Research: If you don't need to publish, what DO you need?

[StilgarMD]

So

like most paniced Pre-MD/PhD students, im like "OMG IM NOT PUBLISHED, HOW CAN I GET ACCEPTED?"

after reading Neuronix's post about it, i literally laughed out loud at his answer to the question, but it leaves me with a new question. if a publication isn't required, what is?

i am currently working in a lab and have been for a year. im working with expensive cells (umbilical cord blood units) and im studying a protein that's extremely variable in expression (either less than 1% of mononuclear cells or 40%, 40% representing what i want, and about 1/10 units) and obviously its been difficult. during this entire first year, i have amassed a lot of knowledge concerning the field im studying, and the protein im working with. im truly fascinated by it. many an unfortunate passers by have gotten an hour long lecture about the many fields which tie into what im doing

problem is i spent that year also failing at western blots. we didn't know whether it was me or the antibody for a long time, but finally confirmed my technique was fine (did one another grad student had done) and finally got a suitable positive control and got a band.

heres my question. my study is going to focus on correlations between well studied marker and this protein im studying. i don't feel like im doing research. i don't process cord blood units, a senior research technician does, and i don't do the FACS analysis, though i may soon. i feel like im betting on a race horse and calling it science. im sure this is fine work for a P.I. to do, but as an undergrad i feel obligated to be doing bench work. i've done plenty o'western blots, and learning how to do ELISAs, know how to culture cells, and maybe FACS soon. the people i talk to about my research think im a grad student, but the issue is all i talk about is data OTHERS have collected, and my hypothesis. i haven't said "and we detected - " or " and we found out- " so im essentially a walking lit review on my topic. if i were to write a paper this moment, the title would have to be

[Well established positive control for protein] expresses [that protein]

this summer i hope to change that, but again, at best i feel like im betting on a race horse.

my question, succinctly put is - What kind of work qualifies as research for an undergrad. im in a lab which works with very expensive cells (even a prospective project im working on would involve working with primary cells from cord blod that love a media saturated with cytokines Read: Its hella expensive). so, when im working this summer and senior year, i want to know what my research goals should be in terms of self development. i know i want to learn plenty techniques, but what else? am i missing something? need i change tracks or even labs?

also, my school offers departmental honors. give the variability of my research, i don't want to come up empty handed at the end of senior year, and im scared to death of that happening. would it significantly raise my chances of getting into a good MSTP program if i did departmental honors?

All help is appreciated! sorry for the long read.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[delirium81]

So

like most paniced Pre-MD/PhD students, im like "OMG IM NOT PUBLISHED, HOW CAN I GET ACCEPTED?"

after reading Neuronix's post about it, i literally laughed out loud at his answer to the question, but it leaves me with a new question. if a publication isn't required, what is?

Yeeeah, your panic seems to be making you way over-analyze everything. Take some deep breaths. You sound fine. What is required of you is several years of research experience and stellar recommendations from PIs. Do you have both of those things, and can you talk intelligently about your research? If the answer to those questions is yes, stop worrying about it.

also, my school offers departmental honors. give the variability of my research, i don't want to come up empty handed at the end of senior year, and im scared to death of that happening. would it significantly raise my chances of getting into a good MSTP program if i did departmental honors?

Nope, no one will really care about departmental honors. I guess it looks nice? But honestly I can't say I've ever cared one way or the other about something like that when I've gone over apps.

 

[StilgarMD]

i can speak intelligently about it, but whats the difference between the current walking lit review i am and a very qualified undergrad researcher. as a note, i was (somewhat) hyperbolizing my panic lol.

i have a year in this lab before i am applying during the cycle next year, and i want to make sure i put in maximal effort. if there is anything i can pursue in that time, i really would love to. i know it sounds stupid but i want to believe i can qualify someday for the NIH/UPenn/OxCam whatever program. i would love to go to *those* programs; granted its not like i'd decline to go to a school with a good mentor for me, but why not aim high? i don't have a 4.0 and haven't published, so i want to know what to do. just want some guidance, because i'll really be kicking myself if in a year i go "if only i'd asked X, i would have done it differently".

and delirium, is there such a thing as over analyze? mmmmmmmmm? lol i believe it can be done with people, relationship, etc, but not this. i want to scrutinize the process so i know what path to take to my desired end. i feel like everyone does the same thing.

