research vs clinical hours

[whirlpool159]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Does it look bad if you have more hours of research experience than clinical experience?

 

[Lawpy]

Does it look bad if you have more hours of research experience than clinical experience?

Depends. 400+ research hours and only 50 clinical hours is bad. 1000+ research hours and 300+ clinical hours is a lot better.

But hours are a poor metric. Focus on longevity (how long you spent on each activity) and quality (how personally meaningful each activity is) of the experiences.

 

[Gibbward]

Depends. 400+ research hours and only 50 clinical hours is bad. 1000+ research hours and 300+ clinical hours is a lot better.

But hours are a poor metric. Focus on longevity (how long you spent on each activity) and quality (how personally meaningful each activity is) of the experiences.

Non-trad here so YMMV, but when I applied, I had thousands of research hours from undergrad, graduate school, and from working full-time in a research lab for 1 year. On the other hand, I had 1oo-300 hours of clinical volunteering (the hours depend on how strict you are with your definition of clinical experience). Yet, I had a fairly successful app cycle! Like Lawper said, quality of experiences can definitely play a big factor.

 

[efle]

I think it is common for people to have more research hours. Many people do full-time summers in research programs and/or 12-15 hours per week of research-for-credits during semesters. The typical clinical volunteering is a lot less hours than that.

 

[Doctor-S]

FWIW ...

+1 @Lawper ... and +1 @efle.