How much research would I have to do in M1 to equate to a summer of research?

[forsparta]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello,

So for my summer after M1, I am interested in studying abroad and backpacking across Europe. For me, it has been a lifelong goal and it is something I am very motivated to do.

However, I am also aiming to match in a competitive specialty (but as I haven't started med school yet, that could and probably will change).

I know commonly most people do research in the summer after M1, mailing basic science. How much research would I have to do throughout the year to equate to a summer worth of research?

Basically, if I get a paper (late co-author) in a basic science journal and present my work at a med student conference, would that be equivalent to what most students are able to accomplish during their summer (if not more)? Would I have to do something else, strive for something more to be at their level?

THank you for your help,
Mike

 

[tripwm]

From what everyone has told me, research is not something that gives you a leg up on the competition. You do research because you want to do it, not because you have to do it. Class rank, Steps and LoR are what will make you a competitive applicant. While anecdotal, the majority of individuals that I personally know who matched into competitive residencies were asked about their research ~1/15 interviews. Even those questions were brief.


I'm currently in doing research between my M1-M2 year. Unfortunately, the IRB is all up in my business so my research is progressing painfully slow. I'm not worried about it because I'm spending my time helping the Chief of Pediatric Urology. Will I get published? Somewhat likely, but it will take me working during my M3 year.

So honestly, I would tell you to enjoy that summer traveling Europe. It's something that you can talk about during residency interviews as you weren't simply sitting on your butt for a couple of months (not that anything is even wrong with that). It's your last real summer, enjoy it.

 

[Etorphine]

While anecdotal, the majority of individuals that I personally know who matched into competitive residencies were asked about their research ~1/15 interviews. Even those questions were brief..

Just because they don't ask about it in an interview doesn't mean it isn't important.

 

[SoundofSilver]

Research is the most important "extra-curricular activity" and is essentially required for competitive specialties like derm, rad onc, etc. It's also important if you want to get a residency at a top academic center regardless of specialty. Also, research w/out a publication or presentation is seen as less meaningful.

That being said, step score, third year grades, LORs, and class rank are probably more important. It may not matter at all if you don't do any research depending on what you want to go into and where you want to end up.

Also, you don't necessarily have to do research during the summer after M1. You can always do a research elective during 3rd or 4th year.

 

[mimelim]

Every answer in this thread has some elements of truth in them. It is important to remember that Step 1 score > MS3/4 grades >> Letters of Recommendation > Personal statement = Research = Volunteer work > MS1/2 grades. And yes research is more important if you are trying to get into an academic program or a more competitive specialty. But people consistently seem to think that research is this one dimensional barometer that they need to raise up in order to do something.

I was talking to a former HMS ad com member about this topic when I was applying to medical school and he warned about the dangers of garbage science and how it looked to people that knew what they were looking at. There are two positives about doing research, 1) production and 2) self growth (as an individual). Is it possible to produce a lot at the medical student level? Absolutely. But realistically how many actually do? According to the guy I was talking to, the number is miniscule, people tend to think quantity > quality, which is just laughable.

Getting your name on a publication is great, but it means very little in a vacuum. There are tons of absolute trash papers out there and people getting their names on things for minimal work. (see local professors trying to get med students to write things for them with the promise of authorship as the reward) If research is a large enough part of your application to have an impact getting interviews/matching, people will ask about it during interviews. Most of the time not because they really want to know the plot details of what you did, but because they want to know about the accomplishments that you made and the character development resulting from those experiences. The last thing you want to fill your residency application with are experiences that when asked about, you come across as completely replaceable and ordinary.

Now, this only pertains to General Surgery/Vascular Surgery interviews because thats all I have experience with. I was told by a program director at a top GS program that because extremely few do basic science research as a practicing MD, they heavily discounted basic science research. They thought that it was a red flag, potentially marking someone that might 'waste' their general surgery residency and end up in the lab.

 

[tripwm]

Just because they don't ask about it in an interview doesn't mean it isn't important.

Care to elaborate? This seems to further the catch-all that research, for most students, is simply checking a box.

I've simply been told that the majority of medical student research is similar to undergraduate: anybody can do the vast majority of it since the PhD or MD dreams up the project. The people I've talked to (interviews at Mayo/Hopkins) said their volunteering commitments were discussed more than research. Neither was ground-breaking.

