Major Research Experience, but not a PhD

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

absence409

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately most med schools may check a "you've done research" box (and maybe also a publication box), but other than adding a line or two to your essay and potentially employment hx then research isn't as critical as other aspects of your application. Like gpa, mcat, why medicine, what medical experiences? Now if you've cured cancer in your research they might be a bit more interested.

Only 1 school actually asked anything at all about my research, grants, publications, etc during an interview and it was about my being published. They didn't care much further.

So say you researched, published, presented on, received grants for xyz and unless research is your primary reason for going to med school or you are apply to a highly research centered med school move on to other things. Just advice based on my experiences others might have different.
 
Ultimately most med schools may check a "you've done research" box (and maybe also a publication box), but other than adding a line or two to your essay and potentially employment hx then research isn't as critical as other aspects of your application. Like gpa, mcat, why medicine, what medical experiences? Now if you've cured cancer in your research they might be a bit more interested.

Only 1 school actually asked anything at all about my research, grants, publications, etc during an interview and it was about my being published. They didn't care much further.

So say you researched, published, presented on, received grants for xyz and unless research is your primary reason for going to med school or you are apply to a highly research centered med school move on to other things. Just advice based on my experiences others might have different.

Got it. Your post brings up excellent points. I agree that gpa/mcat are very important.

I suppose I should have been more clear that I will be applying to research heavy schools as I intend to incorporate research into my future medical practice in a TBD fashion. Additionally, though I have a good MCAT, a decent uGPA and a good post-bacc GPA, I believe my research experience could put me in the cross hairs of the research schools I'm drawn to more so than any of the traditional metrics will.

That being said, although I have clinical experiences outside of my research experience, my research experience gave me the bulk of my opportunities to witness medicine in action. Without weighing down this discussion further with more details, I'll just say that as a clinical research associate in the realms of surgery, you are directly involved with patients, but you also get to see some really amazing things through the course of working your job.

So I should have framed my question around 2 things: a) research gave me a ton of clinical experience and b) I'm really interested in continuing research/ending up at a research heavy school.

I suppose what I'm gathering though, is since my personal statement heavily emphasizes both points, it might not be THAT important what I write in my activities section to describe what I did in my research positions?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Sounds like you just summarized what you need to write. Give maybe one day example to support why med and why MD research. Just use caution to not sell yourself on a PhD in Bio related something vs medicine.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Sounds like you just summarized what you need to write. Give maybe one day example to support why med and why MD research. Just use caution to not sell yourself on a PhD in Bio related something vs medicine.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
I think you're right ;). Thanks for letting me work through that with you :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'd like to bump this thread. I agree with points made my absence409 and drmikep, but I'm still not sure where I stand either.

I'm a reapp, and fell victim (read: made myself victim to) a late application.

Trying to put my best foot forward, and that foot leads heavily with clinical research as well.

What aspects are adcoms really looking at if they sit on the heavy hitting research school adcoms? I mean aside from the obvious papers, presentations, how can I make it clear that I'm a heavy hitting researcher rather than just an assistant as some/most applicants tend to be?

I agree that when you've done it all, it can be hard to condense into 750 characters and be sure of what tack you're taking with those characters.
 
I'd like to bump this thread. I agree with points made my absence409 and drmikep, but I'm still not sure where I stand either.

I'm a reapp, and fell victim (read: made myself victim to) a late application.

Trying to put my best foot forward, and that foot leads heavily with clinical research as well.

What aspects are adcoms really looking at if they sit on the heavy hitting research school adcoms? I mean aside from the obvious papers, presentations, how can I make it clear that I'm a heavy hitting researcher rather than just an assistant as some/most applicants tend to be?

I agree that when you've done it all, it can be hard to condense into 750 characters and be sure of what tack you're taking with those characters.
Mention a couple of studies/outcomes, but again you are applying to med school and not a PhD research degree. So don't sell yourself as just a researcher! I know people that made that mistake and got few interviews. There are easier (somewhat) paths if you just want to do biomed research. Look at the mission of the med schools you are interested in and make your ps similarly balanced. If all you have is research then volunteer somewhere that does straight low ses pt care. Even research places like to accept more balanced people than just rat runners/number crunchers.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I want to really echo what Dr. Mike is saying. I credit my work as an employed clinical research personnel (without a PhD or masters) with much of my own clinical experience prior to medical school. However, I have to say, when I first put together my application it was shut down by all of my mentors as reading like a PhD research degree program application.

I was someone who had a pretty crappy uGPA, so I was overcompensating with "leading" with my research experience though, so maybe not everyone's problem.

Without telling anyone how to write their application, I would say to lean heavily on the patient interaction side when writing out your experiences. Make it clear how yoru research experience lends itself to your clinical experience. Also, make sure your application "weaves" research and medicine together. Does that make sense?

