gusto5

>>like,does an initial choice of a field bind u to it for the rest of your career. depends on the place, your supervisor and may be how motivated u are to transfer. >>what do u think of the relative prospect in industrial research of mol bio vs genetics vs biochemistry i have no idea of how the industry works!

Mate you need to get the facts straight here. They are pouring in a A LOT of money into you per year. -22- 24000 $ stipend -20- 25000 $ tuition fee -Health insurance, dental insurance -Travel and accomodation expenses to attend conferences -at least 10- 50,000 $ research expenses (depending on the work) On average, a decent program with 30- 40 students, spends at least 2 million $ on its graduate student body every year... And even then, everything is subsidized. So yes, the programs (and subsequently NIH and the tax-payer) have a lot to loose by hiring folks who arent sure...

I am off.

>>what do u suggest one should do immediately after undergrad to get a phd admit like this eventually work in a lab for at least 2 years as an RA, tech, or postdoc (if u are an MD). You can get paid jobs if you search hard. then ask yourself if you know the specific problem you want to work on. If the answer is yes, apply for a PhD. If the answer is no, go do an MSc and then ask again. You can also do an MSc first. In either case, you should have at least 2 years of full-time lab experience before you start a PhD. If you are still confused after 2 years of lab. work, not sure what you want to work on and you are determined to have a career in science, I'd suggest applying to integrated programs (also known as "blanket" or "umbrella" programs). These programs combine several areas in one graduate program and give you the flexibility to explore. In any case, I will discourage you to embark on a long-term career in science without actually working in a lab. See research is not for every Tom, Dick and Harry. Most of us come into it without knowing what we are looking for. Chances are that you will hate science after sometime because come on, admit it - it can be a really boring job for the wrong kind of person. But if you are determined enough, then you will make it through. Your 5-6 years in grad school will be, in most cases, very frustrating. Most of the times, your experiments will not work, you will have a lot of time pressure, funding, publication issues. IT will not be a smooth ride by all means. You have to be mentally prepared for it. >>>Also,do u think going for a phd is worth it even if u plan to end up in industrial research rather than in academia? You can get a job in the industry even after a BSc. But your career progression will be zero. You will most likely be stuck in the same job for several years. If you want a rapid career progression, then you need a PhD. This will also give you some flexibility to switch to a decent academic job in case you get laid off.... ---- If you want to get into say a decent 1st/ 2nd tier program, you can give it a shot right after your Bsc as well. In any case, most graduate students start right after BSc and use the first 2 years to explore different areas and labs before settling down. This also holds true for the best programs. I know friends who got into Duke for instance right after bachelors (mainly through contacts). If you are an international student, then you can pretty much forget a spot in the top places... its very tough to get in. Most programs have one or two places for internationals because of funding constraints. But there are places that are known to be "international applicant friendly" (IAF). Just search through graduate student descriptions at program websites and an IAF place will have at least 25% international students. The only IAF I know of is Baylor but they only take the best. Baylors programs are highly ranked in the academia (in some cases even higher than MIT- dev. bio for instance) and their students are known to be very "happy". Recently, Baylor students have been winning several student awards at International conferences. You also need amazing recommendation letters from recognized faculty, a coherent and stimulating statement of interest and loads of luck. All in all, you will need 5-7 years of graduate work, 2-5 years of post-doc work- so in total around 9-14 years of low-paid, hard work before you can start applying for decent asst-prof. jobs.... so you need to be sure if you want this track. good luck from my end. chao

I know. Anyways, more history guys. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/lemann.html

and oh this one is really funny. Guess who it is? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/katzman.html

Without offending anyone at "test"magic, here is the interview of the guy who established these tests in the first place..... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/chauncey.html

