Research heavy schools

[NP545]

Do research heavy schools prefer undergrads who do research in biology/chemistry, or would they be equally receptive to students who researched in psychology/sociology ?

(Assume same duration)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mycoalwin]

Any research helps, though I would presume that research in the hard sciences might be more highly looked upon.

 

[Lamel]

Any hypothesis driven, scientific method based research is looked upon favorably. So do the research that interests YOU. If you research something you're genuinely interested in, it will come through in your interviews.

Some adcoms regard bench > clinical (or so I have surmised from reading around), but it is probably a negligible difference.

 

[Abstractions]

Any hypothesis driven, scientific method based research is looked upon favorably. So do the research that interests YOU. If you research something you're genuinely interested in, it will come through in your interviews.

Some adcoms regard bench > clinical (or so I have surmised from reading around), but it is probably a negligible difference.

I think the bench vs clinical debate only becomes important for MD/PhD programs.

 

[ridethecliche]

I think the bench vs clinical debate only becomes important for MD/PhD programs.

I'm not sure about this. Being an author on a retrospective study is very different than doing bench work. Having done both, I think bench science is much more demanding.

Lets be honest, very few med school applicants are going to have done significant work on a clinical trial. I'm involved with a few prospective trials, but I'm never going to be an author on any of them since those pubs will come years down the line.

 

[NP545]

I've been doing clinical lab work for ~2.5-3 years and chose that over bench (wet) work. You're saying that this research as not regarded as highly as bench work? Do all MDs have this same philosophy or only the research heavy ones?

 

[Catalystik]

Research-oriented schools seem to find appeal in an applicant having creative control over the research process, up to and including "having one's own project." This is far less likely to happen in clinical research where one follows a rigid protocol designed by the PI. Having tasted the IRB process myself, I can understand why going in that direction is a deterent to proposing an original idea having to do with human subjects.

 

[Gauss44]

Response to title: You could look up the most overweight state and apply to their school.

Actually, I trained someone who got free tuition at Case Western in exchange for doing research for them over the summer.

 

[Lawpy]

Do research heavy schools prefer undergrads who do research in biology/chemistry, or would they be equally receptive to students who researched in psychology/sociology ?

(Assume same duration)

Well, as long as it's hypothesis-driven and evidence-based research, you should be fine. Be sure to relate it to medicine.

One of the members here did something like ant research and got into a Top 10 school.

 

[NP545]

So they're not on equal footing...

Mine is sort of a mix between psychology and biology (it's done in cognitive sciences department). I test subjects and analyze the data. In the beginning of the semester, me and my PI work together for the hypothesis/idea and design protocol (though the PI does more of that than I do)

 

[Lawpy]

So they're not on equal footing...

Mine is sort of a mix between psychology and biology (it's done in cognitive sciences department). I test subjects and analyze the data. In the beginning of the semester, me and my PI work together for the hypothesis/idea and design protocol (though the PI does more of that than I do)

That should be fine.

 

[QofQuimica]

Do research heavy schools prefer undergrads who do research in biology/chemistry, or would they be equally receptive to students who researched in psychology/sociology ?

As others have already said, the important factor here is your intellectual involvement in the project, not the specific field of research you're in. I did two years of agricultural research during college, no relationship to medicine whatsoever. But it was hypothesis driven, and I was able to explain the rationale/hypothesis for the project, as well as interpret the results and propose future experiments based on those results. That is the kind of independent thought that interviewers are looking for in applicants, particularly if you're applying to a research program. In contrast, if you're basically just following protocols laid out by someone else, and you can't explain why you're doing what you're doing or how you'd advance the project further, then you're not intellectually involved. That kind of lab tech job may help you pay the bills, but it won't impress your interviewers.

 

[orangeman25]

I'm not sure about this. Being an author on a retrospective study is very different than doing bench work. Having done both, I think bench science is much more demanding.

Lets be honest, very few med school applicants are going to have done significant work on a clinical trial. I'm involved with a few prospective trials, but I'm never going to be an author on any of them since those pubs will come years down the line.

I respectfully disagree. I've been involved in bench research and a clinical trial and i have found clinical research to be much more high stakes and intense.

 

[Narmerguy]

Regardless of small differences in how different fields may be perceived, I would not let this dictate which research you get involved in. Research is a challenging, demanding experience and nothing sucks more than researching something you don't care about or find intrinsically boring. Personally, after my first experience doing cell culture, westerns, and PCR, I'll never touch that kind of research again. I'll get way more fun and fulfillment doing research that personally interests me (or at the very least doesn't make me want to drink from the nearest flask of reagents).

Your involvement in research will be a positive for your application. Regardless of whether that research field is clinical, psychological, sociological, etc, your application will not be held back by the field of research that you choose--so choose something that you like and find interesting.

 

[ridethecliche]

I respectfully disagree. I've been involved in bench research and a clinical trial and i have found clinical research to be much more high stakes and intense.

Did you read my statement? I said it's different than a retrospective trial and that few people will ever be involved with a clinical trial.

Clinical>bench>retro.

Reading comprehension is fundamental.

 

[bambam92]

I heard its first author in Nature or GTFO in the big leagues man...