Applying for a doctoral program in biology/neuroscience

[Genecks]

I'm looking for tips, guidance, advice, and dialog.

 

In the next few months, I'm suppose to be thinking about applying for graduate programs. I'm aiming for a program that will offer me a Ph.D in Neuroscience. Simply said, I want a doctoral program. If it's a Ph.D in Biology (or something like that), but I've been doing neuroscience research all along, then I'm fine with that. I have yet to actually read through all the universities in the U.S. (I'm a U.S. resident) and other universities in different countries (might be interesting/fun).

 

But here is my main question: What are the chances of actually getting into a Ph.D program these days?

 

I have above a 3.5/4.0 G.P.A.. I've got a low science GPA, which is more than likely below 3.0 (I fell sick my first semester at the university). On my list of things to do is lock down at least a year of research, which is harder to accomplish than I thought. Each interview is like a job interview. I feel as though I am job hunting, which seems silly since I'm volunteering. The competition is high at the University of Illinois at Chicago. I roll and bat my eyes at the fact that a lot of @#$%^&@# are doing research for their c.v. to get into medical school rather than become researchers. I think it will be easier for me to get research once I get my B.S. degree, but I'm not sure about that.

 

In general, I feel as though I've hit a glass ceiling where I'll be forced to apply for a master's program rather than a Ph.D program. That will be wasting a lot of my time, I think. I've met at least one neuroscientist in my life who has a master's degree in neurobiology. It didn't seem to useful to him, besides giving him the ability to teach at a community college. When I talked to him about over a year ago, he suggested that I move toward a Ph.D program. Also, I don't really have the money for a master's program.

 

I'm not sure what I should be doing in the next year.

 

I haven't taken physics yet. It's not part of the B.S. in Neuroscience program, actually. But I've got this feeling I should be taking a year. Should I be taking a year if applying to a Ph.D program? I've looked at some courses that graduate students take, and it would appear that a background in physics is desirable. I'm not against taking physics, but I want to save money and get out with my B.S. degree. I'll more than likely have to stay another semester (stay in as an undergrad in the fall of 2011) if I want to complete a year of physics and math. As such, that would hold me back from a Ph.D program, as I would more than likely have to wait until the next fall (fall of 2012) to wait until acceptance into a doctoral program.

 

In general, I think completing a year of physics and math along with getting at least a year of research in would be a good idea. However, I'm frugal and cheap (not so much lazy), and the lack of funds is persuading me to finish the B.S. degree without taking a year of calculus and physics and without having done research.

 

I've read on some university websites that if certain courses have not been taken, then the university will build that into a person's Ph.D program. I'm not sure if something like that would happen to me, as in the faculty/administration telling me to take a year of physics as soon as I start such a doctoral program.

 

I think it would cost me maybe... $8000 USD to stay an extra semester. That's a lot of money. I could put off some of the costs with loans, but even if I stayed, I'd have to wait another year (more than likely) in order to get into a Ph.D program.

 

As another note, I have yet to look into this "GRE" stuff. I got a general idea as to what it's about, as I took a biology subject exam my freshman year of college and scored about 25%. But I have yet to schedule an exam date, look through GRE study guides, and more.

 

I'm looking for tips, guidance, advice, and dialog.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Genecks

[ajb]

I don't know about biology and related things, but for popular areas of physics it can be extremely difficult. Too many good applicants and not enough spaces.

 

Doing a masters can be a good idea. It is what I did. As times goes by I think more and more PhD programs will expect a masters first.

 

Good luck

[Genecks]

I think earning a Master's degree first is simply a way for universities to make more money. I don't believe it's about a person proving him/herself and the ability to handle graduate-level classes and work. I believe a master's program wastes the doctoral-degree seeking student's time and is more negative for the student and more positive for the the educational institution, because it's bringing in money for the educational institution. It seems like a money game.

 

I think telling students to go for a master's degree, because it will make the student seem more acceptable to admissions, is some modern lie that institutions make in order to soak more money out of the public.

 

From having read stories about bachelor's degrees being subpar these days, I've come to consider that social institutions consider a master's degree the new bachelor's degree. As such, academic institutions have decided to capitalize on society's distaste for bachelor's degrees and modern desire for master's degrees. Academic institutions are not greatly capitalizing on Ph.D programs, as they more than likely pay the students, if they are science students.

