Does it matter what the research is in?

[Shibbyboi182]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm coming into my 2nd quarter (3 to the academic year) in my junior year. I've been in the same lab for nearly a year and a half. The PI, while generally a nice person, is not very open to getting the few of us undergrads on publications. My second concern is that I'm working in a psychology lab, in a purely clinical, therapy-based setting.

As a neuroscience major, is it worth it for me to try moving to another lab that is more in the hard sciences? I know that the publications issue is a much bigger deal, but I think I can pull out a poster or 2 out of this whole experience. Will that be enough or is that going to get me red-flagged come application time? Should I consider looking for a new lab?

 

[NickNaylor]

No.

 

[Barcu]

I'm coming into my 2nd quarter (3 to the academic year) in my junior year. I've been in the same lab for nearly a year and a half. The PI, while generally a nice person, is not very open to getting the few of us undergrads on publications. My second concern is that I'm working in a psychology lab, in a purely clinical, therapy-based setting.

As a neuroscience major, is it worth it for me to try moving to another lab that is more in the hard sciences? I know that the publications issue is a much bigger deal, but I think I can pull out a poster or 2 out of this whole experience. Will that be enough or is that going to get me red-flagged come application time? Should I consider looking for a new lab?

It isn't worth the move, unless you are miserable. Your concerns about staying in the lab are not big issues.

Research can be in anything, so don't worry about that. You don't need a more "hard science" project.

The lack of a publication opportunity is kind of a downer, but is definitely not the end of the world. Most applicants don't have a pub, and many applicants simply get them for being in a lab at the right time. Having a pub is not a requirement. Having something to show for being in the lab is a major positive, however. So having a poster presentation or two would be great. So would a grant (either an outside grant or many schools have them too) or an Honors Thesis.

You will never be red-flagged come application time. Research is slowly becoming a de facto requirement (it pretty much is for the top med schools) but it is still not necessary. Being in this lab for a year and a half already (and assuming you finish in it) will put you ahead of many applicants, especially if you have some poster presentations, grants, or thesis by the end of it.

Edit: And I almost forgot to add that you should get a great LOR from your PI.

 

[gettheleadout]

^ They right.

 

[ahmcadams]

Don't worry about changing labs. As long as you're part of the investigative process and contributing something meaningful to the project - and thus able to discuss it intelligently in an interview setting - you're getting the good stuff out of your research experience.

That said, as an adcom member, I definitely think some sort of deliverable makes a huge difference in evaluating the quality of a particular research experience. It doesn't have to be a big-time journal publication; it could be an abstract published in the associated journal for a regional scientific meeting, a poster citation for a presentation at a local research symposium, etc. When I review an applicant's CV, I think there is a big difference between vague particpation in research (RA'd in a lab, learned about bench techniques, logged a few volunteer hours running gels) and a substantive contribution as evidenced by an end-product. Sure, there's a tremendous amount of luck involved in who can get what pubished/presented, but it does matter. Try as hard as you can to get something produced during this particular experience and it'll make your app stand out a lot more than someone with a fancy-sounding basic science project to which he or she contributed little to nothing.

 

[rhesuspieces]

Stick with the lab you're in. Like the ahmcadams said, it's good to have tangible proof that you contributed significantly to your lab. I personally don't think you need a publication or even a poster presentation to achieve that. I work in a lab that produces very few papers due to the nature of our research--we haven't had a publication for nearly two years! However, I got a stellar LOR from my PI, weaseled my way into a leadership position, and started work on a thesis. All of those things show that I have more to contribute to my lab than just grunt work.

 

[Shibbyboi182]

Thank you everyone for the feedback! I really do appreciate it.