Research Experience

Pre-Med & Medical School Pre-Med Topics
1

<p>I'm a junior and staying two more years from now on in my college. </p>

<p>To consider getting a good letter of recommendation and getting the title as a publisher, besides my interest, what kind of professor should I apply for, to work in the lab?</p>

<p>Here are examples:
A young professor who has a few of lab members, has not done much work yet (one or two selected publications).</p>

<p>An old professor who has many lab members and who has done much work (ten to fifteen selected publications).</p>

2

<p>While I realize that this is, in fact, a premed dilemma and that it does in fact belong here, the people at the Graduate School forum might be better able to help.</p>

3

<p>Sorry. What I meant was the letter of recommendation for entering medical school. Thanks!</p>

4

<p>So the reason for my answer was that your goal is to contribute meaningfully to his lab and land a publication or two out of it -- the same goal as graduate students often face. While this is relevant to premedical life -- in other words, please don't take this as a chastisement -- I'm afraid I'm simply not very knowledgeable about this particular dilemma, and since grad students face the same one, I suspect they'll be able to help.</p>

5

<p>Now I got it. Thank you. I really appreciate it.</p>

6

<p>The answers you're getting there aren't what I was hoping for, so I'll take my best crack at it here.</p>

<p>The best kind of lab to work in, hypothetically, is a lab that is on the brink of being a very big deal but is currently very small. In that lab, you'll stand a pretty good chance at a major publication, your professor will soon become widely respected, you'll get lots of attention from him/her, and you'll do a lot of very meaningful science.</p>

<p>In addition to being very rare, these labs are basically impossible to discern at this point.</p>

<p>The advantages of a small lab are obvious: more likely to get a meaningful project of your own. Any publications that result are more likely to have your name on them. You'll have good interaction with your PI, who will get the better chance to take the time to get to know you personally and therefore write a better letter of recommendation.</p>

<p>The advantages of a large lab are similarly obvious: you're more likely to be involved with serious research and there's a small -- very small! -- branding factor to it. More importantly the quality of the projects is likely to be very high. While you're less likely to have your name on any given publication, there's a lot more pubs coming out of such a lab.</p>

<p>For the purposes of the letter, that's clear: go to the smaller, less productive lab. They'll have more time to get to know you and write better letters. The big-name aspect certainly does not outweigh that advantage.</p>

<p>For the overall purpose, however, this isn't very clear to me. I'd say probably to go with a smaller lab, where you'll have more responsibility and get to know people better. But you might well be doing less fascinating science and have a harder time pointing to any tangible results and accomplishing anything.</p>

<p>So it's clearly a difficult tradeoff, and my recommendation is very tentative.</p>

<p>Ultimately, I would make the choice based on the personalities of the respective PI's. If you think you can meaningfully get to know a PI, then the larger size of a lab starts to present only advantages and no disadvantages. On the other hand, a cold, overly-ambitious PI might negate the advantages of a smaller lab, too.</p>

<p>So it's a hard dilemma but hopefully this was of some help.</p>

7

<p>One thing I'd want to add-- I don't think that smaller labs lead to lower-quality projects and a lower probability of producing "tangible results and accomplishing anything." </p>

<p>I currently work in a smaller lab (i'm currently the only undergrad, but two seniors just left). My friends that work in some of the huge-name labs on campus tend to work on very specific projects and don't learn a broader base of techniques and project types. </p>

<p>One word of advice: My experience is that if you're working on your own project (as I am) you probably won't be published during your undergrad years-- there's just no way you can put in enough time and energy to put out a graduate-quality publication. You will only get your name published if you're part of a larger project that your project fits in to. I find my role really enriching, but sometimes it's difficult because I'm the only one in the lab that is working on my project, and therefore other members are taking away time from THEIR projects when they help me rather than helping what is part of their project as well. In any case, I don't think it's the biggest deal in the world if you get published... what matters is the quality of research you do compared to other undergraduates. I know that I'll have a great rec and will produce a senior thesis by the time I graduate; we'll see if med schools feel the same way I do.</p>

8

<p>I also agree that smaller labs aren't necessarily less productive. Most of the labs at the NIH I saw were small (approx. 4-6 people). At the cancer genetics wing, there was a hallway full of Science and Nature covers of the times when the labs there got published.</p>

9

<p>Heh -- you see why I was reluctant to answer the question myself: I really don't have a lot of experience in this area!</p>

<p>Still, it seems that at least you've gotten some good information from NCG and SMTT.</p>

10

<p>Thank you folks for all the responses. They are really helpful!</p>