Aresty SSP App Guide for Dummies (Advice for Applicants)
NOTE ON EDITS: I edited this post to reflect two developments: 1.) When to submit your application as other successful participants noted there is no real advantage to submit early and 2.) To answer a commonly asked question as to how competitive is this program exactly (acceptance rate wise).
“HOLY S***…this is a long post” you might say.
Well, yeah sure. That’s cause there’s a lot of crap that should be clarified and subtleties most people might not even realize at the time when applying (or still don’t even after they do for that matter). Any applicant worth his/her salt would look at the FAQ on Aresty’s site to get ahead of the game. And they would see this:
“What does a competitive applicant look like? While there is no minimum GPA required, students must be in good academic standing and demonstrate a genuine interest in becoming involved in research. No previous research experience is necessary.”
INTRODUCTION
Wow, really helpful. Yeah, quite frankly, when that’s the advice Aresty gives, I think the need for this post becomes self-evident:
“While there is no minimum GPA required…” – Yet a significant amount of projects have listed minimum GPAs. And “preferred GPA,” which is on some of the project descriptions, doesn’t really mean preferred.
“No previous research experience is necessary…” – Yet I’d estimate at least 15-20% of the people in my program year had: 1) worked in a lab previously; 2) WORKING in a lab that also happens to be the same one listed for SSP; or/and 3) attended magnet high schools, some of which have their own friggin electron microscopes, and did science fairs to present research. Oh, and better yet, when I applied, there were projects that specifically stated they wanted prior lab experience. Go figure.
I saw quite a few posts on Aresty recently and I felt compelled to get this out there because there’s only 52 projects this year, which is down from prior years. It means there’s an increased need for applicants to be wiser on how they apply. I know that people have already been exchanging PMs, but I wrote this guide and am putting it out there because this might not be common knowledge. I’d hate to see people screwed from the very start before they even submit the app. Now, Aresty might release a few more projects later (that was the case my year when I applied), but don’t count on it.
So, this is just my two cents based on my experiences as well as those of others I’ve gotten to know through SSP. If anyone else has anything to add or counter, feel free to do so. If anyone has questions after all this, feel free to hmu.
PICKING YOUR PI (PRINCIPAL INVERSTIGATOR) WISELY
Note, I’m not saying project; I’m saying PI. If there is ONE thing I want applicants to get out of this post, it’s that it is extremely important to pick the right lab when you apply. I’ll say that again. PICK THE RIGHT LAB. Several reasons for that:
- Some PI’s already have students in mind. So you’re already screwed if you chose those labs even before you submitted the app. Do your research. If the professor has an up-to-date website, check it. See if they already have freshmen in their labs; odds are, those are the people who at least have a better shot than you, if not already guaranteed the SSP spot.
- You’re not necessarily guaranteed to do the same cool techniques/methods, let alone the same project, listed on the website. I know one guy who got screwed over because his professor’s engineering project ended up not getting the funding it needed, so he ended up doing nothing for a while before they finally came up with an alternative plan. So yeah, there might be a lot of buzzwords and glamour surrounding the project description, but keep a mental note in mind that it’s not set in stone.
- The ultimate goal of research is to get publications. Certain PI’s are much more receptive to helping you reach that than others. Now, at an undergraduate level, it’s not the norm but if getting a publication is that important to you, then why make it more difficult for yourself by picking a PI who’s not willing to help you there? By extension, pick a lab whose dynamic is supporting, and whose expectations are reasonable. I’ve seen people do cutting-edge work on paper but get burned out because their PI’s sucked, so they quit.
FYI: Some buildings/institutions where labs are located have some nice perks i.e. free food every week, printers, nice study areas, etc. Perfectly valid reasons when applying for these projects.
No, but seriously, I didn’t apply for anything at Waksman, for example, because that building came across to me as old, life-sucking, and rather isolated from the rest of Busch. If you’re already not going to feel motivated to come in the lab, for whatever reason, that should already be a clear indication to look elsewhere
EMAIL THE PI’S (BUT DO SO AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION) IF YOU NEED TO
Aresty doesn’t actually say to do this; actually, I get the vibe it’s not recommended by Aresty. But the reality is that the people at Aresty are NOT the PI’s you’re trying to work with. Aresty isn’t going to know what specific PI’s want in specific applicants; only the PI’s do.
