Ghosted by my PI... how bad does it look to not get a LOR from a research PI?

[arlyne750]

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrHart]

If you aren't MD/PhD, it won't look bad. If the research is a big part of your app, it would be nice to have it as a letter but not a necessity. By the sounds of it, your PI probably has a lot else going on right now. This is a good example of why Interfolio is a great service to use- you could have asked them to write it months ago and submit it.
Mention the research in your app, don't worry about not having a letter. You won't need to explain anything.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Shirafune]

If you aren't MD/PhD, it won't look bad. If the research is a big part of your app, it would be nice to have it as a letter but not a necessity. By the sounds of it, your PI probably has a lot else going on right now. This is a good example of why Interfolio is a great service to use- you could have asked them to write it months ago and submit it.
Mention the research in your app, don't worry about not having a letter. You won't need to explain anything.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

IMO, significant research experience without some LOR is a red flag, not a completely damning one, but still pretty bad. To me, no PI letter indicates either poor quality of work (so much so that the PI cannot recommend the student) or limited interaction with the PI, both of which are bad. These are especially bad if you opt to highlight research on your app.

OP, please keep those 2 years of research on your app. Continue to follow up with your PI; drop by the lab if you have to (and if he's back from his travels).

 

[Lawpy]

IMO, significant research experience without some LOR is a red flag, not a completely damning one, but still pretty bad. To me, no PI letter indicates either poor quality of work (so much so that the PI cannot recommend the student) or limited interaction with the PI, both of which are bad. These are especially bad if you opt to highlight research on your app.

OP, please keep those 2 years of research on your app. Continue to follow up with your PI; drop by the lab if you have to (and if he's back from his travels).

Bad for what schools exactly? Schools value clinical and volunteering experiences a lot more than research and no one expects a letter from them. The only ones who would seem to take an issue are probably research powerhouses and MD/PhDs.

 

[bananafish94]

I can't imagine this would be a significant issue. After all, you did work there for two years, so they'll know that there weren't any serious issues with your work ethic or personality that may have led the PI to fire you. Furthermore, they know that not everybody has a phenomenal relationship with their PI for a variety of reasons. I once had a research job where I only interacted with my PI directly ~4 times over the span of two years, just because I did almost everything with graduate students. I had another research job where I worked with PI everyday. It varies wildly. Overall, it would be great if you could get a letter, but it's definitely not a huge deal if you can't.

 

[Shirafune]

Bad for what schools exactly? Schools value clinical and volunteering experiences a lot more than research and no one expects a letter from them. The only ones who would seem to take an issue are probably research powerhouses and MD/PhDs.

For me, it's not about the research/academic aspect. That's pretty easy to gauge during an interview, if research became a deciding factor for this applicant. Agree 100% than clinical/volunteering is more important that research.

Not having a PI letter (at least a co-signed letter) despite having a significant research experience makes me wonder about the applicant's interpersonal qualities. And while I'm sure OP is perfectly wonderful, I don't know any PIs that are so grossly negligent and unprofessional to ignore a student he/she truly valued. The fact that OP has another strong research letter is reassuring though.

 

[kb1900]

I can't imagine this would be a significant issue. After all, you did work there for two years, so they'll know that there weren't any serious issues with your work ethic or personality that may have led the PI to fire you. Furthermore, they know that not everybody has a phenomenal relationship with their PI for a variety of reasons. I once had a research job where I only interacted with my PI directly ~4 times over the span of two years, just because I did almost everything with graduate students. I had another research job where I worked with PI everyday. It varies wildly. Overall, it would be great if you could get a letter, but it's definitely not a huge deal if you can't.

TBH I think that while it doesn't hurt too much to not have the LOR, the difference in quality of an overall app between having a strong LOR after 2 yrs of research vs not having one at all is significant.

I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have interviewed or even matriculated where I did with 0 publications and a big research focus without my really strong PI's LOR. A lot of times if you're speaking extensively about a passion for research, having a strong LOR really cements that and ensures the interviewer/committee you're not bsing them.

