Is Research Experience necessary to get into DOs?

[Robin-jay]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I suppose it all comes down to what people individually value, and I think your personal pursuit sounds great; but I'm curious, why not MD-PhD?

Edit: Well I guess I know, you wanted to use it as a preparing for med-school type of thing? A lot of people would say that's not necessary, and I would agree, of course, it's not necessary, but if that's something you felt was personally enriching/fulfilling then nobody has the right, med-student or not, to disparage that. And before anyone can say "well, what do you know, you're not accepted into medical school." I'll reference a quote by the Director of Admissions at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine:
"One of the trends we've noticed is our applicant pool is becoming more interdisciplinary, in all senses of that word, we have students that . . . want to do different things, like they might want to work in the business sector for a little bit (lists other things not "directly" related to medicine) . . . who want to accomplish a lot of things . . . We really do value those students that have that diversity."
I will say though, I definitely, am not going to grad school (of any kind) before medical school if I don't have to!

I want to be the best doctor I can possibly be, and to me, that means after I learned how to undergo research, etc. in graduate school, now it benefits me to solely focus on becoming a physician, although I didn't look into the MD/PhD programs well enough to really comment. I have my heart on becoming solely a physician at this point, not despite my research, and extracurriculars I've participated in, but because of them.

 

[MADD!!!]

The adcoms in pre-allo have stated that the applicant emphasis on research far exceeds the reality of what adcoms expect. It's become one of those things that everyone has so it is no longer valuable unless you have a pub or something unique like that. Not having research really isn't a killer like the people in pre-allo make it out to be.

Caveat: this is obviously school dependent as some schools require it. Many low-mid tier or state schools don't care all that much.

Research is imperative I think, especially when applying OOS and for MD schools. For DO it doesn't matter, but for MD it does heavily. I have friends with less than 30 mcat scores get into great MD programs BECAUSE they had pubs while others with great stats and no pubs didn't even get interviews.

An AdCom from a California MD school told me she looks for it, especially if you went to a university that offers it. If you went to a small town liberal arts college and it was inaccessible, they'd be more understanding than if you go to like UCLA where there's vast opportunities and in their eyes "you didn't take advantage of it." (When in reality it's so hard to get research at some places due to funding cuts for research and many pre-Neda vying for spots).

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Research is imperative I think, especially when applying OOS and for MD schools. For DO it doesn't matter, but for MD it does heavily. I have friends with less than 30 mcat scores get into great MD programs BECAUSE they had pubs while others with great stats and no pubs didn't even get interviews.

An AdCom from a California MD school told me she looks for it, especially if you went to a university that offers it. If you went to a small town liberal arts college and it was inaccessible, they'd be more understanding than if you go to like UCLA where there's vast opportunities and in their eyes "you didn't take advantage of it." (When in reality it's so hard to get research at some places due to funding cuts for research and many pre-Neda vying for spots).

The problem is that I have anecdotes that show the opposite so anecdotes don't mean much. There are definitely schools that look for research and there are schools that will reward a good research profile, but if you look at surveys research importance is pretty low on the list.

That is unrelated to the argument that research somehow makes someone a better clinician or medical student.

 

[edgerock24]

I personally believe medical school students should at MINIMUM have a masters degree in a hard science.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Lol yeah that was my response too

 

[Doc_Ock]

Gonna drop in with my two cents. Third time re-app, finally accepted. Essentially got to do a within-subject ABC experiment playing around with my app and 10 interviews so I think I have a pretty good grasp of what sells and what doesn't.
First and foremost, it's MOST important at MD/PhD (and I think there's only one or two DO/PhD programs) since obviously a PhD will have a strong research component. If this is your goal, yes, Research is absolutely a necessity.
When I first applied I had a LOT of research experience (close to 2,000 hours). Obviously I didn't get in, so there's that, and during my interviews it was rarely discussed. The next cycle I got more clinical/patient experience shadowing and scribing, and the interviewers were definitely more interested than that. While my research would occasionally come up, it simply didn't generate much interest.
For this cycle I increased my clinical/volunteering hours even more and I just got accepted to UNECOM. They never even mentioned the research in my interview. Not once. What they did talk about was volunteering and working with physicians and patients. THAT is what they cared about. I'm sure there's a few adcoms here and there it will resonate with, but if you aggregate the odds aren't very high.
Regarding the importance of shadowing, it can be very helpful for determining if medicine is right for you, and of course if you can find a doc in the area you want to practice then even better. My experience is that shadowing entirely depend on the doc. I've been a fly on the wall who the doctor barely spoke with, and I shadowed an AMAZING pediatric anesthesiologist who was unbelievably helpful.
I'd love to know where this "After 40 hours they don't care" notion is coming from. I've spoken with multiple adcoms and never heard anything like that.
Of course, you get a "shadowing" experience (i.e. working under/with a doctor) in a variety of ways without technically "shadowing" by scribing, volunteering, being a CNA, etc. If you have a ton of scribing hours like I do but zero shadowing hours it wouldn't matter. But if you only have 40 shadowing hours and nothing else of any kind you better have a 3.9 and 513.
Regarding research being forced upon applicant.... what? The overwhelming majority will not do research, and for them it will offer no benefit. Keep in mind I worked on two research projects in undergrad and currently research tuberculosis treatments. I'm no stranger to a lab. But others are right; you really only learn what's put in front of you (I could do a western blot in my sleep at this point). The only kinds of opporunities that are offered to pre-meds in a lab is just bench-work. Yeah you can learn a little about the science of whatever you're studying but it will be REALLY specific to that. This notion of learning some intangible knowledge about research is really only required at the PhD/post-doc level, which is both impractical and unnecessary for pre-meds to do.

