No publications/posters/conferences= pointless research?

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

---

Members don't see this ad.

NOTE: Whether or not it is pointless in terms of medical school apps, I'll still do it because there is a lot to learn

Anyways, there is no doubt that certain fields of research have more publications than others. Some fields allow research groups to churn out a handful a year, whilst other fields require 1-2 years per publication. Which makes sense because in several biology labs, the preparation of the experiment itself can take months because they need specific, genetically altered organisms (whereas this does not happen so much in chemistry or physics labs).

Having said that, if a student is in this type of lab, does that make the experience futile if the student will not have any experience making any findings (let alone publishing them)?

 

[MaxPlancker]

No; the most important takeaway from research (besides the skills you learn) is the LOR and ability to give a synopsis of your experience. These far outweigh publications in med school admissions. Publications are like icing on the cake but they alone don't tell you anything. Adcoms are well aware of the randomness of the process. The one consistent way to evaluate applicants is through the LOR and their ability to talk about their research. Even if you have a pub, if you can't talk about your research in a knowledgeable and thoughtful manner, that pub will mean nothing because it shows you just had your name tacked on.

That being said, you should still have at least a poster if you've worked in lab for any significant amount of time.

 

[lmn]

Publications are great, but not necessary for the vast majority of medical schools. Just showing that you were involved in research and can understand the question your research was asking and what you did/why you were doing it is generally good enough for med school.

 

[eteshoe]

The point of UG research is to expose the student to the scientific process and to introduce them to logical experimental design. The point of grad school is to do the aforementioned and publish. So no it's not futile if an UG cannot publish, but if they can its a nice perk

 

[Petrichor1]

it is always good to join a program that atleast makes you get a poster. This way, you and your PI will have to talk about it without it making you seem arrogant or whatnot when there are no findings or no significance. Always do this...a lot of PIs are busy people and if you don't produce, they won't even blink when they leave you out of authorable work.

 

[Lucca]

I don't understand the premise of your question. You say: "are non-productive research experiences pointless for medical school apps? I plan to do research anyways because there is a lot to learn."

It is precisely because there is a lot to learn that research is valuable for medical school applications. They want you to know the scientific process and how to apply it; how to see a problem, ask a question about it, and formulate a plan to answer the question.

 

[Goro]

We like people to have research experience so they can understand the scientific process. To quote the very wise @DrMidlife: "you've preferably had some exposure to research so you can be convinced that Wakefield used malicious dirtbag methods and is not the savior of the world's children."

It's hard enough for grad students to get publications...we don't expect pre-meds to get them.

NOTE: Whether or not it is pointless in terms of medical school apps, I'll still do it because there is a lot to learn

Anyways, there is no doubt that certain fields of research have more publications than others. Some fields allow research groups to churn out a handful a year, whilst other fields require 1-2 years per publication. Which makes sense because in several biology labs, the preparation of the experiment itself can take months because they need specific, genetically altered organisms (whereas this does not happen so much in chemistry or physics labs).

Having said that, if a student is in this type of lab, does that make the experience futile if the student will not have any experience making any findings (let alone publishing them)?

 

[Petrichor1]

I think based off of many programs I have seen, research products vary in impressionability and importance for schools. For example, students who have done research at my school aren't necessarily guaranteed admission or anything. The school likes that but they are more willing to accept a person devoting their time being a CNA vs. someone who spent 2-3 years doing research. In fact, service is so much more credible for them as a factor of admission because they aren't really that keen in producing researchers, more like coherent doctors. Compare this will a top tier school that actually asks you to list publishable work, you can definitely see the bias. Easy thing is to apply your energy to service work and get as much out of research as you can. You can never predict what will come out from research and many PhD students have had to switch labs because of no activity. As an undergrad not only are you disadvantaged from the knowledge aspect but also time. You're inevitably going to be cut short for the time due to classes and tests and you don't have control over that unless you make your semester significantly easier. None of the people in my lab who have been ugs are actually published on paper. We're usually used for free labor.

 

[osckey]

I know some adcom members who consider it a waste of time if you did research and have nothing to show for it. I think that you could spin it so that you can say that you learned from the experience that you are not so much interested in the benchwork side of medicine as you are with the clinical and patient-centered side of medicine. It could help give an answer to adcom members asking the question of "why MD and not PhD?" when looking at your app.