Every Tom, Dick, And Harry

[476515678234896]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Has some fancy sounding research on their application. Does it even look good anymore?

All the undergrads I know in a research lab have some fancy sounding name like "Research Assistant, studying Neurobiological transport mechanisms of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in rats" when all they do is watch rats run through mazes for 4 hours a week.

How bad does it look not to have any research? would paid work be an equivalent use of ones time?

 

[Danlee07]

paid work is not equivalent. that's probably a stretch just to grab some attention. all i see thought is just another great description for rote work. if i see that, then i'm sure people with more knowledge will see that too. a description such as "developed some technique to study the transport mechanisms..." -- now that's even better. and if you have another way of expressing ingenuity, creativity, and passion with a great deal of output, then i'm sure it will be perfectly fine as that is the purpose of having research.

 

[mitchlucker]

People get in with no research, just like people get in with lower MCAT scores, lower GPA and worse LORs. It's just a piece of the application. Paid work is obviously not the same. Would playing COD instead of research be equivalent? Apples and oranges.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

You don't need research to get an acceptance. I personally don't think that research even helps all that much unless you have posters/publications resulting from that work (not taking into account the LoR from the PI). LizzyM and Catalystik can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[SilverBvllet]

At my school everyone did "research" until that is, you asked them deeper questions like "why" and "how." People will ask you this in interviews and it will become apparent real quick who really did research and who just watched rats run around and read the abstract someone else published on the project. Research is not everyone's thing, try it out, and see if you like it. You do not NEED it, just like you don't NEED to do volunteering, but just find something you enjoy and do it well. Most important for med school adcoms (imho) is PASSION and DEDICATION, not necessarily what you did (within limit of course).

 

[Danlee07]

At my school everyone did "research" until that is, you asked them deeper questions like "why" and "how." People will ask you this in interviews and it will become apparent real quick who really did research and who just watched rats run around and read the abstract someone else published on the project. Research is not everyone's thing, try it out, and see if you like it. You do not NEED it, just like you don't NEED to do volunteering, but just find something you enjoy and do it well. Most important for med school adcoms (imho) is PASSION and DEDICATION, not necessarily what you did (within limit of course).

yeah, i was trying to mention that in my other post in a different thread. every undergrad claims to "go to research" but really most of the time, they're just going in to do some slave work. pcr, clones, vectors, whatnot. there's a huge difference in the real research being done as well. of course, there are the exceptions. if you can't really show any output, then don't bother. but same goes with whatever you do, including research.

 

[FlowRate]

I won't know how much it helped/hurt until I hear back from the very research heavy schools, but I have been doing research that doesn't SOUND super complicated, but the theory behind it is all upper div chem eng stuff and I explain how and why pretty well. Maybe that'll get me some points.

 

[SilverBvllet]

I write from experience here and having been to places that are "research heavy" so to speak, I can tell you right now that if I, a mere undergrad, can tell you are BSing and have wafer thin knowledge of what "you did," then it is screaming out at the profs. Profs just have a great poker face and are nice so they don't call you out to be tactful. But it is quite obvious if you are in the lab just to get a letter/abstract/check that box off in AMCAS then bail. Also grad students will hate you and it will make it harder for future undergrads that are truly interested to get accepted into labs.

If you really did the work, know your stuff, you are good to go. This only comes from experience, you can't read papers on stuff you didn't really do, it doesn't work that way. It's like reading someone's autobiography and trying to pretend you lived their life. You don't need publications, although that can help, you just need to know what you're talking about and if you did the work, then you're set.

edit: obviously publications + knowing what you're talking about makes you a complete baller and very impressive, but not all of us can do that 🙁

 

[LizzyM]

There are a few things that undergrad (or post bac) research experience is good for other than contributing to new knowledge (through posters or presentations).

Through research (and documented in a LOR from your PI or supervisor) you can demonstrate:

Ability to work as a member of a team
Willingness to do the team's scut work (what do you think you'll be doing your first year on the wards?)
Being neat and methodical in the keeping of records and work space
Cheerfulness
Abilitly to bounce back from disappointment
Honesty about errors

You may be asked about your research at interview as a means of determining whether you are able to communicate complex ideas clearly to someone who is not an expert in that field. Your ability to "break it down" is something you'll need to do in explaining illness and treatment to patients.

Schools that seek to train the next generation of academic physicians, are looking for applicants who enjoy research and want to continue with it through their careers. People who did something prior to matriculation in medical school are more likely to continue seeking research opportunities than someone who eschewed research before matriculation.

 

[KTownGT]

There are a few things that undergrad (or post bac) research experience is good for other than contributing to new knowledge (through posters or presentations).

Through research (and documented in a LOR from your PI or supervisor) you can demonstrate:

Ability to work as a member of a team
Willingness to do the team's scut work (what do you think you'll be doing your first year on the wards?)
Being neat and methodical in the keeping of records and work space
Cheerfulness
Abilitly to bounce back from disappointment
Honesty about errors

You may be asked about your research at interview as a means of determining whether you are able to communicate complex ideas clearly to someone who is not an expert in that field. Your ability to "break it down" is something you'll need to do in explaining illness and treatment to patients.

Schools that seek to train the next generation of academic physicians, are looking for applicants who enjoy research and want to continue with it through their careers. People who did something prior to matriculation in medical school are more likely to continue seeking research opportunities than someone who eschewed research before matriculation.

Fantastic post. 👍

 

[jellybean13]

Has some fancy sounding research on their application. Does it even look good anymore?

All the undergrads I know in a research lab have some fancy sounding name like "Research Assistant, studying Neurobiological transport mechanisms of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in rats" when all they do is watch rats run through mazes for 4 hours a week.

How bad does it look not to have any research? would paid work be an equivalent use of ones time?

While this may sound "fancy" to you, it doesn't to adcoms. Unless you are playing a role in writing (or at least understand) protocols and are functioning as a sub-investigator (to some extent) then I wouldn't consider it research... even though most pre-meds do.

 

[Geneticist]

From the title, I thought this was going to be a pr0n thread.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

From the title, I thought this was going to be a pr0n thread.

I thought it was going to be about the tarsal tunnel.

As always, I agree with everything LizzyM posted.

 

[raltima07]

There are a few things that undergrad (or post bac) research experience is good for other than contributing to new knowledge (through posters or presentations).

Through research (and documented in a LOR from your PI or supervisor) you can demonstrate:

Ability to work as a member of a team
Willingness to do the team's scut work (what do you think you'll be doing your first year on the wards?)
Being neat and methodical in the keeping of records and work space
Cheerfulness
Abilitly to bounce back from disappointment
Honesty about errors

You may be asked about your research at interview as a means of determining whether you are able to communicate complex ideas clearly to someone who is not an expert in that field. Your ability to "break it down" is something you'll need to do in explaining illness and treatment to patients.

Schools that seek to train the next generation of academic physicians, are looking for applicants who enjoy research and want to continue with it through their careers. People who did something prior to matriculation in medical school are more likely to continue seeking research opportunities than someone who eschewed research before matriculation.

My school has a committee letter where they use quotes from the LOR that all my teachers submit, including my PI. I fear that it will not document those things like you said - is there a way to express those attributes in the applications or is it just accepted that those are benefits of research?

 

[LizzyM]

My school has a committee letter where they use quotes from the LOR that all my teachers submit, including my PI. I fear that it will not document those things like you said - is there a way to express those attributes in the applications or is it just accepted that those are benefits of research?

with any luck, your PI will invite you to write the first draft of your LOR. 😉