 

[delirium81]

whats the difference between the current walking lit review i am and a very qualified undergrad researcher.

What's the difference? Well, to illustrate the difference, let me pull a quote for you:

i've done plenty o'western blots, and learning how to do ELISAs, know how to culture cells, and maybe FACS soon.

That's the difference.

i don't have a 4.0

I'm not sure what that means... most applicants do not have perfect 4.0s. I mean, are you freaking out about a 3.85 or about a 3.35?

and haven't published, so i want to know what to do.

Sounds to me like you're already doing it. You're working hard in a lab and trying to maximize your research experience. Keep doing what you're doing. Otherwise, work hard to keep your grades up, work hard to get a good score on the MCAT, etc. Get some clinical experience. That's really about it.

and delirium, is there such a thing as over analyze? mmmmmmmmm?

Yes, there totally is.

 

[Caprica6]

Yeah, you've stated that you have been doing westerns, etc., so I am not sure what you mean when you say you aren't doing bench research.

You sound like you are in a good position, but I would go talk with your PI. Let him know you are planning on applying to MD/PhD programs, and ask him if there is a specific part of the project he can give you to work on. This probably won't mean a publication (since as an undergrad it's common to not publish, especially in a journal that matters, especially with expensive or hard to work with cells. PI's give the best projects to grad students and postdocs) but it would give you a specific hypothesis to pursue.

Like the above poster said, know how to talk about your research and know your contribution. It is okay to say we, but don't try to take credit for things you did not do.

If you really want to go to a high tier program, I would suggest taking time after undergrad to do research. If you decide not to do that, with two years research experience, you are most likely a mediocre candidate (without knowing anything else about your application). If you do apply next cycle, it's okay to apply to a few reach programs, but you should also apply to some "safer" programs, including funded non-MSTPs.

 

[StilgarMD]

What's the difference? Well, to illustrate the difference, let me pull a quote for you: That's the difference.

I've only done a few good western blots, am in the process of doing my first ELISA, and the other things are possibilities. the thing im concerned about is them asking me "how much experience do you have with technique X" and i go "i did it twice". i'll attempt to incorporate those things into my project, and also volunteering to help other PIs in the lab (its a big center type lab) with whatever they are doing.

I'm not sure what that means... most applicants do not have perfect 4.0s. I mean, are you freaking out about a 3.85 or about a 3.35?

when i graduate i should have a 3.8, im slightly under that right now. im taking my understanding from Neuronix's post of the whole "OK" and "Excellent" standards, and i should have an "excellent" GPA by the time i finish.

Sounds to me like you're already doing it. You're working hard in a lab and trying to maximize your research experience. Keep doing what you're doing. Otherwise, work hard to keep your grades up, work hard to get a good score on the MCAT, etc. Get some clinical experience. That's really about it..

im studying for MCATs now [taking in August], and i may not be able to get the clinical experience i want this summer since i go to a large public state school littered with premeds competing for the same spots.

Yeah, you've stated that you have been doing westerns, etc., so I am not sure what you mean when you say you aren't doing bench research.

i feel like im not doing enough, in terms of quantity. i wanted to get an idea of what an institution expects in terms of exceptional experience - 1 ELISA won't cut it, but im sure you don't need to do 100. obviously its odd to ask for the exact number, im not doing that, just want a ballpark of what counts as proper exposure to a technique.