This is just my opinion - I'd wait for adcom responses here bc if you're not really into research, I doubt this will effect you at all.

Perhaps you could offer to draft or outline a LOR he/she could use to make theirs and tactfully suggest that.

 

[Goro]

It seems to be a pre-med delusion that just because you did research, you need a LOR from your PI. You're not applying to grad school, so quit fussing.

 

[Lawpy]

For me, it's not about the research/academic aspect. That's pretty easy to gauge during an interview, if research became a deciding factor for this applicant. Agree 100% that clinical/volunteering is more important that research.

Not having a PI letter (at least a co-signed letter) despite having a significant research experience makes me wonder about the applicant's interpersonal qualities. And while I'm sure OP is perfectly wonderful, I don't know any PIs that are so grossly negligent and unprofessional to ignore a student he/she truly valued. The fact that OP has another strong research letter is reassuring though.

There are other experiences that are just as significant and there is no expectation of getting letters from supervisors of those experiences. I don't see why most schools would care about the lack of a research letter when they prioritize clinical and nonclinical experiences a lot more. Research letters seem to matter for research powerhouses because their focus and their curriculum is built on research.

I think if OP has strong stats that research powerhouses like, lacking a research letter can be a problem. If OP isn't aiming for top tiers, I don't see the issue. She isn't applying to graduate school where these things would matter.

TBH I think that while it doesn't hurt too much to not have the LOR, the difference in quality of an overall app between having a strong LOR after 2 yrs of research vs not having one at all is significant.

I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have interviewed or even matriculated where I did with 0 publications and a big research focus without my really strong PI's LOR. A lot of times if you're speaking extensively about a passion for research, having a strong LOR really cements that and ensures the interviewer/committee you're not bsing them.

This is just my opinion - I'd wait for adcom responses here bc if you're not really into research, I doubt this will effect you at all.

Perhaps you could offer to draft or outline a LOR he/she could use to make theirs and tactfully suggest that.

But this makes no sense because why would most schools care when research isn't their primary focus? The point of research is to see whether you know how science is being done, but schools care a lot more on altruism and volunteering. Research powerhouses may care about a research letter due to curricular requirements but they are a small minority with extremely selective application process.

OP is applying to medical school, not graduate school where these things would matter.

 

[DokterMom]

What an uncomfortable situation... If there were no red flags before and s/he's been traveling abroad, it seems likely that s/he is just too busy and feeling guilty about it, so avoiding you.

Since s/he IS responding to some other students, would asking one of them to inquire on your behalf be an option? To ask, essentially "Hey, I know you're really busy but Arlyne's really nervous about that LOR. She understands if you can't get too it but just needs to know if she should make other plans. Or should she maybe draft something?..."

Make it easy for your PI to either:
a) back out of writing you a LOR if s/he truly doesn't have the time or in case s/he could no longer write you a strong LOR for some unknown reason.
b) or write you a letter by sending a 'fill in the blanks' draft

 

[kb1900]

There are other experiences that are just as significant and there is no expectation of getting letters from supervisors of those experiences. I don't see why most schools would care about the lack of a research letter when they prioritize clinical and nonclinical experiences a lot more. Research letters seem to matter for research powerhouses because their focus and their curriculum is built on research.

I think if OP has strong stats that research powerhouses like, lacking a research letter can be a problem. If OP isn't aiming for top tiers, I don't see the issue. She isn't applying to graduate school where these things would matter.



But this makes no sense because why would most schools care when research isn't their primary focus? The point of research is to see whether you know how science is being done, but schools care a lot more on altruism and volunteering. Research powerhouses may care about a research letter due to curricular requirements but they are a small minority with extremely selective application process.

OP is applying to medical school, not graduate school where these things would matter.

Maybe I'm not making my point clear here:

I had a strong passion for research and communicated that in my app and interviews.

In my interviews at top schools, they ALL commented on my LOR from my PI

If OP doesn't care about research, nor is research central to his/her application, then I don't think it matters much.

