Research

[chrslbrt]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Around these forums, I always hear that all you need as a premed is a strong gpa, strong MCAT, and extracurriculars/shadowing/volunteering/etc.

However, I see on medical school admissions pages that undergraduate research is one of the things that adcoms look for. Can anyone elaborate on this. Basically, I have 3 main questions. Is research significant part of a medical application, how much would it hurt not to do undergrad research, and what kind of research would adcoms want(I'm sure most undergrads cant find a cure to a disease or something.)?

 

[Catalystik]

About 60% of applicants to allopathic med schools list research on their application. This is more important if you are aiming to attend one of the highly-selective research giants (Harvard, et al). You might just try it for a summer, or you might engage in research for 3+ years if you love it. Probably at least trying it is a good idea, as evidence of your scientific curiosity. If you aim to attend a med school that has a mission to train primary care physicians, research is less important to your overall application.

Any research that starts with a hypothesis and tests it, then comes to a conclusion based on the data collected is acceptable, so long as it approaches the study in a scholarly manner and adds to human knowledge. Research can be in the basic sciences, or clinical, or nonscience (humanities, economics, sociology, etc). So, no, you do not have to discover the cure for a disease.

 

[Velocity]

In my view, research is the new "optional to get ahead" extracurricular. About 40 years ago volunteering at a hospital was the same way, or so I hear - people did it to try and be impressive over everyone else. These days, it's basically counted against you not to do it. Research may one day become the same way, but as of now it isn't a requirement (unless you're looking into doing a MD/PhD or are applying to a school that very heavily emphasizes research).

The type of research that you do isn't terribly important - it could be wetlab/basic science research, or it could be clinical research. As an undergrad you probably will not be given the opportunity to perform much of the research yourself. That's fine; if your research comes up in an interview, they're probably just interested to hear that you understood what the project was. (It's perfectly fine to admit that you didn't enjoy the experience, but at least know enough about the project to be able to speak about it and sound like you know what you're talking about!)

Lastly, some super-gunners become obsessed with being published as an undergrad. I've known undergrads who basically did research at the graduate level to the point of writing and being the first author on a paper, but unless a lot of stars are in the proper alignment that won't be you. Being on a publication is something that comes off as being very impressive to certain faculty members. To be honest, I'm not sure why, since a lot of it is just luck on the undergrad's part. An undergrad probably won't contribute enough to make a big difference on a paper; therefore being on a paper is a combination of being in the right place at the right time (a lab that's ready to publish results) and making a good enough connection/impression for the lab to list you as an author (also known as "having a generous principle investigator"). I mention that because while I think that you should choose a lab and project either because you find the project to be interesting or you feel that you could learn a lot from the people in the lab (ideally both), you can also evaluate a lab based on how many papers they seem to put out each year and how close some of their projects seem to being ready for publication. That'd be hedging your bets to get on a publication. But again, I think you'd be short-changing yourself to purely approach the research experience for that aspect of it.

 

[MilkmanAl]

In my view, research is the new "optional to get ahead" extracurricular.

This is more important if you are aiming to attend one of the highly-selective research giants (Harvard, et al).

That's the gist of the research deal.

 

[Vicviper]

Around these forums, I always hear that all you need as a premed is a strong gpa, strong MCAT, and extracurriculars/shadowing/volunteering/etc.

However, I see on medical school admissions pages that undergraduate research is one of the things that adcoms look for. Can anyone elaborate on this. Basically, I have 3 main questions. Is research significant part of a medical application, how much would it hurt not to do undergrad research, and what kind of research would adcoms want(I'm sure most undergrads cant find a cure to a disease or something.)?

Haha, you'd be surprised, I actually did a lot of work on, and published a paper on a new method for diagnosing oral cancer! You're right though, even though you do research, you're not actually expected to have acomplished something major or get any papers published or anything, just having experienced the setting and had some time behiend the great mysterious walls of scientific research is what they're looking for.

 

[Catalystik]

being on a paper is a combination of being in the right place at the right time (a lab that's ready to publish results) and making a good enough connection/impression for the lab to list you as an author (also known as "having a generous principle investigator").

So, so true.

 

[Pepipanda]

An undergrad probably won't contribute enough to make a big difference on a paper; therefore being on a paper is a combination of being in the right place at the right time (a lab that's ready to publish results) and making a good enough connection/impression for the lab to list you as an author (also known as "having a generous principle investigator").

I worked in a lab during the summer between my sophomore and junior years of high school and got my name on a paper. Most of what I'd done was image analysis work (going through picture after picture of mouse aorta cross-sections on the computer and identifying where it was glowing red and where it wasn't). I think the main reason I was listed was that the person that I worked most closely with/really connected with was the first author. Also, I was in a very supportive lab and the people there seemed excited to have a high schooler spend the summer with them.