First Author Publications vs Prestige of Research Lab

[deleted927298]

As a future MSTP candidate, I have a few questions concerning this.

Would it be better to spend my gap years at my home uni (state school), where I will be leading my own independent projects and leading a group of students (with potentially 2 first author papers published in not high IF journals prior to MSTP app cycle) OR

would it be better if I went to a HHMI Harvard Lab (in which I worked for one summer due to a summer program) but not have the opportunities to publish first author papers or lead groups of students prior to the MSTP cycle, albeit maybe have an independent project? Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MSTPlease]

at my home uni (state school), where I will be leading my own independent projects and leading a group of students (with potentially 2 first author papers published in not high IF journals prior to MSTP app cycle)

Definitely this

 

[deleted927298]

@MSTPlease why do you suggest this option?

 

[eteshoe]

Because it's definite research productivity vs not. Having publications is stronger evidence of your productivity during your gap year even if it's not in the most high IF journals (since those aren't typically things that can be completed in a gap year alone).

 

[deleted927298]

I'm actually taking 3 gap years (Masters program), and applying during my third gap year. But the masters will be at my UG, which is a state school. @eteshoe

Definitely this

Because it's definite research productivity vs not. Having publications is stronger evidence of your productivity during your gap year even if it's not in the most high IF journals (since those aren't typically things that can be completed in a gap year alone).

 

[MSTPlease]

@MSTPlease why do you suggest this option?

Remember what MSTPs are about: training physician-scientists. The hope is that after your scientific and clinical training you will apply for and get R01s and run a lab in addition to your clinical duties. What do people who get R01s do? They create/execute research projects leading to publications - including managing other people under them - and they typically train future scientists. Based on your own descriptions, which option sounds like the one that best allows you to showcase your ability to do those things?

At the home lab you are given an independent project which is probably the most important thing to have in your research experience PLUS opportunities to have relevant responsibilities beyond your own lab work. Pubs aren't the end all be all but they certainly help and not having to start over at a relatively new lab gives you an extra 6 months of productive work.

I also imagine that the LOR from the state school prof will be exceptional if you worked for him/her as an UG and now (s)he wants to keep you around for 2 more years on a salary. Prestige of the lab is meaningless w/o the other things.

 

[MSTPlease]

I'm actually taking 3 gap years (Masters program), and applying during my third gap year. But the masters will be at my UG, which is a state school. @eteshoe

Wait, now I'm confused. This is a 1 or 2 year masters + extra time? Are you starting with the masters or ending with it? If you're ending with it, it makes 0 sense to go elsewhere and disrupt the continuity you could have.

 

[deleted927298]

I either will start a Masters, which lasts 3 years (and apply MSTP my last year) OR take a tech job at a HHMI Harvard Lab.

I will be starting with a new Master's thesis advisor, one that I didn't work with in UG. @MSTPlease

 

[MSTPlease]

I either will start a Masters, which lasts 3 years (and apply MSTP my last year) OR take a tech job at a HHMI Harvard Lab.

I will be starting with a new Master's thesis advisor, one that I didn't work with in UG. @MSTPlease

What is the master's/why are you doing it? Is this now also a difference of paying for school for 3 years vs. being paid for 3 years?

 

[dl2dp2]

I disagree with this. Especially early on in my opinion if you want to play this game you go train with the most famous advisor at the most high prestige institution. Papers are secondary. What's most important is perspective and experience. What does a "world class" science lab look like? Who are these people? What do they do? etc... Even if you don't become one of those, at least you have a sense of what the gold standard looks like.

Some opportunities emerge at these labs that will never exist at state school labs, except when the said lab is run by a famous person. The question would not even have been asked. You literally don't know what you don't know.

I suspect statistically if your resume says that you worked at state school from age 22-25 your chance of eventually having your own R01 is *very* low. This of course could be a cause or just merely correlation. Nevertheless, more typically people who end up going to state school MSTPs have "ivy league" research experiences. You might eventually end up at a state school as faculty or even residency, but the average state school faculty is a much much stronger overall candidate than a typical state school lab manager at age 22. I hope this makes sense. A more likely outcome when you go work at a state school is you'll just give up.

I'm excluding here state school in terms of schools that are technically "state schools" but are research wise as strong or stronger than ivy league (i.e. Berkeley, UCSD, Michigan, etc). I'm just talking a mid-tier garden variety state medical school.

Remember what MSTPs are about: training physician-scientists. The hope is that after your scientific and clinical training you will apply for and get R01s and run a lab in addition to your clinical duties. What do people who get R01s do? They create/execute research projects leading to publications - including managing other people under them - and they typically train future scientists. Based on your own descriptions, which option sounds like the one that best allows you to showcase your ability to do those things?

 

[deleted927298]

My Masters (in clinical sciences) is an extended program of my BS. I will have a rec letter from a summer experience from a Harvard HHMI prof. Ultimately, for now, I'd like to gain experience in leading my own project and leading students. I'm doing a clinically based Master's, so the research is clinical sciences, which I hope will get into an IF journal of 4. I've also got a few review papers in the woodworks as wells (first author).

I think my rec letter from this faculty (under whom I will be pursuing my Master's) will be strong. I've already won a national grant under her, and will be applying for another. Also, I'll be presenting at national conferences under the advisor. These are the things I don't think I will have the chance to pursue if I went into the Harvard Lab.

 

[grizzly1093]

Especially early on in my opinion if you want to play this game you go train with the most famous advisor at the most high prestige institution.

