On a scale of 1-5 how important is research for D.O. Schools? [only DO]

[big_Z]

---

Members do not see this ad.

relatively new here, have a few questions i haven't seen concretely answered so hoping to help myself and others by asking them so i apologize in advanced.

anyways for someone with zero research experience how useful do you think it is ? Any significant difference between just research experience and publications?

thanks

 

[AlteredScale]

relatively new here, have a few questions i haven't seen concretely answered so hoping to help myself and others by asking them so i apologize in advanced.

anyways for someone with zero research experience how useful do you think it is ? Any significant difference between just research experience and publications?

thanks

You can get into just about any DO program as well as a fair amount of MD programs with zero research experience. Is it a deal breaker at DO schools? Probably not. I know at my school (KCU) it's looked for but not in the sense that not having it sends your app to the reject pile.

Most entering MD/DO students will not have publications but I would say 50-75% of those applying to medical have had some sort of research experience. Those that do usually end up at very competitive programs usually have publications. For example: all of my lab mates had 2-3 authorships from first to fourth author after completing a masters and ended up at places like Harvard for dental school and UCSF, UCI, Boston University, and U Cincinnati for medical school.

The importance of research experience is that you have an appreciation for the scientific method and an understanding that medical practice and medical education is a dynamic and progressive entity that relies greatly on new discoveries in biomedical and clinical research.

 

[big_Z]

interesting, i understand first author is usually the lead on the research publication but what's the relevance of say second or third really? I always assumed whoever you were doing research under would be the first author and after that was just for credit really.

 

[AlteredScale]

interesting, i understand first author is usually the lead on the research publication but what's the relevance of say second or third really? I always assumed whoever you were doing research under would be the first author and after that was just for credit really.

Second and third author usually means you made a strong contribution to the project but was not the one really running it. That statement though is variable because there are many times where you simply do a TINY bit of work and get pushed into second or third author..almost a courtesy perhaps.

It all counts though so as long as it's an actual reputable journal and not a school journal of sorts.

 

[mathnerd88]

relatively new here, have a few questions i haven't seen concretely answered so hoping to help myself and others by asking them so i apologize in advanced.

anyways for someone with zero research experience how useful do you think it is ? Any significant difference between just research experience and publications?

thanks

Honestly, like anything in life, schools will only be impressed if you've done something above and beyond what the typical premed would've done. Just doing research for the sake of having it on your resume won't do much. Same goes with clinical work. It won't be impressive if it just looks like fluff on your resume.

In my class, there were people who just dedicated their gap years into something that they were really passionate about. It doesn't even have to be medically related. If you can excel above what the typical premed does, then that's what's going to make you stand out to the adcoms. The important thing is to follow your passion, and relate it to medicine in your interviews/PS.

For example, there were firefighters, yoga instructors, MCAT tutors, and athletic apparel salespeople in my class. Don't worry too much whether you "fit the mold" of an actual premed.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Second and third author usually means you made a strong contribution to the project but was not the one really running it. That statement though is variable because there are many times where you simply do a TINY bit of work and get pushed into second or third author..almost a courtesy perhaps.

It all counts though so as long as it's an actual reputable journal and not a school journal of sorts.

I can confirm this. I had a publication where I was first author, but a "full on professor" made a small contribution to the paper (at the level of a graph) and my PI wanted to give this person second author. This person did get second author in the end...

 

[AlteredScale]

I can confirm this. I had a publication where I was first author, but a "full on professor" made a small contribution to the paper (at the level of a graph) and my PI wanted to give this person second author. This person did get second author in the end...

Wow! The politics of publishing are amazing really. That's great you got first author though.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[IslandStyle808]

Wow! The politics of publishing are amazing really. That's great you got first author though.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I wrote 70% of the paper, I would have been pissed if I didn't get first author. I just tolerated it since the second author also reviewed the paper and gave my PI feed back, plus the graph. The main thing I would also tell people is to talk about contributions to the paper beforehand. This can lead into a discussion of authorship. I also emailed my PI to confirm the authorship, so as to have documentation of what he has stated. This help just in case one runs into problems in the future. My situation wasn't too bad none the less.

 

[hurtem&healem]

I always assumed whoever you were doing research under would be the first author and after that was just for credit really.

I never fully got the politics of ranking, but my understanding is that the PI should actually be the last author, assuming it was not directly "their" project.

 

[Goro]

My school has a very nice research presence, but we do NOT discriminate against applicants who lack research.

relatively new here, have a few questions i haven't seen concretely answered so hoping to help myself and others by asking them so i apologize in advanced.

anyways for someone with zero research experience how useful do you think it is ? Any significant difference between just research experience and publications?

thanks

 

[deleted610572]

there needs to be a 0 choice. I loved research and had extensive experiences with multiple PIs and not one single school asked about it

 

[DrMikeP]

One of the DO schools I interviewed at gave me points for having research and publication. I know because they asked and then checked 2 boxes on their "objective scoring sheet." So it's not a necessity but it does help at some.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I can also confirm above. My state MD school gives interview points for publications, having an MS, and/or having a PhD (then again this thread is about DO schools 😛).

 

[deleted610572]

I can also confirm above. My state MD school gives interview points for publications, having an MS, and/or having a PhD.

MD are different. He asked about DO schools. For MD schools research is basically a requirement

 

[IslandStyle808]

MD are different. He asked about DO schools. For MD schools research is basically a requirement

Yep, just corrected myself. The school I mentioned was actually a primary care oriented school, so research isn't really that huge of a thing for them.

 

[Catfish-Cupcake]

Not required, but because we are becoming physicians I personally think it is a great idea to try and get some substantial research experience. I have a pub and a few on the way- I loved when interviewers asked me about my research because I was confident when talking about it and most of the interviewers seemed genuinely interested.