Research-The Weight It Has?

[YouNeverKnow22]

Ok this question has been lingering on my mind so I'm going to go ahead and ask it. How much weight does research have for top schools like Hopkins and Harvard?

I've been conducting research this summer in neuroscience to try my hand at lab research, it's been an interesting experience but the bottom line is I do not enjoy lab research. Top schools can't possibly expect every applicant to be truly be interested in lab research, shouldn't research be out of interest and not just an application booster?

I enjoy more clinical experiences and am considering doing research in the clinical area if I can get an opportunity. It boggles my mind when everyone boasts all these research opportunites/publications they have because I want to be competitve for top schools but want to stay away from research labs for the most part. In context is Lab Research weighed more than Clinical Research? Especially since getting pubs is harder in the clinical area?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LetsGo352]

Research is an absolute must for those top-tier schools. It should be decently long-term too, not just a summer. Also, a publication or two would look really good.

 

[exoslimjim]

lets make a bet on this...

Research or a publication is not required for any med school, even in the first tier of schools. If it was then I don't think this post would exist. And there are too many exceptions if this was a true trend. The HST or MD/PhD track is of course very different.

Research is research. What's important is picking something you have or can develop a passion for otherwise it's not worth your time. There is no standard for evaluating ease of publishing between clinical and basic research. Publishing is only important for PhD track. If you want to go to a good MD school, get great numbers and unique experiences whether it be in research or not.

I think many people are forgetting the significance of publishing. Publishing means to contribute to a forum, rather than a step into med school.

 

[apumic]

Research may not be a "must," but it sure would be helpful, esp. at top schools. Remember, the primary reason "top schools" are ranked where they are is their research output. As a result, the only real reason to go to those schools is to participate in and learn from their research. If you're not interested in research, go the cheapest place you can find. If you're not interested in research, frankly, Harvard Med is probably worse for you than, say, Wayne State (nothing against Wayne State, btw, it's a great school but it's ranked in the bottom third as I recall).

 

[Naijaba]

Research may not be a "must," but it sure would be helpful, esp. at top schools. Remember, the primary reason "top schools" are ranked where they are is their research output. As a result, the only real reason to go to those schools is to participate in and learn from their research. If you're not interested in research, go the cheapest place you can find. If you're not interested in research, frankly, Harvard Med is probably worse for you than, say, Wayne State (nothing against Wayne State, btw, it's a great school but it's ranked in the bottom third as I recall).

This is correct. Since most people use U.S. News and World Report's findings to rank schools, you better check whether you're sorting by Research or Primary Care:

Research:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...schools/top-medical-schools/research-rankings

Primary Care:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...ols/top-medical-schools/primary-care-rankings

Notice that neither Harvard nor Hopkins are in the top 10 for Primary Care...

 

[JJMrK]

Unless you are really unique, have a crazy EC, or are URM, your chances at Harvard without research are probably pretty low.

Obviously, never say never.

 

[Cardiac]

This is correct. Since most people use U.S. News and World Report's findings to rank schools, you better check whether you're sorting by Research or Primary Care:

Research:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...schools/top-medical-schools/research-rankings

Primary Care:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...ols/top-medical-schools/primary-care-rankings

Notice that neither Harvard nor Hopkins are in the top 10 for Primary Care...

I always wondered why they don't have rankings for specialist/secondary care. It seems like it's worked into the research rankings, but I still think there's a difference between a research physician, a specialist, and a PCP.

As to your question, if you really want to go to a top research school, research is important. Some students do get in without it, but that is not the norm.

 

[ReptarBar]

what? its 100x easier to get published with clinical research. i havent even done any real research and im getting published in a surgery journal soon.

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

I guess the main reason I'm asking this is I would like to be competitive for top schools but I would much rather conduct clinical research than laboratory research, would that in theory "cripple" my chances at a top school? Because I'm going the non-laboratory route?

 

[AspiringDOC2010]

Just curious. And I don't intend to hijack the thread. But what do u guys think about how research may play at schools with an emphasis in primary care? I know research is viewed as a must at the top research schools, but how is it viewed by those less research heavy schools? Is it a plus or is it just looked over?

 

[sully677]

I would think a run of the mill pre-med doesn't have much of a chance at these top schools without research experience.

 

[Jolt21]

unless you are really unique, have a crazy ec, or are urm, your chances at harvard without research are probably pretty low.

Obviously, never say never.

qft

the fact that harvard requires letters form every lab you have worked in says something...