You sound like you are in a good position, but I would go talk with your PI. Let him know you are planning on applying to MD/PhD programs, and ask him if there is a specific part of the project he can give you to work on. This probably won't mean a publication (since as an undergrad it's common to not publish, especially in a journal that matters, especially with expensive or hard to work with cells. PI's give the best projects to grad students and postdocs) but it would give you a specific hypothesis to pursue.

i have a hypothesis already. i don't feel like the pursuit of said hypothesis is hands on enough though. i think that will change.

Like the above poster said, know how to talk about your research and know your contribution. It is okay to say we, but don't try to take credit for things you did not do.

lol i'd never pretend i did something alone.

If you really want to go to a high tier program, I would suggest taking time after undergrad to do research. If you decide not to do that, with two years research experience, you are most likely a mediocre candidate (without knowing anything else about your application). If you do apply next cycle, it's okay to apply to a few reach programs, but you should also apply to some "safer" programs, including funded non-MSTPs.

Ok, so is that the common route? i know there is no "path everyone takes", but is that what i should do? aside from numbers, i've taught a type of discussion group for general bio for 2 years (3 by the time i apply). how does one secure a research position after graduation? are there specific programs? i always thought research in labs was for either undergraduates, graduates, or post docs. i didn't know people with an undergraduate degree could participate further in research without being a student.

thanks a lot guys

 

[soundnin]

how does one secure a research position after graduation? are there specific programs? i always thought research in labs was for either undergraduates, graduates, or post docs. i didn't know people with an undergraduate degree could participate further in research without being a student.

you've never come across a research tech(nician/nologist) before?!

as for how to find a position... hospital listings, craigslist, lab websites, etc. they're not really hidden or anything.

 

[Caprica6]

Some people apply with only undergrad research experience, some people work doing research after undergrad. I'm guessing, but the more competitive the MSTP, the more likely it is for applicants to have research post undergrad.

There are some research programs one can apply to for after graduation (the NIH has some I think), maybe someone else has more info on that since I haven't participated in one.

Any academic research institute will have "research assistant" positions or something similar. Universities will have job positions posted on their website, but these jobs can be hard to land, sometimes it takes networking or even cold emailing PIs you are interested in working with. The downside of many of these positions is that you usually will be expected to do more than work on your own research project (lab management, help out graduate students/postdocs). How much autonomy you have would definitely be something to discuss with any PIs you were considering taking a position with.

 

[delirium81]

i feel like im not doing enough, in terms of quantity. i wanted to get an idea of what an institution expects in terms of exceptional experience - 1 ELISA won't cut it, but im sure you don't need to do 100. obviously its odd to ask for the exact number, im not doing that, just want a ballpark of what counts as proper exposure to a technique.

No one is going to ask you how much experience you have with technique X, and to me it sounds ridiculous (e.g. over analysis) to come up with a ballpark estimation of how many times you have to do a technique to count yourself as "proficient." This would vary widely from person to person anyway. Admissions committees want to know that you understand the process of research. They want to know that you have the creativity, independence, dedication and passion to pursue a career in research. You demonstrate these things by having several years of research experience, by being able to talk intelligently and passionately about your research, and by having stellar LORs from your PIs. Two years of research experience is fine. It's not a red flag, and it's not "wow this person really has a lot of experience." It's not as though you need to be a master of every possible molecular biological technique. That would be absurd, but you should have in depth experience in at least one lab (i.e. 1+ year spent in 1 lab), and ideally good experience in a few labs, that shows you can push through the difficult stages of a project, like troubleshooting a difficult technique. Hopefully you get some kind of result at the end. It doesn't have to be in the form of a paper. It can just be, "I got this technique to work and this is what it showed." If you don't feel that your current experience is good enough, talk to your PI about taking on another project. Better yet, come up with your own project idea and see if your PI would be interested.

Ok, so is that the common route? i know there is no "path everyone takes", but is that what i should do? aside from numbers, i've taught a type of discussion group for general bio for 2 years (3 by the time i apply). how does one secure a research position after graduation? are there specific programs? i always thought research in labs was for either undergraduates, graduates, or post docs. i didn't know people with an undergraduate degree could participate further in research without being a student.

