What "counts" as research?- Do I have to work in a professor's lab?

[AZRobbins]

Sorry if this has been posted before- I looked around and couldn't really find a helpful answer.

I know that having research experience is important for medical school admissions, and I'm currently kind of confused about what medical schools are interested in seeing, plus I've gotten a lot of conflicting advice.
My advisor tells me that clinical experience is much more important and I don't have to worry about doing research. She has also discouraged me from joining a lab, instead encouraging me to do independent study research in a public-health related topic that interests me.
She's right that I am more interested in public health than lab work (I'm hoping to pursue an MD/MPH), but will doing independent study which will probably not get me published instead of trying to work in a lab put me at a disadvantage?

I have also been in two non-traditional lab classes that involved conducting original research, writing a journal-style paper, and presenting a poster at my school. One of these projects was an offshoot of research currently going on in a lab on campus, and that lab may be using our findings to further their work. Is this considered "research experience"?

I'm confused about what medical schools will think of my current experience and what I should be doing in the coming years to boost my application. Is getting into a lab and trying to get published the ideal path to medical school?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[UBLI-EINSTEIN]

gonnif always explains that research experiences are only considered medium importance by medical schools in general.

 

[rufflev]

Loosely speaking, you can get into medical school without research, you cannot get into medical school without clinical experience.

In regards to your situation, research is always helpful but not necessary. In regards to your personal research experience, I think that if you presented a poster presentation, you can consider that research experience, but if you want to be certain, just email your professors for those courses for clarification. I don't know much about the MPH path, so I'll let someone else address it.

 

[AZRobbins]

Thank you for the reply. I understand that research isn't required, so I guess what I'm really asking is: What experience would give me the best chance at admission to competitive medical schools? And will the traditional lab research experience give me a significant advantage compared to what I've described above?

 

[rufflev]

Each medical school differs, but if you're one that considers research-intensive medical schools to be top-competitive schools, then research is your answer. Personally, I don't think much of what you can do in your undergraduate education will have much of an impact on whether or not you can pursue a MD/MPH. One of the primary things I think adcoms like to see from research is a higher level of critical thinking, problem solving, etc. That said, it's more important that you dedicate yourself to something that you're truly interested in and are involved for an extended period of time.

 

[Goro]

Thank you for the reply. I understand that research isn't required, so I guess what I'm really asking is: What experience would give me the best chance at admission to competitive medical schools? And will the traditional lab research experience give me a significant advantage compared to what I've described above?

High MCAT and GPA
Lots of service to others less fortunate than yourself, even for some of the stats ******.
Lots of patient contact experience.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Any research that isn't publication worthy is a waste of time. Before people jump down my throat on this, what I mean to say is if the work isn't something that has the potential to be publish doesn't teach you nearly enough about research game. So if you are working in a lab or even with a professing doing survey work (ex. you even have the IRB) and it still doesn't get published, that is fine. You are working with a professor and you are seeing the hardships of what its like to get an outcome (ex. the set backs in experiments, the multiple writes of the manuscript, dealing with PhD reviewers who don't take a really good look at your paper etc.). This teaching aspect is just as useful as the research itself!

That independent project will give you the basics of research, but not the full spectrum of what it entails. So I see any project where you are not working with a full fledge professor who knows the publication game well as an undertaking that is again a waste of time.