Volunteering and Research?

[NightGod]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

How critical is it to have both of these as a non-trad? By the time I get to my applications I should have 3+ years volunteer time at both a homeless shelter (~30 hr/month, 7 mo/year) and a local hospital (hospital meeting/shots/TB test is a couple of weeks and I have already talked to the volunteer coordinator about my pre-med status and she mentioned working with a couple in the past and made it sound like it would be more than delivering papers). I also expect to have a fair amount of shadowing done, though that scheduling will have to work around my (exceedingly flexible) work schedule, of course.

I'm just worried how I can fit in a research stint when I have both of those plus full time school plus a full time job plus trying to remind my high school children that they have a father who loves them. I did some research my second semester of chemistry last year, but it was pretty informal (though we had weekly meetings and created a poster for it) and was done in lieu of doing half of the labs for the class.

How bad can I expect it to hurt me to not be one of those 85% of med students who have done formal research during the college years? How have other non-trads dealt with working full time plus school and trying to fit in regular/assigned lab hours?

 

[BPlaysItCool]

How critical is it to have both of these as a non-trad? By the time I get to my applications I should have 3+ years volunteer time at both a homeless shelter (~30 hr/month, 7 mo/year) and a local hospital (hospital meeting/shots/TB test is a couple of weeks and I have already talked to the volunteer coordinator about my pre-med status and she mentioned working with a couple in the past and made it sound like it would be more than delivering papers). I also expect to have a fair amount of shadowing done, though that scheduling will have to work around my (exceedingly flexible) work schedule, of course.

I'm just worried how I can fit in a research stint when I have both of those plus full time school plus a full time job plus trying to remind my high school children that they have a father who loves them. I did some research my second semester of chemistry last year, but it was pretty informal (though we had weekly meetings and created a poster for it) and was done in lieu of doing half of the labs for the class.

How bad can I expect it to hurt me to not be one of those 85% of med students who have done formal research during the college years? How have other non-trads dealt with working full time plus school and trying to fit in regular/assigned lab hours?

Research, Schmresearch. F'em. And all the million dollar corporate grants they road in on. People do so much for their resume these days that if your gonna compete you need some knee pads and a bottle of scope. Maybe something to numb your throat.

I'll take my dignity. My virginity. And a residency in a ****ty vicinity.

 

[MT Headed]

I'm applying this year, and I'm applying without research. My shadowing is in the hundreds of hours, my volunteering is in the thousands, I have unusual EC's, and I have good academics.

I make it very clear in my application that I want to be a primary care physician in my rural hometown and that I won't be doing research when I'm practicing. Also, I'm not applying to schools where >90% of applicants have research experience, or where their mission statement or website strongly emphasizes research. Obviously I would not be a good fit there.

I broached the subject of doing some research project like counting lizards with my professors (we aren't a scientific university by any means) just to put a checkmark on my application, and they told me why bother.

I think part of the problem is the abbreviated timeline of non-trads. By the time a professor gets to know me and trusts me in their lab, I'm already sending in my application. Sure I could get a lab job during my gap year, after my application has already been submitted. But again, it feels dishonest to wash test tubes just to get a too-late check mark on an already submitted application, when instead I could do more tutoring or EMT work or ED Tech work and truly do the sorts of things I will be doing when I am a physician.

I have no idea if any of this is a good approach. Maybe it's a big mistake. I'll let you know in a year.

 

[QofQuimica]

OP, unless you're applying MD/PhD or MD/MS, having research experience is *not* necessary. Not that it would hurt you to try doing some if you had the time and the interest. But as far as doing it because you think it would make your app more competitive, not worth it. You have more than enough on your plate already. Focus on doing well in school, keep up with your ECs, and try to hang out with your kids whenever they'll let you. 😉

 

[vc7777]

Yeah, take it from Q - who has more degrees than a thermometer already. If you love it, that's a different story.

