Any scribes out there accepted to HMS, Hopkins, etc?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Greedo

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
178
Reaction score
15
Hi everyone,
I graduated from college in 2011 and since then have worked in research, but I want to take a scribing job because I'm not learning anything or progressing in my research job anymore. I'm applying to med school either this year or next year, and I would love to get back into the clinic during that time.
I talked to my PI about this (he's on the adcom at a med school) and he said that I'd be shooting myself in the foot by becoming a scribe. Basically, he said that it wouldn't be challenging work and that adcoms would criticize me for giving up a research job to do something entry-level like scribing.
Will working as a scribe really ruin my chances of going to one of the top ten schools? I want to apply to the best schools as my "reach" schools and I want to know if scribing will rule those schools out. I'm not shooting for a top ten, but it would be depressing if doing what I want to do (scribing) gets in the way of a chance to go there.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Research-oriented schools like research-oriented jobs.

But really, if your application is at risk of going under just because of an EC, you're doing something wrong. Your PI might just be saying that so he doesn't have to train another lab tech.
 
It wouldn't be an EC, it would be a full time job.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It wouldn't be an EC, it would be a full time job.

Countless people have worked 9-5, non-medicine related jobs before going to top schools. Being a scribe would not kill you.
 
haha I love when people claim that doing a medically-related or community-based experience will hurt you. It's debatable whether the research position is more helpful than the scribe position but neither will hurt you.
 
haha I think he just wants to keep you working for him. Scribing is a great clinical experience, and you should take it if you are lacking that
 
My two cents is that if you want to head off to research-oriented schools like HMS or Hopkins, research is probably the best job that you can hold on to. Many of the MDs who you will be interviewing will be able to connect with you on research more so than scribing.
 
OP, you need to ask yourself something.

Do you want to go to a top 10 research school because of the research, or because you solely want the name recognition of being accepted in to a top 10?

If you couldn't give two sh*ts about research, then take the scribe job, and stop worrying about getting into said schools. You'll thank me later.
 
My two cents is that if you want to head off to research-oriented schools like HMS or Hopkins, research is probably the best job that you can hold on to. Many of the MDs who you will be interviewing will be able to connect with you on research more so than scribing.
That's what I'm worried about, I just don't want to close any doors.
 
OP, you need to ask yourself something.

Do you want to go to a top 10 research school because of the research, or because you solely want the name recognition of being accepted in to a top 10?

If you couldn't give two sh*ts about research, then take the scribe job, and stop worrying about getting into said schools. You'll thank me later.
Good question. I'm not gunning for a top ten, but I do want to do research in the future, and that's why I'd like research-oriented schools. The problem is that the research in my current lab is BS, and since clinical experience is my weak point, scribing might be good. Plus I think it'd be fun.
 
Good question. I'm not gunning for a top ten, but I do want to do research in the future, and that's why I'd like research-oriented schools. The problem is that the research in my current lab is BS, and since clinical experience is my weak point, scribing might be good. Plus I think it'd be fun.

Are you going to get pubs? Research without pubs (past a certain point) means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

A person with a year of research and a person with 3 years of research are on level playing ground, if no pubs are involved. If anything, your interviewers might ask you why you didn't have anything to show for the extra time.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Are you going to get pubs? Research without pubs (past a certain point) means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

A person with a year of research and a person with 3 years of research are on level playing ground, if no pubs are involved. If anything, your interviewers might ask you why you didn't have anything to show for the extra time.

Anyone involved in research would understand that things dont always work the way you expect them to especially if you're an undergraduate. No pubs doesn't necessarily mean you ''wasted your time''.
 
While being a scribe isn't a bad position, I have heard the same thing your PI told you about preferences of top schools (from someone who interviews for a top 10). There are endless premeds with scribe experience. It really doesn't set you apart from anyone else. That incredible story you have about a patient's live being saved? Theyve heard it 10 times before. Additionally, scribe is a mechanical job. You're not really using your brain. Research on the other hand is unique by definition. It requires active though and you have something interesting to talk about that the adcoms have never heard before. If you're interested in mid-tiers, the positions are probably comprable. Top tier schools want research
 
Are you going to get pubs? Research without pubs (past a certain point) means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

A person with a year of research and a person with 3 years of research are on level playing ground, if no pubs are involved. If anything, your interviewers might ask you why you didn't have anything to show for the extra time.

This is wrong. Especially at the undergraduate level, publications are often the product of luck and who you work with.
 
This is wrong. Especially at the undergraduate level, publications are often the product of luck and who you work with.

Are you saying that doing the same thing for 3 years with no chance of advancement is better than having a variety of experiences under your belt? That is the point I'm trying to get across.

If the lab job is a dead end, go for the scribe position, just to get the clinical experience. You'll appreciate it once you get to school.
 
Your question is more complicated than your title makes it out to be. Yes, many people with a history of scribing (including years off to do it) go to all schools, but the dean wasn't saying that being a scribe was bad. The dean was saying not to give up research for it.
I disagree with the dean, fwiw. I think you should do the one that is more interesting to you since you already have the requisite research.
 
Are you saying that doing the same thing for 3 years with no chance of advancement is better than having a variety of experiences under your belt? That is the point I'm trying to get across.

If the lab job is a dead end, go for the scribe position, just to get the clinical experience. You'll appreciate it once you get to school.

I don't know what you mean by "dead end," considering that scribing itself is exactly that. A research project may have a dead end, but a research job is not. There are so many things to learn in any branch of science, and for any undergraduate, demonstrating one's lessons in lab is not limited to producing publications.
 
Looks like i need to get into a research program asap to have any chance at these top-tier research schools?

