Differences between Talk, Poster and Paper

[computerdorkdan]

I just got selected for a talk at an upcoming conference for research I did over the summer (and am still doing, actually). It's a different application of some existing methods and some new analysis methods I developed. I don't think the specifics really matter for my question.

I'm an undergrad, planning to apply to MD/PhD programs next year. I've gotten some varied responses as to how I should view this opportunity, I'm curious what the group thinks.

My general question is this: what looks better to committees, a paper, a poster or a talk? Perhaps it's not the medium of delivery that matters but the knowledge of the content that's most important?

Some teachers at my current institution have told me getting selected for a talk is huge for an undergrad. Others haven't treated it as anything special. Some of my friends and I got to talking and were trying to figure out what looks best for admissions into MD/PhD programs. I argued it's knowledge of your research that was most important, others thought that just having a paper out there was big enough. (Yes, we did read the sticky "what are my chances" post).

I don't want to knock anyone who's done posters for conferences before, but they seem to involve less work and less discussion. That being said, many times posters seem to be a way to say: "here's where we are now and here's where we're going".

Personal gratification aside, how were others treated with similar opportunities?

And yes, the end goal is publication...of course.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gstrub]

Here is my experience.

Paper>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>talk~poster

As an undergrad, you will likely have poster sessions and "talks" on your CV, although I think you should use the word "presentation." If you were specifically selected to present research, that is indeed higher impact than just presenting a poster. The key is to have as many research experiences on your CV as possible (as an undergrad). So having 3 or more poster sessions listed is ample. Individually you are correct in that they are low impact, but taken together they demonstrate consistent participation/interest. Actual opportunities to present your data will carry more weight and should be more heavily emphasized on your CV, as they indicate that other people besides you think what you are doing is important.

Bottom line is the paper...having one published by the time you interview puts you in a different category than someone with 10,000 "talks" or "posters".
Best of luck,
G

 

[Calf]

I would mostly agree with the above, except that:

Published paper >>>>>>>>>> talk > poster.

In the national conferences that I've been to at least, there were hundreds of posters but only dozens of talks, so being selected for a talk definitely is a bit better than a poster.

 

[mudphudwannabe]

Papers are where it's at. But for MD/PhD applicants, papers are just a nice "extra" - definitely not required. Whatever experience you can get as an undergrad giving talks or posters is going to be valuable to your application and your future career, even if it's not as prestigious as a paper.

Talks and posters come in all varieties - you could give one at a national conference, campus-wide symposium, lab meeting, or as a requirement for a class. I think all varieties are a good experience as far as organizing your thoughts, learning how to explain your research effectively to people from a variety of backgrounds, dealing with criticism, etc.

By the way, a poster is not necessarily less work than a talk. 🙄 Posters are tricky in that they have to be brief (space and font size limitations), but they also have to stand alone - they have to make sense if someone read it without you standing there to explain. I spent probably the same amount of time putting together a talk and a poster I gave recently on the same material - and I had done the talk first, so I already had my thoughts somewhat organized before I started putting the poster together. 🙂

Anyway, the bottom line is, take whatever experience presenting you can get. Don't pass up papers, either, of course.

 

[Fencer]

By far a paper (or several) would look better on your application to MD PhD program, after all, the PhD component would be somewhere between 3-4 years, and somebody who has papers already shown to be able to contribute. It would be assumed that your contribution in a paper means that you have been exposed to the scientific process (hypothesis, experimental design, results, problems and pitfalls, conclusions, new hypothesis) and that you are knowledgeable of at least part of one scientific technique.

A talk, in general, means that your abstract has some degree of importance, but as discussed above it depends upon the society. A poster can be very exciting, or just plainly a minor contribution to a field.

Another big issue is authorship. Being the first (or second) author of an abstract might be better than being 20th author in a paper of a very low quality journal. This indicates (particularly first author) that the work is truly yours rather than a potentially passive participant. Lastly, if your poster was selected for a young investigator award, this is very sweet and can also be listed as one of your "honors".

 

[Neuronix]

My personal opinion is that a 1st authored pub as an undergrad is impressive. I do know examples where the undergrad did little and ended up first author. Yes there is some element of luck in this, as the project was likely handed down by the PI and there's a support crew involved in any project these days. But the first author lucking into a paper is a lot rarer than the undergrad who was just named as a 3rd or 4th author and didn't really do much for it. Everyone says this is "I've been published" no matter where they are on the article, but in reality how much does this count? Why should it count that they lucked into a good lab or a good project or a good grad student? We all know a lot of students luck into or don't luck into papers.

So in my opinion (which doesn't count since I'm not an adcom), I'd much rather see 1st authored work on a talk or poster at a peer-reviewed conference. This shows you really did do work and really did present data. If I were an adcom (Neuronix's dream world), 3rd author or later wouldn't mean anything, 2nd author would mean little, and 1st authored pub would mean a little more.

Still, for the millionth (and one) time, the standard disclaimer applies. Most undergrads don't get published who start in MSTPs. Over half of my class wasn't. It's not necessary and doesn't do a lot for you. GPA, MCAT, and time served is your ticket.

 

[Fencer]

From the standpoint of an admissions committee member, I agree. Typically, a question I ask applicants who have a paper, talk or an abstract is: Please tell me exactly what you did? I then ask what were you trying to examine (hypothesis, experimental design, etc.)? If we engage in a meaninful scientific discourse, then I might ask for the limitations of the experimental approach answering the hypothesis.

If you list something, be prepare to discuss it at lenght.