What is meant by "solid research"?

[Dreaming big]

I have been reading around a lot of old (and new) threads, and many times the posters says if you have solid research, you have a good chance at getting into top schools.

My question is: What is solid research?

For example, for me, I worked on a poster (with my name as a author) that was presented in a nationwide conference the summer before college started, will present my own poster at another universities (ivy league) undergrad poster synopsium, will be a co-author on a textbook chapter.

I have been doing research for 2 years at the time of application (including summer).

Does this qualify as 'solid research' that would give me a boost at top medical schools? If not, what is 'solid research'.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Two years, preferably at the same lab, maybe with some posters, presentations, and ideally some publications.

You can look at my experience. What I have is considered 'very good' and 'well above average' for the top schools, according to several people I've talked to from those schools. People who have more may be considered 'excellent'.

 

[TommyJohnMD]

To add to the question, what is substantial research required by some of the "research giants" even though you don't want to apply to a PhD program or don't want a career in research?

Are they more lenient if you don't want to do it?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Generally, the research giants do expect research. However, people do get in without it, so it's not an absolute requirement. But as a trend, the higher you go up the school list in terms of research dollars, the more they want kids who are interested in research.

However, if you're not interested in research as a career, I'd recommend about a year's worth of research (part time while going to school, of course) and maybe a poster or presentation somewhere as a minimum so that they won't raise any flags about it.

In the end, I think the schools believe (and rightly so) that you're going into medicine, which is the application of a lot of scientific knowledge - and so you should have an idea of the process by which that knowledge is generated. And perhaps need to be willing to be part of that process yourself.

 

[Dreaming big]

Two years, preferably at the same lab, maybe with some posters, presentations, and ideally some publications.

You can look at my experience. What I have is considered 'very good' and 'well above average' for the top schools, according to several people I've talked to from those schools. People who have more may be considered 'excellent'.

could you elaborate your research a bit please?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

I have some research experience in computational biology, but only a little (3 months).

My main experience is in neuroscience - more specifically with traumatic brain injury (lots of work with rats). I've worked in the same lab since freshman year (and have a kickass LOR from a very respected guy in the field). I've had a poster at Society of Neuroscience, plus some local posters and presentation through my university.

In my freshman and sophomore year, I did a lot of presentations and posters. I also helped with some reviews on some subjects (2x 2nd author). During my last two years, my responsibilities increased and I helped post-docs and grad students with their experiment from conception -> publish, and I had two third author publishes my junior year and one second author publish my senior year. I have another paper in the pipeline where I will be second author again, but I'm unsure when it'll be finished.

The journals aren't extremely high impact, but this isn't immunology (those bastards ) where you get to publish 5x a year in high impact journals. Overall, I think even if you don't have the publishes, if you can show good consistent work at the same lab and have a good LOR from your PI, I think you're in good shape.

The difference was I really really enjoyed research and wanted to do it, so I was willing to stay extra and volunteer for the stuff no one else wanted to do. Like the crap work that grad students hated. That made them give me more opportunities in more interesting areas because they knew I was willing to work and wasn't just using it to pad my experiences. Truthfully, initially I was. But I enjoyed it so much that now I am going to do MD/PhD, and I was seriously thinking about solely doing a PhD (I still might do 100% research even after MD/PhD, at the very least I'll be doing 50-50. It depends). Go in with genuine excitement for the process of scientific inquiry and I think you'll get much more out of it.

 

[Dreaming big]

I have some research experience in computational biology, but only a little (3 months).

My main experience is in neuroscience - more specifically with traumatic brain injury (lots of work with rats). I've worked in the same lab since freshman year (and have a kickass LOR from a very respected guy in the field). I've had a poster at Society of Neuroscience, plus some local posters and presentation through my university.

In my freshman and sophomore year, I did a lot of presentations and posters. I also helped with some reviews on some subjects (2x 2nd author). During my last two years, my responsibilities increased and I helped post-docs and grad students with their experiment from conception -> publish, and I had two third author publishes my junior year and one second author publish my senior year. I have another paper in the pipeline where I will be second author again, but I'm unsure when it'll be finished.