 

[NightGod]

OP, unless you're applying MD/PhD or MD/MS, having research experience is *not* necessary. Not that it would hurt you to try doing some if you had the time and the interest. But as far as doing it because you think it would make your app more competitive, not worth it. You have more than enough on your plate already. Focus on doing well in school, keep up with your ECs, and try to hang out with your kids whenever they'll let you. 😉

LOL, I definitely have no desire to add PhD/MS to my name. To be honest, I find lab time to be a necessary evil and don't enjoy it in the least. I do it, I do it well, but I certainly don't get excited at the prospect. When it comes to research I much prefer the time outside of the lab-spit balling ideas, suggesting new avenues to pursue based off unexpected results, in short the 'big picture' stuff. The minutiae of agar mixing and UC spec runs bores me to tears. I'd almost rather wash test tubes all day.

And my kids actually look for a chance to hang out with me, apparently I'm about the coolest dad in their circle of friends =p Gonna milk that one as long as I can!

 

[dmf2682]

Does having quasi-research in a non biological field count as research for the purposes of applying to a straight MD program? I did what amounted to a literature survey in aeroacoustics to write a mini- thesis for my master's degree.

 

[QofQuimica]

Does having quasi-research in a non biological field count as research for the purposes of applying to a straight MD program? I did what amounted to a literature survey in aeroacoustics to write a mini- thesis for my master's degree.

Personally, no, I wouldn't consider a lit review to be research. But that's my opinion; other people may feel differently. It's not a big deal either way though--again, as long as you're not applying MD/PhD or MD/MS, you're not required to have *any* research experience. It's true that some of the more research-oriented schools do like applicants to have research experience; however, to my knowledge, research experience is not *required* by any straight MD program.

 

[EdLongshanks]

Personally, no, I wouldn't consider a lit review to be research. But that's my opinion; other people may feel differently. It's not a big deal either way though--again, as long as you're not applying MD/PhD or MD/MS, you're not required to have *any* research experience. It's true that some of the more research-oriented schools do like applicants to have research experience; however, to my knowledge, research experience is not *required* by any straight MD program.

Vanderbilt rejected me pre-secondary because I lacked research and was otherwise only a marginal candidate for them (34 MCAT). If I had been a superior candidate in their pool I might have gotten through without research. There are a very few schools who really push the research, although, as you say, it isn't required.

 

[drdan83]

What qualifies as research?

I see some of these ER research programs where you do aid the residents in research but you are doing scutwork too. I talked to the M.D. director of one of the ER programs and he informed me that there are a lot of ER programs in the country that are adapting to this method. You give them man hours and they give you shadowing/research opportunities.

For research to be the real deal do you need to wear a labcoat and be in a lab setting?

Or do these ER programs count as research (clinical) as well.

 

[QofQuimica]

What qualifies as research?

I see some of these ER research programs where you do aid the residents in research but you are doing scutwork too. I talked to the M.D. director of one of the ER programs and he informed me that there are a lot of ER programs in the country that are adapting to this method. You give them man hours and they give you shadowing/research opportunities.

For research to be the real deal do you need to wear a labcoat and be in a lab setting?

Or do these ER programs count as research (clinical) as well.

Clinical research is definitely research, so no, you don't have to work in a lab. But in order for it to be "the real deal," I would say that you need to be involved with more than just rote data collection. At the very least, you should understand the purpose of the project; know the hypothesis that you're testing; and be able to explain and interpret the results if you have any. If you can do all of those things, then you were significantly involved in the project. If you were able to go one step further and propose what experiment you would do next to continue along in this line of research, then you would probably have a strong enough research background to apply for a dual degree program.

 

[BPlaysItCool]

I'm gonna double back on my stolid ignorance of all things research to make this point: clearly it is important to deans and people charged with running this show. Clearly.

And even though I appreciate that Q is a researcher and yet doesn't cram the idea down anyone's throat. I wonder if her sense that it isn't so important paints the exact picture for those of us without it.

