rodrigonap

I just got off the phone and got my score for the Biochem test (Nov 13 date). Not as good as as mazyar's, but I'm still pretty happy with them (730/98%). By the way, I never saw anyone as pessimistic as mazyar. And I just wanted to say that what he said couldn't be further from the truth (based on people I know who got admission to good schools, and a conversation I had with a professor who's in the admission's office for a top-notch microbiology program in the US). When I asked this professor what admission officers look for in foreign students, he said: "High GRE scores." He even said, "I don't think GRE scores measure the real potential in a candidate, but most officers value it a lot anyways." And then he said, "work experience is very important, too." But there's no such thing "it has to be in the US" or "you gotta have 10 published papers". Not to mention in Nature!! Ha, ha. I'm sorry mazyar, but that's a joke! If you're coming right from undergrad school, like most applicants do, all you'll probably have is some posters presented in scientific meetings. It would be unreal to expect much beyond that. The one thing this professor did admit they cannot give much credit to is academic records from foreign schools, since they don't have a standard of what is a good school in country X. And that's exactly why the GRE scores are important. They are a way of measuring how you stand on the applicant pool. You may have majored in Biology with a record full of A's. But if you get a 70% on the subject test, for instance, they'll figure your school takes easy on students and your grades are meaningless. In the other hand, you may have a lot of B's but score well on the GRE, and they'll realize those were hard-earned B's. Now, an account of someone I know: First, she did not have any journal publications, only a couple abstracts from scientific meetings. Second, she only scored well on the quantitative section of the GRE. And her subject test score was just "ok." All the work experience she had was in our home country. And still she got admitted, without an interview, to a top 3 program in the life sciences! Bottom line: like the schools say themselves, everything counts. Your application may have a minor flaw, as long as it has other strengths. But no such requirement as publishing on Nature. I'm sorry to say this, mazyar, but I think you're just trying to scare the competition away. I don't see why you would do that, but maybe you're feeling insecure about other parts of your application that you're not sharing with us.

I'm sure that, somewhere in the application instructions, it is specified whether you have to send a financial statement or not. If you're applying to a Master's program, chances are you will have to send one, since financial support is scarce. If you're applying to a PhD program, depending on your field, there may be full support for all admitted students - and so they don't require applicants to send it. This is specially true of science programs (lucky for me).

Oh my God, people! Don't get so caught up on the red tape! If you're applying online, just put your transcripts and LORs (if not sent electronically) in a big envelope with your first and last name clearly displayed outside (birthdate helps them, too, since we don't have a SSN). There are more important things to worry about, such as what to write in your SOP, and studying for the ETS tests (if you haven't taken them yet by now). It's not whether you stapled your documents or in which order you put them inside the envelope that's gonna get you in. It's the content of your application. They're looking for potential graduate students, not secretaries.

According to ETS, the approximate mailing date for scores is December 23rd. So I wouldn't expect anyone posting their scores here anytime soon. I'm very anxious to know my score, too. Especially my percentiles. From what I have seen, the scores from the subject test seem to be one of the top determining factors in the admission's process.

Verbal/Quantitative Kap 1: 520/760 Kap 2: 590/780 Kap 3: ---/790 PP1: 680/760 PP2: 690/800 Real test: 730/790

Please, commment on my essay. Thanks. Argument 114 "A recently completed study shows that people dwelling in stairs-only apartment buildings (that is, buildings without elevators) live an average of three years longer than do people who live in buildings with both elevators and stairs. A second study shows that elderly residents of buildings with elevators make, on average, twice as many visits to doctors each year as do elderly residents of buildings without elevators. These findings suggest that even a very moderate amount of daily exercise, such as that required to use the stairs leading to and from one's apartment, can increase people's health and longevity. The findings also suggest that new apartment buildings should be constructed with as few elevators as possible." The author speaks of a recent study which has shown that people residing in apartment buildings without elevators live on average three years longer than people where these facilities are available. He or she also brings about another study that has concluded that elderly residing in such stairs-only buildings live visit the doctor half as much as those who have access to elevators in their places of living. He or she then makes an inference based on these studies, and then moves on to suggesting that building be constructed with as few elevators as possible. Initially, the inference that "even a very moderate amount of daily exercise, such as that required to use the stairs leading to and from one's apartment, can increase people's health and longevity" is a very sound one. It is something that most people would normally conclude when analyzing these studies, and also something that would be strongly supported by "common sense." Yet, caution should be taken before promptly accepting what the author suggests, mainly for two reasons. First, he or she does not provide any information as of who conducted these studies. The author simply speaks of a recent study, without providing any information about who conducted the studies. The conclusions the author arrives at can only be made if the studies are valid, and the reader is incapable of assessing that without knowing if the studies were conducted by a respected and well-known research group. After all, even if the author's conclusions seem very logical, their basis would be jeopardized had the study come from questionable source. Second, the author does not say anything about how was the study performed (how many people were surveyed, what was the profile of the subjects and what was taken into account when the surveys were done). This leaves room for many indagations. For example, how tall were the buildings in the survey? It could be that the subjects of the survey all lived in small buildings where walking up the stairs was still good exercise, as opposed to tall buildings where the stairs would be so long that they would become hazardous exercise to those not physically fit. Or maybe the elders surveyed were all in good health, and so the exercise of walking up the stairs would be benefitial to them, whereas to elders who are ill this activity could become somewhat strenuous. As to whether should buildings be constructed with as few elevators as possible is a controversial matter. Healthy-living is a behavior that should arise in people through self-consciousness, rather than being imposed on them. Cutting down elevators on elevators will only make things more troublesome for those who really need to use them. Seemingly, using the stairs more often would make living more healthy for those living in apartment buildings without elevators, as the author says. However, in order to confirm the assumptions the author makes, more information is needed about the studies mentioned, thus making the argument not so solid as it may appear.