The journals aren't extremely high impact, but this isn't immunology (those bastards ) where you get to publish 5x a year in high impact journals. Overall, I think even if you don't have the publishes, if you can show good consistent work at the same lab and have a good LOR from your PI, I think you're in good shape.

The difference was I really really enjoyed research and wanted to do it, so I was willing to stay extra and volunteer for the stuff no one else wanted to do. Like the crap work that grad students hated. That made them give me more opportunities in more interesting areas because they knew I was willing to work and wasn't just using it to pad my experiences. Truthfully, initially I was. But I enjoyed it so much that now I am going to do MD/PhD, and I was seriously thinking about solely doing a PhD (I still might do 100% research even after MD/PhD, at the very least I'll be doing 50-50. It depends). Go in with genuine excitement for the process of scientific inquiry and I think you'll get much more out of it.

Do you think a textbook chapter co-authorship is worth anything?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Sure. Obviously like with publishing, it depends on how down the totem pole you were in authorship.

I would work hard to get a published paper going if you're really into it.

 

[Nabatov]

The journals aren't extremely high impact, but this isn't immunology (those bastards ) where you get to publish 5x a year in high impact journals.

What did you mean about immunology? Do UGs who perform "solid research" in immunology have more chance of being published than in another field of science?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Immunology is a field (or at least many parts of it) that tends to be high publish and high impact journals. In some fields, it's hard to get a publish (e.g, if your studies need to take a year, there's not much you can do). It's not undergrad specific, it's just that the field in general tends to lend itself to higher publishing frequency. However, most people know this and you won't really win too many extra points .

Not every subfield obviously, but in general it seems to be the case.

 

[Nabatov]

Immunology is a field (or at least many parts of it) that tends to be high publish and high impact journals. In some fields, it's hard to get a publish (e.g, if your studies need to take a year, there's not much you can do). It's not undergrad specific, it's just that the field in general tends to lend itself to higher publishing frequency. However, most people know this and you won't really win too many extra points .

Not every subfield obviously, but in general it seems to be the case.

Thanks ivy

 

[iminindiana]

Two years, preferably at the same lab, maybe with some posters, presentations, and ideally some publications.

You can look at my experience. What I have is considered 'very good' and 'well above average' for the top schools, according to several people I've talked to from those schools. People who have more may be considered 'excellent'.

Clearly Ivyhopeful has some great advice, but maybe we can get some other opinions in here as well?

 

[LizzyM]

Taking research to its ultimate conclusion, peer review and dissemination of results (poster or paper presented at the national level or greater), is the ideal. For MD/PhD applicants: rinse and repeat.

Having a nationally reviewed and fundable protocol of your own (Fulbright fellowships, Goldwater, etc) is comparable to having a published paper.

Having a locally reviewed and funded protocol or a locally presented poster (school or local, multi-school presentation) is above average.

Doing some research for a summer (30-40 hrs wk) or for an academic year (10 hrs wk) is about average.

Being a scut puppy in a lab (cleaning up, stocking shelves, placing orders, mixing solutions) is not highly regarded.

Not doing any research at not an application killer at any school (show me any school that has 100% of its matriculants engaged in research) but you need to have at least two other amazing things going for you (e.g. founding an organzing a new organization with an important mission such as finding bone marrow donors for ethnic minorities and patients of mixed races, team captain at the varsity level, policy wonk in D.C.)

 

[Dreaming big]

Taking research to its ultimate conclusion, peer review and dissemination of results (poster or paper presented at the national level or greater), is the ideal. For MD/PhD applicants: rinse and repeat.

Having a nationally reviewed and fundable protocol of your own (Fulbright fellowships, Goldwater, etc) is comparable to having a published paper.

So thats considered solid research? And for the poster thing, is it the same as having worked on the research (co-author on poster) which was presented (but not by me) at a national level?

 

[JJMrK]

So thats considered solid research? And for the poster thing, is it the same as having worked on the research (co-author on poster) which was presented (but not by me) at a national level?

Often the presenter will be listed as the first author on any poster/abstract at a conference. It's fine to list anything with your name on it, but it will likely be clear what your role was based on the order of names.

