Research - how much is enough?

[ChinaDoll]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Just wondering...let's say I want to get into Duke

Do you guys think one year+ of intense research experience will be enough??

How much research do people usually do??

'cause in my school, we can't get into research until we take certain courses...so I am a liiiittle concerned about this...

some advice?😎

 

[w8ting2exhale]

I'm applying to Duke. I have about 3.5 yrs of research. I sure hope that's enough.

 

[ChinaDoll]

I'm applying to Duke. I have about 3.5 yrs of research. I sure hope that's enough.

wow!!! that is a lot😱

 

[Cardiac]

It's a matter of how involved you are with it. One year for some people can be a lot of experience, but in my first year, I did almost nothing because it took that long just to learn the technology they were using and to understand the concepts behind the research (nonlinear photonics). If you're going into some fields like microbio, you'll be able to get running pretty fast so that's positive. There really isn't a measure for how long you have to do research, but a year sounds fine. Also, you can probably do some sort of research without taking those courses - it seems counter-intuitive that a school would forbid you from joining a lab group.

 

[w8ting2exhale]

wow!!! that is a lot😱

lol. I started early and got pretty involved.

But I don't think you need to overkill. Just as long as you can talk about your research intelligibly and with interest, you should be fine. In your original post you said "one year+ of intense research experience"...which means you obviously know you're alright.😉 (Well I'm just applying now so I don't know it all)

 

[parafilm]

Sounds like you're fine. Not everyone is able to get into a lab as a freshman to get 3.5 years in. I'll be applying with 3.5 also, but to be fair, about a year of it was more "lab work" than "research".

I'm now a master pipetter, and you should see my maxiprep DNA yields!

 

[flip26]

Just wondering...let's say I want to get into Duke

Do you guys think one year+ of intense research experience will be enough??

How much research do people usually do??

'cause in my school, we can't get into research until we take certain courses...so I am a liiiittle concerned about this...

some advice?😎

Many people acquire significant research post college, in jobs, or in grad school.

For "trad" students who go straight from college to med school, I am not sure there is a correct answer to your question...one year may be more than enough, or not nearly enough...

 

[UVAbme2009]

It took me about a year to be completely comfortable to be on my own in the lab. I think two years does the trick. I felt extremely productive in my second year.

 

[T15]

I think it depends on how you are selling yourself to the school. Are you claiming to be special because you are a great researcher or are you just trying to get a bit of experience so you can say something if asked about it. I interviewed at duke and the only research experience I had was one summer course where we worked in the professor's lab. So there is no cut off where you must have X number of hours doing research or Y number of publication. That said if you really want to do research because it seems fun it would be better to get going sooner.

 

[NJDIF]

if you have to ask "how much is enough", you probably shouldnt be doing it in the first place.

do research if you truly have a passion for it. dont do it because you think itll look good. interviewers can smell it from a mile away.

 

[NeuroChaos]

if you have to ask "how much is enough", you probably shouldnt be doing it in the first place.

do research if you truly have a passion for it. dont do it because you think itll look good. interviewers can smell it from a mile away.

👍👍 Agreed;
First off, research is not required; A dean at an ivy med school told me that we really donot care how many published papers you have; a master in lab does not translate into an excellent clinician; at a Med school we are interseted in training people who will be able to take care of others; we really donot care if they can do basic science research; it is not their job.

Yup, that's what she said; word for word!!

 

[shindotp]

👍👍 Agreed;
First off, research is not required; A dean at an ivy med school told me that we really donot care how many published papers you have; a master in lab does not translate into an excellent clinician; at a Med school we are interseted in training people who will be able to take care of others; we really donot care if they can do basic science research; it is not their job.

Yup, that's what she said; word for word!!

My MSAR says 98% of Stanford acceptees have research experience. 96% at Yale...

 

[Handinhand]

I don't think it's so much the knowledge you gain from research (Because lets face it, it's still undergrad research, you don't know ****, leave it to the PhDs), but it shows dedication. Med schools don't want to see a bunch of applicants that just skated through undergrad and got good grades and did nothing else. Research, specifically shows a dedication to learning more beyond your lectures, which is a quality every med school would like to see.

 

[CCLCMer]

As far as I know, my school is the only one in the country that absolutely requires research as a pre-req outside of MD/PhD programs. So you don't necessarily have to have done any research to apply to any other school's MD program.

This whole question about the value of research for pre-meds is kind of interesting. I see lots of threads where people debate about how much research to do, or even if they should do research at all. Still, we all know that plenty of people get into research-oriented med schools without ever having set foot in a lab. It's not completely obvious how or why that should be, but I'll take a stab at it.

