Too much research?

[Noctámbulo]

Hi All,

I'm wondering if having too many research-focused activities can have a deleterious effect when applying to medical schools (not MD-PhD). 12/15 activities on my amcas are currently research-focused, and I worry this may raise some eyebrows, so to speak, at my decision to apply to medical school, rather than graduate school. I have 250+ hours of clinical experience, plenty of volunteering, and all the other good stuff, but definitely a research-focused application overall.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wanderingorion]

Nah, you good.
As long as your can talk about it well.
A lot of my EC's were in research on my app as well, and I explained my shift from wanting to go to grad school to pursing medicine.

 

[gamieg]

12/15..? I thought AMCAS lets you enter up to 10.

as the above poster mentioned, the important thing is to be able to demonstrate enough clinical exposure and convey a realistic understanding of medicine.

 

[HybridEarth]

Is it your professional goal to include research in your future medical practice? If so, MAKE SURE you include that in your personal statement. I was in a similar boat as you, and it came across really well, particularly at the more research-loving schools. Don't expect a whole lot of love from service-based schools, just saying.

If not, make sure you have an explanation as to why you did so much research lol

 

[aalamruad]

12/15..? I thought AMCAS lets you enter up to 10.

nah it's 15

 

[kb1900]

if research was taking up 12 / 15 slots i'd question the quality of the experiences

 

[efle]

How can you possibly have 12 different research activities that warrant entries?

 

[Noctámbulo]

if research was taking up 12 / 15 slots i'd question the quality of the experiences

How can you possibly have 12 different research activities that warrant entries?

Thank you all for the responses so far.

To clarify, not all 12 slots are research experiences, explicitly (I have 3 longitudinal research experiences and 3 summer programs, taking up a total of 4 slots)-- the remaining 8 slots are for publications, presentations, leadership with undergraduate research journals, research advocacy efforts, research advisory committees, etc.

 

[Dr. Jan Itor]

I'd combine some of your research into one slot. Three slots doesn't seem like enough to cover various volunteering, shadowing, and whatever combinations of leadership, teaching, or other ECs you have.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[efle]

You absolutely need to condense unless you have nothing but those research ECs to fit in your app! You should combine pubs/presentations and your research related ECs if they are not major things involving hundreds of hours.

Also, do you have an MCAT score? Having an app packed with research will not hurt you much if you're in the stats ranges for Top 20s

 

[libertyyne]

if research was taking up 12 / 15 slots i'd question the quality of the experiences

 

[Noctámbulo]

I'd combine some of your research into one slot. Three slots doesn't seem like enough to cover various volunteering, shadowing, and whatever combinations of leadership, teaching, or other ECs you have.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

You absolutely need to condense unless you have nothing but those research ECs to fit in your app! You should combine pubs/presentations and your research related ECs if they are not major things involving hundreds of hours.

Also, do you have an MCAT score? Having an app packed with research will not hurt you much if you're in the stats ranges for Top 20s

Yes- definitely consolidating activities. So far, I'm using 1 slot for pubs, 1 for conference presentations, 1 for longitudinal research experiences in college, 1 for postbac research, 1 for summer programs, etc... and then on the non-research side I have 1 slot for teaching, 1 for non-clinical volunteering, 1 for clinical volunteering, 1 for shadowing.

MCAT score is competitive for Top 20's, which is what I am shooting for with an interest in academic medicine.

 

[Noctámbulo]

if research was taking up 12 / 15 slots i'd question the quality of the experiences

Certainly! But not all 12 are individual research experiences. By "research" I am referring to anything from lab work to conference presentations to leadership with undergraduate research journals.

 

[doctorbob23]

With that much research why not MD/PHD..

 

[Noctámbulo]

With that much research why not MD/PHD..

Honestly, I would love to tag on a PhD, but I come from a no-name school, and top MD-PhD programs don't much care for those. Because pedigree matters in academic medicine, I'm hesitant to shoot myself in the foot and end up at a no-name MD-PhD, when I might stand a chance at a
"research powerhouse" medical school (where I could still engage in research as a medical student). Really struggling with this at the moment.

 

[Go4Doc]

Bro, there's really no such thing as a no-name MSTP. In fact almost all of the top 40 medical schools in the country have one of the 43 fully-funded MSTPs.

Also, as you'll see on here time and time again, those programs don't really care about "pedigree" unless you're an international student or if you're coming from a community college. Assuming you're coming from a small liberal arts school, trust me it's not the name of your school that hurts. Nor will a lack of publications. What will be most important to them are your letters of rec from your PI and how well you articulate your motivations, interests, and research experiences.

@Neuronix @Fencer - care to weigh in?

 

[Neuronix]

Honestly, I would love to tag on a PhD, but I come from a no-name school, and top MD-PhD programs don't much care for those.

How did you dream up this nonsense? I went to a "no name state school" and ended up at a top-5 MSTP. I'm not the only one.

If this were true, and I suppose there is some small component of elitism, it's just as prevalent on the MD only side.

The real question is whether you want to do MD/PhD. If not, then don't. But the idea that you're going to get into a bigger name medical school is silly. In fact, over the years I've seen numerous people take this approach and not do as well as they'd like. When you apply MD/PhD, all the top out of state public schools open up to your application since state residency is not considered for MD/PhD.

I also agree with the sentiment that all MSTPs are at strong schools. If you go to med school at a USNews top-40 there will be top labs, and the rest of your career becomes up to you.

 

[TheRevenant]

since state residency is not considered for MD/PhD.

Could someone explain why this is the case? I'm not very interested in MD/PhD, but I'm curious about this.

 

[Neuronix]

Could someone explain why this is the case? I'm not very interested in MD/PhD, but I'm curious about this.

The programs are federally funded and they look for regional class diversity.

 

[TheRevenant]

The programs are federally funded and they look for regional class diversity.

Whelp, this was an interpretation error on my part. Initially interpreted "residency" as graduate medical education instead of state of residence

 

[Noctámbulo]

How did you dream up this nonsense? I went to a "no name state school" and ended up at a top-5 MSTP. I'm not the only one.

If this were true, and I suppose there is some small component of elitism, it's just as prevalent on the MD only side.

The real question is whether you want to do MD/PhD. If not, then don't. But the idea that you're going to get into a bigger name medical school is silly. In fact, over the years I've seen numerous people take this approach and not do as well as they'd like. When you apply MD/PhD, all the top out of state public schools open up to your application since state residency is not considered for MD/PhD.

I also agree with the sentiment that all MSTPs are at strong schools. If you go to med school at a USNews top-40 there will be top labs, and the rest of your career becomes up to you.

Hi Neuronix--I always appreciate reading your posts; thanks for the feedback. Although schools don't outright state a preference for graduates of top undergrads, it's been pretty discouraging to look through the alma mater of recent incoming classes for MSTPs at (albeit dream) schools like UCSF, UCLA, Hopkins, Stanford, etc. Only exception seems to be state school grads who were Goldwater scholars or received some other outstanding scholarship like Rhodes. Statistically speaking, odds of acceptance into the MD class are higher than MSTP (with the exception of state schools, of course), and even for schools that re-route to MD-only, it'll be so late into the cycle that they may as well not have. I'm also thinking that with strong research, I can potentially stand out in the MD-only pool, whereas it's only expected for MSTPs. There's a lot to consider, but I sure hope you are right.

 

[efle]

^ You really should not be deciding between MD and MD/PhD based on how much alma mater bias you perceive. It should be do you want to be a PI and do 80% research very distantly followed by things like cost and time commitments. How high up the prestige chain you think you can land should not even be a blip on the radar for this kind of decision.

 

[Noctámbulo]

^ You really should not be deciding between MD and MD/PhD based on how much alma mater bias you perceive. It should be do you want to be a PI and do 80% research very distantly followed by things like cost and time commitments. How high up the prestige chain you think you can land should not even be a blip on the radar for this kind of decision.

Right, but I can always get my PhD during residency, or even do a 3-year research fellowship after residency. The option doesn't end at this stage.

 

[efle]

Right, but I can always get my PhD during residency, or even do a 3-year research fellowship after residency. The option doesn't end at this stage.

Sure, if you're fine with paying for medical school to end up with the same degrees, and potentially taking a lot longer for your PhD than most MSTPs do, then it makes sense to just put off the decision.

But if you already have strong feelings that you will end up pursuing a mostly academic > clinical career, it makes sense to go MD/PhD regardless of the matriculant alma mater lists you see. It is not possible to separate self-selection bias from admissions bias, it may be that students like yourself almost always attended Ivy level undergrads, rather than them only wanting pedigreed matriculants.

 

[Neuronix]

Only exception seems to be state school grads who were Goldwater scholars or received some other outstanding scholarship like Rhodes.

Again, you're making this up. I didn't even know what those things were as an undergrad. This is a seed vs. soil issue. The top high school students tend to go to the top colleges. But there are some very strong students at any undergrad, some of whom go on to to medical schools and MSTPs.

Statistically speaking, odds of acceptance into the MD class are higher than MSTP (with the exception of state schools, of course)

Since when? To my recollection, the acceptance rates (based on # of applicants per spot) are similar if not higher for MSTP. The matriculated stats for MD vs MD/PhD are pretty similar at the private MSTPs.

I'm also thinking that with strong research, I can potentially stand out in the MD-only pool, whereas it's only expected for MSTPs. There's a lot to consider, but I sure hope you are right.

Also incorrect. The MD-only pool looks at research as just another extracurricular. Just another box ticked. They don't really evaluate your research history. You'll be evaluated mostly by clinicians who don't even know how to evaluate undergraduate research. You won't stand out based on this. The only way to stand out based on your research experience is to apply to programs that are specifically looking for research. There are some five year integrated programs like CCLCM or Pitt's research program that will evaluate you based on that sort of thing. Everyone else is going to expect you to be applying MSTP. You can of course apply MD with a strong research background, but you won't stand out based on that.

 

[Go4Doc]

Again, you're making this up. I didn't even know what those things were as an undergrad. This is a seed vs. soil issue. The top high school students tend to go to the top colleges. But there are some very strong students at any undergrad, some of whom go on to to medical schools and MSTPs.



Since when? To my recollection, the acceptance rates (based on # of applicants per spot) are similar if not higher for MSTP. The matriculated stats for MD vs MD/PhD are pretty similar at the private MSTPs.



Also incorrect. The MD-only pool looks at research as just another extracurricular. Just another box ticked. They don't really evaluate your research history. You'll be evaluated mostly by clinicians who don't even know how to evaluate undergraduate research. You won't stand out based on this. The only way to stand out based on your research experience is to apply to programs that are specifically looking for research. There are some five year integrated programs like CCLCM or Pitt's research program that will evaluate you based on that sort of thing. Everyone else is going to expect you to be applying MSTP. You can of course apply MD with a strong research background, but you won't stand out based on that.

Amen.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Not as long as you can talk about your research and relate it to why you want to become a doctor.

 

[NonTrad16]

You only have 15 spaces. Prioritize.

If you have publications, do you really need to list a school based conference? If you have shadowing, volunteering (clinical and non clinical), leadership or club involvement... That's 4-5 easy. Even MD/PhD programs would likely see a benefit in other activities. I'd split 10/15 for research and related, max. You're applying to medical schools, not PhD programs. Admittedly, I wasn't applying to top 20s and research powerhouses...