<p>In the context of a medical school application, how much leniency do admissions officers give applicants in terms of the types of undergraduate research those applicants participated in? For example, I would imagine that all medical school applicants with research experience didn't necessarily complete research with an immediate relevance to microbiology or biochemistry. Is animal biology research acceptable? Ecology? Biostatistics? Forensic anthropology? In short, what types of research are acceptable, generally speaking, for medical school applicants?</p>
<p>Do what you want to do. All research is valuable and mathematics research is certainly valuable to medicine, though I would think it would be hard to reach the level needed for theoretical mathematics during college.</p>
<p>Maybe I should ask: why do med schools expect research experience of undergrads? Is it more to show talent and familiarity with the processes involved in research, or is it more to show a deep interest in the biological and life sciences relating to medicine? If it’s the former, then I can understand how scientific research in most any field would be appropriate; if it’s the latter, then I am trying to figure out how much leeway they tolerate in the topics of candidates’ research projects.</p>
<p>Some people are not done research at all and still got in. I imagine that any amount of research is OK as long as you are capable discussing it. GPA and MCAT are still the most important.</p>
<p>It is much more the former. Plus it demonstrates a level of curiosity and commitment towards academia. The specificity of an undergraduate biomedical project isn’t really going to make you scientifically all that more equipped to survive medical school, so they just aren’t that concerned about it in that sense.</p>
<p>Do medieval history research for all they care. There is no research requirement. There is an expectation on the part of medical schools that you demonstrate an awareness of the kind of things that might come up in medicine or your future career - but this can be through research, volunteering, life experiences… research what you are into, and if you think research sucks, don’t do it. By doing research you show you are interesting in asking questions and seeking answers, and an interest in whatever topic it is. There is nothing wrong with having a curiosity outside of medicine and outside of the sciences!!</p>
<p>"There is nothing wrong with having a curiosity outside of medicine and outside of the sciences!! "</p>
<p>-Actually it seems to be a plus. When my D. was interviewed for Internship at Med. Research Lab, guess what they discussed the most - her interest in music. Somehow her future boss was impressed with that. D. does not have some great achievements in music, she is just interested in it and took care of this interest by having minor in Music. I am not saying that minor is important, it is not. I am saying that pursuing personal interests seems to be impressive.</p>
<p>The consideration of research as a “must” for medical school applicants is definitely overplayed in these forums. I have confirmed that having a curiosity and pursuing a personal interest outside medicine and academia is definitely more impressive.</p>
<p>very much not the case. there is no reason to do research for the sake of research. if you plan on presenting yourself during applications as a “Researcher,” then yes, you should have done something to back it up. But there is NO advantage to having done research any more than any other health/medical/community service/extracurricular activity that takes a lot of non-class time. Being committed to SOMETHING and, being able to demonstrate that, is best. It doesn’t matter what it is.</p>
<p>And I completely agree that being involved in things outside of science and medicine is a huge bonus. It makes you look far more interesting and well rounded, and, quite honestly, it makes you a better doctor.</p>
<p>Vassar, while I agree that you should pursue your passions I disagree that research can be replaced equivalently at all schools by other activities. Now, it’s one thing if you go and cure world hunger or becoming a soloist at a major Opera, but simply doing another 500 hours of service is not going to be allowed to balance a lack of research at the top research schools. I am far from a detractor from outside talents and activities, I built my application around them, but when some schools report having having a much larger percent of their accepted students as having research experience than at schools with perhaps less a research and academic focus, I can’t believe that this is entirely a matter of self selection and ultra-motivation on the applicants’ parts. Don’t do research just for the sake of your application, but also realize that schools like Harvard may be less inclined to take you (not that the chances are ever good with them anyways).</p>
<p>Just take a look at the MSAR and you’ll see mmmcdowe is correct. The students with research at some (certainly not all) schools is in the 80%+ range. I really doubt that is coincidence.</p>
<p>At the 80% plus schools you refer to Curm, is there a threshold of the amount of research you should ideally have to make it worth the time of applying, as well as not just throwing money away?</p>
<p>GA2012mom, I don’t know if there is a litmus test for what is significant research. I’ve always felt that time spent is only one of several elements establishing significance. 2 years of washing tubes? Not so significant. A full-time NSF Summer Research Fellowship in a reputable lab? Maybe so.</p>
<p>Thanks, she is doing 400/hrs. this summer in a lab, and I think that will be the extent of it by application time due to other activities/time constraints during the school year.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that the number of hours of research can be substituted for an equal number of hours volunteering. It’s always about the quality of what you do vs the quantity. Quality activities in the community that require lots of personal motivation and initiative are extremely well regarded, and are considered just as great as publications.</p>
<p>Correlation is not causation. Just because a high percentage of people have done research at a school does not mean that not doing research is harmful. You have simply identified an association - and just like many things in medicine (and research) - you cannot draw any substantive conclusions from it. I go to a “top research” school. I would agree that most students did research in undergrad or between college and med school. My guess, though, is that it really is only a fundamentally important part of the application for a small segment of them.</p>
<p>I am also not suggesting that your whole life outside of school should be “outside” interests. there is a lot of medically related non-research activities that you can do that are extremely valuable. If you are passionate about reproductive health and set up an education program for teens in your community, or you are interested in accident prevention and worked with the local government to create a helmet law… the list goes on and on.</p>
<p>I fully agree with you that correlation does not guarantee causation, and I even offered other potential reasons for this in my past post. However, correlation is not NOT causation either until shown so. If you are going to make the argument that high percent of research at top research schools is not because it is a favored EC then I will ask you to present your hypothesis on another plausible reason or for you to identify the confounding factor, even if it is one that I have already suggested.</p>