Research with nobel prize winner or Harvard?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

See question below

  • Harvard

    Votes: 6 21.4%
  • University of Michigan w/ Nobel Prize Winner

    Votes: 22 78.6%

  • Total voters
    28

MangoPlant

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2012
Messages
383
Reaction score
158
Hypothetical question: If you had the opportunity to conduct research for the summer at Harvard with a faculty member as your PI and also the opportunity to conduct research at a lower-tier school (compared to Harvard, think University of Michigan) with a Nobel prize winner as your PI, which would you pick?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
depends on what the projects were. I wouldn't want to research with someone just for the sake of some reflected glory. I also wouldn't want to research at harvard just because it's harvard
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Take the position at that TTT, University of Michigan.
 
I wouldn't call University of Michigan a lower-tier school... But to answer your question, Nobel Prize winner.
 
I wouldn't want to research with someone just for the sake of some reflected glory. I also wouldn't want to research at harvard just because it's harvard
I second this.
Also, mentorship matters. Quite often prominent researchers (eg. Nobel prize winners) simply have no time to spare on a lowly undergrad. Don't kid yourself, you'll most likely be working with graduate students and postdocs.
 
Okay, here is your answer: if you are doing research to pad your medical school application - do the research that you find more interesting, as you will be expected to talk about why it was meaningful to you either on your AMCAS app, secondaries or in your interview. If you are doing research to just all around build up your CV, or potentially to apply to MD/PhD programs, I'd go with the nobel laureate. Their recommendation is essentially gospel.*

*Source: I've worked for a nobel laureate.
 
But to answer your question, Nobel Prize winner.
I disagree. Working with a Nobel prize winner doesn't guarantee research success or any kind of medical school application advantage.

OP, go to the lab you feel most comfortable in + do the research you like the most.
 
Last edited:
I second this.
Also, mentorship matters. Quite often prominent researchers (eg. Nobel prize winners) simply have no time to spare on a lowly undergrad. Don't kid yourself, you'll most likely be working with graduate students and postdocs.
This, more than institutional name. I started my undergraduate research in a small, no-name research lab that had recently been established at a nearby university. The professor was eager to publish frequently to build a name for himself at that institution, and because the research group was small (2 technicians, a post-doc, and me) I got to do a lot of the writing and publishing myself, with frequent PI face-time. This simply isn't guaranteed in larger research groups. Pick the research group of these two that offers you more chance for upward mobility and hands-on work. You want to be getting opportunities to learn techniques and build your own career, not just to assist on a graduate student's project for a mention in the 'Acknowledgements' section of a paper or to spend weeks re-organizing shelves.
 
This, more than institutional name. I started my undergraduate research in a small, no-name research lab that had recently been established at a nearby university. The professor was eager to publish frequently to build a name for himself at that institution, and because the research group was small (2 technicians, a post-doc, and me) I got to do a lot of the writing and publishing myself, with frequent PI face-time. This simply isn't guaranteed in larger research groups. Pick the research group of these two that offers you more chance for upward mobility and hands-on work. You want to be getting opportunities to learn techniques and build your own career, not just to assist on a graduate student's project for a mention in the 'Acknowledgements' section of a paper or to spend weeks re-organizing shelves.

I redact my previous suggestion.
I kind of forgot about this lol.
 
Okay, here is your answer: if you are doing research to pad your medical school application - do the research that you find more interesting, as you will be expected to talk about why it was meaningful to you either on your AMCAS app, secondaries or in your interview. If you are doing research to just all around build up your CV, or potentially to apply to MD/PhD programs, I'd go with the nobel laureate. Their recommendation is essentially gospel.*

*Source: I've worked for a nobel laureate.
I agree with you on the first part (doing something meaningful), but disagree on the second. A LOR from a Nobel prize winner may indeed be gospel for research jobs or, say, green card applications, but I'm not sure it carries as much weight in the medical school application process. The strongest medical school LORs are written by people who know you well and are enthusiastic about helping you succeed; Nobel prize winners, as a rule, are too busy to care about an undergrad volunteer in their lab (they hardly care about their graduate students and postdocs, as a rule) and to write him/her a really strong letter.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Oh wait is this question reflecting a real-life situation for OP? LOL my bad, I thought this was not a serious question. OP, you should read the PIs' research papers; they should each have a lab website filled with pertinent information, such as current projects, lab members, etc.
 
