<p>I plan to go onto biomedical engineering grad school for a PhD eventually. I know that GPA, GRE, research, and recommendations are key. Assuming that all else is equal does it make a difference to admission officers of grad schools if (separate scenarios):</p>
<p>a) You get a BA (rather than BS) in science (assuming school offers no BS choice).
b) You major in Biology or Biochemistry as opposed to Biomedical Engineering (assuming you hope to concentrate only on biology/physiology part of BME not the mechanical aspect).
c) You go to a school that has a weaker engineering/science. (though both schools overall prestige/strength are the same).
d) The research you are involved in is not as cutting-edge as perhaps the top school but you are equally involved (I mean...as a student you are only coattailing the work of professors). Are grad schools looking for "dedication" to research or actual results/quality of research.</p>
<p>a) As long as you take enough relevant upper level courses and do well in them, it shouldn’t matter all that much. </p>
<p>b) As long as you can demonstrate that you know the material it shouldn’t matter. Of course you should demonstrate that you have some quantitative ability (i.e. some competence in upper level math or programming). But those majors should be ok provided you take relevant courses and do well. </p>
<p>c) Do the very best you can at your school, get glowing letters or Rec, and it won’t matter that much. </p>
<p>d) For the top programs, reach results/quality (i.e. publications) is the most important thing. If you have those, that is looked upon much more favorably than if you just followed your professor or grad student around in lab. </p>
<p>Hope this helps. Good luck!</p>
<p>Thanks for the response!</p>
<p>Also, I should reword scenario D…I don’t think I was that clear:</p>
<p>Suppose that one school is a major research university that is on top of its field. Research is really cutting edge. However, since research is done at graduate and professional level, research wouldn’t be as “interactive”. At the end of 4 years, you will have been involved in really cutting-edge research (and maybe even have been published, etc), but you might not have been as hands-on and with the degree of intimacy as Scenario 2.</p>
<p>Suppose another school is an LAC style school that is also research and promotes close interaction and working with professors. The research is still expected to publish but might not be super cutting edge. At the end of 4 years, you have been constantly involved with research and published. </p>
<p>Do graduate schools favor/give and advantage to a student involved in more “cutting-edge” research as a result of his school’s department’s strength? Or someone who was more interactive/showed dedication? Both would have published (perhaps scenario 2 publishes more since he is more involved? Basically a case of quantity/dedication vs quality?</p>
<p>Also if anyone else could add their 2 cents, that would be really appreciated!</p>