 

[tripwm]

Now, this only pertains to General Surgery/Vascular Surgery interviews because thats all I have experience with. I was told by a program director at a top GS program that because extremely few do basic science research as a practicing MD, they heavily discounted basic science research. They thought that it was a red flag, potentially marking someone that might 'waste' their general surgery residency and end up in the lab.

Weird, I would have never dreamed basic science creating that generalization. I tried to avoid bench-top science this summer after hating the last few research months of undergrad. Lucky fluke!

 

[notbobtrustme]

Does research prior to medical school count? Or does everyone have a blank slate starting at medical school?

 

[mimelim]

Does research prior to medical school count? Or does everyone have a blank slate starting at medical school?

Read my prior post in this thread. If you need further clarification, I can try to provide.

Edit: Writing another post to clarify...

 

[mimelim]

Does research prior to medical school count? Or does everyone have a blank slate starting at medical school?

This goes back to the question of what is the purpose of research on a medical school application or residency application. Do you think residency program directors care about 99% of the research done by undergraduates or medical students? The number of research experiences (outside of zero) and the length of time is insignificant compared to your ability to produce something worthwhile with your time. If what you produced while in a lab isn't well documented in a publication or posters because of circumstance, if you are going to mention it in an application, you should have a good reason for mentioning it, not just, "I need more things that look like 'research' for my application.

 

[forsparta]

My school has protected 12 week time in year 3; that is more than most people have during their M1 summer. Would I still be in a good position to match to a competitive specailty even if I didnt do research in summer of M!?

 

[SpecterGT260]

This isn't amcas. You don't log hours, you list pubs, abstracts, posters and talks. The amount of time is largely irrelevant

 

[forsparta]

This isn't amcas. You don't log hours, you list pubs, abstracts, posters and talks. The amount of time is largely irrelevant

Okay, so how many pubs would put me in the top 1% of applicants? What number would be the amount that would make me stand out against everyone who has done one summer of research in med school?

 

[Non Pizza Lunch]

Okay, so how many pubs would put me in the top 1% of applicants? What number would be the amount that would make me stand out against everyone who has done one summer of research in med school?

you have to realize you just won't be the top 1% of applicants by doing a summer of research, or even with a year. It is very common for neurosurgery applicants to have 5 publications.

I have a friend who did a MD/phD that had 3 pubs, with 2 of them being first author NATURE. I would consider 2 nature papers a "top 1%" but that made his md/phd last 9 years.

 

[forsparta]

you have to realize you just won't be the top 1% of applicants by doing a summer of research, or even with a year. It is very common for neurosurgery applicants to have 5 publications.

I have a friend who did a MD/phD that had 3 pubs, with 2 of them being first author NATURE. I would consider 2 nature papers a "top 1%" but that made his md/phd last 9 years.

Sorry, I meant top 10%.

You said it is common for nuerosurg applications to have 5 publications; do you mean as first authors?

I have the chance to get several late author pubs or one first author depending on the lab I choose during the school year.

Which would be better?

 

[Non Pizza Lunch]

Sorry, I meant top 10%.

You said it is common for nuerosurg applications to have 5 publications; do you mean as first authors?

I have the chance to get several late author pubs or one first author depending on the lab I choose during the school year.

Which would be better?

Definitely not 5 first author pubs, but it is certainly possible if you are doing clinical research and absolutely don't care where you publish. But a lot of PD can notice that too...

For one thing, look at the latest Charting Outcomes in the Match, and you can see everything by specialty.

Unfortunately this list also just combines all pubs, abstracts, and poster presentations as just one big number but everyone knows: pub >>>> abstract, poster. So if you REALLY want to know you can look up whichever specialty, see how many people that matched, and try a 1.5 SD above the average, to see the "top 10%"

i.e. 2011 charting outcome it shows 7.5 pubs/abstract/poster as the average for derm matriculants, and 307 matched. You can do the math

As for your other question about a first author vs multiple later, it is all just PD specific, also where those pubs are as well.

 

[Spinietzschon]

Every answer in this thread has some elements of truth in them. It is important to remember that Step 1 score > MS3/4 grades >> Letters of Recommendation > Personal statement = Research = Volunteer work > MS1/2 grades. And yes research is more important if you are trying to get into an academic program or a more competitive specialty.

There are two positives about doing research, 1) production and 2) self growth (as an individual). Is it possible to produce a lot at the medical student level?

There are tons of absolute trash papers out there and people getting their names on things for minimal work.

