How many hours constitute "significant research experience" sans phd?

[sk44]

Hi all,

I've been perusing the chances forum and I've noticed some SDNers with several hundred hours of research. Barring applicants with phds, how many hours does it take to make adcoms at top research-heavy schools go, "Wow, that's a lot of hours"? Or is it not about hours, but the number of publications, or what journals you are published in?

Or is research even all that important compared to clinical experience? Would it be better to have a 1000 hours of research or a 1000 hours of clinical?

😕

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Cambino]

Hi all,

I've been perusing the chances forum and I've noticed some SDNers with several hundred hours of research. Barring applicants with phds, how many hours does it take to make adcoms at top research-heavy schools go, "Wow, that's a lot of hours"? Or is it not about hours, but the number of publications, or what journals you are published in?

Or is research even all that important compared to clinical experience? Would it be better to have a 1000 hours of research or a 1000 hours of clinical?

😕

I think the general consensus is that research is nice, but not required (unless shooting for a research-heavy, top school or MD/PhD). Even then, clinical experience is valued more, regardless where you're applying. I'd take the 1000 clinical hours any day. If you're going to focus on research, a LOR from your PI and a publication or two would be ultimate goals.

Good luck.

 

[saveourpens]

imo, its not very significant if you know how many hours you did.

 

[ADolefulDream]

I think publications are more important then hours when it come to research.

As too 1000 hrs research vs 1000 clinical--your appication will look weird if you have a ton of research but no clinical experince. However many schools will accepts students who have clinical experince but no reseach.

 

[chiapet874]

Hi all,

I've been perusing the chances forum and I've noticed some SDNers with several hundred hours of research. Barring applicants with phds, how many hours does it take to make adcoms at top research-heavy schools go, "Wow, that's a lot of hours"? Or is it not about hours, but the number of publications, or what journals you are published in?

Or is research even all that important compared to clinical experience? Would it be better to have a 1000 hours of research or a 1000 hours of clinical?

😕

Several hundred hours of research is not a lot of research, mind you. I work around 5-6 hours a day in the research lab for the past 3 years... you can do the math.

It's really not about the hours, but about what you get out of your time in the research lab. There are plenty of students who come in 10 hours a week, but do nothing. There are just as many who come in less, but are super productive.

The key is that ADCOMs want to see if you were a productive member of the lab and tried to gain something out of it, rather than try to impress them.

With regards to publications, ADCOMs are not particularly picky about what journal you get into. As long as it is peer-reviewed, it's viewed as a significant accomplishment. It is rare for an undergraduate student to be published though.

 

[Narmerguy]

I don't think research can effectively be measured in hours. For simplicity, say 100 hours...Who knows how those hours were spent?

In contrast, at least when your have 100 hours in the ED, even if you aren't actively doing something you can be benefiting while passive (i.e. simply observing the physicians and patients).

As someone else hinted, I personally think that research experience is better measured in "outcomes" (e.g. the number and quality of pubs, presentations, etc).

If you don't have any of those aforementioned outcomes, no worries -- the benefit now resides in your description of the activity (not the # of hours).



1: Public health is viewed the same way as basic science research -- in the sense that both are viewed favorably. Part of the beauty of the field is that the "outcomes" are very likely to materialize from your efforts. I have personal experience with it -- my interviewers have taken a great interest in these experiences.

2: Why would this be looked down upon? It's a great accomplishment. List it and reap the benefits.

Agreed. PLUS, some people count having "20 hours a week" in a lab, but 15 hours of that is just spent waiting for gels or some other experiment to run while you do homework on your computer.

 

[gettheleadout]

Agreed. PLUS, some people count having "20 hours a week" in a lab, but 15 hours of that is just spent waiting for gels or some other experiment to run while you do homework on your computer.

Ha, this is exactly what I think of when people tell me they spend 20 hours/week in the bio/chem labs at school.

 

[NickNaylor]

Hi all,

I've been perusing the chances forum and I've noticed some SDNers with several hundred hours of research. Barring applicants with phds, how many hours does it take to make adcoms at top research-heavy schools go, "Wow, that's a lot of hours"? Or is it not about hours, but the number of publications, or what journals you are published in?

Or is research even all that important compared to clinical experience? Would it be better to have a 1000 hours of research or a 1000 hours of clinical?

😕

It's not the hours, it's the achievement. If you spent 1000 hours but did nothing but clean glassware and run very basic protocols, then that's not significant. I would much rather prefer the applicant that has 300 hours of lab time but a publication and a poster presentation at a conference.

Also, I would personally rather get more exposure to, you know, my future career through shadowing rather than something I won't be doing with my career (i.e., research), but that's just me.

 

[LizzyM]

I'd say: 400 hrs x 2 summers plus 15 hrs/wk x 30 weeks x 2 academic years and counting.... That's if you are applying after jr year.

