How to apply to top 20 research schools without research experience

[theKingLT]

---

Members don't see this ad.

edit for those just getting here:
general advice if you are in a similar position to me applying to t20 without research experience:
-a gap year or master's may be best option for you depending on your situation. It can help you in the long run past just getting into a top medical school and can help you ensure research is something you want
-you can't show a commitment to research with no experience so basically don't even try; just be honest that it's an opportunity that interests you but focus on the other positives of your app
-it is very possible to get into t20 schools without research but understand according to MSAR data you're gunning to be 1 of about 5 (or less) people in any given research oriented school's matriculation class. Apply broadly and of course don't count on t20 acceptances
-lastly, if possible try to find something small that shows research initiative to do before app season or as an update. something is better than nothing

original post:
I've seen a few different posts of people asking about their chances of getting into top research institutions without research experience, and this is something that will be applying to myself this coming cycle, so I would like to start a thread on advice anyone might have for selling yourself to research oriented schools without research. A little background info on me:

-80+ LizzyM Non-URM with average EC's (about 300 hours clinical volunteer, 300 hours clinical work, and 100 hours non-clinical volunteer) but no research whatsoever.
-Applying to a variety of schools including quite a few top 20 research institutions

I have been interested in research throughout undergrad, and have tried multiple times to find a position that fits my schedule, but unfortunately varsity athletics always got in the way (40 hours/week all during prime lab time)

So if you were advising me or any applicant in my position who is interested in research but either A.) was unable to acquire a research position in undergrad or B.) Discovered an interest in research too late- how would you recommend they sell themselves to research minded schools, in PS, secondaries, or Interview?

tl;dr How do you do the impossible task of proving you are capable and committed to research if you have no experience?

 

[STLouisVuittonDon]

I wouldn't recommend selling yourself on commitment and capability of research. I'd focus on your other great qualities and other qualities of the school more. You can also mention how you think it'd be great to finally get involved with research since you've never had the chance to before, but I'd stay away from research as much as possible. A lot of the t-20 schools have fantastic clinical / masters' programs that might align better with your narrative. If your long-term goal is academic medicine, I'd recommend a gap year doing research to really see if you want to be going to a research intensive school, since you might not know the non-glamorized aspects of it. In reality, medical students don't really have THAT much time for research. First year/second year is going to be hitting the books and getting into a rhythm, third year is going to be ALL in the clinic. Fourth year is a lot of residency prep. There are some free summers and occasional spots to do part time research, but the research opportunities of medical schools is oversold imo.

 

[efle]

How do you do the impossible task of proving you are capable and committed to research if you have no experience?

You don't. Nobody is going to believe that you know you want to do research when you've never experienced doing research. The good news is, with a 4.0/100th percentile MCAT there are t20 schools that might interview you anyways. Make sure your list includes WashU, NYU, U Chicago, Northwestern, Sinai, Yale and then a few more favorites of yours and I bet you get a couple interviews out of that group.

 

[aldol16]

A top research school is obviously going to value research because that's why they're a top research school. So the way for you to sell yourself to a top research school is to ask why you want to go to that school. It's hard to convince someone that you're committed to research without having any experience to back that up. That's like walking into boutique consulting firm and trying to convince them that you're qualified for the job without having any industry or internship experience. So ask yourself why you want to go to that school and how that fits in with their mission. Emphasize those points in your application. It might be something like community service/health, rural medicine, etc.

If you're a D1 athlete, that might help as well since some schools are known to really like athletes.

 

[DubbiDoctor]

Your stats are extremely impressive, matching the 90th percentile at the most stat-heavy schools. So if you applied now, I'm confident you would be interviewed by top 20s, and likely will get at least one acceptance. But if you want to maximize your chances at the top schools, I recommend that you try to pursue research during your gap year. Since you don't have research experience, you may struggle to find employment as a research assistant (in fact, many people with research experience struggle). Perhaps you can speak to people in your department about doing research during your gap year? If that's not possible, the only other way to guarantee research experience is by pursuing a master's. But I don't think that's necessary unless you genuinely want to gain research experience before matriculating to medical school.