 

[web2linc]

Solid Research Simplified:

1) Being a primary author is a must.

2) Research is empirical and meaningful.

3) You've at least developed a protocol and obtained IRB approval.

4) Found significant results that confirmed your hypothesis (significant finding tend to be valued significantly more).

5) Presented your findings at professional conference (There is a difference between presenting at the undergraduate symposium hosted by your school and presenting at a professional conference).

6) Your work leads toward a publication in a peer-review journal or a thesis (optional, but highly recommended).

7) Being recognized (optional)

8) Being a member of a lab for at least a year.

If you haven't at least done 1-3, 5 or 6, and 8 then your research experience is average. I was spending on average 8 hours a week during the school year doing neuro research. But the time you spend should vary.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

LOL primary author as undergrad being the criteria to be above average.

I've talked top the absolute top schools in the country about my research experience. What you're describing is patently untrue. Primary authorship is not even an expectation for a pure PhD program, let alone a MD.

And bigger LOL @ finding data that confirms your hypothesis. Negative findings can be very important, especially as an undergrad student. It teaches you critical thinking skills, helps you troubleshoot problems, etc.

 

[roseglass6370]

Research that excludes liquids or gases...

lol, sorry...i couldn't resist.

but yeah, what they said ^^

 

[LizzyM]

3) You've at least developed a protocol and obtained IRB approval.

Absurd. 95% of the research that I've seen done by undergrads does not require IRB approval.

 

[web2linc]

LOL primary author as undergrad being the criteria to be above average.

I've talked top the absolute top schools in the country about my research experience. What you're describing is patently untrue. Primary authorship is not even an expectation for a pure PhD program, let alone a MD.

And bigger LOL @ finding data that confirms your hypothesis. Negative findings can be very important, especially as an undergrad student. It teaches you critical thinking skills, helps you troubleshoot problems, etc.

Primary or at least co-author if you want to separate yourself from the rest.

Of course I agree with you 100% on finding significant results, but it looks much better if you find SOMETHING significant. I'm not saying that negative results are insignificant to research.

If you are interested in research you want to display your ability to think and reason outside of the classroom. Research is about applying what you know to what it unknown. You really have to do your work and study theory and develop sound hypotheses. Significant results often mean you spent a good amount of time reviewing literature. Yes, some people stumble upon significant things, but the main thing has to be meaningful.

Anyone can volunteer in a lab as an undergraduate, your goal is to be different.

 

[web2linc]

Absurd. 95% of the research that I've seen done by undergrads does not require IRB approval.

Ask yourself, do you want to be that 5% or the 95%.

Maybe I shouldn't say "solid" research. Maybe "exceptional" is a better word.

 

[LizzyM]

Ask yourself, do you want to be that 5% or the 95%.

Maybe I shouldn't say "solid" research. Maybe "exceptional" is a better word.

What you are saying is only human subjects research that comes under the 45 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 46 is "solid" or "exceptional". So, research with non-human primates, research with viruses, research with mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, mosquitos, research with mycobacteria, with fungi, research on plants, airborne particulate matter, birds, fish, etc, etc is not something that will stand out?

 

[web2linc]

What you are saying is only human subjects research that comes under the 45 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 46 is "solid" or "exceptional". So, research with non-human primates, research with viruses, research with mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, mosquitos, research with mycobacteria, with fungi, research on plants, airborne particulate matter, birds, fish, etc, etc is not something that will stand out?

What about non-humans?

The Animal Welfare Act and the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy) mandate that research has to be subject to approval by an independent review committee.

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm#Introduction

Recombinant DNA research is subject to NIH review

http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/guidelines_02/NIH_Guidelines_Apr_02.htm#_Toc7261548


What I'm trying to say is that, doing a research paper isn't "exceptional" research. At the same time anyone can assist in a lab, but exceptional research is when you have produced something original. IRB is just one step in doing human research, but you have to put that into context of the field you are in. Most (not all) significant research is subject to some sort of regulation.You can't go to the pet store and just inject aids into rats and study their life expectancy. You can just start working on a atom bomb either.

