So what's the deal with MSAR and research?

[Govols22]

I am looking through the MSAR "Percentage of Applicants with Volunteer and Research experience" page for each medical school , and I am somewhat surprised.

I'm not surprised that 98% of accepted applicants from Stanford had research experience,but outside of schools like Mercer, it seems like most schools (even non top 20s) hover around 90% research, 85% clinical volunteering, and 75% non clinical volunteering range in regards to accepted applicants. The shadowing numbers seem rather low as well. At Columbia, 91% of accepted applicants have had research experience, while only 66% have shadowed a physician. I must be missing something.

Is it simply because many people do research anyways? Or is research experience really that much of a necessity in getting into Medical School? What are your explanations?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[625233]

I think it's probably the latter. Pre health societies, advisors, etc. have done a decent job at emphasizing the need for all the "ECs" you just mentioned, including the importance of having done some research. That's not to say it's anything impressive, a lot of those applicants probably worked a couple months in a lab as a grunt, making microscope slides, etc.

 

[625233]

Ultimately, research really is an untold requirement.

 

[LizzyM]

As you can see, virtually everyone has "something" in their list of ECs that carries the "research" tag. (I suspect that the way AAMC acquires this data is merely counting the number of applicants who have a given tag among their activities.)
Shadowing is a relatively new tag (it wasn't there 5 years ago) and some people didn't tag an activity as "shadowing" if they felt that they had 15 more important activities which might have included employment and extensive volunteering.

 

[Govols22]

As you can see, virtually everyone has "something" in their list of ECs that carries the "research" tag. (I suspect that the way AAMC acquires this data is merely counting the number of applicants who have a given tag among their activities.)
Shadowing is a relatively new tag (it wasn't there 5 years ago) and some people didn't tag an activity as "shadowing" if they felt that they had 15 more important activities which might have included employment and extensive volunteering.

Makes sense. But how often do you see applicants use all 15 spaces (effectively at least)? What explanation would you have for the higher percentage of accepted applicants w/research than w/clinical volunteering?

 

[LizzyM]

Makes sense. But how often do you see applicants use all 15 spaces (effectively at least)? What explanation would you have for the higher percentage of accepted applicants w/research than w/clinical volunteering?

Some applicants have worked as nurses, or nurses aides or EMTs or scribes, and they don't have clinical volunteering listed.
Many students can get college credit for research whereas it is less common (but not unheard of) to get college credit for clinical volunteering or shadowing.

 

[Govols22]

Some applicants have worked as nurses, or nurses aides or EMTs or scribes, and they don't have clinical volunteering listed.
Many students can get college credit for research whereas it is less common (but not unheard of) to get college credit for clinical volunteering or shadowing.

Would you consider students with no research experience to be at significant disadvantage?

 

[Goro]

At the research powerhouses, yes.

Would you consider students with no research experience to be at significant disadvantage?

 

[LizzyM]

At the research powerhouses, yes.

Correct. It would be one strike against you. And unlike baseball, it is two strikes you're out. MCAT, grades, leadership, volunteerism, LORs would be other potential pitfalls.

 

[Govols22]

At the research powerhouses, yes.

I just find it odd that a handful of schools well outside the Top 20 admit a greater percentage of students with research experience than some Top 20 schools. It seems that research is very important for many schools outside the Top 20 as well.

 

[Glandzburg]

An individual applicant absolutely does not need research to get into most medical schools. But as you have pointed out, the aggregate data shows that a vast majority of students at most medical schools have some form of research experience. Pretty easy to draw conclusions about how medical schools view applicants with research experience vs. those without.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Correct. It would be one strike against you. And unlike baseball, it is two strikes you're out. MCAT, grades, leadership, volunteerism, LORs would be other potential pitfalls.

Youll often hear on here the advice "It doesnt matter what subject you do research in whether it is medically related per se or not" and that "as long as you learn the procedure and process behind hypothesis driven research" that's what counts.

But for Top 20 schools where even at the MD only level(and not even considering MD/PhD) there is a significant focus on training those who can have a significant influence in basic science medically related research. So what Im wondering is would someone who lets say has accomplished lots in "ecology research" but which has no relationship at all to medicine still have some kind of "strike against them" per se if that's the only research experience they have? Or is research experience in hypothesis driven research, even if it doesnt have much if any direct relationship to medicine, something top 20 schools will value/ give similar weight to your more traditional basic science research with a direct relationship to medicine?

 

[LizzyM]

Youll often hear on here the advice "It doesnt matter what subject you do research in whether it is medically related per se or not" and that "as long as you learn the procedure and process behind hypothesis driven research" that's what counts.

But for Top 20 schools where even at the MD only level(and not even considering MD/PhD) there is a significant focus on training those who can have a significant influence in basic science medically related research. So what Im wondering is would someone who lets say has accomplished lots in "ecology research" but which has no relationship at all to medicine still have some kind of "strike against them" per se if that's the only research experience they have? Or is research experience in hypothesis driven research, even if it doesnt have much if any direct relationship to medicine, something top 20 schools will value/ give similar weight to your more traditional basic science research with a direct relationship to medicine?

I've not seen an expectation of a direct medical relationship. I even interviewed someone whose sole research activity was picking up and carrying rock samples from "the field" to the lab. Ideally, you have hypothesis driven research but even exploratory research or qualitative research (in anthropology) that is not hypothesis driven might fly. The greatest credit is given for publishing, a bit less for a poster presentation. Least impressive: never getting past the dishwashing & other housekeeping or tech tasks.

 

[Nymphicus]

Youll often hear on here the advice "It doesnt matter what subject you do research in whether it is medically related per se or not" and that "as long as you learn the procedure and process behind hypothesis driven research" that's what counts.

But for Top 20 schools where even at the MD only level(and not even considering MD/PhD) there is a significant focus on training those who can have a significant influence in basic science medically related research. So what Im wondering is would someone who lets say has accomplished lots in "ecology research" but which has no relationship at all to medicine still have some kind of "strike against them" per se if that's the only research experience they have? Or is research experience in hypothesis driven research, even if it doesnt have much if any direct relationship to medicine, something top 20 schools will value/ give similar weight to your more traditional basic science research with a direct relationship to medicine?

Yes, as long as it is your own, independent, hypothesis driven research. Even better if you produce results worth communicating to others in the scientific community by poster, presentation, or publication.

 

[Lawpy]

I just find it odd that a handful of schools well outside the Top 20 admit a greater percentage of students with research experience than some Top 20 schools. It seems that research is very important for many schools outside the Top 20 as well.

You are overanalyzing the MSAR data. The research quality of a Top 20 applicant is vastly superior to the research quality of an ordinary applicant. And research experiences strictly refer to the former but people decide to go as broadly as possible by categorizing dishwashing and maintenance as research

 

[LizzyM]

An individual applicant absolutely does not need research to get into most medical schools. But as you have pointed out, the aggregate data shows that a vast majority of students at most medical schools have some form of research experience. Pretty easy to draw conclusions about how medical schools view applicants with research experience vs. those without.

A school would have a hard time assembling a class that doesn't have research experience given how ubiquitous research experience is. (Defining research broadly to include dishwashing, etc) It would be like trying to assemble a class of students where only a low proportion have drivers licenses.