 

I will at least admit that earning a master's degree can help a person's socioeconomic status. It does seem like a money game, but I wonder if that's the case. I know many professors get a lot of money from research grants when they do get their grants. As such, they have plenty of money already, and the thousands of dollars they get from graduate students does not seem to compare to the hundreds of thousands they may be getting from grants. In other words, if I understand the books, the graduate student tuition seems like nickels and dimes to the professors: Maybe 10% of income. So, I can't help but wonder what the real deal is.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Genecks

[ajb]

Masters can be useful if you are shifting direction slightly or did not quite get the grades needed.

 

My masters was useful for me to enter my PhD work, but I am sure I could have stated ok without it.

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

To the OP:

 

What you could do is complete all of the requirements for your BS and hold off on graduating for a year. During that time you can petition the department to take graduate level classes before you go to graduate school a semester or two of this will do you a lot of good. The ideal number is about 9 credits if you are trying to overcome a really low GPA in the sciences, but the more the better. You can also take the physics and math while you're doing this. You WILL definitely get an undergrad research slot if you've done well in some related graduate courses. If you don't have access to research in your chosen area, then the next best thing to do is try some research in a related field (the harder the better). If you can get some research in the are of biology, chemistry, math, or physics and prove you can do science it will be better than no research experience at all. Good luck, and if you need any further advice and feel I can be of some help to you feel free to PM me. I'm sure if you stick to it you'll do fine and if you want the PhD go for the PhD... also if you'd like I can give you some tips on writing a good personal statement. If your grades were bad because of illness and not because of being lazy or unable to perform the work then you can simply state that in the letter - getting letters of rec from your undergraduate advisor or some professors that might also be able to back this up would be a huge asset.

 

In my case my science GPA was really high when I left undergrad, but I took a lot of graduate classes and after I was accepted into an extremely good PhD program they told me they wouldn't have cared if my undergrad GPA hadn't been so good. I took over 20 credits of grad science courses during undergrad and got nearly a 4.0 in them... most of the people on the admissions committee had no idea what my grades were in the rest of the courses for my undergrad. So, I'm not saying it will be easy, but it will give you an option. You could get a coursework master's during this process as well but it probably won't take more than 9 credits of As in grad classes to overcome your low GPA...

 

good luck.

[Genecks]

Thanks for your input so far, spin and ajb.

 

Something I've been considering, albeit I'm borderline on the idea, is attempting a Master of Education degree. In the U.S., such a degree takes about a year to complete. I could afford it and easily pay off any borrowed loans if I were to use them.

 

America instated the No Child Left Behind Act during the Bush reign, which means teachers need to be certified in order to teach. The master's degree includes certification in the process.

 

A master's degree in education has the benefit of allowing a person to be certified to teach in high school settings. I would also be able to commute more often. More than likely, I could leave the state and go to a state that needs teachers. I suspect I could make more money with a master's degree. I'm not sure if the job market would allow me to easily get a job, but I could try. And if anything, it proves I can handle graduate-level classes. It raises my social status if not my economic status. From there, I could apply for a Ph.D program again (if not accepted before).

 

Good idea? Bad idea?

 

One of my main concerns is actually having funding.

I could do a master's degree in biology/biochemistry if I had the funding.

Technically, the government would give me plenty of loans to get the master's degree.

 

This website gives a nice little rundown on the statistics of student borrowing of U.S. government money for U.S. students pursuing a graduate degree: http://www.finaid.org/loans/

 

The following table shows the percentage of graduating students at graduate and professional institutions who applied for federal student aid and graduated with debt and the average cumulative debt at graduation according to degree program. This demonstrates that graduating with debt is unavoidable for students pursuing degrees in law, medicine or business who need to apply for federal student aid.

 

It would appear that a science student seeking a master's degree at least would be ending up with $34,741 USD in debt. Luckily, that kind of thing can be paid off throughout a 10-year period. Still, in a recession like this, which might last another 8 years, it could be difficult to continually pay it off. I've read that the job prospects for those with a master's degree are better; but I'm not sure of all of that.

 

Supposedly, I would be allowed a loan limit around $20,500 a year (source) to pursue the graduate degree. That seems like plenty. My parents taught me to follow the old economic system of not using credit nor relying on it. That's one of the reasons I'm stubborn and hesitant to use loans. Going through the past year as an undergraduate has cause me much cognitive dissonance. Nonetheless, I've found paying off undergraduate debt not so bad.

 

I think it would cost me ~$15,000 in loans to at least get the Master of Education degree. I'm not sure if it's worthwhile. But I do know it would raise my status, and it's something I can fallback on for a while.