 

[LizzyM]

What about non-humans?

The Animal Welfare Act and the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy) mandate that research has to be subject to approval by an independent review committee.

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm#Introduction

Recombinant DNA research is subject to NIH review

http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/guidelines_02/NIH_Guidelines_Apr_02.htm#_Toc7261548


What I'm trying to say is that, doing a research paper isn't "exceptional" research. At the same time anyone can assist in a lab, but exceptional research is when you have produced something original. IRB is just one step in doing human research, but you have to put that into context of the field you are in. Most (not all) significant research is subject to some sort of regulation.You can't go to the pet store and just inject aids into rats and study their life expectancy. You can just start working on a atom bomb either.

OK, as long as we are clear that research requiring IRB oversight (which applies only to human subjects research) is not the only worthwhile work. Yes, animal use requires independent oversight but not IRB.

What do you mean by "doing a research paper"? If you mean producing a manuscript reporting on an investigation (background, methods, results, discussion, conclusions) then yes, that is evidence of a solid research experience. If you are talking about a review of the literature, then yes, that is a bit weaker although there is certainly a place for literature reviews, meta-analysis, and review articles that synthesize the work in a particular field. However, such articles are usually prepared by long-time experts in the field who can synthesize years of publications on a topic.

 

[JJMrK]

Solid Research Simplified:

1) Being a primary author is a must.

2) Research is empirical and meaningful.

3) You've at least developed a protocol and obtained IRB approval.

4) Found significant results that confirmed your hypothesis (significant finding tend to be valued significantly more).

5) Presented your findings at professional conference (There is a difference between presenting at the undergraduate symposium hosted by your school and presenting at a professional conference).

6) Your work leads toward a publication in a peer-review journal or a thesis (optional, but highly recommended).

7) Being recognized (optional)

8) Being a member of a lab for at least a year.

If you haven't at least done 1-3, 5 or 6, and 8 then your research experience is average. I was spending on average 8 hours a week during the school year doing neuro research. But the time you spend should vary.

Disagree with much of this.

1) Not all that common for an undergrad to even have a publication. You certainly do not need to worry about the spot your name is in if you have one.

3) Totally bogus. I know very few people in labs at my undergrad who even needed IRB approval for their projects.

5) Sure, that's good. You should do as many presentations as you can. As an undergrad, don't choose not to attend a certain conference because it isn't "prestigious" enough for you, though. The more the better.

6) Again, this is probably the ultimate goal but it isn't all that common.

 

[IPremed2010]

Research that excludes liquids or gases...

lol, sorry...i couldn't resist.

but yeah, what they said ^^

That's a good one.

 

[web2linc]

OK, as long as we are clear that research requiring IRB oversight (which applies only to human subjects research) is not the only worthwhile work. Yes, animal use requires independent oversight but not IRB.

What do you mean by "doing a research paper"? If you mean producing a manuscript reporting on an investigation (background, methods, results, discussion, conclusions) then yes, that is evidence of a solid research experience. If you are talking about a review of the literature, then yes, that is a bit weaker although there is certainly a place for literature reviews, meta-analysis, and review articles that synthesize the work in a particular field. However, such articles are usually prepared by long-time experts in the field who can synthesize years of publications on a topic.

Yea, I was referring to a literature review. Most undergraduates at one point in time have to do literature reviews for their coursework. Literature reviews are usually apart of the initial stages of a larger research project.

I have completed two studies this past academic year. I presented both at a professional conference. I spent this summer working on a pilot study.

The original criteria I made was based on my experience: My research experience began by assisting in a neuro lab, working under a graduate student. I ran participants, helped collect data, performed biochemical assays, and analyzed data. After I was oriented into the lab, I was allowed to investigated my own variables within the study. I presented them at a professional conference and I received a research award which included a scholarship. I'm currently working on my publication.

I then went on to developed a new study investigating the interaction of a specific neuropeptide and a hormone. I had to obtain IRB approval and I just completed a pilot study. I spent a significant amount of time reviewing literature and developing the study.

