Calculating Research Exp

[flyers]

I have a question about research experience. I know that for md phd a minimum of 2 years of research experience is recommended. How do summers factor into determining the number of years?

If I have 2 summers and a full year, would that equal "2 years"? How about 3 summers and 1 year? I tried finding an answer to this but couldn't

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SBR249]

I have a question about research experience. I know that for md phd a minimum of 2 years of research experience is recommended. How do summers factor into determining the number of years?

If I have 2 summers and a full year, would that equal "2 years"? How about 3 summers and 1 year? I tried finding an answer to this but couldn't

The thing is the 2 year minimum "requirement" incorporates into it an element of continuity that adcoms also consider. For example, if you consider a summer to be 12 weeks, then 4 summers would be almost equal to a year. However, I would argue that a year of continuous research in the same lab is better than 4 summers because it implies that you were able to become much more involved and are more likely to carry a project from conception to finish.

So tl;dr: adcoms like to see continuity, which is hard to get with summer work even with equivalent time.

 

[flyers]

The thing is the 2 year minimum "requirement" incorporates into it an element of continuity that adcoms also consider. For example, if you consider a summer to be 12 weeks, then 4 summers would be almost equal to a year. However, I would argue that a year of continuous research in the same lab is better than 4 summers because it implies that you were able to become much more involved and are more likely to carry a project from conception to finish.

So tl;dr: adcoms like to see continuity, which is hard to get with summer work even with equivalent time.

After doing both i personally disagree. Summer research is more involved in my opinion, but I know you're right. What you said echoes other people's opinions.

So then what would an Adcom think of 2 or 3 summers and an academic year in the same lab? Would that count as "2 years", including that continuity element?

 

[Thioester]

The thing is the 2 year minimum "requirement" incorporates into it an element of continuity that adcoms also consider. For example, if you consider a summer to be 12 weeks, then 4 summers would be almost equal to a year. However, I would argue that a year of continuous research in the same lab is better than 4 summers because it implies that you were able to become much more involved and are more likely to carry a project from conception to finish.

So tl;dr: adcoms like to see continuity, which is hard to get with summer work even with equivalent time.

One of my professors from undergrad would argue the opposing view point. His opinion, and that of his colleagues, he stated, is that one summer is superior to two (academic) years. The reason is that during the school year, assuming an otherwise full course-load, the most undergraduates can typically commit 12 - 16 hours per week in the lab. To the contrary, during a summer project, the undergraduate can commit 40 - 60+ hours per week.

Regarding involvement, this is highly variable. I wouldn't necessarily contend that involvement in a summer project is inferior, the sole reason being the length (or, rather, lack thereof). This depends on the complexity and rigor of the project. For what it's worth, in my experiences, summer projects for undergraduates have been geared towards the, relatively, short duration of time that is available.

OP, there is not necessarily a rigidly-defined "minimum" for research -- comparable to the 3.0 GPA cut-off, for example -- that would, potentially, screen out applicants. Though, for MD/PhD applicants, the duration of your research is certainly not the greatest, you have not specified the extent of your work. Do you have your own project? Publications? Posters? Will your PI testify to your abilities in a recommendation?

 

[SBR249]

After doing both i personally disagree. Summer research is more involved in my opinion, but I know you're right. What you said echoes other people's opinions.

So then what would an Adcom think of 2 or 3 summers and an academic year in the same lab? Would that count as "2 years", including that continuity element?

You have to realize that many applicants with 2+ years of experience will have taken time off after graduation to do full-time research. That cannot be compared with a summer stint in a lab.

In reply to Thioester above, from my personal experiences, a majority of applicants who interviewed with MSTPs in recent years have taken time off to do full time research so when someone says they have X number of years of research, it is often the case that some of that may be continuous full time research.

