Does this count as a poster presentation?

[numbersloth]

I'm in a research methods class that culminates in a research project and presentation at a school-wide research presentation fair. Can I list this as a legit poster presentation?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[alcoholdehydrogenase69]

Did you conduct research yourself? Or did you do research on other people's research?

If you did actual work yourself, generated data and presented it then yes.

If you researched a study or a method and presented that, then no.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

I'm never impressed by these types of things. Go to a national or international conference, then that gets respect.

I'm in a research methods class that culminates in a research project and presentation at a school-wide research presentation fair. Can I list this as a legit poster presentation?

 

[Catalystik]

I'm never impressed by these types of things. Go to a national or international conference, then that gets respect.

Or regional. Any of these requires a review process and implies some selectivity. A required poster at the home institution: not so much.

 

[WedgeDawg]

It counts, you can list it.

I only ever did school-wide poster presentations and I had a research-oriented app. It shows that you were able to follow through with a project and have something to show for it. On my interviews, if I was asked about my research, it was about what I had done, what the implications were, what I took away from it, how it impacted my future career plans, etc. Never once was I asked anything about publications/presentations/posters/whatever. And these were at research-oriented schools.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

It counts, you can list it.

I only ever did school-wide poster presentations and I had a research-oriented app. It shows that you were able to follow through with a project and have something to show for it. On my interviews, if I was asked about my research, it was about what I had done, what the implications were, what I took away from it, how it impacted my future career plans, etc. Never once was I asked anything about publications/presentations/posters/whatever. And these were at research-oriented schools.

Did you have any publications or anything? You go to a top school so I want to know how far in research should an undergrad be to expect to get into a top school

 

[WedgeDawg]

Did you have any publications or anything? You go to a top school so I want to know how far in research should an undergrad be to expect to get into a top school

At the time of acceptance to my school, I had 0 publications, 0 presentations, 0 abstracts, 5 or so school-wide poster sessions, and my name was like 4th author (out of 6 or 7) on a poster someone else presented at a national conference that I did not attend.

If you don't like research, don't continue doing it, and find something else you're passionate about and do that instead (though finding out that you don't like research necessitates trying it at least for a bit in order to make that decision).

If you like or tolerate or whatever research, keep doing it, do your best at it, and don't half-ass it. I didn't half-ass my research and so even though I didn't get published until I started med school, my investment in it came through in my writing and my interviewing (at least I hope so), and it got noticed even though I only had some dinky in-house posters to show for it.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Also never expect to get into a top school. That's an easy way to get disappointed. There are very few applicants who should "expect" to get into a top school.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

Also never expect to get into a top school. That's an easy way to get disappointed. There are very few applicants who should "expect" to get into a top school.

Yeah I worded that very poorly. I meant how far in research should you expect an accepted student to a top med school to be in.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Yeah I worded that very poorly. I meant how far in research should you expect an accepted student to a top med school to be in.

Depends totally on the applicant. There are people in my class who published in Nature, there are people who did consistent research throughout undergrad, there are people who did a summer/semester of research, and there are (a few, not many) who did none at all.

If you are making a research oriented application, you should be able to back that up somehow. If you aren't, then make sure the meat of your application exists in some other way.

 

[aldol16]

It counts, you can list it.

I only ever did school-wide poster presentations and I had a research-oriented app. It shows that you were able to follow through with a project and have something to show for it. On my interviews, if I was asked about my research, it was about what I had done, what the implications were, what I took away from it, how it impacted my future career plans, etc. Never once was I asked anything about publications/presentations/posters/whatever. And these were at research-oriented schools.

In no academic world is that considered a poster presentation. If a student were applying to a PhD program and I saw a listing of a poster presented at a school-wide research symposium-type affair for undergraduates, I would disregard that for several reasons. First, in research methods courses, we usually teach undergraduates the techniques and then have them apply those techniques on a very small problem for a few weeks. The generation of a poster is to show them how to summarize scientific work into a poster format. It's original in the sense that probably nobody has done it before but it's not significant in the sense that you can't fill two paragraphs of a discussion section on it. Second, all posters are generally accepted at these conferences and there's really no quality control bar to meet. Most national conferences have some sort of selectivity to them and significant work is filtered and chosen by the chair, who is an expert in the field.