I've come to this conclusion, solid research is meaningful research, and meaningful is relative to the schools you are applying to. It's hard to put specific criteria on solid research because it varies by field. However, a solid research experience should require a significant amount of time, thought and commitment. Especially if you want to do MD/PhD. If you can show that through your experience, then it's solid.

 

[gettheleadout]

Yea, I was referring to a literature review. Most undergraduates at one point in time have to do literature reviews for their coursework. Literature reviews are usually apart of the initial stages of a larger research project.

I have completed two studies this past academic year. I presented both at a professional conference. I spent this summer working on a pilot study.

The original criteria I made was based on my experience: My research experience began by assisting in a neuro lab, working under a graduate student. I ran participants, helped collect data, performed biochemical assays, and analyzed data. After I was oriented into the lab, I was allowed to investigated my own variables within the study. I presented them at a professional conference and I received a research award which included a scholarship. I'm currently working on my publication.

I then went on to developed a new study investigating the interaction of a specific neuropeptide and a hormone. I had to obtain IRB approval and I just completed a pilot study. I spent a significant amount of time reviewing literature and developing the study.

I've come to this conclusion, solid research is meaningful research, and meaningful is relative to the schools you are applying to. It's hard to put specific criteria on solid research because it varies by field. However, a solid research experience should require a significant amount of time, thought and commitment. Especially if you want to do MD/PhD. If you can show that through your experience, then it's solid.

Congratulations.

Okay, so now that you've shown off, lets focus more on the fact that your experience represents that of a very small percentage of undergrad students. This thread asked for a definition of "solid" research, not "lucky circumstances coupled with exceptional amounts of work" research. Don't try to represent what you went through as the norm, you're just skewing the view of everyone who looks to this thread for information. Not to mention that you look stupid arguing with people further along the process and much more experienced with the normal range of research than you (a med student and a freaking advisor.)

 

[web2linc]

Congratulations.

Okay, so now that you've shown off, lets focus more on the fact that your experience represents that of a very small percentage of undergrad students. This thread asked for a definition of "solid" research, not "lucky circumstances coupled with exceptional amounts of work" research. Don't try to represent what you went through as the norm, you're just skewing the view of everyone who looks to this thread for information. Not to mention that you look stupid arguing with people further along the process and much more experienced with the normal range of research than you (a med student and a freaking advisor.)

It wasn't luck. Luck is a chance result. I just took advantage and made the most out of the opportunities I was given. Luck didn't make me join the lab, luck didn't submit abstract to present at a professional conference, luck didn't get me to the conference, luck didn't get me an award, and luck didn't get me where I am today. If It did, then I must be a real lucky person. (It's called hard work and dedication.)

I'm not saying everyone has to follow a particular path. But having presented at a conference should be a good criteria to distinguish yourself from the lab rats. Don't underachieve.

 

[web2linc]

I'm going to apologized in advance: I'm sorry If I skewed anyone's thoughts about solid research or belittled anyone experience because their research didn't involve human participants.

 

[gettheleadout]

It wasn't luck. Luck is a chance result. I just took advantage and made the most out of the opportunities I was given. Luck didn't make me join the lab, luck didn't submit abstract to present at a professional conference, luck didn't get me to the conference, luck didn't get me an award, and luck didn't get me where I am today. If It did, then I must be a real lucky person. (It's called hard work and dedication.)

I'm not saying everyone has to follow a particular path. But having presented at a conference should be a good criteria to distinguish yourself from the lab rats. Don't underachieve.

Luck. Its already been established that the vast majority of people don't have the experiences you do, and you definitely didn't create the circumstances that allowed you a means for your dedication to bear fruit. Everyone can try but not all can achieve what the top percentile do, and again, this thread is not about that.

 

[web2linc]

Luck. Its already been established that the vast majority of people don't have the experiences you do, and you definitely didn't create the circumstances that allowed you a means for your dedication to bear fruit. Everyone can try but not all can achieve what the top percentile do, and again, this thread is not about that.

...my bad. Maybe I'm living in my own world.

