Schools that require publication

[Pandora's Box]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello,
I am about to apply to the MD/PhD program in the upcoming cycle and I don't have a publication. I heard some schools won't even consider you without a publication. Is that true? If so, can any of you who have been through the process name some schools, so that I can save some money and not apply to them.

Thanks

 

[Neuronix]

This question has been answered ad nauseum. Because I am too lazy to look up all the old threads, I will summarize.

Publications are not necessary at any program. There are many reasons why ugrads may not get published and programs understand that. If you have spent years in a lab, that's all that is required. Be prepared to back it up with LORs and a real good ability to explain what went on in interviews.

If you don't believe me, there are a number of applicants at top programs on SDN who did not publish (see: jot, vader, myself, etc).

Good luck!

Edit: BTW, a professor at my ugrad once told me "It's impossible to get into Hopkins or UPenn MD/PhD without at least 2 1st or 2nd authored publications". Bite me 😀

 

[wgu]

At least try hard for a publication. If you can't get a pub, try to present at a conference.

 

[surge]

Originally posted by wgu
At least try hard for a publication. If you can't get a pub, try to present at a conference.

Let me reiterate what Neuronix said: publications are not required by any means. I didn't have any either. There was even a fun thread a while ago where people posted how many publications they had. Most of them - 0. Plus I've met applicants on the interview trail that had publications, and didn't get in into some of the places I did.

Why? It's what Neuronix alluded to, and the committees know very well - an undergraduate student very rarely has control over things like publishing and presenting. They know it depends largely on the PI. I worked two summers in one lab where I got some very interesting results, but that are to this day not published because the PI is waiting to 'crack' a big finding and publish a large paper, which my findings would be a part of. Some PIs are just like that, and it's obvious. My second summer there was a kid down the hall who's mentor gave him a bread and butter project, and when he got NEGATIVE results, he published it as a paper on NONINVOLVEMENT. Promise you, all else being equal, I would've gotten in over that kid.

That's why it would be very hard to "try" for a publication. Since hard work and dedication are a given, "trying" for a publication would have to include choosing simpler experiments or playing lab politics, none of which I would encourage an undergraduate to do. Just relax and do your best work.

Most of us have been through the application and interview process, and if there's one thing I've learned is that what matters DISPROPORTIONATELY is how well you know your research and what kind of role (creative) you can demostrate you played in your research.

Of course publications and presentations are helpful, but it's much more important that you show potential for scientific thought.

 

[mjs]

I agree that the publication thing is overrated. I'm sure like all the rest of the paper application, it helps get you in the door for an interview. After that, you have to prove that you'll do well for yourself and the program if you enroll there.

It really stops being a number game after a certain point. It's more about finding an obvious match on both ends than applying to college was because as everybody who has gone to one of these interviews will tell you, you meet very few people who aren't very well-prepared to go to either medical or graduate school at any MD/PhD interview. These programs are all looking for the best people they can find to fill what is obviously a tiny number of spots and they want not only a qualified applicant, but a student who will excel while they're there.

 

[Nuel]

Originally posted by surge

Most of us have been through the application and interview process, and if there's one thing I've learned is that what matters DISPROPORTIONATELY is how well you know your research and what kind of role (creative) you can demostrate you played in your research.

Of course I have never been thru any application process, but yet to; however this statement of trying to create stuff makes people force themselves to be "creative". Creativity comes naturally, or with extensive practice or work on something. Anyone with average intelligence can know his/her research very well. In computation one can be very creative. In research having to do with applications, creativity is something rare as you are simply applying some method to a process or system.

 

[Neuronix]

I think there are a couple ways outside of official publications/presentations to demonstrate that you did quality research. It's difficult to say "creativity" in research, because that's difficult to measure. I'd like to present some more concrete ways that adcoms measure the research experience of applicants.

1) Degree of involvement. Measured by: LORs and stated at interview. If you have your own project or worked in a lab for awhile and earned your own project, this is ideal. You can also be assigned to a specific project, where while you are not exactly changing the directions, you understand those directions and you are not just cleaning bottles and making solutions for the person who is. Of course, quality lab experience is NOT just running gels, making solutions, and cleaning bottles.

2) Understanding of research. Measured by: mostly interview. Along with "Why MD/PhD?", this is the most important thing to know for your interview. Expect at many interviews an in-depth discussion of your research--the hows, the whys, the who else in your field, etc.

3) Potential in research. Measured by: LORs and interview. You need to show enthusiasm and of course your LORs have to shine in this regard. I can't stress how important interviews are for showing your potential AND as such, as a general indicator that can make or break your application. So many adcoms talk about those people who look great on paper, but are just so "white bread" (plain, uncompassionate), that they interview poorly.

Creativity is good if you're in the position to be creative. That is, you are in something that allows for great flexibility and you are leading your own project. This doesn't happen for everyone, and this is understood as well.

