The year before i apply

[StilgarMD]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So, i am applying next cycle, and from what I've seen while browsing, MD/PhD Apps should be complete by July/August. i have just under a year to do what must be done. here's where i am.

cGPA: 3.811
MCAT: 41Q
URM

1.5 years Research experience (Will stay in this lab for rest of Senior year, so about 2.5 by Graduation), but no publications. PI doesn't really publish often, is running Clinical trials elsewhere, infrequently at lab but i wrote up and am doing my own project. Doing Senior Honors thesis there.

60ish hours shadowing at local hospital
Been teaching for a supplemental biology program at my school for 2 years (3 years at the end of this one)

My current plan is to continue with my project, while doing whatever else i can get my hands on in the lab; there is one other PI there and they agreed to let me be involved in a project they have starting soon. i will also supplement my clinical experience with volunteering hopefully to push it up past the 100 hr mark i've heard mentioned here often.

My concerns are:
- i know the GPA and MCAT are good, but that at the end of the day they just get me through a round of selection and its there where my research will count for the most. I feel like my work is painfully unsubstantive, compared to a lot of the things i've read and other people i've heard from. I realize now other PIs are actually very concerned with publishing and getting stuff out of the lab, but my PI isn't like that for the most part. essentially, i had free reign to develop a project, write up a proposal and protocol and get to work, and although that's cool and all, i think there's a minimal chance i will be able to publish it. i know that on the bright side, i'll be well prepared to explain every detail and step since i'm the one who wrote it all. I've done ELISA, WB, Flow Cytometer, and cell culture, but i just don't know how that measures up, and at top research programs, where im up against people who have published, i don't feel like ill stand much of a chance. I've spoken with other people on the faculty and one of them said if i put them on my thesis committee and talk with them, they'd be willing to write me a personalized letter explaining my lab situation (faculty said this isn't the first time this happens to student in this lab), but i don't think that will count for much in the adcom's eyes.

my hope here is really to do an NIH Post bacc. i saw some people talking about it a while ago on this forum and it seemed like the person was going to spend a few months at NIH before applying, and if possible i'd like to do the same. i'd enjoy spending time at NIH for the pure fact that i'd be in actual 24/7 science, instead of what i do now (if i have something planned, i come in, otherwise i have nothing to do).

Is there anything else i can aim for in terms of making my application better? how screwed am in my research? what kinds of schools should i be aiming at?

Note: i know its not necessary to publish to get into these programs, from Neuronix's sticky, but i think the amount of work i done doesn't reflect 1.5 years in the lab, so i worry. (i essentially wasted the first half year using a FACS antibody for WB and wondering what went wrong...)

 

[K31]

Do a year at NIH if you want, but you'll get into a great program without it.

 

[StilgarMD]

i think either way i would really like to do a year at NIH. i'm a senior, so 2013-2014 School year, ill have already graduated and not be doing much, and i really do want to be more heavily involved in research so when i arrive at a grad program ill have more experience and confidence in what im doing. also just learning about NIH, the future organization ill be panhandling to, by being there will be fun.

 

[red doctober]

Are you thinking NIH IRTA?

 

[StilgarMD]

yea, it seemed like a good idea.

Edit: Also, to add more perspective, one of the reasons for the NIH Post bacc is the potential for a LoR, which is up there with research experience. i currently intend on getting 2/3 Letters from my Lab (Lab manager with a PhD, main PI, and other PI who i may work with). i'm also getting a letter from a Philosophy professor whose graduate seminar i am in.

 

[StilgarMD]

Any guidance would be really appreciated. Just want to figure out how to best direct my efforts for this last year.

 

[K31]

I never discourage people from taking time off to do full-time research before starting MD/PhD--I spent 2 years as a research tech before. I didn't spend time at NIH, but a number of friends from the MD/PhD program did and enjoyed it.

It sounds like it is pretty much set at this point that you'll have a year off, and continuing to do research is definitely the best thing for your application. To be honest, you'd be most productive taking a tech job in your current lab (if that's even an option) but added diversity of research experiences would be a plus too.

However, don't count on a great letter from a new PI, because by the point applications go in the most that PI will likely be able to write is a generic letter that says "He must not be that big of a screwup because he hasn't managed to blow up the lab yet."

Also, FWIW PI letters are all that matter for MD/PhD admissions. By all means include the other letters (the MD side will especially want to see the letter from the philosophy professor for those programs where their input matters), but don't count on them to make a big impact in general.

