<p>So, I heard of two people. They are both excellent students, and go to different schools (but are about the same level in terms of selectivity). I am just curious about which one you would admit into your program.</p>
<p>Student A did about a year of research (sure, a lab rat, but a research is a research, in my opinion), while student B didn't do any. But student B took more courses and harder courses, and saved a year in the process. Student B, however, did slightly better than student A in the courses. Probably in a 100% scale, their averages had less than 2% difference. They both got amazing recommendation letters.</p>
<p>I don't know anything about this field (some kind of science), as it differs from my interests (math), but it turns out that most schools preferred student B over student A. I found it interesting. What do you guys think?</p>
<p>maybe they applied to different programs? if it's just a 2% difference in grades, considering recs are the same, I'd imagine research experience would be pretty important. my PI said he doesn't admit students without research experience. We're talking about a top 5 bio program, in which my PI is the admissions chair. Maybe student A had a crappy personal statement and student B had an amazing one?</p>
<p>no, trust me. they are both amazing students, they would definitely have had well polished sop. and knowing them both, there is no difference other than research and course load.</p>
<p>i really think it depends on individual faculty/selections committees/whoever is picking the new class of grad students. I'm student B and i've gotten very early, very exuberant acceptances from two schools and then heard nothing from the rest of the schools, some of which i know have already sent out lots of letters to fellowship candidates, anyway...</p>
<p>you could make arguments for both. student A is more experienced and has some idea about research, student B is motivated and wants to get started on graduate work as soon as possible (or maybe research wasn't an option at his or her school? that was my case...)</p>
<p>Sure, they may be applying to the same programs, but the specifics of their research interests may be different. If Student B is more interested in areas that are less competitive or simply happen to have better fit in those programs, that would account for it.</p>
<p>I'm with DSP here. I would venture the difference was intended area of specialization and FIT, with an additional element of greater preparation for grad study (in terms of coursework) for Student B.</p>
<p>yeah i think it totally depends on the fields. for a lab field like biology u definitely need to be trained on a set of experiments and show some proficiency with those to get into grad schools. I guess for math good grades is important because everything you learn in college is relevant, and so is the mathematical capacity of the candidate. The presence of research is not as important as the quality of research itself though, depends on how much that project shows about the candidate. some fields (i.e. machine learning) don't have relevant undergrad research opportunities everywhere, so a proof of enough skills to survive the program + interest should be enough.</p>
<p>Possibly the intended area of specialization (not math.. I said..), I don't really know why the results turned out that way. But it was interesting at least for me, given the weight of importance most people seem to place on the research experience.</p>
<p>From what I've heard, research is now getting a bit more common, so it is not as important anymore.</p>