Grad School Series: Harvard University

We got in touch with Piyush Nanda (BT’20), who is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in Biological and Biomedical Sciences at Harvard University. During his time in KGP, Piyush was a recipient of the Honda YES Award, the Khorana Scholarship and he graduated as an Institute Silver Medallist. Read on to know about his apping process.

When did you decide to pursue a Ph.D.? What motivated that decision?

I have been interested in research since my second year. My research experience started at a lab in IIT Kgp in the biotech dept. I completed my first internship at Michigan State University, that was when I really felt that working on a problem statement and the research prospect would be super interesting. After completing a few internships, and research at IIT Kgp; towards the end of my fifth year, I decided that a Ph.D. would be the right choice for me. I did an internship in my fourth year at Harvard and got an insight into the work that was happening there. That is how I took the call of applying to Harvard.

How did you decide on colleges to apply to?

At the end of my fifth year, I decided on which universities to apply for. Staying on the east coast was a priority for me. Hence I applied to MIT, Harvard, Princeton, and Wisconsin.

How did you choose which programs to apply to?

Most of the programs in the US are centrally funded. Therefore, there are caps on the number of international students they can take. Hence I would recommend one to opt for umbrella/generic programs where the intake is higher as compared to specific programs. The number of people taken in a general program is far higher. If you are interested in very specific faculties, you can check what general programs they are affiliated to and you can make your way back to the specific program to which you wanted to apply to.

Linkedin is super useful when it comes to getting an idea of which programs you should apply to. Upon using the right keywords, you’ll find people from other IITs and a lot of other Indian students and you can apply to the same programs.

Talking about specific programs, is it necessary to have taken courses related to their fields?

Yeah, it would be a requirement for some of them. I can definitely speak for one which is offered at Harvard called Bioinformatics and Integrated Genomics (BIG) Program where they need you to have taken courses of stochastic processes, probability and statistics, and linear algebra. However, not all specific programs will set such prerequisites. For instance, neuroscience programs won’t really require you to have taken related courses before; they’ll only look for research experience. But programs related to bioinformatics and computational biology will need you to have taken maths and computation courses. The baseline is you can’t jump into a heavy interdisciplinary field without having taken related courses.

How did you decide if you wanted to pursue a PhD in the US or Europe?

In the US, you don’t just get through a research topic, they actually train you in how to write grants, how to write papers, read papers, how to manage conflicts in labs. At the end of your PhD you are not just trained how to be a good scientist, but also a good researcher, mentor. This is really what is emphasized here and I wanted to learn. You also get a chance to do rotation which is not common in European programs.

It is a five-year PhD in the US, whereas three to four years in European countries. The challenge is that science is not that straightforward and a really heavy project in PhD is important. You go through so many things, you learn so many things and I feel that the same can’t be accomplished in three or four years. Hence I chose to pursue a PhD in the US.

How important is research experience for a PhD application?

In India, we tend to enter research soon after undergraduate studies, in an effort to maximize the time into our career. In the US after people graduate, they spend a couple of years as a research technicians, research scientists. It has two advantages. One, you get an idea of how science works. The other you get to figure out what you are really interested in.

I personally did a couple of internships in two different environments. You need to experience different cultures of research. I did one of my internships at the University of Tokyo and a few in the US. This gave me an overview of how science works in two different countries.

Taking up good projects in internships really helps. Take up an intense project. Ask your internship supervisor for intense internships, talk to them about your interests and ask them if you could get more work. Then, when this person writes the LoR, they can mention that the project was done independently by the student, the student had a huge role to play in this project, and that the student is one of the authors. These are the key points they look for in an LoR.

The research you do at IIT Kgp also really matters. As I mentioned, science does not happen in a matter of months. It requires time. You need to come up with ideas, test them, check if it is working or not, iterate and finally come to a conclusion. This whole process takes 7 months to a year in my opinion. BTP and MTP are really nice opportunities in this regard.

We usually have this notion that an internship at MIT is more valuable than BTP or MTP. But I would say that it is not the case. I would say that if you do your BTP/MTP and it is intense and involves critical thinking, as people call it here and it has been mentioned in your LOR, you submit a paper out of this; that has way more importance than an internship where you wouldn’t gain much experience. Just make sure that the projects that you do really reflect what you are as a researcher. BTP and MTP are amazing opportunities for you to do that.

