Resume building research related question.

[Ton1c]

---

Members don't see this ad.

My pre med organization recently had an med school admissions officer come in to speak with us. She was stressing the importance of research for medical school admissions. She also went on to say that it didn't necessarily have to be science related research because it wasn't as much about the topic of research but the skills you develop because of it. Such as gathering, interpreting, and explaining new information. I bring this up because I will be applying next cycle and a non science research topic may be my only shot at getting any experience at all (from personal connections)

Thanks for your input!

 

[Juan Solo]

My pre med organization recently had an med school admissions officer come in to speak with us. She was stressing the importance of research for medical school admissions. She also went on to say that it didn't necessarily have to be science related research because it wasn't as much about the topic of research but the skills you develop because of it. Such as gathering, interpreting, and explaining new information. I bring this up because I will be applying next cycle and a non science research topic may be my only shot at getting any experience at all (from personal connections)

Thanks for your input!

Yes this is true. Although some research heavy schools may have a preference, from my understanding is that it does not have to be basic science.

 

[BABSstudent]

Yes this is true. Although some research heavy schools may have a preference, from my understanding is that it does not have to be basic science.

Yep. That's what I have gathered.

However, even with 1.5 years of research, I was rejected from Stanford because I didn't have the research they were looking for. My rejection letter told me I needed more research experience (which I take as meaning a publication or something).

 

[mcloaf]

Yep. That's what I have gathered.

However, even with 1.5 years of research, I was rejected from Stanford because I didn't have the research they were looking for. My rejection letter told me I needed more research experience (which I take as meaning a publication or something).

Interesting, my letter didn't have any info.

 

[BABSstudent]

Interesting, my letter didn't have any info.

I asked for more information and they sent that. It was a pretty generalized response as to why I was rejected though and that's why I said I assume it was from lack of a publication.

 

[Juan Solo]

I asked for more information and they sent that. It was a pretty generalized response as to why I was rejected though and that's why I said I assume it was from lack of a publication.

Hmm that's interesting. Sorry to hear about that not so good news. But I guess Stanford would fall under some of the schools that are research heavy.

 

[lobo.solo]

Yep. That's what I have gathered.

However, even with 1.5 years of research, I was rejected from Stanford because I didn't have the research they were looking for. My rejection letter told me I needed more research experience (which I take as meaning a publication or something).

Ohh wow. I'm gonna be applying with 1.5 research experience though Stanford is not my dream school.

 

[Doctor246853]

Yes this is true. Although some research heavy schools may have a preference, from my understanding is that it does not have to be basic science.

This. Unless its a top school.

 

[M51]

The type of research matters far less than the depth and quality of the research done. I have friends who got accepted to med schools with very little (or zero) research. However, I know far more who got accepted and had some form of research on their app.

 

[CognitiveSci]

Yep. That's what I have gathered.

However, even with 1.5 years of research, I was rejected from Stanford because I didn't have the research they were looking for. My rejection letter told me I needed more research experience (which I take as meaning a publication or something).

Really? This kinda ticks me off. That's eliminating so many qualified applicants just because their name isn't in a journal. Why put pressure on applicants to do that (if they can't already achieve it) when publications are something they will have a lot of while a physician. Does anybody really care what an undergrad has to say in a publication? Does the adcom even read it?

This makes me almost as mad as Harvard saying they take the undergrad instituion into consideration, as if everyone can afford to go HYP
















I'd still attend either one though

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

Yep. That's what I have gathered.

However, even with 1.5 years of research, I was rejected from Stanford because I didn't have the research they were looking for. My rejection letter told me I needed more research experience (which I take as meaning a publication or something).

There's no way Stanford rejected you due to lack of a publication; even top MSTPs accept people without publications. They were definitely referring to something else about your research. Most likely they felt that your experience didn't have sufficient depth (e.g.: you didn't have an independent project to work on and were instead just helping out other people in the lab with their projects). Perhaps your time commitment was painfully shallow (ie less than 10 hours/week, although less than 15-20 hours isn't going to impress anyone either). You may not have had a long-term research experience (ie all your experience came from summer experiences in different labs). Perhaps you had nothing to show for your time spent researching (ie no posters, no thesis, no co-authorships). I'm not saying all of these apply to you, I'm just trying to give you an idea of what all a vague statement like that could possibly be referring to.