Luis
Felipe Orozco Cabal, M.D.
 Education:
committing to embrace the difference
September 2004:
The
true gift of education is most salient in its ability to endow us with
the power to shape our lives according to what we have learned.
Knowledge enlightens the person by increasing his capacity to perceive
reality from different perspectives. Hence, education leads to the
inevitable acceptance of differences and uncertainties as a normal
component of the social and natural environment we live in. To prepare
people to embrace the difference or “otherhood” should be the most
important objective of anyone or any institution devoted to teaching. As
Edgar Morin (2001) stated: “We should learn to navigate on a sea of
uncertainties, sailing in and around islands of certainty”.
Consequently educating is above all a moral responsibility and a life
time commitment.
Early
in my life I had the good fortune of knowing persons who had made of
this predicament their entire life. My father among them showed me the
beauty of pursuing the truth through science and preparing to help
others find their own “truths”. His teachings and those of other
visiting professors, who built together the French and German
philosophical schools of the late twentieth century, motivated my
decision to become a scholar and researcher.
While
I was attending medical school I became fascinated with the neurological
and psychiatric patients and the existent theories regarding the central
nervous system information processing functions. More specifically, I
became interested in the neurobiology of human consciousness, a question
that still remains as my long term research goal. In those days,
research opportunities were limited in Colombia. The best option I had
was to begin additional training in those jobs on which I could acquire
a broad scientific knowledge that could serve as foundation for a
further solid formal training in basic neurosciences. Near graduation, I
traveled abroad to receive further training in clinical neurophysiology.
Doing this clerkship under the supervision of Dr. David Ingram and
others at the Saint Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, gave me the
opportunity of understanding the real differences between Medicine and
Basic Sciences research. After several conversations with Dr. Pamela
Prior, Dr. David Ingram and Dr. Steve White, it was clear to me that to
fulfill my expectations as a person and to obtain the knowledge
necessary to approach the human brain, I needed to go back to graduate
school and work on a Ph.D. In addition, another observation influenced
my recent decision. The thought process behind medical decisions is very
different from the one needed to approach problems within basic
sciences. They give the impression of being two non-exclusive
synthesizing streams of thought, and I desired to be educated in both.
During
the following months after my return from London, I began the process of
applying to various graduate schools. The application process was at
sometimes frustrating. The first year I applied mainly to British and
German neuroscience programs. I was enchanted by the European student
life and by the form and rigor of their training programs. That year I
did not had very good luck with my applications. Fortunately a few
months after, I was offered a position as instructor professor in the
Anatomy Department of the Medical School I had graduated from. I happily
accepted the position. This experience would give me a better chance of
being accepted in a doctoral program the following year. Later that year
I started the application process for a second time, but on this
occasion I included several American institutions, among which was
UTMB’s Neuroscience program. The criteria I used to choose the
institutions to apply to included:
-
The institution is committed to promoting diversity among their
students and Faculty.
-
The Graduate School, Department and Program strongly favor student
development and good mentoring.
-
I
needed an introductory year to level out with my peers. This was a
must since my background was very strong in clinical training but
less in basic sciences and research.
-
The program had to be affiliated to a Medical training program. In
this context, having a medical background was an extra benefit and
not a defect.
-
The Faculty in the program had to be strong in the fields of
electrophysiology and neurophysiology.
-
The University and the Graduate School were interested in preparing
people for life as well as for science. They had to see and treat
students as a whole.
-
Graduate students received economical support through out their
doctoral training.
The
second time I got accepted to three programs: UTMB, The Institute of
Psychiatry in London and Universidad Autonoma de Madrid in Spain. I
couldn’t have been more pleased. The offer that struck me the most was
the one from the Neuroscience program at UTMB. The other two programs
offered very little or no economic support, they were not so strong in
electrophysiology and invertebrate neurophysiology, and demonstrated to
be less student-oriented. In contrast, UTMB Neuroscience Department had
excellent electrophysiologists and invertebrate neurophysiologists among
its Faculty, offered a decent stipend, and demonstrated interest in
knowing about me both as a person and a potential scientist. The
telephone interview with the program director was a deciding factor in
my decision to accept UTMB’s offer to enter the program. First, I was
not expecting the program director to call me at my home . Second, he
was very clear from the start on what the program expected from a
doctoral student and the program’s philosophy. Third, I was treated as
equal and gave me the necessary time and attention to freely communicate
my concerns and thoughts about doctoral education and the program.
Lastly, upon reading his web page, I found that the program director
himself has been an example of scientific excellence and commitment to
Academia throughout his career. This last point was essential in my
decision to enroll in this program.
