Why do med schools like research

[JugglesMed]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

.

 

[sunshinefl]

This isn't to offend research or to downplay the importance of it, but as doctors, why do we need research or why do schools want to see it?

Some of us just want to be PCPs, work in the ED treating patients, or be general surgeons. I'm not sure how having research experience is important for that. A lot of the doctors I speak to at the ED say they can't tell you one thing about research.

I just feel like research in a lab and being a doctor who treats patients are two completely different jobs

Research is important to add to the body of medical knowledge. But, I, like you, just want to be a boots on the ground doctor working with patients. So I applied to medical school without research. And so far I have none in school either. Unless I literally can’t get a residency without it, I have no interest. I respect research and I’m glad it’s some people’s niche. But it’s not mine and it only detracts focus from what is important to me.

 

[gyngyn]

Are we?

 

[Med Ed]

I just feel like research in a lab and being a doctor who treats patients are two completely different jobs

This is a recurring premed misapprehension. There is a subset of schools that give a lot of weight to research experience, but they are the distinct minority. Most of us are happy to see some research, and it's a nice way to build a relationship with a faculty member who can write a better-than-average LOR, but plenty of people get accepted without a bit of formal research experience.

You are correct, working in a lab and treating patients are fairly distinct activities. However, the decisions that physicians make about how to treat are ideally grounded in research. In critically appraising the scientific literature it is helpful to have walked the walk at least once.

 

[Ms Procrastinator]

I don't think that med schools are obsessed with research. A majority of med schools don't really place that much value on research when reviewing applications. Many research focused schools don't even have it as a requirement. I think the persons most obsessed with research are premeds.

 

[JugglesMed]

Research is important to add to the body of medical knowledge. But, I, like you, just want to be a boots on the ground doctor working with patients. So I applied to medical school without research. And so far I have none in school either. Unless I literally can’t get a residency without it, I have no interest. I respect research and I’m glad it’s some people’s niche. But it’s not mine and it only detracts focus from what is important to me.

I agree, research is super important for the medical field, and I am grateful for the people that do it.

I don't think that med schools are obsessed with research. A majority of med schools don't really place that much value on research when reviewing applications. Many research focused schools don't even have it as a requirement. I think the persons most obsessed with research are premeds.

Yeah that must be it. I've spoken to quite a few premeds and they all are shocked if you are applying without research and basically imply DO without research

 

[Lucca]

I agree, research is super important for the medical field, and I am grateful for the people that do it.



Yeah that must be it. I've spoken to quite a few premeds and they all are shocked if you are applying without research and basically imply DO without research

“I’ve spoken with quite a few premeds...”

There’s your problem

 

[Ms Procrastinator]

I agree, research is super important for the medical field, and I am grateful for the people that do it.



Yeah that must be it. I've spoken to quite a few premeds and they all are shocked if you are applying without research and basically imply DO without research

Do yourself a favor and get as far away as you possibly can from those people. An app with no research equals DO school? That's wild.

 

[puahate]

They aren't

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

While it is true that research is not a prerequisite there is definitely an emphasis on research throughout medical education. In fact there's an ACGME (residency) requirement that residents "participate in scholarly activity" and that residency curricula "must advance residents' knowledge of the basic principles of research, including how research is conducted, evaluated, explained to patients, and applied to patient care" (https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs_2017-07-01.pdf).

Research guides practice. From surgical techniques to antibiotic choice to triage strategies, research is needed to provide the best care. The physician-researcher has the perspective of addressing clinical pitfalls via quality improvement research as well as having a front seat to understanding which research questions are in need of answers. It is totally fine to choose not to pursue research during your career but it is vitally important to continually stay appraised of the new literature if you want to be providing appropriate care.

 

[Goro]

It's a common pre-med delusion that you need research to be a competitive applicant outside of the Research Powerhouses like NYU and Harvard/Stanford class schools. Where's the wise @gonnif when you need him???

But here's two SDNers on why it's a good idea:
The wise DrMidlife on research: “you've preferably had some exposure to research so you can be convinced that Wakefield used malicious dirtbag methods and is not the savior of the world's children.”

The wise Crayola227 on research: So tired about the whining over the foundation of knowledge that is expected in a physician. We're applied scientists ffs. Own that. If you can't own it and take pride in it, gtfo.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

A lot of the doctors I speak to at the ED say they can't tell you one thing about research.

Yea no surprise there, you're talking to ED people

 

[deleted938090]

If you look at the table of importance, medical schools value research as "moderately important".

Most of us just want to be PCPs, work in the ED treating patients, or be general surgeons.

From what I've seen, people go to medical school for three purposes: teaching+research, see patients, or health/public policy. Oncology, dermatology, and pathology tend to have a lot of researchers. At the end of the day, it's what you enjoy doing.

 

[JeSuisUnDoc]

They’re not. Many applicants apply workout and it’s fine. I think it’s just premeds who think it’s one of the checklists


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[drbatsandwich]

It's easy to assume that schools prefer applicants with research experience when you look at the MSAR. The vast majority of schools I've seen show stats that suggest that at least 80% of students they matriculate have research experience. Most are in the 90s! @Goro and @gyngyn, would you say that this number is so high mostly because so many pre-meds think they need research to be competitive or because schools actually want to see it and therefore matriculate students that have it over those who don't?