But if he/she plans on extensively talking about how great her apprecitaiton of science is and how much she enjoyed her experience, its going to sound like they're embeleshing their experience without the backup of a LOR.

Does that make sense or could you point out what exactly is wrong with how I'm speculating on my experience?

 

[Neuroplasticity]

It may depend on your personal application. I was perfectly fine without a LOR from my PI, no one even commented on it, but my service experience was more extensive than my research experience.

 

[Lawpy]

Maybe I'm not making my point clear here:

I had a strong passion for research and communicated that in my app and interviews.

In my interviews at top schools, they ALL commented on my LOR from my PI

If OP doesn't care about research, nor is research central to his/her application, then I don't think it matters much.

But if he/she plans on extensively talking about how great her apprecitaiton of science is and how much she enjoyed her experience, its going to sound like they're embeleshing their experience without the backup of a LOR.

Does that make sense or could you point out what exactly is wrong with how I'm speculating on my experience?

In your example, your research-focused app impressed the research powerhouses so having a research letter is an advantage (and a lack of one may raise eyebrows).

But just emphasizing research in itself doesn't necessitate having a research letter because it depends on the schools applied to (most schools aren't research powerhouses). Someone with weak stats but a research heavy app applying to low tiers appropriate with their stats would be fine without a research letter.

I think what schools want is a lot more important than applicant quality. I don't see why most schools that aren't research powerhouses would care about an applicant with a research heavy app lacking a PI letter. There is no expectation for applicants with service heavy app having letters from their supervisors, so it's odd that schools would have a unique requirement for research letters when they aren't acting as graduate schools.

 

[SydSing]

My overall application was about my research and my interest in continuing to research. It would have looked straight up sketchy if my PI did not write a letter. But as was mentioned previously, if you did not build your application on that experience, it shouldn't cause you any trouble.

 

[kb1900]

In your example, your research-focused app impressed the research powerhouses so having a research letter is an advantage (and a lack of one may raise eyebrows).

But just emphasizing research in itself doesn't necessitate having a research letter because it depends on the schools applied to (most schools aren't research powerhouses). Someone with weak stats but a research heavy app applying to low tiers appropriate with their stats would be fine without a research letter.

I think what schools want is a lot more important than applicant quality. I don't see why most schools that aren't research powerhouses would care about an applicant with a research heavy app lacking a PI letter. There is no expectation for applicants with service heavy app having letters from their supervisors, so it's odd that schools would have a unique requirement for research letters when they aren't acting as graduate schools.

But now we're just speculating on the kind of applicant op is. Whether they are applying to big research school/will have a research heavy app etc.

All I'm saying is that IF they are going to be the type of applicant I was, they should do their best to secure the LOR. Doesn't sound very far fetched to me

 

[Lawpy]

But now we're just speculating on the kind of applicant op is. Whether they are applying to big research school/will have a research heavy app etc.

All I'm saying is that IF they are going to be the type of applicant I was, they should do their best to secure the LOR. Doesn't sound very far fetched to me

No i'm saying the opposite: the applicant quality doesn't matter, the school requirements do. Someone with a research heavy application is not required to have a research letter unless they are applying to research powerhouses (where research does matter because it's part of their mission, curriculum etc.)

Is someone with a service heavy application required to have a letter from their supervisors? Generally no, so research doesn't have a similar obligation especially given that schools value service much more than research. Applicants are applying to medical school, not graduate school.

 

[Ismet]

FWIW I went to a research-focused school and it would raise eyebrows if someone did significant research and had no research letter. Not death sentence, but definitely raise eyebrows.

 

[kb1900]

No i'm saying the opposite: the applicant quality doesn't matter, the school requirements do. Someone with a research heavy application is not required to have a research letter unless they are applying to research powerhouses (where research does matter because it's part of their mission, curriculum etc.)

Is someone with a service heavy application required to have a letter from their supervisors? Generally no, so research doesn't have a similar obligation especially given that schools value service much more than research. Applicants are applying to medical school, not graduate school.

