Am I thinking too much about majors?

[x1240tony]

--

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Member011]

I would definitely keep on the track for a B.S. degree. No school is necessarily going to know that your major is the "go-to pre-health major". As long as you're interested in what you're studying and completing prereqs you will need then you're good.
My major combined chem, bio, physics, etc classes also and I was fine.

 

[gbwillner]

I know music majors that went on to complete their MD/PhD in top tier institutions. Point is, none of this matters at all. Just do well.

 

[Fencer]

MD/PhD Advisory Committees do examine how well you did in critical core (org chem) and advanced biological courses. More critical is the adequate exposure to laboratory research, particularly if you were able to play a role leading the investigation to a publication. Changing major is considerably of less importance.

 

[Maebea]

Not exactly on topic, but related: multiple majors do not impress admissions committees. Add a second major only if it makes sense for your research ambitions. A second major can take time away from lab, so it can actually weaken your application. It is better to stick with a rigorous single major than to spread yourself thinly over two majors.

 

[x1240tony]

[[

 

[Mel Belle]

MD/PhD Advisory Committees do examine how well you did in critical core (org chem) and advanced biological courses. More critical is the adequate exposure to laboratory research, particularly if you were able to play a role leading the investigation to a publication. Changing major is considerably of less importance.

This year I'm taking organic chemistry. I was in a partial medical leave and received an A- last semester and am not quite recovered yet, with a potential B+ for this semester. Will this look bad? I assume it will obviously look better if I get As or A-s (maybe a B+ here or there) in my upper level chemistry and physics classes, but will it make up for it? Or a 32+ MCAT score (I haven't taken it yet, just theoretically speaking)? I know organic chemistry is something they look at, but I didn't want to take an entire year off for medical leave so I'm trying to push through. (My doctors think I'll be okay by the fall.)

 

[Mel Belle]

Not exactly on topic, but related: multiple majors do not impress admissions committees. Add a second major only if it makes sense for your research ambitions. A second major can take time away from lab, so it can actually weaken your application. It is better to stick with a rigorous single major than to spread yourself thinly over two majors.

Is is necessarily bad, though? I personally am a biochem major and have psych and physics minors (will prob have an unintentional math minor after physics) and some people seem to think it's necessary to tell me how much admissions committees won't care, but I'm taking them out of interest, not to be impressive. I think psych is relevant to the neuro and psych specialties I'm interested in. Physics is more because I'm really interested in learning more about the world from different scientific perspectives, which might bring an interesting approach to research. I'm also really interested in endocrinology, which I suppose biochemistry covers.

 

[Maebea]

Is is necessarily bad, though? I personally am a biochem major and have psych and physics minors (will prob have an unintentional math minor after physics) and some people seem to think it's necessary to tell me how much admissions committees won't care, but I'm taking them out of interest, not to be impressive. I think psych is relevant to the neuro and psych specialties I'm interested in. Physics is more because I'm really interested in learning more about the world from different scientific perspectives, which might bring an interesting approach to research. I'm also really interested in endocrinology, which I suppose biochemistry covers.

No, it is not a bad thing unless it significantly impinges on research time or wrecks your GPA. I think people go out of their way to tell you that it will not impress admissions committees because so many double major with precisely the intent of impressing adcoms. In recent years, economics has been a favorite second major. Nothing wrong with economics itself-I took several econ courses because they interested me-but it is not worth the effort if you are only doing it for adcoms.

 

[okemba]

Maybe a note on Cal Newport - the man is a theoretical computer scientist - a mathematician. His advice on becoming "so good they can't ignore you" and becoming exceptional at specific valuable skills is definitely excellent general advice (and his college success books are phenomenal - buy them!), but I feel like it can lead some people astray. I'm not sure how well it really applies to people who do experimental work or run experimental labs. I personally find it difficult to identify specific skills that the PIs I've worked under have been "so good they can't ignore you" at, because to be a successful wet-lab scientist or physician-scientist requires 'holistic competence' in so many different areas, and experimental work itself takes up a tremendous amount of time and certainly does not at all qualify as deliberate practice. (dry/silico work I would agree with cal on.)