I think that at every level your willingness to pledge allegiance to the medical/industrial complex is tested. The number of times you chose not to salute or genuflect this cause is reflected in the number of rungs down on the latter your career trajectory takes you. Maybe not written in stone tablets. But definitely in the by-laws of the inner circles of medicine. The more competitive a field the more research hoops must be hopped and hula hopped with grins and grass skirts on.

So yes. It's f'n important. You flip it the bird at your own expense.

 

[vc7777]

What qualifies as research?

I see some of these ER research programs where you do aid the residents in research but you are doing scutwork too. I talked to the M.D. director of one of the ER programs and he informed me that there are a lot of ER programs in the country that are adapting to this method. You give them man hours and they give you shadowing/research opportunities.

For research to be the real deal do you need to wear a labcoat and be in a lab setting?

Or do these ER programs count as research (clinical) as well.

I particpated in this program. I agree with Q that this is a tremendous opportunity to "shadow" in the ER etc. Heck, I am a big advocate of these programs. I mean, one time I was there for a cardiac emergency when the pneumatic "thumper" broke down. I was recruited for chest compressions for nearly a half hour on the table. I mean, you can't get that anywhere else.

As much as I love these programs, however, this is the clinical research equivalent of "washing glassware" - and will not gain you much traction as research "street cred".

Sent from my Android phone using Tapatalk

 

[drdan83]

I particpated in this program. I agree with Q that this is a tremendous opportunity to "shadow" in the ER etc. Heck, I am a big advocate of these programs. I mean, one time I was there for a cardiac emergency when the pneumatic "thumper" broke down. I was recruited for chest compressions for nearly a half hour on the table. I mean, you can't get that anywhere else.

As much as I love these programs, however, this is the clinical research equivalent of "washing glassware" - and will not gain you much traction as research "street cred".

Sent from my Android phone using Tapatalk

So in your opinion, would you say that this program is a waste of time for people who already have clinical exposure or work in a hospital? I don't want to commit to it if it really has no merit.

The thing is that I really don't even like laboratory research. Can I be honest and choose not to do real research because I don't like it or do I have to force myself to like research and seek out a real research opportunity?

Thanks

 

[vc7777]

So in your opinion, would you say that this program is a waste of time for people who already have clinical exposure or work in a hospital? I don't want to commit to it if it really has no merit.

The thing is that I really don't even like laboratory research. Can I be honest and choose not to do real research because I don't like it or do I have to force myself to like research and seek out a real research opportunity?

Thanks

Not necessarily. I never say 'never'. I can't say specifically what kind of clinical exposure you have had? You need to evaluate how it will help you. If you work in the ER, or are an EMT, I think there is little marginal benefit - unless you want to go into EM. See? No straight answers! Duck and weave...that's what I do...duck and weave.

Furthermore, I think many many people are successful applicants WITHOUT research. Indeed, many physicians have wonderful, fulfilling careers and educational experiences WITHOUT research. Like Q stated, research is not required.

Yes, *meaningful* research is a positive attribute for candidates to have. But it's a personal choice - NOT a application imperative. There are some people who do in fact waste their time chasing research for the sake of resume-building, and I think this is folly.

I also, like Q, will not push it down anyone's throat. At the same time I ask that my fellow med students not mock me for choosing a difficult career path with the prospects of making less money. I don't judge, and ask that you don't judge either.

Yes, I admit I view the world through research-colored glasses too. And I understand where B is coming from. But I take issue with his logic - stating that research is favorably looked-upon doesn't at all mean it is required.

 

[drdan83]

Not necessarily. I never say 'never'. I can't say specifically what kind of clinical exposure you have had? You need to evaluate how it will help you. If you work in the ER, or are an EMT, I think there is little marginal benefit - unless you want to go into EM. See? No straight answers! Duck and weave...that's what I do...duck and weave.

