<p>If I am a pre-med accounting major, I will not have many opportunities to do scientific research. Any suggestions as to what I should do? </p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>Then don't do it. If you don't like to do research, you shouldn't be doing it anyway, and certainly not because you think it will 'impress' med-school adcoms. Volunteering at a clinic or a hospital is good enough, and in certain ways, is probably better. </p>
<p>Med-schools want to see evidence that you know what the medical profession is like. That doesn't necessarily mean doing scientific research. Most physicians do not conduct research.</p>
<p>I always thought that scientific research was crucial to getting in medical school?</p>
<p>No, good medical experience is, research is just something lots of people do.</p>
<p>For most highly selective research schools, 90+% of students had research backgrounds as undergrads. No surprise there, right? They're research oriented schools, so they want research oriented kids.</p>
<p>If you don't want research (as sakky's post mentions), then certainly there's no need to do it - plenty of medical schools have no such requirements. But you should also not go to a research school, in that case.</p>
<p>I would like to verify the statistics that 90+% of students at the highly selective research schools had research backgrounds. And by that, I don't mean the MD/PhD students, of which I would suspect that the number ought to be 100%. I'm just talking about the regular MD students. I know plenty of MD-only students/alumni at Harvard Medical School who have no research experience. They had medical clinical experience, but no actual research experience. It's hard for me to believe that all those people just happen to fall into that 10% who don't have research experience.</p>
<p>I don't think there is such a clean dichotomy between a research school and a caregiving school. Most research schools are also major caregiving schools. For example, the University of Washington is a major research school, but is also the top ranked primary care school according to USNews. Duke, UCSF, Baylor, etc. are also similarly highly ranked in both. Even the quintessential research school, Harvard, is also a quite respectably ranked care school (#25). And besides, there is no requirement that you do research at even Harvard. Under the New Pathways curricula (which most HMS MD students are in), you are not required to do research.</p>
<p><a href="http://hms.harvard.edu/pme/newpathways.asp%5B/url%5D">http://hms.harvard.edu/pme/newpathways.asp</a></p>
<p>Look, all medical schools in the country have a mission to produce competent practicing doctors. Some of them also do research, but that's mostly for the MD/PHD's and pure PhD's. Most med schools, even the research-oriented ones, do not require that their MD-only students do any more than a modicum of research. Harvard, for example, is affiliated with teaching hospitals such as MGH and B&W that do a lot of research, but are also fully functioning care practice hospitals.</p>
<p>Sure, MSAR 2006-2007:</p>
<p>Stanford: 94%
UCSF: 91%
Hopkins: 92%
Harvard: 94%
Wash U: 90%
Columbia: 86%
Duke: 86%
Penn: 91%
UCLA: 94%
Yale: 92%
Cornell: 88%</p>
<hr>
<p>And as for sakky's point re: research vs. practice, yes, sorry, I spoke too broadly.</p>
<p>What I meant (which would STILL be incorrect, but less incorrect than what I actually said) was that if you're not interested in research, then there's no point in setting your heart on a school that is ranked very high in USN's research.</p>
<p>What I should have said is that those who aim to be simply practicing physicians - no administrative, research, policy, cross-occupation, etc. goals - should not worry about admission into a one of USN's top research schools, as any medical school produces competently trained doctors just fine.</p>
<p>In a mild defense of what I originally said, I will say that research-powerful schools do have a culture which encourages research in a way that could be frustrating for a student who had no interest in it.</p>
<hr>
<p>In an attempt to avoid (quite possibly true) charges of selection, I here include the rest of USN's top 15 research schools:</p>
<p>Baylor: 79%
U Wash: 73%
Michigan: 88%
UCSD: 84%</p>
<p>Yeah, I thought you would go for the MSAR. The principal problem with it is that I believe they include the data of the MD/PhD's. I would expect close to 100% of those students to have research experience. But we shouldn't be talking about them. We're just talking about the MD-only students. </p>
<p>However, the point to the OP is this: you clearly don't need research experience to get into a med-school even to a research-oriented med-school, unless you want an MD/PhD. </p>
<p>Bluedevilmike, I know you hate it when I pull the Stanford Quest Scholars doc out, but I am going to do it anyway, and point to the following quote, as I still find the doc to be highly pertinent and insightful:</p>
<p>"Myth #26.
MEDICAL SCHOOLS WON’T LOOK AT ME IF I
DON’T DO LAB RESEARCH.
False. Statistically speaking, you are very
unlikely to end up doing lab research as a doctor. If
you like research, pursue it with passion. If you don’t,
there are many other extracurricular activities which are
equally as strong. You don’t need to do research. If
your passion lies in other areas, it is likely to benefit
you more as a person and as a medical school applicant.
There are a few research oriented medical
schools which especially like a research background.
However, even at these schools the research can be in
almost any field and need not be bench work.