Final edit: having done both summer, academic year, and full time year off research, I'd say that academic year research is definitely more involved than summer research. Even with equivalent lab time, doing research spread over a longer term allows you to have more exposure to the lab environment, to see the various steps of the research process taking place and developing around you, to interact with and develop mentoring relationships with lab members, and to get a better understanding of the research in the lab and the literature in the field. While you may spend equal time in the lab, all of those other things take time and are often overlooked, especially if you do your summer work at another institution.

 

[Thioester]

You have to realize that many applicants with 2+ years of experience will have taken time off after graduation to do full-time research. That cannot be compared with a summer stint in a lab.

Absolutely not. We are in agreement on this point.

In reply to Thioester above, from my personal experiences, a majority of applicants who interviewed with MSTPs in recent years have taken time off to do full time research so when someone says they have X number of years of research, it is often the case that some of that may be continuous full time research.

OK, thanks for clarifying. My research advisor from undergrad, who served on MSTP adcoms for years, has stated that the vast majority of MSTP applicants came straight from undergrad. In the interest of full disclosure, this was through the 1990s, so I would imagine that things have changed.

 

[tigol31]

In reply to Thioester above, from my personal experiences, a majority of applicants who interviewed with MSTPs in recent years have taken time off to do full time research so when someone says they have X number of years of research, it is often the case that some of that may be continuous full time research.

Based on my interview experience this year, it seems like half have taken time off and half go straight through.

 

[SBR249]

Based on my interview experience this year, it seems like half have taken time off and half go straight through.

I guess it's program dependent, some may like the mature applicants more, some like em young and your circumstances may then dictate where you end up interviewing and the types of people you meet. But I think the proportion of people who took time off has been increasing.

 

[tigol31]

I don't think that any programs necessarily consider time taken off favorable (nor unfavorable). That is, someone who participated in 2-3 years of continuous research during undergrad (full time in summers, 15-30 hours/week during the school year) is not at any disadvantage to someone who had 1-2 years in undergrad plus an extra year of full time research.

Again, because I met a fairly even mix of people taking time off and people going straight through, I doubt that the programs cared one way or the other about who has taken time off. I think what is more important is the amount and quality of time spent in research, regardless of whether it was in undergrad or after.

However, I completely agree with SBR that continuous research experience is better than broken up summer experiences, especially if they are spent in different/unrelated labs each summer.

 

[K31]

If I have 2 summers and a full year, would that equal "2 years"? How about 3 summers and 1 year? I tried finding an answer to this but couldn't

On the form we use to evaluate applicants at my program, we are explicitly asked to comment on both quantity and quality of research experience.

One school year and two summers is probably about the absolute minimum to get offered interviews. Even then, it is still likely to be remarked upon. Research experience is the one area that you absolutely don't want to scrimp.

So tl;dr: adcoms like to see continuity, which is hard to get with summer work even with equivalent time.

Yeah, this. We know that there are many things in research that just can't get accomplished in a summer, no matter how much you work. That's why continuity is a necessity (ie don't apply with just summer research experiences), and I'd strongly suggest more than a year of experience in a single lab.

Based on my interview experience this year, it seems like half have taken time off and half go straight through.

Agree. That's about how it seemed when I was interviewing 7 years ago, and it still seems to be around that.

 

[flyers]

.

 

[Neuronix]

Opinions will vary on these sorts of things. I suspect you'll be ok.

 

[Neuralicious]

One of my professors from undergrad would argue the opposing view point. His opinion, and that of his colleagues, he stated, is that one summer is superior to two (academic) years. The reason is that during the school year, assuming an otherwise full course-load, the most undergraduates can typically commit 12 - 16 hours per week in the lab. To the contrary, during a summer project, the undergraduate can commit 40 - 60+ hours per week.

Before I say anything that you might consider, just wanted to let you know I am in the spring semester of my 2nd year at a state school. I am just an undergraduate student.

I really got involved in research the summer between my first and second years.
I have continued studying in this lab and doing my experiments throughout this entire academic year. I am planning on coming back this summer, and continuing through my 3rd year as well.