Furthermore, I think many many people are successful applicants WITHOUT research. Indeed, many physicians have wonderful, fulfilling careers and educational experiences WITHOUT research. Like Q stated, research is not required.

Yes, *meaningful* research is a positive attribute for candidates to have. But it's a personal choice - NOT a application imperative. There are some people who do in fact waste their time chasing research for the sake of resume-building, and I think this is folly.

I also, like Q, will not push it down anyone's throat. At the same time I ask that my fellow med students not mock me for choosing a difficult career path with the prospects of making less money. I don't judge, and ask that you don't judge either.

Yes, I admit I view the world through research-colored glasses too. And I understand where B is coming from. But I take issue with his logic - stating that research is favorably looked-upon doesn't at all mean it is required.

Thanks, that was very helpful. I have to get out of that mode where I still view research as something that I have to check off on my application. I know it's been said many times before that you can be a successful candidate without research but I still have it in my head that you're not really a doctor until you do some research in your field.

 

[QofQuimica]

Thanks, that was very helpful. I have to get out of that mode where I still view research as something that I have to check off on my application. I know it's been said many times before that you can be a successful candidate without research but I still have it in my head that you're not really a doctor until you do some research in your field.

Here's another example that may help put the role of research as an EC in better perspective for you.

I always really liked to see applicants who had teaching experience. Like most med schools these days, we have some small group learning in my med school's curriculum, and physicians spend their whole lives teaching anyway--patients, trainees, nurses, each other. So if an applicant had some TAing experience, I saw that as a plus. If an applicant had outside teaching experience (ex. for their church's Sunday school, worked as a teacher, did outreach type programs where they educated people in the community, etc.), I also saw that as a plus. However, teaching experience is not *required*, meaning that I wouldn't vote to reject someone just because they lacked teaching experience. It's just that having that experience is a desirable extra.

For regular MD programs, research is the same way. It's nice if you have it, and a lot of adcoms like to see it. But having other significant ECs instead of research is ok too, if they're ECs that also give you a skill set that is desirable for physicians. Like, well, teaching. 🙂

 

[Isoprop]

I'm a non-trad who got into med school without any research experience (except 1 day in the lab where I said, thanks but no thanks). I did fine without it.

Coincidently, I have a ton of teaching experience, and I made it a central theme/point in my application. My PS was centered around it, and I got some positive feedback on it. I always felt that teaching experience was an underrated EC by premeds.

 

[QofQuimica]

I'm a non-trad who got into med school without any research experience (except 1 day in the lab where I said, thanks but no thanks). I did fine without it.

Coincidently, I have a ton of teaching experience, and I made it a central theme/point in my application. My PS was centered around it, and I got some positive feedback on it. I always felt that teaching experience was an underrated EC by premeds.

I would argue that it wasn't any coincidence at all. 😉

I had a lot of teaching experience as well as research experience when I applied, and I focused my PS on both. The tie-in was that my goal was to be a physician scientist. This was well-received at most (but not all) of the schools I applied to that want to train academics.

FWIW, I'd consider a 38+ MCAT to be in this same category too: nice to have, adcoms like to see it, but definitely not required.

 

[drdan83]

Here's another example that may help put the role of research as an EC in better perspective for you.

I always really liked to see applicants who had teaching experience. Like most med schools these days, we have some small group learning in my med school's curriculum, and physicians spend their whole lives teaching anyway--patients, trainees, nurses, each other. So if an applicant had some TAing experience, I saw that as a plus. If an applicant had outside teaching experience (ex. for their church's Sunday school, worked as a teacher, did outreach type programs where they educated people in the community, etc.), I also saw that as a plus. However, teaching experience is not *required*, meaning that I wouldn't vote to reject someone just because they lacked teaching experience. It's just that having that experience is a desirable extra.