One
month after the telephone interview with the director I received the
acceptance letter. I could not believe it! Being able to travel abroad
to work on a Ph.D. degree is a privilege by any standard, but especially
in light of the limited educational opportunities available to most
people in my home country. In Colombia according to Colciencias (2004),
the most education any average young individual can expect to receive
through out his or her entire life is only of three years of primary
school. Only 17 of 100 individuals between the ages 19-23 are admitted
and are able to study in an advanced education institution. Even more
alarming is the fact that only four of these 17/100 individuals who make
it to the Universities graduate from them. Of these four, less the than
1/100 (0.3%) is accepted to and finishes a Ph.D. But the problem is even
more complex. From the 89,000 university professors in the country only
2% have a PhD. This means that even if accessibility to higher education
institutions is secured by the State, the number of highly educated
professors is insufficient to cover the needs of the system. Therefore,
it is important to realize that earning a Ph.D. not only represents an
exciting personal challenge, but also, brings with it an enormous social
responsibility. It is the duty of those who “know” to foster
opportunities for younger generations and for their countries. Everyone
should have the liberty and the chance to receive a good education. It
is in this lack of opportunity where we see the true solitude of Latin
American countries. It did not take a long time to respond to UTMB’s
offer and to communicate my acceptance to the program coordinator. I was
assigned a senior student to help me out with any doubt I had. This was
especially important considering my status as a foreign student. Though
international moves can be overwhelming, my arrival in Galveston was not
a major problem. With information provided by the senior student and the
program coordinator I had already arranged a place to live and an
estimate of the amount of money required to live for the first few
months. This experience was not the same for all the students. Some
American and international students had a rough time adapting to their
new environment.
The
first year in graduate school was difficult. The depth with which the
courses are taught makes people realize how daunting the goal they have
committed to is. Science is becoming just as complex as the problems it
studies. It is necessary that scientists speak both a particular as well
as a common language. In 1922 Weber writes: “In our time, the internal
situation, in contrast to the organization of science as a vocation, is
first of all conditioned by the facts that science has entered a phase
of specialization previously unknown and that this will forever remain
the case. Not only externally, but inwardly, matters stand at a point
where the individual can acquire the sure consciousness of achieving
something truly perfect in the field of science only in case he is a
strict specialist”.
This statement still holds as valid, but with one caveat: science
specialists without a solid basic science foundation are technologists.
It is the obligation of the Institutions to recognize and act upon this
reality.
One of
the most important aims of doctoral education is shaping the intellect
for continued, critical and profound syntheses through systematic
observations. In this context, the first year curriculum is necessary
because it allows the students to acquire the basic vocabulary of
science and a certain special “modus operandi”. It is difficult to
comprehend that although scientific problems are diverse and variable,
science in essence remains unaltered, because of the constant nature of
its intention. Science is after all, having a particular attitude
towards the world.
One
frequent criticism from the students is that most of them have carried
these same courses during their undergraduate studies and therefore
think they are wasting precious time. This raises the question if people
should be allowed to decide whether or not to take these courses.
Against a favorable answer to these concerns lays the heterogeneity of
the BBSC student’s background. The BBSC is a way of unifying concepts
and ameliorating differences among students.
Once
we have finished the core courses, we are allowed to take more specific
courses according to our interests. There appears to be an enormous gap
between the major courses and the modules. Some attention should be
placed on the depth with which these modules are taught. Some of them
are perceived as superficial and disorganized. This is frustrating at
times because people are interested in knowing how a series of problems
within a particular field of interest have been approach. Modules serve
to orient vocations and some of them even after declaring a program seem
vague and superficially taught. From my perspective, these courses
should be constructed in such a way that the students learn in depth the
basic principles underlying sets of common phenomena within a field
(e.g., neuronal networks, muscular contraction, orientation and
locomotion). In addition, at times poor coordination and communication
among the faculty teaching a module has resulted in a decrement of the
quality and coherence of the lectures. How important is that the
professors are really committed to the courses they teach. Commitment
not only signifies starting each class on time and preparing the
material for the lectures, but also believing that students can always
do better, allocating sufficient time to answer to their questions,
organizing the lectures according to a particular structure, sharing
what each faculty lectures on, and having continuity. The students
should never receive the message, explicitly or implicitly, that being
an average student is fine. These are some problems that can be
improved.
Personally, choosing a department was not a major problem because I knew
with certainty the field I was interested in. Nonetheless, after
weighing my options
I chose to stay in Neurosciences because the philosophy and alumni
profile promoted by the department matched my own interests and
perspectives. I wanted a department that understood the importance of
having constant and high quality courses, a department that was
student-oriented, one that believed in treating the student as a whole,
and above all, one which believed that building a firm basic scientific
foundation is the best way of assuring a strong specialization process.
Most of the major areas in neurosciences are covered within the
program’s required courses. Unfortunately, less diversity is
found among faculty research interests. To partially solve this
deficiency, department chairs and program directors should coordinate
efforts to advertise the courses offered by their respective programs
and the types of research interests other faculty members have. This
lack of diversity is also noticeable in the topics addressed by our
seminar speakers. Usually our guests are specialists in the same topics
on which our professors work. This may result in some redundancy. As
students we also need to meet experts that work on research fields
different from our own areas of expertise.
Diversity of interests among faculty would also make it easier to find a
lab that accommodates our personal and professional needs. Choosing the
right mentor is one of the most important decisions that a graduate
student has to make by the end of the second year. The Orientation in
Science sessions were vital to meet faculty and learn about their work.
It was also a very good opportunity to talk to older students and to
identify common research interests. Nonetheless, some times mistakes are
made in choosing a lab and a mentor. Two years ago I choose a mentor
based on his academic records, his scholarly excellence, the type and
number of publications of the lab per year, the experience of former and
current graduate students and postdocs, and his research interests. I
took into account the mentor’s professional skills. I never questioned
myself about our personalities. Mentoring is more than just accepting a
student and giving him a project and funding. As graduate students, we
choose our mentors because we identify with what they are; we find in
them a model to follow. Concordantly, in most traditional British
universities, students stand in line beside the Professor holding his
toga waiting for him to turn around and listen to their question.
