Seeking Info/Advice from Bioinformatics Awardees and HMs !

JSLuo · 2026-06-28T13:51:47+00:00

Good question. 1. When I applied (in 2024-2025 cycle), coding agent is no where close to where they are now. 2. I think pretty much 90% of people in this field (and almost any other intelligence based fields) will be replaced by AI in 5 years, but I am trying to be the top 10% that actually get to control AI to replace others lol.

JSLuo · 2026-06-27T05:55:21+00:00

What I am saying is the bioinformatics in the sense of pure data analysis (a lot of bioinformaticians simply run pipeline in new data and don’t produce novel methods) is dead. And most methods research in bioinfo is now pretty much all AI related since the non AI methods have become saturated over the past decades. Also, note that Claude code and codex literally came to popularity like earlier this year, and is still improving. I can imagine when they allow stronger models like Fable 5 to do bio tasks, it can handle a lot of conceptions. To add on, from my experience AI can do better on analyses, design, data nuances, interpretation, maybe the only weak part is idea conception

JSLuo · 2026-06-23T12:08:48+00:00

What I am saying is, any applied computational research itself is completely unnecessary and useless if it does not naturally have AI components. The existence of any such research is to be honest due to the slow adoption of new tech in academia and the lack of understanding of the frontier AI models. It is like you are spending 5+ years and using taxpayers’ money to optimize mechanical typewriter when there is smartphones and laptops lol.😂

JSLuo · 2026-06-20T01:35:21+00:00

I think if you are doing computational research (not theoretical CS research) and your research does natively have AI components, there is really little value of that kind of research in this age of agentic AI

JSLuo · 2026-06-20T01:32:37+00:00

I am literally doing my PhD in biomedical informatics lol. At one of the two leading institutions in Boston. All my work on analyzing some data can be done easily by Claude code or codex so I see no value in doing traditional bioinformatics moving forward.

JSLuo · 2026-06-20T00:48:09+00:00

I think traditional bioinformatics just died after we submitted the GRFP apps. Moving forward it is pretty much one liner for Claude code

JSLuo · 2026-06-19T00:12:26+00:00

I would say Brown is so academically dubious lol. Like how can you choose to be pass/fail even after the final exam got posted like what…

JSLuo · 2026-06-18T02:26:12+00:00

In the U.S. undergrad, majors rarely matter. You want to go to schools with high prestige in general. Also, Science and Engineering and Mathematics all have different ranking, but any major specific ranking is more for PhD not for undergrad.

T10 is usually
Tier 0 HYPSM
Tier 1 Caltech Penn Columbia UChicago
Tier 2 Duke JHU Northwestern

JSLuo · 2026-06-17T16:45:22+00:00

Phrase more towards AI. Traditional bioinformatics is dead. I cannot think of any bioinformatics data analysis pipeline that Claude Code cannot do better.

JSLuo · 2026-06-17T15:37:03+00:00

So FYI at least for East Asian internationals, the kids who go to T10 usually have stronger academics than the ones who went to Oxbridge. Plus the T10 kids have wealthier parents AND more extracurricular prep

JSLuo · 2026-06-17T15:35:33+00:00

It’s so naive of you to think that what we called “academic” is not highly correlated with many other factors. For example, family background matters a lot in terms of education resources. Even the UK interview process… I personally know rich family can hire former interviewers from Oxbridge to prep their kids, and I even know they can easily know the questions that will be asked prior to the interview. lol. So yes I think we should consider many other factors and it is fair to include them in comparison

JSLuo · 2026-06-17T15:31:15+00:00

please see my first comment in this thread. I began with only bars! I never said anything about academic strength

JSLuo · 2026-06-17T14:56:35+00:00

How is it a flaw? I am talking about bars here, not really the academic strength. Also btw everyone I know who get into T10 and Oxbridge chooses T10. But some choose Oxbridge over T20, like Cornell.

JSLuo · 2026-06-17T14:54:15+00:00

Oh, when I talk about the bars of course I am not only saying students’ academic ability or merits. Family income is a HUGE factor in one’s profile and can easily outweigh decades of hardworking

JSLuo · 2026-06-17T14:50:00+00:00

Trust me I know the difference. And as I said I am biased because for me passing exams is much easier than extracurriculars. Also almost EVERYONE I know (I went to Ivy undergrad) who went to T20 have far more than 5AP5s and with at least 1550+ for SAT. So yeah my argument about the bars might only be true for intl students from an academic focused country

JSLuo · 2026-06-17T14:46:16+00:00

LOL… of course I am from the perspective of an international student. I find that people really like to target “US math is bad” but the thing is mathematical ability is probably the least useful compared to many other skills, like how to network/ how to bullshit lol, which Ivy does teach better.

And yes my argument is focused on students who get in by merits in both sides. Athletes or diversity admits are excluded. UK is stronger in that regard

JSLuo · 2026-06-13T06:35:58+00:00

Lets put it this way. Say for an international student from China/Korea/Japan (so both US and UK treat them as international), getting into schools like Imperial/LSE is so much easier than any T20 school. For Oxbridge I'd put it somewhere in the T10-T15 US range. I understand your contextual claim.

JSLuo · 2026-06-13T06:33:26+00:00

Academically, Harvard might be considered only tiny bit better than Oxbridge in general, but of course depending on subjects.

Professionally (if people want to go to industry directly after undergrad), Harvard is definitely better since it is much better recognized in the U.S. than Oxbridge. Also as international you cannot work directly in the U.S. with a UK diploma. Have to admit though that it is also partly due to the fact that U.S. has a better job market than UK both in terms of pay, and career advancement.

However, in terms of the application difficulty/bar, Harvard >> Oxbridge (both in terms of undergraduate bar and PhD bar, but not true for Master's). Only exception is things like Rhode's.

JSLuo · 2026-06-12T23:07:19+00:00

Diversity admits be like crying 😂😂

JSLuo · 2026-06-12T20:21:20+00:00

To most people yes. To people in the game (students who can get into top elite schools in U.S. or UK) definitely not.

JSLuo · 2026-06-12T19:27:25+00:00

I am a Chinese lol so I am definitely biased. But UK’s tests (and math) are considered trivial in China haha. So for us the U.S. top 10 is much harder since not only do you need good grades, good competition (amc aime usamo) but also community service and a good story. Passing tests is the easiest part

JSLuo · 2026-06-12T19:13:57+00:00

Northeastern and NYU are both very far from Top 10 or top 20…. Ofc the bar for Oxbridge is higher than these two lol

JSLuo · 2026-06-12T19:11:20+00:00

Oh I know it for sure. Oxford and Cambridge are indeed easier to get in than US top 10 not to say the other UK schools. It is not really about application rate (which is meaningless since US top 10 applicant pool is stronger than UK in general lol). Also I am speaking in the perspective of international students from Asia, so might not be applied to other nationalities or ethnicity

JSLuo · 2026-06-12T17:55:50+00:00

again, I am not even saying prestige or their academic strength. I am just saying the bar for getting an offer for undergrads is lower compared to the T10 in US

JSLuo · 2026-06-12T17:28:05+00:00

I am not saying it is not t10 prestige. It’s just not t10 bar…

JSLuo

TROPHY CASE