 

[StilgarMD]

I don't know if i would in fact be most productive staying at my current lab. my current PI isn't really involved in my research, he is just somewhat aware of it. i know that the main punch that gets you into these programs is your research and letters from PI's, so i'm just afraid that sticking with my PI will do me more harm than good (assuming a tech position is even available).

i've read a few times on here that multiple PIs is a good thing and Im afraid that having one PI who will say good things about me, but may not be able to speak to exactly what I've done is going to not work out. if the second PI who is more present is willing to take me as tech (or hell, for free if Im desperate enough). she is interested in collecting a group of students next year (after i graduate) to study a specific situation, and i may be able to stay as a group leader of sorts. none of that would take place before applications are due (i'd submit in August and all this would start in September) so Im in a sort of limbo. i have seen from the NIH Post bacc pod cast that a ton of people are admitted in June, and in October, so maybe i'll get the added benefit of 2 or 3 months of summer at my current lab, with the experience of NIH (though im not sure what PI would accept me for October - September, when programs would start).

this week i finished the experiment i'd designed before and it came up with a negative result, so i'm changing a few of the parameters as well as adding a few reagents that should make the results cleaner. i enjoy this process but i'm dead afraid that it will count for nothing if my PI doesn't really know and my work isn't reflected in my letters. i see what you mean about a new PI not really being able to say much though. what should i do here if my goal is to strengthen my application? i don't think the addition time in my current lab is the best investment, but from the sounds of it, its the best i have...

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

So if I understand this whole thread correctly, you're currently in school, going to apply in 2013, and want to do an NIH post-bacc. Assuming I got all of that right, I'd say go for it but be aware that you'll be applying to med schools either soon after starting IRTA or even before starting IRTA which means that it won't really do much for your application other than add a little prestige since you won't have anything to say about it yet. Even during interviews you'll only have been there for a few months, so you still won't have much to say about it. I've also heard that a lot of NIH labs want their IRTA techs to stick around for the full two years, so if you indicate you're currently applying to med schools and only plan to be around for a year your chances of acceptance to that program are diminished.

One option to avoid all of this is to take two years off. That way when you apply you'll have a year of additional research experience to talk about, additional solid PI letters, and labs will be more willing to take you. You also get to avoid the stress of making an trans-state move twice in one year (much less while application season is in full swing). The big downside though is that depending on when you took the MCAT your score may be expired if you wait an additional year to apply which means you'll get the pleasure of retaking a 41 while working full time, so it's your call.

I would also advise looking into normal lab tech positions in addition to IRTA. Each lab handles its techs differently, and the experience you get can range from terrible (human PCR machine) to fantastic (poor man's grad student). So if you get lucky you may be able to find an excellent lab near home.

I'd comment on the rest of your concerns were it not for the fact that I'm also still pre-MD/PhD and thus it would be pretty silly for me to give advice on something I'm unclear of myself. The only reason I commented on the above stuff is that I was in a somewhat similar situation when I graduated (hadn't taken the MCAT yet though and I had more research experience) so I went through the same dilemma. I ended up choosing to take two years off and work as a lab tech at a university lab which was worked out very, very well for me so far (I haven't even been here for a year yet and already I've managed to accomplish significantly more than I did in the three years I was volunteering in my undergrad lab). Hopefully you'll have a similar experience wherever you end up 👍

 

[achamess]

I wouldn't discount your research experience that much. I think one of the biggest misconceptions of MD-PhD applicants is that admissions committees are judging you based on your productivity and results (pubs). Sure, those things are good, but even at the best places, it is not at all expected that you have a pub or that you produced amazing results.

What they're looking for is evidence that you have spent time in the lab, you know what science is like and how it's done and that you're motivated and enthusiastic about doing more science in your PhD. Think of it from their perspective - their main concern is that you would succeed (i.e. complete) the dual degrees. Motivation and interest are probably more important at this stage than a past record of productivity. Don't get me wrong - those are bonuses. Pubs and stuff only help. But they're not required.

The task for you as an applicant then becomes, "how can I present myself and my work in such a way that the adcoms believe I know what I'm getting myself into?"

How might that look for you?