Similarly, in medical school it is common to see how the rounds pass by
the hospital wards with a group of professors walking in front followed
by a group of students. Why do students walk or stand behind their
professors? It is not because they are shy or apologetic, or because the
professor walks faster than the young students. It is because the
professor represents what is to be followed, all we want to know and our
most immediate figure of authority. As students we respect who they are
as a whole. Their job transcends the verbal transmission of scientific
facts. A very honorable professor recently said to me: “People do not
realize that receiving a graduate student in their labs is a moral
responsibility”. Later he added: “I am here to secure you whenever you
feel insecure”. How important is it that the mentor assumes his role as
a guide with willingness and pride. I made the mistake of not asking
these questions. There are labs whose atmosphere is simply not adequate,
despite an excellent number of publications.
Ending
my second year in the program, I had completely lost enthusiasm and
faith on the research I was carrying on. I decided to switch mentors.
This was not an easy decision but I do have to say that I was never left
alone by the department or the faculty. They were always supportive,
doing everything possible to make the transition between labs easier. I
interviewed with other professors and took what I believe was a more
informed decision.
I
joined my new lab near the time of the qualifying exam. I soon found
that these require months of preparation. From a personal viewpoint the
content and depth of the exams is adequate. While taking the exams, it
was frustrating at times, to feel that you ought to know more. For some
they even serve as a good wake-up call. To excel in them brings great
relief.
I am
now starting my third year in the program and preparing to defend my
dissertation proposal. In these past few months I have felt comfortable
delineating my project for the next three or more years. Again, I
realize the importance of good mentoring. Writing the proposal seems
like a daunting task but I feel that having a strong mentor willing to
work with me along the way makes an immense difference. This is
especially true in the event that something does not work quite as
planned, as often happens in research. In sum, after these last three
years, I reaffirm my desire to be part of this program and institution.
It has definitely made me a better person and a better scientist.
Morin, Edgar. 2001.
Seven
Complex Lessons
in Education for the Future. Education on the Move. Paris:
UNESCO
||
GSBS Home || Return
to Table of Contents ||
Back To Top ||
 Excited
by the idea of becoming a scientist, my
interests in pursuing graduate studies did not
intensify until after my undergraduate education
and research experience. I entered college like
the majority of other science oriented students;
I decided to be “premed.” I took the standard
courses ranging from organic chemistry to
physics and loved every minute of them. However,
during my junior year the time came to start
applying to medical schools. I took the first
step in taking the MCAT and then began to apply
for applications to various schools. The
applications began to multiply in number on my
desk and I could not bring myself to complete
them. I started to become confused because this
should be exciting and something I have wanted
to pursue since I was a small child, right? This
is when I began to think that maybe I only
thought this was what I wanted because I never
exposed myself to any other options. I thought
it would be an excellent idea to take a year off
after graduation and make sure medical school
was the correct path for me to pursue. Therefore
I thought that getting a job in the research
field would still allow me to be in the science
field and to try something new. After one year I
discovered my passion was for research. I gained
a lot of confidence in my ability to adapt to
new environments and learned techniques that I
had never encountered. I also learned a great
deal about the nature of research and the
lifestyles of researchers. When I became
familiar with the amount of dedication and hard
work essential to project advancement, I was
more focused on my goal of becoming an excellent
researcher. During my two years working I was
not a stranger to the frustration and
disappointment inherent in research work, and I
was spurred on by the thrill of discovery. I
found a great deal of enjoyment working in
research and realized that research is merely
the stepping stone to medicine.
During my two years of research, I took an
interest in the field of neuroscience. From
this, I decided to apply to graduate school
taking the necessary steps to pursue a doctoral
degree. While applying to graduate schools I
began to see that the area of neuroscience is
smaller than other programs and the programs I
looked into varied quite a bit. I applied to a
variety of schools all over the country and to
be quite honest UTMB was my last choice. It was
not my last choice because of the school itself,
I believe it was because of the location. UTMB
was the first graduate school I visited and it
was fairly early on in the whole interview
process. Following my visit at UTMB I visited 5
other graduate schools ranging from the west
coast to the east coast. Every single time I was
at another school I never felt like I was wanted
or that the faculty was interested in my ideas
or my area of interest. A lot of the programs I
visited were very small, meaning that the only
students you socialized with were in your
program. UTMB sparked my interest due to the
BBSC program because it allowed the opportunity
to be among fellow peers in different fields and
also to make sure the program you were choosing
was in fact the right one for you. The idea of
not having to declare until the end of your
first year after going through different lab
rotations made the decision so much easier. The
faculty at UTMB were so warm and so accepting of
new students and new minds. During the interview
process they never made you feel as if you were
being “interviewed.” The faculty automatically
made you feel as if you were already part of the
UTMB family. I never felt like I was being
judged, as I did at other schools. I was very
impressed by the interactions between the
students and the faculty. The students were very
friendly with the faculty and vice versa. The
faculty seemed to truly care about the students
and their research wanting them to see that
science is now in their hands. The faculty and
the students were honest and upfront about the
pros and cons of UTMB. They did not put up a
façade trying to “sell” the school to me. They
made it quite clear that is was my decision and
one that I need to make sure is good for me. The
faculty made it perfectly clear to me that UTMB
is not for everyone and I have to go where I
feel 100 percent comfortable. Hearing that made
my decision so much easier in the end because I
finally saw that UTMB is not choosing me but I
am in fact choosing them. Therefore, when the
acceptance letter came from UTMB I knew right
away that I wanted to go there and didn’t care
about any of the other schools I visited. When I
accepted my parents asked me many times if I was
sure I was making the right decision, since this
was not my first choice before I visited, I told
them I have never been more sure.