 

Going for a Master of Education rather than a Master of Science/Biology/Biochem in order to look better for Ph.D admission?

Good idea? Bad idea?

 

In a lot of ways, I'm about saving time and money.

 

I figure if I did get the Master of Education degree and could land work within a year and work for two years, then I'd easily have funding to pursue another master's degree or live in a city with a research college/university, take some graduate bio classes (maybe not necessary if after getting the year of research), and apply for a Ph.D program again.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Genecks

[Greippi]

I'm in a slightly different field and different country (UK), but one of the most important things is enthusiasm. Once you get to the interview stage, you can impress them with enthusiasm and your knowledge of the subject area (if you have a wide knowledge from your own reading it shows you're actually interested). You'll earn extra points if you've looked in to the work the lab does/has done and mention what you liked about it. Of course, they'll also be looking at just how well you'll fit in with the people who already work at the lab.

 

I'm doing a masters before my PhD because I feel it will give me an edge over people who have just graduated from an ordinary degree. I would get more experience in the lab, and if I were to stay on in the same department I would be more familiar to the people working there. The people in my department who I would be working for if I did a PhD there agree - that extra lab experience is key.

 

But then again, I understand that PhDs in America are a lot longer than those in the UK (ours are 3 years) so you may not want to "waste" time with a masters. I definitely feel that you should concentrate on getting more lab experience if you were to delay applying for a PhD though.

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

^

 

Hi, if you are going for the master's in education you will probably need financial aid. You can pursue a PhD without needing separate funding if you ace the GRE general and a subject exam you will qualify for fellowships if none are available or the competition is very steep then you will definitely qualify for a teaching assistantship. At most decent schools that will cover all of your tuition, provide health insurance, and pay a stipend of at least 20 to 25k a year.

 

To be honest with you, the master's in education is not going to help you much if you are looking for a PhD in neuroscience. There isn't much overlap in the course work. The admissions committee won't care if you can handle any graduate courses they are going to care specifically about graduate courses that are related to your science. I would suggest talking to someone at your university about enrolling in graduate courses in either biology, biochemistry, chemistry, or psychology. All of those are related to neuroscience. You might be able to pursue a psyche.D which isn't a doctorate of philosophy and beyond that go for a PhD in neuroscience at a later time if you're worried that you won't get accepted anywhere. I would suggest calling the graduate admissions offices of the schools you would like to apply to for neuroscience.

 

I suggest picking 10 schools. 3 really good ones 5 middle schools and 2 bottom schools. Get in contact with the neuroscience department's graduate secretary and ask if it is possible for you to speak to either the director of graduate studies for the department you want to join, director of graduate admissions, or their graduate coordinator. Explain your situation to them and ask them if taking some graduate courses in a related area and doing a year of research will help over come your lower science GPA. Explain the reason why you have the low GPA and go from there. If all of that looks like it won't lead to anything useful, then I would consider a PhD in biology, next a PhD in biochemistry, followed by a psyche.D, then a PhD in education, after that I would consider the master's in education.

 

hopefully this was useful. Your GPA is important but it isn't everything. Study up for the GRE if you haven't taken them already and make sure you ace the general (near perfect score) and make sure you ace a subject test (the biochemistry test is very difficult so be sure to study) - that alone should overcome your low GPA and lack of research experience even without taking the graduate courses but it will be extremely hard work. If you combine that with 6 to 9 credits of As in biology, chemistry, biochemistry, or psychology related graduate level course you WILL get into a top 10 school. You can avoid the physics and still get (I know what the admission sites say but ignore that). If you ace the calculus they will overlook the physics and you can tell them you did not have the time to take both in your personal statement if your undergraduate advisor feels you need to address the issue of having no undergrad physics.

 

hopefully this helps. Good luck.

 

edit: oops this is directed at the OP.

[CharonY]

I would turn the question around and ask, what do you want with a master or a PhD? Just the enjoyment of learning something or do you plan to have a science career? And if so, what kind of career? Usually it is better to envision where you want to end up, rather than only looking at the proximate steps.

[Genecks]

I would turn the question around and ask, what do you want with a master or a PhD? Just the enjoyment of learning something or do you plan to have a science career? And if so, what kind of career? Usually it is better to envision where you want to end up, rather than only looking at the proximate steps.

 

I want to do neuroscience research as a life career. I was looking for research the other day, and the professor told me he was thinking of retiring in the next year. To which I replied with a smile, "Why retire?"

 

The professor does research in neuroanatomy and cognition, and I think there is so much left to research and discover.