- You have been self-motivated in a lab with an absent PI
- You've probably designed your own experiments, taught yourself basic lab techniques, analyzed the data, etc.
- You're going to do a senior thesis
- You will have spent 2 years (?) in one lab by the time you graduate... that's sufficient, I think, to show that you can persist and stay for a long haul in one place and that you're not a complete novice

It's all about how you present yourself. I wouldn't discount your experience. I don't know that any more experience, especially with your very strong application, would make you more attractive to adcoms.

I go to a top 10 school, and in my class, maybe 3 or 4 out of 9 had pubs. In retrospect, I look at the work I did as an UG and I realize how deficient it was. I didn't have any pubs when I applied (3 years ago). But I was able to sell my work and efforts really well, highlighting what I had done, even though the work was boring and didn't amount to any awesome findings. The adcoms realize that science is messy and doesn't always produce sexy results, especially for beginners.

So, I'd say, go for it as is. Stay the course in your lab. If you think you can do good work on your own, that speaks even more to your prospect of future success. If you can motivate yourself and get stuff done without the guiding hand of a PI, that would be even more impressive to adcoms. One of my classmates had exactly that experience, and he was super successful on the trail (no pubs, btw).

Lastly, regarding a year off. Don't do it because you think it will help your chances. It will, but not enough to justify putting off training 1-2 years. Do it if you think you really want to do more research to see if a PhD is for you. I took a year off, and I learned a lot about navigating in a lab and how do good experiments. And I think that will help me out in the PhD portion of my training, but I don't know that it was necessary for the purposes of admission.

 

[Neuronix]

Note: i know its not necessary to publish to get into these programs, from Neuronix's sticky, but i think the amount of work i done doesn't reflect 1.5 years in the lab, so i worry. (i essentially wasted the first half year using a FACS antibody for WB and wondering what went wrong...)

Read between the lines. If I say that 2+ years of research is acceptable, and publications aren't required, I meant that after 2-4 years in a lab as an undergraduate a publication isn't really expected of you.

I agree with K31's first post. Go to the NIH if you want, but you don't need to. I always tell people to get started on the long MD/PhD road as soon as they reasonably can since it's such a long road, but different people have different opinions on that.

 

[StilgarMD]

So if I understand this whole thread correctly, you're currently in school, going to apply in 2013, and want to do an NIH post-bacc. Assuming I got all of that right, I'd say go for it but be aware that you'll be applying to med schools either soon after starting IRTA or even before starting IRTA which means that it won't really do much for your application other than add a little prestige since you won't have anything to say about it yet. Even during interviews you'll only have been there for a few months, so you still won't have much to say about it. I've also heard that a lot of NIH labs want their IRTA techs to stick around for the full two years, so if you indicate you're currently applying to med schools and only plan to be around for a year your chances of acceptance to that program are diminished.

One option to avoid all of this is to take two years off. That way when you apply you'll have a year of additional research experience to talk about, additional solid PI letters, and labs will be more willing to take you. You also get to avoid the stress of making an trans-state move twice in one year (much less while application season is in full swing). The big downside though is that depending on when you took the MCAT your score may be expired if you wait an additional year to apply which means you'll get the pleasure of retaking a 41 while working full time, so it's your call.

I would also advise looking into normal lab tech positions in addition to IRTA. Each lab handles its techs differently, and the experience you get can range from terrible (human PCR machine) to fantastic (poor man's grad student). So if you get lucky you may be able to find an excellent lab near home.

I'd comment on the rest of your concerns were it not for the fact that I'm also still pre-MD/PhD and thus it would be pretty silly for me to give advice on something I'm unclear of myself. The only reason I commented on the above stuff is that I was in a somewhat similar situation when I graduated (hadn't taken the MCAT yet though and I had more research experience) so I went through the same dilemma. I ended up choosing to take two years off and work as a lab tech at a university lab which was worked out very, very well for me so far (I haven't even been here for a year yet and already I've managed to accomplish significantly more than I did in the three years I was volunteering in my undergrad lab). Hopefully you'll have a similar experience wherever you end up 👍