Have you actually applied yet - genuinely asking if you're just rehashing goro's advice or commenting based on experience or based on the Aamc surveys etc.

I'm pretty confident that at every top school the % of matriculants w research is above 90% and I'd speculate that 90% had LORs from their PI. The first statistic is fairly obvious in the msar. The second I'm speculating based on my n=1 experience throughout the cycle.

Literally every applicant can and will embellish their experiences when they talk about them. A professional LOR from a supervisor, in my eyes, contextualizes an applicants experiences.

I'm not denying that schools care about service more or anything like that. And I'm not saying the absence of a LOR would necessarily be a hole in an app either.

But if I spent 2 years commited to a lab and productive and my PI wouldn't write me a LOR I'd be pretty pissed. It's more or less a professional obligation of a boss to write a letter for their workers when appropriate.

 

[ScreenName23]

Ok so this has been something I'm also worried about. I have a great research letter from my PI and professor whom I did two years of research with. My current gap year job is also research which I mention briefly in my PS. It is also listed in my activities. I don't want to ask them for a letter because I haven't been here for that long and they've also expressed a disdain for people leaving them for med school (they know I'm interested in grad or med school but not my exact timeline). I could probably get a letter but I'd rather not since they aren't as supportive of med school as my old PI and they don't know me well yet. Would this be a red flag? Or can I go on without this? I will be applying to a lot of research heavy top schools and research is certainly substantial in my app but service is probably a larger component.

 

[Lawpy]

Have you actually applied yet - genuinely asking if you're just rehashing goro's advice or commenting based on experience or based on the Aamc surveys etc.

I'm pretty confident that at every top school the % of matriculants w research is above 90% and I'd speculate that 90% had LORs from their PI. The first statistic is fairly obvious in the msar. The second I'm speculating based on my n=1 experience throughout the cycle.

Literally every applicant can and will embellish their experiences when they talk about them. A professional LOR from a supervisor, in my eyes, contextualizes an applicants experiences.

I'm not denying that schools care about service more or anything like that. And I'm not saying the absence of a LOR would necessarily be a hole in an app either.

But if I spent 2 years commited to a lab and productive and my PI wouldn't write me a LOR I'd be pretty pissed. It's more or less a professional obligation of a boss to write a letter for their workers when appropriate.

Sigh I think we are talking past each other which is getting no where. I'll be direct and summarize into a list.

1. Having a strong letter on anything is a positive. Even more so if it pertains to an activity that is especially significant and heavily focused on.

2. Lacking a letter depends on the context.

3. Schools that focus on research (i.e. research powerhouses, top tiers, MD/PhDs etc.) obviously emphasize and strongly value research. Lacking a research letter despite sustained experience looks weird for these schools

4. It is established that service is more important than research in a general sense (obvious source being AAMC surveys)

5. Schools that focus on service generally do not require a service letter (this is what SDN claims, I think it's a school-specific matter unless a committee letter is used).

6. Now because service > research amd there isn't an expectation for a service letter for a service heavy application, it would follow that there isn't an expectation for a research letter for a research heavy app for schools that are not research powerhouses.

7. Yet contrary to #6, SDN argues that a research heavy application requires a research letter regardless of what schools they are applying to. Lacking a research letter raises eyebrows for any school.

My question: how does #7 even make sense based on what is stated from #1-#6? Why does significant research have a specific unique importance that requires a letter for any school as opposed to other significant experiences like volunteering, leadership etc. where having a letter from here is good but not required?

 

[Lawpy]

Wow, this thread blew up while I was gone!

The problem is that I am a very research-heavy applicant, with high stats, and I had been planning on applying to the research-heavy schools. So it sounds like this could be a problem. :/ I guess I'll try to work harder on getting that professor to send the letter. I already asked one of the graduate students to also send him an email on my behalf. At least I have the letter from my other PI.

Lacking a research letter with a research heavy application is a problem for research powerhouses/top tiers. You need to get that research letter some way.