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

qft

the fact that harvard requires letters form every lab you have worked in says something...

yeah I saw that, hmmmm I guess i'll have to grit my teeth then and do some lab research

 

[schismal]

the fact that harvard requires letters form every lab you have worked in says something...

Additionally, one of Stanford's secondary questions asks you to list all your publications, and I'd be surprised if Hopkins doesn't ask something similar.

 

[rabidpanda13]

Just curious. And I don't intend to hijack the thread. But what do u guys think about how research may play at schools with an emphasis in primary care? I know research is viewed as a must at the top research schools, but how is it viewed by those less research heavy schools? Is it a plus or is it just looked over?

I second this question. Any takers?

I highly doubt it would be "looked over" but can anyone comment on whether or not it was a MAJOR plus or the focus of interviews, etc.

 

[Jolt21]

Additionally, one of Stanford's secondary questions asks you to list all your publications, and I'd be surprised if Hopkins doesn't ask something similar.

didn't know, but thats great news...

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

So in the end lab research is given more weight? Is that the bottom line?

 

[FeatherPen]

you should PM LizzyM. i doubt any of us pre-meds know the finer points of how medical schools view research experience.

clinical vs. lab at a primary care oriented vs. research oriented school

who knows? i feel like it should depend on your level of involvement and whether you were able to produce. this should be true for the time commitment, as well. if you can get yourself a couple 2nd authorships on cutting-edge nanotech research within 4 or 5 months, the brevity of the experience is overshadowed by the impressive output.

phD programs most likely use an equation which factors in not only the # of publications, but also, the Impact Factor.

could low impact chemistry/bio lab publications be trumped in the eyes of the adcoms favoring such lab-oriented research by a single high impact clinical neuroscience publication? I do not know.

in regards to harvard, jhu, stanford, etc. , the MSAR lists ~90-93% as having done research. however, the percentage doing high yield research is certainly much lower. having a published paper puts you in the top 10% of all applicants* (regardless of clinical/lab).

at the end of the day, if you have the choice between being published in lab or published in clinical, i would suggest choosing the one which sparks your curiousity and excites you the most. in the final analysis of your experience, in regard to your application to medical school, your interview that is, it is this research that will light up your eyes and put excitement in your voice. it is this research that you will be able to really thrive off of.

a win-win situation all around... good luck

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

you should PM LizzyM. i doubt any of us pre-meds know the finer points of how medical schools view research experience.

clinical vs. lab at a primary care oriented vs. research oriented school

who knows? i feel like it should depend on your level of involvement and whether you were able to produce. this should be true for the time commitment, as well. if you can get yourself a couple 2nd authorships on cutting-edge nanotech research within 4 or 5 months, the brevity of the experience is overshadowed by the impressive output.

phD programs most likely use an equation which factors in not only the # of publications, but also, the Impact Factor.

could low impact chemistry/bio lab publications be trumped in the eyes of the adcoms favoring such lab-oriented research by a single high impact clinical neuroscience publication? I do not know.

in regards to harvard, jhu, stanford, etc. , the MSAR lists ~90-93% as having done research. however, the percentage doing high yield research is certainly much lower. having a published paper puts you in the top 10% of all applicants (regardless of clinical/lab).

at the end of the day, if you have the choice between being published in lab or published in clinical, i would suggest choosing the one which sparks your curiousity and excites you the most. in the final analysis of your experience, in regard to your application to medical school, your interview that is, it is this research that will light up your eyes and put excitement in your voice. it is this research that you will be able to really thrive off of.

a win-win situation all around... good luck

I see where your coming from, and I'm not interested in the whole MD/PhD route.....hopefully someone with experience can answer the fundamental question--is lab research weighed more than clinical research at top schools

 

[BerlinDude]

Ok this question has been lingering on my mind so I'm going to go ahead and ask it. How much weight does research have for top schools like Hopkins and Harvard?

I've been conducting research this summer in neuroscience to try my hand at lab research, it's been an interesting experience but the bottom line is I do not enjoy lab research. Top schools can't possibly expect every applicant to be truly be interested in lab research, shouldn't research be out of interest and not just an application booster?

I enjoy more clinical experiences and am considering doing research in the clinical area if I can get an opportunity. It boggles my mind when everyone boasts all these research opportunites/publications they have because I want to be competitve for top schools but want to stay away from research labs for the most part. In context is Lab Research weighed more than Clinical Research? Especially since getting pubs is harder in the clinical area?