Don’t be afraid to email them if you need clarifications on the project description or requirements. Again, don’t screw yourself over before you even submit the app, by applying to projects you actually might not be qualified for. In my opinion and experience, it’s perfectly valid to email PI’s and see if you took the courses they wanted/if you meet their desired proficiency in certain software/etc. especially when you consider you can only apply to 3 projects. Why waste those?
I did add a disclaimer that you should email them at your own discretion. Some PI’s might not be open to getting unsolicited emails, but it’s been my experience that you stand more to lose NOT emailing, and that the outcome generally is positive.
WRITING THOSE ANNOYING ESSAYS
First of all, the importance of essays really depends on the PI. Some of them don’t even read the essays; it’s just a formality because Aresty requires it, not them. For others, it’s more than a formality - it’s an integral part of how they choose applicants.
If it wasn’t already evident, this is not like the college admission process. So you can drop the eloquent, flowery language and focus more on substance. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t write well or remove all emotions when you talk about your aspirations. Just don’t write in a way that pisses off the reader because they have to look up a dictionary or take 5 minutes to realize what you meant with your all-too-clever literary device.
Essentially, it should be like a cover letter where you address foremost why you would pick that project over others. If you have any relevant qualifications, here would be the place to mention it and make it clear for the reader how your skills would be applicable to the project. If you have what you think might be a low GPA, compensate for that by highlighting how you could contribute to the lab here.
WHEN TO SUBMIT
Edited: Based off the response to this post, I changed this section to reflect the fact that it seems applying early has no real benefit. MOST PI's won't look at the applications till after the deadline. In one anecdotal case, the PI didn't almost see the application of the person she ultimately accepted because he applied rather early and it got lost in the bulk of applications she received all at once.
That said, as the application deadline approaches, Aresty will start to identify which projects have a high volume of applications and start to move them towards the back of the list on their website. Right now, it’s listed alphabetically; that will change later on such that the most competitive projects are listed last and the least competitive are listed first. (At least, Aresty did this when I applied. Hopefully…they extend the same courtesy to you guys). So if you do apply early, you'd miss out on this potentially useful tidbit.
WHICH PROJECTS ARE COMPETITIVE?
These were the top 10 projects the year I applied (most competitive first, decreasing in competitiveness):
Flying Insects and Flapping Robots - Mitsunori Denda
Neuroplasticity and information storage in the brain - Katarzyna Bieszczad
TGFB in Cancer and Cell Growth - Richard Padgett
Neural consequences of dietary excess during adolescene - Nicholas Bello
Social and Crowdsourced activities extraction system (SOCRATES) - Chirag Shah
Impact of environmental toxicants on lung health - Joseph Antony Jude
Brain activity and affective behavior of rats during cocaine self-administration - Mark West
Dendritic Development in Neurons - Bonni Firestein-Miller
Assessing and manipulating parental behaviors in a socially monogamous songbird species - Mimi Phan
Modulation of inflammatory responses to Rhinovirus exposure - Cynthis Koziol-White
If you want the full list, I have it.
By the way, one of the MechE professors confided in me that in years past, he got more applicants than he cared to have. So he changed his project to sound “less exciting” and have more complicated jargon. He claims it worked. I guess you could assume the difficulty in comprehending the project description is inversely proportional to how competitive it is – but that’s just common sense.
ACCEPTANCE RATES
I don't know about 2017. As for 2018, considering there are only 52 spots - and I doubt that interest in the program went down - you can guess what the rate will be for this year.
2011 - 20/267 (7.49%)
2012 - 28/256 (10.94%)
2013 - 53/377 (14.06%)
2014 - 61/441 (13.83%)
2015 - 65/434 (14.98%)
2016 - 63/541 (11.65%)
INTERVIEWS
Yeah…no. Worry about that WHEN you get on the shortlist for these professors. I’ll chime in when you get there. All I’ll say is assume you’re not going to get an interview (actually, some PI’s don’t even have them). So make sure you say whatever it is you want to say in the application you submit to them.
CONCLUSION
Good luck! This is already a long post; no need to repeat stuff I already said.
Posted Jan 13, 2018, 2:52 AM UTC · edited