 

On the deepest level, I subscribe to varying transhumanist philosophies. I think the understanding the brain will enable people to better understand the universe, as does cosmology. I don't go around telling this to all the professors, though. One of my past professors advised me not to do so, for scientists tend to want to separate such issues from the realm of science.

 

And I know there is some radical thought in that subscription, but I am also interested in the general neurobiology mechanics, such as sleep processes, and so forth. There is still much research to do in not only humans but other animals, for much can be learned about brain mechanisms, such as sleep, by studying other animals. I've learned these things from hanging around the neuroscience professors here at the university I attend.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Genecks

[CharonY]

So you want to be a researcher? Which level? I am not sure what tracks exist in this field, however if you want an academic career, you should be prepared to realize that positions are very limited. The reason is that normally staying in academia usually requires tenure eventually. Statistically only around 20% of all PhDs in academic track will eventually reach it.

You should inform yourself how academic careers look like (it requires far more than "mere" research) and whether if you want to give a shot at it. Also be prepared to have a second track in the real world that you can start, if the academic track fails.

In any case, if you want to get into academic, usually a PhD is required. If bench work is really what you are after, however, you can also be a technician. That usually does not require a PhD and you can do more labwork (most at the level of assistant prof or higher rarely have time to do effective labwork themselves).

[Genecks]

So you want to be a researcher? Which level? I am not sure what tracks exist in this field, however if you want an academic career, you should be prepared to realize that positions are very limited...Also be prepared to have a second track in the real world that you can start, if the academic track fails.

In any case, if you want to get into academic, usually a PhD is required...most at the level of assistant prof or higher rarely have time to do effective labwork themselves).

 

I'm aware of the doom and gloom tenure stuff. I've looked at the statistics. Availability was much higher over 30 years ago. I'm not sure what the deal is. Maybe people won't let go of their positions, or else the general business model has changed and it costs too much. I think it's the latter. If I kept asking myself, "Why bother? The chances of accomplishing anything are low." then I would have just given up altogether by now. I don't care that the chances are low. I'm going to try my best anyway and see how far that brings me.

 

I would be plenty satisfied being an assistant professor. If things didn't work out, say 15 years from now (long ways away), I'm sure there are plenty of other neuro-related things I can do.

 

There might come the day when I lead a research team rather than do the brunt of research myself. If that day were to come, then that would be fine with me. I think I would still oversee what was going on and find that entertaining. I'd also be willing to be low on the ladder, as long as I'm doing neuro-related stuff.

 

Nonetheless, I still want that Ph.D.

 

I have alternative professions in mind. But I want to try my hand and do my best at this neuroscience profession, as that is what I really want to do.

 

I have had the idea of doing biomedical research. So, I could get a M.D. and be a neurologist/neurosurgeon or something like that. That's not my goal, though, as the clinical setting often bores me. It's a nice profession and the pay and downtime is decent, but it bores me.

[CharonY]

I'm not sure what the deal is. Maybe people won't let go of their positions, or else the general business model has changed and it costs too much. I think it's the latter. If I kept asking myself, "Why bother? The chances of accomplishing anything are low." then I would have just given up altogether by now. I don't care that the chances are low. I'm going to try my best anyway and see how far that brings me.

 

Nope. The main reason is that the amount of graduates as increased dramatically, whereas the number of tenure positions remain almost the same (or had a far lower increase). Also you cannot just be an assistant prof. Because after five years you get a tenure review and if do not get tenure, you are out. Problem is that by then you may be around 40, and if you do not have good contacts in another track, you are in deep trouble. Just something to keep in mind. Academia has more and more become a high risk track. Of course, people still succeed, but it takes much more strategic planning and commitment to the career (as opposed to merely doing science). Just doing good or even great science alone is insufficient nowadays (unless you get really lucky).

In other words, if you really want to get an academic career plan early, and realize what it really takes to get it. Also, ask younger faculty for advice (around the time you are in a PhD program) as they are more likely to have more personal experience with the new reality of academic careers than the old big-shot profs. There is a reason why many start their PhD fully expecting to run a research group in some top university but instead decided to get a job in industry or started a teaching career.

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Nope. The main reason is that the amount of graduates as increased dramatically, whereas the number of tenure positions remain almost the same (or had a far lower increase). Also you cannot just be an assistant prof. Because after five years you get a tenure review and if do not get tenure, you are out. Problem is that by then you may be around 40, and if you do not have good contacts in another track, you are in deep trouble. Just something to keep in mind. Academia has more and more become a high risk track. Of course, people still succeed, but it takes much more strategic planning and commitment to the career (as opposed to merely doing science). Just doing good or even great science alone is insufficient nowadays (unless you get really lucky).