Take home point: If you don’t really like the
lab, don’t spend your undergraduate years working
with test tubes."</p>
<p>Yeah, I'm pretty sure they DO include the data of the MSTP's. So subtract roughly 20 percentage from the researchers and 20% from the total, to get the following data:
(PS: I believe 20% is a moderate overestimate.)</p>
<p>We still get:
Stanford: 93%
UCSF: 89%
Hopkins: 90%
Harvard: 93%
Wash U: 88%
Columbia: 83%
Duke: 83%
Penn: 89%
UCLA: 93%
Yale: 90%
Cornell: 85%
Baylor: 74%
UWash: 66%
Michigan; 85%
UCSD: 80%</p>
<p>Still quite high, but no longer quite in the 90% percent range.</p>
<hr>
<p>And yes, my objection to the Stanford dude in question is well-documented:
To whatever extent his advice is based on his own experience - and he does not provide any evidence other than his own assertions - students should feel comfortable following his "unconventional" path only if they can do so with as much success as he has: a Rhodes scholarship, the founding of several very successful charities, and the like.</p>
<p>And my support of the Stanford dude is equally well documented. Basically, here's a guy whose charities are actually devoted to helping underprivileged students achieve their goals, including med-school, and he has staked his professional reputation on the advice that he has given. Here we are, a bunch of anonymous guys hiding behind anonymous handles posting on an anonymous discussion board, whereas he actually provides his full name, his full contact info, and his full work address on a publicly accessible website, and clearly states the charities that he represents. So I see only 1 of 3 possibilities. </p>
<h1>1 - He is severely misinformed about the truth. However, considering his credentials of Stanford, Oxford (Rhodes), and UCSF, I find that hard to believe.</h1>
<h1>2 - He is a tremendously devious person, deliberately peddling false information. Considering his background, I find this very hard to believe, not least because I don't see what he has to gain from this. What does he gain personally by risking his professional reputation in deliberately spreading false information?</h1>
<h1>3 - He actually has strong reason to believe what he is saying.</h1>
<p>This is not the case of adcom officers who clearly have a agenda to spread false information about the process in order to hide their own shortcomings (i.e. that they may choose not to carefully review applications out of sheer laziness, or that they are beholden to the rankings and thus feel compelled to admit students who have good numbers, but may make for bad doctors). But this guy? I don't see what he has to gain from spreading dubious information. </p>
<p>But I propose a way out. Let's clear the air. Let's write a joint email to him in which you and others like norcalguy can include all of your objections to his advice, and then see if he responds. If he does respond, then we can post his response in its entirety here.</p>
<p>I don't think the Stanford guy is intentionally trying to mislead premeds. I truly think that he believes in whatever he's writing. On technicality, he is correct. You don't HAVE to have a good freshman year. You don't HAVE to have lab/research experience. You don't HAVE to take all of your premed prereqs at your undergrad instituion. But guess what? If you follow all of his "advice" you aren't getting into med school. He tells premeds everything they don't have to do but fails to point out the fact that most premeds do have decent freshman years, do take orgo during the school year, do have research experience, etc. If he actually wants to support his "advice" have him show some stats like BBM has done. </p>
<p>What percentage of med school matriculants don't have research experience?
What is the acceptance rate among students who had to take bio/chem/physics at a community college?
"The higher I score on the MCAT, the better"-apparent he thinks this is a myth. Any evidence of this threshold score that he's talking about?</p>
<p>Keep in mind, his advice is dated (it's from 2002). Med school admissions is becoming increasingly competitive. Simply doing the minimum isn't going to cut it.</p>
<p>Oh, I think it's pretty easy. I think the answer is clearly #3. He does have good reason to believe what he's saying - and the reason is, it worked for him. And sure, I'd be up for e-mailing him.</p>
<p>You all have been very helpful. Just to let you know- I plan on spending most of the summer for the next two years working closely with my uncle (an Anesthesiologist) to: a) see if I truely enjoy the medical field b) learn more about the field, working closely with physicians, maybe to see what specialty I am most interested in and to c) volunteer my time to those that are less fortunate. I will be volunteering at a hospital with a purpose in mind, not to just have something that looks good on a med-school application. I have also worked at a chem lab, but I have done mostly anaylitical work (HPLC, using an ICP machine, analyzing radon samples,) but I have not been involved in any type of research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think the Stanford guy is intentionally trying to mislead premeds. I truly think that he believes in whatever he's writing. On technicality, he is correct. You don't HAVE to have a good freshman year. You don't HAVE to have lab/research experience. You don't HAVE to take all of your premed prereqs at your undergrad instituion. But guess what? If you follow all of his "advice" you aren't getting into med school. He tells premeds everything they don't have to do but fails to point out the fact that most premeds do have decent freshman years, do take orgo during the school year, do have research experience, etc. If he actually wants to support his "advice" have him show some stats like BBM has done.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And maybe he has evidence of all of these things. So why not join me and bluedevilmike and ask him? </p>
<p>But we also have to be fair in asking him for the same standard of proof that we are willing to apply to ourselves. For example, if we are going to ask him for stats that you don't need to take OChem during the school year to be successful, then it's equally fair that we also have stats that show that you do need OChem during the school year to be successful, etc. Otherwise, we are simply subjecting him to a higher standard of proof than we are willing to apply to ourselves. </p>
<p>The truth is, a lot of the supposed 'conventional wisdom' of med-school admissions is unsupported by rigorous statistical evidence of which I am aware. For example, I am not convinced that you really 'need' research experience to get into a research-oriented med-school, or even that it helps you much. It just seems to me that a lot of successful applicants have them, but that's a far cry from saying that you really NEED it. An equally valid alternative explanation is that a lot of people who have top grades in premed courses also tend to be interested in research projects, but that doesn't mean that research experience CAUSES premed success. Correlation does not mean causation. It's like how former football players often times become successful salesmen, but not because football skills actually CREATE success in sales. Rather, it's more that players tend to be tall, athletic, highly confident and goal-oriented men, and those skills translate well into sales, rather than the physical act of throwing/catching a football. </p>
<p>I'm happy to take the lead in contacting him, but we should not be asking him to adhere to higher standards of proof that we are not willing to abide to ourselves.</p>