 

[efle]

6. Now because service > research amd there isn't an expectation for a service letter for a service heavy application, it would follow that there isn't an expectation for a research letter for a research heavy app for schools that are not research powerhouses.

7. Yet contrary to #6, SDN argues that a research heavy application requires a research letter regardless of what schools they are applying to. Lacking a research letter raises eyebrows for any school.

You go wrong in #6. The expectation of a PI letter isn't just because of the importance of research as an EC. A research PI is not the same as a volunteer supervisor. Volunteer supervisors are not people that often write letters and there is usually no letter-worthy relationship formed there. A PI is a faculty member that has many years in academia where letter writing happens all the time, is directly supervising your research work and is in a much better position to write a letter about you that is worth reading.

That is the difference. It's expected for a PI to be in a position to recommend you after you've worked with them. That's the nature of the type of work and the type of academic position. The same just isn't true for a volunteering gig.

 

[Lawpy]

You go wrong in #6. The expectation of a PI letter isn't just because of the importance of research as an EC. A research PI is not the same as a volunteer supervisor. Volunteer supervisors are not people that often write letters and there is usually no letter-worthy relationship formed there. A PI is a faculty member that has many years in academia where letter writing happens all the time, is directly supervising your research work and is in a much better position to write a letter about you that is worth reading.

That is the difference. It's expected for a PI to be in a position to recommend you after you've worked with them. That's the nature of the type of work and the type of academic position. The same just isn't true for a volunteering gig.

This expectation holds true for someone pursuing academic medicine (or applying to schools focused on academic medicine), where there is that ranking of PI letters >> supervisor letters. Just because volunteer supervisors don't regularly write letters doesn't mean their letters are deemed less significant, less valuable or less necessary than PI letters. Volunteer supervisors can in fact directly supervise the volunteers on various activities and write enough to be satisfactory for service focused schoold.

I'd bet the letters from supervisors in Peace Corps, Teach for America, Americorps stand a similar if not superior importance (and thus have similar necessity) to PI letters. But just because PIs are in academia and are used to writing letters for graduate schools doesn't necessitate the expectation from all schools to require the PI letters.

 

[kb1900]

Sigh I think we are talking past each other which is getting no where. I'll be direct and summarize into a list.

1. Having a strong letter on anything is a positive. Even more so if it pertains to an activity that is especially significant and heavily focused on.

2. Lacking a letter depends on the context.

3. Schools that focus on research (i.e. research powerhouses, top tiers, MD/PhDs etc.) obviously emphasize and strongly value research. Lacking a research letter despite sustained experience looks weird for these schools

4. It is established that service is more important than research in a general sense (obvious source being AAMC surveys)

5. Schools that focus on service generally do not require a service letter (this is what SDN claims, I think it's a school-specific matter unless a committee letter is used).

6. Now because service > research amd there isn't an expectation for a service letter for a service heavy application, it would follow that there isn't an expectation for a research letter for a research heavy app for schools that are not research powerhouses.

7. Yet contrary to #6, SDN argues that a research heavy application requires a research letter regardless of what schools they are applying to. Lacking a research letter raises eyebrows for any school.

My question: how does #7 even make sense based on what is stated from #1-#6? Why does significant research have a specific unique importance that requires a letter for any school as opposed to other significant experiences like volunteering, leadership etc. where having a letter from here is good but not required?

I guess we'll agree to disagree then bc I think point 6 is simply not true at all.

Vaguely analogous to not having a reference to support previous employment on your resume even when it's standard practice. Or not having a SLOE from a away rotation in med school.

 

[Lawpy]

I guess we'll agree to disagree then bc I think point 6 is simply not true at all.

Vaguely analogous to not having a reference to support previous employment on your resume even when it's standard practice. Or not having a SLOE from a away rotation in med school.

Well i'm glad we found the point of disagreement. Away rotations are directly related to clinical education that PDs care about so the SLOEs matter for any residency. I don't see why research letters matter for schools that are not research powerhouses or MD/PhD.