One, you are crazy if you think it is harder to get published in clinical research than basic science. Seriously crazy.

Two, as for your original question, don't worry about it. Getting into a top-10 is a random process. You might as well throw dice to estimate your odds.

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

One, you are crazy if you think it is harder to get published in clinical research than basic science. Seriously crazy.

Two, as for your original question, don't worry about it. Getting into a top-10 is a random process. You might as well throw dice to estimate your odds.

sorry I'm new to this and just made an assumption about that.

 

[ReptarBar]

i already told you. find a renowned, experienced doctor/surgeon who cranks out publications and email him/her. check your local hospitals websites for profiles. if you get to work with one of them, you will easily get a publishing opportunity. a publication is a publication. maybe the pub is stupid, but the adcoms wont even know that until they interview you (in which case you have a chance to explain and defend it). as featherpen said (which is what LizzyM said a while back), a publication automatically puts you in the highest tier in terms of research, regardless of impact factor of journal or authorship position (it just cant be a case report or an abstract...just a legitimate full length article).

honestly, i think its better to have clinical publications. it will help in the future if you have pubs that relate to your desired specialty. for example, i will have pubs in otolaryngology/plastics, and those specialties seem very appealing to me atm.

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

i already told you. find a renowned, experienced doctor/surgeon who cranks out publications and email him/her. check your local hospitals websites for profiles. if you get to work with one of them, you will easily get a publishing opportunity. a publication is a publication. maybe the pub is stupid, but the adcoms wont even know that until they interview you (in which case you have a chance to explain and defend it). as featherpen said (which is what LizzyM said a while back), a publication automatically puts you in the highest tier in terms of research, regardless of impact factor of journal or authorship position (it just cant be a case report or an abstract...just a legitimate full length article).

honestly, i think its better to have clinical publications. it will help in the future if you have pubs that relate to your desired specialty. for example, i will have pubs in otolaryngology/plastics, and those specialties seem very appealing to me atm.

thanks, I think I'll dive into clinical because it's way more interesting to me than lab research which is DRONING.

 

[ReptarBar]

yes, i think its really important that you get published in any type of research you do. the plastic surgeon im working with said that hes so pissed that he spent 4 years doing microbio research in undergrad and not getting a single pub. he doesnt even put it on his resume anymore...it was a total waste of time. i mean just the act of researching is interesting, but if you invest so much time in something and cant even vouch for it in the future, its pointless.

 

[Narmerguy]

yes, i think its really important that you get published in any type of research you do. the plastic surgeon im working with said that hes so pissed that he spent 4 years doing microbio research in undergrad and not getting a single pub. he doesnt even put it on his resume anymore...it was a total waste of time. i mean just the act of researching is interesting, but if you invest so much time in something and cant even vouch for it in the future, its pointless.

Yeah it is quite frustrating when you work hard and do a lot of work on a project and then never manage to get anything to show for it. Of course you gain a lot of other things from the experience but who doesn't want a trophy for running the race?

 

[Jolt21]

it will help in the future if you have pubs that relate to your desired specialty. for example, i will have pubs in otolaryngology/plastics, and those specialties seem very appealing to me atm.

actually, it is my understanding that even if you do clinical publication in undergrad, it hardly, if at all, transfers if you are interested in that specialty. unless what you did contributed significantly to the field. i've been told numerous times all the neurosurg research i'm doing wont transfer at all (i'm not interested in neurosurg, but i asked just in case).

 

[Naijaba]

Yeah it is quite frustrating when you work hard and do a lot of work on a project and then never manage to get anything to show for it. Of course you gain a lot of other things from the experience but who doesn't want atrophy for running the race?

IMHO I think too many premeds, including the OP, conduct research for the trophy of putting it on their resume. That is the wrong reason to do it and I'm sure adcoms will be able to distinguish applicants who do it for points instead of interest. But nevertheless you won't know if you like it until you try it.

 

[rabidpanda13]

IMHO I think too many premeds, including the OP, conduct research for the trophy of putting it on their resume. That is the wrong reason to do it and I'm sure adcoms will be able to distinguish applicants who do it for points instead of interest. But nevertheless you won't know if you like it until you try it.

Since research isn't considered "absolutely necessary" I wasn't going to do it just for the hell of it for my app (call me crazy) but I got involved with a lab on campus and it turns out I absolutely love it. It's become the best part of my summer so far.