I agree with you on the first part (doing something meaningful), but disagree on the second. A LOR from a Nobel prize winner may indeed be gospel for research jobs or, say, green card applications, but I'm not sure it carries as much weight in the medical school application process. The strongest medical school LORs are written by people who know you well and are enthusiastic about helping you succeed; Nobel prize winners, as a rule, are too busy to care about an undergrad volunteer in their lab (they hardly care about their graduate students and postdocs, as a rule) and to write him/her a really strong letter.

I feel like your assuming people in labs don't ghost write the letters. I'm not saying I did (I actually sought out the post-doc in the lab who wrote a letter with our PI on my behalf) but alot of the time a PI will just say "write something and I'll sign it." I don't agree with that, but to be honest, if thats the situation someone ends up in, they appear to have received a shining blessing from someone who has risen to the very top of their field. Seems like a win-win to me. Again, I suppose my argument assumes that the person will find themselves in a ghostwriting situation. :shrug:
 
There are so many variables that would tip the scales in either direction that if I said anything more than "it depends" I'd spend forever typing up a response
 
I feel like your assuming people in labs don't ghost write the letters. I'm not saying I did (I actually sought out the post-doc in the lab who wrote a letter with our PI on my behalf) but a lot of the time a PI will just say "write something and I'll sign it." I don't agree with that, but to be honest, if that's the situation someone ends up in, they appear to have received a shining blessing from someone who has risen to the very top of their field. Seems like a win-win to me. Again, I suppose my argument assumes that the person will find themselves in a ghostwriting situation. :shrug:
True, ghostwriting is pretty common. (In fact, in my experience, basic science researchers are more likely to ask you for a "draft" of a letter than clinicians are.) Well, if this is indeed the case...
 
Lol @ a top 10 being called lower tier...smh OP, smh....
 
There are so many variables that would tip the scales in either direction that if I said anything more than "it depends" I'd spend forever typing up a response

This. The question in its current form is meaningless.
 
3235118-why+not+both.jpg
 
What does being at Harvard have anything to do with it? My previous PI did his PhD at Cal-tech, postdoctorals at MIT, Yale, and Washington University. He is a flat out genius and I enjoyed working on his project because it was interesting. Coincidentally, he is at UMich. I don't think reputation has much to do with it.
 
Most people on a medical school adcom will not recognize a Nobel Prize winner by name, but everybody will recognize a letterhead with Harvard on it.
 
OP if you stoop to do research at some backwater hell hole like the University of Michigan you're only ever gonna be able to get into Carib MD. The only research that happens in the US is at Harvard and CalTech. Everything else is just filler funded by pity money.
 
You serious Clark?

Obviously the nobel prize winner. I've done research at a top 10 medical school and a large public school. Research is all about your PI, not the name on the building. Nobel prize winners pretty much have free reign to research whatever they want and recieved funding.
 
The hypothetical was horribly put (Harvard vs. Michigan as the lower-tier? LOL) and now I need to rant.

First of all, get over yourself before you step into a lab. They're doing YOU a favor, not the other way around. Undergrads are a huge waste of time and resources 99% of the time. We bring you into the lab not because we think you'll be of any use but because we're doing you a service. Our interest in bringing you in is in the hopes that you'll eventually repopulate the field, do good work and push the field forward so that everyone benefits, whether as a Ph.D, MD or MD/Ph.D.

So don't think that you're doing ANY lab favors by gracing them with your pre-med presence. Be glad you're getting ANY research experience and work your butt off. We're fine with pre-meds in lab as long as they work like pre-meds. It's often vocalized before summer that the only reason to bring pre-meds in is that they're willing to show up on time, do as told and work hard.

Okay, I guess I should answer the question.

When you look for a PI, a Nobel Laureate could or could not be active in research. They may have burned out, moved into administration or business and may have a lab in name only (this is surprisingly common). If you do find one that's still knocking Science papers out like its job, the only distinction that is actually meaningful to some pre-med is that this lab will have tons and tons of money so it'll be less upsetting if you kill mice or use up whole bottles of reagents. We budget financial loss from undergrads in the lab anyway every summer. You will not be handheld in the least because these labs also tend to be pressure cookers for the post-docs, grad students and fellows who are using it as a launching pad for their careers. They don't care about your welfare as long as you're doing what's asked. If you do what's asked well, you could get published and then you'll likely get published in a higher-tier journal than by someone else who had the same idea and paper without the Nobel. You may see the PI all of once or twice and it's unlikely he or she will even learn of your existence unless you're exceptional in some good way. Then let's be honest. You'll probably go to graduate school.

