<p>So currently, I have a position to conduct research with a faculty member here. I'm going to begin working with him next semester and possibly continue into the summer time. While I really would like to do that, I am wondering if it would be more beneficial to attend a summer research program at another great school or if it doesnt matter at all. I know that for many summer programs, they are for rising juniors and those who have at least a year of research experience, neither of which apply to me as a freshman. Additionally, they offer larger stipends and I plan to use that money to afford applying to medical school and interviews and things. Which option would be the best route to pursue?</p>
<p>length of commitment>>>>>>>>>>>“prestige” of short commitment/more money short commitment/etc.</p>
<p>basically… length of time is valued and will get you a good, strong LOR. Even if you did a summer at Mayo and applied later, if you were only there for a summer, your productivity will be quite low and it would probably only help your chances at Mayo. Every other school would wonder why you got an LOR from a faculty member you only worked under for3 months. Assuming your UG is a strong research institution, I’d stay there and continue your research there. If you’re not already involved w/ a lab at your UG, it might not be a bad idea to do the summer institute.</p>
<p>If you’re going to be working with this professor for the rest of your time in school, it’s not a problem to go elsewhere for a summer. Any associated prestige with that summer program likely won’t help you (although not all programs are equal), but if you’re always wanted to check a certain institution / city out, want to be paid more (some of these programs’ stipends are crazy), want to expand your experiences, etc. then go for it.</p>
<p>These programs (I think they are called REUs) are also nice if you don’t know if you want to scope out the research before committing yourself. Usually you get a nice little project to do during the summer, which you present at the end, plus some nice seminars, fat stipend, and free food!</p>
<p>I am seeing a lot of questions like “will X experience help me get into medical school versus Y” but to be honest I think it is all about what you get out of it, and how you can “spin” your experience.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t go with the summer research program only because it is a hassle to apply to them.</p>
<p>I have been to two summer research programs (one REU and one amgen) and thought they were great opportunities. Plus, you are given your own independent project ( working a whole 10 weeks summer is equivalent to a year of research), fat check, travel to different places, and meet new people. I think major draw back is the hassle of applying cause you gotta apply to many different places since they are super competitive and you need to get two or more LORs. But yea like what lollybo says, its what you get out of it. </p>
<p>Also, at least from my experience, when i went back to ask a prof to conduct research at my home institution, she easily accepted me and allowed me to conduct a new independent project (knowing that i have these independent research experiences under my belt).</p>
<p>But i mean for med school purposes, i doubt it makes a difference.</p>
<p>^You must not get much done in a year of research if you think you can get done in 10 weeks what you could get done in a year. Most clinical experiments take longer than 10 weeks to fully conduct much less to analyze, write up, and publish (the literature review alone may take several weeks to months to do thoroughly and journals can take weeks to months to finish reviewing a submission and request revisions). On the other hand, if you’re an absolutely terribly unproductive researcher due to an inability to multitask or manage your time, I could see how your statement might ring true…</p>
<p>^ well for one, in not doing clinical research. I am doing basic lab research and actually work in a wet lab. So i find it hard to believe you are able to progress a lot in a year for basic lab research considering the amount of time it takes for each procedure and overnight periods ( of course this would be project dependent). For example, i had to grow/maintain neural stem cells and check on them 7 days a week and for part of my experiment, i needed nuclear/cellular extraction, Co-IP, SDS-page, followed by Western. Like im going to say, you probably wont be able to pull one of those experiments off w/o spending more than 16 hrs and not including the time passaging your cells and maintaining them. there are parts where you cant stop and consider the amount of optimization one needs to take. At least for summer, you can run concurrent experiments. In addition, publishing in like nature and cell are really difficult. In addition, analyzing and reviewing paper are expected by your PI and you still need to present and write a full paper.</p>
<p>But i guess we are really comparing apple and oranges right now.</p>
<p>Clinical research is often less of time commitment the basic science. Part of this is that the same sizes tend to be much, much larger. </p>
<p>I can see how for some projects a few months of concentrated effort is valuable, but for a lot of basic science there is a lot of lag time involved.</p>
<p>yea definitely depends on project. The way i see it for summer research, whenever you have lag time, you can start designing, prepping, and running your other experiments or reading different lit papers (if lag time isnt long enough). Also, it will depend on how time dependent your experiments are, which would be big hassle during school year. Anyways, it just helps push your research farther. And also, you will get to learn many new techniques, since there is more time(minimum of 40 hrs per week for ten week).</p>
<p>Haha, I can definitely relate to the wet lab people here. Southern blots take half a week to accomplish- extra aggravating when they don’t work.</p>
<p>If you’re planning on staying with the prof even after this summer, then go ahead and apply somewhere for the summer.</p>