UTMB’s first year is very different from the
other programs I was interested in because of
the BBSC. I was not sure what to expect from the
BBSC and not sure if I would enjoy taking the
required classes all over again. Having
completed the BBSC I believe it is very
necessary and allows you to continue on into
whatever field you choose; however, I think the
structure could use some fine tuning. I felt
like the depth and difficulty of these classes
was appropriate and never felt the material was
beyond my scope of learning. However, I felt
that I had to teach myself a lot of the material
because the professors did not always teach the
main concepts. It seemed at times the material
that was mainly focused on in lecture did not
reflect the exams all the time. I did feel that
there were some professors who did an excellent
job instructing and did care about the students
understanding of the material at hand. I did not
like how lectures seemed to be rushed at times
and some of the professors did not know the
answers outside of their power point
presentations. Overall, I would say that the
core class MBG was better taught than the other
two core classes, biochemistry and cell biology.
One thing I would improve on in biochemistry is
making the problem set discussion groups more
similar and monotonous. I experienced a
facilitator that diverted a lot from the subject
at hand and therefore I was at a disadvantage
when it came to exams and my grade overall. I
think the problem set discussion should just be
with everyone as it is in MBG. However, overall
I think the BBSC is a good thing. I believe that
it allows the transition into graduate school to
be less stressful and is a good stepping stone
into the program of your choice.
I declared neuroscience as my department simply
because that is why I chose UTMB. I knew from
the beginning that I wanted to enter this field
of research because I had previous experience in
this field. I cannot comment on the departmental
specific curriculum as of yet because I have
only taken one class. Presently, I am in the
main neuroscience class and feel that it is more
than I expected in my graduate curriculum. It is
a very demanding class but yet so interesting.
It is going to be very beneficial in my chosen
area of research and something that I will need
for my career in the future. At the beginning I
felt like the neuroscience program curriculum is
more demanding than other programs at this
university; however; the knowledge I have
already gained is indescribable. Over the course
of the next year I will take many more of the
neuroscience classes and then can have a better
understanding of the curriculum.
Once I chose the program I wanted I needed to
choose the lab I wanted to matriculate into. I
chose the lab I am in now because of my mentor
and the area of research I wanted to do. While
looking for a lab I first looked at the research
the investigator did and then what my
interaction was with him/her. I knew the
relationship I had would be very important and
most likely play a part in receiving my degree
and continuing on with my research in the
future. I also looked at the dynamics of the
lab. I wanted to feel comfortable with the other
students and other people that worked in the
lab. This was very important to me because one
of the labs I was in the people in the lab were
not friendly to me at all. I was the only female
in the lab and English was not their first
language. They would not address me and I always
felt like they were talking behind my back. I
really enjoyed the investigator and the research
he did, but knew that the dynamics of the people
in lab might be more important. You spend a huge
majority of your time with the people in your
lab and if you are not comfortable in your
working environment obtaining your degree will
not be an enjoyable process. Another thing I
looked for was how receptive my mentor would be
of my ideas and how they would let me run with
them, meaning was I able to come up with my own
ideas or did I only have to listen to what
he/she said. Therefore in the end I chose the
lab I felt most comfortable with, where I
believed I would be able to succeed in the
research, where I had the most interest in my
project, and where the mentor was just as
excited as I was to be in the lab. I liked the
other labs I rotated in; however, they were just
not the right fit for me. Yet, I do believe that
I learned many techniques from these other labs
and made some great relationships that will help
me in the neat future.
Since I just started my second year, I am just
getting my feet wet in the whole precandidacy
experience. From what I have experienced so far
I am very happy at UTMB and glad I chose this
place to undergo my graduate school experience.
I am very excited yet nervous at the same time
to further my studies towards the qualifying
examination and finally towards my dissertation.
However, I just have to wait and see how it all
goes and just sit down and enjoy the ride.
||
GSBS Home || Return
to Table of Contents ||
Back To Top ||
 My
decision to go to graduate school came two years
after I graduated from Fort Lewis College, a
small liberal arts college in the San Juan
Mountains of southwestern Colorado. At the time
of my decision, I was working as a technician in
a lab at the University of Colorado Health
Sciences Center in Denver, studying the genetics
of alcohol consumption. This was my first real
experience in research. My undergraduate
institution offered little in the way of
research experience, and none in the area that I
would become interested in, which would be
neuropharmacology. I found that I enjoyed
research and felt at home in a laboratory
setting. During my time at UCHSC, I interacted
with graduate students and saw their freedom to
express creativity in their research. I,
however, as a technician, would perform radio
ligand binding experiments, and hand off the
results to another technician for analysis,
never to be involved in any subsequent academic
discussion. After a year, I decided to apply to
graduate school.
I interviewed at a few schools and realized that
my application was perhaps not strong enough to
be accepted into the programs that I preferred.
I was accepted into a Ph.D. program in anatomy
at the University of West Virgina, and a
master’s program in biology at the University of
Minnesota at Duluth (UMD). Since anatomy was
nowhere near my area of interest (my application
must have been passed on to the department), I
chose the latter. At UMD, I was able to study
regulators of catecholamine release, and bolster
my application for a new round of interviews.