 

[edgerock24]

Gonna drop in with my two cents. Third time re-app, finally accepted. Essentially got to do a within-subject ABC experiment playing around with my app and 10 interviews so I think I have a pretty good grasp of what sells and what doesn't.
First and foremost, it's MOST important at MD/PhD (and I think there's only one or two DO/PhD programs) since obviously a PhD will have a strong research component. If this is your goal, yes, Research is absolutely a necessity.
When I first applied I had a LOT of research experience (close to 2,000 hours). Obviously I didn't get in, so there's that, and during my interviews it was rarely discussed. The next cycle I got more clinical/patient experience shadowing and scribing, and the interviewers were definitely more interested than that. While my research would occasionally come up, it simply didn't generate much interest.
For this cycle I increased my clinical/volunteering hours even more and I just got accepted to UNECOM. They never even mentioned the research in my interview. Not once. What they did talk about was volunteering and working with physicians and patients. THAT is what they cared about. I'm sure there's a few adcoms here and there it will resonate with, but if you aggregate the odds aren't very high.
Regarding the importance of shadowing, it can be very helpful for determining if medicine is right for you, and of course if you can find a doc in the area you want to practice then even better. My experience is that shadowing entirely depend on the doc. I've been a fly on the wall who the doctor barely spoke with, and I shadowed an AMAZING pediatric anesthesiologist who was unbelievably helpful.
I'd love to know where this "After 40 hours they don't care" notion is coming from. I've spoken with multiple adcoms and never heard anything like that.
Of course, you get a "shadowing" experience (i.e. working under/with a doctor) in a variety of ways without technically "shadowing" by scribing, volunteering, being a CNA, etc. If you have a ton of scribing hours like I do but zero shadowing hours it wouldn't matter. But if you only have 40 shadowing hours and nothing else of any kind you better have a 3.9 and 513.
Regarding research being forced upon applicant.... what? The overwhelming majority will not do research, and for them it will offer no benefit. Keep in mind I worked on two research projects in undergrad and currently research tuberculosis treatments. I'm no stranger to a lab. But others are right; you really only learn what's put in front of you (I could do a western blot in my sleep at this point). The only kinds of opporunities that are offered to pre-meds in a lab is just bench-work. Yeah you can learn a little about the science of whatever you're studying but it will be REALLY specific to that. This notion of learning some intangible knowledge about research is really only required at the PhD/post-doc level, which is both impractical and unnecessary for pre-meds to do.

Yeah, same here. Haven't been asked about my research once.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

But if you only have 40 shadowing hours and nothing else

And that wasn't my meaning when I said that. That poster suggested to get shadowing hours up to 100 or more just for the sake of not "doing the minimum" and my point was that there are much better things to be adding to an application than more shadowing hours. Your example of scribing is an excellent example.

Regarding research being forced upon applicant.... what? The overwhelming majority will not do research, and for them it will offer no benefit. Keep in mind I worked on two research projects in undergrad and currently research tuberculosis treatments. I'm no stranger to a lab. But others are right; you really only learn what's put in front of you (I could do a western blot in my sleep at this point). The only kinds of opporunities that are offered to pre-meds in a lab is just bench-work. Yeah you can learn a little about the science of whatever you're studying but it will be REALLY specific to that. This notion of learning some intangible knowledge about research is really only required at the PhD/post-doc level, which is both impractical and unnecessary for pre-meds to do.

On point.

 

[Betabet]

Most DO schools don't value research. That's why it's hardly ever brought up. Most of my physician professors, the DOs in particular ( and the non-PhDs) have never done research in their life. Why would they care about research if they've never done it lol.

 

[MADD!!!]

The problem is that I have anecdotes that show the opposite so anecdotes don't mean much. There are definitely schools that look for research and there are schools that will reward a good research profile, but if you look at surveys research importance is pretty low on the list.

That is unrelated to the argument that research somehow makes someone a better clinician or medical student.

When you say research though are you talking someone with pubs or just research hours. Sad truth is you could be working in a lab for 3 years with x thousand hours under your belt while applicant B was in it for 6 months and they got their name on the paper and applicant B gets more credit.

When I say research I mean pubs specifically (poster presentations gets you something but just research alone without any outcome from it I don't think yields much).

Also I'm talking MD schools only. DO doesn't care overall.

 

[Robin-jay]

On the primary AACOMAS application, they ask for presentations, and on AMCAS they ask for publications.

What better way to prove you can work in a medical school lab than doing research before that point?

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

When I say research I mean pubs specifically (poster presentations gets you something but just research alone without any outcome from it I don't think yields much).

Yes pubs can greatly boost an app, they are nowhere near a requirement for MD admission though. Actual publications are very unique.

 

[ReapPremed]

When you say research is not not useful for medial school, @AnatomyGrey12 are you referring more to "hard" laboratory skills like PCR or gels, or "soft" skills like hypothetico-deductive reasoning, or both?

