no research

[steska]

---

Members do not see this ad.

would the fact that i have not participated in any research hurt my chances of getting accepted into Washington University? I noticed a lot of people comment on research and the md/phd program in the interview feedback, which i am not interested in. but i love st louis and it seems like wash u has more to offer than SLU.

 

[UseUrHeadFred]

I'm from St. Louis. I don't know WashU as well as some people, but research permeates that place. If you're not interested in doing research, I think you're almost looked down upon at that school.

They're probably one of the top three research medical schools in the world. I don't think it's likely they'll give up their claim to fame anytime soon. So you can understand why they would look for it. It's not impossible, but bear in mind you might feel out of place even if you do get in (if you're not interested in research, that is.)

My $.02. I'm not interested in research at all, so I'm not even applying there despite them being in state.

 

[Alexander99]

If you don't like research, why go to Wash U? (I think it's actually that simple with that school.)

 

[Polar girl]

SLU's clincial training has a really good reputation in the area, if you don't want to do research, but want to stay in St. Louis.

 

[BaseballFan]

Personally, I think "no research" will hurt your application at almost any school nowadays.

There are many threads about this topic if you do a search, although not specifically about Wash U.

I dont think the answer "i'm interested in primary care, so i don't feel the need to be involved with research" will cut it in an interview when the question arises

 

[roja]

Personally, I think "no research" will hurt your application at almost any school nowadays.

There are many threads about this topic if you do a search, although not specifically about Wash U.

I dont think the answer "i'm interested in primary care, so i don't feel the need to be involved with research" will cut it in an interview when the question arises

I'm going to have to disagree with this. I didn't have even a whisper of research on my application and it never came up. Not even once: not even with my PhD interviewers.

What I did have was extensive clinical experience shadowing a physician. And this came up. (as well as my previous career). I can tell you that having worked with the Admissions director, selection committee members, and my own experience being on the admissions committee as an interviewer, nothing made me roll my eyes more than someone who had 'checked all thier boxes'. If you really dont' love research (or just don't like bench research and have no aspect to clinical) but have volunteered in other medical fields and I (or others) can see your passion, then I don't really care.

What I wanted to see was someone who had exposed themselves to medicine, saw the good and the bad, and still wanted to do it. I didn't want to hear fancy names of people you retracted for. I wanted to hear about a patient experience that AFFECTED you and reaffirmed your desire to be a doctor.

And when I go back into academics out of residency and am on the admissions committee, this is what I will continue to look for.

 

[felipe5]

I think that you need to consider each school that you apply to and what they emphasize.....every single interview I went on (from my state school to the top 10'ers) did infact ask me about my research, but I did notice that schools that emphasize research (Wash U and Penn for example) did seem to take a heavier interest in my research. On the other hand, the other schools (ones that weren't as big of research institutions) seemed to be more interested in my clinical experience. So, as obvious as this sounds, I think you need to consider the type of school you apply to, and also what exactly you want out of a school.

 

[hapkidochic]

i have zero research experience and i will say that it hasn't hurt my chances. i was accepted at several research-heavy schools. i even got an interview at WashU (though followed by a prompt rejection!). When i was at WashU, i asked our student tour guide if there were any students without research experience. She herself hadn't done reseach and said that quite a few of her classmates hadn't either. So to the OP, don't worry about having no research experience.

 

[DRANTWAN]

I have no research. Look into some summer programs.

 

[roja]

I would say, do research if its something that interest you. Don't do it if you don't like it. Spend time doing something in medicine you DO enjoy.

 

[lesstalkmorock]

research is very big at WashU. yes, it'll hurt you if you don't do research because 90% of applicants will have it. but if research isn't what you like, then focus that energy towards other quality extracurriculars. note that it is still very possible to get into WashU without research.

 

[roja]

I forgot to ask, do you not have research because you don't like it? and if so, why apply to a research heavy school?

 

[UCdannyLA]

I hated (bench) research at first...thought I had no interest in it whatsoever.
Then I gave it a shot...and I like it now. Ha! Outwardly, it looks tedious and boring...and seems like it's just a laboratory course for school...but it's a lot more than that if you actually come to care about the research you are doing--and if you see the significance of the purpose of the research project.

So my advice is...go try doing research in a field related to something you are even somewhat interested in...you have nothing to lose right?

I get to operate on mice intestines this summer, some cool ****~!!!

 

[jlee9531]

If you don't like research, why go to Wash U? (I think it's actually that simple with that school.)

im gonna have to agree with this as well.

 

[jlee9531]

Personally, I think "no research" will hurt your application at almost any school nowadays.

There are many threads about this topic if you do a search, although not specifically about Wash U.

I dont think the answer "i'm interested in primary care, so i don't feel the need to be involved with research" will cut it in an interview when the question arises

i disagree with this.
since i have no science research and have gotten acceptances...
its important if you want to go to a school that emphasizes research...but outside of those schools...its not imperative to have it.

 

[roja]

Well, I have always hated the 'lab rat' stuff. I hate bench research. I used to think I hated ALL research. But once I decided on EM, I started doing clinical research and I love it. Its a steep learning curve but once you get the hang of it, its great.

 

[BaseballFan]

i disagree with this.
since i have no science research and have gotten acceptances...
its important if you want to go to a school that emphasizes research...but outside of those schools...its not imperative to have it.

True that it is not imperative, but I still think it will put the OP at a comparative disadvantage. My point is not to force the OP to love the research life. There will always be fine applicants that will get accepted without any research experience, such as yourself. However, I think that the experience of being involved in research teaches you important things, and it's not just to "check a box" for your application. Many, if not all adcoms, are looking for these things in their incoming students. If you had the experience, you'd be in a more advantageous position than if you hadn't had the experience, that's all I'm saying to the OP.

This is all being re-hashed again...To quote an earlier post by Andrew_Doan, a SDN moderator and my reply to that post:

The ability to conduct, evaluate and understand research will be critical as medicine advances. That?ll be as true for the general practitioner as for the neurosurgeon.
--------------------

I believe this is the main reason why schools are interested in students who have research experience. They don't expect you to have re-invented the wheel as an undergraduate...but working in research teaches you, among other things, to critically read and evaluate published research.

So you neednt have done incredible things in your own work, because the majority of research efforts fail. The research "process" is important to being an informed, critical, modern physician.

see http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=1241959#post1241959

 

[roja]

This is all being re-hashed again...To quote an earlier post by Andrew_Doan, a SDN moderator and my reply to that post:

The ability to conduct, evaluate and understand research will be critical as medicine advances. That?ll be as true for the general practitioner as for the neurosurgeon.
--------------------

I agree with the ability to evaluate and understand. However it is not necessary for ALL doctors to conduct research.