I will likely be applying next year with no research experience at all, and I always panic a little bit when I see the matriculant stats with regard to research.

 

[Goro]

It's easy to assume that schools prefer applicants with research experience when you look at the MSAR. The vast majority of schools I've seen show stats that suggest that at least 80% of students they matriculate have research experience. Most are in the 90s! @Goro and @gyngyn, would you say that this number is so high mostly because so many pre-meds think they need research to be competitive or because schools actually want to see it and therefore matriculate students that have it over those who don't?

I will likely be applying next year with no research experience at all, and I always panic a little bit when I see the matriculant stats with regard to research.

You are correct. The premed obsession with research is a classic example of a mass hysteria.

 

[drbatsandwich]

You are correct. The premed obsession with research is a classic example of a mass hysteria.

Thank you for your reply!

 

[efle]

Here's another take:

Who sits on admissions? Not usually a bunch of community GPs or general surgeons. Usually med schools are at major medical centers and usually the admissions committee is full of academic docs that work there.

So really the question is, why do a bunch of academic docs from a major center like it when applicants look like they are interested in research?

I think that version of the question is pretty self explanatory!

 

[herdofturtles]

It's a common pre-med delusion that you need research to be a competitive applicant outside of the Research Powerhouses like NYU and Harvard/Stanford class schools.

Not to hijack the thread, but @Goro , which schools would you say require at least some research to be competitive? Is it all top 10, top 20, or are there some in that group that are more likely to accept an applicant with little or no research?

 

[efle]

Not to hijack the thread, but @Goro , which schools would you say require at least some research to be competitive? Is it all top 10, top 20, or are there some in that group that are more likely to accept an applicant with little or no research?

I'm not Goro, but I'm at one of the most research oriented Top X places, and even here there are always spots reserved for other kinds of applications. The vast majority of the class is stereotypical ORM, high-stats, from feeder undergrads, and have research narratives - but there are also a handful of people with interesting nontrad backgrounds and/or service narratives who don't have any research experience.

Edit: To answer your other question with more of my impressions: Mayo is all about their quirky "fit", U Washington is 99% concerned just with what state you come from, UCSF/UCLA pay closer attention to service, and several places like WashU, U Chicago and NYU will forgive more weakness in an EC category like research as long as you're rocking a top percentile MCAT and near-perfect GPA.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

The point of research is to learn how research works. That's why it's fine to do research in any field, not just clinical or basic science, and why a research experience where you write the IRB proposal, do the lit review, collect the data, do the statistical analysis, and write your manuscript/poster is more meaningful than just running experiments. You need to learn what goes into developing, completing, and (maybe) publishing a study.

I'm going into primary care - PCPs critically evaluate research every single day. What does the evidence say about choosing this BP med vs that one for people like this patient? Your patient read a study about the HPV vaccine causing infertility - do the methods and data analysis support the conclusion? Is this USPSTF screening guideline evidence-based, and is it applicable to your patient population?

Part of this knowledge/ability comes from coursework in medical school and undergrad, so nobody expects you to be some sort of research guru, but having firsthand experience makes a big difference in itself for your practice.

Exactly. Doing research helped me learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff in my own field.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

Not to hijack the thread, but @Goro , which schools would you say require at least some research to be competitive? Is it all top 10, top 20, or are there some in that group that are more likely to accept an applicant with little or no research?

I would consider these to be the Research Powerhouses, especially Stanford:
NYU
Vanderbilt
WashU
Yale
JHU
Northwestern
U Chicago
U Penn
Columbia
Duke
Harvard
Sinai
Cornell
Stanford
Case
Mayo
Pitt
USC/Keck

 

[theSupremeHobgoblin]

Good information above. I will speculate to answer your* question by trying to assume the point of view of someone who is an admissions officer, who feels responsibility for shaping the future of medicine. Research can be a good pre-medical and/or medical activity to undertake.

1. Schools are responsible to ensure future research occurs. If no doctors were interested in research, medical progress would stagnate and come to a halt. It is of paramount importance that a sizable portion of the future doctors will undertake future research. What's more, admissions must guess as to who will, in the future, pursue research freely when there is no pressure or strong incentive to do so (as is present in admissions processes for applicants, who might not actually be that interested in research). How do you tell who will actually be doing research in fifteen years, after they've earned an MD/DO? You can't tell for sure, so you have to cast a broad net, selecting research experience as part of the criteria, to ensure some fraction of those people will pursue it in the future.

2. Lacking any research experience as a natural science major might demonstrate questionable judgement. My opinion is that becoming a doctor is something that you should never "count on". I suspect many admissions officers think the same way. Therefore, if you are a natural science major, but "counting on" going to medical school in the hopes of merely treating patients clinically one day, and therefore choose to not pursue any research at all, your choice of major makes no sense. If you have a natural science bachelor's degree, but never pursued any research, what else were you going to do? There's nothing wrong with wanting to be a teacher, be a pipette monkey, or sit in an office and look through chemical MSDS sheets for the rest of your life, but these natural science programs are designed and run by Ph.D.'s. They generally want to prepare students for research. Yes, many will go into healthcare or industry, but natural science majors are expected to do research. It just looks weird if a natural science major hasn't done ANYTHING that they could indicate on an application as, somehow, research experience.