I learned a lot from publishing a paper. No idea if it will make me a better clinician. We get a lot of SMP students in our lab and they're indistinguishable from the undergrads. Some are even less responsible. Or old and crafty enough to know med school is their goal and they can slack off and still call it a semester of research.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

When you say research is not not useful for medial school, @AnatomyGrey12 are you referring more to "hard" laboratory skills like PCR or gels, or "soft" skills like hypothetico-deductive reasoning, or both?

I learned a lot from publishing a paper. No idea if it will make me a better clinician. We get a lot of SMP students in our lab and they're indistinguishable from the undergrads. Some are even less responsible. Or old and crafty enough to know med school is their goal and they can slack off and still call it a semester of research.

I'm talking about the type of research that is commonly found in pre-med apps. You publishing a paper is very valuable and yeah probably won't help you as a clinician but will help when you go to publish in med school (some specialties basically require research).

The overall point is that very few pre-meds actually know how to do real research, and even if they did it's not something that would help them be a good clinician, or prove their interest in the sciences. I was not debating the merits of knowing how to do research, I was fully opposing the notion that research is something that should be required of med students because "they should have a deep understanding of science" or some other BS.

The truth is that most undergraduate research experiences, even those with 100s of hours, are fluff and completely meaningless. Very few applicants actually have substantial research or actual publications.

 

[Robin-jay]

If you're a terrible researcher, then the research you do is fluff and meaningless (I'd say 80% of people that went through my research lab were just not doing research correctly at all). If you actually spend time learning your adviser's research, you can excel with incredible problem-solving skills, and a great work ethic.

Also, publications shouldn't matter as much as they do. I do have publications, but many of my colleagues didn't, or at least didn't for several years after they graduated, because their specific research may be uniquely terrible for mass publications.

For example, I know a guy doing synthetic organic synthesis whose main focus was "total synthesis". This means he either does it or doesn't, there's no middle man for this one. Most publications in a organic chemistry lab are optimizing reactions, which is different than total synthesis, and easier to have more publications. This "total synthesis" researcher will either hit it big or go home. 10,000 hours may not even give this guy a publication.

I believe analytical chemists have it the easiest for publications.

 

[freeandtime_23]

Hey everyone. OP here.
I appeared to have started a heated battle on some things extending way beyond whether I simply needed research.
I've only come here as a last resort after asking professors and premed advisors.
But I'm also seeing more of my fellow premeds at school doing more research and maybe, at minimum, a summer of volunteering at a hospital in the city.
I've even had a friend tell me to quit volunteering and just do research as she didn't even have any clinical volunteering whatsoever.
I guess I just felt lost- I got involved in wet lab research and really forced myself to like something I didn't even like, and because the hours were insane (25-30 in a week- I know it's nothing for most undergrads but I was taking 4 science classes at the time), so I dropped volunteering until I realized that the lab was basically grooming me to be their lab technician in a few years and eventually get a PhD.

For those of you who loved researching and can't imagine a better undergraduate experience without it- I was really interested and even happy in what you had to say. The thing is, I tried and I couldn't fake it till I made it.

As someone who's an actual medical student instead of a premed pulling your chain, I will give you some real advices that will get you to your goal:

1) Your gpa is average, so that's good enough
2) Aim for at least a 504-505+ on your MCAT
3) Get 20 hrs of shadowing from one DO and another 20 hrs of shadowing from another physician
4) Have a cool EC that you can talk about

Research experience doesn't mean crap unless you're gunning for a top 15-20 MD school. If you are that kind of person, you better have 3.7+ gpa and sgpa and a 510+ MCAT min.

I'm wondering if I should only take one glide year and apply for just DOs, or take two glide years, take some advanced upper electives at my local state school while working as a scribe and volunteering and stuff. My job after graduation is basically working as a medical scribe and possibly my old retail job from high school (seems bleak, ain't it so?). I didn't intend for this to happen- I wanted to go straight out of undergrad, but I had to compensate for a low gpa early on in college and now I'm really regretting everything.

I don't really have a cool EC unfortunately- I really suffered from lack of ECs after coming back from study abroad and realizing that the old club I was in went completely defunct. I'm more concerned if I should take 2 gap years in order to compensate for lack of ECs, but I've been on this forum enough that you can't really compensate for what was lost in college- in fact, med school isn't even an option for people like me.

Anyways, I'm studying for the MCAT, already did shadowing, and I'm continuing with clinical experience but I might add a year of volunteering for a political campaign and working as a service coordinator. I'm just wondering if I should still try and find some sort of clinical research if I plan to take 2 gap years (even though I really don't want to, but as a weak applicant, it's an overall cost I shouldn't have to think twice about).

Thanks to everyone 🙂

 

[Robin-jay]

To the OP, I'm the type of person that believes that if med school is really what you want to do with your life, then you try until you can't try anymore.

If you have to take 7 MCATS to get into medical school, then by golly gee, take 7 MCATS.

If you work full time, then shadow physicians, study the MCAT, volunteer clinically and non-clinically outside of that measly 40 hours of work.

If there's no way you can do research, then do EVERYTHING else until that's the last thing on your list, then either try to apply without it, or find a way to earn it (I agree this is difficult without research experience in undergrad. to suddenly obtain a research position).

