.

[noah_fence]

Hi, I was browsing through the forums and saw some discussion about basic research being more valued than clinical but wanted to know if this was true. I know it is harder to publish in basic research so that would make sense, but I was wondering if it would improve my chances if I added a basic research position in addition to my clinical one. In terms of publications, if I can manage to get a high-impact publication in clinical research would that be enough to make my research stand out, or should I also make sure to pursue a basic science position as well?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gyngyn]

Doing what actually interests you is a choice you will not regret.
You will do it with enthusiasm, be more likely to have success and speak about it in a way that others want to hear.

 

[noah_fence]

Doing what actually interests you is a choice you will not regret.
You will do it with enthusiasm, be more likely to have success and speak about it in a way that others want to hear.

Thanks for your response. My interest is in bioinformatics, so I would be interested in both clinical and basic research where I would be able to use coding so I am open to doing either.

 

[Goro]

The wise DrMidlife on research: “you've preferably had some exposure to research so you can be convinced that Wakefield used malicious dirtbag methods and is not the savior of the world's children.”

As long as you're learning something about the scientific method, it doesn't matter if you're studying clams in Fiji, or genotyping moles excised from patients.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

You should treat research and other activities as ends in themselves rather than means to an end. Publication output at the undergraduate level is based on luck much more so than at the PhD level. While publications most definitely help, they aren’t the end all be all for top five schools. Out of the people from my school that ended up at H/S/J/P, I would say that about half didn’t have a publication. On the other hand, some who had 3 or 4 publications didn’t get in.
With that being said, I’ve heard that nature, cell, and science publications can pave the way to T5 much more so than perfect gpa and MCAT scores. Obviously these elements must be somewhat in line with the school standards

 

[KnightDoc]

You should treat research and other activities as ends in themselves rather than means to an end. Publication output at the undergraduate level is based on luck much more so than at the PhD level. While publications most definitely help, they aren’t the end all be all for top five schools. Out of the people from my school that ended up at H/S/J/P, I would say that about half didn’t have a publication. On the other hand, some who had 3 or 4 publications didn’t get in.
With that being said, I’ve heard that nature, cell, and science publications can pave the way to T5 much more so than perfect gpa and MCAT scores. Obviously these elements must be somewhat in line with the school standards

I've heard this as well. That doesn't mean it's true; it only means some people might be confusing correlation with causation.

I have always believed that whether and where UGs are published is much more a function of the juice of their PIs than of any special research gift possessed by the applicant. I am quite certain adcoms see this as well, and that is what explains why it's not unusual to achieve success at tippy top schools without pubs while having pubs does not guarantee success, anywhere.

 

[Just D.O. it]

The wise DrMidlife on research: “you've preferably had some exposure to research so you can be convinced that Wakefield used malicious dirtbag methods and is not the savior of the world's children.”

As long as you're learning something about the scientific method, it doesn't matter if you're studying clams in Fiji, or genotyping moles excised from patients.

With respect, I don’t think this is true given that OP’s question specified T5 schools. I know that at MD schools that primarily aim to produce physicians who will serve their community and DO schools the emphasis on research is a lot less than the medical schools near the tippy top of the rankings. At these schools, actual high impact publications to your name and a history of working with people well known and regarded in their field will do a lot more for your application than studying clams with a researcher no one has heard of and getting no pubs out of it. This is not to degrade or put down the latter experience. I’m just saying that it’s not gonna be on the same level as the former when your App is getting reviewed at a T5 school.

So to answer OPs question, based on what I’ve personally seen, I’d advise that you devote most, if not all, of your time to whatever research/lab you think will yield the most high impact pubs for your resume.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Thanks for your response. My interest is in bioinformatics, so I would be interested in both clinical and basic research where I would be able to use coding so I am open to doing either.

As long as you have good experience in any type of research with good LOR from PI you are fine. My kid did Computational research for 4 years (by app time, starting in HS) but no paper by application cycle. He had clinical and wet lab experience also but not shown as meaningful experience. you can see his results in my signature.

 

[deleted1080380]

Your MCAT is far and beyond the most important thing for "T5" schools so just hammer that away before worrying about pubs and whatnot.

 

[Zuggelder]

I've heard this as well. That doesn't mean it's true; it only means some people might be confusing correlation with causation.