thanks a lot OCDOCDOCD. at the end of the day, my desire to go to NIH is a combination of needing a fuller application and just wanting to be doing science for significant parts of the day. i want to be in a lab where my PI is actively mentoring me instead of my current situation where i need to track him down. ultimately i wouldn't go to NIH "just to go to NIH", i would go because i would work under someone who could help me develop my scientific sense and help me become a stronger scientist. i honestly hadn't considered a tech position, because when i think of one i figured all the positions were "human PCR machine" type, i had no clue that a tech could be more involved then that, so i really appreciate the info. how do you go about finding these kinds of positions outside of your own university? i know a few people here who i could go to for a lead on potential positions, but maybe they could help me with other places too. i took the MCAT This year, and I'm definitely applying before 2015, so that won't be an issue. also, as far as the 1 yr vs. 2 yr IRTA, i figured it would diminish my chances, but i didn't really think about how significantly, but i figure it won't hurt to apply and up front about it, and if i don't get in, then ill look for a lab tech position like you suggested. Also, i don't mind if you're in my shoes as far as the process, since im sure you know things i don't that i would benefit from, so if you know anything else, feel free to post or pm me.

I wouldn't discount your research experience that much. I think one of the biggest misconceptions of MD-PhD applicants is that admissions committees are judging you based on your productivity and results (pubs). Sure, those things are good, but even at the best places, it is not at all expected that you have a pub or that you produced amazing results.

What they're looking for is evidence that you have spent time in the lab, you know what science is like and how it's done and that you're motivated and enthusiastic about doing more science in your PhD. Think of it from their perspective - their main concern is that you would succeed (i.e. complete) the dual degrees. Motivation and interest are probably more important at this stage than a past record of productivity. Don't get me wrong - those are bonuses. Pubs and stuff only help. But they're not required.

The task for you as an applicant then becomes, "how can I present myself and my work in such a way that the adcoms believe I know what I'm getting myself into?"

How might that look for you?

- You have been self-motivated in a lab with an absent PI
- You've probably designed your own experiments, taught yourself basic lab techniques, analyzed the data, etc.
- You're going to do a senior thesis
- You will have spent 2 years (?) in one lab by the time you graduate... that's sufficient, I think, to show that you can persist and stay for a long haul in one place and that you're not a complete novice

It's all about how you present yourself. I wouldn't discount your experience. I don't know that any more experience, especially with your very strong application, would make you more attractive to adcoms.

I go to a top 10 school, and in my class, maybe 3 or 4 out of 9 had pubs. In retrospect, I look at the work I did as an UG and I realize how deficient it was. I didn't have any pubs when I applied (3 years ago). But I was able to sell my work and efforts really well, highlighting what I had done, even though the work was boring and didn't amount to any awesome findings. The adcoms realize that science is messy and doesn't always produce sexy results, especially for beginners.

So, I'd say, go for it as is. Stay the course in your lab. If you think you can do good work on your own, that speaks even more to your prospect of future success. If you can motivate yourself and get stuff done without the guiding hand of a PI, that would be even more impressive to adcoms. One of my classmates had exactly that experience, and he was super successful on the trail (no pubs, btw).

Lastly, regarding a year off. Don't do it because you think it will help your chances. It will, but not enough to justify putting off training 1-2 years. Do it if you think you really want to do more research to see if a PhD is for you. I took a year off, and I learned a lot about navigating in a lab and how do good experiments. And I think that will help me out in the PhD portion of my training, but I don't know that it was necessary for the purposes of admission.

thanks a lot for the response achamess. i guess im just worried about being asked "if you didn't get anything done, what were you doing?" in my head im not accounting for the fact they aren't grilling students that hard and are more understanding about the scientific process and being an undergrad. at this point, its not an option whether i can take a year off or not, since AMCAS has nothing besides my MCAT on file. Given what you've told me, i won't worry about submitting my application on the later end to get some time in at wherever i end up. I might as well reap the advantage of submitting early if i have nothing to gain from submitting later, but i still want to work in and lab and with luck ill have the kind of experience you're detailing.

Read between the lines. If I say that 2+ years of research is acceptable, and publications aren't required, I meant that after 2-4 years in a lab as an undergraduate a publication isn't really expected of you.

