D
deleted936268
Hi guys!
I’m a student that’s been heavily involved in basic science research for the last 2-3 years. I’ve gotten 2 mid author pubs so far in high tier journals and plan on taking 2 gap years this coming semester, so need a bit of help in deciding how to best spend that time. For reference, I hope to apply to pretty research intensive MD programs and am honestly aiming for Stanford’s research heavy MD program although I know the chances are abysmal and all.
Option A: Continue doing basic science research in my current lab, great PI and environment and I’m sure I would be able to get 1-2 pubs during the gap years (maybe one first author with some luck) based on conversations with my PI.
Option B: I have the opportunity to do some clinical research, again great PI and environment. I’m thinking (and of course correct me if I’ve done my research wrong here) that I could get a ton more clinical pubs in 2 years than basic science — thinking on the scale of 5-10 although that’s only based on what I’ve seen from 2 friends.
I really think I’ll enjoy clinical research based on lectures I’ve watched and papers I’ve sifted through but I guess my main concern based on what I’ve heard is that adcoms (especially at research heavy schools) value clinical pubs way less than basic science because they know it takes much more work for basic science pubs. Thoughts on this and also on the two scenarios above? Obviously following my newfound passion for clinical research is something I’d like to pursue but it’s not like I don’t enjoy my current basic science lab. If it’s kore productive to adcoms to get those 5-10 clinical pubs, then I think I’d rather do that compared to 1-2 basic pubs.
TLDR: Do adcoms value clinical pubs or basic science pubs more and if so, what does the ratio of pub # to # look like - if that makes sense?
I’m a student that’s been heavily involved in basic science research for the last 2-3 years. I’ve gotten 2 mid author pubs so far in high tier journals and plan on taking 2 gap years this coming semester, so need a bit of help in deciding how to best spend that time. For reference, I hope to apply to pretty research intensive MD programs and am honestly aiming for Stanford’s research heavy MD program although I know the chances are abysmal and all.
Option A: Continue doing basic science research in my current lab, great PI and environment and I’m sure I would be able to get 1-2 pubs during the gap years (maybe one first author with some luck) based on conversations with my PI.
Option B: I have the opportunity to do some clinical research, again great PI and environment. I’m thinking (and of course correct me if I’ve done my research wrong here) that I could get a ton more clinical pubs in 2 years than basic science — thinking on the scale of 5-10 although that’s only based on what I’ve seen from 2 friends.
I really think I’ll enjoy clinical research based on lectures I’ve watched and papers I’ve sifted through but I guess my main concern based on what I’ve heard is that adcoms (especially at research heavy schools) value clinical pubs way less than basic science because they know it takes much more work for basic science pubs. Thoughts on this and also on the two scenarios above? Obviously following my newfound passion for clinical research is something I’d like to pursue but it’s not like I don’t enjoy my current basic science lab. If it’s kore productive to adcoms to get those 5-10 clinical pubs, then I think I’d rather do that compared to 1-2 basic pubs.
TLDR: Do adcoms value clinical pubs or basic science pubs more and if so, what does the ratio of pub # to # look like - if that makes sense?