Paid vs. Non-paid research position

[Monkeymaniac]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am planning to apply to medical schools next year, and I have two choices of doing research until then. The first one is to join a NIH funded ion channel simulation project and the second option is to join a bioinformatics project. Now, for the second project, there is no fund assigned to undergraduate reserchers, so I don't get paid, but I get paid for the first project. Assuming that amounts of contribution that I can make and experience I can get from the two projects are about the same, which research experience would be more valued by ADCOMs? And by the way, both of the projects interest me.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Veshy]

All things being the same, go with the paying position. I don't think it would matter to adcoms which one you end up choosing. If the non-paying position has better chances of publishing, then go with that if you can make do without the pay.

 

[swifteagle43]

who cares

 

[Monkeymaniac]

who cares

Well, I do.

 

[govikings10]

Take the money... the whole process is expensive

 

[g3pro]

Take the one that doesn't pay. It shows that you are selflessly committed to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

 

[Depakote]

Take the one that doesn't pay. It shows that you are selflessly committed to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Nuts to that. Adcoms understand how expensive this process is. If they found out that you had two equivalent research opportunities and you turned down free money, they're gonna think you're either crazy or stupid. Either way, not likely to be admitted.

 

[AnotherDork]

You essentially said, "All other things being equal, should I get paid or not?" The answer to this question is always a resounding, "yes, take the money!" Nobody works for free.

Now obviously things are not always equal. Would you enjoy the volunteer work more? If so, you might do a better job on it, be more committed, and maybe contribute to the publication. However, in a vacuum, whether one job pays versus another doesn't matter, especially if you have (clinical) volunteer experience elsewhere.

My $0.02

 

[SilverBandCry!]

I am planning to apply to medical schools next year, and I have two choices of doing research until then. The first one is to join a NIH funded ion channel simulation project and the second option is to join a bioinformatics project. Now, for the second project, there is no fund assigned to undergraduate reserchers, so I don't get paid, but I get paid for the first project. Assuming that amounts of contribution that I can make and experience I can get from the two projects are about the same, which research experience would be more valued by ADCOMs? And by the way, both of the projects interest me.
Thanks in advance.

I was in the same position as you. Assuming that money is not a big factor for you, you should take whatever research position interests you and what you feel you could contribute most too. Money was not a factor for me, and so I chose a nonpaid research internship for the summer over a paid one that seemed like I would not be able to get really involved and did not interest me

 

[ClockworkDoc]

Just a guessing, but I think the paid one would hold more weight than the volunteer position. It shows that the work you are doing is of a higher caliber because you where paid to do it.

 

[DaBeav]

Just a guessing, but I think the paid one would hold more weight than the volunteer position. It shows that the work you are doing is of a higher caliber because you where paid to do it.

I wouldn't necessarily say the paid position means higher caliber...but if both positions are basically equally interesting in your eyes then I would look at factors like where the research funding is coming from, who the principal investigators are, and how much work you would be able to get done, is one more promising for publication, can you get a better LOR from one experience...picking the more prestigious position may be the way to go and the one that allows you the most exposure or independent endeavor.

 

[fyi411]

Nuts to that. Adcoms understand how expensive this process is. If they found out that you had two equivalent research opportunities and you turned down free money, they're gonna think you're either crazy or stupid. Either way, not likely to be admitted.

i agree, if you are gonna do it u might-as-well have money in ur pocket
it's not like they(adcoms) are gonna ask u why did you do it for money
plus if you are broke like me u would take the money
good with your choice

 

[Bubchik]

i agree, if you are gonna do it u might-as-well have money in ur pocket

I agree, TAKE THE MONEY! If both topic are interesting than again TAKE the money. Also if NIH has funded it then you can say you were involved in NIH project, sounds good on application.

I have been asked at each interview if I was paid to do research. I have been doing research for 2 years when I applied and was on track to be published. At one place they even asked how much I was paid (it was at Hopkins and I had an option not to answer if I was uncomfortable), I answered and got in...
Living expenses are high, tuition is a killer, gas prices are outrageous plus on top of that all those secondaries. I do not think that adcoms care if you do it for free or not, they care more about results and what you have contributed to the project. And you have to be able to talk about what you did in detail with hypothesis and supporting evidence.
Just my $o.o2.

 

[Monkeymaniac]

.

 

[Monkeymaniac]

Thanks for the awesome advice~