Now, this only pertains to General Surgery/Vascular Surgery interviews because thats all I have experience with. I was told by a program director at a top GS program that because extremely few do basic science research as a practicing MD, they heavily discounted basic science research. They thought that it was a red flag, potentially marking someone that might 'waste' their general surgery residency and end up in the lab.

By paragraph:

1) Glad you said field matters. Several where LOR can trump even 15 points on boards gap as long as they're past the cutoff threshold. And PLENTY where research=/=volunteer work. Rad onc for one that's basically indisputable? Or however you spell it?

2) I don't think they care about this nearly as much as the fact that if you haven't worked with research and they are a residency requiring research (which may be speciality dependent as you do say), you'll have to take 10 hours just to figure out how to get Adobe PS to do all you need. You'll need 10 hours just to figure out how to get Illustrator to crop and line things up under correct settings etc. You'll need 10 hrs for prisim. You'll need 10 hrs for freeware R software or SPSS. You'll constantly be pissed because you worked but can't publish all the tons of negative data that took longer than the few bits of great positive data, even if its useful negative data (you won't be used to this idea if you've never done research, particularly basic). You'll need to mess up a few PCR runs and blots. Staff will need to take an intensive 10 hours (not just you but also a facility manager) teaching you how to use confocal microscopy equipment and software, cryostat/vibrotome (if you're lab uses them, if not, something else like radiation administration etc etc etc). You'll need intensive help getting your writing and organization of an initial manuscript draft together, not only so its quality data and information but so its in the scientific vernacular that I swear is sometimes still very tough for me (I've done some serious full time research after bachelors). They'll have to walk you through submission and re-submission usually; probably if its basic research they'll have to let you know when you have enough to actually submit (fun little thing someone sent me: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1382). More than anything if someone isn't used to organizing the HUGE amount of info even a lazy member of lab accrues over months and months, you'll do a lot of work and probably not have a systematic way of recording everything thus lots of things have to be re-done or samples thrown out (even clinical but more a basic science problem). Bottom line: they don't want a scumbag but more so than character/self-growth they do NOT want to have to invest time training you to have a research bearing to meet program research requirements. It is a pain in the *** to have people that will require an extra 500+ hours of man-hours from full time staff to get you up to par with keeping good data, using all the usual equipment, etc.

3) Some programs don't care. They put out work others would consider 'trash' all the time and meet requirements and chug right along. If you did nothing but take old patient samples and run elizas and report quantitative data for 8 publications that you basically did the same thing on, just for different drugs/proteins of interest, I'd say that was complete 'trash.' But in some circles that would seem more merit worthy (again depending on what they're looking to have you do) than all I've done for a few years and LOTS of late nights, etc etc...

4) I've heard this and somewhat agree. It ties in with above. Hospital wants to tell lay public they support research as soon as they click into the website, and no one usually calls out an entire program even though there are some notorious 'trash' research institutes (sortof like grade inflation I guess?), so they'd take the guy with the eliza background, keep 'em doing that and taking the crappier call after a year or so rather than a candidate who is genuinely interested in some very hard regen. medicine unless the person is such a wrecking ball that they bring lots of academic cash into the residency (super rare I'd have to think). Other programs, however, and there is some very hard research going into vascular/GS inquiry some places, have different emphases and from where I'm from I can tell you for certain senior people say that basic research is much better 'respected' because you have to muddle through/troubleshoot a lot more for a complete product. On the other hand one big guy who does hold this opinion also thinks it's BS (says, [paraphrased] "why should we have fellows doing genetics of drosophila? They are only doing it to go private and we all know it. But if they don't have the basic science in [anonymous speciality], then they don't get a job; at one point people stuck with clinical but then someone on the block did some basic research and that was distinctive, so then everyone on the block is holding up overly academic basic research positions. Problem being that not only would they be more useful for production if they focused on other things, but that the people who really love research and academics have to compete with people who only want to do private but will pretend along and are also very intelligent and highly motivated; 'we' [they] train people at not huge expense but great effort and time who then leave the field now.")

I will say that I completely agree that merit demands quality>quantity but that sometimes programs aren't even emphasizing quality so quantity might be the way to go for 'success' within the placement system. I'd also point out that charting outcomes includes truly weak research submissions (abstracts or poster presentations at your annual school student research poster day for projects about on par with the 100 elizas and publish model I described) as a 'publication' so don't flip out if you see your intended speciality has an average match statistic of 10 papers, etc.