Doing a year or two of research after undergrad is a common route but not the common route. Plenty of people go into MD/PhD programs straight from undergrad as well. Beyond just checking things off a box for admission, I'd say you need to feel comfortable that you want to enter the world of research and that you feel that you have enough experience in it to make an informed decision. This is something that you need to do for yourself. Because if you still feel uncomfortable with benchwork by the time you graduate, then I would say that you should most definitely take time off to get more research experience.

Lab work is not just for undergrads, grads or post docs. Many labs are willing to hire post-bacs on as techs working on a project for a year or two after undergrad. I took time off and worked as a pre-IRTA at the NIH after undergrad. I really needed that time off to explore an area of research that was totally unrelated to what I did in undergrad. I didn't just do it to improve my application, I did it because I wanted to make sure that this was something I could see myself doing. That said, it really improved my application, and I doubt that I would not have gotten into my current program without it. Anyway, you could definitely ask around at labs at your current university for a tech position when you graduate. Alternatively you could look into the NIH post-bac pre-IRTA program. The point of this program is to allow students interested in some form of grad school to gain more research experience after undergrad. You can find information about it here: https://www.training.nih.gov/programs/postbac_irta

 

[StilgarMD]

Some people apply with only undergrad research experience, some people work doing research after undergrad. I'm guessing, but the more competitive the MSTP, the more likely it is for applicants to have research post undergrad.

There are some research programs one can apply to for after graduation (the NIH has some I think), maybe someone else has more info on that since I haven't participated in one.

Any academic research institute will have "research assistant" positions or something similar. Universities will have job positions posted on their website, but these jobs can be hard to land, sometimes it takes networking or even cold emailing PIs you are interested in working with. The downside of many of these positions is that you usually will be expected to do more than work on your own research project (lab management, help out graduate students/postdocs). How much autonomy you have would definitely be something to discuss with any PIs you were considering taking a position with.

I did a quick search at my school's human resources page and it seems all they hire are Researchers III and IV, which don't seem like jobs for recent grads. i'll probably have to ask around to see if anyone is looking for someone x_x.

No one is going to ask you how much experience you have with technique X, and to me it sounds ridiculous (e.g. over analysis) to come up with a ballpark estimation of how many times you have to do a technique to count yourself as "proficient." This would vary widely from person to person anyway. Admissions committees want to know that you understand the process of research. They want to know that you have the creativity, independence, dedication and passion to pursue a career in research. You demonstrate these things by having several years of research experience, by being able to talk intelligently and passionately about your research, and by having stellar LORs from your PIs. Two years of research experience is fine. It's not a red flag, and it's not "wow this person really has a lot of experience." It's not as though you need to be a master of every possible molecular biological technique. That would be absurd, but you should have in depth experience in at least one lab (i.e. 1+ year spent in 1 lab), and ideally good experience in a few labs, that shows you can push through the difficult stages of a project, like troubleshooting a difficult technique. Hopefully you get some kind of result at the end. It doesn't have to be in the form of a paper. It can just be, "I got this technique to work and this is what it showed." If you don't feel that your current experience is good enough, talk to your PI about taking on another project. Better yet, come up with your own project idea and see if your PI would be interested.

the only part about this is your use of plural PIs. i feel like i have a lot of potential with my current PI, and also don't think i have time to establish myself at another lab. its possible, but i think ill get the most out of focusing at my current lab right now. i have plenty of passion and dedication, and i have a great letter from my current PI, but i wonder if thats enough.

Doing a year or two of research after undergrad is a common route but not the common route. Plenty of people go into MD/PhD programs straight from undergrad as well. Beyond just checking things off a box for admission, I'd say you need to feel comfortable that you want to enter the world of research and that you feel that you have enough experience in it to make an informed decision. This is something that you need to do for yourself. Because if you still feel uncomfortable with benchwork by the time you graduate, then I would say that you should most definitely take time off to get more research experience.

