lack of research experience coming up in interviews

[cardsurgguy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey, here's a question for all of ya
I have no research experience. I will be graduating with a BS in Microbiology, so I have had lab experience needed for my major, but I mean I have no research experience in terms of any independent studies or work in a professor's lab on my own time (real research, not class)

To be blunt, this is the case because I hate research, utterly can't stand it. I'll allerigic to being in a lab...well, you get the point.

On the other hand, I love clinical medicine, and have wanted to be a cardiac surgeon since age 10, and haven't changed one bit and am now 22. I have tons of clinical experience including the following...

1.PCA (ie nursing assistant) on the Heart Transplant Unit 2 summers, then the Float Pool for 1 summer where I worked on various units such as the ER, MICU, SICU, PICU, and NICU, peds, and ortho. (3 summers total)

2.Heart Holder- OR job assisting with cardiac surgery by holding the heart while assisting with tools such as forceps, scissors, and sutures. (1 summer)

3.EMT-D-Volunteered on college EMT Group. (3 years)

Despite the fact that I have a huge amount of clinical experience, I am wondering if the lack of research will be a detriment to me in admissions and on an interview.

My question is---have any of you had lack of research be an issue or be looked at negatively in an interview? even though you have had a large amount of clinical experience?

Thanks

 

[MabdulD]

Some institutions, and I don't really know which ones, are characterized around these parts as "research-oriented".

I think it will be pretty clear to those schools that you're "allergic" to research. And it may hurt you there.

But if the rest of your app is strong, it should be enough to overcome that, and at a large majority of schools, it probably won't matter at all, considering how much clincial experience you have.

My complete lack of research has probably hurt me, and it has come up in interviews, but I don't have nearly the level of clinical stuff that you do. So I had nothing to compensate.

I've never heard of a heart holder. Sounds...odd.

 

[crazy250]

depends on the school. usually "top" schools like to see some kind of research. yes. it will hurt a little if you have zero research under your belt. if your goal is to just get into any med school, it doesn't matter as much.

 

[mlw03]

what year are you applying for? i'm going through this right now, so PM me and i can tell ya more.

as for a collective answer, i'll just say that i definately think lack of research has hurt my chances of getting into top tier schools. my stats have gotten me interviews, but so far i've only gotten into my state schools. this isn't a knock on them - the point is that the top schools are where they are largely due to research, and a solid education can be had outside the Harvards and Stanfords. so to sum up, you can definately get into an allopathic school without being a researcher, but penetrating the top tier will be not (but presumably not impossible - get back to me in late May).

 

[fuzzylogic]

it depends. it might hurt your chance getting an interview from top ranked research schools.

if you get an interview, just be prepared for questions regarding your lack of research experience.

clinical research? good luck to you.

 

[Adapt]

I have no research experience because I hate it like you. However, I do have much clinical experience. At my interviews, I was asked at only two schools why I didn't do research. Needless to say, I was waitlisted and rejected at those schools. The other schools didn't mention my lack of research experience.

I think if they interview you, they like what they see on your application. Just be ready to have an answer if they do ask why not any research. Many people do get in without any research experience.

 

[jlee9531]

my lack of science research kinda prevented me from applying to top research schools...and i think it is a reason why some schools did not want to give me a look...

however it has not stopped me from getting interviews to good medical schools and has not stopped me from getting acceptances. i have been asked about my lack of research at my interviews however but i said that i had no time to commit to research because i was already busy with class, work, and volunteering at multiple places...

you can just honestly tell them your reasons and im sure that they will be ok with it. so in the end...dont worry too much about it. you have other ECs that show your strong interest in clinical medicine. so its all good.

 

[scrabbler]

I've had one summer of research and made it pretty obvious that I hated it.

I've received interviews everywhere I applied.

I've gotten asked about lack of research experience and been honest about it at a place that's very research-focused, and I don't feel like it's affected me at all (accepted two weeks later). To my surprise, it hasn't come up at all during interviews at several big research schools like Harvard, Penn, Yale, etc. And I certainly don't have the clinical experience that you have. I wouldn't worry about it if the rest of your application is strong, but you also might think about doing some clinical research rather than bench research this summer if you are that concerned about it. PM me if you'd like details.