I think the reason there's such a debate is simply because there's so many different views on the subject. The admissions committees are people too. An admission committee member that spent a few thousand hours doing research, or is simply impressed with the notion of doing research, may have more of a liking to people with research.

However, on the flip side, you have admission committee members that just don't see it as that important, and may really enjoy your volunteering or other aspects of your ECs.

My only criticism OP, is that you said you "couldn't fake it till you make it". You should do whatever it takes to be a physician if you love it. You don't have to like the ECs you do. You should just do them.

At the end of the day, its just a lot easier to have ALL research, clinical, and volunteering experiences when applying.

If you want to be a doctor, you'll be a doctor.

Again, these are just my opinions.

 

[freeandtime_23]

To the OP, I'm the type of person that believes that if med school is really what you want to do with your life, then you try until you can't try anymore.

If you have to take 7 MCATS to get into medical school, then by golly gee, take 7 MCATS.

If you work full time, then shadow physicians, study the MCAT, volunteer clinically and non-clinically outside of that measly 40 hours of work.

If there's no way you can do research, then do EVERYTHING else until that's the last thing on your list, then either try to apply without it, or find a way to earn it (I agree this is difficult without research experience in undergrad. to suddenly obtain a research position).

I think the reason there's such a debate is simply because there's so many different views on the subject. The admissions committees are people too. An admission committee member that spent a few thousand hours doing research, or is simply impressed with the notion of doing research, may have more of a liking to people with research.

However, on the flip side, you have admission committee members that just don't see it as that important, and may really enjoy your volunteering or other aspects of your ECs.

My only criticism OP, is that you said you "couldn't fake it till you make it". You should do whatever it takes to be a physician if you love it. You don't have to like the ECs you do. You should just do them.

At the end of the day, its just a lot easier to have ALL research, clinical, and volunteering experiences when applying.

If you want to be a doctor, you'll be a doctor.

Again, these are just my opinions.

Well said! Thank you for your advice!
It is definitely hard to look for research with little undergrad research experience. I'll try my hand at least in clinical or public health research next semester. But I do completely agree that we need to do as much as we can, with the maximum effort into these activities as possible, all while maintaining a good GPA and getting a good MCAT- that's what makes a competitive applicant. Thanks again 🙂 This thread and all the replies have given me guidance on how I should shape the next few years to polish my application. Gracias!

 

[Robin-jay]

Best of luck OP!

 

[freeandtime_23]

Gonna drop in with my two cents. Third time re-app, finally accepted. Essentially got to do a within-subject ABC experiment playing around with my app and 10 interviews so I think I have a pretty good grasp of what sells and what doesn't.
First and foremost, it's MOST important at MD/PhD (and I think there's only one or two DO/PhD programs) since obviously a PhD will have a strong research component. If this is your goal, yes, Research is absolutely a necessity.
When I first applied I had a LOT of research experience (close to 2,000 hours). Obviously I didn't get in, so there's that, and during my interviews it was rarely discussed. The next cycle I got more clinical/patient experience shadowing and scribing, and the interviewers were definitely more interested than that. While my research would occasionally come up, it simply didn't generate much interest.
For this cycle I increased my clinical/volunteering hours even more and I just got accepted to UNECOM. They never even mentioned the research in my interview. Not once. What they did talk about was volunteering and working with physicians and patients. THAT is what they cared about. I'm sure there's a few adcoms here and there it will resonate with, but if you aggregate the odds aren't very high.
Regarding the importance of shadowing, it can be very helpful for determining if medicine is right for you, and of course if you can find a doc in the area you want to practice then even better. My experience is that shadowing entirely depend on the doc. I've been a fly on the wall who the doctor barely spoke with, and I shadowed an AMAZING pediatric anesthesiologist who was unbelievably helpful.
I'd love to know where this "After 40 hours they don't care" notion is coming from. I've spoken with multiple adcoms and never heard anything like that.
Of course, you get a "shadowing" experience (i.e. working under/with a doctor) in a variety of ways without technically "shadowing" by scribing, volunteering, being a CNA, etc. If you have a ton of scribing hours like I do but zero shadowing hours it wouldn't matter. But if you only have 40 shadowing hours and nothing else of any kind you better have a 3.9 and 513.
Regarding research being forced upon applicant.... what? The overwhelming majority will not do research, and for them it will offer no benefit. Keep in mind I worked on two research projects in undergrad and currently research tuberculosis treatments. I'm no stranger to a lab. But others are right; you really only learn what's put in front of you (I could do a western blot in my sleep at this point). The only kinds of opporunities that are offered to pre-meds in a lab is just bench-work. Yeah you can learn a little about the science of whatever you're studying but it will be REALLY specific to that. This notion of learning some intangible knowledge about research is really only required at the PhD/post-doc level, which is both impractical and unnecessary for pre-meds to do.

Sorry for the extremely late reply. I just wanted a first hand perspective of what it was going through the application cycle. Congrats on the acceptance 🙂!
I do think I should shadow a bit more- I'm just wondering if some physicians would allow a first-semester senior to shadow them (they tend to like really young people).

I wish I specified in my original question that I wasn't aiming for an MD/PhD, or a top 20 MD. I'm aiming primarily for DOs and if possible, low-tier MDs. I'm also thinking of working as a scribe after college, but continuing non-clinical volunteering/clinical volunteering in another field.