Is years working as with some publication be considered in place of research?
 
Last edited:
While being a scribe isn't a bad position, I have heard the same thing your PI told you about preferences of top schools (from someone who interviews for a top 10). There are endless premeds with scribe experience. It really doesn't set you apart from anyone else. That incredible story you have about a patient's live being saved? Theyve heard it 10 times before. Additionally, scribe is a mechanical job. You're not really using your brain. Research on the other hand is unique by definition. It requires active though and you have something interesting to talk about that the adcoms have never heard before. If you're interested in mid-tiers, the positions are probably comprable. Top tier schools want research
That's what I'm worried about, but working the lab right now, I'm stagnating. I worked in labs during all of college, part time during the year and full time during the summers, and now I've been in a lab full time for two years since graduating. I think that to progress any further as a scientist, I'd have to go on and get a Master's or PhD, which I'm not doing.
So I want something clinical, and scribing seems like the best option, though it is a dead-end job.
 
Looks like i need to get into a research program asap to have any chance at these top-tier research schools?

Is 10yrs working as a software developer with some publication be considered in place of research?
I'm not sure. I do know of one person who got into HMS without any research, but he was an amazing candidate in other ways.
 
Countless people have worked 9-5, non-medicine related jobs before going to top schools. Being a scribe would not kill you.

Good question. I'm not gunning for a top ten, but I do want to do research in the future, and that's why I'd like research-oriented schools. The problem is that the research in my current lab is BS, and since clinical experience is my weak point, scribing might be good. Plus I think it'd be fun.

I don't think you should worry about scribing being some difference maker in your application (either sinking or elevating it). If you don't like your research, just do scribing. This will not keep you out of top 10 school, especially since you've evidently already done plenty of research. I'm pretty sure this guy just wants you to stay in your lab or is of the mind that research is the best activity for these schools in all situations (which I don't agree with).

Are you going to get pubs? Research without pubs (past a certain point) means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

A person with a year of research and a person with 3 years of research are on level playing ground, if no pubs are involved. If anything, your interviewers might ask you why you didn't have anything to show for the extra time.

I disagree with this. A year of research vs 3 years of research are two very obviously different activities. Further, there are other ways that even two people researching for the same length of time can distinguish themselves without having to get a pub (posters, oral talks, etc).
 
Thanks for the help everyone. I'll go to the scribing interview and see how it goes. Both choices, continued research and scribing, seem great, so I probably can't go wrong.
 
I think being a scribe will help you get into some schools. I don't think research-heavy top20 schools will care about a scribe job nearly as much as a long-term research commitment. So if your goal is only to get into top10 schools for some reason, then I wouldn't ditch your research gig to become a scribe.
 
Are you going to get pubs? Research without pubs (past a certain point) means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

A person with a year of research and a person with 3 years of research are on level playing ground, if no pubs are involved. If anything, your interviewers might ask you why you didn't have anything to show for the extra time.
This is patently untrue. OP, do not listen to this "advice."
 
This is patently untrue. OP, do not listen to this "advice."

I don't know what you mean by "dead end," considering that scribing itself is exactly that. A research project may have a dead end, but a research job is not. There are so many things to learn in any branch of science, and for any undergraduate, demonstrating one's lessons in lab is not limited to producing publications.

Oh look, OP is in a "dead end" in his current position. What do you know.

See: "stagnating"
 
It's true that being a lab tech is better in the eyes of top ten schools--that is, if you already have enough clinical experience. But two years is a long time. I'd say, ask your PI for your own research project.. something that you'll be in charge of. it'd be way better. If you can't get one, then a medical scribe position might just be easier for you during ur application year. but don't think it'll look amazing to adcom's. it's just another form of clinical experience that they'll check off on.
 
Are you going to get pubs? Research without pubs (past a certain point) means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

A person with a year of research and a person with 3 years of research are on level playing ground, if no pubs are involved. If anything, your interviewers might ask you why you didn't have anything to show for the extra time.

Research without pubs can be very meaningful. Some lab projects takes years to release a pub, since it's not a super fast paced project.

Other times, PI's will refuse to let undergraduates publish just because they are very traditional and believe only those who design the whole project or contributed significant intellectual analysis can publish, qualities that are often above what an undergraduate can do or is asked to do.

Publications are basically luck. If you get a picky PI, then getting published is much more difficult.
 
Research without pubs can be very meaningful. Some lab projects takes years to release a pub, since it's not a super fast paced project.

Other times, PI's will refuse to let undergraduates publish just because they are very traditional and believe only those who design the whole project or contributed significant intellectual analysis can publish, qualities that are often above what an undergraduate can do or is asked to do.

Publications are basically luck. If you get a picky PI, then getting published is much more difficult.

Past a certain point.

Think about it this way: research is just part of one big giant checklist. Once you put in the adequate amount of time, it's safe to move on to the next activity at no penalty to you.

You might love research, and that's wonderful. If that's the case, keep doing it. But to sacrifice other clinical experiences only in hopes of "having an extra leg up" on the competition (e.g. doing 3.5 years of undergraduate research instead of the average 1.5) is just silly, especially if there's no incredible incentive involved.
 
Research without pubs can be very meaningful. Some lab projects takes years to release a pub, since it's not a super fast paced project.

Other times, PI's will refuse to let undergraduates publish just because they are very traditional and believe only those who design the whole project or contributed significant intellectual analysis can publish, qualities that are often above what an undergraduate can do or is asked to do.

Publications are basically luck. If you get a picky PI, then getting published is much more difficult.

They are largely based on luck, but you can improve your luck by choosing your PI/project wisely and working hard.

Sent from my Nexus 7
 
Top