You want to know something interesting tho? I applied for a summer research internship at the NIH, didn't get it. Then I almost got a RA job at SRI for a neuroimaging study, but I was beat out by two people. One had seven years experience, the other had animal research experience (ironic)... Both of those would have been solid experiences for anyone.

Not even the so called "top percentile" have everything go their way.

 

[soundnin]

this is getting kind of off topic wrt to the OP's question, but web2linc you ARE living in your own world.

if we're talking about "excellent" research, luck is a big part of it, from undergrad to graduate student to postdoc to PI. hard work, dedication, and a modicum of intelligence/creativity are just requirements to succeed. that little bit of luck is what pushes some people into the upper echelons of research.

luck is especially a MAJOR factor when it comes to publishing in the big three of basic science - cell, nature, science. depends on reviewers, depends on the editor, depends on timing, depends on competition in the field, depends on a lot of things that need to align themselves so you get that manuscript through. i mean, these things apply to any time you submit a paper, but it's definitely amplified to make it a lot worse with top tier journals.

 

[Dreaming big]

If you are talking about a review of the literature, then yes, that is a bit weaker although there is certainly a place for literature reviews, meta-analysis, and review articles that synthesize the work in a particular field. However, such articles are usually prepared by long-time experts in the field who can synthesize years of publications on a topic.

LizzyM, what would be the 'place' for lit reviews and things of that nature? If one was to just have that, would it be equivalent to a poster presentation or less/different?

 

[LizzyM]

LizzyM, what would be the 'place' for lit reviews and things of that nature? If one was to just have that, would it be equivalent to a poster presentation or less/different?

Literature reviews do get published in some of the medical journals but these are generally written by medical school faculty with an expertise in the field. A lit review written by a pre-med as a school assignment is not much of anything.... the exception might be a thesis written by a history major using original source material. Even that wouldn't be a literature review because it would be using original source material and not "literature".

 

[Procyon]

Taking research to its ultimate conclusion, peer review and dissemination of results (poster or paper presented at the national level or greater), is the ideal. For MD/PhD applicants: rinse and repeat.

Having a nationally reviewed and fundable protocol of your own (Fulbright fellowships, Goldwater, etc) is comparable to having a published paper.

Having a locally reviewed and funded protocol or a locally presented poster (school or local, multi-school presentation) is above average.

Doing some research for a summer (30-40 hrs wk) or for an academic year (10 hrs wk) is about average.

Being a scut puppy in a lab (cleaning up, stocking shelves, placing orders, mixing solutions) is not highly regarded.

Not doing any research at not an application killer at any school (show me any school that has 100% of its matriculants engaged in research) but you need to have at least two other amazing things going for you (e.g. founding an organzing a new organization with an important mission such as finding bone marrow donors for ethnic minorities and patients of mixed races, team captain at the varsity level, policy wonk in D.C.)

LizzyM, can I ask you for some advice regarding this sort of thing? I'm a rising sophomore, so I probably shouldn't be overly concerned yet... But I'm just confused, I guess. I know I want to do research, but I'm confused about how to take the research "to its ultimate conclusion," ya know?

When you first join a lab, do you usually start at the bottom (scut puppy) and work your way up to someone important? Or do some students get lucky and end up getting to work with really cool PIs who give them their big break? Basically, I guess I'm asking how someone at square one like me can go on to produce some meaningful, solid research during my undergrad career. I don't even know where to start.

I guess you start by actually getting into a lab. At the end of last year I tried approaching a professor, and they said they only like to take on juniors and above though, so I've been waiting until the school year starts to try and ask someone else. But supposing I get a position in a lab, what comes next?

 

[web2linc]

LizzyM, can I ask you for some advice regarding this sort of thing? I'm a rising sophomore, so I probably shouldn't be overly concerned yet... But I'm just confused, I guess. I know I want to do research, but I'm confused about how to take the research "to its ultimate conclusion," ya know?

When you first join a lab, do you usually start at the bottom (scut puppy) and work your way up to someone important? Or do some students get lucky and end up getting to work with really cool PIs who give them their big break? Basically, I guess I'm asking how someone at square one like me can go on to produce some meaningful, solid research during my undergrad career. I don't even know where to start.