But perhaps the "research" bar for med school is simply lower.

 

[WedgeDawg]

In no academic world is that considered a poster presentation. If a student were applying to a PhD program and I saw a listing of a poster presented at a school-wide research symposium-type affair for undergraduates, I would disregard that for several reasons. First, in research methods courses, we usually teach undergraduates the techniques and then have them apply those techniques on a very small problem for a few weeks. The generation of a poster is to show them how to summarize scientific work into a poster format. It's original in the sense that probably nobody has done it before but it's not significant in the sense that you can't fill two paragraphs of a discussion section on it. Second, all posters are generally accepted at these conferences and there's really no quality control bar to meet. Most national conferences have some sort of selectivity to them and significant work is filtered and chosen by the chair, who is an expert in the field.

But perhaps the "research" bar for med school is simply lower.

Yeah once you're a grad student or higher that's not really gonna fly, you're absolutely right. However, no one is expecting undergrad premeds to be presenting routinely at national conferences. It's great if you do, but many people get into med schools, even top, research oriented ones, without having that opportunity. Once you're in med school, most of that stuff should be removed from your CV and replaced by stuff you do in med school (which, if you're doing research, will hopefully include national conferences af professional society meetings), but for your application to med school it is enough.

 

[aldol16]

Yeah once you're a grad student or higher that's not really gonna fly, you're absolutely right. However, no one is expecting undergrad premeds to be presenting routinely at national conferences. It's great if you do, but many people get into med schools, even top, research oriented ones, without having that opportunity. Once you're in med school, most of that stuff should be removed from your CV and replaced by stuff you do in med school (which, if you're doing research, will hopefully include national conferences af professional society meetings), but for your application to med school it is enough.

Even for admission to grad school, that would not fly. We take presentations/publications/abstracts, etc. a lot more seriously than med school does, it appears. We would take the fact that the student had taken a research methods class into strong consideration, but the poster resulting from that is not what we would consider an original research poster.

 

[Lawpy]

Yeah once you're a grad student or higher that's not really gonna fly, you're absolutely right. However, no one is expecting undergrad premeds to be presenting routinely at national conferences. It's great if you do, but many people get into med schools, even top, research oriented ones, without having that opportunity. Once you're in med school, most of that stuff should be removed from your CV and replaced by stuff you do in med school (which, if you're doing research, will hopefully include national conferences af professional society meetings), but for your application to med school it is enough.

Even for admission to grad school, that would not fly. We take presentations/publications/abstracts, etc. a lot more seriously than med school does, it appears. We would take the fact that the student had taken a research methods class into strong consideration, but the poster resulting from that is not what we would consider an original research poster.

But generally speaking (beyond med school admissions), poster presentations at school research day are just fluff right? They really aren't worth doing it, since the same data are better off being adjusted and presented at a regional conference that has some selectivity and legitimacy.

Publications, regional/national/international conferences, abstracts at journals etc are things that matter most. I probably would argue that these are permanent and can be added in the CV.

 

[aldol16]

But generally speaking (beyond med school admissions), poster presentations at school research day are just fluff right? They really aren't worth doing it, since the same data are better off being adjusted and presented at a regional conference that has some selectivity and legitimacy.

If you were to ask any academic, the answer would be yes. Academics generally don't go to student research symposia (unless there's free food involved). This is because undergrads typically do not take on projects of their own and so if we went, we'd only see parts of research projects that are part of bigger projects that other grad students/post-docs are working on. We see those projects at the national/regional conferences anyway and they are generally much better presented. If an undergrad does have a substantial project with ownership, chances are they will also be presenting that nationally anyway or publishing it, so we'll see it there. There's little benefit to us of going to these symposia because we don't learn much from them, if anything.

They are nice in that they allow undergrads to see each other's work and learn about research in other departments in an environment where everybody is at the same level.