I agree with K31's first post. Go to the NIH if you want, but you don't need to. I always tell people to get started on the long MD/PhD road as soon as they reasonably can since it's such a long road, but different people have different opinions on that.

the "long road" is really my only inhibition toward doing the 2 years off OCDOCDOCD suggested, and given your and achamess' post, i feel less pressure to spend more time off.

thanks a lot for the responses guys. I'm definitely staying in my lab for the rest of my senior year, but ill keep an open mind toward what goes on during the year I'm applying. I'm still really set on doing research during the year, but now i know i have more options, and won't fret too much about it not adding to my application.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

thanks a lot OCDOCDOCD. at the end of the day, my desire to go to NIH is a combination of needing a fuller application and just wanting to be doing science for significant parts of the day. i want to be in a lab where my PI is actively mentoring me instead of my current situation where i need to track him down. ultimately i wouldn't go to NIH "just to go to NIH", i would go because i would work under someone who could help me develop my scientific sense and help me become a stronger scientist. i honestly hadn't considered a tech position, because when i think of one i figured all the positions were "human PCR machine" type, i had no clue that a tech could be more involved then that, so i really appreciate the info. how do you go about finding these kinds of positions outside of your own university? i know a few people here who i could go to for a lead on potential positions, but maybe they could help me with other places too. i took the MCAT This year, and I'm definitely applying before 2015, so that won't be an issue. also, as far as the 1 yr vs. 2 yr IRTA, i figured it would diminish my chances, but i didn't really think about how significantly, but i figure it won't hurt to apply and up front about it, and if i don't get in, then ill look for a lab tech position like you suggested. Also, i don't mind if you're in my shoes as far as the process, since im sure you know things i don't that i would benefit from, so if you know anything else, feel free to post or pm me.

Yeah, IRTA is good for ensuring you get a lab that gives you good opportunity to build up your CV, but you can find that in other labs too. IRTA's main advantages are, imo, the prestige that goes along with it and the fact that you'll be making contacts within the NIH while you're there which could potentially end up being a massive boon in the future. Like I said, I would go for it if that's what you want to do. Applying won't hurt you.

If you want to find a lab away from your current university it actually isn't that hard. You can just visit the HR department websites of whichever universities you're interested in and see if they have lab tech openings. Going through HR is hardly ideal though, so if you can leverage any network connections you have by all means do so. Ask people in your lab if they know anything, or "know a guy who knows a guy" that can help you out. You can also ask friends who are also involved in research in the same field as you, professors, advisers, and people like that. Whenever possible try to contact a PI you're interested in working with directly, even if they have a wanted ad up on the HR website.

The trick with normal lab tech jobs is to find a lab that's both willing to hire you and willing to give you a significant role in projects, or even let you do your own. Whenever you interview you can (and should) always ask what kind of duties and responsibilities you'll have in the lab, and whether you'll have any opportunity to get published, present posters, go to conferences, etc. Don't worry about putting off PIs with those questions either. Some might scoff at the idea (and you don't want to work in their labs so that's nothing lost) but I'd imagine many will like hearing those kinds of questions from you. I know that with my current PIs they loved it when I asked whether I would be able to get published or do my own projects in their labs; they were looking for someone motivated to follow through with projects and those questions made it clear I was exactly the kind of person they were looking for. Like I said, the trick is going to be getting hired at such a lab. It took me seven months to find my job, and it was the first offer I got. There were other labs I had applied to that wouldn't have been nearly as good, and I would have accepted had I gotten offers because after the first few months I was desperate for work. You might have better luck though; I think it was my neuroscience-heavy background that turned off a lot of labs (virtually everything in the state was microbio), and there weren't a lot of job openings in my state either (just Stanford or any of the UC's alone had more than double the amount of lab tech jobs open in one month than all the universities in my state combined over that 7 month period).

Also, I agree with what other people are saying. If you're only doing this because you feel like you need more experience, definitely do not take two years off. I would still find a tech job since you're going to have a gap year no matter what, but do apply to schools in 2013. The reason I decided to take two years off was because I wanted to make certain I wanted to/could do science for a living before going to grad school, and I felt I couldn't make that decision without getting exposed to more labs. I also wanted to take a break from school for awhile, especially since I knew it would be my last chance to do random hobbies and trips for a very long time once I started going back to school. The extra experience was just icing on the cake. I'm glad I took time off since I feel like I have a much better idea of my career goals now and I definitely have a much better understanding of what professional research is like. However, this has come at the cost of time; I took an extra year to graduate, about a year to find a job, and I'll have two gap years. The result is that I'll be 26 when I matriculate in an MD/PhD program (assuming I get in on the first try), which isn't a terribly comforting thought considering how long it takes to finally start a career as a physician-scientist. However, I wouldn't even be doing MD/PhD if I hadn't taken this time off to reflect on my goals and learn more, so it's worth it. My point in saying all of that is that you should make sure you have a good reason for taking time off before you commit to that route.