Wow this was way too long, even to proof/edit. Condolences to whoever makes it to the end. Truly sorry I got out of hand.

 

[forsparta]

By paragraph:

1) Glad you said field matters. Several where LOR can trump even 15 points on boards gap as long as they're past the cutoff threshold. And PLENTY where research=/=volunteer work. Rad onc for one that's basically indisputable? Or however you spell it?

2) I don't think they care about this nearly as much as the fact that if you haven't worked with research and they are a residency requiring research (which may be speciality dependent as you do say), you'll have to take 10 hours just to figure out how to get Adobe PS to do all you need. You'll need 10 hours just to figure out how to get Illustrator to crop and line things up under correct settings etc. You'll need 10 hrs for prisim. You'll need 10 hrs for freeware R software or SPSS. You'll constantly be pissed because you worked but can't publish all the tons of negative data that took longer than the few bits of great positive data, even if its useful negative data (you won't be used to this idea if you've never done research, particularly basic). You'll need to mess up a few PCR runs and blots. Staff will need to take an intensive 10 hours (not just you but also a facility manager) teaching you how to use confocal microscopy equipment and software, cryostat/vibrotome (if you're lab uses them, if not, something else like radiation administration etc etc etc). You'll need intensive help getting your writing and organization of an initial manuscript draft together, not only so its quality data and information but so its in the scientific vernacular that I swear is sometimes still very tough for me (I've done some serious full time research after bachelors). They'll have to walk you through submission and re-submission usually; probably if its basic research they'll have to let you know when you have enough to actually submit (fun little thing someone sent me: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1382). More than anything if someone isn't used to organizing the HUGE amount of info even a lazy member of lab accrues over months and months, you'll do a lot of work and probably not have a systematic way of recording everything thus lots of things have to be re-done or samples thrown out (even clinical but more a basic science problem). Bottom line: they don't want a scumbag but more so than character/self-growth they do NOT want to have to invest time training you to have a research bearing to meet program research requirements. It is a pain in the *** to have people that will require an extra 500+ hours of man-hours from full time staff to get you up to par with keeping good data, using all the usual equipment, etc.

3) Some programs don't care. They put out work others would consider 'trash' all the time and meet requirements and chug right along. If you did nothing but take old patient samples and run elizas and report quantitative data for 8 publications that you basically did the same thing on, just for different drugs/proteins of interest, I'd say that was complete 'trash.' But in some circles that would seem more merit worthy (again depending on what they're looking to have you do) than all I've done for a few years and LOTS of late nights, etc etc...

4) I've heard this and somewhat agree. It ties in with above. Hospital wants to tell lay public they support research as soon as they click into the website, and no one usually calls out an entire program even though there are some notorious 'trash' research institutes (sortof like grade inflation I guess?), so they'd take the guy with the eliza background, keep 'em doing that and taking the crappier call after a year or so rather than a candidate who is genuinely interested in some very hard regen. medicine unless the person is such a wrecking ball that they bring lots of academic cash into the residency (super rare I'd have to think). Other programs, however, and there is some very hard research going into vascular/GS inquiry some places, have different emphases and from where I'm from I can tell you for certain senior people say that basic research is much better 'respected' because you have to muddle through/troubleshoot a lot more for a complete product. On the other hand one big guy who does hold this opinion also thinks it's BS (says, [paraphrased] "why should we have fellows doing genetics of drosophila? They are only doing it to go private and we all know it. But if they don't have the basic science in [anonymous speciality], then they don't get a job; at one point people stuck with clinical but then someone on the block did some basic research and that was distinctive, so then everyone on the block is holding up overly academic basic research positions. Problem being that not only would they be more useful for production if they focused on other things, but that the people who really love research and academics have to compete with people who only want to do private but will pretend along and are also very intelligent and highly motivated; 'we' [they] train people at not huge expense but great effort and time who then leave the field now.")

I will say that I completely agree that merit demands quality>quantity but that sometimes programs aren't even emphasizing quality so quantity might be the way to go for 'success' within the placement system. I'd also point out that charting outcomes includes truly weak research submissions (abstracts or poster presentations at your annual school student research poster day for projects about on par with the 100 elizas and publish model I described) as a 'publication' so don't flip out if you see your intended speciality has an average match statistic of 10 papers, etc.

Wow this was way too long, even to proof/edit. Condolences to whoever makes it to the end. Truly sorry I got out of hand.

Wow so detailed!