2 gaps years: masters degree or work in a research lab full time?

[krispykreem]

I really want a career in medicine related research, I am especially interested in virus-host interactions, but not sure how close I'm going to get to a research career since it is competitive. I will be taking 2 gap years and applying md/phd after 1 gap year. I am wondering what to do during my 2 gap years.
-I could get a 2 year masters degree in virology at a state school (not a medical school). I will be paid about 28-30k a year stipend.
-I could work in a research lab for a couple years, also for about 28k-30k.

Wouldn't it sound logical to go for the masters degree since salary is the same? The reason I am concerned about salary is that I need to save up money to apply to MD/PhD programs and to travel to interviews, since I live on the WEST coast (meaning, I will have to pay like $500 for airplane flights to every interview I go).

I also REALLY want to get the most research experience I can. What would give me more research experience, a masters, or 2 years full-time lab research? Assuming I will already have all the pre-reqs taken for the MS as an undergrad (all the upper level bio, since my major is molecular bio), I guess it'll leave me with just research to do? But I really don't know much about these programs. What do you think?

Also,what would look better to the MD/pHd admissions committee?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fencer]

The MS gives you a more solid foundation, but the most important aspect is the quality of the research and whether you are working as a technician or leading a small project (the latter is better). The MS also gives you an opportunity to improve the GPA if you need to do that.

 

[cpi89]

I really want a career in medicine related research, I am especially interested in virus-host interactions, but not sure how close I'm going to get to a research career since it is competitive. I will be taking 2 gap years and applying md/phd after 1 gap year. I am wondering what to do during my 2 gap years.
-I could get a 2 year masters degree in virology at a state school (not a medical school). I will be paid about 28-30k a year stipend.
-I could work in a research lab for a couple years, also for about 28k-30k.

Wouldn't it sound logical to go for the masters degree since salary is the same? The reason I am concerned about salary is that I need to save up money to apply to MD/PhD programs and to travel to interviews, since I live on the WEST coast (meaning, I will have to pay like $500 for airplane flights to every interview I go).

I also REALLY want to get the most research experience I can. What would give me more research experience, a masters, or 2 years full-time lab research? Assuming I will already have all the pre-reqs taken for the MS as an undergrad (all the upper level bio, since my major is molecular bio), I guess it'll leave me with just research to do? But I really don't know much about these programs. What do you think?

Also,what would look better to the MD/pHd admissions committee?

Also consider the NIH postbac fellowship.There also happens to be a NIH facility on the west(ish) coast that specializes in virology. I work here and have found the experience to be very productive and beneficial. Salary is about the same and Montana cost of living is pretty cheap. I can't speak to whether or not the experience would be more impressive than a masters or not, but I have done well so far in the admissions cycle.

 

[Fencer]

The NIH IRTA is as impressive as MS, and there is a higher chance of a publication or two.

 

[krispykreem]

Also consider the NIH postbac fellowship.There also happens to be a NIH facility on the west(ish) coast that specializes in virology. I work here and have found the experience to be very productive and beneficial. Salary is about the same and Montana cost of living is pretty cheap. I can't speak to whether or not the experience would be more impressive than a masters or not, but I have done well so far in the admissions cycle.

How competitive is the NIH postbac? Is it hard to get in?

 

[Neuronix]

My general advice on this topic:

1) Don't take gap years unless you really want to or need to. MD/PhD training is too long as it is. If your research experience is sub-par, you may need to. You never commented on how many years of experience you have.

2) If you do take time off, don't go into debt doing it. Any master's program should be free, and close to you so you pay minimal living expenses, or they should pay you.

In my experience, master's programs tend not to be that helpful. The coursework and teaching demands are high. So instead of having 2 years of research, it's really more like 1 year of research after 1 year of coursework and teaching. But the expectations MD/PhD programs have for the master's are high. We know undergrads often can't publish, but many set the bar higher for master's. So now they're looking for publications that you may not be able to get and a near 4.0 GPA in the coursework. Some students are able to pull this off. It's easier, often more impressive, and usually cheaper to simply devote yourself to a lab for a year or two either through a formal program or not. I call the preferred pathway the "unofficial" post-bacc, which is working at a public undergrad, being a full time lab assistant, and taking classes there part time for cheap. However, that isn't available for everyone.

 

[cpi89]

How competitive is the NIH postbac? Is it hard to get in?

Lot of variables: timing, budget etc. Ultimately the investigator chooses his or her own post bacc and usually the list of qualified post-baccs for a given lab at a given time is small. So, if you have research interests that are well aligned with a particular investigator and he/she has the budget and space, then it's not terribly competitive. The trick is lining up all those things. My advice I give to all people looking for a NIH post-bacc position is to have well articulated research interests (sounds like you do) and to be very proactive in finding labs. LORs are also very important. Most people correspond with 25-75 PIs before they land a position. My other nugget is to focus on tenure-track investigators as they have more incentive to take on trainees (looks good for tenure reviews) and their budgets were not generally cut from sequestration.

Also, a little terminology that usually relieves some confusion when you're looking at labs: at the NIH (or at least NIAID), the individual departments (each with 4-10 investigators) are called "Laboratories" and the individual labs themselves are called "Sections". Since you're looking in my general field, I can give you some more specific advice which would be to start with investigators in NIAID Laboratory of Virology, Laboratory of Persistent Viral Diseases (both based at my campus) or the Laboratory of Viral Diseases (in Bethesda). National Heart, Lung and Blood also has some virology labs. You can PM me if you have questions about specific investigators.

Good luck with whatever path you may choose.

 

[krispykreem]

My general advice on this topic:

1) Don't take gap years unless you really want to or need to. MD/PhD training is too long as it is. If your research experience is sub-par, you may need to. You never commented on how many years of experience you have.

2) If you do take time off, don't go into debt doing it. Any master's program should be free, and close to you so you pay minimal living expenses, or they should pay you.

In my experience, master's programs tend not to be that helpful. The coursework and teaching demands are high. So instead of having 2 years of research, it's really more like 1 year of research after 1 year of coursework and teaching. But the expectations MD/PhD programs have for the master's are high. We know undergrads often can't publish, but many set the bar higher for master's. So now they're looking for publications that you may not be able to get and a near 4.0 GPA in the coursework. Some students are able to pull this off. It's easier, often more impressive, and usually cheaper to simply devote yourself to a lab for a year or two either through a formal program or not. I call the preferred pathway the "unofficial" post-bacc, which is working at a public undergrad, being a full time lab assistant, and taking classes there part time for cheap. However, that isn't available for everyone.

I have about a semester of research experience, but I am switching labs right now for various reasons. I really like research, and a professor from a different lab is allowing me to develop my own project. I don't have any publications/posters or anything... I am a junior at college right now. I am afraid that if I apply after my senior year, I will only have 1.5-2 years of good research experience, and not much else (no volunteering of any kind, but I do have some shadowing done already). I am considering 1-3 gap years in order to get more volunteering done, and get a more significant research experience. However, I will need some way to support myself during those years, whether that will be money from working full time, or stipend from masters degree. The state schools in my state (which do not have a medical school) provide about a 25k stipend for 2-year science masters students. I am just afraid that I might not be able to find a job in a research lab after I graduate college. I'm wondering if a masters degree is a good backup if I don't find a nice research job that will allow me to work on my own research projects and get paid for it. I will also need to save up money for AMCAS and interviews. I live on the west coast, so travelling to interviews will require a lot of money.