Does it affect your applications if your internships fall into a different field than the area of research you’re applying for?

Not really, when it comes to science there’s no clear-cut definition of what a field is limited to. Say, most of your internships differ much from the field you’re applying for this is where your SoP will play a very crucial role. Be frank in your SoP about how you’ve worked in a certain field but now want to transit to the one you’re applying for. In general programs, you’ll be fine, as no one really judges you on the basis of the topics you’ve worked on previously. But if you’re applying for a specific program, getting accepted without prior skills and experience is quite unlikely. Note that I said unlikely, not impossible.

On a relative scale, how important are research experience, GPA, LoR, SoP and GRE or TOEFL scores?

I would place research experience at the top. Also, note that non-published outcomes can count too. For example, you put in a lot of effort into a project but for some reason, your work didn’t make it into a publication, a patent, or something- people in science understand these things take time irrespective of the hard work on your end. However, one must pay attention to how such research is presented. You can always include it in your SoP or CV but personally, I suggest making it a point that is included in your LoR as the PI can further emphasize how much you learned from all your work and also convey the relevance of your project in its field. So the position of LoR on the scale is integrated along with research experience.

On a side note, I’d like to address the general panic associated with publications. If you think you’ve done some work that is worthy of being submitted to a journal, it is very important that you submit it before your PhD applications. Since getting a paper published is a long process involving multiple peer reviews, rejections, and modifications, just getting the process started in itself will hold a lot of weight.

Next on the list would be your grades, especially if you’re planning to apply for ivy league colleges or other colleges in the same strata. They don’t just need good grades, they need class toppers. Note that after a threshold, all grades look alike. Be it a GPA of 9.5 or 9.8, it will all hold the same. Your institution matters too… but not that much, just focus on being in the top 1% or 2% of your class.

Next on the scale is your SoP. It not only brings us back to our first point by highlighting our research experience but also conveys the new proposals put forward by you. It is your statement of purpose- your thought process for applying; what you will do when admitted to the program. This is where I encourage people to include their crazy fresh ideas which will really highlight their potential.

Now about GRE, most programs have stopped giving it much value. Even if you get a below-average GRE score, there’s nothing to panic about. As I said before, research projects and experience are the main areas of focus, they probably won’t even look up your GRE score if you’re decent in the former. However, if your program is demanding for GRE, any score above 320 should be good enough. Most people face issues in the verbal section so that’s where I suggest focusing more.

TOEFL is demanded by most universities- a score above 100 or 105 will get you through. It shouldn’t be very challenging given you are from IIT KGP where English is used by all. At some grad schools, you can also state your institute’s mode of instruction if it’s English to waive off GRE or TOEFL from criteria. If you show a letter from the concerned teacher that you took an English for Communication course, you should be fine.

Say that you commit to particular professors in your SOP, and you want to work with these professors, should you keep it up after you join the program?

Well, it has its own pros and cons. If you mention the professors in your SOP, mention at least three. This is because you are supposed to do three rotations. Know the professors and the work they do properly. Don’t just mention them for the sake of doing so. The good thing about this is that they understand that you are clear with what you want to work on. But, if the professors that you mention the SOP aren’t on the Admission Committee, the other professors might not be interested in considering your application as you are not open to exploring other labs.

If you know where you want to work, write it down in your SOP; but mention that you are open to exploring other things in this field. This diplomatically balances stuff. What the US program wants you to do is to explore more stuff. You get a very brief period for your rotation and you have to decide what you want to work on for the next four to five years. Make your SOP look like you want to explore more rather than making it restricted to very specific labs.

For instance, there are different LoR styles. One, where the professor is well known but you might not be able to interact with the professor as much. The other, when the professor might not be that well known but the professor knows you well i.e greater interaction. Is it important to have all sorts of LOR?

This is what the interviewer told me about what they think a LoR should look like: The prof shouldn’t write only good things about you, he/she should also be writing about things about what you could do better, or what you could not. It is really important that LOR is a mix of both criticism and appreciation. What matters the most is the work that you do honestly. You did a lot of work, you are about to submit a paper somewhere with that professor, you went to a conference and presented one of the papers. The Admission Committee wants to select a person who really knows science. I feel that the content of the LOR matters more than the reputation of the PI. When your PI asks you to give a draft for the LOR, make sure it has the right content of what you did, instances where you acted as a good leader, good scientist, how did you deal with scientific problems, and stuff like that.