 

[wgu]

This is an enlightening discussion. I wasn't even thinking about interviews when I said to try for a publication. It was simply my equivalent way of saying research persistently and work hard. Publication isn't a must,but then again, based on my (limited) experience, you need not choose simple experiments nor play politics to better your chances of publishing.

 

[vixenell]

The director of cornell/ru/sk's program told us today that less than 5% of their accepted applicants had publications.

 

[surge]

I think we're all on the same page here and are pretty much agreeing - I just want to clarify what I meant.

Creative probably wasn't the best choice of words. It implies too much originality or groundbreaking - things that are hardly expected from an undergraduate. All I meant was that it tends to be important that you've played a role in the actual design of the experiments - you weren't just a lab tech. Sometimes this, of course, is not possible; it depends largely on the PI. But, even in such cases, learning how to make suggestions or perhaps mentioning how you would have liked to try something different can all show an independent research mind.

A good (albeit hard) interviewer will ask you all sorts of questions about the research and the general background area, try to find holes in your work (very few of us don't have any - or our work would've appeared in Nature - but it's important to recognize them and offer suggestions for improving them), ask you to suggest experiments to test something else, ask you what results you might have expected from some hypotetical experiment, ask why you did things one way and not the other (used experiment or reagent A and not B) and to suggest future experiments. These can be very challenging but also extremely intellectually stimulating.

All in all, just try to do your best work, and don't be affraid to offer your ideas to your collaborators. If you do this, interviews are something to look forward to.

 

[Primate]

Nature papers have holes, too.

Know the limits of your research and NEVER overstate your results or present what you think as what you know. If there's even a hint of this, the interviewer will not be on your side (and they have fairly sensitive bull-detectors).

Holes in research aren't bad, they're the "next steps" that are so important to be able to talk about. Here's where you can show your "creativity" - or whatever you want to call it.

Discuss in your interviews, don't state.

Just my opinion.

btw - nice discussion in this thread 😀

 

[noy]

That's great news. I have been looking over my application (and therefore myself), and this presented as the most serious obstacle to competition with other (very) qualified candidates. Simply being in a lab is enough for a publication at times, and often once can spend summers at different labs (as I have) without being around for a publication.

If they commitees really look at your ability to understand what your research has been, and your ability to think critically, then that's a load off my shoulders!

Perhaps they all just claim tons of pubs to try and boost the appearance of their incoming class, to attract better applicants? Several people involved with programs have indicated to me that it is important, but its good to know so many folks at such fine MSTP's were able to get in without them! Thank you all for enlightening me.

 

[coldchemist]

Originally posted by Primate
Nature papers have holes, too.

Holy cow! This reminds me of something. Did anyone else hear about that paper in Science from the Hopkins team? They published incredibly convincing data that showed that MDMA causes EXTREME damage (in typical party-scene dosages) to the dopaminergic systems of non-human primates. The other day I was browsing the Science archives and found that the same team published a retraction last month. They claimed that the company that supplies them with their drugs accidently mislabelled two bottles--the bottle that they used in the experiment was labelled MDMA, but was really methamphetamine. They also had a bottle of MDMA that was mislabelled as methamphetamine! Isn't that incredible? Ouch! I just about fell off of my chair when I read that because the findings of their research would have been extremely important if they were accurate.

Anyway, enough blabbering.

 

[ewing]

Originally posted by coldchemist
Holy cow! This reminds me of something. Did anyone else hear about that paper in Science from the Hopkins team? They published incredibly convincing data that showed that MDMA causes EXTREME damage (in typical party-scene dosages) to the dopaminergic systems of non-human primates. The other day I was browsing the Science archives and found that the same team published a retraction last month. They claimed that the company that supplies them with their drugs accidently mislabelled two bottles--the bottle that they used in the experiment was labelled MDMA, but was really methamphetamine. They also had a bottle of MDMA that was mislabelled as methamphetamine! Isn't that incredible? Ouch! I just about fell off of my chair when I read that because the findings of their research would have been extremely important if they were accurate.

Anyway, enough blabbering.

Well...that's pretty significant, too. I mean everyone and his mother smokes meth where I come from. The thing is...my understanding is that acutely overdoisng on amphetamines (MDMA, meth, ritalin...whatever) can cause you to present with what *looks* like schizophrenia, but is in fact reversible once the shiznit wears off. Irreversable CNS damage doesn't come from going to one or two raves. Except for this one case report of an 18 year old kid who got an irreversbile PD-like movement disorder after taking a dose of MDMA...but that's about as likely to happen as getting struck by lightning...so don't worry about that too much.

 

[greggth]

If you are an undergrad, try to find an advisor who might let you get a coauthorship on a paper or at least an abstract/presentation. See if there is a prof who has done this in the past for students.