Summer Research Programs

[Beta Cell]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What are some of the Summer Research Programs well-known to medical schools? I'm just curious which programs generally garner that "prestige" factor over just another ordinary summer of research.

I'm about to begin UCSF's Amgen/SRTP (I leave May 30th) and was wondering if anyone did this program or any others and were asked about it later by interviewers, etc.

 

[Beta Cell]

Bumpies

 

[NeuroChaos]

I doubt that it matters much. There are literally 100s all over the country w/ a 1-5% acceptance rate. I would imagine getting into any of those is considered a big deal. In the end, it will depend on whether you can talk about your research intelligently on your interviews apps etc(that is not so easy to do)

 

[dr zaius]

I doubt that it matters much. There are literally 100s all over the country w/ a 1-5% acceptance rate. I would imagine getting into any of those is considered a big deal. In the end, it will depend on whether you can talk about your research intelligently on your interviews apps etc(that is not so easy to do)

I agree with this. It's less about where you go, and more about what you did and learned from the opportunity.

 

[TexasPhysician]

I agree with this. It's less about where you go, and more about what you did and learned from the opportunity.

And what you published

 

[argonaute]

I also had a question about how much prestige/boost this would give to your application.

I ask this because I'm planning to work in a lab or two throughout the years (i'm a rising sophomore) at my university. Would it be more helpful to continue with the lab i'm already in for that period, or find a summer research internship next year? I don't know if one summer is nearly enough time to work and get a publication, and if you can't continue after that summer is there a point?

 

[TexasPhysician]

I also had a question about how much prestige/boost this would give to your application.

I ask this because I'm planning to work in a lab or two throughout the years (i'm a rising sophomore) at my university. Would it be more helpful to continue with the lab i'm already in for that period, or find a summer research internship next year? I don't know if one summer is nearly enough time to work and get a publication, and if you can't continue after that summer is there a point?

You have to look at it from a "publishing" standpoint in my opinion. If your summer research is clinically related (clinical publishes quicker than bench research), then maybe you can get your name on a project in 1 summer. If not, you need to look for or stay in a lab that can get your name on something.

 

[orrghead16]

Someone who publishes a bunch and can talk fluently/actively about their research at no-name will trump the summer at harvard every time. I think few would argue.

If you don't get anything done over the summer, no one will care where you went. It is the end product, not the wrapping paper.

 

[NeuroChaos]

Someone who publishes a bunch and can talk fluently/actively about their research at no-name will trump the summer at harvard every time. I think few would argue.

If you don't get anything done over the summer, no one will care where you went. It is the end product, not the wrapping paper.

Disagree with both you and Texas.
Do not walk into a lab hoping to get published after 2 months. The purpose of these internships is not not not to beef your resume; I hope you are doing it to develop an appreciation of science, not because it is something required by med schools and it looks good on your app. Adcoms are not idiots; most of them are scientists themselves. They know how hard it is to do good science and how difficult it is to get published. It really is unrealistic to hope you can get a pub w/in 2 months.

I will agree w/ Texas that you should try to stay in lab for long period of time. not becuase it gets you published but because only then you will really see what the lab is up to and know the ins and outs of the protocols projects etc (i.e. get to do real science)

 

[TexasPhysician]

Disagree with both you and Texas.
Do not walk into a lab hoping to get published after 2 months. The purpose of these internships is not not not to beef your resume; I hope you are doing it to develop an appreciation of science, not because it is something required by med schools and it looks good on your app. Adcoms are not idiots; most of them are scientists themselves. They know how hard it is to do good science and how difficult it is to get published. It really is unrealistic to hope you can get a pub w/in 2 months.

I will agree w/ Texas that you should try to stay in lab for long period of time. not becuase it gets you published but because only then you will really see what the lab is up to and know the ins and outs of the protocols projects etc (i.e. get to do real science)

haha. No matter what the OP does, memorize the above paragraphs. Talk about your research like NeuroChaos does above and you will do fine on interviews.