However, at the same time be certain you actually explain your research. Use the first sentence to give a layman's description. Use one or two sentences to be more technical. Use the rest to expound on the clinical interactions you had/witnessed through wroking your job. Especially, @absence409, you mention you see "amazing things" working surgical research---write about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My answer is that your focus depends on whether you are applying to straight MD or DO programs, versus to combined programs. Speaking as someone who applied with a PhD to several MD-only programs, I agree with the previous advice to focus more on the clinical aspects of your journey to medicine when applying to medical schools. This holds for both research-oriented and clinically-oriented schools. As mentioned above, you are not applying for grad school, and you are not applying for a post doc. Your future "employers" (meaning med school adcoms) are judging you based on your potential as a future physician and colleague. And what you don't want to have happen is to get to your interview and have the adcom turn on you and say, "well, if you're so interested in research, why didn't you apply MD/PhD, or straight PhD?" (I got asked why not MD/PhD at one interview myself, which was one of the few times in my life when I was literally at a loss for words for a few seconds, especially since I had just finished telling the interviewer about my dissertation work.)

All that being said, if you are applying to a combined program (MD/PhD or MD/MS), then the above advice does not hold. Those programs want to train future physician scientists, and they care greatly about your research experience. So if you are going to apply to combined MD research programs, you will definitely want to highlight your research experiences, particularly focusing on hypothesis generation and future directions for the work, NOT on your research methods and results (which is a common mistake I see applicants make). Your interviewer doesn't really care about the specifics of your research; they are trying to gauge whether you have the creativity and scientific mindset to possibly become an independent PI in your own right some day. (Sammie, that is also my answer to your question of what adcoms are looking for when asking applicants about their research.)

OP, you may want to consider an MD/MS program like Cleveland Clinic or Pitt that offers the MS in clinical research. These formal programs have the added benefit of also subsidizing your med school tuition in part or in full. And you will then have the formal credentials to go along with your clinical trial experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My answer is that your focus depends on whether you are applying to straight MD or DO programs, versus to combined programs. Speaking as someone who applied with a PhD to several MD-only programs, I agree with the previous advice to focus more on the clinical aspects of your journey to medicine when applying to medical schools. This holds for both research-oriented and clinically-oriented schools. As mentioned above, you are not applying for grad school, and you are not applying for a post doc. Your future "employers" (meaning med school adcoms) are judging you based on your potential as a future physician and colleague. And what you don't want to have happen is to get to your interview and have the adcom turn on you and say, "well, if you're so interested in research, why didn't you apply MD/PhD, or straight PhD?" (I got asked why not MD/PhD at one interview myself, which was one of the few times in my life when I was literally at a loss for words for a few seconds, especially since I had just finished telling the interviewer about my dissertation work.)

All that being said, if you are applying to a combined program (MD/PhD or MD/MS), then the above advice does not hold. Those programs want to train future physician scientists, and they care greatly about your research experience. So if you are going to apply to combined MD research programs, you will definitely want to highlight your research experiences, particularly focusing on hypothesis generation and future directions for the work, NOT on your research methods and results (which is a common mistake I see applicants make). Your interviewer doesn't really care about the specifics of your research; they are trying to gauge whether you have the creativity and scientific mindset to possibly become an independent PI in your own right some day. (Sammie, that is also my answer to your question of what adcoms are looking for when asking applicants about their research.)

OP, you may want to consider an MD/MS program like Cleveland Clinic or Pitt that offers the MS in clinical research. These formal programs have the added benefit of also subsidizing your med school tuition in part or in full. And you will then have the formal credentials to go along with your clinical trial experience.
I agree with Q if you are going for a combination MD/research degree program then definitely follow (Her) advice on applying.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
@QofQuimica this is gold. Thank you so much! I re-read my pre-writes and did exactly what you said not to. I guess I fell into the trap of "look at all the techniques I know!"

Thank you to everyone for your input!
 
@QofQuimica this is gold. Thank you so much! I re-read my pre-writes and did exactly what you said not to. I guess I fell into the trap of "look at all the techniques I know!"

Thank you to everyone for your input!
It's a common mistake. At the UG level, you are usually functioning like a tech, so it's completely understandable that you'd be thinking like a tech, namely how to get from point A to point B of someone else's research goals. However, if you consider how your PI spends his/her time, you will realize that most PIs (especially senior PIs) spend very little time in the lab actually performing procedures. They're more big picture people (not to mention grant-writing people, since someone has to bring in funding for the lab). And when you think about what makes research novel and interesting, it's very rarely the techniques. It's the hypotheses and the possibilities for applying the findings to further work (technology development, answering new questions, finding evidence against or in favor of a theory, etc.). Even when a group does primarily focus on developing new techniques, the purpose is usually in service of one or more of these other goals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top