I have to say that I accomplish the same if not more during a full summer spent doing research versus an academic year. Not to mention (I hope MD/PhD ADCOM looks at this when evaluating students) when you do research over the summer it's all about volunteering. I didn't do it for credit last summer, and this summer my PI asked me if I wanted it for credit. Seems meaningless to me to pay upwards $1100 for 4 credits of research experience when I value volunteer experience as just as satisfactory (can someone please let me know if ADCOM cares whether you get credit or not? I would expect they value results and what you did during that research experience more). I also have to find summer housing (ya, it's cheaper than during the year... but spend 3-4 summers and it adds up). Therefore I'm taking a lot out of my pocket and am not getting a lot out (other than research).

This being said, I think the ADCOM should look at it very positively when they see a student doing research in a lab over the summer. However to look at it negatively why the student did not is harsh... I think not everyone can handle the financial burdens...

Should a student be lucky enough to work in the same lab as he did during the school year, +1.
If not, and the student is unable to, but still manages to do some work at a local nearby university, +1 again.

tl;dr: If you're lucky enough to be able to work in a lab in the summer full time, I would consider it equal to at least half a year. It is lacking in the sense that there is no longevity in your work. However it is superior in the sense that you get a lot of work done.

 

[delirium81]

(can someone please let me know if ADCOM cares whether you get credit or not?

Based on my experience serving on an MD/PhD Ad Com for a couple years, no they don't care whether or not you get credit.

I would expect they value results and what you did during that research experience more).

Yes.

Should a student be lucky enough to work in the same lab as he did during the school year, +1.
If not, and the student is unable to, but still manages to do some work at a local nearby university, +1 again.

This is true, but I would probably change the top value to +2. Ad Coms really value continuity of experience.

 

[K31]

I really got involved in research the summer between my first and second years.
I have continued studying in this lab and doing my experiments throughout this entire academic year. I am planning on coming back this summer, and continuing through my 3rd year as well.

So at least two years and two summers in the same lab when you apply. You shouldn't have a problem.

Not to mention (I hope MD/PhD ADCOM looks at this when evaluating students) when you do research over the summer it's all about volunteering. I didn't do it for credit last summer, and this summer my PI asked me if I wanted it for credit. Seems meaningless to me to pay upwards $1100 for 4 credits of research experience when I value volunteer experience as just as satisfactory (can someone please let me know if ADCOM cares whether you get credit or not? I would expect they value results and what you did during that research experience more). I also have to find summer housing (ya, it's cheaper than during the year... but spend 3-4 summers and it adds up). Therefore I'm taking a lot out of my pocket and am not getting a lot out (other than research).

It doesn't matter whether it's done for credit, pay, or on a volunteer basis. It will pretty much only be evaluated on the quality of the experience and your contribution to the research. We know that applicants are really doing it because it is required for MD/PhD admissions, and hopefully also because they like research.

This being said, I think the ADCOM should look at it very positively when they see a student doing research in a lab over the summer. However to look at it negatively why the student did not is harsh... I think not everyone can handle the financial burdens...

Perhaps sacrifice should be consudered, but spending a summer or two doing research is so common that it really doesn't give you an advantage over other applicants. Not to mention there so many funded summer research experiences that it doesn't have to be a financial burden.

Should a student be lucky enough to work in the same lab as he did during the school year, +1.
If not, and the student is unable to, but still manages to do some work at a local nearby university, +1 again.

I'd rank summer research experience in terms of helpfulness for applications as follows:
1) work in the same lab as you work in during the year
2) do something that you can't do during the year and that would be interesting to discuss in interviews--spend a summer at the NIH, doing research overseas, etc.
3) research at another school close to home

Honestly, if it gets down to doing number 3 and you have plenty of other experience, I'd be tempted to just take the summer off from research--work, clinical volunteering, relax, etc. would probably be a better use of your time than working in some random lab just so you can put it on your application.