I have always believed that whether and where UGs are published is much more a function of the juice of their PIs than of any special research gift possessed by the applicant. I am quite certain adcoms see this as well, and that is what explains why it's not unusual to achieve success at tippy top schools without pubs while having pubs does not guarantee success, anywhere.

I would also add that undergrads that get high impact journal publication tend to attend really good undergrad institutions (T20s). That would add to the "confusing correlation with causation" mix. At my undergrad, faculty don't publish in high impact journals often (once in a blue moon at my UG vs. an everyday occurrence at Harvard/Stanford/MIT etc.).

So undergrads at top schools are really lucky to have the opportunity to work under top researchers in the country/world and potentially have a much greater chance at publishing at nature, cell, and science, etc. than the vast majority of other pre-med students.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I would also add that undergrads that get high impact journal publication tend to attend really good undergrad institutions (T20s). That would add to the "confusing correlation with causation" mix. At my undergrad, faculty don't publish in high impact journals often (once in a blue moon at my UG vs. an everyday occurrence at Harvard/Stanford/MIT etc.).

So undergrads at top schools are really lucky to have the opportunity to work under top researchers in the country/world and potentially have a much greater chance at publishing at nature, cell, and science, etc. than the vast majority of other pre-med students.

So back to prestige matters? 😀

 

[Goro]

With respect, I don’t think this is true given that OP’s question specified T5 schools. I know that at MD schools that primarily aim to produce physicians who will serve their community and DO schools the emphasis on research is a lot less than the medical schools near the tippy top of the rankings. At these schools, actual high impact publications to your name and a history of working with people well known and regarded in their field will do a lot more for your application than studying clams with a researcher no one has heard of and getting no pubs out of it. This is not to degrade or put down the latter experience. I’m just saying that it’s not gonna be on the same level as the former when your App is getting reviewed at a T5 school.

So to answer OPs question, based on what I’ve personally seen, I’d advise that you devote most, if not all, of your time to whatever research/lab you think will yield the most high impact pubs for your resume.

The subject was not about productivity.

I've seen enough posts from people who got into Really Top Schools that had pubs in a wide variety of fields, including public health; health disparities; poetry; policy making; and psychology.

 

[Zuggelder]

So back to prestige matters? 😀

No one can refute the fact that going to a top school gives you access to more and higher quality opportunities (research, ECs, etc.) than non-top schools. I don't go to a top school and I'm fine admitting this!


Of course this is a generalization and there are exceptions, but you can not attain wisdom/consensus without generalization.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

Talking from my own experience at a T5, get your basics down first, ie, mcat and gpa, then find one area to excel in, volunteering, research or whatnot, then you will have a decent shot at T5’s.

 

[noah_fence]

I've heard this as well. That doesn't mean it's true; it only means some people might be confusing correlation with causation.

I have always believed that whether and where UGs are published is much more a function of the juice of their PIs than of any special research gift possessed by the applicant. I am quite certain adcoms see this as well, and that is what explains why it's not unusual to achieve success at tippy top schools without pubs while having pubs does not guarantee success, anywhere.

I go to a good research school. What would be the best way to get a high impact pub? My PI has an h index of ~100, is that high enough to give me a good shot? Also, would emailing good profs at other institutions be wise or would it be harder to meaningfully contribute?

 

[Goro]

I go to a good research school. What would be the best way to get a high impact pub? My PI has an h index of ~100, is that high enough to give me a good shot? Also, would emailing good profs at other institutions be wise or would it be harder to meaningfully contribute?

This is impossible to answer, because it will depend upon the novelty and relevance of whatever findings your project develops.

 

[Orims]

People in my class have research ranging from very basic science , to translational, to clinical, to public health. Some people don't have that much research experience but incredible volunteering/service time.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

I go to a good research school. What would be the best way to get a high impact pub? My PI has an h index of ~100, is that high enough to give me a good shot? Also, would emailing good profs at other institutions be wise or would it be harder to meaningfully contribute?

Do you care about high impact pub as a middle author or low impact pub as a first or second author?

 

[KnightDoc]

This is impossible to answer, because it will depend upon the novelty and relevance of whatever findings your project develops.

This^^^^^. More importantly, there is honestly no reason to chase the high impact pub as an end in itself. The fact that a lot of people are admitted to top schools everywhere without them, or without any pubs at all, indicates they are not essential, although they are certainly very nice to have.