I submitted my application to a few neuroscience
programs. Besides UTMB, I was accepted to the
neuroscience programs at the University of
Minnesota, and the University of Iowa.
Ultimately I chose UTMB, because of the number
of faculty doing research that I was interested
in. I felt that there would be at least three
faculty members that I could seriously consider
choosing as a mentor. Additionally, the
experience that I had while interviewing at UTMB
gave me enough opportunity to have thorough
discussions with faculty and candid discussions
with current graduate students. At some of the
other interview sessions that I attended, I had
some negative interactions with faculty members.
At UTMB, I felt that the faculty was dedicated
to providing a nurturing environment where I
could receive my graduate training. I felt
confident that I had received an as objective as
possible description of the neuroscience
graduate program at UTMB.
The neuroscience program at the University of
Iowa accepted me prior to my interview with
them, so I immediately knew that I had a very
attractive opportunity before I interviewed with
other programs. UTMB sent me a letter of
acceptance about a month after I interviewed. I
appreciated the promptness of the offer of
admission. It gave me the impression that UTMB
was serious about students and academia in
general.
My first year at UTMB was just as described
during the interview process. I was warned that
the BBSC was still in its early stages. I found
that it still had some kinks to work out. In
terms of breadth, rather than a survey format,
the BBSC covered concentrated areas of
expertise. This was because lecturers gave a few
lectures in their areas of interest, and
submitted test questions. I found that I studied
many narrow topics in great detail. This
approach left me feeling like I had received a
restricted review of cell biology and
biochemistry, not necessarily a wide
understanding which may have been a more
favorable foundation with which to begin my
graduate training. However, once I had
progressed through the BBSC, and into the
neuroscience modules, the topics covered and
depth were extremely helpful in preparing me for
subsequent aspects of graduate school. I felt
that the difficulty level of the courses in the
BBSC was appropriate for a first year graduate
level.
I chose the neuroscience department
predominantly because of the large number of
faculty and students associated with it. I also
felt that the program coordinator took a vested
interest in each of the students in the program.
I felt that the neuroscience program would
provide a broad groundwork for my graduate
training.
I chose to do rotations with faculty who were
studying neuropharmacology and behavior. My
experience during rotations was invaluable in
deciding which lab to join. Both of the 12 week
rotations that I did were positive, interesting,
and educational. I was able to see how different
labs were run in the same university. I was
fortunate that both faculty members allowed me
input into the “rotation project” that I worked
on. Choosing a lab was extremely difficult. I
was interested in both labs, and seriously
considered them both. I didn’t have to make any
concessions as far as choosing a research
project or mentor. My relationship with the
mentor of the lab that I didn’t decide to join
is excellent. In fact he is serving on my thesis
committee.
The courses that I took during my first year and
a half, particularly the modules that were
organized by the neuroscience program more than
prepared me for the qualifying exam. However,
due to the required coursework, I wasn’t able to
spend much time in the lab prior to taking the
qualifying exam. At one point during my second
year, I was taking three courses at once. It
would have been nice to be able to spend more
time in the lab thinking about possible research
projects and trying out different techniques to
go about answering the scientific question. I
was satisfied with the experience of defending
my research proposal. I felt that I received
valuable insight and suggestions regarding my
proposal. However, I would have liked to have
more preliminary data so that my specific aims
would have had a stronger basis. In general, the
process of entering candidacy was a positive
one, and I felt like I was well-supported by my
mentor and graduate program.
I feel like I have a good relationship with the
other students in the program. I have a group of
close-knit friends who are also in the
neuroscience graduate program that I spend time
with socially. Generally, the faculty in the
neuroscience program are accessible and easily
approachable. I have a great relationship with
the program director. I know that I can meet
with him at anytime regarding any issues that
may come up during my training.
In the lab, I receive much guidance with my
mentor. I meet with her a few times a week to
discuss experiments and data. I am extremely
satisfied with my relationship with my mentor.
In the laboratory, there is absolutely no
shortage of resources. I have my own desktop
computer for writing and data analysis and
another for electrophysiological data
acquisition. All of the equipment required for
the proteomic aspect of my project is also
available in the lab. I am very happy with the
availability of guidance and equipment. I have
never regretted my choice in lab or thesis
committee members, so I have never considered
changing either. I have the support that I need
to realize my potential as a graduate student.
My project involved performing an initial
proteomic study, and as a result, progress was a
little slow at the beginning. I feel that the
amount of publications that I have currently is
not a true reflection of the work that I have
done. In the future, I feel that my publications
will “catch up” and truly reflect the work that
I have done.
I have received much valuable input during my
annual committee meetings. The meetings have
turned out to be very helpful in determining the
most effective directions to take in my
research. There have been no problems during any
of the meetings.
Overall, I have a minimal amount of interaction
with the Dean’s office and other GSBS
administrative personnel. During my first year
however, I found the GSBS program coordinator to
be incredibly helpful. Any issues I had with
classes and registration for classes were
quickly and efficiently resolved.
After I graduate, I’d like to do an academic
post-doc. I hope to always stay close to the lab
bench. Eventually, I’d like to work in industry.
So far, my experience at UTMB has reinforced my
initial resolve to work in industry and I have
not considered pursing any further studies such
as law or medicine. However, I would have like
to participate in UTMB’s PhD/MBA program, but I
never felt that I would have enough spare time
to pursue and MBA while doing research. Overall,
I have found my graduate experience at UTMB to
be a rewarding one. I feel that I am receiving a
well-rounded education with regards to
coursework, hands-on research experience, and
critical thinking. The fact that my graduate
program requires me to give an annual seminar is
providing me with important public speaking
experience. The professional relationships that
I have made here at UTMB will be invaluable
during my scientific career. I am confident that
I made the right decision by choosing UTMB for
my graduate training.