Lab work is not just for undergrads, grads or post docs. Many labs are willing to hire post-bacs on as techs working on a project for a year or two after undergrad. I took time off and worked as a pre-IRTA at the NIH after undergrad. I really needed that time off to explore an area of research that was totally unrelated to what I did in undergrad. I didn't just do it to improve my application, I did it because I wanted to make sure that this was something I could see myself doing. That said, it really improved my application, and I doubt that I would not have gotten into my current program without it. Anyway, you could definitely ask around at labs at your current university for a tech position when you graduate. Alternatively you could look into the NIH post-bac pre-IRTA program. The point of this program is to allow students interested in some form of grad school to gain more research experience after undergrad. You can find information about it here: https://www.training.nih.gov/programs/postbac_irta

Is the bolded sentence what you meant to say, because it sort of contradicts a bit.

i hate to think i sound like someone checking off boxes, but i can see how i come off that way. i honestly love scientific research and personally couldn't imagine not being involved with it in my career (otherwise i'd just go to med school or be an engineer). im just tired of getting rejected from things, and i want to make sure i take the proper steps and have the right goals in mind to reach my desired end. im not one of those kids pushed through by their parents, neither of my parents even knows my major ("something to do with science") and they just tell people i want to be a doctor because thats simple to say. i love the work i do at the lab, i love piecing together papers i find into hypotheses i can test. its cool to me. don't let panic obscure my intentions. the lab i work in right now is regenerative medicine based (hence using extensive primary cells) but my project deals with an immunological aspect of it, and i've learned a lot about immunology along the way. i feel like i would like to work in immunology or regenerative medicine, both of which have very clear impact on the people they aim to help. in any event, the NIH program seems really selective. i don't have multiple people who can speak to my aptitude in the lab, i have 1, and the NIH program seems to want multiple letters from biomedical researchers. x_X how can i get progress from my current spot besides finding another lab? i feel like my love of research needs no verifying, but i would go into these programs because they sound incredibly interesting (getting paid to work with great PIs, research experience, scientific development) and i should broaden my experience base if i am aiming as high as i am. should i find another lab and work in both? should i just focus on my current spot? i would like to do one of those tech jobs Caprica referenced but none seem available in my area (central NJ - odd as that may sound).

Note: I work at a center with multiple PIs, and perhaps i should attempt to work with them too. seems like a good idea.

 

[delirium81]

the only part about this is your use of plural PIs. i feel like i have a lot of potential with my current PI, and also don't think i have time to establish myself at another lab. its possible, but i think ill get the most out of focusing at my current lab right now. i have plenty of passion and dedication, and i have a great letter from my current PI, but i wonder if thats enough.

It's not at all a requirement to have letters from multiple PIs. It's always good to have multiple PIs singing your praises, but no one will give you the side eye for not having it. It's 1000x more important to have a long term experience, and if that means staying in the same lab throughout undergrad then that's totally fine.

Is the bolded sentence what you meant to say, because it sort of contradicts a bit.

Yeah, that was a typo. It should have read, "That said, it really improved my application, and I doubt that I would have gotten into my current program without it."

I should add that my situation was pretty different from yours though. I was interested in working in a field that had completely different techniques from my undergrad research. I most likely would have gotten the side eye if I had tried to say I was interested in this field with zero background in it when I applied.

the NIH program seems really selective. i don't have multiple people who can speak to my aptitude in the lab, i have 1, and the NIH program seems to want multiple letters from biomedical researchers. x_X how can i get progress from my current spot besides finding another lab? i feel like my love of research needs no verifying, but i would go into these programs because they sound incredibly interesting (getting paid to work with great PIs, research experience, scientific development) and i should broaden my experience base if i am aiming as high as i am. should i find another lab and work in both? should i just focus on my current spot? i would like to do one of those tech jobs Caprica referenced but none seem available in my area (central NJ - odd as that may sound).