Publications, regional/national/international conferences, abstracts at journals etc are things that matter most. I probably would argue that these are permanent and can be added in the CV.

Yes, in that order. As a beginning researcher, you generally list a lot of posters, etc. on your CV because you need to pad your CV as much as you can (although if you don't do it right, it's easy to tell what you're trying to do). Later on in your career, you'll mainly list publications or have separate publication and presentation sections. For the purpose of jobs, most employers look at the publications because if your poster project is worth anything, it will be eventually turned into a publication. More stringent review process.

 

[Lawpy]

Yes, in that order. As a beginning researcher, you generally list a lot of posters, etc. on your CV because you need to pad your CV as much as you can (although if you don't do it right, it's easy to tell what you're trying to do). Later on in your career, you'll mainly list publications or have separate publication and presentation sections. For the purpose of jobs, most employers look at the publications because if your poster project is worth anything, it will be eventually turned into a publication. More stringent review process.

So would the following research CV format be okay/typical? I didn't include the stuff about memberships at professional meetings and research awards but assume those stuff are already there.

Publications

Add any publications here in chronological (or reverse chronological) order. This section can have subsections for journal articles, book chapters, books edited etc.

Presentations

Basically any presentations at conferences are listed here. Not sure whether having subsections here is necessary (i.e. international vs national vs regional or talks vs poster presentations).

Abstracts

Journal abstracts and conference proceedings are listed here. But to avoid double counting with the Presentations section, only those that i did not present are listed here. So this could be the second author or middle authors on posters that someone else/first author presented at conferences.

The CV would be lengthy as research career progresses but having a categorization like above would minimize the padding perceptions, since evaluators can only focus on certain sections that matter. Also i think with this format, there is no need to remove abstracts that may seem minor and fluffy, but i could be wrong

 

[WedgeDawg]

I will note that in my case, many of th was research programs I was involved in required us to make posters for these symposiums in order to get funding. I assume that other schools/research programs had similar requirements. It's a hoop to jump through in order to have funding when you likely otherwise wouldn't.

 

[aldol16]

So would the following research CV format be okay/typical? I didn't include the stuff about memberships at professional meetings and research awards but assume those stuff are already there.

Publications

Add any publications here in chronological (or reverse chronological) order. This section can have subsections for journal articles, book chapters, books edited etc.

Presentations

Basically any presentations at conferences are listed here. Not sure whether having subsections here is necessary (i.e. international vs national vs regional or talks vs poster presentations).

Abstracts

Journal abstracts and conference proceedings are listed here. But to avoid double counting with the Presentations section, only those that i did not present are listed here. So this could be the second author or middle authors on posters that someone else/first author presented at conferences.

The CV would be lengthy as research career progresses but having a categorization like above would minimize the padding perceptions, since evaluators can only focus on certain sections that matter. Also i think with this format, there is no need to remove abstracts that may seem minor and fluffy, but i could be wrong

Usually, there's no abstract section. Young researchers will include this to pad their CV, but nobody usually really reads it. If you actually generated substantial results, you would submit it as a poster. If it's complete and substantial, it would be a publication. So abstracts are really redundant and is usually work that is less consequential/fewer people care about it.

Also, publications should be in reverse chronological order such that when the reader reads it, he or she will encounter your most recent work first. It's okay to list "manuscript submitted" or "manuscript accepted" papers here too.

 

[Lawpy]

Usually, there's no abstract section. Young researchers will include this to pad their CV, but nobody usually really reads it. If you actually generated substantial results, you would submit it as a poster. If it's complete and substantial, it would be a publication. So abstracts are really redundant and is usually work that is less consequential/fewer people care about it.

Also, publications should be in reverse chronological order such that when the reader reads it, he or she will encounter your most recent work first. It's okay to list "manuscript submitted" or "manuscript accepted" papers here too.

But what about posters that were presented by someone else and were listed as abstracts in a journal? You still did the work that listed you as a coauthor. Wouldn't that be considered an abstract that may be worth adding?