 

[pekq]

I might be wrong but for a competitive field such as cardiac surgery, you will need research experience to help get you a residency. Might as well start now.

 

[CalBeE]

Most top-ranked schools want many of its graduates to eventually involve in more than just clinical care (That need NOT be basic science research). Some are explicit about it but some are not. Research experience as undergrad sorta tell them your chance of being involved in it in med school and as a physician (Provided that the experience is not short-term and you have reasonable involvement)

Some people got interviews and acceptance in med schools w/o research experience, probably because they excelled in other areas. Often times, pre-med may think it's either research OR clinical care. However, there are more options than that. For example, strong involvement in social issues, health policy, health education, etc. can show the schools that you may be interested in those areas as well.

And even if you have research experience, you'll probably be asked the question, "Did you do research just b/c you are applying to med school, or you found it meaningful?" I got asked that question many times in my interviews.

 

[BigRedPingpong]

I think research is over-rated. Sure it could hurt if you apply to MSTP program at Uchi, but I've been to 4 interviews thus far and not a single on mentioned research. IMHO, if you lack clinical experiences, this would hurt you more since the bulk of my interview time was centered on discussion of these ECs.

 

[scrabbler]

Originally posted by BigRedPingpong
IMHO, if you lack clinical experiences, this would hurt you more since the bulk of my interview time was centered on discussion of these ECs.

While I agree that many people seem to think research experience is more important than it really is in this process, I don't think your reasoning in this last sentence makes sense. You spent more time talking about these ECs because you presumably spent a lot of time on these activities. Someone with a lot of research experience would probably discuss this aspect a lot during his interviews because he had been so involved with it.

 

[Amy B]

It won't be a problem at all, unless you apply to a school that really wants research on your application. I don't have any at all. It came up in one interview. Thye asked if I had any, I said "No, unfortunetly I never was able to fit it into my schedule." They nodded their head and moved on.

I used to meet with a dean of admissions on a regular basis. I told her I really didn't want to do research, in fact I would hate to do it, it wasn't interesting to me at all. She said that is perfectly understandable, BUT reminded me never to say that to an admit. She was the one who told me what to say and I took that advice and said what she told me to if it ever came up. She said there are lots of applicants without research, but who have other great EC's.

Don't worry about it if you don't want to do it.

 

[bigbaubdi]

Originally posted by CalBeE
Most top-ranked schools want many of its graduates to eventually involve in more than just clinical care (That need NOT be basic science research). Some are explicit about it but some are not. Research experience as undergrad sorta tell them your chance of being involved in it in med school and as a physician (Provided that the experience is not short-term and you have reasonable involvement)

I agree with that 100%. My interviewer at UPenn asked me what I would like to do with my career. I told him in an ideal world, I would be able to do research and see patients at the same time. He told me that Penn and other schools like it were definitely not interested in people who just wanted to go to med school, do residency and set up a practice somewhere.

From that, I gathered that they wanted people who are going to be at the cutting edge of medical research, public policy, health care administration, etc...

 

[BigRedPingpong]

Yes, that sentence could be quite confusing. I quess I should clear up what I meant:

During my *closed* file interviews I was NEVER asked about any research I took part in. However, an interviewer who never read my file (ie list of ECs), I was specifically asked about what sort of experiences I had in the clinical realm.

Originally posted by scrabbler
While I agree that many people seem to think research experience is more important than it really is in this process, I don't think your reasoning in this last sentence makes sense. You spent more time talking about these ECs because you presumably spent a lot of time on these activities. Someone with a lot of research experience would probably discuss this aspect a lot during his interviews because he had been so involved with it.

 

[celticmists18]

a little research can be a good thing, but too much can make the Phds you interview with want to convert you. I lucked out and have had a great intership with a very well respected biotech company for the last 4 summers. however, I HATE RESEARCH, the only reason I keep coming back is that is pays really well and looks good for med school. the problem is that know at almost every interview I've had they have tried to convert me to research. One of my interviewers spent half of my interview expounding upon the greatness of medical research (even after I had given my reasons for choosing an MD over a Phd). in short, I think research can help you get your foot in the door, but if you have other things you should be fine (example: my roomate had zip research and she was accepted to Tulane in october).