It's been a long time since I applied to be a post-bac IRTA, but letters from multiple PIs were definitely not a requirement at the time, since I would only have had one letter myself. You should know that it's a rolling application process, and any NIH PI who is interested in hiring a post-bac IRTA basically just browses through the application pool and picks people to interview. So if you're interested in it, the best way to go about it is to submit your application and then just contact PIs whose research looks interesting yourself rather than waiting for someone random to contact you.

Do you really have enough time to work in two labs right now? I mean, if your grades or your work in your current lab would suffer then I probably wouldn't do it. If I were you, I'd probably just focus on working hard in your current lab.

 

[StilgarMD]

It's not at all a requirement to have letters from multiple PIs. It's always good to have multiple PIs singing your praises, but no one will give you the side eye for not having it. It's 1000x more important to have a long term experience, and if that means staying in the same lab throughout undergrad then that's totally fine.

alright, that's good to hear.

I should add that my situation was pretty different from yours though. I was interested in working in a field that had completely different techniques from my undergrad research. I most likely would have gotten the side eye if I had tried to say I was interested in this field with zero background in it when I applied.

if you don't mind me asking, what fields were you moving between? i wouldn't mind getting experience outside of cellular biology, and if im looking toward stem cell research or immunology, i will aim to do a postbac specific to those. the lab i currently work in is sort of all over the place. its not as involved in basic sciences as most, its more of a translational medicine lab.

It's been a long time since I applied to be a post-bac IRTA, but letters from multiple PIs were definitely not a requirement at the time, since I would only have had one letter myself. You should know that it's a rolling application process, and any NIH PI who is interested in hiring a post-bac IRTA basically just browses through the application pool and picks people to interview. So if you're interested in it, the best way to go about it is to submit your application and then just contact PIs whose research looks interesting yourself rather than waiting for someone random to contact you.

" You should select references who are able to explain why you would be a good addition to a research group. Anyone who could comment on your skills in the laboratory, creativity, problem solving abilities, motivation, ability to handle complex scientific literature and concepts, etc. would be a good choice. Recommendations from individuals with a science research background are likely to carry more weight than recommendations from those with less understanding of biomedical research."

from their website. it seems like they don't actually ask for letters in themselves, but they do require 3 references, and i can only think to have 2 at the moment, my main PI, and another PI i am familiar with at the lab. there is a senior lab tech i work with a lot, would putting her down as a reference be alright? i just don't know that many people "scientifically". 2 of my letters of rec come from my general bio professors, but they don't know me as a lab person, just as a student.

Do you really have enough time to work in two labs right now? I mean, if your grades or your work in your current lab would suffer then I probably wouldn't do it. If I were you, I'd probably just focus on working hard in your current lab.

so far, for summer, this is my agenda

1. Kick ass at lab
2. Shadow intensely at a near by hospital (just got word from the shadowing program yesterday that space was available during the summer.)
3. study for MCATs
4. Start teaching MCAT Bio for princeton review (i can actually teach not having taken the MCAT, if i pass a qualifying exam. i've taught a supplemental gen bio group at the school for 2 years now, and went through TPR Bio review book over the last few weeks).

i do have a busy summer, but as far as lab work suffering, it won't, and my grades should also be fine. this Fall, im currently signed up for about 7 credits, 4 in a senior neuroscience class and 3 in research. i could try to shove 6 of research in there, but i don't know if ill be allowed. i will probably supplement these classes with Religion/Philosophy classes, those are my minors.

another question thats been on my mind is if i should just stop with taking Philosophy/Religion classes. currently, 2 of my LoRs are coming from these professors, but the more i scan through all these programs the more i wonder if it matters. i know such letters work fine for med school, but how well do they work for MD/PhD. i really enjoy philosophy classes, i got to a school with a top 10 philosophy program, but understand i can't allow anything to get in the way of my priorities. one of my favorite professors is teaching a graduate philosophy course, and im tempted to take it if i can make it work. does that sound like a bad idea?

as a side note, i really appreciate everyone's help, especially yours delirium, since you sound very experienced with all this. hope i don't exhaust you, thanks a lot.

