Lab Hopping?

[metallicsponge]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Would it be better to gain perspective by doing multiple rotations (all with fairly meaningful research resulting in posters/abstracts, but likely no publication) in different laboratories.

Two of these rotations would be with HHMI investigators, but b/c of their prestige and # of graduate students it would be near impossible to be on a publication.

--Or--

Would it be better do do 1 long-term commitment to a laboratory that results in posters, abstracts, and perhaps even a publication...


Personally, I feel that the former ("lab hopping") would help me more in later life, simply b/c I may not have the opportunity to work in HHMI labs later on and b/c I would see a variety of research. However, in terms of admissions, which would be looked at more favorably?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Would it be better to gain perspective by doing multiple rotations (all with fairly meaningful research resulting in posters/abstracts, but likely no publication) in different laboratories.

Or

Would it be better do do 1 long-term commitment to a laboratory that results in posters, abstracts, and perhaps even a publication...

Depends. I would usually say that second option is better. However, I know someone who did apparently a ton of hopping even from high school. Even though he didn't get any publications from them, he came into the MD/PhD knowing either theoretically or through experience TONS of different techniques. So that plus side of lab hopping would be that it gets you acquainted with different lab cultures and different techniques.

 

[GliaGirl]

I agree. #2 is probably better in terms of the experience you'll get, the perspective of how long science takes, and the recommendation you'll get. Then again, some programs ask for 2 research LORs, even though they will waive it if you only have worked in one lab.

#1 can be fine too, but you'll have to spin it right in your application to make sure they know you weren't kicked out of the labs for being annoying or something like that.

Whichever one you do, be able to write about it in your application and you'll be fine. Know that it's probably more impressive if you've taken active control in the planning and execution of a real experiment, instead of following around a hundred grad students and learning 1000 techniques that you've never seen used throughout an entire project.

 

[ParabolaMDPHd]

Yea i went with option two and I don't regret it. In my experience, to become really proficient in alot of technqiues, you need to spend a decent amount of time doing them to understand them and to do them well. So if you lap hop to a variety of labs you may be ABLE to do certain techniques, but you may not be able to do them well. Then again, it might all depend on what the school likes to see so who knows