Some grad schools ask for your SoP and a separate personal statement, what’s the difference?

The personal statement is about conveying who you are as a person, your inspirations behind choosing your career, your goals, ambitions, and how getting admitted into the program will help you achieve them. On the other hand, a Statement of Purpose is more technical and research-centric. I recommend that people make the first paragraph of their SoP a “hook”- as in the person reading it gets hooked from the start; that will make you stand out from the crowd of applicants.

Your SoP’s first paragraph should also describe you as a person but only in matters of science and research. Make sure that at least the first one or two lines are very captivating and interest the reader; try to avoid being generic as much as possible.

The second paragraph of your SoP should summarise your journey from being someone just interested in science to someone willing to take up challenges and find solutions. Then you can talk about your research experience and your areas of interest.

In the third part, you can talk about your plans; even make use of citations and references if necessary. I personally used plenty of citations in my SoP like- one certain problem has been dealt with in such ways in the past but now we have better tools to address this cause which are left unexplored. Having such and such experience, here’s how I plan to implement it. All of this will show the reader that you’re not merely someone interested or excited about science, but also someone with a direction. It will be clear that you’re on a well-defined path and only need encouragement and support on their end. You can also go on to mention specific professors of the program and explain how you feel you can add to their progress in their projects.

Coming to the final paragraph, this is where you explain your reason for choosing that particular program and what you’ll do with your Ph.D. You can praise the variety of their courses or their variety of fields of research and other opportunities offered. Then address how your getting accepted will help you achieve your long-term target of either working on a problem or leading an organization or whatever it be. Don’t forget to stay technical and to the point at all times.

[… should we also mention our plans after getting a PhD in the SoP?]

Yes. Although no one knows for sure where they might end up after getting a Ph.D., you still should mention your visions as they are at the moment. All the applicants can fall into either of two categories: ones devoid of any idea what they’re going to do and others with a well-thought-out plan like running a startup or getting into consultancy or academia. It is obvious that preference will be extended to the latter category.

How does obtaining funds for Ph.D. work in different places?

In the US, you don’t have to worry about these things as they’re already funded. You can take up different courses and not have to worry about paying tuition fees. You’ll also get a decent stipend to live on your own. All in all, being an international student in America you won’t have to worry much about money. When it comes to universities in Europe, generally they also have funding. They will still always ask you to apply for programs like Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF). You should be careful about which program you’re applying to how much funding will you need, how supportive will your PI be and will they fund your research or not. If you join a lab in countries like Germany or France, then most probably the PI will have funds for the project. The visa you get for being a research scholar in Germany gives you the privilege of being a scientist instead of a student so you can receive your funding. In the UK, things work much differently. You have to apply for a university, get selected, and then seek funding. For that, you will be given an offer letter which you will have to show when asking for funds. And then again, there are all sorts of fellowships you can apply for like Commonwealth and Gates Cambridge scholarships. You can also choose to go to any of the few universities funded by the government of India.

Being a Khorana scholar yourself, how much importance would you place on scholarships and fellowships? Also, how does one go about applying for them? (Especially students of 2nd or 3rd year who don’t have much experience)

This is a good question. If you’re applying somewhere in the US, being in programs like Khorana or S.N. Bose will definitely hold a lot of weight. They’ll know your internships weren’t borne out of shooting request mails to professors but rather you went through an entire process of selection, writing an SoP, and everything which is always appreciated.

If you plan to do your Ph.D. in the US, the aforementioned programs will also help you a great deal by exposing you to the lab atmosphere in American facilities beforehand. If you take up internships in European or Asian countries, it will pose a disadvantage as you won’t have the exposure to decide if you’ll be comfortable there and they might prefer someone more familiar as well.

I recommend applying for fellowships in your penultimate year. Of course, you’ll need good research experience to apply for them; dual-degree students have a better chance at it as they get more time to build up experience. Being a student of IIT KGP, I don’t think you’ll have much trouble finding internships in India and that should be more than enough to build up your experience. Plenty of my friends, who got accepted by the Khorana program, have done their internships in India.

