<p>I recently graduated in Biochemistry with a 3.6 GPA.
My GRE was 720Q/470V/4.0W
I have 1 year of undergrad research experience but no publications or anything of that sort.
I come from a no-name school and had Bright Futures Scholarship that paid for the whole thing. As an undergrad I applied for a transfer to NYU and got in, but I didn't attend due to money issues.
I am planning on applying to Biochemistry and Molecular Biology PhD programs.
I know my verbal is terrible and my only excuse is that English is not my first language. I moved to the US 8 years ago. But I know that many people from other countries do well on it, so that's not a good excuse. I actually studied a lot, but the vocab on that test is ridiculous.
I was kinda hoping the whole women in science, South American minority thing would be beneficial in my application, is it at all?
Also, none of my schools require the subject GRE, although some say it is recommended. Should I take it and risk getting a low score?
Do I have any chance on getting into Columbia, Harvard, Weill Cornell, Berkeley, UCSF, NYU, USC, UCLA? I am also applying to my undergrad school as a backup, but I really don't wanna go there.
I would like to hear what other people have to say, I am very anxious.</p>
<p>If you have the time to spare, then study for the subject GRE and see how it goes (ie, only send the score if it’s really good). Alternatively, you could devote that time to research (which seems like the better option, in my opinion) and not bother with another stupid test.</p>
<p>Regarding your chances, I think a lot of those schools will be reaches (especially Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley, and UCSF). That’s not to say you shouldn’t apply; all you’ve got to lose is the application fee (and the potential gains are obviously worth it). But you definitely shouldn’t count on getting in to any of those; your stats don’t seem competitive for those schools (and Weill, UCLA, and NYU aren’t exactly easy to get into, either). You should probably find some other, less competitive schools to apply to (provided there’s research there of interest).</p>
<p>I don’t really know how your status will affect your application. If it helps in some way (I’m inclined to think it won’t, but don’t really know much about this sort of thing), then what I said above could be a bit off.</p>
<p>Thanks for your opinion, I really appreciate it! I’m gonna get some of the reaches out of my list (still gonna apply to a couple just for fun) and find some other not so competitive schools to increase my chances of getting in somewhere. I really don’t want to wait a year to try again. </p>
<p><em>Fingers crossed</em></p>
<p>I’m going to disagree with Sarbruis – just a little. Your “stats” are within the range of serious consideration, with the possible exception of your AW score; however, the success of your application will depend on your level of involvement in your undergrad research and your LORs, aspects which aren’t entirely clear in your post.</p>
<p>If you think you’ve stood out in your department, then you do have a chance at those schools. If, however, you’re in the middle of the pack in biochemistry, without any close working relationships with professors, you should definitely concentrate on less competitive programs. </p>
<p>And your Latina heritage may help. I believe there are some science fellowships specifically for minorities that you may want to apply for.</p>
<p>As for the subject test, Sarbruis’s advice was excellent: if you have the time to study for it, then take it. You can always choose not to report your score. There is a time constraint: some schools recommend that all GRE scores be taken by the end of October to ensure their receipt by the deadline.</p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew: I really don’t see how a 3.6 from FAU, one year of research, and below average GRE scores are going to get anyone into Harvard, UCB, UCSF, or Columbia. Would you mind elaborating why you think any of that is in the “range for serious consideration”? Those stats are most definitely below average. Obviously that doesn’t mean it’s impossible, just highly improbable.</p>
<p>She is right about the LORs, though; those will play a big role. But, just guessing, one LOR from your PI from the year of research and two classroom professors aren’t going to make up for the rest.</p>
<p>I didn’t say that he/she could get in. I said that the scores wouldn’t necessarily rule out the possibility, allowing the app to move on to the department. And yes, I probably should have omitted the word “serious,” although science programs tend to focus on the quantitative, and they like it over 700, which the OP has. </p>
<p>I do think students should aim high, with more realistic options backing them up, because one never knows how things will turn out. More than one student last year was accepted to top programs with a 3.3 or even lower GPA. Of course, those students also had something else sparkling in their application package – extra research or a master’s degree. Or publications. </p>
<p>FWIW, I based my comments on what a Princeton MolBio prof on the adcom said, that she didn’t care about GRE scores or GPA. She didn’t spend more than a couple of minutes reading the SOP. All she cared about was research and LORs. I honestly don’t know how central the OP was to his/her research, nor do I know where he/she stands in the department. But if the profs are impressed with him, then it will help his app. They will be able to give his GPA some context. </p>
<p>PhD adcoms generally expect different levels of research depending on the undergraduate institution. For example, a powerhouse research program would understand that an LAC or a smaller institution wouldn’t offer the same opportunities that a Harvard or MIT undergrad could get. They are looking for potential researchers, not already established ones, although obviously publications are impressive. But if a prof has been impressed with the OP’s scientific analysis or his contribution to the formation of the study, then it counts for a lot in admissions. If, on the other hand, the student has merely been putting in time, without any initiative or active participation, or if his performance puts him in the average category for the major, then he doesn’t have a chance at those institutions.</p>
<p>As for FAU, did the OP state that as an undergrad institution?</p>
<p>I should add that the Princeton prof doesn’t care about GPA as long as it’s over 3.0. To add a dose of realism, it should be noted that those who have high GPAs generally also have impressive records outside of the classroom.</p>