For regular MD programs, research is the same way. It's nice if you have it, and a lot of adcoms like to see it. But having other significant ECs instead of research is ok too, if they're ECs that also give you a skill set that is desirable for physicians. Like, well, teaching. 🙂

I volunteer with the American Red Cross, are you saying that if I sign up to teach a CPR course, that that is considered teaching? Or does teaching have to be a hours per week commitment?

It's interesting you talk about Sunday School teaching because I asked that same question to an adcomm member in the pre-allo forum and they said that teaching Sunday School is insignificant because it only like 2 hours per week.

So I am confused again with teaching EC's. What are some legitimate opportunities to teach?

Thanks

 

[QofQuimica]

I volunteer with the American Red Cross, are you saying that if I sign up to teach a CPR course, that that is considered teaching? Or does teaching have to be a hours per week commitment?

It's interesting you talk about Sunday School teaching because I asked that same question to an adcomm member in the pre-allo forum and they said that teaching Sunday School is insignificant because it only like 2 hours per week.

So I am confused again with teaching EC's. What are some legitimate opportunities to teach?

Thanks

Yes, I would consider teaching for the Red Cross to be teaching experience, too.

If you ask different people about various teaching venues, you are obviously going to get different answers. But to me, Sunday school teaching would be a significant EC, especially if it's something you have been doing for several years. People can easily log a few hundred hours of teaching Sunday school over a period of 3+ years. And if you're also involved with curriculum planning, that adds even more time and value to the experience.

Out of curiosity, did you ask that person what they thought about TAing experience? Because it doesn't make sense to me at all to value TAing but not Sunday school teaching. I mean, you could argue that TAing a class is also only a few hours per week, and most students who TA only do it for one semester, maybe two tops, unless they've gone to grad school. But I doubt many adcoms would say that TAing is an "insignificant" EC.

 

[drdan83]

Out of curiosity, did you ask that person what they thought about TAing experience? Because it doesn't make sense to me at all to value TAing but not Sunday school teaching. I mean, you could argue that TAing a class is also only a few hours per week, and most students who TA only do it for one semester, maybe two tops, unless they've gone to grad school. But I doubt many adcoms would say that TAing is an "insignificant" EC. [/QUOTE]

When I was talking to that adcomm member, the subject was EC's and commitment. I brought up the Sunday School and they said that those specific couple of hours were insignificant when compared to some other activities. I agree that TAing, even at a few hours a week, is significant. I just wouldn't put it on the same level as Sunday School though. My cousin is in a DO school and I don't think they really cared that he taught Sunday School for a year.

I just don't want to start an activity and then have someone say "it's not significant" in the end.

 

[QofQuimica]

I just don't want to start an activity and then have someone say "it's not significant" in the end.

Well, then, the best advice I can give you is to do something that is meaningful and significant to *you*. Ain't never going to please everyone in this world with your ECs, so you might as well at least please yourself.

 

[dmf2682]

Sort of related question. Will an admissions committee see having patents as something similar to research experience?

 

[QofQuimica]

Sort of related question. Will an admissions committee see having patents as something similar to research experience?

It's kind of hard to tease the two apart, as most people did research in order to get the patents, even if it was informal tinkering at home. I would say yes, patents fall into the same category, in the sense that it would be great to see an applicant who had them. We definitely need physician-inventors just like we need physician scientists. But again, patents are totally not necessary.

 

[vc7777]

Sort of related question. Will an admissions committee see having patents as something similar to research experience?

I have patents, and I think they were favorably looked upon during my application. However, my personal caveat is that they were part of a larger story of how I worked in small R&D for many years as a researcher.

Like Q alluded to, sometimes patents (often in engineering) are aggressively pursued by companies much less for their merits as "innovation", and more to protect market space or as offensive/legal posturing among rivals.

I think you are correct in comparing this to research: it can help an application, but it is not a deal-breaker. I do believe that good patents come from good efforts. These can be a boon to your app!