That would be
800+ 900 = 1700 hrs.

That is some hours each week for 2 academic years plus 2 summers. In my book, that is significant research experience.

 

[deleted261193]

^ i never got any publications out of my research but i did it for two years + and three summers basically full-time, and my interviewers all said "wow you've done a lot of research"

also, in response to what someone asked about non basic science research, from what i've heard, adcoms look favorably in general on any kind of research because it's the process that they like (learning to ask questions, think critically, troubleshoot, etc.). also i know someone who did some kind of history research thesis with no basic science research and she's gotten a TONNNNNN of interviews at big research schools. of course i don't know much about the rest of her app (except that her numbers are only average).

 

[madchemist89]

The thing about research is that the number of publications you can produce within a certain period of time is largely dependent on the nature of research. Some research can result in a publication within a summer. However, other types of research can take several years before a publication can be produced. So, I think that both number of hours and publications are important.

 

[medbunny56]

do presentations at national conferences carry a similar weight to publications?

 

[victorias]

do presentations at national conferences carry a similar weight to publications?

Publications in peer reviewed journals are definitely more valued than conference presentations/published abstracts in conference proceedings

 

[medbunny56]

Publications in peer reviewed journals are definitely more valued than conference presentations/published abstracts in conference proceedings

even if its a first author abstract accepted for a presentation?

 

[aldol16]

even if its a first author abstract accepted for a presentation?

Abstracts/posters require less work in general than publications. And many posters never make it into publication so publications are the gold standard by which academics judge work and productivity.

 

[Law2Doc]

It's not the hours, it's the achievement...

This. Only premeds are focused on hours. To everyone else, significant research is a results oriented term -- did your work lead to a presentation, poster or manuscript, a good LOR from your PI or at least a good topic for discussion at your interview. Nobody really cares how many hours you logged washing glassware, running gels, pipetting, feeding rats, reviewing charts, etc. The guy with 2 publications and a poster on his CV is going to be regarded as having done much more significant research than the guy who spent triple the time in the lab but has nothing to show for it.

 

[Law2Doc]

do presentations at national conferences carry a similar weight to publications?

For premeds who on average don't have much research both look good. But no, it's not similar weight. The hierarchy is: publication is better than presentation which is better than a poster. Within publications there's a hierarchy of journals, generally based on "impact factor" and in all of these there's a hierarchy of which author you are listed as. The goal should be to always ultimately turn your posters/presentations into manuscripts.

 

[LizzyM]

For premeds who on average don't have much research both look good. But no, it's not similar weight. The hierarchy is: publication is better than presentation which is better than a poster. Within publications there's a hierarchy of journals, generally based on "impact factor" and in all of these there's a hierarchy of which author you are listed as. The goal should be to always ultimately turn your posters/presentations into manuscripts.

That said, even at a top tier school, an interviewed applicant with a publication is the exception. Based on my experience just in the past 2 years, I'd say < 25% and perhaps even <8% have had a publication. And too often, a parent is a co-author which, at least in my opinion, devalues the achievement.

 

[Cara Delevingne]

how many hours does it take to make adcoms at top research-heavy schools go, "Wow, that's a lot of hours"?

Not really the response you're aiming for with an application. Should be closer to "Wow, that's some interesting research" or "Wow, this guy is really passionate about ___".

 

[Goro]

It's not about the hours, it's about the productivity. If you have 1000s of hours in the lab, but nothing to show for it, then what does it say about your science?

The research powerhouses like research, but still expect you to have the other ECs as well, and I believe that successful people getting into the top schools tend to have lots of hours in service and patient contact as well.

Hi all,

I've been perusing the chances forum and I've noticed some SDNers with several hundred hours of research. Barring applicants with phds, how many hours does it take to make adcoms at top research-heavy schools go, "Wow, that's a lot of hours"? Or is it not about hours, but the number of publications, or what journals you are published in?

Or is research even all that important compared to clinical experience? Would it be better to have a 1000 hours of research or a 1000 hours of clinical?

😕

 

[Law2Doc]

That said, even at a top tier school, an interviewed applicant with a publication is the exception. Based on my experience just in the past 2 years, I'd say < 25% and perhaps even <8% have had a publication. And too often, a parent is a co-author which, at least in my opinion, devalues the achievement.

I agree most applicants generally don't have publications, and you don't need one to get into med school, but at the research heavy schools ( the top of the research rankings) the number of people listed somewhere on a paper or poster is higher than those figures.

 

[LizzyM]

I agree most applicants generally don't have publications, and you don't need one to get into med school, but at the research heavy schools ( the top of the research rankings) the number of people listed somewhere on a paper or poster is higher than those figures.

"or poster" is key. I'd say the ratio is 4:1 between applicants with papers and those with "only" posters.