I only disagree with NeuroChaos's post in part. You CAN get published after 2 months of work. I have done it. It was in a major journal, but obviously it is clinical and not groundbreaking work at that. If it was bench research, I can't imagine getting published after 2 months of work.

If you love a certain type of bench research and want to get involved for a couple months, do it. I wouldn't expect to get published with this bench research though. In my opinion, it is not worth doing if you can't get published - strictly my opinion though.

I would stick with what you've got and talk to your PI about what you can do to help write a paper to send for publication. Some on this board disagree with talking to your PI about publishing, but I don't start research without that conversation.

 

[Beta Cell]

haha. No matter what the OP does, memorize the above paragraphs. Talk about your research like NeuroChaos does above and you will do fine on interviews.

I only disagree with NeuroChaos's post in part. You CAN get published after 2 months of work. I have done it. It was in a major journal, but obviously it is clinical and not groundbreaking work at that. If it was bench research, I can't imagine getting published after 2 months of work.

If you love a certain type of bench research and want to get involved for a couple months, do it. I wouldn't expect to get published with this bench research though. In my opinion, it is not worth doing if you can't get published - strictly my opinion though.

I would stick with what you've got and talk to your PI about what you can do to help write a paper to send for publication. Some on this board disagree with talking to your PI about publishing, but I don't start research without that conversation.

You also have to consider that these programs are usually 10 weeks @ 40 hours minimum per week. That's 400 hours compared to say 12 hrs/week * 14 weeks/semester * 2 semesters= 336 hours in one academic year of research. You can definitely spend more time in a lab over 10 weeks doing full-time bench research than you can in a whole academic year.

 

[argonaute]

You also have to consider that these programs are usually 10 weeks @ 40 hours minimum per week. That's 400 hours compared to say 12 hrs/week * 14 weeks/semester * 2 semesters= 336 hours in one academic year of research. You can definitely spend more time in a lab over 10 weeks doing full-time bench research than you can in a whole academic year.

you bring up a good point with the total work hours during summer. however, you can just as easily do full time research in a regular lab at your university; i'm just not sure whether the special research programs will be more valuable (e.g. will you be able to do more legit research tasks and have a bigger role? compared to just doing grunt work at the lab at your university?)

 

[NickNaylor]

As many have said on SDN, getting publications is, for the most part, a game of luck. I'm sure there are some people who actually work on a project long enough to produce publishable work. I would argue that this is the exception rather than the rule.

I've got my name on two publications, and I'll be the first to admit that the only reason I was able to do so was because of luck. This isn't to say that I did no work; one of the publications was a result of one of these programs. However, even if I didn't get a publication the experience alone will give you PLENTY to talk about. Getting a publication is somewhat impressive, but to those on the inside it's much less so. They understand the inherent luck behind it.

I got a little off track, so I apologize. But, to echo the general sentiment, getting into a "prestigious" summer program won't do anything if you can't intelligibly talk about what you did. A prestigious program will not bestow you with research skill or the ability to explain your work.

 

[TexasPhysician]

As many have said on SDN, getting publications is, for the most part, a game of luck. I'm sure there are some people who actually work on a project long enough to produce publishable work. I would argue that this is the exception rather than the rule.

I've got my name on two publications, and I'll be the first to admit that the only reason I was able to do so was because of luck. This isn't to say that I did no work; one of the publications was a result of one of these programs. However, even if I didn't get a publication the experience alone will give you PLENTY to talk about. Getting a publication is somewhat impressive, but to those on the inside it's much less so. They understand the inherent luck behind it.

I got a little off track, so I apologize. But, to echo the general sentiment, getting into a "prestigious" summer program won't do anything if you can't intelligibly talk about what you did. A prestigious program will not bestow you with research skill or the ability to explain your work.

You speak of bench research only. A good clinical research project can usually get published no matter what the results show.