Decisions

[StilgarMD]

So, this is a long post, and thanks in advance to those who make it to the end.

I'm graduating this May and I have to decide what I am doing in my time off. I was originally planning on applying this year, but i don't think i know enough about medicine and healthcare to say with confidence it is something i want to do for the rest of my life (or even fall back on), and to a somewhat smaller degree, the same goes for research. in light of these doubts (whether reasonable or not), I've decided applying this June would be premature, and i would benefit from a year out of school, getting as much exposure to research and medicine as possible, and then making a decision with a strengthened application.

I've got some dilemmas as far as what to do in that time off. Last night I had a conversation with my PI and he said if I would like, I can stay at the lab an additional year and continue working on my project. (mind you, he thinks me taking more time off is nonsense, but i think he isn't seeing my doubts, and assessing it more based on my ability). At the end of the day, my project hasn't been very fruitful because of an ineffective antibody, and my lack of positive control use on every trial. I am looking at other antibodies, and one faculty even said we could raise one against the antigen, though given its homologous nature to other antigens (its an MHC gene), i think taking the proper care to ensure specificity to my antigen isn't in my reach (the guys who have come up with antibodies test them against huge panels of MHC transfectants). in any event, this raises issues for me. I don't know what to do.

Pros: my PI is famous (not in the HHMI way, but clinical trails), and the primary cells (something i am actually interested in pursuing in the future) i am studying cost an arm and a leg, and at this lab there is lots of access to them.

Cons: my experience at the lab was rough, since the PI is rarely there, though him being there would not substantially change my experience. my project was my own and i made a lot of mistakes, but also learned alot. if i do stay at the lab, i shouldn't assume i would be able to stay the entire 2, especially since my PI doesn't support that. he said if i was taking two years off, i might as well get a PhD (side note: which paradoxically seems to make my research less of a plus on my application, at least thats the impression i get from the PhD-to-MD crowd.) though getting a PhD may be something i want to do, i think only a PhD isn't wise given the way things are, and if i were to end up wanting an MD, i feel like getting an PhD beforehand would be a waste of a chance to just combine the two at the same institute.

I think the 2 year span of time i have is a good opportunity to join a new lab and work on something as part of a team, and hopefully get results. through out my time as an undergrad i always felt somewhat upset that everyone else i spoke to on research didn't have to do all the ground work and make all the mistakes i was making. i know that's part of science, and i anticipate doing a good deal of that if i get a PhD, but as an undergrad it made me feel like i was at an awful disadvantage. finding a new lab also raises fears for me, particularly that i won't get a good position, won't get the opportunity to develop an independent project, and essentially just be a bare bones support technician. if that happened, i would be in deep regret about how i used my time.

Put succinctly, here are my questions.

i am pretty strongly bent toward not applying this year because of my doubts. i want to get research and clinical experience in my time off, and ultimately make the most out of the time. Staying at the current lab doesn't seem like a good idea because of the issues ive had before. Finding a new lab seems difficult, and i don't know where to start.

1. Is staying in my current lab a good idea?

2 if not: I've looked at a few university pages, and some labs are hiring research techs. how do i know these labs are places i would be able to develop as a scientist.

3. has anyone heard about the research tech positions at MSKCC. they hire people for 2 year positions, but again i am scared to hell of wasting 2 years doing purely lab maintenance.

4. Is there anything else i should be aware of

Any other advice is appreciated. My stats are solid and my MCAT will be good for applying this or next year, and i want this experience to give me insight on what i want to do, and amplify my application if i end up applying. any help is appreciated. i would be willing to go into more details if needed through PM.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Watson104]

Pros: my PI is famous
Cons: my experience at the lab was rough, since the PI is rarely there, though him being there would not substantially change my experience. my project was my own and i made a lot of mistakes, but also learned alot.

I think the 2 year span of time i have is a good opportunity to join a new lab and work on something as part of a team, and hopefully get results. through out my time as an undergrad i always felt somewhat upset that everyone else i spoke to on research didn't have to do all the ground work and make all the mistakes i was making. i know that's part of science, and i anticipate doing a good deal of that if i get a PhD, but as an undergrad it made me feel like i was at an awful disadvantage.

There's a lot in your post, but this jumped out at me. Why are you at a disadvantage and for what - applying to MD/PhD? If at an interview you can talk intelligently about your project and with knowledge that everyone fails more than not in research endeavors, you'll be golden. If you got handed a working project that you never had to learn much about but got 'results', you won't be able talk quite so knowledgeably about 'real science.' Interviewers will be suspicious of anyone talking sunshine and rainbows about lab experience. Programs don't expect applicants to have 3 first author papers - then you'd have the PhD you'd be applying to. They want you to love science to the point you 'have' to do it, despite rational thought that says it's an insane career path. Your famous PI writes you a rec, you get started on the path that will leave you without a real job for the next nearly two decades of your life.

Question for you: What are your current choices for a career? So far I've gotten that you think you want to do research and you're not sure about medicine? Is there some third option? What happens at the end of 2 yrs if you decide not to apply? I say this because it's 2 yrs - you need to formulate it not just for 2 yrs lab experience to help your application (that's a waste of time as far as I'm concerned). It need to be 2 yrs that helps you decide between X, Y, or Z. What is that X, Y, and Z for you and how is 2 yrs in a lab going to help you make that choice? Are there other endeavors to help you decide between them?