 

[delirium81]

if you don't mind me asking, what fields were you moving between? i wouldn't mind getting experience outside of cellular biology, and if im looking toward stem cell research or immunology, i will aim to do a postbac specific to those. the lab i currently work in is sort of all over the place. its not as involved in basic sciences as most, its more of a translational medicine lab.

I worked in the physical sciences in undergrad and wanted to move into the biological sciences. So, I really needed the extra time in a biological sciences lab to learn the techniques and see if it was something I would even enjoy.

there is a senior lab tech i work with a lot, would putting her down as a reference be alright? i just don't know that many people "scientifically". 2 of my letters of rec come from my general bio professors, but they don't know me as a lab person, just as a student.

If I recall, they send your references online forms that basically amount to letters. I wouldn't ask the tech. I think having letters from science professors is totally fine. They can speak to everything in that list from the website except for lab skills. You'd be fine with 2 of your letters coming from science profs who know you well. But I'm telling you, the real trick is to be proactive and contact the labs that you're interested in yourself. If you do it that way, the online application is basically a formality. You may have to contact 10-20+ to find one that's interested in hiring a post-bac IRTA, but there are so many great intramural labs that you're still bound to find a great one.

one of my favorite professors is teaching a graduate philosophy course, and im tempted to take it if i can make it work. does that sound like a bad idea?

This is your last chance to branch out and take a bunch of interesting humanities courses. So as long as the course is something you'll really enjoy without it being a stressful time drain, then I say go for it. No ad com is going to be counting how many science courses you took per quarter or questioning your priorities because of your interest in philosophy. As a science major, you're obviously already taking plenty. I think your interest in philosophy just makes you a more interesting/well-rounded candidate.

 

[StilgarMD]

I worked in the physical sciences in undergrad and wanted to move into the biological sciences. So, I really needed the extra time in a biological sciences lab to learn the techniques and see if it was something I would even enjoy.

Interesting, so anything inside biology is probably not much of a skip. in my head, i was thinking more like "how can i work in immunology if i've never done a cytotoxicity assay?". ill probably be fine, though i still really want mentorship. i have a really great PI, but he is absent somewhat often (for very good reasons), unfortunately.

If I recall, they send your references online forms that basically amount to letters. I wouldn't ask the tech. I think having letters from science professors is totally fine. They can speak to everything in that list from the website except for lab skills. You'd be fine with 2 of your letters coming from science profs who know you well. But I'm telling you, the real trick is to be proactive and contact the labs that you're interested in yourself. If you do it that way, the online application is basically a formality. You may have to contact 10-20+ to find one that's interested in hiring a post-bac IRTA, but there are so many great intramural labs that you're still bound to find a great one.

i haven't spoken to those professors in a year or 2 now, so ill probably need to cultivate some new connections with professors in the fall semester of my senior year, and maybe even the summer if i drop in on some summer classes. I'll have to see what i can do...

This is your last chance to branch out and take a bunch of interesting humanities courses. So as long as the course is something you'll really enjoy without it being a stressful time drain, then I say go for it. No ad com is going to be counting how many science courses you took per quarter or questioning your priorities because of your interest in philosophy. As a science major, you're obviously already taking plenty. I think your interest in philosophy just makes you a more interesting/well-rounded candidate.

from my understanding "well-rounded" only related to med schools. i love Philosophy and religion, but it seems those things are wastes of times when it comes to graduate studies in science. the only reason i ask if its a good idea is because i understand i need to get my priorities straight, and if im not where i need to be in my research/science dimension (not necessarily struggling, just not where i should be), branching out isn't wise.

i feel like from what I've gathered during this discussion is that 1 PI vouching for you is not enough to really stand out, though it is sufficient. i know all these applications and stuff are formalities, if you can convince the person looking for a postbac, you're in. I really hope i can do that convincing part though. I'm personable and a hard worker, i just feel deficient on paper. at least this won't catch me by surprise after i graduate if im preparing now.