Question regarding "Substituting creative/passionate EC for research"

[PCwizCube]

Hey everyone - new poster here but I just had a couple questions about things I heard about and I wanted to here if anybody here had opinions on it.

A couple months ago I went to a Health Professions School fair at my undergrad and I spoke with the Dean of Admissions of a top 15 med school. She was talking about how performing research is important in showing creativity/drive/curiosity and that it is highly regarded, but she also said that if an applicant doesn't have much formal research experience, a prominent extracurricular activity showing evidence of creativity/drive/curiosity could sort of be substituted to demonstrate that you are a person who has the passion and initiative to succeed in medical school and advancing medical care/knowledge.

Those weren't her exact words but that was the overall gist of what she told me and to some other students that were listening. I was wondering if anybody here had any comments regarding that statement. I think it sort of makes sense, but I was extremely surprised when she said that as I had not heard of that before and she's the Dean of Admissions of a top med school. And I'm wondering if anybody knows of other schools valuing similar things. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MaxPlancker]

No, it's completely true. The value of research is WAY overstated even for top medical schools. Sure top med schools like people with research experience, but there's plenty of other ways to convey you have the qualities required to succeed in obtaining funding, conducting quality studies, etc.

You have to realise, the stuff that pre-meds do aren't there just as a random list of things to do. There is a reason and importance behind everything. Furthermore, different experiences can attest to the same desired qualities. E.g. volunteering demonstrates "altruism"…you could just as well show altruism or even better altruism by serving in the military. Research demonstrates critical thinking and sometimes initiative…you could just as well lead a successful nonprofit or outreach project which is bound to face obstacles requiring critical thinking and initiative. Maybe even being a world chess champion could demonstrate critical thinking!

As long as you demonstrate the qualities that make a good physician, you are fine...

 

[LizzyM]

Two stories from the NYTimes (5/28/16) come to mind. If the reporters of those stories want to go to medical school (as non-trads), I'd happily accept their work as a substitute for "research".
One story was on the disposition of cadavers used in anatomy classes at NYU and the other was about the differences in homicide rates between Chicago and New York and what explanations have been put forward to explain those differences. Digging into records and databanks for those stories is not the same as biological research but it does show those attributes the Dean mentioned. Similar projects in history, sociology, art history, journalism, economics, etc done at the undergrad level would count in my book.

 

[efle]

The value of research is WAY overstated even for top medical schools.

More than 90% of top program matriculants come in with lab experience, I'm a bit skeptical that reflects the prominence of it in the applicant pool. You obviously CAN get in without research, but I don't think its overstating things to talk about it as essentially expected

 

[LizzyM]

More than 90% of top program matriculants come in with lab experience, I'm a bit skeptical that reflects the prominence of it in the applicant pool. You obviously CAN get in without research, but I don't think its overstating things to talk about it as essentially expected

The point is: how is that some people (10-25%) get in without it?

Also, consider that the metric is, I suspect, tagging something as "research" on your AMCAS application. This could mean that you did a single summer in a lab doing scut work. There are also people who do thesis work in history or econ who tag it as "research".

 

[efle]

The point is: how is that some people (10-25%) get in without it?

Also, consider that the metric is, I suspect, tagging something as "research" on your AMCAS application. This could mean that you did a single summer in a lab doing scut work. There are also people who do thesis work in history or econ who tag it as "research".

For top programs isn't it more like 5-10%? And I'd guess they tend to be atypical applicants (nontrad/didn't realize they wanted the MD in college) rather than people who had easy access to research XP in college and chose to start an oil painting club instead.

Iirc the majority of matriculants to Stanford are published. Obviously I know nothing firsthand about admissions, but that makes me think research matters quite a bit to them.

 

[LizzyM]

For top programs isn't it more like 5-10%? And I'd guess they tend to be atypical applicants (nontrad/didn't realize they wanted the MD in college) rather than people who had easy access to research XP in college and chose to start an oil painting club instead.

Iirc the majority of matriculants to Stanford are published. Obviously I know nothing firsthand about admissions, but that makes me think research matters quite a bit to them.

I don't have a MSAR handy but I doubt that any school is as high as 95%, so the question is, what about those successful applicants who did not do research? Well, maybe some are attending military academy and have a "leadership" activity that is hard to beat, or they are spending the time other people spend on research preparing for a Olympic qualifying meet and tracking their own biometrics against performance (not exactly research but indicative or curiosity and drive).

 

[Goro]

Let' see....

