MSTP with less than 1 year of research?

[flaktroop3r]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi 🙂 . I have another question: is it possible to be admited without substantial research experience? I only did 8 months worth... and the quality wasn't really that high. I merely read a ton of papers and designed a few experiments based on them, but I didn't actually do anything with my hands (ie, pipette stuff, make gels). The lab techs carried out my experiments, and returned to me with data, which I then analyzed. None of it worked though, so I wasn't able to publish. Knowing that, should I apply anyway and hope for the best? My stats are pretty high, so perhaps that may compensate a bit?

OH... and one other thing. If I get into another lab soon and work for the rest of the fiscal year (until summer 2005), would that improve my chances THIS year? I'm hoping to get a pub in by the time I interview in October or November (provided that I recieve interviews in the first place, of course!). Or is it simply better to take (yet) another year off and apply with some substantial work behind me? Thanks,

fk.

 

[jjmack]

more research is always better, but you can always try to apply and if you don't get in use the year off to gain another full year of experience.

Hi 🙂 . I have another question: is it possible to be admited without substantial research experience? I only did 8 months worth... and the quality wasn't really that high. I merely read a ton of papers and designed a few experiments based on them, but I didn't actually do anything with my hands (ie, pipette stuff, make gels). The lab techs carried out my experiments, and returned to me with data, which I then analyzed. None of it worked though, so I wasn't able to publish. Knowing that, should I apply anyway and hope for the best? My stats are pretty high, so perhaps that may compensate a bit?

OH... and one other thing. If I get into another lab soon and work for the rest of the fiscal year (until summer 2005), would that improve my chances THIS year? I'm hoping to get a pub in by the time I interview in October or November (provided that I recieve interviews in the first place, of course!). Or is it simply better to take (yet) another year off and apply with some substantial work behind me? Thanks,

fk.

 

[Gfunk6]

None of it worked though, so I wasn't able to publish. Knowing that, should I apply anyway and hope for the best? My stats are pretty high, so perhaps that may compensate a bit?

Based on this information alone, it is impossible for anyone on this forum to accurately assess your chances. There are numerous factors which remain unknown which will have a major impact on your application:

1. Your Undergrad School
2. Your LORs
3. Your "stats"; What do you consider "pretty high?" 3.5/30? 3.8/35? 4.0/41?

BTW, a lab experience with no hands on training and devoid of abstracts or publication is, in my estimation, meaningless.

OH... and one other thing. If I get into another lab soon and work for the rest of the fiscal year (until summer 2005), would that improve my chances THIS year?

If you can publish, or at least submit a manuscript for publication, then your chances will be enhanced. If you cannot do this, then taking a year off will greatly improve your application particularly if you have "high stats." Good luck!

 

[javert]

BTW, a lab experience with no hands on training and devoid of abstracts or publication is, in my estimation, meaningless.

While I agree with the rest of Gfunk's post, I don't know if I agree with this. I think that the OP's situation is better than the complete opposite...having run thousands of gels but never having been involved in brainstorming, planning, or analysis. Consider, for example, someone who had run tons of gels but then switched to a psychophysics lab; that person's skills at running gels will be of little use in a psychophysics lab, but the analytical skills used to design/analyze experiments is the same.

However, having said that, you should definately try to get some hands-on experience. If nothing else, it can show the dedication you have for research; also, as Gfunk's response indicates, adcoms and interviewers may highly value learning laboratory techniques and the like.

Take my comments with a grain of salt because, like you, I'm just an applicant.

Good luck!

 

[Gfunk6]

While I agree with the rest of Gfunk's post, I don't know if I agree with this. I think that the OP's situation is better than the complete opposite...having run thousands of gels but never having been involved in brainstorming, planning, or analysis.

Even if we grant the veracity of this statment, it's like saying getting a 21 on the MCAT is better than an 18. While it is true on the surface, both of them suck.

I meant no offense to the original poster, his experience actually sounds quite interesting. Personally, I would have loved to have experienced the joys of desigining experiments to be executed by others.