The suggested Abstract section would be in the bottom of the CV though

 

[aldol16]

But what about posters that were presented by someone else and were listed as abstracts in a journal? You still did the work that listed you as a coauthor. Wouldn't that be considered an abstract that may be worth adding?

You generally don't list posters that you didn't present but all this is just guidelines. You can list however way you want - the person reading it will just come to his or her own opinions based on what you list. Usually, we list poster presentations if we presented and publications. The idea is that if a work is worth a poster, then it likely can be developed into a publication soon thereafter. So you're giving too much undue emphasis to posters and abstracts. It's okay to do that for med school because the bar is much, much lower, but in academia, we work a bit differently.

 

[JustAPhD]

But what about posters that were presented by someone else and were listed as abstracts in a journal? You still did the work that listed you as a coauthor. Wouldn't that be considered an abstract that may be worth adding?

The suggested Abstract section would be in the bottom of the CV though

You generally don't list posters that you didn't present but all this is just guidelines. You can list however way you want - the person reading it will just come to his or her own opinions based on what you list. Usually, we list poster presentations if we presented and publications. The idea is that if a work is worth a poster, then it likely can be developed into a publication soon thereafter. So you're giving too much undue emphasis to posters and abstracts. It's okay to do that for med school because the bar is much, much lower, but in academia, we work a bit differently.

Agreed. Generally people do not list presentations that they do not personally present. But, people certainly do it when applying to medical school, first jobs in research (out of undergrad), and sometimes grad school so you wouldn't be alone if you chose to.

 

[Lawpy]

You generally don't list posters that you didn't present but all this is just guidelines. You can list however way you want - the person reading it will just come to his or her own opinions based on what you list. Usually, we list poster presentations if we presented and publications. The idea is that if a work is worth a poster, then it likely can be developed into a publication soon thereafter. So you're giving too much undue emphasis to posters and abstracts. It's okay to do that for med school because the bar is much, much lower, but in academia, we work a bit differently.

Agreed. Generally people do not list presentations that they do not personally present. But, people certainly do it when applying to medical school, first jobs in research (out of undergrad), and sometimes grad school so you wouldn't be alone if you chose to.

If they are listed as a section separate from and below the presentations section, i don't see the problem. The CV would look longer than usual but evaluators are free to ignore the abstracts section altogether and just focus on publications and presentations section

I don't see why contributions to other posters should be ignored and dismissed as fluff.

 

[JustAPhD]

If they are listed as a section separate from and below the presentations section, i don't see the problem. The CV would look longer than usual but evaluators are free to ignore the abstracts section altogether and just focus on publications and presentations section

I don't see why contributions to other posters should be ignored and dismissed as fluff.

It's not a problem, especially if you're young and without much experience. It's just fluff because it doesn't mean much. If it's notable work you would be included on any publications stemming from the data on the poster. If you feel the need to include abstracts (posters) accepted even though you didn't present them there's a great chance your CV isn't long, AKA you're fluffing it up to appear longer. But again, it's really not a problem and I don't think anyone would view it negatively on a younger person's CV, I certainly wouldn't. Now someone older? Say a faculty-applicant? Yeah I'd view it as a negative.

 

[aldol16]

If they are listed as a section separate from and below the presentations section, i don't see the problem. The CV would look longer than usual but evaluators are free to ignore the abstracts section altogether and just focus on publications and presentations section

I don't see why contributions to other posters should be ignored and dismissed as fluff.

It's about perception. Pre-meds tend to be fixated on the tangible impacts that are measurable. This is not one of them. Is it expressly prohibited to include posters you didn't present or abstracts? No. But is it looked down upon by academics? Absolutely. It's not black or white here. In academia, people often take shortcuts and oversell their work - in this as well as other things. For example, many times I'll read a Science or Nature paper and question why it was a Science or Nature paper to begin with. The impact of the work is nowhere near what the authors claim, even though more significant work may build upon the advance made by the authors. Things like "We discovered one molecule in pathway A that cancers use and therefore this represents a way we could treat this cancer." Sure, somebody else might eventually make the advance that leads to a novel cancer treatment based on your work. But in making that claim, you assume a lot of things like the molecule is a targetable, it has accepted biomarkers, it's unique to cancer and does not have systemic effects, etc.