The batches which were held back at home during the pandemic were forced to take up remote computational projects and missed out on in-person lab experience. Can such people interested in pursuing wet lab research make up for it through applications, SoPs, and other components?

Yeah, they definitely can. This is where I’ll bring back the issue of general vs specific programs. For general programs, you can say how you’ve done a lot of computational work but now are interested in their field but have little experience in wet lab owing to the pandemic. Maybe later you can also mention how you plan to make up for it by investing extra time in learning those skills. I don’t think you should face many problems. Even in the program that I am in, there are at least 10 people who came from an entirely computational background and now are learning wet lab basics. Such is the advantage of applying for broad general programs. Another personal opinion of mine is that understanding computation requires more time and effort compared to wet lab handling. You can always learn about managing a wet lab later but the knowledge of computation will also influence your choice of experiments and that understanding is very important. After all, this is how we do things today- we first come up with a computational model and later decide experiments accordingly and shift to the wet lab.

Also, you have mentioned different research environments, do you also mean that we have to do one project in say, cellular microbiology (i.e experimental in-person research)and the other in say, computational systems biology (i.e possible remotely)?

The question is basically how many fields is one supposed to explore, right? I would suggest that you join two labs in your second year if you are in a four-year program; in your third year if you are in a five-year program. This is usually not recommended as it is loaded. In the beginning, you might not be able to decide what you like, right? Generally, you end up taking a field for various reasons. So if you explore two labs, even if you don’t like the first then you always have the other which you can pursue.

Personally, I did cellular molecular biology where we do hardcore experiments and the other is computational biology. Both of them combined into my expertise and now I do both of them. Science has become really interdisciplinary now, we can not sort of say that I am interested in a particularly narrow field. The best way is to explore different things as you mentioned.

By different lab settings, I mean different fields, different ways of approaching science. One of them is modeling, mathematics, or more computer science-oriented. The other is more experimental, where you design experiments, build machines, and so on.

By different environments, I also mean different mentorship styles. One is when the professor sort of pushes you for the project. He/She calls you once a week and then you discuss. Basically, the PI is more hands-on. The other is where the PI is pretty laid back. They are like, okay you do it on your own and tell me if you get some result.

By different environments, I also mean to do research within IIT Kgp, within India, and abroad. These are three different things. The problem is that you would have a prejudiced idea about how science works if you restrict yourself to IIT Kgp. You get a wider perspective when you do the research at different places. I would highly recommend you to explore the three settings.

We are done with our questions, is there anything more you’d like to add?

In the end, I’d like to add that Ph.D. is a pretty intense affair. Make sure you explore the field properly and talk to many people before applying for it. Of course, it sounds fancy to have this degree higher than your master's but you must keep in mind how demanding it is and how you need to be motivated throughout to pull it off. The problem I’ve seen in many people I interacted with is that they joined a Ph.D. program because “it seemed like the thing to do.” Even if you’re first in class and get accepted by the Khorana program, it all doesn’t imply that you’re built for Ph.D.! Even if you are a very talented researcher, a Ph.D. demands more than that- you’ll have to have that drive to take up challenges and do things. Having good research experience is also important here. If possible, I always advise getting your master's or becoming a research technician abroad and giving that 2 years for good measure. At the end of the day, even being a genius doesn’t imply you’re suitable for getting a PhD- maybe you’re the scientist that a big industry needs to make the next vaccine. So, figuring these things out is very important.

In a place like IIT KGP, or just how Indian culture is, people have this tendency to always do what the other person is doing. To avoid this, you must try to talk to as many people as possible before making a decision. Personally, one of the best things I did was to approach several people in PhD programs and talk about their topics, their stress levels, ways they address problems, the supportiveness of their PIs , later I also reached out to the ones working in industries about their 9 to 5 jobs, absence of a PI among other things. Doing all of it will broaden your perspective and help you make a better decision. So, along with maintaining good grades, building research experience, getting LoRs, etc interacting with many people should also be a focus. Also, be sure the program you’re applying for is one you are really interested in. All I’m trying to say is don’t go for things just because they “sound cool”.