NIH Post-bacc Research Question

[186321]

So I heard through a friend of a friend that an National Institutes of Health (NIH) post-bacc position has a 10% acceptance rate and that its highly regarded in the application process (more so than other research positions). Anybody know if there is any credibility to that claim? Thanks in advance.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DulyNoted]

So I heard through a friend of a friend that an National Institutes of Health (NIH) post-bacc position has a 10% acceptance rate and that its highly regarded in the application process (more so than other research positions). Anybody know if there is any credibility to that claim? Thanks in advance.

That 10% number is taken directly from their website. The program is large and well-known and early exposure with the NIH/NSF is highly valued by graduate programs. It is more recognizable, for sure, and people outside of science might be impressed by the name association.

Compared to the Rhodes, Fulbright, Marshall, etc., however, the IRTA is not as highly regarded and some who are familiar with the program view it as kind of a fall back option to beginning a graduate program immediately.

 

[BigRedPremed]

That 10% number is taken directly from their website. The program is large and well-known and early exposure with the NIH/NSF is highly valued by graduate programs. It is more recognizable, for sure, and people outside of science might be impressed by the name association.

Compared to the Rhodes, Fulbright, Marshall, etc., however, the IRTA is not as highly regarded and some who are familiar with the program view it as kind of a fall back option to beginning a graduate program immediately.

I would agree with this. In terms of prestige, it's probably regarded about the same as any other research position (lab tech at a med school, etc.). The advantages are a) the labs at the NIH are extremely well-funded b) the post-bac community is large. You'll meet many many other people your same age and with similar interests (plans of going to grad or med school).

The quality of applicants is not high. There are very few people like me who wanted to do research for the sake of doing research. Most are taking a year off to take/retake the MCAT and apply/reapply to med school. A good percentage of post-bacs do not get into med school on their first try.

If it's highly regarded in the admissions process, I certainly haven't seen it. To say it's not as prestigious as a Rhodes or Fulbright Scholarship is a gross understatement.

 

[TigerSoup]

Well, I would agree that the NIH IRTA program is probably just as good as a research job at another large scientific institution, I think it could be a better experience than being a lab tech because the students are often held personally responsible for planning and conducting a given project rather than being handed down work on a regular basis. If your project here gets published, you'll be first author. Same with posters etc. Benefits are pretty nice at the NIH, but I don't think that the prestige over being a fairly self-reliant worker in a university/medical center makes up for how little we get paid here (which hits home particularly now at tax time). I personally would have tried harder to get a research position in a more interesting area (NYC, Boston, etc) if I could do it again, since I'm really not able to save much money from this year anyway (and cost of living here is not as much lower as I imagined it would be).

The NIH application process is sort of a lottery, though I think it's less competitive for post baccs than for summer research students. If you're from a well-known school, have good grdes, and prior research experience these will help you tons. The IRTAs also have a yahoo group called Club PCR that you can request to join, as open positions sometimes get listed here by people who are leaving their labs.

 

[nchasmyheart]

I think there is credibility to the claim...but I also think if you are seriously considering the post-bacc program you do your homework! Some post-baccs have their own projects/publish many articles/truly get a feel for research...while others are lab techs (except they get paid less). As far as how medical schools interpret this program, I am not an expert. I can tell you what I've experienced as a post-bacc. This program was brought up in one of my interviews and the school seemed very impressed. Another school, however, didn't know what it was. Out of the post-baccs on my floor.... one had an interview at every school she applied to, another got no interviews, and i lie somewhere in between.

So, to sum up, it is a great program....just make sure you talk to past post-baccs/current post-baccs/your would-be PI.

If you have more questions feel free to message me.

 

[beachblonde]

I think that the NIH IRTA program is more helpful for people who want to eventually go on and get a PhD versus going to medical school. If your app is weak when it comes to research, it could be a great experience for you, or if you want to apply the year after college or need to just take a year doing something else.

Doing your own research (which is what would hopefully happen at your NIH lab) is a lot better than being a tech somewhere else. At NIH I had a ton of autonomy and now have a paper is a prestigious journal to show for it. Most of my friends there had similar experiences. So far, medical schools have looked favorably upon it-I've discussed my research at every interview.

And no, it's not a Rhodes scholarship, but it has its own merits.

 

[LGamble]

I dont think this program has to be just for people wanting to go the MD/PhD route. In fact, since i've been I haven't set foot in a lab. You can apply specifically to work in a clinic, so you get a lot of patient exposure and you can see how clinical trials are carried out in the clinic setting. In addition, I get the opportunity to go to grand rounds at the NIH, Navy medical center, and Walter Reed every week. For the most part, interviewers have been very impressed with the words "NIH", but none of them are familiar with the IRTA program specifically (perhaps that is for the best).
As for the area, Bethesda is too awful for words. Live in DC and take the metro in.

 

[magwi11]

I am a future MD/PhD, and I can say from my experience the IRTA program has been pretty ideal. I'll have at least two first author publications and 5-7 others by the time all the studies I've worked on have finished (I've been here 2 years). I've gotten the opportunity to work with a level of independence that has been a huge positive in my interviews, and seen several different clinical populations 1 on 1.

As for the application process. I think that your success depends on your willingness to take initiative. You are not accepted into the program and then matched with a lab, instead PIs select their own IRTAs from the people in the "pool" of applicants. If you contact specific PIs that you are interested in working with to draw attention to your application you are much more likely to get a spot than if you just let you application wallow and wait for someone to find you. I imagine that many of the people that are highly qualified and don't find a lab make this mistake. Most of the IRTAs that have been successful getting positions in my lab (NIMH) contacted our PI and came in for a meeting or interview before even submitting the official application. This would also give you a chance to talk to the current IRTAs in the lab to get an idea of important things like working hours, autonomy, publication expectations, getting to go to conferences, funding for extra classes, support for the grad/med school application process, flexibility to attend the millions of lectures/rounds/talks available here every day, etc.

If you're seriously interested, make sure you talk to the PIs on your own and ask TONS of questions, there is a wide range of experiences and different labs have different success rates in terms of graduate school admissions. Everyone in my lab has been successful over the past couple of years (MD/PhD, MDs, PhDs in Clinical Psych and Neuroscience) but I also know several people that didn't get in, so it might be a good idea to ask about a given labs success rate in placing students in graduate/medical school.

 

[CMUsam]

Well, I will be doing the NIH IRTA post bacc program next year at an NIH lab at Johns Hopkins medical center. From what I understand, it's all about which lab you get into. I took initiative and emailed the labs I was interested in after I submitted my application (I did this all in February). I heard back from this lab that works on HIV which is my area of interest, and went down for an interview. One of the current IRTA's who showed me around the lab was also a pre-med, and she had interviews at a ton of med schools, including Harvard. So I'm guessing the program can't be bad for you!

But honestly I really think what makes it a good or bad experience is which lab you are in, how good your PI is, and how much interest you take in the research - i.e. papers, etc. You can do the program, and not really make anything out of it, and then it won't be worth it. But if you work hard, and really try to put in effort, you'll get a lot out of it. Keep in mind though, that I haven't actually done it yet, this is just what I've been hearing. I hope it works out, for both yours and my sakes! lol. 🙂