And for the specific statement you made about research, I never even though of it in that way. I always felt bad about being the basically the only undergrad in my biology major (well there's a few more like me) who isn't an undergrad researcher. My advisor told me you absolutely NEED research to get into medical school for a few years, which led me to 6 months of finding a lab after I quit my old lab and getting nowhere with that. I just didn't realize mostly premeds at NYU are aspiring for MD/PhD- some students I talked to dropped premed and are now applying to PhD programs because, with hours of research and even a few pubs under the belt, their motivations have changed.

Anyways, sorry for the long ramble, but thank you for giving some personal insight on how you went through application cycles initially as an undergraduate researcher pre-med to one that eventually gained probably 1000s of clinical volunteering. Out of curiosity-during those gap years, did you work at the lab as a lab tech/research scientist, or did you devote your time to improving your clinical experience- or a little bit of both?

 

[Doc_Ock]

Sorry for the extremely late reply. I just wanted a first hand perspective of what it was going through the application cycle. Congrats on the acceptance 🙂!
I do think I should shadow a bit more- I'm just wondering if some physicians would allow a first-semester senior to shadow them (they tend to like really young people).

I wish I specified in my original question that I wasn't aiming for an MD/PhD, or a top 20 MD. I'm aiming primarily for DOs and if possible, low-tier MDs. I'm also thinking of working as a scribe after college, but continuing non-clinical volunteering/clinical volunteering in another field.

And for the specific statement you made about research, I never even though of it in that way. I always felt bad about being the basically the only undergrad in my biology major (well there's a few more like me) who isn't an undergrad researcher. My advisor told me you absolutely NEED research to get into medical school for a few years, which led me to 6 months of finding a lab after I quit my old lab and getting nowhere with that. I just didn't realize mostly premeds at NYU are aspiring for MD/PhD- some students I talked to dropped premed and are now applying to PhD programs because, with hours of research and even a few pubs under the belt, their motivations have changed.

Anyways, sorry for the long ramble, but thank you for giving some personal insight on how you went through application cycles initially as an undergraduate researcher pre-med to one that eventually gained probably 1000s of clinical volunteering. Out of curiosity-during those gap years, did you work at the lab as a lab tech/research scientist, or did you devote your time to improving your clinical experience- or a little bit of both?

Your advisor is full of s***. 98% of them are a waste of space. Think about it, they never even went through the process, so how would they know a thing about it. I was told the exact same thing, it did f***-all for me.
Physicians don't care how old you are, I knew several who had already graduated. All they care about is how well you can do your job. I'd drop the non-clinical volunteering personally. It really should be medically related somehow. Plenty of hospitals and nursing homes will take you. Dunno if you need to retake your MCAT, but if you do keep that time allotment in mind.
During gap time I got clinical work/volunteering experience, my research was done as an undergrad. I'm in an SMP now which is where is where I do the TB research (but again, it didn't matter in my interview).

 

[Goro]

Out of curiosity, would DO interview panels be semi-worrisome if an applicant had minimal clinical exposure but significant research experience?

At my school, we reject people who have too few clinical experience hours. And so do MD schools.
Here's the rationale:
You need to show AdComs that you know what you're getting into, and show off your altruistic, humanistic side. We need to know that you're going to like being around sick or injured people for the next 40 years.

Here's another way of looking at it: would you buy a new car without test driving it? Buy a new suit or dress without trying it on??

We're also not looking for merely for good medical students, we're looking for people who will make good doctors, and 4.0 GPA robots are a dime-a-dozen. And we're certainly not looking for lab rats who want to do research and hate touching patients. That's what PhD programs are for.

I've seen plenty of posts here from high GPA/high MCAT candidates who were rejected because they had little patient contact experience.

My student interviewers are particularly harsh on low clinicians/high research interviewees.

 

[Doc_Ock]

I've seen plenty of posts here from high GPA/high MCAT candidates who were rejected because they had little patient contact experience.

My student interviewers are particularly harsh on low clinicians/high research interviewees.[/QUOTE]

Aww, I get the rationale but that seems unfair. Like someone else said (which I also experienced) many pre-meds have research hyped up to them an insane amount, and since time is limited can come at the expense of clinical experiences. It's not until we get to the interviews we realize we were duped.

 

[MountainClimber94]

At my school, we reject people who have too few clinical experience hours. And so do MD schools.
Here's the rationale:
You need to show AdComs that you know what you're getting into, and show off your altruistic, humanistic side. We need to know that you're going to like being around sick or injured people for the next 40 years.

Here's another way of looking at it: would you buy a new car without test driving it? Buy a new suit or dress without trying it on??

We're also not looking for merely for good medical students, we're looking for people who will make good doctors, and 4.0 GPA robots are a dime-a-dozen. And we're certainly not looking for lab rats who want to do research and hate touching patients. That's what PhD programs are for.

I've seen plenty of posts here from high GPA/high MCAT candidates who were rejected because they had little patient contact experience.

My student interviewers are particularly harsh on low clinicians/high research interviewees.