 

[Lucca]

It is possible to be admitted to top schools with little to no research but it can’t be the focus of your application. Your app needs to be about something else essentially and it needs to be a strong argument. Luckily, the better your stats, the less convincing that argument has to be.

So, my advice: find a theme for your app not about research but that would still appeal to med schools. When they ask you about why their school, mention research and your interest in academics but don’t put too fine a pt on it and if they ask tell em about being an athlete.

 

[Kingsmen2018]

You don’t apply

 

[mistafab]

It would be extremely satisfying to read a personal statement that talks about love/interest in research, only to see that they have done exactly zero research.

Please move forward with that plan OP - for comedy’s sake.

Edit: To be a little nicer - I would focus on the things that make YOU great when you apply to these schools. Be authentic and you will shine through. Just like in real life, no one wants to hear all the stuff you WISH you did or WANT to do - highlight the things you HAVE done and the things that you learned. Highlight the work ethic in sport, the dedication to classes, the community service (if you have lots of it) and your other strengths. Highlight your interest in medicine and show how your experiences augment your reason for “why medicine?”

 

[theKingLT]

You don’t apply

Starting to think this is the answer to all the stresses of pre-med 😉

It would be extremely satisfying to read a personal statement that talks about love/interest in research, only to see that they have done exactly zero research.

Please move forward with that plan OP - for comedy’s sake.

Edit: To be a little nicer - I would focus on the things that make YOU great when you apply to these schools. Be authentic and you will shine through. Just like in real life, no one wants to hear all the stuff you WISH you did or WANT to do - highlight the things you HAVE done and the things that you learned. Highlight the work ethic in sport, the dedication to classes, the community service (if you have lots of it) and your other strengths. Highlight your interest in medicine and show how your experiences augment your reason for “why medicine?”

I was definitely not going to focus on it in my PS , but thought it might be worth mentioning why I had none (ie. while talking about sports I would say something along the lines of "while I had to sacrifice some of my other interests such as pursuit of research due to time demands, I did learn this...") Great advice though, thanks!

I wouldn't recommend selling yourself on commitment and capability of research. I'd focus on your other great qualities and other qualities of the school more. You can also mention how you think it'd be great to finally get involved with research since you've never had the chance to before, but I'd stay away from research as much as possible. A lot of the t-20 schools have fantastic clinical / masters' programs that might align better with your narrative. If your long-term goal is academic medicine, I'd recommend a gap year doing research to really see if you want to be going to a research intensive school, since you might not know the non-glamorized aspects of it. In reality, medical students don't really have THAT much time for research. First year/second year is going to be hitting the books and getting into a rhythm, third year is going to be ALL in the clinic. Fourth year is a lot of residency prep. There are some free summers and occasional spots to do part time research, but the research opportunities of medical schools is oversold imo.

I have definitely considered a masters, but really don't want to be spending an additional two years before med school after 5 years of undergrad when my app hopefully doesn't need it. It's interesting you say that research is oversold, because much of my reasoning for applying to t-20 schools was to have the best opportunity to do quality research, since it's something I've always been interested in and feel that I've missed out on in undergrad. If what you're saying is true, maybe that shouldn't be a priority.

 

[LizzyM]

Some of the top research schools require a research experience of every medical student as a requirement for graduation. Some students even take a year off (often between 3rd and 4th) to get extra research experience so anyone who says medical students are too busy to do research does not know what he is talking about.

My first thought in reading the OP was "take a year off before applying" but seeing D1 athlete made me re-think that strategy. Rather than pointing out the zit (a small flaw) go in there and point out all the positives that you bring to the table and hope that they overlook the zit. The positives are your ability to work as part of a team, time management, leadership (if you rose to a position of leadership as a junior or senior on a team with underclassmen), and sportsmanship (accepting defeat and disappointment and learning from it to be better next time). Perhaps you've also had experiences of having empathy for injured teammates and compassion for those who are suffering.

