<p>Wouldn't a non-science major show med school admissions officers that you are not interested in science and only took the pre-reqs for college, not because you wanted to?</p>
<p>I do NOT like the environmental aspect of biology and I know that is going to be a problem if I major in biology, but I can't find any schools who offer majors in specialized areas in biology.</p>
<p>What do you guys think? Non science major = Lack of interest/dedication for science?</p>
<p>Maybe, but it doesn't seem to harm anybody. It might be the higher GPAs/MCAT scores trading off with the interest in science. I don't really know. Point is that it doesn't matter.</p>
<p>See thread: "What should a premed major in?"</p>
<p>What I have always wondered is how does a non science major effect research opportunities. I realize that BDM was able to do bio related research at Duke while majoring in Econ, but he was in the middle of research triangle. Do non science majors at other schools have the same research opportunities as science majors?</p>
<p>
[quote]
he was in the middle of research triangle
[/quote]
Go to Duke and, you, too, can be in the Triangle. :D</p>
<p>Actually my research was almost all back in CA. I didn't do much of it at Duke.</p>
<p>I can imagine it would be a lot harder. One tip is to avoid declaring until you've got some experience under your belt, if you're at a school that doesn't force you to declare up-front. No major/no experience makes you just like all the other freshmen on campus. Once you've got a little bit, your experience will trump your major.</p>
<p>As a sociology major, I didn't find any research topics that really fit what I was hoping to get into, including on some of my preferred sociology topics. </p>
<p>If you go to a Research I university, there will be research positions available somewhere. BDM and I haven't come to any sort of solid consensus on just how important research experiences, research topic, and publication really are. </p>
<p>What I mean by this, is that research has yet to become a necessary component of everyone's application to secure admission (certainly not like clinical experience is). Yes, at some schools it does matter a LOT. But at others it may be a non-issue.</p>
<p>Likewise, probably to an even greater extent, we have no solid concept of just how important research topic is. It seems to follow that any research is likely better than none, and that some sort of biomedical research is preferred. However, I'm not entirely convinced that such assumptions necessarily hold. If anything, majoring in something else, and then pursuing research experiences in that field show your passion for that field. And to be completely honest, in many fields, the research topics covered are way more interesting than elucidating the amino acid sequence of some protein in seaweed or whatever. My personal opinion is that if you do research in something you enjoy, you're enthusiasm will come across, you'll be more excited to talk to about it during your interview and be able to SELL to the interviewer just why this experience was worthwhile. If you are able to somehow combine your interests with more "medical" related topics, great, but I don't think it's completely necessary. Again, that's just my opinion, and just like some schools practically require research for admission, there are probably more than a few that place higher priority on certain fields.</p>
<p>Finally, the publication thing is just as the other topics - it's probably a boost in all places, but some schools are going to give you more credit for it than others. Multiple publications and authorship type issues again are things that may or may not matter. This is something like our evaluation of undergrad school - is it going to give you the bump over someone if you have impossibly identical applications and you come up for the very last spot? Maybe. In the general run of acceptance decisions? Very hard to say.</p>
<p>That's my assessment of the situation. BDM, feel free to disagree.</p>
<p>also, on the bio major note- many schools do indeed have subspecializations within the bio major, and in many cases even a general bio major has few, if any (Penn's has none unless you concentrate in it) environmental/ecology class requirements</p>
<p>1.) I think -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that it's not that BRM and I can't reach a consensus between the two of us, it's that neither of us has reached an internal consensus on some of these questions. Research topic being the big one. It's not that I disagree with BRM -- it's that neither of us really thinks we know the answer.</p>
<p>2.) Research is clearly borderline mandatory at *some *schools. It is probably helpful at most schools. The degree of helpfulness varies considerably.</p>
<p>3.) Publications also vary in their usefulness.</p>
<p>4.) I can't imagine that authorship would matter at all unless you're applying MSTP, in which case I would think it would matter quite a bit.</p>
<p>5.) The hard question is which field. I've always suspected that biomedical research -- that is, bench work -- garnered a little more respect on balance, but I am by no means certain of this. It's not so much that they think it's "better" so much as that it's a known quantity, and that generally they think it's harder. Which is usually true. In other words, it's an instant, "Oh, I know what that is" recognition value. It's the same kind of mild bonus kids get from certain schools. "Yeah, we've had several Duke kids over the past few years." "Yes, that research seems familiar."</p>
<p>You can see that this would be a very mild boost indeed.</p>
<p>In any case, I have clearly heard Pritzker's admissions director state that topic doesn't matter. While I believe her, I also know that she only represents her own school. And I suspect that not all medical school professors -- almost all of whom have research labs of their own doing bench work -- feel that way.</p>
<p>I will say, however, that I think medically-relevant research is a big plus, as well. In other words, it might be better to do a medical sociology project than a non-medical physics or organic chemistry project.</p>
<p>So..basically shadowing experience/volunteering won't cut it? You HAVE to have some research to stay competitive?</p>
<p>I believe BRM and I have just said the opposite of that. There are some schools in the country that don't care about research in the slightest. Most probably care some about research but wouldn't treat it as mandatory.</p>
<p>As someone who had no research experience until the summer after M1 year, I can attest that shadowing and volunteering can indeed cut it. </p>
<p>Realize though, I was worried about my lack of research when I applied, a fear that was exacerbated when I got rejected from one school in which my lack of research seemed to be (at least as I saw it) a large reason why. I specifically prepared an answer to the research question for my interviews. The 2 schools I was accepted to, must have felt comfortable with my explanation that I couldn't find an appropriate research project, and I wasn't going to do something just to do it. (This also fit in well with my "biggest weakness" answer).</p>
<p>Yeah, actually, I was amused by the number of schools that asked about my biggest weakness. I was wondering whether I could have planned for this and intentionally messed up my application somehow. Like get into a big interpersonal dispute just for the purpose of writing about it.</p>
<p>(I didn't think the C+ counted. Or the ... what was it, 39 AAMC X's on my app.)</p>
<p>Yeah, I never took it to mean biggest weakness in my application, but rather, what's my biggest personality flaw (not being able to tell people no, which gets me in trouble).</p>
<p>What are AAMC X's?</p>
<p>When you mess up your application, the AAMC will be unhappy with you and will put a big red X on your application.</p>
<p>When you do it 39 times, the AAMC will put 39 big red X's on your application. It's not the best sign in the world.</p>
<p>Oh whoa...</p>