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

IMHO I think too many premeds, including the OP, conduct research for the trophy of putting it on their resume. That is the wrong reason to do it and I'm sure adcoms will be able to distinguish applicants who do it for points instead of interest. But nevertheless you won't know if you like it until you try it.

you're very wrong with that assumption. I tried my hand at lab research and I didn't like it....so I'm done with it after this summer. I'm much more interested in clinical research and that's what i'll pursue.

My point of this thread was to simply ask if the lab research has more weight in the adcoms eyes than in clinical research.

 

[ReptarBar]

aw man clinical pubs now wont help in the future? i always thought they did =/

 

[orrghead16]

yes, i think its really important that you get published in any type of research you do. the plastic surgeon im working with said that hes so pissed that he spent 4 years doing microbio research in undergrad and not getting a single pub. he doesnt even put it on his resume anymore...it was a total waste of time. i mean just the act of researching is interesting, but if you invest so much time in something and cant even vouch for it in the future, its pointless.

In the end, if you spent four years doing something that you now regret, I would blame the beneficiary rather than the field. If you are in a good lab for four years, you probably might publish something, or at least get something meaningful out of the experience. It is more or less the surgeons fault back in undergrad; sounds like he got used like so many UGs do. 4 years in a good lab and I bet the surgeon would have a different outlook. No surprise he ended up in plastics instead of infectious disease.

It has already been pointed out, but publication hunting in UG is about worthless and shouldn't be in the main-stream interest of pre-meds. The surgeon's history of a prime example of pub hunting gone wrong.

Second, doing 4 years in a microbiology lab and publishing meaningful articles will blow away clinical pubs majority of the time.

Third, the highest ranked medical schools, ranked about exclusively on their money they get from the NIH from research, is barely at all based on clinical write-ups. What pulls R01 money is basic science research.

Adcoms realize just how easy it is to publish some clinical studies, which (as has been pointed out) might be as easy as typing up a few paragraphs or staring at excel. Likewise, schools realize how hard it can be to publish in basic sciences sometimes

If clinical research sparks your interest, rock it. If basic science tickles you, go for it. No sense in basing it off publication alone

 

[Naijaba]

you're very wrong with that assumption. I tried my hand at lab research and I didn't like it....so I'm done with it after this summer. I'm much more interested in clinical research and that's what i'll pursue.

My point of this thread was to simply ask if the lab research has more weight in the adcoms eyes than in clinical research.

Ok, sorry about that, I made the assumption based upon your title of the thread. I thought it was akin to saying "How important is research for my admission?"

 

[redlight]

This is correct. Since most people use U.S. News and World Report's findings to rank schools, you better check whether you're sorting by Research or Primary Care:

Research:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...schools/top-medical-schools/research-rankings

Primary Care:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...ols/top-medical-schools/primary-care-rankings

Notice that neither Harvard nor Hopkins are in the top 10 for Primary Care...

i dont really understand those primary care rankings... what exactly are they saying? they are ranking the best primary care programs? or the programs that crank out the most primary care docs?

 

[Naijaba]

i dont really understand those primary care rankings... what exactly are they saying? they are ranking the best primary care programs? or the programs that crank out the most primary care docs?

Here's their methodology:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/educ...4/22/medical-school-rankings-methodology.html

You're right: "The percentage of M.D. or D.O. school graduates entering primary-care residencies in the fields of family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine was averaged over 2006, 2007, and 2008." --- Accounts for 30% of their rankings.

On another note, something that I didn't know about the research rankings:

20% - Student Selectivity
13% - Mean MCAT Score

So, top schools are top because their incoming students are good at the MCAT? I am sure that their is a correlation but I think an assessment of a school's curriculum should be independent of the students; although students probably help one another a great deal in med school.

Also, what is "Student Selectivity"? Does that mean: "Because most students, when given the choice, go there, it is a good school?" Or does it mean: "They accept the least number of applicants."

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

Ok, sorry about that, I made the assumption based upon your title of the thread. I thought it was akin to saying "How important is research for my admission?"

no i meant the weight lab research has over clinical, i should have been more specific.

 

[19nbj58]

Also, what is "Student Selectivity"?

Its mcat(.13), gpa(.06) and acceptance rate(.01).

 

[ReptarBar]

In the end, if you spent four years doing something that you now regret, I would blame the beneficiary rather than the field. If you are in a good lab for four years, you probably might publish something, or at least get something meaningful out of the experience. It is more or less the surgeons fault back in undergrad; sounds like he got used like so many UGs do. 4 years in a good lab and I bet the surgeon would have a different outlook. No surprise he ended up in plastics instead of infectious disease.