Although most applicants has research experience, it is not essential, particularly when you have something else that is unusual and demonstrative of the attributes the school is looking for in its medical students. If you still have a year of eligibility left, that doesn't hurt either. /jk

If you had an opportunity to do a small retrospective chart review study of injured/rehabed athletes and could get a physician or physical therapist to collaborate with you, then you might be able to get a small study started before you apply and conducted during the application year which would give you something to talk about in that area and something to send in as an update to your file if the thing goes well. Think about an unanswered question about a common injury in your sport and whether x or y is better in getting players back to the sport or if athletes treated with approach A are more likely to be reinjured than those who are treated with approach B. There is even the possibility of doing your research with publicly available data on professional athletes. @Willy38 might be able to advise you.

 

[theKingLT]

My first thought in reading the OP was "take a year off before applying" but seeing D1 athlete made me re-think that strategy. Rather than pointing out the zit (a small flaw) go in there and point out all the positives that you bring to the table and hope that they overlook the zit. The positives are your ability to work as part of a team, time management, leadership (if you rose to a position of leadership as a junior or senior on a team with underclassmen), and sportsmanship (accepting defeat and disappointment and learning from it to be better next time). Perhaps you've also had experiences of having empathy for injured teammates and compassion for those who are suffering.

I've seen multiple threads on how little adcoms care about athletics, to the point that I was getting really frustrated. Not that I regret doing my sport, just that it's frustrating people don't value the 8000+ hours I've put in in the past four years, or understand how much it's improved me as a person. But you're post gives me some hope; I just have to do a good job of showing the benefits.

If you had an opportunity to do a small retrospective chart review study of injured/rehabed athletes and could get a physician or physical therapist to collaborate with you, then you might be able to get a small study started before you apply and conducted during the application year which would give you something to talk about in that area and something to send in as an update to your file if the thing goes well. Think about an unanswered question about a common injury in your sport and whether x or y is better in getting players back to the sport or if athletes treated with approach A are more likely to be reinjured than those who are treated with approach B. There is even the possibility of doing your research with publicly available data on professional athletes.

This is a great idea. Over half my team has undergone some sort of surgery within the past year alone, so I think I can come up with something sport specific. I'll definitely get to reading about how to go about this, Thanks!

 

[Willy38]

I've seen multiple threads on how little adcoms care about athletics, to the point that I was getting really frustrated. Not that I regret doing my sport, just that it's frustrating people don't value the 8000+ hours I've put in in the past four years, or understand how much it's improved me as a person. But you're post gives me some hope; I just have to do a good job of showing the benefits.


This is a great idea. Over half my team has undergone some sort of surgery within the past year alone, so I think I can come up with something sport specific. I'll definitely get to reading about how to go about this, Thanks!

I applied with a similar app a few years ago to the t20s and had some luck with no real research experience. I agree with above, don't sell yourself as dedicated to research when you haven't done it. Some schools will love your athletic EC and some will not. Def get involved with an outcome study if you can that pertains to your sport which will tie things together nicely. I did this toward the end of my cycle and was able to send some updates that may have helped me, unfortunately I think it was a little late. If you can get an accepted paper on your AMCAS that would be huge. As said above, highlight your strengths through athletics, and take it in stride when some adcoms don't appreciate the commitment that athletics requires. Some will get it and will be in your corner come decision time. Congrats on some awesome numbers btw! As a fellow athlete I know how tough that is to balance so kudos!

 

[Saifa]

I just want to know how everyone has an 83 these days tbh

Not that I regret doing my sport, just that it's frustrating people don't value the 8000+ hours I've put in in the past four years, or understand how much it's improved me as a person. But you're post gives me some hope; I just have to do a good job of showing the benefits.

Having been to multiple interviews I can assure you your experience will not go unappreciated when every single male faculty you encounter breaks the ice with sports banter.

At the same time, you are here asking about applying to top-20 caliber programs without research experience, and the fact still stands that your time invested in sports, though impressive, was spent by other applicants participating in productive research and bagging publications. Don't act surprised at which carries more weight in an application.

That said, your numbers are outrageous and I think you owe it to yourself to aim high. Starting a project related to your athletics is indeed a great idea. I personally would not consider skipping the application cycle in your position

 

[efle]

I just want to know how everyone has an 83 these days tbh

Mostly because people mistakenly think it's a 1 to 1 conversion at the upper end, like that a 527 is a 44. Really it's more like a 41 (an old 14/13/14 is the same percentiles as 132/132/131). That's why you see an order of magnitude more people listing LizzyMs in the 80s now.