 

[Neuronix]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=893968

So 3.8, 2+ years of research, ?MCAT, Hispanic (URM)... Apply already. 2 years is a waste of time IMO. Stay in your lab and get your application ready for this summer is my advice.

 

[obscurehero]

So, I read both your posts.

I feel like I was in a similar boat and worked as a research technician for two years and it REALLY helped me. I was able to attend to national conferences, get a publication, and overall learn how to do science. I felt I needed the time off. Was it necessary? Possibly not, but I don't regret it.

I think if your heart's truly not in it this cycle you'd be doing yourself a disservice. I think if you interview and don't come across as confident because you're not confident, it's not really putting your best foot forward. It's not a race and you can take your time. Do you need to stats-wise? Probably not.

You can continue doing research at your current lab (best choice) especially if ti means you'll be able to make some money on the side during your year off. That said, maybe it might be nice to get a chance of scenery. That's really up to you. In general, its good to have a substantive research experience and so long as you're getting some level of mentorship you might be better off staying in the current lab and benefiting from that continuity.

As far as taking time off you might as well get a PhD stuff... I disagree. Even if you take two years off and then spend four more years during your MD/PhD to get your PhD, you're still spending six years total doing research which is pretty typical these days for proper PhD students. You're not wasting time.

 

[Neuronix]

As far as taking time off you might as well get a PhD stuff... I disagree. Even if you take two years off and then spend four more years during your MD/PhD to get your PhD, you're still spending six years total doing research which is pretty typical these days for proper PhD students. You're not wasting time.

I disagree. But this is a common difference in perspective between an early 20s and an early 30s MD/PhD track student. Years may seem small in total, but they add up. The PhD doesn't have a residency and fellowship to do. They may have a post-doc to do, but they still aren't looking at their first job in their mid to late 30s. The time you spend between undergrad and medical school has little meaning in the long run. In my opinion, you should get going on the training that is more meaningful (i.e. the MD/PhD) and make efficient use of your time.

 

[StilgarMD]

Question for you: What are your current choices for a career? So far I've gotten that you think you want to do research and you're not sure about medicine? Is there some third option? What happens at the end of 2 yrs if you decide not to apply? I say this because it's 2 yrs - you need to formulate it not just for 2 yrs lab experience to help your application (that's a waste of time as far as I'm concerned). It need to be 2 yrs that helps you decide between X, Y, or Z. What is that X, Y, and Z for you and how is 2 yrs in a lab going to help you make that choice? Are there other endeavors to help you decide between them?

Aside from the post Neuronix linked, i made one in October - http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=956883

My current choices are MD/PhD, just MD, or something else. I am unlikely to want just a PhD given the current situation in the world. My own interests are in science, medicine, and teaching. I've been teaching biology for about 3 years now, and generally enjoy it. when i say "2 years" i mean i am a senior right now, so 1 year is obligatory. i figure over the course of the next year, i will discover enough about the MD and the PhD to make a good choice and apply in the June 2014 cycle.

Neuronix, your writing over the years on here and on your blog has heavily influenced my thinking and particularly my doubt about the pursuit. I think this is crucial, since the time for doubt is before the commitment, not after (at least, not if its avoidable). I can't thank you enough for the information you've been giving out here, and i think it would be somewhat foolish to go hap-hazardously into such a great pursuit without a good deal of doubts dealt with. I know at the end of the day, the potential for doubt will be there with any new experience during training, but I guess my concern is just getting the most solid foundation possible beforehand. I know time is fleeting, and trust me that i have lots of hesitation about adding an additional year to my graduation time, but i guess being one year older when i graduate isn't so bad when compared to being unhappy for the 8 or 9 years prior, and regretting the path i took.

 

[Watson104]

i figure over the course of the next year, i will discover enough about the MD and the PhD to make a good choice and apply in the June 2014 cycle.
.

Apply now. I read those old posts - you're golden. Do NOT be discourage by not having fantastic results and a first author pub in lab. It is NOT important for applications.

I'm just not sure how much more you can learn about MD or PhD during a single year of working in a lab. Seriously, it's not that much different than undergrad in lab - you work on your project and the months blur together. Then it's 3 months later and you're in the same place with just as little data (that's science).

You will learn a LOT about MD/PhD during the application/interview process. You can always decide to go MD only when actually matriculating. During interviews, you often talk to up to 10 individuals at a single school. You will get a wide range of views - interviewers are not thoroughly vetted to be rahrahmdphd. Some will frankly try to talk you out of it. You 'll get to see how all sorts of physician-scientists have organized their careers and ask them if they would do it over or get a PhD or what they think the direction of research really is.

 

[miz]

I graduated and applied the same year and that year off really solidified my plans. There was so much that I didn't know (and wasn't aware that I didn't know) until applying. The application process helped me personally to resolve my doubts and I felt comfortable in my decision when I matriculated. But unlike you, I already knew I wanted to apply MD/PhD.
I fully understand wanting to think through a decision before pursuing it prematurely. If you cannot convince yourself that this is what you want to do, you can't convince interviewers that this is what you want to do with any sincerity. And although it sounds like you are firm in your decision, you have a month or two where you can change your mind and it won't make your application late.
I suggest that you call a few of us and talk to us for a while, about how to find a good lab at the NIH or MSKCC, or any other thing. You can still join a new lab for just one year. My year at the NIH was wonderful and productive. Or you could do two years. Or you could do something random that has nothing to do with MD/PhD, like join the Peace Corps or any of the other things that people do to find themselves after college. PM me if you want to talk.