I have had positive experiences at conferences.
I am adequately prepared to interact and compete
with graduate students from other institutions.
I have applied for an NRSA, but have received
priority scores just on the cusp of fundability.
My mentor however, has been able to fund my
research through her grants.
Personally, Galveston Island is a great place to
live while going to graduate school. Galveston’s
low cost of living helps to stretch the graduate
stipend, and the relaxed atmosphere of island
life helps me keep my perspective. Once a week I
play pool in an amateur pool league which
enables me to interact with people who are not
associated with UTMB. As a result, I have a wide
variety of friends in Galveston. I can’t image
that there are many other places where graduate
students can afford to live so close to the
beach. There’s nothing more relaxing than
walking my dog down to the beach for some
exercise after a long day at the lab. I am
extremely happy living in Galveston and
attending UTMB.
Undergraduate institution: Fort Lewis College,
Durango, CO
Age: 32
Gender: male
Nationality: American
||
GSBS Home || Return
to Table of Contents ||
Back To Top ||
 Why
I wanted to enter graduate school? I have
difficulty answering this seemingly innocent
query succinctly; perhaps some understanding of
my motivations to pursue a doctoral education
may be gained through a retelling of how I came
to attend graduate school. Shortly after
completing high school, I enlisted in the United
States Navy and began my training as a hospital
corpsman. As a corpsman stationed with the
Marine Corps I obtained patient histories,
performed examinations, implemented care plans,
and provided both preventative and emergency
care while in the field. Our facilities were
somewhat crude and physician support was rather
limited making for a challenging and independent
position that I enjoyed very much. However,
after four years I elected not to reenlist and
instead enrolled at a university with the goal
of finishing my undergraduate degree as quickly
as possible in order to return to my interrupted
medical training at medical school.
Missing the fulfillment I enjoyed while working
as a corpsman I very much wanted to continue
working in some aspect of patient care.
Fortunately, I found a full-time position as a
mental health aide and was able to provide
limited care for a special population of
mentally retarded individuals who had also
developed mental illnesses. It was my first
exposure to the manifestations of psychiatric
disorders and I attempted to learn all that I
could about the diagnoses being made through
both the patient records and scrutiny of
available medical literature. Although my
medical training was relatively limited in this
new environment, I endeavored to learn all I
could to be in a position to help those in my
care learn to function more independently. Every
day presented new challenges as any previous
progress provided little insight into new
difficulties with an individual who was in a
constant struggle to find common ground with the
rest of society. I was fascinated with how
pharmacology helped to shape an individual’s
reality and simultaneously disappointed with the
limited knowledge of the mechanistic development
of their disorders. My frustration arose from
both the modest effects of neuropharmacologic
treatments and my own inadequate attempts at
helping them cope with their daily difficulties.
This served to fuel my desire for medical
training in earnest, but unexpectedly it also
sparked an interest in research. I secured a
position in a lab investigating the high
incidence of neural tube defects prevalent in
south Texas and the possible link to industrial
pollutants in the environment. In the lab I
began to learn the importance of critical
thinking and sound experimental design in basic
research, but it was my experiences in the
clinical setting that drove my efforts to use
basic research findings to advance clinical
diagnostics and therapies. Realizing that I was
most happy in a setting that combined both basic
science research and patient care, I applied to
the MD/PhD program.
Unfortunately, I did not successfully apply to
the combined degree program. Additionally, my
grandfather passed on that year and these two
events were to have a profound effect on the
shaping of my future. It had been difficult
watching my grandfather succumb to the
devastating effects of Alzheimer’s, Although he
had quit school in the sixth grade to work the
family farm, Grandpa had always impressed me
with both his intelligence and practical
approach to solving problems. I felt compelled
to be involved with research that might one day
prevent deterioration like my grandfather had
endured. Dissatisfied with my master’s thesis on
developmental toxicology, I applied to and was
accepted for a National Science Foundation grant
to go to Japan and research mechanisms in
Alzheimers etiology. My time working there was
too short and I returned home completely
committed to my course to begin my doctoral
education in the neurosciences, with my goal of
once again returning to my clinical education
firmly fixed in my sight. I had presented the
bulk of what was to become my master’s thesis at
the Undergraduate Research Symposium the
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
and had discussed my plans for the combined
degree program with Jim Blankenship at a career
day Texas A&M Corpus Christi. I had come to know
some of the faculty at UTMB and had been very
impressed with the passion of the faculty,
including my soon-to-be-mentor Giulio
Taglialatela, who impressed with me with his
zeal for student presentations and direct manner
in asking questions. After relaying the
disappointing news of my failure to procure a
position in a combined degree program, Dr
Blankenship graciously offered me position as a
graduate assistant in the Neurosciences
department, provided I met all of the
requirements. I had completed four interviews
for the MD/PhD requirements at UTMB but they
were geared for the dual degree program and not
just graduate school and as such did not have a
great deal of bearing for my impending graduate
work. I had toured other campuses in Texas and
met representative faculty during my medical
school interviews but felt most strongly about
UTMB so it was with great excitement and
confidence in having chosen well that I accepted
Dr Blankenship’s offer.
