What does it take to get into a top 10 grad program?

Do you have anything else besides school? Any research experience? Volunteering? Clubs? Sports? Papers (senior thesis), patents, awards, honors?

The grad students/post docs in the lab I work in (I'm still in undergrad) all act as though research experience is a huge factor in getting into grad school.

Why just a masters? Do a PhD. A masters does not put you much further ahead of an undergrad degree in science related areas. PhD however puts you way ahead.

What is your GRE? What kind of research experience do you already have?

2nd the why a ms degree. Many faculty do not want masters students. Masters students have the same amount of work to put in to get them competent, then they leave with the equivalent one manuscript of productivity, often without even publishing it.

Many schools will financially support (you don't pay for graduate school in biology unless you suck-they pay you) phds but not masters students.

the reason the other person state is also correct.

MS programs in biology from top 10 schools don't really exist. The MS exists for people who start a PhD and fail. It's called "Mastering out." So, if you're serious about this, you'll be applying to PhD programs.

I'm a biochemistry student at a top 10 school. For what it's worth, here's what it took for me:

My GPA was 3.56 with no real trend in either direction. Grad schools don't care much about GPA as long it's above that ~3.5 threshold.

My GREs (standard + subject) were all around the 90th percentile. Again, these aren't too important.

Your experience is what matters most. I worked in a lab for three years as an undergraduate. This bring you both letters of recommendation (VERY important) and hopefully some stuff to fill up your CV.

If you don't have research experience, consider taking a year or two to work in industry first. Schools tend to like those folks.

Decent grades, good GRE scores, and some research experience are key. If you are not looking good in all three of those there is always the back door. Get to know a professor in the department that you would like to study under. Try to work for them as a tech and familiarize yourself with their research. If they want you to work in their lab, you are pretty much guaranteed admission to the program.

To take these good comments one step further, in grad school the goal is not to go to the best school possible. The goal is to work for the best professor possible.

The idea is to get undergraduate research experience and exposure to a variety of professor's work in areas you have interest. There is a huge advantage in admissions if you can determine who you want to work for rather than which school you want to go to.

If you have experience relevant to a specific professor's work you can approach them, possibly at a scientific meeting or through email. This is kind of like researching college running coaches. If you and your potential advisor really hit it off, your undergraduate grades, GREs and even undergraduate recommendations become secondary. Of course, if you are trying this route, it is vital to remember that you need solid research and a great presentation or a published paper to catch the eye of a high quality professor.

yes. this is correct.

currently doing a PhD in Cambridge (UK), not exactly a US university but I would say comparable to top 10 US. Went to a top 25 school in the US for my undergrad, graduated with a GPA of 3.1

My advice: don't look at the schools, look at the science/ research you are interested and then pick your school. If you really want insist on top 10, at least choose out of that pool according to your research interest.

If you have a specific field you are interested in, start working in the lab as an undergrad assistant, go out for a summer field project and try to write a bachelor thesis.

What counts in grad fields is the ability to produce publications in notable journals. This is one important factor on which your departments performance is measured. Your future supervisor will be working on publications with you therefore he/she wants somebody who shares the same basic approaches to problems, is productive, motivated and understands what he/she is doing.

So, ideally you bring strong interest in a "hot topic", relevant field that is easy to get funding for. You then have experience in research, maybe a publication out of your bachelor waiting in the pipeline. Try to get into a conference and link with people. If you know your future supervisor already, then the rest is a peace of cake.

GPA and GRE are secondary.

oh, and I forgot: I wouldn't recommend grad school for those who just want to sit out the economic crisis for 2-3 years. You need real passion for your subject in order to survive a PhD.

Good luck

- excuse the typos i was writing fast.

Think about what you're going to do after grad school. Not everybody ends up as a professor. When I went visited grad schools, a grad student host at Harvard said "Yeah, Harvard is second tier in physical chemistry compared to (list of other schools), but you have the big 'H' on your resume."

10 years later when you're applying for jobs outside your narrow research area (or completely outside your discipline), no one will know that Iowa State kicks ass in solid state chemistry or UC San Francisco is the best biochemistry school. (I didn't go to either of those by the way.)

My ignorant friends,

Admission to a top program has nothing to do with what you have done but with what you are and the sob story you can present

Well, for Biological Anthropology, a lot of the programs I looked at required an MA before admission to the PhD program, and I don't know as if I really have a strong enough background in Anthropology to be admitted to PhD programs anyway (I'm only minoring and taking a few extra 4000 level courses). For Biology, I'm not 100% sure I want to get my PhD and become a professor. I think that's what I want to do, but I thought I could use an MA/MS as a stepping stone to a PhD, and if I decide I DON'T want to get the PhD, I think it'd be better to know that before starting a program than 2 years in. I love school and don't see why getting an MS before a PhD is really a bad thing.

I know research is important. I transferred after freshman year and didn't really make any connections last year, so I'm just now starting to buiild relationships with my professors. How does undergrad research usually go? I assume the Professor does a lot of directional guiding? I hope to start working with professors this next summer (2010). If my research is lacking, you suggest taking a year after graduation to work? ...I guess I just don't really know what I'm doing as I hadn't given this much thought until the past several months. Again, all your advice/comments are appreciated.

Also, isn't it better to go somewhere else rather than stay at your undergrad school?

This is why a lot of faculty will not take masters students. The faculty are judged on their productivity, much of which relies on the students. If they aren't sure they are in to it enough to go for a phd, they really are not into it enough to give back to the professor in publications.