But OP is applying to research powerhouses so we can agree there that she should get that PI letter for sure.

 

[efle]

This expectation holds true for someone pursuing academic medicine (or applying to schools focused on academic medicine), where there is that ranking of PI letters >> supervisor letters. Just because volunteer supervisors don't regularly write letters doesn't mean their letters are deemed less significant, less valuable or less necessary than PI letters. Volunteer supervisors can in fact directly supervise the volunteers on various activities and write enough to be satisfactory for service focused schoold.

I'd bet the letters from supervisors in Peace Corps, Teach for America, Americorps stand a similar if not superior importance (and thus have similar necessity) to PI letters. But just because PIs are in academia and are used to writing letters for graduate schools doesn't necessitate the expectation from all schools to require the PI letters.

You can believe what you want to dude. It's not just people aiming for research careers that usually carry a PI letter. It's everyone that does research.

PI = someone that frequently writes very professional letters of rec. Research gig = directly showing a lot of abilities/traits of interest. Having a research gig with a PI that doesn't recommend you looks weird to more than the research powerhouses.

 

[boogiecousins94]

Did you work with any of the grad students closely? I know in many labs a postdoc may write the letter for a student they worked with and the PI signs it, I have had that done for me.

If so, you could ask the grad student to write it (you could help send them a draft too to make it quicker) and ask them to send it to the PI for him to sign? SO all he would have to do is proofread and sign I guess so that shouldn't be too difficult for him to do since maybe he is avoiding because he doesn't have time to write a whole letter or something, Im not sure just an idea

 

[boogiecousins94]

Also I think the whole idea behind not having a letter looks weird based on how long you were there/worked in the lab for. If you worked in a lab for 6 months I don't think it would matter if you had a PI letter, but I feel like if you worked in the same lab for 2 whole years you should've formed a relationship and a letter would be expected. Not saying this for research specifically, but I think in general the expectation to have a letter from your supervisor depends on how long you were there and how much time you put in

 

[Lawpy]

You can believe what you want to dude. It's not just people aiming for research careers that usually carry a PI letter. It's everyone that does research.

PI = someone that frequently writes very professional letters of rec. Research gig = directly showing a lot of abilities/traits of interest. Having a research gig with a PI that doesn't recommend you looks weird to more than the research powerhouses.

Why would this matter to schools that don't focus on research?

 

[Shirafune]

Why would this matter to schools that don't focus on research?

It's not about what you're doing, whether it be service or research. It's the fact that the supervisor/big-wig is in academics where references are an unsaid requirement for long experiences.
One's ability to conduct research is separate from their ability to form meaningful relationships in an academic setting.

 

[Lawpy]

It's not about what you're doing, whether it be service or research. It's the fact that the supervisor/big-wig is in academics where references are an unsaid requirement for long experiences.
One's ability to conduct research is separate from their ability to form meaningful relationships in an academic setting.

Say I volunteer in a free health clinic and the supervisor is an academic physician. Am I expected to get a letter from him just because he's faculty?

I still have no idea why graduate school letter requirements are being applied to medical school letter requirements.

 

[Shirafune]

Say I volunteer in a free health clinic and the supervisor is an academic physician. Am I expected to get a letter from him just because he's faculty?

If you volunteered there for a long time and/or with significant involvement (the fact that he's on faculty doesn't matter as much to me), then yes, though it would not be as bad as this case. A significant experience in an academic setting should yield some letter that is at least co-signed by the head honcho.

Of course this is just my opinion. OP should continue to try and get the letter due to his career interests. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter if it's a research school or not. If you present a research-focused app to any medical school, some will raise eyebrows from a missing research letter.

 

[Lawpy]

If you volunteered there for a long time and/or with significant involvement (the fact that he's on faculty doesn't matter as much to me), then yes, though it would not be as bad as this case. A significant experience in an academic setting should yield some letter that is at least co-signed by the head honcho.

Of course this is just my opinion. OP should continue to try and get the letter due to his career interests. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter if it's a research school or not. If you present a research-focused app to any medical school, some will raise eyebrows from a missing research letter.

