Research Experience: Redux

[CKAW]

Hi guys,

Largely owing to the great advice I've taken from this forum, I've managed to secure volunteer RA work in a couple different labs. To think, it only took me a few short weeks of emailing dozens of PIs and coordinators. Just a broad question from a clinical app-building perspective:

Is there a point where casting a wide net works against you? I'm working on a pub that I'll be primary author on in one lab, will get secondary on a psychiatry lab's project that starts up this Summer, and I'm sitting in on two other meetings, making noise about wanting to get more involved and take on some grunt work. This sounds like a lot, but honestly I've got plenty of time and they all deal with different interests of mine. Is it a bad idea to diversify this much? What do you think is the best approach to take in the period before applying to grad school?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

As long as you can manage your time well and not neglect any of your duties, there is no problem with the diversification. Ideally, at least one of the projects you are working on will be related somewhat to what you want to do in grad school. But, varied experience actually helps, those students usually have a better grasp of what they do and do not want to do earlier in grad school.

 

[Taly0402]

As an undergrad I was in a couple of research labs that had absolutely nothing to do with what I want to pursue in grad school. I joined them because they were good opportunities and I learned skills essential for self directed study. I explained this during my interviews, and I'm happy to say I've been accepted to PhD programs. It helps if you're researching what you already like, but I don't think you'll be ruled out because of it.

 

[futureapppsy2]

In undergrad, I worked at a variety of research labs, and in hindsight, I kind of wish I hadn't. It stretched my time, and the only labs that ended up really having an impact on my research long term were the first lab I worked in (not related to my current research interests, but it was a really good experience and gave me a pretty strong background in qualitative methodology that I don't think I would have gotten elsewhere) and my paid RA position (phenomenal experience, that resulted in numerous publications, grant writing experience, a wide network of collaborators, etc.). In fact, my current CV just lists my non-paid undergrad RA experience as one item, though I can't remember if I had it separated out when I applied to programs originally. With that being said, you don't know what a lab's going to be like until you're in there, and most people develop their research interests because of the labs they work in in undergrad.

 

[CKAW]

Thanks guys. I guess a more concise thing to ask is, "Is all research experience good research experience?" I've sought out opportunities dealing specifically with my interests, and actively tried to find clinically-focused RA work under the assumption that it will be more beneficial. Am I overthinking this, or are there guidelines for what to consider when taking on new work.

I only ask because someone in another thread specifically advised against accumulating low-commitment RA positions. Said it was better to get a lot of in depth experience in one lab, and I wasn't sure how exactly to interpret that.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Thanks guys. I guess a more concise thing to ask is, "Is all research experience good research experience?" I've sought out opportunities dealing specifically with my interests, and actively tried to find clinically-focused RA work under the assumption that it will be more beneficial. Am I overthinking this, or are there guidelines for what to consider when taking on new work.

I only ask because someone in another thread specifically advised against accumulating low-commitment RA positions. Said it was better to get a lot of in depth experience in one lab, and I wasn't sure how exactly to interpret that.

As with more things quality > quantity, but the nature of undergrad RA work is that it can be really hard to demonstrate quality, given how labels generally work and the short timeline of your time there. It's relatively easy to get on posters in labs as an undergrad but very hard to get authorship on publications as an undergrad RA because a) the nature of undergrad RA work (data entry, running participants), b) if you're really prepared to be an author developmentaly,, c) if the lab publishes (most labs at my undergrad didn't very frequently), d) the *long* turn around for publication, and e) lab/departmental/university politics. Thus, generally the best shot at showing "quality"is to do an independent project or thesis as part of a lab and/or getting a great LOR out of it. Beyond that, I think quantity can potentially help as long you can explain it, (e.g., "I wanted specific skills in [Z] to compliment my training from [main] lab, so I decided to work in [A] and [C] labs as well, given their use of [Z].") you can do a good job, and you avoid coming off as scattered, a lot of which depends on the "story" you tell in your SOP and LORs.

FWIW, in my SOP, I focused on my two most influential labs as well as my undergrad thesis and let the other stuff on my CV speak to more general experience with psychology research overall. I don't think I ever got any questions about it in interview, IIRC.