Why don't you try and get onto a dig or something as an intern this summer? This is also a good way to get letters. You'll have a better feel if this is something you want to commit your life to. (this is what you need to succeed, if you do, because your competition is all devoting their life to it). It'll be a calling or a vocation to pursue science or it won't be. If its not, find something else to do.

Good luck.

What interests you about Biological Anthropology? I ask because Anthropology as a whole is infected with Post-modernism and is strongly anti-science. Many areas of biological anthropology can be pursued with a Ph.D. in biology, physiology, anatomy, zoology, etc.

All programs that I know of in human/primate paleontology/evolution/biomechanics (only a subset of BA) accept students directly into the Ph.D program without a masters. The difficulty may be demonstrating your seriousness without a masters. You need to go beyond simply working for a professor in their lab. You need to read the primary literature in the field that you are interested in. Now. Or yesterday. Really, the reading should consume all your spare time. You want to begin to formulate some simple and independent projects that a professor can advise you on. This stuff takes time. Many start in High School. And many students that I know that are accepted into the top labs in organismal biology right after college have these kinds of experiences. If you cannot get a strong letter from a professor, and a professor writing "Frank is #1 i my class!" is not strong, then go get a masters degree or do post-bac work. Experience is what matters. That said, many admissions committees in departments are enamored by high grades at Ivy league schools.

Finally, to re-iterate what people have said above. Science graduate programs are not like going to law school or medical school. Although "programs" are ranked, these rankings are not very useful. You want to find 6 professors that you want to work with. That is, choose a lab, not a program. Asking a professor in your college in a related field is one way. A better way is reading the literature, getting to know the field, and identifying who you think is hot.

Perhaps the best way to chose a lab is to see where the hot young post-docs and professors got their Ph.Ds. A lot of that success can be directly due to a mentor and/or a culture of achievement in the department. Some top professors make lousy advisors - they simply give up on students after their first failure - and all students will fail at something. Others aren't great advisors because the lab has 35 people (students, post-docs, techs, visting faculty, etc.) and you are low on the priority. So look at where people are getting their degrees and there is probably something right about the departments/labs that produce a lot of hot young scientists.

i have just skimmed through the comments here, and there is a lot of good advice. I'm sure I'll be repeating what others have said, but here are some suggestions:

(1) Like another poster said, getting a great advisor is much more important than getting into a great program, but it is absolutely in your interest to do both. When you start your job search, you'll find that being from the MIT type schools obviously will help you regardless of the specific work you did in grad school.

(2) Apply as a PhD student as long as the school allows you to opt out with an MS. Be careful not to apply somewhere where PhD students do not get that MS along the way. You are much more likely to get funding this way, and can still quit if you want.

(3) Study hard for the GRE and kill it.

(4) This is critical: do good undergrad research. When you apply to very top programs, you'll be up against undergrads who have already published good papers or taken part in serious research projects, or even people who are coming in with good industrial experience. Undergrad research will really help to set you apart from the masses. When you get involved in this, try to make good connections with the professor(s) you work with, so they will give you a hand during your application process for grad school.

Middle Professor wrote:

What interests you about Biological Anthropology? I ask because Anthropology as a whole is infected with Post-modernism and is strongly anti-science. Many areas of biological anthropology can be pursued with a Ph.D. in biology, physiology, anatomy, zoology, etc.

What exactly makes you say it's anti-science? I know a lot of anthropologists are probably too culturally sensitive (see NAGPRA), but biological/physical anthropologists are just as much scientists as anyone in other fields (zoology, physiology, chemistry, etc), right? I'm especially interested in paleoanthropology, but I think it's kind of early as I've only taken one Anth class. I'm taking a seminar on Neandertals next semester with a prof I think I'd enjoy working with in the future. As of right now I'm the only undergrad in the class, so I'm sure I'll have my work cut out for me.

Thanks for all the advice. So far I've just been trying to get a strong foundational knowledge by watching a lot of documentaries and books on evolution and hominin species, but I'll start reading papers to get a better feel. I'll be sure to start some undergrad research either next semester or next summer (I'm taking 17 credits of all 3000 and 4000 level science next semester, so I'll probably be pretty busy). I should probably just nut up and go for a PhD in whatever field I decide on. I think I have some catching up to do, but I'm up for the challenge.

Thanks again.

And the way to get into Harvard with the least work is to pick the professor you want to work for and build your resume to show you can help in their lab.

But more seriously, for however long you do science the name of the school you got your degree from will be less important than the names and number of journals you published in.

It is extremely hard to predict what will help you get a job outside your discipline 10 years later. I would rather have a killer recommendation from a professor at a minor school than a form letter from a professor at top 5 school that verifies you worked for them a long time ago.

Good questions. A good paleoanthropologist should know a great deal of quantitative modeling, statistics (lots of statistics!), physics, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, phylogenetics, etc. How many of these classes are required of anthropology students? Zero in most anthropology undergraduate programs. It's not that undergrad anthropology is soft, many faculty in anthropology departments are actively anti-science. Physical anthropology is human biology, but the training is 180 degrees opposite. Learning about genetics in an anthropology text isn't the same thing.

Good paleoanthro programs are Stony Brook and Duke and Arizona State and maybe Berkeley and GWU. I say programs because they have multiple people working in biomechanics, paleo, behavior, etc. Check out Dan Lieberman at Harvard, especially if you like running because he's actually investigating the "running man" theory. If you want a super active, super strong program in evolutionary genetics using primates, check out Jim Cheverud at Wash U. Check out John Hawkes at Wisco (and check out his blog) who mixes strong genetics with a bit of paleo. But there are lots of places with a single great paleoanthropologist on board. So you will probably have to narrow down what you want to do. Biomechanics? Neandertals? Phylogenetics? Genetic models? African Pliocene?