Year off - NIH Pre-IRTA or stay at current position?

[someday soon?]

Hello,
I have frequented this forum since its inception and find it extremely helpful, but I have not posted here yet.
I am an older, 26, undergrad with a wife and 20-month-old son and I will be graduating this June and applying to MSTP universities this summer. I am currently in a dilemma. I have the opportunity to obtain a position as a pre-IRTA for 12 months at the NIH or I can stay in my current lab and work full time. If I stay I will have a good opportunity to gain at least 2 or 3 first author pubs in addition to the one that I am currently writing. However, these publications will not likely be submitted until after my application has been reviewed and I think that the NIH may help me stand out from the pack more than if I stay in my current lab.
I am trying to weigh the personal and professional pros and cons of both but I cannot decide which would be more beneficial for admissions and this is definitely a factor that I need to consider. I have worked in my current lab for 2.5 years and am finishing a project and writing a paper that should be submitted next month. However, my priorities throughout college were not my grades and I therefore do not have an outstanding GPA, 3.75, compared to others who are applying. Since I am already much older than most applicants I want to maximize my chances of gaining admission during my first application cycle.
Here's what I have for pros and cons for each:

NIH
Pros: premier biomedical research institute in the world, people at NIH live and breath science, chance to work on something I know relatively little about, networking, NIH name, fun change of scenery for 12 months, my wife's sister lives close by
Cons: person who contacted me for a position is a staff scientist, although he is MD/PhD, lose out on several first author pubs, working on a project that is way outside of my expertise

Current Lab
Pros: continue to develop on current work, strong potential for several first author pubs, build stronger relationship with current collaborators, better pay and cheaper cost of living for family
Cons: may not stand out on application like NIH, miss out on experiencing NIH atmosphere

My PI is encouraging me to do what I think is best for me and said he will be supportive of any decision I make. However, he prefers not to discuss what I should or should not do because he doesn't want to influence my decision. So, I really need advice and I will definitely appreciate anything that you guys have to add.
Thanks in advance!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wisteria318]

You probably already know this, but you can't really go wrong either way. I was in your position a year ago except your PI is much more understanding. I was definitely getting pressure to stay in my undergrad lab. However, I am now here at the NIH. I actually don't know how much coming to the NIH will help you stand out as a candidate because so many people I met during interviews are working at the NIH. However, I think it will be a good experience. I was told by some MSTP admissions people that I should only stay in my undergrad lab (which I have been in for 3 years) if I knew I was going to get a first author publication, which my PI said was possible...but you never know with science. It seems like however, that you are pretty sure you will. I think no matter what you choose at interviews you will either get asked 1. why you stayed or 2. why you left and as long as you have good reasons for either, you'll be fine. Oh, and I don't know if this is applicable to you, but my undergrad lab was very basic science oriented so I chose a mentor who is a physician scientist who sees patients as well as research and I think it was good for me to actually see this in action to prove to myself that this is what I really wanted to do.

Good luck with your decision and let me know if you have any other questions!

 

[linuxizer]

However, my priorities throughout college were not my grades and I therefore do not have an outstanding GPA, 3.75, compared to others who are applying. Since I am already much older than most applicants I want to maximize my chances of gaining admission during my first application cycle.
Cons: working on a project that is way outside of my expertise

My $0.02: it sounds like you have a great and supportive PI right now, which is a wonderful thing. Your GPA is nothing to sneeze at, no worries there. It is the NIH, but it's also true that many people do IRTAs. What's the reputation of your current school like? I hate to say it, but adding the NIH name might give you a little boost if you're coming from a place that most interviewers have never heard of. On the other hand, if you're coming from a major academic medical center (even if it's not "top-25" or whatever the cutoff-du-jour is), maybe it's not worth leaving a great lab for a name. Apropos, I see the fact that the NIH job is way outside your experience as maybe a plus--this is the last time in your career where you can just learn something new and it doesn't have to lead directly to a pub.
So meanwhile, I don't have any concrete recommendations for you. I may be facing a similar situation soon. In your shoes, I might well stay where I was, but, like the poster before me said, you can't go wrong either way.
Best of luck.
Ari

 

[uproarhz]

Hello,
I will be graduating this June and applying to MSTP universities this summer.

I too had this choice to make a little while ago. For me, I decided to stay in my current lab because at the time I had friends who were applying to medical school and I realized that this is a VERY time consuming effort. I personally didn't want to start in a new lab, not give it my 110% because I am pre-occupied with application stuff, and burn bridges. Just something to think about. But I guess it will depend on how many places you would want to apply to and if they will be mostly in the east coast or other places.

The other thing to consider is that the name of the place you do research doesn't matter as much as the letter of reference from the PI/mentor you worked for. Since many places require a letter from every research mentor you have worked with, I think it is important to consider if it possible to get a stellar letter from the new PI at NIH in the short amount of time you will be able to work in his/her lab before all applications are due. Again, personally I felt like I didn't want a possibly less than stellar letter in my pile.

I would say going to the NIH would be fun, but it is unlikely to give you much of a boost. So do it just for the heck of seeing how things work at the NIH, which I hear are pretty amazing, but don't do it to make your app look better, cause it probably won't do you too much good.

BTW, a few first author manuscripts in preparation, as long as confirmed by your PI, are gonna help you stand out pretty good!

So here is how I see it:

pros:
NIH: fun, change of atmosphere, if you are not living in the east coast but plan to apply to many schools there this could help reduce travel times (this is a totall shot in the dark obviously cause I have no idea if this applies to you at all)

your current lab: staying in your current lab to finish up projects shows diligence and commitment, a few first author pubs (even in preparation) are gonna help make you stand out a bit (also, you can always update your file when these are submitted eventually), a supportive and understanding PI will be awesome to have during the stressful application time.

We won't worry about the cons cause they are just flip of the same coin I think.

OK i've rambled enough... See for yourself if it will be worth moving your family.
Best of luck with your decision!