My graduate class was a hybrid of the old
departmental curricula and the new BBSC program.
We had all chosen a department before we were
accepted by the graduate school. As such, each
of my peers belonged to a specific department,
each with its own requirements but we attended
common core BBSC courses. This meant that I was
to work with and get to know students from all
departments, but due to Neuroscience Graduate
Program (NGP) requirements, I also was
introduced to the entire faculty in my
department by meeting with individual faculty
for one-hour presentations each day of the week.
Additionally, I was given permission to
immediately begin work in Kenneth Johnson’s lab
researching a PCP animal model of schizophrenia
while my peers focused solely on the BBSC Cell
biology and Biochemistry courses. Working in a
lab was profoundly rewarding, but it did detract
from spending more time with my fellow students
who had more time for study groups than had I
and as a result I made fewer friends. I think
this opportunity to build a peer support network
is one of the greatest attributes of a common
curriculum. As for the specific topics, I found
myself thoroughly more impressed with the
professors from different departments than I was
of the subject material. For example, two
professors who principally shaped how I came to
think of scientific processes were in the
department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Wayne Bolen taught the first half of
our biochemistry course and his passion for
understanding the basis for biological reactions
was contagious. Neil Howell gave both very
specific lectures on mitochondrial respiration
and the electron transport chain as well as very
broad lectures on theories of maximum parsimony
in molecular evolution. The contrast of these
wide-ranging subjects was underscored by a
relentless curiosity for the mechanisms of life.
While other professors were teaching the minutia
of such processes as prokaryotic transcription
and translation as a body of facts to be
assimilated and regurgitated upon examination I
was spellbound by professors such as Drs. Howell
and Bolen who used our knowledge of specific
processes to build upon a larger understanding
of the study of life. I was both intimately
interested and profoundly disappointed in my
BBSC experience and, interestingly, it had very
little to do with the lecture material being
taught. My reward came from seeing how we learn
about a process as well as using what we have
learned to gain a deeper understanding of life
processes rather than expanding an ever larger
and unwieldy body of facts. I think that this is
what defines a broad based curriculum. It isn’t
a superficial sampling of various disciplines as
an all-you-can-eat buffet, but rather seeing how
the scientific methodology fueled by a
child-like curiosity binds us all as scientists
regardless of specific endeavors.
Although we all had chosen a department before
entering graduate school, specific departmental
requirements were a favorite topic of
conversation between classes and at various
student gatherings. I feel that my departmental
specific curriculum was appropriate given that I
opted for additional coursework. Since my year,
the additional coursework has been made
mandatory, which I feel is appropriate. One
advantage of the BBSC curriculum as stated above
is the opportunity to meet very different minded
students and form a peer network of students
with very diverse interest, backgrounds and
abilities. One advantage of departmental
specific coursework is the opportunity to have
numerous close-contact interactions with
fantastic scientists and educators. Frequently
my courses included many experiences with
professors in a one-on-one or two-on-one
settings making for a very rich and personal
learning environment. It was very challenging
working closely with such fine minds at such an
early stage in my training and I found the
experience very motivating.
As stated above, I began my rotations in my
first semester of graduate coursework with Ken
Johnson. I already knew that I wanted to work in
the lab of Giulio Taglialatela, based on my
previous experiences with him in the
Undergraduate Research Symposium, the classroom
(his lectures in the matters of intracellular
signaling are always a favorite amongst
students) and in personal meetings as part of
NGP requirements, but chose to rotate in another
lab that I found interesting for personal
reasons. Dr. Johnson uses PCP administration in
developing rodents as a model for understanding
the mechanisms for the pathophysiology found in
the brains of patients diagnosed with
schizophrenia. Many of the patients I cared for
during my undergraduate education were diagnosed
with schizophrenia so I was very interested in
studies in this field. Under Dr. Johnson’s
mentorship I learned how to use in vitro models
such as organotypic and dissociated primary
cultures in a reductionist approach in
understanding simplified hypotheses. This
training was to prove to be very useful in my
upcoming project in Dr. Taglialatela’s lab where
I was to use many of these same approaches in my
attempts to understand mechanisms for the
selective neuronal degeneration found in the
brains of patients diagnosed with Alzheimers
disease. Dr. Johnson was very understanding and
supportive of my decision not to join his lab
and continues to be a reliable resource in the
areas of neuropharmacology and in vitro models.
The conditions for admission into NGP candidacy
were very similar to what my peers conveyed
about their own departments. We were required to
complete a take-home examination of
approximately 10 questions followed by a
successful presentation of our proposed work
plan in an open forum and subsequent approval of
our dissertation committee. The examination took
approximately two weeks and when completed my
answers were approximately seventy pages long.
The questions were usually based on the findings
in current primary literature and included
formulating hypotheses, experiments and expected
results based on the observations made in the
assigned paper. This skill was reiterated in the
proposal that was submitted in a NIH grant-style
format. Upon successful completion of these
requirements we were given more freedom in
attending seminars and of course had no more
assigned class work to interfere with our
research. The timing of our candidacy
requirements, especially the submission of our
proposal in a grant-style format, was especially
useful in seeking funding from outside the
laboratory. Under the mentorship of my
department head, Dr. Blankenship and my
supervisor Dr. Taglialatela, I was able to
receive four continuous years of funding
including two years from the Sealy Center for
Aging and the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences.