Regardless, OP stats are plenty high enough to get looked at by the stats hungry schools, even without research. OP just gotta sell themselves on other parts, like the athletics. I had a good premed friend in undergrad who had no research but a 39 MCAT and he got interviewed at a few t20s

 

[STLouisVuittonDon]

Mostly because people mistakenly think it's a 1 to 1 conversion at the upper end, like that a 527 is a 44. Really it's more like a 41 (an old 14/13/14 is the same percentiles as 132/132/131). That's why you see an order of magnitude more people listing LizzyMs in the 80s now.

Regardless, OP stats are plenty high enough to get looked at by the stats hungry schools, even without research. OP just gotta sell themselves on other parts, like the athletics. I had a good premed friend in undergrad who had no research but a 39 MCAT and he got interviewed at a few t20s

Going off the table in your signature and by mediocre pixel analysis of the AAMC links posted in your Excel for the 2015 to Old MCAT conversion, I don't think that a 527 is a 41 at all. I think part of the rise in the 80+ LizzyM's is the GPA component, because at a certain level, the MCATs are standardized so that ~roughly the same amount of people scoring 523+ each year. Another factor is test prep companies now being more dialed in to what the 2015 MCAT is testing.

 

[efle]

Going off the table in your signature and by mediocre pixel analysis of the AAMC links posted in your Excel for the 2015 to Old MCAT conversion, I don't think that a 527 is a 41 at all. I think part of the rise in the 80+ LizzyM's is the GPA component, because at a certain level, the MCATs are standardized so that ~roughly the same amount of people scoring 523+ each year. Another factor is test prep companies now being more dialed in to what the 2015 MCAT is testing.

I think the old curve plotting software has a base height for empty bins (see how 45 has a height). I'd say 527 --> 42, 528 --> 43-45 is probably the closest alignment. Which is how it actually used to get reported btw; scores above 13 in Verbal were so rare that you got scored as "13-15" and so 43-45 was a single max bin.

If there really is a shift, I think it's likely a cultural one, where use of SDN is becoming more and more prevalent among the high stats crowd gunning for top admits

 

[DubbiDoctor]

I think part of the rise in the 80+ LizzyM's is the GPA component, because at a certain level, the MCATs are standardized so that ~roughly the same amount of people scoring 523+ each year. A

Is this necessarily true, though? The AAMC says that it doesn't curve the results. So in theory the median can move beyond 500. However, I'm doubtful of AAMC's claim that it doesn't curve since I find it unlikely that the percentiles corresponding to the "uncurved" scaled scored change to such a small degree over time.

 

[efle]

The exam is curved, just not against the people testing along side you. They compare your performance to the historical cohort of prior year or two, then assign your scaled score based on that. There are tiny amounts of wiggle between years - back when they reported percentiles in the 00.0 format instead of rounding off, the decimals would change between years. But unless an entire year's students get much smarter than the students of yesteryear, there won't be any large shifts of the whole curve.

Edit: sorry to derail OPs thread, will stop

 

[DubbiDoctor]

The exam is curved, just not against the people testing along side you. They compare your performance to the historical cohort of prior year or two, then assign your scaled score based on that. There are tiny amounts of wiggle between years - back when they reported percentiles in the 00.0 format instead of rounding off, the decimals would change between years. But unless an entire year's students get much smarter than the students of yesteryear, there won't be any large shifts of the whole curve.

Edit: sorry to derail OPs thread, will stop

Assuming no major test revisions, what if if the prior year cohort to which you're compared scores significantly better than that of 10 years ago? In such a scenario, say a scaled score corresponding to the 80th percentile 10 years ago corresponds to the 65th percentile when compared to the previous year cohort. Would the scaled score you receive - 472-528 - correspond to the scaled score historically corresponding to the 80th percentile or the 65th percentile? Based on what you said, the score you receive would correspond to the 65th percentile - around a 504. But that 504 would not demonstrate the same level of mastery as a 504 of 10 years ago - but rather a 511.

 

[theKingLT]

I think the old curve plotting software has a base height for empty bins (see how 45 has a height). I'd say 527 --> 42, 528 --> 43-45 is probably the closest alignment. Which is how it actually used to get reported btw; scores above 13 in Verbal were so rare that you got scored as "13-15" and so 43-45 was a single max bin.