Northwestern: 96%
JHU: 96%
Stanford: 96%
Cornell: 96%
U Chicago: 94%
Pitt: 94%
WashU: 94%
Harvard: 93%
U MI: 92%
U Penn: 90%
Wake: 89%
Loyola: 89%
Albany: 86%
Drexel: 85%

I don't have a MSAR handy but I doubt that any school is as high as 95%, so the question is, what about those successful applicants who did not do research? Well, maybe some are attending military academy and have a "leadership" activity that is hard to beat, or they are spending the time other people spend on research preparing for a Olympic qualifying meet and tracking their own biometrics against performance (not exactly research but indicative or curiosity and drive).

 

[Lawpy]

Let' see....

Northwestern: 96%
JHU: 96%
Stanford: 96%
Cornell: 96%
U Chicago: 94%
Pitt: 94%
WashU: 94%
Harvard: 93%
U MI: 92%
U Penn: 90%
Wake: 89%
Loyola: 89%
Albany: 86%
Drexel: 85%

Hm, not really a surprise that all the top tier schools are hovering >90%. However, the fact that Drexel, Albany, Loyola etc. have misleadingly high research % further emphasizes that applicants categorize anything as research as opposed to these schools requiring research.

 

[Goro]

Why do you consider the numbers for the top schools to be honest, but dishonest for the lower tiers?

Hm, not really a surprise that all the top tier schools are hovering >90%. However, the fact that Drexel, Albany, Loyola etc. have misleadingly high research % further emphasizes that applicants categorize anything as research as opposed to these schools requiring research.

 

[Lawpy]

Why do you consider the numbers for the top schools to be honest, but dishonest for the lower tiers?

Because top schools have specific, academic-type requirements for research since that is part of their mission. Moreover, these schools have a lot of research funding and flexibility to support and require research during medical school. For the lower tiers, research funding is limited, so these schools are generally flexible as to what they would consider research as.

This is why there is a very significant difference in applicant profiles for top schools vs the rest. The top-tier applicants tend to have very strong research experiences with a lot of productivity to show for it (national/international conferences, publications, grants). The applicants of lower-tier schools tend to be far more general with little to show for it. Of course, there are applicants with strong research profiles but poor stats that apply/get accepted to said low tiers, but the resources available are still very limited.

I think it would be better if all US medical schools adopt a standard for defining research experience. Or if medical schools want to be like the top-tiers in requiring research, they should automatically weed out and reject applicants who miscategorize basic lab maintenance, provide their students with plenty of research opportunities and guidance, and make research part of their mission.

 

[Goro]

We're talking about two different things! The OP was inquiring, and LizzyM was responding to med school applicants having research/lab experience in their backgrounds, not doing research IN med school.

Because top schools have specific, academic-type requirements for research since that is part of their mission. Moreover, these schools have a lot of research funding and flexibility to support and require research during medical school. For the lower tiers, research funding is limited, so these schools are generally flexible as to what they would consider research as.

This is why there is a very significant difference in applicant profiles for top schools vs the rest. The top-tier applicants tend to have very strong research experiences with a lot of productivity to show for it (national/international conferences, publications, grants). The applicants of lower-tier schools tend to be far more general with little to show for it. Of course, there are applicants with strong research profiles but poor stats that apply/get accepted to said low tiers, but the resources available are still very limited.

I think it would be better if all US medical schools adopt a standard for defining research experience. Or if medical schools want to be like the top-tiers in requiring research, they should automatically weed out and reject applicants who miscategorize basic lab maintenance, provide their students with plenty of research opportunities and guidance, and make research part of their mission.

 

[Lawpy]

We're talking about two different things! The OP was inquiring, and LizzyM was responding to med school applicants having research/lab experience in their backgrounds, not doing research IN med school.

Yes I know but I'm emphasizing that it can get misleading when it's not taken strictly. OP was referring to a Top 15 school, and LizzyM was showing that there's even some flexibility (of course, a different type altogether) for top schools. The concern in all this is that looking in the MSAR statistics for applicants having research experience can provide misleading results that nearly everyone has research for all schools.

This is why really the only figures that make sense is top schools having >90% of applicants with research. Because it fits with their mission nicely.

 

[LizzyM]

Correlation does not equal causation. Let's look at another exposure. What proportion of admitted applicants, or of matriculants, know how to swim? We might expect that the proportion would be very high, perhaps higher in some schools than others and it might be said that schools expect you to have some experience as a swimmer and if you haven't been a swimmer it you really can't expect to get admitted, you will be missing an important experience that medical schools want. Some colleges, and even high schools, even require it for graduation!

Among the proportion who can swim are those who can dog paddle and those who have won medals.

Does knowing how to swim really have impact on admissions or is it a ubiquitous activity of most college students, particularly in a pool that is predominantly majors in the natural sciences?

 

[Lawpy]

Correlation does not equal causation. Let's look at another exposure. What proportion of admitted applicants, or of matriculants, know how to swim? We might expect that the proportion would be very high, perhaps higher in some schools than others and it might be said that schools expect you to have some experience as a swimmer and if you haven't been a swimmer it you really can't expect to get admitted, you will be missing an important experience that medical schools want. Some colleges, and even high schools, even require it for graduation!

