what do you think about research?

[ThirdWay]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I was wondering what everyone thinks about doing research. I see people talk about premed jobs, and no one ever seems to mention doing research as a possibility. It seems to me that often premeds/med students/doctors maybe have done a little research but didn't like it that much. What does everyone here think about research? Love it? Hate it? Think it is dull? Think it is exciting? I for one love it, so much that I am considering it as a career. So what does everyone else think?

 

[luckyzero]

I was wondering the same thing, is research basically required to get into medschool, or does it just look good and help you get some good LOR's?

 

[Lux Aeterna]

This thread may help you out.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78195

 

[Sweet Tea]

I really don't think there's any one thing that med schools look for. People get in with lots of research experience, and people get in with no research at all. If its something you love (and it sounds like it is), then by all means do it!

 

[superdevil]

In my humble opinion, research is fantastic and can only help you. It is indeed an excellent way of getting good LORs (especially if you had the Primary Investigator -PI- as a prof in one or more classes) and many private med schools that aren't fanatically zeroed in on churning out primary care docs prefer to see it. Hell, if you're lucky enough to get published, that's a pretty big feather in your cap!

Give it a shot if you want. You may end up loving it (as I do- I have already revised my goals from applying for an MD to an MD/PhD!). If you try it and its not for you, no harm done.

 

[LapisLazuli]

feel free to try it. if its unfulfilling, just bounce on the project. remember, you're doing that prof a favor anyway. its all about learning - there's nothing wrong w/ moving from lab to lab until you find something that interests you.

 

[calebho501]

Well, I don't think the majority of Med school grads actually go into a full time research career. But some are involved in it as part-time (On top of Clinical care, etc.)

The most competitive schools like applicants with significant research experience, but by no mean it's a requirement. I know this guy who was rejected by all the UC's except UCSF (Which is in my opinion, the jewel of the crown), probably b/c of his lack of research experience.

In his UCSF interview, the interviewer asked why he didn't have any research experience, this guy responded, "I tried it once and I didn't like it". The interviewer didn't probe into it any more and move on.

I'd have to remind you that UCSF is probably less research-oriented than many top schools. One of its goals is to train many primary care physicians for underserved areas.

 

[LapisLazuli]

UCSF is probably less research-oriented than many top schools. One of its goals is to train many primary care physicians for underserved areas.

really? that's actually pretty cool, and what i'm looking for in a school. do you know what other schools claim that to be one of their "goals"? i mean schools that actually have a reputation for it, not ones that just pay the idea lip service.

 

[calebho501]

Originally posted by LapisLazuli


really? that's actually pretty cool, and what i'm looking for in a school. do you know what other schools claim that to be one of their "goals"? i mean schools that actually have a reputation for it, not ones that just pay the idea lip service.

I believe University of Virginia has a strong comittment to primary care, but that may not mean it doesn't care about research at all. It's just my impression that schools that have strong interest (not merely moderate) in primary care tend to place less emphasis on research experience.

Nevertheless, some research will be helpful. If you don't like clinical research, some basic science researches are interesting too.