I feel comfortable saying that Cal's area of study requires fewer domains of competence (probably much greater competence, as its more concentrated.) than does being an 80/20 TT who runs a wet-lab. One could certainly respond that maybe successful scientists are particular skilled at identifying promising research avenues, or efficiently designing experiments to test hypotheses, etc., etc., but overall I think applying the deliberate practice model to experimental scientists is like hammering in a screw. It can be done, but... something better is in order.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

No, it is not a bad thing unless it significantly impinges on research time or wrecks your GPA. I think people go out of their way to tell you that it will not impress admissions committees because so many double major with precisely the intent of impressing adcoms. In recent years, economics has been a favorite second major. Nothing wrong with economics itself-I took several econ courses because they interested me-but it is not worth the effort if you are only doing it for adcoms.

As you well know, they are not doing it to impress adcoms. They are doing it as a backup so they can do iBanking if the medical career fails/sucks, or vice versa. You know, sorta how so many people do MD/PhDs to have security from doing just research in a funding drought.

The most intricate planning of security credentialing was econ/chemistry double majors. Plan was iBanking, then if failed patent law (hence chemistry angle), then if failed MD(/PhD).

 

[cpi89]

experimental work itself takes up a tremendous amount of time and certainly does not at all qualify as deliberate practice. (dry/silico work I would agree with cal on.)

You seem to like to preach a lot about the problems of "wet lab" research on here. I think you've made your point previously about the merits of in silica and computational biology. You're right that successful "wet lab" scientists require holistic competence, but there are plenty of specialized "wet lab" techniques that PIs have and do make careers on being good at. It's not just a bunch of monkeys running around pipetting liquids until something works. And even the good monkeys can't get good CryoEM pictures on the first couple tries. It takes skill and practice.

 

[Mel Belle]

Maybe a note on Cal Newport - the man is a theoretical computer scientist - a mathematician. His advice on becoming "so good they can't ignore you" and becoming exceptional at specific valuable skills is definitely excellent general advice (and his college success books are phenomenal - buy them!), but I feel like it can lead some people astray. I'm not sure how well it really applies to people who do experimental work or run experimental labs. I personally find it difficult to identify specific skills that the PIs I've worked under have been "so good they can't ignore you" at, because to be a successful wet-lab scientist or physician-scientist requires 'holistic competence' in so many different areas, and experimental work itself takes up a tremendous amount of time and certainly does not at all qualify as deliberate practice. (dry/silico work I would agree with cal on.)

I feel comfortable saying that Cal's area of study requires fewer domains of competence (probably much greater competence, as its more concentrated.) than does being an 80/20 TT who runs a wet-lab. One could certainly respond that maybe successful scientists are particular skilled at identifying promising research avenues, or efficiently designing experiments to test hypotheses, etc., etc., but overall I think applying the deliberate practice model to experimental scientists is like hammering in a screw. It can be done, but... something better is in order.

I second this. I loved his books.

You know, sorta how so many people do MD/PhDs to have security from doing just research in a funding drought.

There are actually people who, like myself, actually have a legitimate interest in that type of program that doesn't involve "funding droughts" at all, you know.

 

[okemba]

.You seem to like to preach a lot about the problems of "wet lab" research on here. I think you've made your point previously about the merits of in silico and computational biology. You're right that successful "wet lab" scientists require holistic competence, but there are plenty of specialized "wet lab" techniques that PIs have and do make careers on being good at. It's not just a bunch of monkeys running around pipetting liquids until something works. And even the good monkeys can't get good CryoEM pictures on the first couple tries. It takes skill and practice.

.

I'm sorry. Its probably clear that I'm projecting my frustrations out with the things that I post. (I am a wet-lab person first and foremost anyway.) Spending the past year trying to get this one assay to work has been really frustrating. Sorry if I offended you... I was certainly too harsh in saying most wet-lab work does not "at all" count as deliberate practice. I'm not familiar with electron microscopy, but I can believe that the handling takes finesse and skill development.

However, my point is that for most of the science done with these wet-lab methods, the difference between average and top performers is less in the technical/mechanical details of carrying out a particular protocol (the monkey-ing, as you mention), and more that the latter know how to properly design the experiments, what questions to ask, and how to troubleshoot efficiently etc etc. These are valuable skills! But the time one spends in developing these skills as a fraction of total time spent running experiments is usually quite small. This is what I find troubling.

That's of course not an argument to avoid wet-lab work (I appreciate my medications...lol).