Thank you for your insight @Goro! Recently, I was able to gain a volunteer position at a local surgical heart hospital. I am putting in 10 hours/week this semester. At this point in time I have ~150 clinical volunteer hours and ~100 non-clinical volunteer hours. I don't know what is considered "safe". Hence why I think 150 clinical volunteer hours is minimal. My worry is that my research experience (2 summer internships, peds public health research, currently in a MS (thesis)) will dwarf my volunteer hours.

 

[MADD!!!]

Like everything else, moderation is key. I've seen a medical schools ranking list and it's literally a checklist. Ex. You get a score of 1-5 for clinical hrs/experience, 1-5 for research, etc. if the max is like 300 hrs for clinical experience, whether you had 305 or 2,000 hrs they just give you full points and move to the next criteria. It's the most objective way to do it... hence, be WELL ROUNDED.

 

[MareNostrummm]

I'm adding a couple DO schools to my application. Will it negatively impact my chances at DO schools if my personal statement mentions that I want to be involved in clinical research as a physician, due to my past experiences with research? ( I already have 800+ hours of volunteering and 1600+ hours of working as a medical scribe). @Goro

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

It's the most objective way to do it... hence, be WELL ROUNDED.

Interestingly enough I actually disagree with this and think it is a common misconception. Schools actually don't want well rounded people, they want a well rounded class. If you don't stand out in any one area then I've seen adcoms completely say, "well yeah she/he checks the boxes but what does she/he add to the class?" I would rather have 2000+ hours of clinical or volunteering and maybe a few shadowing hours, tiny bit of respect, etc, than have 100-200 hours in every category (for DO schools obviously).

This is where doing research into schools becomes imperative IMO. For DO schools for example, in every interview I had my clinical experience was talked about heavily, and my friend's interviews at high ranked MD schools focused way more on their research and academics. Applicants should really do their research and apply to schools where their application fits the profile of what they are looking for in a class, and they should also build their application and ECs with the types of schools they are aiming for in mind. Obviously assuming the proper academic profile for schools as well.

 

[Goro]

I'm adding a couple DO schools to my application. Will it negatively impact my chances at DO schools if my personal statement mentions that I want to be involved in clinical research as a physician, due to my past experiences with research? ( I already have 800+ hours of volunteering and 1600+ hours of working as a medical scribe). @Goro

I think that this will be OK if you have a decent amount of evidence showing off your altruism.

Interestingly enough I actually disagree with this and think it is a common misconception. Schools actually don't want well rounded people, they want a well rounded class. If you don't stand out in any one area then I've seen adcoms completely say, "well yeah she/he checks the boxes but what does she/he add to the class?" I would rather have 2000+ hours of clinical or volunteering and maybe a few shadowing hours, tiny bit of respect, etc, than have 100-200 hours in every category (for DO schools obviously).

This is where doing research into schools becomes imperative IMO. For DO schools for example, in every interview I had my clinical experience was talked about heavily, and my friend's interviews at high ranked MD schools focused way more on their research and academics. Applicants should really do their research and apply to schools where their application fits the profile of what they are looking for in a class, and they should also build their application and ECs with the types of schools they are aiming for in mind. Obviously assuming the proper academic profile for schools as well.

What we're really looking for are people who have the required competencies, especially those in humanistic domains.

 

[MADD!!!]

Interestingly enough I actually disagree with this and think it is a common misconception. Schools actually don't want well rounded people, they want a well rounded class. If you don't stand out in any one area then I've seen adcoms completely say, "well yeah she/he checks the boxes but what does she/he add to the class?" I would rather have 2000+ hours of clinical or volunteering and maybe a few shadowing hours, tiny bit of respect, etc, than have 100-200 hours in every category (for DO schools obviously).

This is where doing research into schools becomes imperative IMO. For DO schools for example, in every interview I had my clinical experience was talked about heavily, and my friend's interviews at high ranked MD schools focused way more on their research and academics. Applicants should really do their research and apply to schools where their application fits the profile of what they are looking for in a class, and they should also build their application and ECs with the types of schools they are aiming for in mind. Obviously assuming the proper academic profile for schools as well.

I dunno it worked for me. I think what made me stick out is my personal hobbies and interests outside of medicine...

 

[Doc_Ock]

I dunno it worked for me. I think what made me stick out is my personal hobbies and interests outside of medicine...

It's ok to "specialize" in one area (i.e. have a lot of one or two things in particular), but doing that at the cost of the rest of your app is a dangerous gamble.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

but doing that at the cost of the rest of your app is a dangerous gamble.

Yeah and that's not what I meant so I'll clarify, you still have to have the stuff. Example, I had very few shadowing hours, ok research, decent volunteering, but I had a few thousand hours of clinical exposure. That's what came up in every interview. A lot of my classmates had something similar on their app that stood out, and collectively we have a ton of experience in different areas. I guess my point is against box checking, and every applicant I knew that used the term "well rounded" to describe their app just meant that they had a little bit of everything and all the boxes checked

 

[Doc_Ock]

Yeah and that's not what I meant so I'll clarify, you still have to have the stuff. Example, I had very few shadowing hours, ok research, decent volunteering, but I had a few thousand hours of clinical exposure. That's what came up in every interview. A lot of my classmates had something similar on their app that stood out, and collectively we have a ton of experience in different areas. I guess my point is against box checking, and every applicant I knew that used the term "well rounded" to describe their app just meant that they had a little bit of everything and all the boxes checked

Was addressing MADD not you but ok.