Labs at Harvard are like labs at any other institution. You get out what you put into them. The PI in one lab could be super-awesome and interested in furthering people's careers and the PI down the hall could be using post-docs and grad students as slave labor. Does name help? Sure. Like at any other institution though, your success will be guaranteed by your willingness to do as you're told.

Letters of rec will be written by the post-doc or grad student who supervised you and signed off on by the PI. So focus on impressing them, not the PI. The PI's impression of you will be determined by them. The letter of rec trumps the name of the institution, btw. A mediocre Harvard letter will carry much less weight than say, a Michigan professor who thought you were the greatest thing since sliced bread.

What would be most meaningful is getting publications. You may do that much more easily at a nice lab at a slightly less recognizable name (you're deluded if you think Michigan is expecting less than Harvard) that is still well-known for research like Utah or Minnesota, for example. Or at an assistant professor's lab at an undergrad-focused institution like Caltech, Rice or Princeton where they are expected to train undergrads. You want to be somewhere where they are patient enough to teach you and will give you freedom and responsibility if you're a skilled scientist to do your own project. That usually happens in smaller labs with younger professors regardless of the institution.
 
Last edited:
You serious Clark?

Obviously the nobel prize winner. I've done research at a top 10 medical school and a large public school. Research is all about your PI, not the name on the building. Nobel prize winners pretty much have free reign to research whatever they want and recieved funding.
+1
And in the current political and fiscal environment, funding doesn't come as easily as it once did. If for no other reason, this is the one I would pick.
 
The hypothetical was horribly put (Harvard vs. Michigan as the lower-tier? LOL) and now I need to rant.

First of all, get over yourself before you step into a lab. They're doing YOU a favor, not the other way around. Undergrads are a huge waste of time and resources 99% of the time. We bring you into the lab not because we think you'll be of any use but because we're doing you a service. Our interest in bringing you in is in the hopes that you'll eventually repopulate the field, do good work and push the field forward so that everyone benefits, whether as a Ph.D, MD or MD/Ph.D.

So don't think that you're doing ANY lab favors by gracing them with your pre-med presence. Be glad you're getting ANY research experience and work your butt off. We're fine with pre-meds in lab as long as they work like pre-meds. It's often vocalized before summer that the only reason to bring pre-meds in is that they're willing to show up on time, do as told and work hard.

Okay, I guess I should answer the question.

When you look for a PI, a Nobel Laureate could or could not be active in research. They may have burned out, moved into administration or business and may have a lab in name only (this is surprisingly common). If you do find one that's still knocking Science papers out like its job, the only distinction that is actually meaningful to some pre-med is that this lab will have tons and tons of money so it'll be less upsetting if you kill mice or use up whole bottles of reagents. We budget financial loss from undergrads in the lab anyway every summer. You will not be handheld in the least because these labs also tend to be pressure cookers for the post-docs, grad students and fellows who are using it as a launching pad for their careers. They don't care about your welfare as long as you're doing what's asked. If you do what's asked well, you could get published and then you'll likely get published in a higher-tier journal than by someone else who had the same idea and paper without the Nobel. You may see the PI all of once or twice and it's unlikely he or she will even learn of your existence unless you're exceptional in some good way. Then let's be honest. You'll probably go to graduate school.

Labs at Harvard are like labs at any other institution. You get out what you put into them. The PI in one lab could be super-awesome and interested in furthering people's careers and the PI down the hall could be using post-docs and grad students as slave labor. Does name help? Sure. Like at any other institution though, your success will be guaranteed by your willingness to do as you're told.

Letters of rec will be written by the post-doc or grad student who supervised you and signed off on by the PI. So focus on impressing them, not the PI. The PI's impression of you will be determined by them. The letter of rec trumps the name of the institution, btw. A mediocre Harvard letter will carry much less weight than say, a Michigan professor who thought you were the greatest thing since sliced bread.

What would be most meaningful is getting publications. You may do that much more easily at a nice lab at a slightly less recognizable name (you're deluded if you think Michigan is expecting less than Harvard) that is still well-known for research like Utah or Minnesota, for example. Or at an assistant professor's lab at an undergrad-focused institution like Caltech, Rice or Princeton where they are expected to train undergrads. You want to be somewhere where they are patient enough to teach you and will give you freedom and responsibility if you're a skilled scientist to do your own project. That usually happens in smaller labs with younger professors regardless of the institution.

Thread closed.
 
UMich is lower tier? This thread can't be real life.
 
Top