I guess you start by actually getting into a lab. At the end of last year I tried approaching a professor, and they said they only like to take on juniors and above though, so I've been waiting until the school year starts to try and ask someone else. But supposing I get a position in a lab, what comes next?

You have to start somewhere, even if it means doing the dirty work. Your best bet is to talk to as many professors AND other students doing research to learn about the opportunities available in their respective labs. If there is a lab where students are doing posters and presenting at conferences AND you're interested in the research, join it.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

LizzyM, can I ask you for some advice regarding this sort of thing? I'm a rising sophomore, so I probably shouldn't be overly concerned yet... But I'm just confused, I guess. I know I want to do research, but I'm confused about how to take the research "to its ultimate conclusion," ya know?

When you first join a lab, do you usually start at the bottom (scut puppy) and work your way up to someone important? Or do some students get lucky and end up getting to work with really cool PIs who give them their big break? Basically, I guess I'm asking how someone at square one like me can go on to produce some meaningful, solid research during my undergrad career. I don't even know where to start.

I guess you start by actually getting into a lab. At the end of last year I tried approaching a professor, and they said they only like to take on juniors and above though, so I've been waiting until the school year starts to try and ask someone else. But supposing I get a position in a lab, what comes next?

You don't have to wait until being a junior. I said I'd work for free as a freshman - that got people excited. Then I got paid for it eventually. You do start by washing equipment. And if you show an interest, work hard, they'll give you more responsibility. The onus is on you to go above and beyond and assist people in doing things no one else wants to do. That way, you'll get more responsibilities. Also look into a full time research position over the summer so you get some lab experience under your belt.

 

[Procyon]

Thanks for the tips guys!

 

[Dreaming big]

Literature reviews do get published in some of the medical journals but these are generally written by medical school faculty with an expertise in the field. A lit review written by a pre-med as a school assignment is not much of anything.... the exception might be a thesis written by a history major using original source material. Even that wouldn't be a literature review because it would be using original source material and not "literature".

Thanks!

 

[MilkmanAl]

You could at least acknowledge that you're bumping your super-old threads when you do it and maybe add some sort of info that indicates why you think a bump is necessary.

 

[hiyaman]

How big of a red flag is not having an LOR from your PI? The lab I work in I tend to work on projects with our project manager instead of directly with the PI. Our PI is kind of absent, more so of late than used to be. Does it look bad if I get a LOR with the project manager whom I interact with a lot more than from my PI?

 

[Narmerguy]

You could at least acknowledge that you're bumping your super-old threads when you do it and maybe add some sort of info that indicates why you think a bump is necessary.

2 months? That's nothing. The people bumping the year old crap is what gets me.

 

[MilkmanAl]

It's more the history of showing up now and then just to bump his threads with thoroughly-answered questions that does it. Repeat offender vs. severe offender, I suppose.

 

[Sesom]

It wasn't luck. Luck is a chance result. I just took advantage and made the most out of the opportunities I was given. Luck didn't make me join the lab, luck didn't submit abstract to present at a professional conference, luck didn't get me to the conference, luck didn't get me an award, and luck didn't get me where I am today. If It did, then I must be a real lucky person. (It's called hard work and dedication.)

I'm not saying everyone has to follow a particular path. But having presented at a conference should be a good criteria to distinguish yourself from the lab rats. Don't underachieve.

You do have to be lucky to have someone who will allow you to go and present your findings at a conference.

 

[Fort]

It's simply research in solids, what else could it be?

Specifically solid state physics, so make sure you get 2+ years of that and then you're money.

Edit: Didn't realize thread was old.

 

[LizzyM]

How big of a red flag is not having an LOR from your PI? The lab I work in I tend to work on projects with our project manager instead of directly with the PI. Our PI is kind of absent, more so of late than used to be. Does it look bad if I get a LOR with the project manager whom I interact with a lot more than from my PI?

Having a letter from someone in authority in the lab is fine. Not having anything from anyone in the lab:

 

[hiyaman]

Thanks for the input LizzyM. I want to ask my project manager for the LOR instead because he knows me better and I believe can write a better LOR than my PI could.