In other words, if you really want to get an academic career plan early, and realize what it really takes to get it. Also, ask younger faculty for advice (around the time you are in a PhD program) as they are more likely to have more personal experience with the new reality of academic careers than the old big-shot profs. There is a reason why many start their PhD fully expecting to run a research group in some top university but instead decided to get a job in industry or started a teaching career.

 

This is very true. I decided to go for a PhD because I love the research that I do knowing full well knowledge and better understanding might be the only thing I obtained from the degree.

 

@ the OP: You should really read over what CharonY has said. Chances are you will NOT get a tenure track faculty position, it is also likely that you won't end up working in your field at all. I don't think anyone is saying that "it's hard so don't try" I think what is being said here is that "it's hard so don't try it unless you love it and are well aware of the possible negative outcomes".

 

Would the experience still have been worth it to you to gain the knowledge and understanding if you don't end up working in your field? If the answer to that is no, then you should reconsider undertaking the difficult and sometimes thankless task of earning a PhD. You will probably be able to find a job, so it isn't as if you will be totally unemployable with a PhD, but you just can't have that as your only motivation to start the process or you will get 2 years into it, hear about the horror stories of fellow PhD students/graduates and likely switch to some other field. Good luck. hopefully all works out for you.

[CharonY]

Well said, spin. And much more concise. For some reason the more tired I get, the more verbose I become. And randomness of punctuation increases.

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Well said, spin. And much more concise. For some reason the more tired I get, the more verbose I become. And randomness of punctuation increases.

 

Don't we all.

[Genecks]

In terms of picking places for graduate school (Ph.D), should I pick local states, such as neighboring states? Should I stay within state? Should I attempt to apply within the university I attend?

 

In Illinois, there are a few places I could apply. I could attempt to apply at Northwestern and the University of Chicago, since they are local. I figure, why not, because it's in state. I'm more than likely going to apply at my current university, UIUC, University of Iowa, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and some other places. Truthfully, as a freshman, I thought it would be cool to go to the University of Hawaii and establish my life in Hawaii. That'd be so cool.

 

I know I want to focus on biology and the learning process. I'm not too interested in illicit drugs and their influence of the the nervous system. I probably should be doing something with Alzheimer's if I want a job. But as an academic, I want to study the biological mechanisms of learning. Sure, Alzheimer's is linked into that. As such, if I find a decent programming tying Alzheimer's into all of that, I'd apply for it. I know a professor who is doing that and more at the moment. That's the guy who told me he planned on retiring soon. That sucks. But gives me a good standard to measure other persons. He was a professor I mentioned that I was hoping to do research with as an undergrad. Cool guy, I think.

 

Also, how do I find out which professors are accepting doctoral students? Is there a way to figure that out? Because I know some professors are simply doing research. Sometimes a biology department directory will list a lot of people, and nothing specific comes out to me saying, "I'm looking to hire some graduate students in the next two years. If you're interested in my research, please keep my name in mind during applying." or something like that...

 

So, how should I go about a directory and figure out who is accepting students? I'm sure there are plenty of professors in various directories of whose research interests me. But reading up on it all won't do me too much good unless these professors are hiring/looking for students. I'm not too interested in wasting a large amount of time.

 

Also, does anyone think it would be a bad idea if I took a year of calc-based physics at a community college? I would find that so much more affordable. Also, since I'm an alumni and know a lot of people there, I could probably persuade a professor to let me take both in the same semester. I could study the topics and material ahead of time. I could probably fit another semester of calculus into that mix.

 

Update: I was on the U of Texas website and saw on professor's page that stated in bold at the top of the page that he/she is not hiring. Ok, so I've seen one for once. But I suspect that's an unusual case.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Genecks

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Those all sound like good schools. The University of Iowa was devastated by a major flood a few years ago so make sure you check the area and talk to the professors to be sure all the university facilities you will need for your PhD are up and running before you apply.

 

The best way to determine which professors are taking students is to contact the departments you are interested in and go from there. Sometimes the secretary will have this information for you... You can also contact the professors themselves but you want to be careful about bombarding professors with emails... typically if they are not near retiring or going on sabbatical then they will likely be taking new students...

 

good luck with your search for a grad program... the best place to start to answer all of your questions is the department you want to attend. You should pick the grad school first by the research and second by the location... that's my two-cents.