So in academia, we are wary of people overselling their work and including posters you didn't present and abstracts can be taken that way. You want to give the appearance that you have more accomplished more work than you actually have. Bottom line is this. If your work is substantial, it should be in publication form eventually. Only a few significant projects at a time will be at the poster stage. The significant posters and abstracts will be turned into publications and you can remove them from your CV. If you have a ton of posters and abstracts, those works were either inconsequential and didn't make it to publication, had significant flaws and thus did not pass review, or you just start a bunch of projects and never finish them. None of these reflect on you well as an academic.

 

[Lawpy]

It's not a problem, especially if you're young and without much experience. It's just fluff because it doesn't mean much. If it's notable work you would be included on any publications stemming from the data on the poster. If you feel the need to include abstracts (posters) accepted even though you didn't present them there's a great chance your CV isn't long, AKA you're fluffing it up to appear longer. But again, it's really not a problem and I don't think anyone would view it negatively on a younger person's CV, I certainly wouldn't. Now someone older? Say a faculty-applicant? Yeah I'd view it as a negative.

It's about perception. Pre-meds tend to be fixated on the tangible impacts that are measurable. This is not one of them. Is it expressly prohibited to include posters you didn't present or abstracts? No. But is it looked down upon by academics? Absolutely. It's not black or white here. In academia, people often take shortcuts and oversell their work - in this as well as other things. For example, many times I'll read a Science or Nature paper and question why it was a Science or Nature paper to begin with. The impact of the work is nowhere near what the authors claim, even though more significant work may build upon the advance made by the authors. Things like "We discovered one molecule in pathway A that cancers use and therefore this represents a way we could treat this cancer." Sure, somebody else might eventually make the advance that leads to a novel cancer treatment based on your work. But in making that claim, you assume a lot of things like the molecule is a targetable, it has accepted biomarkers, it's unique to cancer and does not have systemic effects, etc.

So in academia, we are wary of people overselling their work and including posters you didn't present and abstracts can be taken that way. You want to give the appearance that you have more accomplished more work than you actually have. Bottom line is this. If your work is substantial, it should be in publication form eventually. Only a few significant projects at a time will be at the poster stage. The significant posters and abstracts will be turned into publications and you can remove them from your CV. If you have a ton of posters and abstracts, those works were either inconsequential and didn't make it to publication, had significant flaws and thus did not pass review, or you just start a bunch of projects and never finish them. None of these reflect on you well as an academic.

so basically, the highest quality academic CVs list every publication and only few presentations that are particularly impactful?

 

[aldol16]

so basically, the highest quality academic CVs list every publication and only few presentations that are particularly impactful?

Yes. The best CVs are concise and to the point. The bad ones are the ones with a few publications and jam packed with presentations and abstracts. To a novice, this looks good because it makes your research section look longer. But to an experienced eye, it's obvious that the person is trying to pad their CV and what actually sticks out is why there are so many unfinished works (as posters and abstracts generally are). If your work is of high quality and significance, then it should be published so that 1) it's reviewed rigorously and 2) other people can learn about it.

 

[Lawpy]

Yes. The best CVs are concise and to the point. The bad ones are the ones with a few publications and jam packed with presentations and abstracts. To a novice, this looks good because it makes your research section look longer. But to an experienced eye, it's obvious that the person is trying to pad their CV and what actually sticks out is why there are so many unfinished works (as posters and abstracts generally are). If your work is of high quality and significance, then it should be published so that 1) it's reviewed rigorously and 2) other people can learn about it.

okay thanks. as an example, the following CV is pretty poor then, right?

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/cv/henry-brem.pdf

adapted from a recent thread discussing it 😉

 

[WedgeDawg]

Yes. The best CVs are concise and to the point. The bad ones are the ones with a few publications and jam packed with presentations and abstracts. To a novice, this looks good because it makes your research section look longer. But to an experienced eye, it's obvious that the person is trying to pad their CV and what actually sticks out is why there are so many unfinished works (as posters and abstracts generally are). If your work is of high quality and significance, then it should be published so that 1) it's reviewed rigorously and 2) other people can learn about it.