 

[freeandtime_23]

I've seen plenty of posts here from high GPA/high MCAT candidates who were rejected because they had little patient contact experience.

My student interviewers are particularly harsh on low clinicians/high research interviewees.

Aww, I get the rationale but that seems unfair. Like someone else said (which I also experienced) many pre-meds have research hyped up to them an insane amount, and since time is limited can come at the expense of clinical experiences. It's not until we get to the interviews we realize we were duped.[/QUOTE]

I also think it's the school you go to and the environment you're in. I'm surrounded by premeds who mostly research. They apply for ou

At my school, we reject people who have too few clinical experience hours. And so do MD schools.
Here's the rationale:
You need to show AdComs that you know what you're getting into, and show off your altruistic, humanistic side. We need to know that you're going to like being around sick or injured people for the next 40 years.

Here's another way of looking at it: would you buy a new car without test driving it? Buy a new suit or dress without trying it on??

We're also not looking for merely for good medical students, we're looking for people who will make good doctors, and 4.0 GPA robots are a dime-a-dozen. And we're certainly not looking for lab rats who want to do research and hate touching patients. That's what PhD programs are for.

I've seen plenty of posts here from high GPA/high MCAT candidates who were rejected because they had little patient contact experience.

My student interviewers are particularly harsh on low clinicians/high research interviewees.

I know in my mind that's true, but many of my fellow premeds have gotten accepted with at minimum, a summer of volunteering, and instead focused on research for 2-3 years. This is towards MD schools however, not DOs. I understand that Top 20 MD schools (and even my state school tbh) focus on a more research weighted undergrad experienc compared to even DO schools, or am I totally wrong? I mean, I've had some friends criticizing me for focusing too much on patient contact and volunteering (I honestly don't think a year is enough for me and I need more tbh). One person who interviewed me for a lab position happened to be on the admissions committee of NYU, and told me that they look at research more favorably than patient contact these days. Another person who was on a Physicians Panel that our school hosted graduated from Yale Medical school and said that during rotations, he happened to be one of the few people who actually had patient contact, and many had never even touched a patient before. In my mind, I know its wrong to accept a student with limited to none patient contact, but I'm also seeing people from my school getting interviews, and in prior years, even accepted, with maybe a summer of volunteering and that' s it. Because of that, I don't know if I should be gearing my gap years to getting research experience instead of patient contact.

 

[TheWolfOfMainStreet]

At risk of stating the obvious in this debate: you need lots of both for top MD schools and the requirements drop off somewhat as you head to newer DO schools before disappearing as you head to Caribbean diploma mills.

 

[Goro]

Aww, I get the rationale but that seems unfair. Like someone else said (which I also experienced) many pre-meds have research hyped up to them an insane amount, and since time is limited can come at the expense of clinical experiences. It's not until we get to the interviews we realize we were duped.

I also think it's the school you go to and the environment you're in. I'm surrounded by premeds who mostly research. They apply for ou


I know in my mind that's true, but many of my fellow premeds have gotten accepted with at minimum, a summer of volunteering, and instead focused on research for 2-3 years. This is towards MD schools however, not DOs. I understand that Top 20 MD schools (and even my state school tbh) focus on a more research weighted undergrad experienc compared to even DO schools, or am I totally wrong? I mean, I've had some friends criticizing me for focusing too much on patient contact and volunteering (I honestly don't think a year is enough for me and I need more tbh). One person who interviewed me for a lab position happened to be on the admissions committee of NYU, and told me that they look at research more favorably than patient contact these days. Another person who was on a Physicians Panel that our school hosted graduated from Yale Medical school and said that during rotations, he happened to be one of the few people who actually had patient contact, and many had never even touched a patient before. In my mind, I know its wrong to accept a student with limited to none patient contact, but I'm also seeing people from my school getting interviews, and in prior years, even accepted, with maybe a summer of volunteering and that' s it. Because of that, I don't know if I should be gearing my gap years to getting research experience instead of patient contact.[/QUOTE]
A) Life's not fair
B) Anyone considering a career that will require an investment of some $250-400K, and 7-10 years of schooling (that's post UG!) had damn well better do some research into what they're getting into. There's a difference between being duped, and being outright ignorant.

Med schools admissions websites are up front about what they want. An example is here: Admissions Recommendations - U of U School of Medicine - | University of Utah There are plenty of others. Yet I am appalled that people continually spend tons of hours in research, yet can't lift a finger to actually research what a med school wants out of an applicant.

C) Some schools are indeed stats ******; NYU is one of them...but they're in the minority.

 

[freeandtime_23]

I also think it's the school you go to and the environment you're in. I'm surrounded by premeds who mostly research. They apply for ou


I know in my mind that's true, but many of my fellow premeds have gotten accepted with at minimum, a summer of volunteering, and instead focused on research for 2-3 years. This is towards MD schools however, not DOs. I understand that Top 20 MD schools (and even my state school tbh) focus on a more research weighted undergrad experienc compared to even DO schools, or am I totally wrong? I mean, I've had some friends criticizing me for focusing too much on patient contact and volunteering (I honestly don't think a year is enough for me and I need more tbh). One person who interviewed me for a lab position happened to be on the admissions committee of NYU, and told me that they look at research more favorably than patient contact these days. Another person who was on a Physicians Panel that our school hosted graduated from Yale Medical school and said that during rotations, he happened to be one of the few people who actually had patient contact, and many had never even touched a patient before. In my mind, I know its wrong to accept a student with limited to none patient contact, but I'm also seeing people from my school getting interviews, and in prior years, even accepted, with maybe a summer of volunteering and that' s it. Because of that, I don't know if I should be gearing my gap years to getting research experience instead of patient contact.