What is essential is overall excellence, and being published in high impact publications is just one indicia of that. I'd focus more on building an impressive body or work consistent with my interests, rather than chasing some trophy that I heard might help me.

 

[noah_fence]

Do you care about high impact pub as a middle author or low impact pub as a first or second author?

Well to clarify my situation, I already have mid-author pub and will soon have a first author (probably in a decent but not high IF journal) so I think getting a high IF would help would help. Ideally I’d want a beginning author in high impact which is obviously very hard but I’m hoping I can get lucky and find a lab that’ll make this possible. Also, what would hold more weight in general, having another first author or getting a mid author in a high IF?

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

Well to clarify my situation, I already have mid-author pub and will soon have a first author (probably in a decent but not high IF journal) so I think getting a high IF would help would help. Ideally I’d want a beginning author in high impact which is obviously very hard but I’m hoping I can get lucky and find a lab that’ll make this possible. Also, what would hold more weight in general, having another first author or getting a mid author in a high IF?

No one cares about IF on the level of pre-med and medical students.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I go to a good research school. What would be the best way to get a high impact pub? My PI has an h index of ~100, is that high enough to give me a good shot? Also, would emailing good profs at other institutions be wise or would it be harder to meaningfully contribute?

Solving the Reimann hypothesis would do the trick.

Emailing them about what? Don’t most professors who have a track record of publishing in top journals have armies of Post-docs willing to pay their own way (through grants) to work withthem?

The best way to make a meaningful impact as an undergrad is to learn a high value, niche skill that streamlines the research process. Think along the lines of being able to program a script that can simulate in person experiments on AWS. Or in bio/Chem, being able to take over the statistical analysis
that the PI usually outsources etc.

 

[snooper]

It's usually much faster to get clinical research done and published than basic research. Other than that, great advice above to learn a specific skill or lab technique, e.g. flow cytometry or Elisa's or whatever.

 

[DoctorFate]

I've done both clinical and lab research. If you're looking purely for "publication points" clinical is almost always better. A lab publication is worth more than a clinical publication, but much, much harder to get (usually).

 

[LadyDustyBlue]

The subject was not about productivity.

I've seen enough posts from people who got into Really Top Schools that had pubs in a wide variety of fields, including public health; health disparities; poetry; policy making; and psychology.

Tbh, this made me hopeful because for one of the schools I’ll be applying to for transfer, my potential program requires students to do original research & publish. And it is definitely not in biology, chem, or a science, so… it’ll be something if I get in & I know I’ll be passionate about it.

Not to say I won’t try to find a research opportunity that *is* clinical or lab-based, but I’m glad to read it’s not the only thing that counts.

 

[Ehegi]

Let's cut to the chase. If you're looking at the top programs, the real question they're asking is "are you a successful person? have you proven that you have what it takes to continue to be successful? would our investment into your education help you achieve further success?" This is the real reason that success begets more success; like an escalator.

As such, when people say "do what you're passionate about," they mean to say that you're more likely to be successful in something you care about rather than something you're doing to try to simply fit the mold of what you think someone else may be looking for. It's also why you will find all sorts of different people at a T5 program who got there via all sorts of different paths, aka not all just publishing in Nature (although there will be some of those). The one common theme amongst the students in those diverse classes however, is that they had a vision of what they wanted to achieve in life, followed that vision with intent, taking advantage of the opportunities they had available to them, and EXCELLED at it. If you look at their CV and their personal narratives, it tells a completely convincing story of exactly how they ended up where they ended up, and also where they're headed. It is a story of: "yes. this person is a successful person. you put them in any setting, they will continue to be a successful person. they demonstrated their focus, work ethic, intelligence, morality, etc etc etc via their track record." At that point, the T5 school will then ask "will this person benefit from being at our institution? can we help them further their journey towards their ultimate goal?"

So to answer OP's original question of basic vs clinical research; doesn't really matter

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

A bit of a stretch and romantization on how people end up at those programs. The real magic of getting into a t5 program is to tell a compelling and unique story. Not necessarily a story of success. Your job is to find that unique angle through which you can string all your life choices together and make a compelling case that you are special and therefore if they want to brag about how amazing their student body is, they have to take you.
Most of my classmates are not that successful, but they all have something special and unique about them.