If there really is a shift, I think it's likely a cultural one, where use of SDN is becoming more and more prevalent among the high stats crowd gunning for top admits

Definitely agree on the cultural aspect. Coming from a large university with lots of pre-meds who have never heard of SDN there's definitely a correlation between competitiveness of an applicant and their activity on or even knowledge of this site. I would not be surprised if this trend has exaggerated over the years leading to greater reporting of high stats. Regardless, I would hardly believe adcoms would even consider a difference between a 523 and a 527 or an old 41 (if those are even still valid?) seeing as how they are all 100th percentile. I scored a 526, but based on practice tests I could have easily scored anywhere from a 522 to a 528 depending on the given test and how I performed that day. Any analysis comparing numbers that close seems pointless but interesting nonetheless

 

[DubbiDoctor]

Definitely agree on the cultural aspect. Coming from a large university with lots of pre-meds who have never heard of SDN there's definitely a correlation between competitiveness of an applicant and their activity on or even knowledge of this site. I would not be surprised if this trend has exaggerated over the years leading to greater reporting of high stats. Regardless, I would hardly believe adcoms would even consider a difference between a 523 and a 527 or an old 41 (if those are even still valid?) seeing as how they are all 100th percentile. I scored a 526, but based on practice tests I could have easily scored anywhere from a 522 to a 528 depending on the given test and how I performed that day. Any analysis comparing numbers that close seems pointless but interesting nonetheless

I haven't seen a data set showing how raw scores correspond to scaled scores, but I assume at the high end, very small differences in raw scores lead to major differences in scaled scores. Whereas, you may need to get quite a few questions wrong to drop from a 126 to a 125 in any section. What separates 132s from 131s and 130s therefore is a more of a matter of luck - since if you do enough questions you're bound to get at least a couple wrong. And since to score a in the high 520s you need to be lucky - or extraordinarily skilled - enough to score a 132 several times, while doing no worse than 131 or 130 in any section. It's no wonder so few people achieve it. I applaud you on your score.

 

[efle]

Assuming no major test revisions, what if if the prior year cohort to which you're compared scores significantly better than that of 10 years ago? In such a scenario, say a scaled score corresponding to the 80th percentile 10 years ago corresponds to the 65th percentile when compared to the previous year cohort. Would the scaled score you receive - 472-528 - correspond to the scaled score historically corresponding to the 80th percentile or the 65th percentile? Based on what you said, the score you receive would correspond to the 65th percentile - around a 504. But that 504 would not demonstrate the same level of mastery as a 504 of 10 years ago - but rather a 511.

This is avoided by constantly moving the cohorts together. As an example the 2012 testers get compared to how 2010-2011 did on those same passages (passages and questions get shuffled so no two exams are identical, but do get re-used across years). Then in 2014, testers get compared to 2012-2013. The fact that we see minor percentile changes means there is some difference between cohorts every year, but in this system the gap between groups would never be as big as 15 percentile points.

Definitely agree on the cultural aspect. Coming from a large university with lots of pre-meds who have never heard of SDN there's definitely a correlation between competitiveness of an applicant and their activity on or even knowledge of this site. I would not be surprised if this trend has exaggerated over the years leading to greater reporting of high stats. Regardless, I would hardly believe adcoms would even consider a difference between a 523 and a 527 or an old 41 (if those are even still valid?) seeing as how they are all 100th percentile. I scored a 526, but based on practice tests I could have easily scored anywhere from a 522 to a 528 depending on the given test and how I performed that day. Any analysis comparing numbers that close seems pointless but interesting nonetheless

I agree on that, there's no way admissions cares about the high end differences, I think the distribution up at that high end falls out naturally. Schools that used to have 90th percentile admits at 40 (e.g. Columbia) had it at 525 in the first updated MSAR. I doubt anybody sat down and figured out 525 as the new target for top decile. Rather a similar number of Columbia-caliber apps naturally carried that rarity of score. For practical purposes anything 523+ is going to impress even the biggest stats-seeking schools. The entire 6-point span is all within the top 0.5% ffs!