It has already been pointed out, but publication hunting in UG is about worthless and shouldn't be in the main-stream interest of pre-meds. The surgeon's history of a prime example of pub hunting gone wrong.

Second, doing 4 years in a microbiology lab and publishing meaningful articles will blow away clinical pubs majority of the time.

Third, the highest ranked medical schools, ranked about exclusively on their money they get from the NIH from research, is barely at all based on clinical write-ups. What pulls R01 money is basic science research.

Adcoms realize just how easy it is to publish some clinical studies, which (as has been pointed out) might be as easy as typing up a few paragraphs or staring at excel. Likewise, schools realize how hard it can be to publish in basic sciences sometimes

If clinical research sparks your interest, rock it. If basic science tickles you, go for it. No sense in basing it off publication alone

look at this ****ing elitist. he wasnt PUB hunting you idiot. he is just disappointed that NO ONE CARES about his research anymore since he didnt get published. wouldnt you be disappointed if your lousy PI wouldnt let you publish your hard work?

after going through his whole medical career, he realized how easy it is to get published and how stupid it is to NOT publish if you do something new. after all, what is research if you dont report the results? thats why hes pissed that those thousands of hours went to waste. its like running a marathon but not finishing it. the health benefits are there, but you didnt accomplish much.

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

In the end, if you spent four years doing something that you now regret, I would blame the beneficiary rather than the field. If you are in a good lab for four years, you probably might publish something, or at least get something meaningful out of the experience. It is more or less the surgeons fault back in undergrad; sounds like he got used like so many UGs do. 4 years in a good lab and I bet the surgeon would have a different outlook. No surprise he ended up in plastics instead of infectious disease.

It has already been pointed out, but publication hunting in UG is about worthless and shouldn't be in the main-stream interest of pre-meds. The surgeon's history of a prime example of pub hunting gone wrong.

Second, doing 4 years in a microbiology lab and publishing meaningful articles will blow away clinical pubs majority of the time.

Third, the highest ranked medical schools, ranked about exclusively on their money they get from the NIH from research, is barely at all based on clinical write-ups. What pulls R01 money is basic science research.

Adcoms realize just how easy it is to publish some clinical studies, which (as has been pointed out) might be as easy as typing up a few paragraphs or staring at excel. Likewise, schools realize how hard it can be to publish in basic sciences sometimes

If clinical research sparks your interest, rock it. If basic science tickles you, go for it. No sense in basing it off publication alone

isn't the purpose actually enjoying your research instead of trying to do something that will please the others? I can probably guarantee a lot of people are forcing themselves to work in a lab setting because it "looks good". If your passionate about research does it really matter if it's clinical or lab?

I want to be competitive for top-tier schools but I'm going to research in something I'm interested in the clinical area because bottom line is I don't enjoy lab research, my "educated guess" on this would be that those top schools would want variety instead of focusing on applicants with great lab research they should consider applicants with great clinical research as well.

 

[Narmerguy]

Here's their methodology:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/educ...4/22/medical-school-rankings-methodology.html

You're right: "The percentage of M.D. or D.O. school graduates entering primary-care residencies in the fields of family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine was averaged over 2006, 2007, and 2008." --- Accounts for 30% of their rankings.

On another note, something that I didn't know about the research rankings:

20% - Student Selectivity
13% - Mean MCAT Score

So, top schools are top because their incoming students are good at the MCAT? I am sure that their is a correlation but I think an assessment of a school's curriculum should be independent of the students; although students probably help one another a great deal in med school.

Also, what is "Student Selectivity"? Does that mean: "Because most students, when given the choice, go there, it is a good school?" Or does it mean: "They accept the least number of applicants."

That all seems like a pretty poor way of ranking schools. So much of it seems predicated on the personal choices of the students or their previous success before even attending medical school (MCAT, GPA)

 

[Jolt21]

isn't the purpose actually enjoying your research instead of trying to do something that will please the others? I can probably guarantee a lot of people are forcing themselves to work in a lab setting because it "looks good". If your passionate about research does it really matter if it's clinical or lab?

