md/phd essay help please

[meowkat444]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have my research essay drafted, but in order to describe my research I need to describe previous studies that laid the groundwork for it. I've searched through this forum, but I'm still unclear on how/whether to cite these.

Should I just say "a previous study?"
Should I say "Smith and Thompson discovered in 1999" and leave it at that, no reference?
Should i do the (Smith & Thompson, 1999) thing without a works cited?
Do I need a short works cited at the end with full references? (what a waste of characters!)

Thanks.

 

[solitude]

I have my research essay drafted, but in order to describe my research I need to describe previous studies that laid the groundwork for it. I've searched through this forum, but I'm still unclear on how/whether to cite these.

Should I just say "a previous study?"
Should I say "Smith and Thompson discovered in 1999" and leave it at that, no reference?
Should i do the (Smith & Thompson, 1999) thing without a works cited?
Do I need a short works cited at the end with full references? (what a waste of characters!)

Thanks.

I'm just another applicant, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I wasn't even explicit enough about "a previous study". I used phrases like "it is known that" or simply stated "X is a known regulator of transcription of Y" or even simply "X is a regulator of transcription of Y". It's not really important who showed it or when it was shown (unless it is ultra-new, to indicate that this is a hot topic of research), so I definitely did not include the authors, and I did not include a works cited at the end because, as you said, it's a waste of characters.

 

[jlamacc1]

I recently talked to a friend of mine who's in grad school at Case Western (PhD only), and he said that he definitely did not need to cite works on his research statement. For what it's worth...

 

[Maebea]

In my exerpience, very few MD-PhD applicants cite references in their reseach statements; maybe 5-10% do so. The lack of citations is not a negative. I would follow Solitude's example.

 

[bottles999]

I have my research essay drafted, but in order to describe my research I need to describe previous studies that laid the groundwork for it. I've searched through this forum, but I'm still unclear on how/whether to cite these.

Should I just say "a previous study?"
Should I say "Smith and Thompson discovered in 1999" and leave it at that, no reference?
Should i do the (Smith & Thompson, 1999) thing without a works cited?
Do I need a short works cited at the end with full references? (what a waste of characters!)

Thanks.

Meowkat,

I agree with Solitude's comments. With the following caveat: Focus on YOUR Contribution. So only provide enough background information to put your contributions into "context". That is how it fits in with your PIs work. Then from there Focus on what YOU did. Don't stress over details of references. This isnt a research paper or article itself. It should be a narrative of YOUR contributions to research and what you have experienced and accomplished.

Good Luck

 

[j-weezy]

on an only marginally related topic - the research essay asks for us to include info on our supervisor (PI) - should we include things like director of the institute or being part of the national academy? I don't want to include those things if it will make me look like pompous fool but I want adcoms to know the caliber of the lab.

 

[mtlove]

on an only marginally related topic - the research essay asks for us to include info on our supervisor (PI) - should we include things like director of the institute or being part of the national academy? I don't want to include those things if it will make me look like pompous fool but I want adcoms to know the caliber of the lab.

I second this question. It says to list the affiliation but should we add things like national academy member or other important positions too?

I have a second slightly related question. One of my PIs is very famous in one area, but she recently switched to a second completely unrelated field (I worked with her in this second area). Many people in her previous field (it is a really large field) are unaware that she switched, and they get really confused when you say her name and her new research area. Should I add a one line mentioning the PIs past research area to potential easy some confusion of adcom members?

 

[solitude]

I second this question. It says to list the affiliation but should we add things like national academy member or other important positions too?

I have a second slightly related question. One of my PIs is very famous in one area, but she recently switched to a second completely unrelated field (I worked with her in this second area). Many people in her previous field (it is a really large field) are unaware that she switched, and they get really confused when you say her name and her new research area. Should I add a one line mentioning the PIs past research area to potential easy some confusion of adcom members?

Just my two cents:

I think that the faculty reading your application will probably recognize that your PI is a NAS member, or otherwise kind of a big deal (if the faculty member is in basic science), so there would be no need to state it. In that situation I feel that stating the NAS status of your PI would be somewhat pompous. On the other hand, if the faculty member is a clinician, it's pretty unlikely that he/she will recognize the PI, that they're in NAS, etc. But the clinicians reading your app will probably be focused more on your attributes for medicine and not science, so I doubt it would really matter to those readers. My inclination would be to leave this information out because it is not relevant to the PI's title and affiliation. (Of course, if the PI is HHMI, that would be appropriate info to include.) To me, stating this in the essay when not directly asked seems uncouth, a somewhat less egregious faux paus than the parents who proudly display 4 bumper stickers explaining that their kid is an honors student at Joe Blow Middle School.