A) Life's not fair
B) Anyone considering a career that will require an investment of some $250-400K, and 7-10 years of schooling (that's post UG!) had damn well better do some research into what they're getting into. There's a difference between being duped, and being outright ignorant.

Med schools admissions websites are up front about what they want. An example is here: Admissions Recommendations - U of U School of Medicine - | University of Utah There are plenty of others. Yet I am appalled that people continually spend tons of hours in research, yet can't lift a finger to actually research what a med school wants out of an applicant.

C) Some schools are indeed stats ******; NYU is one of them...but they're in the minority.[/QUOTE]


I guess I'm just the result of poor planning and lack of advising? I know MD school is totally out of the question, GPA wise and lack of research wise. I'm basically at a crossroads of what I should focus on during my gap years- scribing, volunteering, or try my best for research. But at that point I would be a non-trad. I want to be a doctor but I feel like whatever I do can't possibly get me to that point of even being ready to apply. I approach a professor for a lab position, he laughs at me for taking a gap year- taking two? That's horrendous. I'm thinking about selling some old possessions so I can afford my local state school's SMP program- but another something thousand dollars in debt?

TL;DR- I'm a first semester senior, my committee application is open next Sunday, I have no advising whatsoever, the only job I have planned for my gap years is being a scribe, no research/senior thesis whatsoever.
I just don't want to be applying for the 2019-2020 cycle and have my life on a gamble.
And I definitely don't want to gamble on the Caribbean med schools.

 

[Goro]

A) Life's not fair
B) Anyone considering a career that will require an investment of some $250-400K, and 7-10 years of schooling (that's post UG!) had damn well better do some research into what they're getting into. There's a difference between being duped, and being outright ignorant.

Med schools admissions websites are up front about what they want. An example is here: Admissions Recommendations - U of U School of Medicine - | University of Utah There are plenty of others. Yet I am appalled that people continually spend tons of hours in research, yet can't lift a finger to actually research what a med school wants out of an applicant.

C) Some schools are indeed stats ******; NYU is one of them...but they're in the minority.

I guess I'm just the result of poor planning and lack of advising? I know MD school is totally out of the question, GPA wise and lack of research wise. I'm basically at a crossroads of what I should focus on during my gap years- scribing, volunteering, or try my best for research. But at that point I would be a non-trad. I want to be a doctor but I feel like whatever I do can't possibly get me to that point of even being ready to apply. I approach a professor for a lab position, he laughs at me for taking a gap year- taking two? That's horrendous. I'm thinking about selling some old possessions so I can afford my local state school's SMP program- but another something thousand dollars in debt?

TL;DR- I'm a first semester senior, my committee application is open next Sunday, I have no advising whatsoever, the only job I have planned for my gap years is being a scribe, no research/senior thesis whatsoever.
I just don't want to be applying for the 2019-2020 cycle and have my life on a gamble.
And I definitely don't want to gamble on the Caribbean med schools.[/QUOTE]
You're in a marathon now, not a sprint. Med schools aren't going anywhere, and in fact, more will open their doors, or expand their class sizes, by the time you apply.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Nothing besides the prerequisites ate required. You choose where you make your application strong or weak

 

[futureDocDD]

It seems that you were in NYU or NYC area. Most med schools in NYC (NYU, Cornell, Columbia, Mt Sinai) and Yale are top ranked research MD schools (their high ranks come from high NIH funding they got), hence they ARE research-favored. For low-ranked state MD and DO schools, research is not that important (however, if you're NY in-state, Stony is heavy research because they want to move up the rank).

Your focus should be your MCAT + clinical + volunteering. DO NOT take MCAT until you *** consistently *** scores near 510 (or above) in practice tests.

 

[A88DO]

I was just accepted to a great DO school with absolutely 0 research experience. Just make sure every other aspect of your application makes up for it.

 

[freeandtime_23]

I guess (hopefully) this is the last time I post before I close this thread.

I'm lacking in ECs/leadership positions. I was planning to half-ass an application for a club I was barely committed to, but the time commitment was weighing on my MCAT studying time. Furthermore, my first two years of college are defined by, really, no clinical experience except shadowing a doctor and serving as a leader of one club. Because of this, I'm wondering- should I give up the whole dream to go to medical school?
I feel like when medical schools see a lackluster application then filled by 2 years of committed clinical experience. Also, for the sake of checking a box on an application, should I go ahead and still find a research position and do that for one year. I feel like my chances are very bleak, and two years might just be wasting time.

Regardless if no one replies- thank you to everyone! I tend to post on this every two years at the unfortunate time of me at a bad point in time. So maybe in the next two years I might have some good news?

 

[futureDocDD]

In your situation, scribing is much better than doing research since scribing counts towards clinical AND shadowing. Again, acing the MCAT is your top priority.