 

[LizzyM]

At the same time, you are here asking about applying to top-20 caliber programs without research experience, and the fact still stands that your time invested in sports, though impressive, was spent by other applicants participating in productive research and bagging publications. Don't act surprised at which carries more weight in an application.

Don't act surprised when you discover that schools value diversity of experience and having a couple athletes in a sea of M1s with research experience is highly desirable.

 

[Saifa]

Don't act surprised when you discover that schools value diversity of experience and having a couple athletes in a sea of M1s with research experience is highly desirable.

Of course, this was more directed at OP's "frustration" for how their athletic history will be received when in actuality it'll probably be a great hook.

 

[efle]

I haven't seen a data set showing how raw scores correspond to scaled scores, but I assume at the high end, very small differences in raw scores lead to major differences in scaled scores. Whereas, you may need to get quite a few questions wrong to drop from a 126 to a 125 in any section. What separates 132s from 131s and 130s therefore is a more of a matter of luck - as if you do enough questions you're bound to get at least a couple wrong. And since to score a in the high 520s you need to be lucky - or extraordinarily skilled - enough to score a 132 several times, while doing no worse than 131 or 130 in any section. It's no wonder so few people achieve it. I applaud you on your score.

This is correct, they used to make raw to scaled data available on the old AAMC official exams. It used to often be the case that a single question wrong guaranteed you a drop from 15 --> 14, and another wrong guaranteed you a drop 14 --> 13, especially in Verbal. Scoring a 15 on one practice section and a 12 or 13 on another immediately afterwards was very frustrating. A single bad passage in one section could cut 3-4 points off your total score if you were way up near perfect.

They said the retest CI for the old MCAT was 66% within +/- 2, but I'm certain if you look just within the top percent range 38-45, swings of 4-5 points would be the norm.

 

[aldol16]

Don't act surprised when you discover that schools value diversity of experience and having a couple athletes in a sea of M1s with research experience is highly desirable.

I don't think anybody would dispute that a D1 athlete with research experience and great stats is a super competitive applicant. The issue is that being a D1 athlete doesn't make up for no research if you're applying for a research program and your application is all about how passionate you are about research.

 

[Saifa]

Thanks aldol, it isn't every day you get dragged by your favorite poster 🙄

 

[Goro]

edit for those just getting here:
general advice if you are in a similar position to me applying to t20 without research experience:
-a gap year or master's may be best option for you depending on your situation. It can help you in the long run past just getting into a top medical school and can help you ensure research is something you want
-you can't show a commitment to research with no experience so basically don't even try; just be honest that it's an opportunity that interests you but focus on the other positives of your app
-it is very possible to get into t20 schools without research but understand according to MSAR data you're gunning to be 1 of about 5 (or less) people in any given research oriented school's matriculation class. Apply broadly and of course don't count on t20 acceptances
-lastly, if possible try to find something small that shows research initiative to do before app season or as an update. something is better than nothing

original post:
I've seen a few different posts of people asking about their chances of getting into top research institutions without research experience, and this is something that will be applying to myself this coming cycle, so I would like to start a thread on advice anyone might have for selling yourself to research oriented schools without research. A little background info on me:

-83 LizzyM Non-URM with average EC's (about 300 hours clinical volunteer, 300 hours clinical work, and 100 hours non-clinical volunteer) but no research whatsoever.
-Applying to a variety of schools including quite a few top 20 research institutions

I have been interested in research throughout undergrad, and have tried multiple times to find a position that fits my schedule, but unfortunately varsity athletics always got in the way (40 hours/week all during prime lab time)

So if you were advising me or any applicant in my position who is interested in research but either A.) was unable to acquire a research position in undergrad or B.) Discovered an interest in research too late- how would you recommend they sell themselves to research minded schools, in PS, secondaries, or Interview?

tl;dr How do you do the impossible task of proving you are capable and committed to research if you have no experience?

I would advise you not to apply to the research powerhouses with an app like yours. If anything, they seem to like people with hundreds, if not thousands of clinical and/or service hours, at least based upon what successful SDNers have shared with me.

Agree with LizzyM that Admissions deans sure have a soft spot for athlete scholars though.