I was giving an example to show what I meant, understanding that it might not have been specifically relevant to your situation. Perhaps you can draw on something you witnessed while shadowing, in order to frame a similar "positive."
More information would be helpful. Was there a hypothesis, a designed study to test it, data, and conclusions drawn? If not: Only if you're desperate.
Most would do that. You could, alternatively, mention the award at the end of the narrative explaining the activity for which you received it. Or, if you have so much to say about one award that it would overly dominate the space, then give it its own slot.
Assume that non-science majors as well as PhDs in science may read your application (the latter especially if you will apply to strong research schools). I suggest a brief intoductory paragraph that targets those without a science background, followed by further more-specific info for those who don't need definitions, where you can assume that scientific jargon will be understood.
Even though you were assisting with someone else's project, and got class credit for doing so, you can give this a space. It sounds like you were more of a lab tech getting on-the-job training, but it took place in a lab, so using the Research/Lab designation is OK. Be sure to name the activity something that shows your level of responsibility.
definitely!
You can include HS activities that continued into the college years. I would list the current medical colunteerism with its date span in the header, and then mention the dates, institution and contact info if different, and total hours of the HS gig in the narrative. Give a grand total for hours at the end.
1) Yes. If it won't all fit, then only list the most significant. Or use another space.
Totaling the hours isn't required.
1) No one would penalize you for listing publications for projects you were involved in. I expect your concern is that you might be closely questioned about the details, as happens at some interviews, especially as you can't list what you did. You might consider grouping the Publications together, listing the most prestigious in the header. In the related Research space, you could name the activity "Research Tech" or "Research Assistant" (instead of "Researcher") which implies that you didn't have the primary responsibility or a great deal of creative input. And also make the entry vague, giving more of an overview. This should get you 'off the hook' interms of being expected to know all the details. If asked regardless, I think saying "Well, it was 10 years ago, so I don't recall much" should be an understandable response.
1) Every adcomm is different. I'm a fan of choosing "Most Meaningful" desgnation from the heart, but if you are applying to strong research institutions and yearn to be chosen by them, I wouldn't blame you for picking the strategic option of making the Research most meaningful.
No, it isn't worth adding "deans list," as your GPA is already apparent from your transcripts. Multiple past discussions on SDN have agreed that Phi Beta Kappa is worth listing, OTOH. Most list all awards and honors in a single space, so if you decide to include everything, you might put the most prestigious in the header and add any additions below that in the narrative, with some discussion of the impact this had on you.
Your question requires a discussion of post-submission strategy to maximize your chances, which does not lie within te scope of this thread. We'll assist you if you care to start a What are my Chances? thread of your own. You might copy this post and then delete it from this thread (so you don't double post).
1) Choose the option "until present" and then in the narrative give the end date.
I would try to use more positive terminology. For example, instead of saying they strongly disapproved, say they cast doubt on your ability to succeed, or some such. Or, say what you did, not what others' opinions of your actions were.
Presumably, you are referring to "Most Meaningful" status?
The criteria that your chapter uses for selection (since they vary across institutions).
1) Membership in a religiously-based organization CAN be a two-edged sword, especially if you're applying to schools where another religion predominates, mainly due to individal adcomm bias, and not due to institutional predudice. "When in doubt, leave it out" need not necessarily apply, however, as you can be vague about which religion you belong to if you have concerns (though that doesn't prevent cross-examination during an interview) . Personally, I think the the vast majority of the time, med schools are looking for diversity of all kinds. The only thing I'd warn about is including referrence to proselytizing (if you did it) as this seems to raise hackles across religious distinctions (which is just my personal observation).
1) You may list them, especially, if you have no other lab experience.