One of the barriers to publishing as an undergrad is that most undergrads doing biomedical research are doing basic science research rather than clinical research. They are also generally paired with either a grad student or a postdoc and will eventually pick up part of a larger project. If the grad student is working on a large, long term project, it might be possible that the manuscript, even if its substantial, won't get published until after the undergrad has applied to and gotten into med school (especially if they take a gap year). Timeframe rather than lack of substantial work is the biggest barrier.

It is rare that an undergrad gets their own project and even rarer that they will be able to publish first author basic science research. There are certainly undergrads who do publish, and while it is uncommon, it's not rare, but the majority of these publications will be 6th author publications that exist as a result of being in the right place at the right time. If you happen to spend a summer in a highly productive lab and you actually do work instead of d*cking around, there is a decent chance that work will eventually find its way onto someone's paper and you'll hopefully get authorship (or maybe an acknowledgement). This doesn't mean you were a self-directed researcher with your own project, which is quite different and less accessible to the vast majority of undergrads.

 

[aldol16]

okay thanks. as an example, the following CV is pretty poor then, right?

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/cv/henry-brem.pdf

adapted from a recent thread discussing it 😉

Well, I'm certainly not qualified to evaluate medical CVs. The CVs I see are usually purely academic ones and our hiring requirements are strictly academic in nature.

 

[Lawpy]

Well, I'm certainly not qualified to evaluate medical CVs. The CVs I see are usually purely academic ones and our hiring requirements are strictly academic in nature.

okay so by academic CVs you're strictly referring to grad schools/PhD in the sciences? i guess it'd probably apply to MD/PhD CVs as well

 

[aldol16]

One of the barriers to publishing as an undergrad is that most undergrads doing biomedical research are doing basic science research rather than clinical research. They are also generally paired with either a grad student or a postdoc and will eventually pick up part of a larger project. If the grad student is working on a large, long term project, it might be possible that the manuscript, even if its substantial, won't get published until after the undergrad has applied to and gotten into med school (especially if they take a gap year). Timeframe rather than lack of substantial work is the biggest barrier.

It is rare that an undergrad gets their own project and even rarer that they will be able to publish first author basic science research. There are certainly undergrads who do publish, and while it is uncommon, it's not rare, but the majority of these publications will be 6th author publications that exist as a result of being in the right place at the right time. If you happen to spend a summer in a highly productive lab and you actually do work instead of d*cking around, there is a decent chance that work will eventually find its way onto someone's paper and you'll hopefully get authorship (or maybe an acknowledgement). This doesn't mean you were a self-directed researcher with your own project, which is quite different and less accessible to the vast majority of undergrads.

Yes, basic science research publishing doesn't work on a pre-med schedule. In fact, I absolutely hate when pre-meds come into the lab to work with me and ask when they'll be published. The short answer is get out of my lab. The more nuanced one is you might get published by the time you graduate or you might never get published. Basic science doesn't answer yes or no questions for which both answers are interesting and significant. A good graduate student working full-time in the lab tries many projects before one works well enough to publish. Most graduate students in my discipline take 2-3 years to get that first manuscript because of just how hard basic science research is. Pre-meds don't get this. Even us post-docs take at least a year or year and a half to get a good project off the ground and on track for publication in a good journal in our fields.

The problem with undergrads doing first-author quality basic science research is that most don't have the expertise to do this well. You need broad science training in order to be able to understand the state of the field and come up with a good hypothesis and experimental design to test that hypothesis. The level of thinking required to do all this is well beyond that of most pre-meds - at least most pre-meds I've had to work with. So it's easier for me to just give them projects that are small parts of larger projects I'm working on so that they can at least learn to do good research.