What I think most schools are really looking for is scholarship. Scholarship implies being curious about the world and making an effort to learn something about it. So obviously the rubric of scholarship includes lab research, but it also includes other things outside of biomedical science or even outside of science at all. Many of the important questions in life can't be answered by science, but they can still be considered and maybe even studied. For example, maybe you do historical research, or analyze ethical issues, or critique a piece of literature, or crunch the numbers for Obama's health care proposal. Even an artist who uses their medium to express old ideas in a new way that hasn't been done before is performing scholarship of a sort. The thing all scholarship has in common is that you are adding something new to our body of knowledge, which includes our humanistic understanding of ourselves. So be a lab researcher if that's how you want to contribute, but be a scholar. That's what will make you stand out.

 

[shindotp]

As far as I know, my school is the only one in the country that absolutely requires research as a pre-req outside of MD/PhD programs. So you don't necessarily have to have done any research to apply to any other school's MD program.

This whole question about the value of research for pre-meds is kind of interesting. I see lots of threads where people debate about how much research to do, or even if they should do research at all. Still, we all know that plenty of people get into research-oriented med schools without ever having set foot in a lab. It's not completely obvious how or why that should be, but I'll take a stab at it.

What I think most schools are really looking for is scholarship. Scholarship implies being curious about the world and making an effort to learn something about it. So obviously the rubric of scholarship includes lab research, but it also includes other things outside of biomedical science or even outside of science at all. Many of the important questions in life can't be answered by science, but they can still be considered and maybe even studied. For example, maybe you do historical research, or analyze ethical issues, or critique a piece of literature, or crunch the numbers for Obama's health care proposal. Even an artist who uses their medium to express old ideas in a new way that hasn't been done before is performing scholarship of a sort. The thing all scholarship has in common is that you are adding something new to our body of knowledge, which includes our humanistic understanding of ourselves. So be a lab researcher if that's how you want to contribute, but be a scholar. That's what will make you stand out.

Being an artist isn't going to help get matched into a residency... Research does though.

Medical schools look for people who would make great doctors and would make great researchers. Perhaps that's why they want students with research exposure.

 

[CCLCMer]

Being an artist isn't going to help get matched into a residency... Research does though.

This is a non sequitur. We're talking about what MEDICAL SCHOOLS look for in PRE-MED applicants. Program directors are a whole different ballgame. It's true that for some of the more competitive specialties, nearly all applicants do research during MEDICAL SCHOOL. But the majority of pre-meds don't do anything during their college lab experiences that would be worthy of putting on a residency app. Instead, they continue doing research during med school, and that's what goes on their residency app. Even for residency apps, the majority of med students do not have extensive research experience to put down. Outside of the more academic and competitive specialties, most residencies don't require research, or even care about it. That's because the purpose of a residency is to train you as a clinician in most cases, not to pump out researchers. There are some research-oriented residencies, but they are not the majority.

 

[randombetch]

This is a non sequitur. We're talking about what MEDICAL SCHOOLS look for in PRE-MED applicants. Program directors are a whole different ballgame. It's true that for some of the more competitive specialties, nearly all applicants do research during MEDICAL SCHOOL. But the majority of pre-meds don't do anything during their college lab experiences that would be worthy of putting on a residency app. Instead, they continue doing research during med school, and that's what goes on their residency app. Even for residency apps, the majority of med students do not have extensive research experience to put down. Outside of the more academic and competitive specialties, most residencies don't require research, or even care about it. That's because the purpose of a residency is to train you as a clinician in most cases, not to pump out researchers. There are some research-oriented residencies, but they are not the majority.

I would assume that just how college wants people who are likely to get into great graduate/professional programs, medical schools would want people who are likely to get into great residencies. I mean, medical schools want successful doctors so of course they'd consider whether or not they think an applicant would be able to go on, thrive, and match well.

And this source shows that the average number of publications/abstracts/posters for people getting into highly competitive specialties is >5 (such as 7.2 for derm, 7.8 for neurosurgery, 8.2 for plastic surgery, and 8.0 for radiation oncology):
http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf

Even non-research oriented residencies have a minimum of 2 publications/abstracts/posters on average for successfully matched applicants (only exception being family medicine). Also, on average, people have 2-4 "research experiences."

 

[Blesbok]

My MSAR says 98% of Stanford acceptees have research experience. 96% at Yale...

And probably 96-98% of science graduates have research experience, so what is your point?

How many people do you know made it out of a science background without having to do some type of research project their senior year?

A research experience does not have to be some hardcore experience with multiple first author pubs.

 

[shindotp]

And probably 96-98% of science graduates have research experience, so what is your point?

How many people do you know made it out of a science background without having to do some type of research project their senior year?

A research experience does not have to be some hardcore experience with multiple first author pubs.

I never said research experience does have to be some hardcore experience with multiple first author pubs (lol I didn't even come close to implying that anywhere). My point was that top research schools want research experience. And so you're saying these numbers are largely because of science majors with senior research projects? Only 39% of Northeastern Ohio has research experience, and only 55% at UMiss. How do you explain that?