As for the second question, my inclination would be to say something like "a relatively new area of research in the [PI Name] laboratory is X. I have chosen to study the role of X in Y...". I don't think there's any need to mention the past area of research--if the adcom is interested enough, they'll reference her rec letter for you, her lab website, etc.

 

[j-weezy]

Just my two cents:

I think that the faculty reading your application will probably recognize that your PI is a NAS member, or otherwise kind of a big deal (if the faculty member is in basic science), so there would be no need to state it. In that situation I feel that stating the NAS status of your PI would be somewhat pompous. On the other hand, if the faculty member is a clinician, it's pretty unlikely that he/she will recognize the PI, that they're in NAS, etc. But the clinicians reading your app will probably be focused more on your attributes for medicine and not science, so I doubt it would really matter to those readers. My inclination would be to leave this information out because it is not relevant to the PI's title and affiliation. (Of course, if the PI is HHMI, that would be appropriate info to include.) To me, stating this in the essay when not directly asked seems uncouth, a somewhat less egregious faux paus than the parents who proudly display 4 bumper stickers explaining that their kid is an honors student at Joe Blow Middle School.

As for the second question, my inclination would be to say something like "a relatively new area of research in the [PI Name] laboratory is X. I have chosen to study the role of X in Y...". I don't think there's any need to mention the past area of research--if the adcom is interested enough, they'll reference her rec letter for you, her lab website, etc.

Not to pick a fight because I like your posts solitude, but how is mentioning HHMI any different? Both are probably cases of more information than is necessary.

 

[solitude]

Not to pick a fight because I like your posts solitude, but how is mentioning HHMI any different? Both are probably cases of more information than is necessary.

My opinion is that HHMI has to do with the PI's title and affiliation. The prompt asks for the "research supervisor's name and affiliation". When a PI has HHMI funding, he/she is actually a joint employee of the university and HHMI, which is why under all the publications the PI's affiliation (and the affiliation of anybody working under him/her) is "University of X and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Location of University X". Also the PI is "Some Big Deal Professor and HHMI Investigator". So I think it's appropriate to list the fact that the research supervisor is HHMI. On the other hand, NAS membership (or receiving a Nobel Prize, or whatever) doesn't have to do with the title or institutional affiliation of the PI. Perhaps an exception would be for an applicant working for a PI in Britain, who, because of their membership in the Royal Society, actually gets a special suffix for their membership a la "First Name Last Name FRS, Some Big Deal Professor at University of X". But in the U.S. we don't get special suffixes for membership in organizations like NAS (it's kind of too bad, actually), so I don't think that this information falls under the "research supervisor's title or affiliation". That was a really long explanation of my view.

 

[ClarinetGeek]

My opinion is that HHMI has to do with the PI's title and affiliation. The prompt asks for the "research supervisor's name and affiliation".

solitude, I thought of it in the same manner. My undergrad PI was HHMI (not that I had any understanding of what this meant until I was there for a good year or more...cal me naive). However, on apps, I would include HHMI as apart of his affilations. For instance, if it asked what institutions he was involved with, I would like my university, the indep. research institution which our lab was associated with, and then HHMI. Another version was Dr. X is a Prof. of L, M, N., and P and HHMI. I knew that on all of his materials including his letterhead that had HHMI logo and what not. Same thing as if you were to pick up a paper of someone of HHMI, you would see a listing of HHMI. You would not see a listing for NSA. It is a difference between funding and recognition. (Btw, my prof was also in the NSA and I never listed even thought to list it.) Just my $0.02. In the big scheme of things, I don't really think it is it a big deal at all. If you choose to list it or not, it will not affect you ability or inability to be admitted. No worries.

 

[solitude]

In the big scheme of things, I don't really think it is it a big deal at all. If you choose to list it or not, it will not affect you ability or inability to be admitted. No worries.

I agree. By the way, how do you like IC? There seem to be an inordinate number of permanent/temporary Iowans on here.