Meh I think this only make sense for schools that focus on research. It would be weird for low tiers that yield protect and reject applicants with strong stats to view an absence of research letters as a red flag.

But I guess we'd have to agree to disagree. OP is focusing on research powerhouses so the discussion is beyond the scope anyways.

 

[Shirafune]

Meh I think this only make sense for schools that focus on research. It would be weird for low tiers that yield protect and reject applicants with strong stats to view an absence of research letters as a red flag.

But I guess we'd have to agree to disagree. OP is focusing on research powerhouses so the discussion is beyond the scope anyways.

Yes, agree to disagree, but I will leave one final comment.

If you present your app a certain way, no matter the focus, you need others to vouch for your skills that would make you a great physician doing X, Y, and Z.

 

[Ismet]

Why would this matter to schools that don't focus on research?

Just because a school doesn't focus on research doesn't mean they don't value research. Med students can participate in very valuable research even at the most primary care focused schools. A strong letter from a PI talks much more about just research - it's a great insight into the applicants work ethic, reliability, leadership, etc etc.

 

[efle]

Why would this matter to schools that don't focus on research?

There are things demonstrated in a research setting that matter to MD schools for other reasons! The lack of letter raises eyebrows because it implies that the applicant didn't do well enough to earn a positive LoR from their PI. That could be for reasons that have nothing to do with planning experiments or interpreting data. Like say the person was just unreliable, didn't show up a lot, other people's work went to waste because they were sloppy and didn't do a small part correctly.

 

[Lawpy]

Just because a school doesn't focus on research doesn't mean they don't value research. Med students can participate in very valuable research even at the most primary care focused schools. A strong letter from a PI talks much more about just research - it's a great insight into the applicants work ethic, reliability, leadership, etc etc.

Wait what? So research is valued even at service focused schools and low tiers (the ones that yield protect applicants with stats above their 90th percentiles)?

There are things demonstrated in a research setting that matter to MD schools for other reasons! The lack of letter raises eyebrows because it implies that the applicant didn't do well enough to earn a positive LoR from their PI. That could be for reasons that have nothing to do with planning experiments or interpreting data. Like say the person was just unreliable, didn't show up a lot, other people's work went to waste because they were sloppy and didn't do a small part correctly.

Wait so even schools that don't focus on research and value it so lowly (like state schools viewing research as low importance) would view an absence of a research letter = eyebrow raising that leads to speculation about negative things??

 

[efle]

Wait so even schools that don't focus on research and value it so lowly (like state schools viewing research as low importance) would view an absence of a research letter = eyebrow raising that leads to speculation about negative things??

For someone in OP's position, with several years and many many hours put into this lab, I do think even a typical state program is going to notice the PI letter is absent and wonder why.

 

[Lawpy]

For someone in OP's position, with several years and many many hours put into this lab, I do think even a typical state program is going to notice the PI letter is absent and wonder why.

Even despite research being viewed as low importance for public schools that's mentioned repeatedly across the forums?

 

[Ismet]

Wait what? So research is valued even at service focused schools and low tiers (the ones that yield protect applicants with stats above their 90th percentiles)?



Wait so even schools that don't focus on research and value it so lowly (like state schools viewing research as low importance) would view an absence of a research letter = eyebrow raising that leads to speculation about negative things??

Research is what drives medicine forward. Every single resident across the country is required to do QI research at the very least during residency, obviously there are many specialties and programs that require more than that. If I do a fellowship in my field (a primary care field!), I'm signing up for ~2 years of research and ~1 year of clinical duties. There's research going on at every academic institution no matter how primary care focused they are.

I can't speak to the relative importance of a research letter at a primary care-focused school as I do not have first hand experience with admissions at those schools. I don't know how "eyebrow raising" it would be. But if an applicant has research, it's not overlooked or cast aside just because they're not a research-focused school.

 

[kb1900]

Even despite research being viewed as low importance for public schools that's mentioned repeatedly across the forums?