 

[shindotp]

This is a non sequitur. We're talking about what MEDICAL SCHOOLS look for in PRE-MED applicants. Program directors are a whole different ballgame. It's true that for some of the more competitive specialties, nearly all applicants do research during MEDICAL SCHOOL. But the majority of pre-meds don't do anything during their college lab experiences that would be worthy of putting on a residency app. Instead, they continue doing research during med school, and that's what goes on their residency app. Even for residency apps, the majority of med students do not have extensive research experience to put down. Outside of the more academic and competitive specialties, most residencies don't require research, or even care about it. That's because the purpose of a residency is to train you as a clinician in most cases, not to pump out researchers. There are some research-oriented residencies, but they are not the majority.

Not a non sequitur because medical school adcoms often look for the same characteristics that residency directors look for (their goal is the same: make good doctors).

 

[CCLCMer]

I would assume that just how college wants people who are likely to get into great graduate/professional programs, medical schools would want people who are likely to get into great residencies. I mean, medical schools want successful doctors so of course they'd consider whether or not they think an applicant would be able to go on, thrive, and match well.

I'm arguing that this assumption is wrong. First, how can a med school possibly know what the future plans are for any student? For many people, subjective things like location and personal life are a lot more important when choosing a specialty or residency compared with choosing a med school. Second, just about anyone who gets into med school somewhere in the US is capable of going on, thriving, and matching at a decent program, although maybe not in derm or something. Very few American grads don't match, and if they do, they probably got some crappy advising and it's not a surprise.

And this source shows that the average number of publications/abstracts/posters for people getting into highly competitive specialties is >5 (such as 7.2 for derm, 7.8 for neurosurgery, 8.2 for plastic surgery, and 8.0 for radiation oncology):
http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf

Even non-research oriented residencies have a minimum of 2 publications/abstracts/posters on average for successfully matched applicants (only exception being family medicine). Also, on average, people have 2-4 "research experiences."

As Blesbok already pointed out, there is a HUGE difference between a "research experience" and a real research background. For example, a lot of med students do research for the summer between their first and second years. It's two months in the lab, they do a poster, there you go. That's a research experience. Some people write up a case report. Another research experience. These aren't exactly PhD dissertation projects.

Not a non sequitur because medical school adcoms often look for the same characteristics that residency directors look for (their goal is the same: make good doctors).

I agree with you that the personal attributes needed to do well in residency are similar to the characteristics that med school adcomms look for in applicants, but we're not talking about the personal attributes of individual applicants. You said earlier that doing research would make you more competitive for residencies. Again, the purpose of most residencies is to train CLINICIANS, not scientists. The last NMRP data I saw concluded that having a grad degree is not helpful for the match. There are some specialties and specific residency programs that are looking to train academically-oriented physicians, but most want to train full-time clinicians who don't do research. Unless you're applying for residency at a program that wants to train academic physicians, they are going to care a lot more about your clinical grades and LORs than they are about your research projects.

 

[FSAP]

I would assume that just how college wants people who are likely to get into great graduate/professional programs, medical schools would want people who are likely to get into great residencies. I mean, medical schools want successful doctors so of course they'd consider whether or not they think an applicant would be able to go on, thrive, and match well.

And this source shows that the average number of publications/abstracts/posters for people getting into highly competitive specialties is >5 (such as 7.2 for derm, 7.8 for neurosurgery, 8.2 for plastic surgery, and 8.0 for radiation oncology):
http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf

Even non-research oriented residencies have a minimum of 2 publications/abstracts/posters on average for successfully matched applicants (only exception being family medicine). Also, on average, people have 2-4 "research experiences."

5+ is not too much. You can get that with just two projects: 2 pubs, 2 abstracts, 2 poster presentations. Of course, if all those five have to be different projects, then it's more difficult. Also, do they only include first author in their numbers?

 

[randombetch]

I'm arguing that this assumption is wrong. First, how can a med school possibly know what the future plans are for any student? For many people, subjective things like location and personal life are a lot more important when choosing a specialty or residency compared with choosing a med school. Second, just about anyone who gets into med school somewhere in the US is capable of going on, thriving, and matching at a decent program, although maybe not in derm or something. Very few American grads don't match, and if they do, they probably got some crappy advising and it's not a surprise.


As Blesbok already pointed out, there is a HUGE difference between a "research experience" and a real research background. For example, a lot of med students do research for the summer between their first and second years. It's two months in the lab, they do a poster, there you go. That's a research experience. Some people write up a case report. Another research experience. These aren't exactly PhD dissertation projects.


I agree with you that the personal attributes needed to do well in residency are similar to the characteristics that med school adcomms look for in applicants, but we're not talking about the personal attributes of individual applicants. You said earlier that doing research would make you more competitive for residencies. Again, the purpose of most residencies is to train CLINICIANS, not scientists. The last NMRP data I saw concluded that having a grad degree is not helpful for the match. There are some specialties and specific residency programs that are looking to train academically-oriented physicians, but most want to train full-time clinicians who don't do research. Unless you're applying for residency at a program that wants to train academic physicians, they are going to care a lot more about your clinical grades and LORs than they are about your research projects.

I see, thank you for your insight!

 

[notoriousmoops]

One can never have enough research.