Upon entering candidacy, it is easy to fall into
an everyday routine and try to “do an experiment
a day” as we are so often encouraged by our
program director. We become part of a team
learning to work with the departmental
administrators in such tasks as ordering and
publications. It also becomes important to
attend and present research at national
meetings. I have been to half a dozen national
level meetings during my time in the lab and
presented my research at all save my first. My
first Society for Neuroscience meeting presented
an opportunity to meet with our department chair
hitherto I had only interacted with in a
classroom setting. Bill Willis, our former
department chair, generously funded my trip to
New Orleans to attend the meeting even though I
had not yet been in the lab long enough to
submit an abstract. I have also learned to work
as part of a research lab coordinating lab
orders and maintenance duties with my lab mates.
My work involves the use of animal models, to
which I have written and currently update two
animal protocols. As our lab was new at the time
I joined I met with other established
researchers in our department who were very
helpful in enabling me to learn how to write a
protocol that will be approved by IACUC. Safety
is another very important issue when reporting
to a lab. I currently serve as the Hazardous
Communications Officer, which entails me
introducing all incoming or rotating students to
all of the specific hazardous materials used in
our lab and educating them on the proper use,
storage and disposal of these items. I also
serve as the Lab Safety Officer and am
responsible for maintaining and documenting
safety procedures for all personnel working in
the lab. While all these activities may seem
mundane, they are necessary to the workings of a
safe and productive lab environment.
My research has been adequately supported
through the support of my mentor as well as both
the previous and current department chair. Early
on, I was provided with funds and equipment from
various laboratories to assemble a stereotaxic
surgical bench complete with gas anesthesia. The
university provided exemplary training in the
use of gas anesthetic on small rodents and Bill
Willis once again generously lent me equipment
from a departing professor’s lab as well as
furnishing funds to replace equipment on loan
from the anesthesiology department. My mentor
has provided me with immediate feedback to all
of my questions and has a real “open door”
policy. I am very grateful for the support and
guidance Dr. Taglialatela has provided me with
over the course of my graduate training. I feel
that he has always acted as my advocate and his
candor is unquestionable. These personal traits
are very important to me in a working
relationship and even after five years of
working closely with many fine faculty at UTMB I
do not think I would choose any differently had
I the opportunity to do so. His day-to-day rigor
and nearly constant challenging encouragement
have in no small way led to my successes in
presenting my research. I have repeatedly won
recognition at various local poster
presentations both in and out of my department.
I have received unsolicited praise from many of
the faculty for my oral presentations, due to
the time Dr. Taglialatela takes in preparing
each of his students for their presentations and
the questions that follow. Our weekly lab
meetings are an important part of my training
and everyone is expected to join in on spirited
discussions of papers or recent data, including
researchers very far removed from our specific
research which is useful for looking at
phenomena from varied points of view. This has
been borne on a practical level in my committee
meetings, which have proceeded very well.
Mine has not been perhaps the most typical
graduate career. Foremost, I have the support of
my wife, Anna, with whom I have been married for
twelve years and we share in the joy of our
ten-year old son, Scotty. My extracurricular
activities have been somewhat limited but I have
enjoyed the prospect of new challenges when they
have arisen with the full support of my mentor.
I have been elected to serve in the Graduate
Student Organization both as a department
representative and as the Vice-President. For
two years I worked with a high school student,
Kyle Stramblad, at my lab as part of the
Bench-Top Mentoring Program. I have been part of
a team taught Introductory Toxicology course at
an undergraduate and master’s level here at UTMB
and Texas A&M Galveston as well as part of a
distance learning class at my alma mater Texas
A&M Corpus Christi. Mary Moslen is the course
director and has been instrumental in allowing
me to have numerous teaching experiences
providing critical support in helping me to
learn to teach others effectively. I have been
recently recognized for my teaching efforts and
was awarded the inaugural Leon Bromberg Student
Teaching Award. One of the most rewarding
extracurricular activities I have been involved
with has been as serving as Senior Co-Director
for the National Student Research Foundation
which hosts a national level scientific meeting
for medical and graduate students from across
the country. Being responsible for planning and
executing an event of such magnitude has been
one of the greatest challenges I have ever been
able to meet. This was a profound lesson in the
need to work with a group in order to get the
best job accomplished. This group not only
included other co-directors, but senior
administrative faculty such as the Dean of the
Graduate School, Carey Cooper and the Dean of
Medicine, Stan Lemon and their respective staff
as well as the entire Faculty of Medicine.
It has been a very rewarding experience but I
feel the absence of patient care intensely. It
is now the summer of my fifth year as a graduate
student and it does not seem so long ago that I
decided to leave the military to begin my
academic training in pursuit of my ultimate goal
of providing patient care as a physician. I have
no regrets about completing a graduate degree
and feel that my experiences at UTMB have been
as personally rewarding as anywhere in the
world. Of course, I have ideas for specific
changes that I feel would improve the graduate
education but I have no doubt that I am in the
company of a great number of dedicated faculty
who feel just as I. My thanks goes out to
faculty such as John Papaconstantinou and Billy
Phillips who have chosen to use their awards to
better improve graduate education in such
endeavors as this essay and the setting up of
the very first student teaching award here at
UTMB. There have been a few surprises and more
than a few challenges along the way, but I, with
the support of my wife and son, feel the
sacrifices we have made are acceptable given my
determination to have a career that enables me
to pursue my passions for both medicine and
research.
||
GSBS Home || Return
to Table of Contents ||
Back To Top || |
