How do adcoms evaluate "potential research direction/career prospects"?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

pretysmitty

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
137
Reaction score
42

Members don't see this ad.
I saw on a reddit thread that adcoms will weigh applicants according to their research interests. To quote a user: "One program gave me feedback for why I didn't make the post-interview cut: "limited career prospects" due to my research interests." This sentiment was echoed by other user, including one that participates in their program's adcom.

This doesn't really make sense as its pretty subjective, and hopefully isn't done in most adcoms. However I'm still curious - how are these evaluations made?
 

peachblacktea96

New Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
8
Reaction score
10
I could see this being the case if you made your research interests very/ overly specific, to the point where it could limit your faculty choices. I met other applicants who communicated their interests in a way that seemed like they only wanted to continue along in a very narrow area/subtopic established by their prior research experiences. I think this does shoehorn you a little bit in terms of research fit and could make schools that don't have established research programs in that very specific subtopic wary about accepting you. When applying, I would generally recommend being open to your research interests changing (and later on, they likely will have to be flexible in order to pursue/ secure grants).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

toofastdan

I like libraries
2+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
84
Reaction score
270
I could see this being the case if you made your research interests very/ overly specific, to the point where it could limit your faculty choices. I met other applicants who communicated their interests in a way that seemed like they only wanted to continue along in a very narrow area/subtopic established by their prior research experiences. I think this does shoehorn you a little bit in terms of research fit and could make schools that don't have established research programs in that very specific subtopic wary about accepting you. When applying, I would generally recommend being open to your research interests changing (and later on, they likely will have to be flexible in order to pursue/ secure grants).
This makes sense. I also had concerns over how specific applicants should be with their research goals. For example, if I was interested in studying specific sensory cells in the eye/ear, I could just expand this to say "neuroscience and genetics".

I also think research specificity might vary from program to program. If the school has an entire core/building with several PIs dedicated to studying your specific interests, it might be ok to get more narrow to show that you have a direct reason for applying to that school. Feel free to correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Silence_Water_Hope

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2016
Messages
26
Reaction score
17
A common question (or related) that I encountered in several interviews was "where do you see yourself after your training." Here you were expected to outline your future career as a physician-scientist (whether that be as an academic, researcher in industry, etc.), how much research you would be doing (traditional 80-20), and general field or research problem you wanted to tackle (cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease etc.)

Although there are programs that are more open-minded than others, I got a strong impression that programs had a clear preference for the responses to this question. Some programs were very clearly looking for a traditional 80-20 academic physician-scientist looking to enter the field that they were strong at, while others seemed to be fine as long as you were doing some sort of research in the future. I've talked to some other interviewees who said that they received strong negative reactions from more "traditional" PDs after expressing interest in entering the industry or being part of clinical trials, for example.

My guess is that these questions are not mainly meant to test your "resolve" in sticking to the path exactly as you just outlined; whether, they seemed to be testing a) whether you have at least thought of a coherent plan for your future career and b) whether you will find program X to be a satisfactory program in reaching your goals and c) whether program X has produced the kind of physician-scientists as the one you see yourself becoming. The worst thing you can do, imo, is being vauge or selling yourself short in responding these questions; in one of my earlier interviews, I gave a fairly vague answer to this question that resulted in my interviewer asking for more and more information. Like many other things, I've found that larger, better-established programs were usually more flexible in what they were looking for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

dl2dp2

Full Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
2,764
Reaction score
2,574
I saw on a reddit thread that adcoms will weigh applicants according to their research interests. To quote a user: "One program gave me feedback for why I didn't make the post-interview cut: "limited career prospects" due to my research interests." This sentiment was echoed by other user, including one that participates in their program's adcom.

This doesn't really make sense as its pretty subjective, and hopefully isn't done in most adcoms. However I'm still curious - how are these evaluations made?

Out of curiosity what is this area?
 

Neuronix

Total nerd
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
20+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
14,524
Reaction score
7,192
If someone comes in insistent on a very narrow area, especially one that doesn't have a lot of physician-scientist examples or isn't available at that institution (or at least the mdphd program thinks that), this can happen.

I've had undergrads telling me they want to work in some really narrow areas that just straight up seem kooky to me.

You want to have interests. But keep them reasonably broad and reasonably common. You don't know where life will take you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

pretysmitty

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
137
Reaction score
42
surprised drug discovery is not considered a fruitful line of research. does it have to do with the particular approach?
 

ratking

Full Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Sorry for the late reply but I actually do remember the area of research on that post since it is similar to mine :'( it was structure-based drug discovery
Yikes that is one of my research interests too. I feel like I've seen a fair number of MD-PhDs doing that type of work, so maybe it really was just how they phrased it?
 

definitely_chondria

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
99
Reaction score
515
Yikes that is one of my research interests too. I feel like I've seen a fair number of MD-PhDs doing that type of work, so maybe it really was just how they phrased it?
Yeah I think so too. Depending on the program, it would also be important to describe how drug development can exist in an academic space instead of industry
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

CaliforniaAsian

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
203
Reaction score
347
Yeah I think so too. Depending on the program, it would also be important to describe how drug development can exist in an academic space instead of industry
I asked the poster in the reddit thread. It was at their home institution, and their work was with one of the institution's star physician-scientists. The institution also has a reputation for not taking their own undergrads. They had a successful cycle though, if that helps ease your worries.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top