Why don't you look at the msar and see the % of applicants with research experience??

Frankly I think your advice st the beginning of the thread is really misguided and your taking stuff as face value just bc you perceive it to be "often said" is no bueno

 

[Lawpy]

Why don't you look at the msar and see the % of applicants with research experience??

Frankly I think your advice st the beginning of the thread is really misguided and your taking stuff as face value just bc you perceive it to be "often said" is no bueno

MSAR data are self-reported from application data, which are inflated because applicants tend to misrepresent lab maintenance as research. Research productivity is hard to get and usually seen in applicants applying to research powerhouses and/or MD/PhDs.

Sorry you think it's misguided even though it's clearly supported by data that's cited here often. But I would take your n=1 experience as just that and not use it to support a claim.

Research is what drives medicine forward. Every single resident across the country is required to do QI research at the very least during residency, obviously there are many specialties and programs that require more than that. If I do a fellowship in my field (a primary care field!), I'm signing up for ~2 years of research and ~1 year of clinical duties. There's research going on at every academic institution no matter how primary care focused they are.

I can't speak to the relative importance of a research letter at a primary care-focused school as I do not have first hand experience with admissions at those schools. I don't know how "eyebrow raising" it would be. But if an applicant has research, it's not overlooked or cast aside just because they're not a research-focused school.

I mean research in medical school and beyond is always there because the regulatory bodies apparently require it. I'm strictly talking about research prior to entering medical school. SDN has a bad habit of extrapolating what top schools and graduate schools want to what all medical schools want. Everything is relative and I have no idea how each school weighs the ECs in their overall evaluation. It's just weird for schools that apparently don't prioritize research or regard them highly compared to rest of ECs to be picky enough to view an absence of research letters from significant experiences to be weird. It's also weird that applicants with strong academics and strong research tend to get weeded out from schools because of their academics.

Then again, the people who defend the requirement of research letters for all medical schools aren't adcom members or have admissions experience and are only basing their arguments from anecdotes based on their own experiences at research powerhouses (which doesn't show anything since the argument was whether non-research powerhouses view absence of research letters a bad thing). The adcom members who gave their views said the opposite. But it's interesting to see how admissions at various categories of schools view certain aspects of ECs.

 

[Ismet]

MSAR data are self-reported from application data, which are inflated because applicants tend to misrepresent lab maintenance as research. Research productivity is hard to get and usually seen in applicants applying to research powerhouses and/or MD/PhDs.

Sorry you think it's misguided even though it's clearly supported by data that's cited here often. But I would take your n=1 experience as just that and not use it to support a claim.



I mean research in medical school and beyond is always there because the regulatory bodies apparently require it. I'm strictly talking about research prior to entering medical school. SDN has a bad habit of extrapolating what top schools and graduate schools want to what all medical schools want. Everything is relative and I have no idea how each school weighs the ECs in their overall evaluation. It's just weird for schools that apparently don't prioritize research or regard them highly compared to rest of ECs to be picky enough to view an absence of research letters from significant experiences to be weird. It's also weird that applicants with strong academics and strong research tend to get weeded out from schools because of their academics.

Then again, the people who defend the requirement of research letters for all medical schools aren't adcom members or have admissions experience and are only basing their arguments from anecdotes based on their own experiences at research powerhouses (which doesn't show anything since the argument was whether non-research powerhouses view absence of research letters a bad thing). The adcom members who gave their views said the opposite. But it's interesting to see how admissions at various categories of schools view certain aspects of ECs.

No one is saying that all schools require a research letter if there is research. My school didn't require applicants to have research let alone a research letter, despite requiring all students to perform research during medical school. And as I said above, it's not a death sentence to not have one. But in my 3 years of sitting on the admissions committee, it has certainly come up. "Applicant has 3 years of research and a publication...I wonder why they don't have a letter from the lab?" Applicant probably has otherwise great LORs and otherwise redeeming qualities so like I said, not going to kill the application. But something to consider.