The point of summer research for undergrads is definitely not to publish or get your name on a publication. The standards that are often mentioned on here are often misguided for that reason. Summer research experiences serve to get undergraduates acquainted to bench research. That's it. You should walk into a lab grateful that you were given a chance to be there and to be taught how to do research. You can be hopeful about doing substantial work that will get put into a publication eventually but my advice would be to keep those hopes to yourself. Because it's not our obligation to put you on publishable projects. It's only our obligation to teach you how to do research. And often the best way to do that is to give you small projects that have a high likelihood of working that are less significant.

 

[aldol16]

okay so by academic CVs you're strictly referring to grad schools/PhD in the sciences? i guess it'd probably apply to MD/PhD CVs as well

I mean CVs that are submitted in support of faculty/post-doc applications for an academic post in the basic sciences. My experience is limited to chemistry.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Yes, basic science research publishing doesn't work on a pre-med schedule. In fact, I absolutely hate when pre-meds come into the lab to work with me and ask when they'll be published. The short answer is get out of my lab. The more nuanced one is you might get published by the time you graduate or you might never get published. Basic science doesn't answer yes or no questions for which both answers are interesting and significant. A good graduate student working full-time in the lab tries many projects before one works well enough to publish. Most graduate students in my discipline take 2-3 years to get that first manuscript because of just how hard basic science research is. Pre-meds don't get this. Even us post-docs take at least a year or year and a half to get a good project off the ground and on track for publication in a good journal in our fields.

The problem with undergrads doing first-author quality basic science research is that most don't have the expertise to do this well. You need broad science training in order to be able to understand the state of the field and come up with a good hypothesis and experimental design to test that hypothesis. The level of thinking required to do all this is well beyond that of most pre-meds - at least most pre-meds I've had to work with. So it's easier for me to just give them projects that are small parts of larger projects I'm working on so that they can at least learn to do good research.

The point of summer research for undergrads is definitely not to publish or get your name on a publication. The standards that are often mentioned on here are often misguided for that reason. Summer research experiences serve to get undergraduates acquainted to bench research. That's it. You should walk into a lab grateful that you were given a chance to be there and to be taught how to do research. You can be hopeful about doing substantial work that will get put into a publication eventually but my advice would be to keep those hopes to yourself. Because it's not our obligation to put you on publishable projects. It's only our obligation to teach you how to do research. And often the best way to do that is to give you small projects that have a high likelihood of working that are less significant.

And thus this is why most premeds have the CVs that they do.

 

[aldol16]

And thus this is why most premeds have the CVs that they do.

And why CVs for medical school are a joke. CVs are generally academically oriented (as opposed to resumes, which are less academic in nature) and medical school isn't academia. If you're making a CV for medical school, feel free to not follow academic guidelines because you're not applying for a position in academia. But if you are applying for a position in academia (say a summer research program), better to submit a resume with an experiences section with bullet points under each experience where you can describe your role in the research you did.

 

[WedgeDawg]

And why CVs for medical school are a joke. CVs are generally academically oriented (as opposed to resumes, which are less academic in nature) and medical school isn't academia. If you're making a CV for medical school, feel free to not follow academic guidelines because you're not applying for a position in academia. But if you are applying for a position in academia (say a summer research program), better to submit a resume with an experiences section with bullet points under each experience where you can describe your role in the research you did.

If we are talking CV as in actual academic CV document, then yes - there is really no added value to a medical school application from providing a CV. Some schools (Yale comes to mind) give you the option to include a CV, but unless you're someone with an extremely strong (PhD+ level) research background, all of you research has already gone on your application and thus uploading a formatted CV is redundant.

However, if we talk about application instead of actual CV, that's different. Sorry, up until this post I thought we were using CV and application interchangeably but I see now that we are not and I was wrong. I agree with you.

Agree with your statement re: resume for summer research stuff.

 

[AlteredScale]

Similar to wedgedawgs story, I had one school wide poster presentation, oral presentation and this was all related to a two year honors thesis I did in an IBD lab. No other pubs or anything of the sort. I was asked one question about my research (this was at KCU a DO school) and they were more intrigued on what I did and the work of my project specifically.

It will count but as catalystik and goro said, the research that makes it through to regional or national conferences tend to fair a bit stronger than those only at a school.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile