Undergrad Research

[SpeakLittleB]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Wondering if any of you can provide feedback on my general advice for doing undergraduate research. The MD forum doesn't seem very interested..

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=350419

 

[acf11]

You seem to really covered all the bases thoroughly. I wish upperclassmen at my school would have put something so truly comprehensive together for me when I was a freshman.

 

[RxnMan]

Wondering if any of you can provide feedback on my general advice for doing undergraduate research. The MD forum doesn't seem very interested..

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=350419

It seems OK, but I would put more emphasis on getting something out of the experience, something you can point to on a CV. I mean getting a poster, presentation, something. It really acts as a benchmark of quality - of the experience, and the student's work. With that addition, you'd have to put in something about how to author a poster or abstract.

 

[SpeakLittleB]

Thanks! Yah, I realized I should write something about presentations/publications... however, I was thinking of saying just the opposite; that you should work hard for those particulars, but that what really matters is how much you learn and what your PI can write in the letter.

I say this because I went through a phase where I was so set on having a publication before apps that I made myself work rediculous hours and do rediculous numbers of experiments every week. Anyway, as research goes, things come up and things fail sometimes, so now, midway through applications, I'm just now submitting my first author paper, meaning it's not written on any apps or CVs at all. But it hasn't seemed to be pulling me down... I'm still getting invites and still getting acceptances.. So I concluded that my earlier stress and seclusion was unfounded, and that what was most important is the research itself.

Rxnman, have you gone through this? Where do you stand in this whole process?

Now I'm not sure about my conclusion about pubs/presentations. What do others of you think?

 

[RxnMan]

Just to start, I completely empathize with working long hours in the lab, trying to get stuff to work and having nothing to show for it. I worked in medical research for 4 years before I had my first poster. Now, in response to your comments:

...however, I was thinking of saying just the opposite; that you should work hard for those particulars, but that what really matters is how much you learn and what your PI can write in the letter...Rxnman, have you gone through this? Where do you stand in this whole process?

I'm already a med student, so I'm waiting/developing for the next stage in applications: residency. I made a number of posts awhile back about filling out ECs for AMCAS, and they kinda flow with my view on getting pubs. In the grand scheme of things, yes, you want to learn from your experiences. You should do research either to see if it's for you, or to learn how to do it better.

But think about it from an ADCOM point of view (or a potential employer, if that helps). They see an applicant has worked in a lab for 4 years. How do they know if the applicant contributed to the lab or, (as you suggest,) was a bottle-washer? Posters, and similar lines on the CV, are proof* that:

1) You did high-quality work
2) You contributed significant time to a project
3) You participated in the intellectual development of the work

and as a result, you probably

4) learned more about conducting research.

I had something like a 2 posters, 2 presentations, and 2 abstracts as a successful applicant. I got questions about them whenever I interviewed and they were one of my selling points. I'm not saying that you're sunk without them - on the contrary, folks are better off studying for the MCAT or boosting the GPA. But you don't want to waste your time, either. Posters and abstracts are evidence that you can point to and say "I do good work."

*Yes, some applicants will just present their mentor's work, but these are the minority

 

[SpeakLittleB]

mm yah i guess it would look fishy to have years of research and not even an undergrad poster to show.

 

[Neuronix]

I had absolutely nothing when I applied. No abstract, no poster, no pubs. Nothing. My advising was so bad when I was an undergrad that I was barely aware of these things and really had no concept that an undergrad should be doing it. Also, I'd never heard of all these "scholars" programs (Rhodes, Marshall, etc...), they actually screwed up some of the extracirriculars I tried to setup, and they fervently tried to talk me out of MD/PhD when I decided on it. This is a big reason why I continue to hang out on this site. I identify with the clueless newbies and get satisfaction out of helping them.

That being said, nobody every told me it looked fishy I didn't have anything. I know alot of people who didn't. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T, but I think it's understood sometimes that you're an undergrad and these things aren't necessarily expected of undergrads.

 

[RxnMan]

You're right - "fishy" isn't the right word. But having something on your CV is like having a reference to back up an argument - it strengthens your case.

 

[QofQuimica]

Wondering if any of you can provide feedback on my general advice for doing undergraduate research. The MD forum doesn't seem very interested..

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=350419

You want me to move your thread to this forum? I think you'll get more responses here, and it won't get buried like it is in pre-allo.

BTW, I think you did a nice job too. I would add that students need to have realistic expectations. You are not going to come in and cure cancer in one summer. You will start at the bottom and work your way up, getting more responsibility and more interesting projects as you gain experience. You can also mention doing an honors thesis. A lot of undergrad programs offer that as an option; my college actually required everyone to do one. I do think that med schools take that into account. I had my MS, a couple of years of research work, and was finishing my frigging PhD when I applied, and I still had one interviewer pimping me about my UG thesis from ten years ago.

 

[chirurgino]

You can also mention doing an honors thesis. A lot of undergrad programs offer that as an option; my college actually required everyone to do one. I do think that med schools take that into account.

I think this is a great idea--when I applied I didn't have much on my actual CV in terms of presentations either (my only presentation was a dept. poster session), and the publication came later, but I did have an honors thesis that I could talk about in detail. It's also nice because you'll have ready-made figures to take with you on interviews.

My take on looking for labs is to go straight to the HHMI website and find which HHMI labs are at your institution. I've always done it and it's worked out every time. These are often (CERTAINLY NOT ALWAYS) the PIs doing the most cutting-edge and interesting work. Whoever you decide to work with, look them up on PubMed, and they should be getting Cell/Science/Nature level papers with some regularity. I'm showing my own biases here, but I always believed in getting the biggest names I could writing letters for me, all other things being equal (e.g., good lab environment and people to work with)--it's always a nice ice-breaker to have an interviewer say, "Oh, you worked with so-and-so...we had a great time as grad students at MIT in the 1970s...etc. etc..."

One important hint--DEFINITELY read a few recent publications from any PI's group BEFORE going in to speak with the PI--you'd be amazed how few undergrads do this, and how surprised and impressed PIs will be if you can have a half-intelligent discussion about their work.

And plan to make the lab your home. There's just no substitute for that, in terms of the experience you'll have and how you'll learn to think about science. Weekends, nights, spring breaks, Thanksgiving breaks, whatever (I did all of those). Make it your number one priority and it will be obvious to your postdoc and your PI, and reflected in your letter.

 

[SpeakLittleB]

Q, yeah, could you move that post into this thread? It might be easier.

Great idea about the thesis. I'd forgotten since I'm choosing not to do one.

chirurgino, have all your PIs always been very responsive even though you chose them because of HHMI status? I was actually thinking about writing more about picking the PI for their ability to spare the time to teach and discuss things with you rather than for their name power. My PI was an HHMI investigator when I joined too, but I didn't choose him for that reason. I have in fact found my PI's name useful on some occassions, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.

Anyone have experience with a perhaps new PI and how things are going?

Thanks everyone for great comments!

 

[chirurgino]

chirurgino, have all your PIs always been very responsive even though you chose them because of HHMI status? I was actually thinking about writing more about picking the PI for their ability to spare the time to teach and discuss things with you rather than for their name power. My PI was an HHMI investigator when I joined too, but I didn't choose him for that reason. I have in fact found my PI's name useful on some occassions, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.

Fair question...the only reason I single out HHMI is because they tend to have a lot of the most exciting research out there (again, certainly not all of it). That being said, I agree it's probably better to tell a PI that you chose him or her just because their research is great, as opposed to because they're HHMI.

About the PI interaction question...it's a personal choice, really--I've always interacted with my PIs primarily in lab meeting (all of my labs have gone around the room and presented their data every week). That's probably more my choice rather than theirs, especially because I never considered the level of PI interaction when I chose labs (which was probably not smart, in retrospect). Certainly all the PIs I've worked with were open to meeting with me if they were in town. Obviously it's an even more critical question when choosing a PhD dissertation lab...there's no right or wrong answer and you have to decide what works for you. Some people really want that "nurturing" environment from a PI, and prefer small labs with nearly constant interaction; that would have probably driven me crazy. Most of the best data discussions for me have happened very late at night with one or two postdocs who happened to be around (also perhaps after a few drinks...). The point is that you can learn a lot from a lot of different people (not necessarily just the PI) if you know the right questions to ask.

 

[RxnMan]

...Great idea about the thesis. I'd forgotten since I'm choosing not to do one...I was actually thinking about writing more about picking the PI for their ability to spare the time to teach and discuss things with you rather than for their name power. My PI was an HHMI investigator when I joined too, but I didn't choose him for that reason. I have in fact found my PI's name useful on some occassions, but I'm not sure if it's necessary...

The senior thesis wasn't an option at my school, but it is a good idea to include that.

On advisors, I've got a few opinions. My masters program required two advisors and I had another one at work, and now another here in NY - my point is, I've worked with a range of people! I think first and foremost, you need an advisor that has $$$ for you and projects. Then, and this is nearly tied for first, you need to be able to work with them well - are they friendly and willing to teach you. The money plays into giving you the student opportunities and the ability to complete a project, and the second is like what you said earlier, you get someone who is engaged in your learning.

While the name-dropping is very helpful, most student won't have access to these researchers, and a good advisor doesn't need a big name to make it a great learning experience for you, or give you credit for your work (i.e. pubs) and write you letters. It's kinda like choosing a car for the paint job - it may look pretty cool sitting there, but who knows if it will actually get you down the road.

Also note that I didn't write anything about the research they were doing. Choosing PIs based on the work they do is a very bad idea.

SpeakLittleB, one thing - part of what we're discussing bridges over into graduate-level work. The advisor stuff becomes much more important in grad school, but maybe a ugrad can get away with hating their PI if it's only for a summer.

 

[SpeakLittleB]

SpeakLittleB, one thing - part of what we're discussing bridges over into graduate-level work. The advisor stuff becomes much more important in grad school, but maybe a ugrad can get away with hating their PI if it's only for a summer.

Yah that's definitely true. Haha, hopefully we can help ug's minimize the pain by helping them know how to evaluate a potential PI. I suppose if you work for a huge lab though, it doesn't matter too much how you interact with your PI, and what u're working on and others in the lab become more important.

 

[QofQuimica]

Q, yeah, could you move that post into this thread? It might be easier.

Great idea about the thesis. I'd forgotten since I'm choosing not to do one.

chirurgino, have all your PIs always been very responsive even though you chose them because of HHMI status? I was actually thinking about writing more about picking the PI for their ability to spare the time to teach and discuss things with you rather than for their name power. My PI was an HHMI investigator when I joined too, but I didn't choose him for that reason. I have in fact found my PI's name useful on some occassions, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.

Anyone have experience with a perhaps new PI and how things are going?

Thanks everyone for great comments!

Done. 🙂 I'll bump it up too so that people will see it.

None of my PIs were new. Two were full professors and one was an associate professor. I had the best experiences with the full profs. My PhD PI in particular was especially bright and doing awesome and exciting research. So far none of his ideas have panned out, but seriously, if he ever gets one to work, he's going to be famous. 🙂

 

[Dr.Watson]

On the PI interaction question: I've worked in a few labs - small ones and huge ones.

Working in a small lab I interacted with my PI on a daily basis and my project/results were vital to the lab. From this lab, I got publications, confidence to present my data to large groups of strangers/higher-ups, and awesome advice from technicians who had been around.

Working in a large well-known lab, I feel like I got to know what top-notch science was like. I had an amazing MD/PhD post-doc that gave me freedom to design small, exciting projects (that weren't the most successful) and a lot of advice about life as an MD/PhD. The other lab members hailed from all-over and most from other big labs in the field. Furthermore, I met and spoke to and heard talks from the other top researchers in the field that came to visit on invitation or see what we were up to. I didn't have publications and I didn't meet with PI daily. I knew my PI well, but he was a busy guy. Also, I knew the research within the field really well and what other top labs were doing personally (ie not based on publications). Here - the post/doc or grad student you work with is very important, especially personality-wise.

The small lab was a great introduction to science. I learned basics, I produced some good results and was important, and I saw how early PIs can struggle. The large lab gave me the big picture of how a top lab functions. I think it has been ideal in initiating me into the world of science and opening my eyes as far as what I'm getting myself into and where I want to end up. Also, I got to know a field well. The talks/lab meeting and other lab members were incredibly valuable.

Anyway, if you have the time, I'd work in more than one lab and in different types of lab (even if it's just for a summer). The experiences are very different and helpful in its own way. I definitely have an idea of what I'm looking for a grad school lab.

 

[Circumflex]

I did the PhD portion of my training in the lab of a full professor with good funding. This really allowed me to try some cool, somewhat risky experiments and even develop my own project that no one else was working on.

In contrast, a friend of mine was working in the lab of a new assistant professor, who was under pressure to secure more funding to get tenure. He had very specific experiments he wanted to have done and did not give his students much creative freedom.

I learned more by thinking up experiments that were in a new direction. Some worked and some did not, but that is what science is all about.

It is best to talk with many PIs before joining a lab - you have to fit well with your advisor - this is the most important part.