Come on! This place is crawling with wanna-be engineers, computer scientists, accountants, economists - which are not my area of expertise. and the talk of "profiles" frankly irritates me. You can't "profile" success in numbers. It is just not possible. Did you know how standardized tests started off in the first place? - by a bunch of politically motivated psychologists who were propagating "IQ tests" to sieve young american recruits for world war 1. I copied it directly from: ------ > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/where/history.html > > > > > > During the First World War, Robert Yerkes, a leading member of the new IQ > > testing movement, persuaded the U.S. Army to let him test all recruits for > > intelligence. This test--the Army Alpha--was the first mass administered > IQ > > test. One of Yerkes' assistants was a young psycholoist named Carl > Brigham, > > who taught at Princeton. > > After the war, Brigham began adapting the Army Alpha (mainly by making it > > more difficult) for use as a college admissions test. It was first > > administered experimentally to a few thousand college applicants in 1926. > > > > In 1933, James Bryant Conant, on becoming president of Harvard, decided to > > start a new scholarship program for academically gifted boys who did not > > come from the Eastern boarding schools that were the regular suppliers of > > Harvard's students. He gave Henry Chauncey, an assistant dean at Harvard, > > the task of finding a test to evaluate candidates for these scholarships. > > Chauncey met Carl Brigham, and came back to Conant with the recommendation > > that he use the SAT. Conant liked the test because he thought it measured > > pure intelligence, regardless of the quality of the taker's high school > > education. > > > > In 1938 Chauncey talked all the member schools of the College Board into > > using the SAT as a uniform exam, but only for scholarship applicants. In > > 1942, because of the war, all the pre-existing College Board admissions > > tests were abolished, so the SAT became te test for all applicants. In > 1944, > > under contract to the Army and the Navy, Chauncey administered the SAT to > > more than 300,000 people all over the country on a single day. In 1948 the > > Educational Testing Service was chartered and the SAT was on its way to > > becoming the basic college admissions device for millions. > > > > The test has changed over the years, but not completely. The web site > > http://www.the-big-test.com/ has sample questions from the original SAT, > and > > from the contemporary SAT, with instant scoring, if you'd like to try your > > hand at both. > > ----- Go figure out for yourself.... Other than scores, biology, my friend, is all about action. If you want to know how things are done, what is in or what is out, you have gotta get your hands dirty- work in a lab. Theres no other way of knowing the field. It cant be learnt sitting at home, and no decent program will admit anyone without some prior experience. Thats it.

In many ways, you can say the initial question was a stupid one and I agree it was. I had practically nothing better to do and so ended up comparing two superb places in a futile exercise.. I should be more concerned about the challenges that lie ahead. Having done some science myself (albeit crappy work), I have to tell you guys that research is not, by all means, easy stuff. There is a saying that goes something like "research is 99% frustration and only 1% inspiration.." In the end, for the benefit of novices, I have to reiterate one point- Graduate life and beyond is really about the quality of work you do and not the places you go to. There have been people from really *** places who have gone on to do wonders. So for me the real challenge is identifying a core area of interest that I can pursue for years if not decades... and that can basically happen at any place anywhere given the resources. I did not use testmagic a lot during my test preparations. May be that explains why my scores were so shitty. But I never looked at myself through some pseudo-quantified, nonscience, psychology-driven, bull-sh** and I guess most respectable programs dont, either. This forum however, was a very good platform to interact with people and learn of their experiences. So in that regard, keep up the good work (erin and the rest). chao from my end...

By the way just to let everyone know, I had my share of rejections from a lot of places Stanford, Princeton, Harvard to name a few... I think mainly because in these universities, I applied in developmental biology programs when my concentration up till now has been purely mol bio. I thought I could get away with changing sub-fields (evo-devo from mol bio) not realizing that the boundaries, unfortunately, have grown pretty sharp between various divisions- only to the detriment of these places, I guess....

I dont think MIT has released its decisions yet. At least there is no one on whogotin.com reporting on MIT bio.

One area where JHU has definite edge over MIT is the ratio of students to post-docs. JHU is more student-centered while MIT is more post-doc centered. There are considerably more students per lab at JHU than postdocs, which is very good. In fact students do the work of postdocs at JHU... Another plus point of Hopkins is historical - The Darwin of 20th century biology, Thomas Hunt Morgan, was a Hopkins alumni and he went to Hopkins (1890) at a time when the place was just propping up and Morgan spoke highly of his experience at JHU... (however, the work that won Morgan a nobel prize was done at Columbia mainly) I guess in the end I will decide based on the 2000 National doctoral survey of PhD students, which ranks Hopkins very highly in my area of specialization... http://survey.nagps.org/chooseType.php

Thanks for the info dingus. I already have years of lab. experience and several publications- so choosing a faculty will not be an issue. Besides both these places are pretty open in terms of students picking up faculty as potential supervisors like you would expect any good place to be. I dont think you can rule out MIT right away. Those in the field would understand why I am so ambivalent.

Thanks guys. I forgot to mention some other pros of MIT bio 1. Slighlty higher citations per faculty in Science, Nature and Cell than JHU. 2. More publications per faculty in Science, Nature and Cell than JHU But these figures might be skewed because JHU has almost double the faculty than MIT... MIT bio is really highly regarded as well. I told you there are currently four nobel laureates in the department most of whom won the award on the work done at MIT! Needless to say both places have superb faculty...

But I really haven't understood why surgeon Blalock (who pioneered the blue baby operations at Hopkins) was never awarded a nobel prize.. any thoughts from the history buffs here?