I want to be competitive for top-tier schools but I'm going to research in something I'm interested in the clinical area because bottom line is I don't enjoy lab research, my "educated guess" on this would be that those top schools would want variety instead of focusing on applicants with great lab research they should consider applicants with great clinical research as well.

there is different type of "lab research"...some which include no benchwork at all.

the lab i work in is a neurosurg lab...i dont do bench work. i'm always in the OR, MRI, CT, or somewhere else. This is by no means clinical though. we turn to journals such as journal of neuroscience, neurotrauma, etc. i picked this lab b/c it wasn't clinical, but have clinical relevance, and is still lab research. i cant stand the normal "wet" lab...pipetting, cell cultures, etc. yuck.

just an option

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

there is different type of "lab research"...some which include no benchwork at all.

the lab i work in is a neurosurg lab...i dont do bench work. i'm always in the OR, MRI, CT, or somewhere else. This is by no means clinical though. we turn to journals such as journal of neuroscience, neurotrauma, etc. i picked this lab b/c it wasn't clinical, but have clinical relevance, and is still lab research. i cant stand the normal "wet" lab...pipetting, cell cultures, etc. yuck.

just an option

hmm sounds interesting I might have to explore my options

 

[Jolt21]

my "educated guess" on this would be that those top schools would want variety instead of focusing on applicants with great lab research they should consider applicants with great clinical research as well.

they want variety, yes. but they want variety from hard workers. they may be able to tell if you skated through the clinical work and just leeched off some physician and just wrote up a couple of paragraphs...now if you spent a significant amount of time doing it, then hopefully they would notice that too.

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

they want variety, yes. but they want variety from hard workers. they may be able to tell if you skated through the clinical work and just leeched off some physician and just wrote up a couple of paragraphs...now if you spent a significant amount of time doing it, then hopefully they would notice that too.

yeah thats what I mean, obviously I'm not trying to B.S. my way into something.....I'm too lazy to do something I don't care about.

 

[orrghead16]

isn't the purpose actually enjoying your research instead of trying to do something that will please the others? I can probably guarantee a lot of people are forcing themselves to work in a lab setting because it "looks good". If your passionate about research does it really matter if it's clinical or lab?

I want to be competitive for top-tier schools but I'm going to research in something I'm interested in the clinical area because bottom line is I don't enjoy lab research, my "educated guess" on this would be that those top schools would want variety instead of focusing on applicants with great lab research they should consider applicants with great clinical research as well.

This is completely true, not what I was getting at in my original post. My point was more along the lines that both are equal, but going into one or the other shouldn't be based on publication-ability alone.

If clinical research sparks your interest, rock it. If basic science tickles you, go for it. No sense in basing it off publication alone

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

This is completely true, not what I was getting at in my original post. My point was more along the lines that both are equal, but going into one or the other shouldn't be based on publication-ability alone.

I agree with that statement yet it's becoming a "necessary evil" to have publications not matter what kind of research you do because if you don't then your not going to be as competitive as some other person who does have publications, even if that person didn't enjoy their research and you did.....it's a flawed system IMO.

 

[FeatherPen]

I agree with that statement yet it's becoming a "necessary evil" to have publications not matter what kind of research you do because if you don't then your not going to be as competitive as some other person who does have publications, even if that person didn't enjoy their research and you did.....it's a flawed system IMO.

it is neither necessary nor evil to have published research before you enter a medical school.

 

[orrghead16]

look at this ****ing elitist. he wasnt PUB hunting you idiot. he is just disappointed that NO ONE CARES about his research anymore since he didnt get published. wouldnt you be disappointed if your lousy PI wouldnt let you publish your hard work?

after going through his whole medical career, he realized how easy it is to get published and how stupid it is to NOT publish if you do something new. after all, what is research if you dont report the results? thats why hes pissed that those thousands of hours went to waste. its like running a marathon but not finishing it. the health benefits are there, but you didnt accomplish much.

Which is why he should blame his ex-****ty lab and not the field nor basic science for his lack of publications.

But for all we know, the PI could have cranked out thousands of hours of useless data, etc. There are literally a thousand reasons why this could have happened; we have no idea why. Could have been scooped, working in the wrong bug the whole time and not knowing it, on and on.

It is not easy to be published. Most UGs won't, simply because they can't produce enough novel, useful data in the limited amount of time they can spend in lab.

 

[Winter Lily]

What if you were a Research Assistant in a non-science field, but on health-related subjects? And what if your work eventually got published?

 

[YouNeverKnow22]

it is neither necessary nor evil to have published research before you enter a medical school.

i know, I'm just saying to be competitive at top schools its an unwritten must.....unless you have some real unique EC