options more by including more schools that are easier to get into.</p>
<p>@zoo: how was my statement cocky? i am 100% convinced that a low gpa will not keep you out of graduate school because it is simply not the deciding factor in admissions. they specifically told me that if you come from a good institution and have a gpa above the minimum requirements, your application will be further reviewed. i went back through some old threads and i found that molliebatmit got into harvard with a 3.4 from mit. ymmit got into caltech with a 3.1 from mit. i have a friend who got into berkeley with a 3.1 from my school.</p>
<p>i understand its not correct to assume that the op went to a top school for undergrad. but i was merely trying to say that a low gpa will not necessarily keep you out of grad school.</p>