3. Natural science majors typically do have SOMETHING they can, legitimately, call "research experience" as part of their undergraduate program, so to fail to mention anything at all could demonstrate questionable judgement, also. Usually natural science programs have classes that involve some project, at least once, that could be called research. Did you write a mega-term paper for at least one class about a special enzyme, chemical structure or reaction, or an organism? Maybe it was a review, but meta-analysis and review articles are published in research journals. Did you do fly breeding in genetics? Did you design a unique experimental protocol and hypothesis at least one time as a natural science major undergraduate? Hell, can't you SOMEHOW, among the dozens of labs you've taken, suggest that, in some way, you learned something about research first-hand?

4. Doctors must be capable of reading and digesting research materials. When you're in school, you're told what you need to know, by people who know it. You can learn all the treatments, medications, symptoms and protocols easily when it's given to you in a bullet point list. And you can even be updated on all these things with continuing education classes, which you will take as a physician. But it's important for you to be able to understand research findings because you will understand how and where to apply certain techniques, or what the evolving aspects of current treatment are. If someone just gives you a protocol, you can't just carry it out blindly. You're THE doctor, not a mid-level provider, which brings me to the next point.

5. Research promotes and demonstrates critical thinking, attention to detail, and true understanding. As students, it's easy to slip into the mode of "swallow this text/diagram/statistic, regurgitate, ace exam, become doctor." But the real world is not like that. Mid-level providers, patients, and your colleagues will come to you at times, and you won't have a medical-mommy or -grandpa who is there to tell you what the answer is to the dilemma or question they are posing. When you choose to become a doctor, the buck stops with you. Involvement in research demonstrates that you're capable of truly understanding the significance of a treatment plan because part of empirical science is not making unwarranted assumptions. This level of thinking is indispensable as a physician because you can never apply treatment completely algorithmically. (If you could, we wouldn't need doctors and computers would suffice). There may always be a factor present in the patient's history that does not present orthodoxically, and you, therefore, will have to treat somewhat uniquely. This sort of thinking is constantly exercised in research, where people live on the edge of knowledge and operate in novelty day-in and day-out. These skills and ways of thinking are indispensable for physicians in many areas of medicine to promote good patient outcomes.

6. Some areas of medicine require life-long and constant familiarity with research and/or research findings. If you're an oncologist, and your patient has a 50% chance of surviving for six months based on current available treatments, you can't wait for that continuing education class next year to see what the hottest new chemotherapies available are. Well, you could, and indeed, you're not superhuman and capable of knowing every new available treatment all the time, but you'd be a better doctor if you were at least capable of keeping constantly abreast of emerging therapies and treatments. A lot of that stuff will come out in research articles, or be discussed among your research colleagues, who might be able to point you in the direction of new therapies to try. You could save someone's life by being familiar with new research, or involved in research.

That was fun to write! I hope this makes sense and answers your question as to why some medical schools place some importance on research.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I will speculate to answer your* question by trying to assume the point of view of someone who is an admissions officer

Dude.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

There are some that do and some that don’t. The ones that do have a mission to produce physician researchers that will push medicine into new places, and every physician is actually just an applied scientist so there is that.

Every doctor needs to know how to read and interpret research.

 

[solitarius]

Research is important because (this varies with school) a lot of the faculty do research and would love to have medical student help on their projects. The more background you have, the faster you can hit the ground running and the less hand holding you need.

Research is especially important at the big research schools because they are looking to recruit and train potential academic physicians.

Some applicants do not need research because they are filling a part of the school's mission unrelated to research. Research is less important at some schools because they don't do much research.

Finally, the process is getting ridiculously more competitive. If AdCom can pick between two candidates, and candidate A happens to have solid research experience all else equal, who are they going to pick? I've said it many times, AdCom is like the hot girl who has her pick of the hundreds of guys on social media. I'm working with two premeds on a research project with my PI. One failed to obtain admission this past cycle and received feedback that research was the weakness in his application. Take it for what it's worth.

I would consider these to be the Research Powerhouses, especially Stanford:

I noticed the UCs and Michigan were not on your list.

 

[$haBoy]

@Goro How much research does one need to be "competitive" at Top X schools? Do you need a pub or poster, or independent research; or, can you be still be competitive without those things and simply "putting in the hours" at the lab?

EDIT: I'm not trying to skimp on things, and I will have at minimum a poster eventually and possibly a pub, but whether or not one is "necessary" at application time changes my timeline, which is why I'm curious.

 

[Goro]

My understanding is that they lime you to be productive. That doesn't mean you need a Nature pub!

 

[Med Ed]

My understanding is that they lime you to be productive.

Damn limeys!

 

[Goro]

Damn limeys!

Yeah, and they like too

 

[gyngyn]

Juggles! Now that you changed the title, half of the posts here don't make any sense...