Among the proportion who can swim are those who can dog paddle and those who have won medals.

Does knowing how to swim really have impact on admissions or is it a ubiquitous activity of most college students, particularly in a pool that is predominantly majors in the natural sciences?

Great example. I'll save it for reference the next time a thread pops up asking whether research and leadership are required for all medical schools.

 

[MaxPlancker]

More than 90% of top program matriculants come in with lab experience, I'm a bit skeptical that reflects the prominence of it in the applicant pool. You obviously CAN get in without research, but I don't think its overstating things to talk about it as essentially expected

Well, being that 90% means you have some type of research experience, whether its a month or 5 years, productive or not.

Edit: Already mentioned by LizzyM

 

[efle]

Well, being that 90% means you have some type of research experience, whether its a month or 5 years, productive or not.

Edit: Already mentioned by LizzyM

Do we know what % of applicants overall check the research box?

If 93% of students entering HMS checked the box what fraction do you think had solid research (let's say 1+ years with a couple posters at least)? If I were a betting man I'd say they are selected for pretty strongly relative to the overall applicant pool.

I guess I see it like the MCAT. You don't NEED a 34+ MCAT to get into Vanderbilt. But I wouldn't tell someone they were overstating things if they said Vandy prefers high scores - you should not be surprised if your otherwise decent app is ignored with a 30.

 

[MaxPlancker]

Do we know what % of applicants overall check the research box?

If 93% of students entering HMS checked the box what fraction do you think had solid research (let's say 1+ years with a couple posters at least)? If I were a betting man I'd say they are selected for pretty strongly relative to the overall applicant pool.

I guess I see it like the MCAT. You don't NEED a 34+ MCAT to get into Vanderbilt. But I wouldn't tell someone they were overstating things if they said Vandy prefers high scores - you should not be surprised if your otherwise decent app is ignored with a 30.

Well, I would also bet along the same lines as you in that they probably have stronger research than average. But I do also think that schools like HMS will take people with absolutely no research experience given that they have something "creative/passionate" that catches HMS's eyes. While many may possess strong research experience, it's hard to say whether that actually played a noticeable role in acceptance.

It's my hunch that top schools are like rare card collectors...many applicants/cards may have strong combat stats, rarity, whatnot (analogous to gpa/mcat/research etc), but if they have some special ability you really want (like you win the game or get a big power spike or was one of 10 cards ever made etc), then even if the combat stats/et al aren't as strong, the collectors will try their hardest to obtain that card.

 

[MaxPlancker]

@efle One could also imagine that doing research provides a more standard, recognized way of demonstrating your productivity and achievement of qualities that medical schools look for. For example, in research, above average would be measured by duration, LORs, some productivity (poster/pub, fellowships, etc. However, if you have a creative EC that isn't research, you may find it harder to demonstrate the same relative level of quality/productivity/etc. If someone was a journalist or reporter, then that industry is quite tough to break into at certain levels without connections and luck so what happens to the people that can't publish in the NY Times? It becomes more riskier and a big or nothing game, IMO. On the other hand, presenting a poster at a national conference isn't thattt hard.

 

[MaxPlancker]

NERD!
But yeah, I suspect you're right. I read on here somewhere that being well rounded is a great way to not get into a top school. Being "pointy" is much more important.

LOL I think I wrote that about being pointy hahaha.

 

[LizzyM]

Don't go crazy.... there are schools that do highly value research experience and they value longer and more involved research experience over short, less involved experience. If 95% of the pool has research experience, there is 5% that does not and what those applicants brought to the table that was unusual, or pointy, is anyone's guess. Best odds go to the applicant who has had at least a modicum of research experience.

 

[droppedit]

I was searching for "research" and was brought to this discussion. I'd like to hear your opinion for this unusual case:


I'm a non-trad. I've been out of undergrad for 10 years now. I've been out of grad school now for 5 years and based on my calculation, I had about 640 research hours from my Master's Program. I also had 2 posters that were sent to conferences during my time with my name on them. Though, I do not have anything published under my name with regards to completed research.

Is this enough research work for top 50 schools? (I'm a Southern California resident, and getting into my neighborhood schools (UCLA, UCSD, and USC -- my top choices) is very competitive already.)


P.S. As for other Extra Curricular: I'm doing tutor volunteering (200 hours) and clinical volunteering (150). Am shooting for shadowing hours 50+.

Undergrad cGPA/sGPA: 3.58/3.80
Grad School GPA: 3.60
MCAT: Not Yet Taken

 

[BombsAway]

MCAT: Not Yet Taken

As annoying as it feels to be told this, no one can give you solid advice without the above metric.