Research in Soft Sciences vs. Hard Sciences.

[fmannan93]

Do medical schools have preference toward hard science research (i.e. biological or chemical)? Or do they treat all forms of research with equal prerogative? The reason I ask is because I am a Japanese major, and I'm strongly considering in working with my university's department head on some anthropological research instead of biological research. (I am also a Bio major, and I've had offers for scientific research that I've turned down). Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[angemon89]

It most likely depends on the school.

I chatted with a medical student about her interview at UCSF and all they wanted to talk about was her research as an undergrad (in the "hard sciences").

 

[yuiness]

My impression is that "research" in the context of med school generally means basic science research (wet lab/bench research) or clinical research. Anthropology research would likely make you stand out as an interesting applicant, but I'm not sure that it would be viewed in the same way as the 2 kinds of research that I mentioned above.

 

[mimelim]

Do medical schools have preference toward hard science research (i.e. biological or chemical)? Or do they treat all forms of research with equal prerogative? The reason I ask is because I am a Japanese major, and I'm strongly considering in working with my university's department head on some anthropological research instead of biological research. (I am also a Bio major, and I've had offers for scientific research that I've turned down). Thanks.

Only two things matter for any EC, production and what you learn by doing it. What you do, content wise and field wise is largely irrelavent. Of course something that adcoms or the general public can identify with or understand is obviously easier to work with since you have less explaining to do. To say, "I did research" is meaningless. What did you produce? What did you learn? What skills do you bring to the table because of that experience?

Biology or other 'hard' science research is easier to understand from a medical school admissions perspective, but remember, doing whatever you do well is more important than what you do. If you are going to be more interested and work 3 times as hard in another EC, it is likely better than half-assing hard science research.

 

[Nymphicus]

Doesn't really matter.

 

[Lil Mick]

Unless you are applying to MD/PhD programs in another PhD area, it doesn't matter what sort of research, as long as you learn from the experience and can explain it to someone interviewing you.

 

[Narmerguy]

Unless you are applying to MD/PhD programs in another PhD area, it doesn't matter what sort of research, as long as you learn from the experience and can explain it to someone interviewing you.

Agreed. The thinking often goes that if you were involved at the intellectual/creative research level in one field, and you've got strong credentials in sciences (by GPA or MCAT), you can probably get involved at the research level in the "hard" sciences as well. Do what you enjoy!

 

[saveourpens]

I did both. That said research oriented schools want to see you think like a scientist and bench research is more suited to that imo. On the other hand research in the "soft sciences" always makes for an interesting conversation come interviews.

 

[beyondhuman]

I did both. That said research oriented schools want to see you think like a scientist and bench research is more suited to that imo. On the other hand research in the "soft sciences" always makes for an interesting conversation come interviews.

As another individual who did both (social psychology & genetics) I feel that the social science research was much more independent and hypothesis driven than my physical science experience. In other words, I learned much more about being a scientist doing the "soft" science (although I obviously learned more about working in a lab when I was actually in a lab)

 

[aspiring20]

Only two things matter for any EC, production and what you learn by doing it. What you do, content wise and field wise is largely irrelavent. Of course something that adcoms or the general public can identify with or understand is obviously easier to work with since you have less explaining to do. To say, "I did research" is meaningless. What did you produce? What did you learn? What skills do you bring to the table because of that experience?

Biology or other 'hard' science research is easier to understand from a medical school admissions perspective, but remember, doing whatever you do well is more important than what you do. If you are going to be more interested and work 3 times as hard in another EC, it is likely better than half-assing hard science research.

agreed completely, but doing really well in the hard sciences is going to give you a better shot than doing really well in something completely unrelated. doesnt favor me personally, but it makes sense for the system.

 

[aspiring20]

As another individual who did both (social psychology & genetics) I feel that the social science research was much more independent and hypothesis driven than my physical science experience. In other words, I learned much more about being a scientist doing the "soft" science (although I obviously learned more about working in a lab when I was actually in a lab)

technically, i also did both: 2 yrs in a physician's lab and honors thesis in art.

from my experience my honors thesis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lab research

but in general, i think any types of research/intensive project will be looked at very favorably. though it is important to articulate your research.