To echo this, an adcom member from a "top" MSTP told me that in order to get into most top programs I needed to have research experience "on the coast." She even added that research at such institutions is "very different" from research in middle America. That's to say that some "top" institutions are incestuous and value prestigious affiliations more than they should.

 

[ClassyTardigrade]

I have also heard from a few top MSTP directors that research in a big name lab or big name institute is very near necessary. Depends what you’re going for.

 

[MSTPlease]

Surprising responses. In the adcom meetings at Sinai I've been a part of they spend a lot more time discussing how the student talks about their research and the role they play in it than the name of the PI or the institution. Occasionally the name of the PI is highlighted, but they are very big names - much bigger than "just" HHMI @ Harvard. Then again, the class always ends up being overwhelmingly grads from ivy league/duke/stanford/MIT and the state schools sluox mentioned... Having trained in a lab that I certainly wouldn't consider "world class" but being down the hall from ones that are, I can say the only real differences in how they are run are that world class labs feature more opportunities to write reviews, less access to the PI, and no one in the lab shares anything because they each get whatever they want (although they are more than happy to share with people from other labs, lol)

All that being said - I'm starting to reconsider my stance less because of what others have said, but more because of the extra info you have given me OP. Masters in clinical science is basically a useless degree and it sounds like the papers are going to be clinical research, not basic science. In conjunction with the fact that this isn't a continuation of your prior work, I'm starting to wonder if the potential weight of the PI will come into play. Is there a specific reason you don't think you would have your own project at Harvard because that's by far the biggest factor for me? If your role could be replaced by a well-trained monkey, it definitely doesn't matter how good the lab you work for is.

 

[deleted927298]

@grizzly1093, Is having one summer experience in a big prestigious Lab enough? I will be getting a rec letter from the PI of that Lab.

The work I'm doing for my Masters is what I want to pursue for MDPhD. I didn't get to pursue this line of work in my UG years. @MSTPlease

 

[sciencemark]

I disagree with this. Especially early on in my opinion if you want to play this game you go train with the most famous advisor at the most high prestige institution. Papers are secondary. What's most important is perspective and experience. What does a "world class" science lab look like? Who are these people? What do they do? etc... Even if you don't become one of those, at least you have a sense of what the gold standard looks like.

Some opportunities emerge at these labs that will never exist at state school labs, except when the said lab is run by a famous person. The question would not even have been asked. You literally don't know what you don't know.

I suspect statistically if your resume says that you worked at state school from age 22-25 your chance of eventually having your own R01 is *very* low. This of course could be a cause or just merely correlation. Nevertheless, more typically people who end up going to state school MSTPs have "ivy league" research experiences. You might eventually end up at a state school as faculty or even residency, but the average state school faculty is a much much stronger overall candidate than a typical state school lab manager at age 22. I hope this makes sense. A more likely outcome when you go work at a state school is you'll just give up.

I'm excluding here state school in terms of schools that are technically "state schools" but are research wise as strong or stronger than ivy league (i.e. Berkeley, UCSD, Michigan, etc). I'm just talking a mid-tier garden variety state medical school.

What qualifies as a "famous" PI/lab?

 

[grizzly1093]

@grizzly1093, Is having one summer experience in a big prestigious Lab enough?

This is purely anecdotal (and could be cynical confirmation bias on my part), but I honestly can't name a single person I met at revisits who hadn't spent a good chunk of time (1-2+ years) at "big name" places--many (most?) were graduates of such places.

Another note: I worked with three PI's at lesser known institutions before spending two years at a "big name" institution with a "legendary" PI. The places that accepted me were all places where that big PI had connections of some kind. Take from that what you will.

 

[deleted927298]

So a position at big name Labs without publications is worth more than publishing first author in a small Lab at lesser known institution?@grizzly1093

 

[deleted927298]

To echo this, an adcom member from a "top" MSTP told me that in order to get into most top programs I needed to have research experience "on the coast." She even added that research at such institutions is "very different" from research in middle America. That's to say that some "top" institutions are incestuous and value prestigious affiliations more than they should.

@grizzly1093 what if you're able to publish first author in IF 5-9 papers in the smaller Lab versus no publication at a big name Lab?

 

[grizzly1093]

@grizzly1093 what if you're able to publish first author in IF 5-9 papers in the smaller Lab versus no publication at a big name Lab?

I don't really know. Scientifically sound research experience--and your thorough understanding of said experience--is the most important thing. I will say, though, that I got the feeling that my experiences at lesser known institutions were only taken seriously because of my publications, while my experience in the big name lab needed no such validation aside from a few posters/talks and pubs "in preparation."

 

[grizzly1093]

That being said, guaranteed publications + leading a team would be tough to turn down. How guaranteed are these pubs? And what are your pub prospects in the HHMI lab?

This is beyond my knowledge at this point, but I imagine you'll be fine in either case. These are both great opportunities.

Maybe a PD can weigh in @Fencer

 

[deleted927298]

Another question.....
Does a rec letter from a prestigious Lab really make all the difference? If this prestigious Lab rec letter is good, but I have a glowing, exceptional rec letter from a state uni Lab (not famous PI), which one is more preferred?

 

[ClassyTardigrade]

Another question.....
Does a rec letter from a prestigious Lab really make all the difference? If this prestigious Lab rec letter is good, but I have a glowing, exceptional rec letter from a state uni Lab (not famous PI), which one is more preferred?

I am 100% positive that my letter from a “prestigious” lab got me interviews at several schools. My home institution letter was glowing, I’m told, but probably not as impactful as the other.