Summer Research vs. During school year research?

[aconfusedasian]

I am currently applying to some top 10/20 schools this cycle, among many more mid tiers and low tiers and I understand the importance many of the top schools place on research.

Having said that, I feel a little bit weird comparing myself to students who have conducted research for 2-3 years during the school year racking up 1000 hours when I did 2 summers and got 1000 hours too. I might be paranoid, but does doing research over an extended amount of time look better/worse than doing intensive summers where I worked 9-5 each day within the lab? One of my college counselors mentions that AdComs may comment about dedication or length of commitment, which has been the stem for my concern.

More context: did NIH research summer internship program for 2 summers w/ 4 publications total (Please don't tear me a new one for being paranoid/definitely not looking for validation)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MaxPlancker]

There are experiences where hours are not very important. What's important is what you got out of it--the tangibles and intangibles. That being said, continuity is valued. You may get a question as to why you only did summers but it probably won't reflect negatively on you. Typically people who are truly passionate about research do it throughout UG but perhaps your situation is/was different.

 

[aconfusedasian]

There are experiences where hours are not very important. What's important is what you got out of it--the tangibles and intangibles. That being said, continuity is valued. You may get a question as to why you only did summers but it probably won't reflect negatively on you. Typically people who are truly passionate about research do it throughout UG but perhaps your situation is/was different.

I agree and that is what I wanted confirmation on. I guess I will have to further explain if I get the chance on interviews because I did the research in Maryland at the headquarters, but I live and go to school on the west coast so continuing my research would be a tough commute. I still could have gotten experience in a school facility, but I decided against it to pursue other activities.

 

[eteshoe]

Aside from may the most tippy top programs and MD/PhD programs, I would imagine you'd be fine.

 

[Shirafune]

I am currently applying to some top 10/20 schools this cycle, among many more mid tiers and low tiers and I understand the importance many of the top schools place on research.

Having said that, I feel a little bit weird comparing myself to students who have conducted research for 2-3 years during the school year racking up 1000 hours when I did 2 summers and got 1000 hours too. I might be paranoid, but does doing research over an extended amount of time look better/worse than doing intensive summers where I worked 9-5 each day within the lab? One of my college counselors mentions that AdComs may comment about dedication or length of commitment, which has been the stem for my concern.

More context: did NIH research summer internship program for 2 summers w/ 4 publications total (Please don't tear me a new one for being paranoid/definitely not looking for validation)

You're fine. Nobody is going to expect you to have continued doing research at the NIH when you go to school on the west coast. I just wouldn't highlight research as the main point of your application. I do think it's weird that you did 2-3 school years of research and only put in 1000 hours, though this may just bolster your productivity. I would focus on understanding each project you were involved in, as you seemed to have contributed equal time to multiple projects. I think that would be the main issue: questionable involvement given how "little" (not really) time you spent in each lab. Depth is preferred over breadth.

 

[aconfusedasian]

You're fine. Nobody is going to expect you to have continued doing research at the NIH when you go to school on the west coast. I just wouldn't highlight research as the main point of your application. I do think it's weird that you did 2-3 school years of research and only put in 1000 hours, though this may just bolster your productivity. I would focus on understanding each project you were involved in, as you seemed to have contributed equal time to multiple projects. I think that would be the main issue: questionable involvement given how "little" (not really) time you spent in each lab. Depth is preferred over breadth.

Wait, I did not do 2-3 years of research. I was mentioning that others have done such research compared to my two summers of intensive research which totaled 1000 hours. I liked the summer programs better because I was able to work full time and integrate myself into the lab rather than come in for 4-10 hours a week and simply "pop" on by the lab and have to be caught up on what had progressed in a one or two day absence. When I asked my friends what they were working on, I got the feeling that some may have had just a snapshot of their work since they weren't able to work every day so their mentors would continue their research on days the undergrads weren't in lab. I felt I got a much more comprehensive look at research by going in every day for a couple of months, attending lab meetings, journal clubs, and leading my own projects under my mentor. That is what I would stress on my hopeful interviews I think. Obviously I would have loved to continue my research throughout the school year, but I felt I was effective in my time by working on multiple projects simultaneously and trying to master every technique.

 

[Shirafune]

Wait, I did not do 2-3 years of research. I was mentioning that others have done such research compared to my two summers of intensive research which totaled 1000 hours. I liked the summer programs better because I was able to work full time and integrate myself into the lab rather than come in for 4-10 hours a week and simply "pop" on by the lab and have to be caught up on what had progressed in a one or two day absence. When I asked my friends what they were working on, I got the feeling that some may have had just a snapshot of their work since they weren't able to work every day so their mentors would continuing their research on days they weren't in lab. I felt I got a much more comprehensive look at research by going in every day for a couple of months, attending lab meetings, journal clubs, and leading my own projects under my mentor. That is what I would stress on my hopeful interviews I think.

Whoops, misread your post. Sorry about that! You will definitely have a better experience to talk about them those other students you mentioned, though I can't really imagine someone only going into lab 4-10 hrs/week hoping to get something substantial out of it. At an undergrad pace, that's like a one Western blot, a PCR reaction, and some chores a week.

 

[aconfusedasian]

Whoops, misread your post. Sorry about that! You will definitely have a better experience to talk about them those other students you mentioned, though I can't really imagine someone only going into lab 4-10 hrs/week hoping to get something substantial out of it. At an undergrad pace, that's like a one Western blot, a PCR reaction, and some chores a week.

The point you just made was one of the main reasons why I did not pursue research at my university. Seeing other friends or premeds got to lab just twice a week and run a gel or monitor their stuff seemed like a complete waste of time especially after I had spent time working in a highly efficient lab that demanded more. I would ask them about their research and more often than not, many would state the last gel they ran without knowing the "big" picture of the lab's efforts, much less their own. Obviously not all of these research positions were like this, but the majority I found had similar themes. Some part of me still wishes I would have pursued research during the year as I think I could have seized more of an opportunity, but I'm glad we share similar opinions. It has helped me formulate potential interview questions and possible ways to address them!

 

[ditritium monoxide]

How did you get 4 publications with just two summer programs?

 

[idontwatchgreysanatomy]

How did you get 4 publications with just two summer programs?

I work in an NIH lab, it is definitely doable. I was told that I would be getting authorship in a publication just a month after being in the lab. Just depends on if the lab is a high-output lab. If I was there a month early, I would have been on another 2 publications.

 

[aconfusedasian]

How did you get 4 publications with just two summer programs?

As listed above, it was a fairly high output lab. The first summer yielded one publication two years after. However my first summer was mostly learning the ropes of research since it was my first time with any experience in a lab setting. Because I was able to learn a highly specific and valuable technique that even some of the PhDs in my lab did not know my first go around, I was able to work on 2 different projects simultaneously my second summer and contribute to many of their work while still leading my own project that I proposed before arriving at the lab. I definitely asked for more work than most interns and because I had proven myself the previous summer , they trusted me. Fortunate to have had this opportunity as an undergrad for sure.