 

[Tezzie]

No research = kiss of death for the top 20 most of the times.

However one should not do research just so they can beef up their med school application.

Actually if you hate research then don't do it and avoid applying to research oriented schools.

 

[scrabbler]

Originally posted by Tezzie

Actually if you hate research then don't do it and avoid applying to research oriented schools.

I'm not that interested in research, which is why I didn't apply to WashU or Duke, but I did apply to other places ranked in the top 10 for research by U.S. News & World Report because of international opportunities, renowned faculty, diverse student body, etc. etc. at places like Harvard. Just because a school has strong research doesn't mean it can't have other strong aspects that a person who doesn't like research can't be interested in.

Like I said before, I've only done a summer of research, and it was painfully obvious that I was really only a lab tech and got absolutely nothing out of it. This certainly wasn't a "kiss of death" for me at "top" schools.

 

[Wrigleyville]

They probably assume you do research because you majored in microbiology. I guess if you hate research, it is sort of strange that you majored in that particular subject. Probably not a big deal though.

 

[cardsurgguy]

I majored in Microbiology because I like the subject and it is a very clinically relevant subject. That outweighed the fact that I would have to take a 2 extra lab courses for what I would have to do for being premed anyways. However, I counted minutes until the lab was over because I couldn't wait to get out of the labs.

 

[hapkidochic]

i, like many others, have not done a bit of research. i hate it. When asked about it at my interviews, i answered honestly. If i had done research i wouldn't have had time to take part in many extracurriculars. To me, these other ec's were much more fulfilling than any research i could've ever done. I have interviewed at top schools, including WashU, which is very research-heavy. I've even been accepted at a pretty research-oriented school even after openly admitted that i had no desire to do research. However, i do want to enter a pretty competitive specialty, which means i'll probably have to give in and get myself into a lab sometime soon.

 

[cardsurgguy]

just out of curiousity, what specialty you going for?

 

[spaz]

forgive me my ignorance, but i was wondering which specialties are considered competitive. i know derm is... but others? i'm leaning towards hem/onc. is that a competitive im sub-specialty?

 

[hapkidochic]

cardsurgguy, i'm thinking about orthopaedic surgery.

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by bigbaubdi
From that, I gathered that they wanted people who are going to be at the cutting edge of medical research, public policy, health care administration, etc...

That's pretty much right. You don't have to have research experience, and there are plenty of people in my class who don't have any, but these people have other extraordinary ECs and an interest in academics, policy, administration, etc. as bigbaubdi says. There's a reason why they are the top RESEARCH schools. Alot of candidates have numbers, but the mission of the big-name private med school is to produce the leaders of healthcare in the future. Besides, adcoms want all those resources (in research or otherwise) to go to the applicants who most look like they will take advantage of them.

If you want to be a clinician, go to your state school. I don't understand why you'd be upset with that, and it's probably going to be alot cheaper to boot!

 

[cardsurgguy]

neuronix, I must have came off wrong if I looked like I had anything against state schools, it's the opposite, I would much rather to one of the SUNY schools (I'm a NYS resident) than any other school because of the much lower cost

I agree with pretty much everything that you and everybody else has said about stuff relating to other aspects of health care besides medicine such as medical research, health policy, or health administration

personally, I have an interest in health administration

I feel that I have good EC's (see very first post), also by the time I apply I will have my MBA in Health Systems Administration which I will be getting in the next 2 years after I graduate from college this spring

I would think that these will be more than enough to compensate for not having any research at all at most schools, with the exception of the very hardcore research schools

 

[chameleonknight]

Originally posted by mlw03
my stats have gotten me interviews, but so far i've only gotten into my state schools. this isn't a knock on them - the point is that the top schools are where they are largely due to research

I agree with this; btw, I think UF is a great school.

Anyway, to the OP: If you are really just concerned about landing that top-notch residency go to your state school or a mid-tier like Georgetown (noted for its surg. matches) and EXCEL there. If you get excellent marks, make AOA, kill Step 1, etc. then you will have your pick of residencies. true, you may have to do your residency in buffalo instead of at baltimore, but who cares? You can most assuredly become a CT surgeon at a SUNY or anyplace else (anyplace being a US allopathic school).