Math. The barrier of entry for math research is a lot higher than the sciences. There is no "pipetting and washing glassware" in math research. Despite being a terrific student, I am, self-admittedly, too stupid to do any type of math research.
I sympathize with this. Math research tends to be quite esoteric. Even in graduate school, I could often not read research papers in math without difficulty. Coming up to speed on such projects requires significant effort and is not usually accomplished in a few days.
The math equivalent of the scut work that you describe is probably computer programming and modeling. If you have those skills, you might have better luck finding a slot on a research project. The good thing about such computer work is that it is more intellectually engaging and challenging than "pipetting or washing glassware." I would also encourage you to apply to various research programs for college students (REUs and so forth). When I was in college, I did an REU with no prior research experience (was accepted into two REUs that summer, as a matter of fact). Of course, I have no idea whether my experience is typical, and those programs may well have more rigorous requirements than they did a decade ago. Another thought is to do a couple of independent studies that result in (expository) theses. Such experiences might result in an independent research project or two, especially if you pick topics of interest and find them engaging.
I can PM you with some other ideas for math research experiences if you are interested.
The thing that concerns me about this thread is the cynicism. Yes, some people b.s. their ECs. Yes, many people do things just to check boxes. Yes, many people tailor their activities and application to what they think ADCOMs will like, probably because many applicants don't know what else to do. They perceive a set of unwritten rules or a protocol and try to "play the game" accordingly. Since the admissions process is competitive, we should expect this kind of approach. However, in no way does the prevalence of this M.O. imply that all ECs are bunk. For example, my own volunteering at a free clinic has been anything but, and I feel that I have learned quite a bit as a result.
Additionally, I'm not sure that the "checking boxes" approach is as effective as people seem to think. I can't imagine that ADCOMs are not experienced enough to know when someone is padding his resume or is taking on activities simply because those activities might look good on an application. For example, being able to discuss ECs only in generalities or platitudes is indicative of this M.O., can reveal a lack of self-reflection, and is easy to spot.
The point, I think, is this: Do what interests you, be yourself, and learn from your experiences. You will be happier; you will learn more, and you will have a broader range of meaningful experiences from which to draw. Moreover, you will have a better chance of having something unique and meaningful to discuss during secondaries and interviews. While there are some standard ECs that you need to do (clinical volunteering and shadowing), you do have some freedom within that box. You don't have to schlep patients back and forth from radiology if you don't want to, although finding a position that you enjoy may require more effort on your part.
And really...if you hate clinical volunteering, hate community service, hate shadowing, and hate research, perhaps you should examine whether or not medicine is the best fit for you.
