Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Bede

Members
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bede

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. From the article: https://www.folio.ca/u-of-a-medical-school-changes-admission-policy-for-indigenous-applicants/
  2. Eudaimonia, I get what you're saying. I'm probably a bit more anal about this sort of stuff now since I see so many fishing expeditions and I never really learned to do otherwise until well after my PhD. Most of us forget the very basics of the scientific method taught in grade 9 and get caught up in the "industry" of science, where every publication counts.
  3. Sorry guys but you are completely wrong. (Also, I never said that I write the conclusions in advance, I said an intro/lit review, methods, and leave the results blank) What I am doing is starting with a hypothesis and collecting evidence to support it. I generally have an idea what I'm going to see before I start. That's what a hypothesis is. (I'm wrong lots too, but that's a different story). That's the way science is supposed to work. What you're suggesting is that you will look at the data and then formulate a hypothesis post hoc. This is completely wrong, although very common in many scientific fields. Unless I'm reading you wrong, your method is one of the reasons why the p-value is almost dead. When you start with, "let's see what the data shows", you are completely undermining the assumptions that go into any inference testing. There is a huge amount of literature available now on these fishing expeditions that pass as research these days... Start with John Ionnidis. In reply to the comment, "new data changed the direction of the study..." Very true. That's happened to me as well many times. What is supposed to happen in that case is that your results are now the preliminary results for a new study where you reformulate the hypothesis and re test it. It sounds to me though like you formulated a hypothesis, it was disproven by the results, you changed your hypothesis post hoc and did inference testing and published. That's NOT how science is supposed to work.
  4. I do basic science. I start with writing the paper followed by experiments. Your intro is your literature search followed by stating your hypothesis. This way you know what has/hasn't been done. Then write materials and methods. That's your experimental plan. Now start results. Obviously you don't have any but think of what data you want. Graphs, schematics, images, etc. Now do your experiments. As you get data, paste into your result section. Once you have all of the figures you planned on, put them into words and discuss. Voila- you have yourself a paper. Also see How to write a scientific paper by George Whitesides.
  5. I had a terrible first couple of years in UG as well and eventually got a PhD. You may not get into UT but there are a lot of programs in smaller centers that will consider you especially if you make an effort to introduce yourself to PI's.
  6. One way is to try to meet a post doc or PhD student in the lab and have them help you get an in. Most PI`s are too busy to deal with a million emails from people wanting jobs or volunteering experience.
  7. Good question. I would approach this by asking other students if they need help. Often, you can do some routine data analysis or check on the samples or something. Ask if you can do a literature search for the introduction, or write the methods section. If you're motivated and are willing to take the bull by the horns, it's easy to get a fair amount of publications. First author is different though. You really need to put in a lot of time and have a project that is conducive to being published. For MSc students, I usually suggest that the project is relatively easy with a high probability of success. It's not going into any high impact journal, but it's still publishable. When I did my MSc, my first paper wasn't actually published until 6 months after my thesis was submitted. There's a big difference in quality between an MSc thesis and a published article.
  8. Drop it. You're just wasting everyone's time. Nothing worse than an uninterested, unmotivated UG. I'm not trying to be mean, it's just best for everyone's sake that you be honest and move on.
  9. I've never done the MCAT, nor do I have any desire to do it. Out of curiosity, has anyone ever done drastically better on an MCAT on a subsequent sitting? I know a few people now who have done the MCAT a second time after studying MUCH harder the second time, and ended up with essentially the same scores. From my understanding (I'm not a psychologist), MCAT scores correlate highly with IQ. Since IQ can't really be changed much, it stand to reason that MCAT scores can't either. I'm happy to be disproved.
  10. Because it's a terrible job. Academia is my second career- I still do my first part time. I love the intellectual challenge of science, but the negatives far out-weight the positives IMO. The pay as a prof is barely better than a high school teacher, but with essentially no vacation. The stress involved in running a lab and the risk that you run out of funding and need to lay everyone off is constantly over your head. There is a very real risk that you will post doc forever because of the lack of jobs or that your tenure will be denied because you simply weren't productive enough-- publish or perish. I've done well in academia but I will never leave my first career to advance to faculty.
  11. I assume that this question is directed at me. I'm a post doc and trying my best to avoid a faculty position
  12. Ask yourself this: next year, if I don't get into medicine, will I regret dropping out of this program? BTW, hind sight never accounts for the money in your bank account.
  13. canucks, Sorry I'm having some problems following your posts and what you're trying to accomplish. Do you want to do a career in research or do some research to make you more competitive for medical school? If the former, than don't waste your time trying to raise your GPA- get to know PI's, visit labs and get into any MSc program that interests you. From my experience, it was really helpful to know someone to act as your potential supervisor that can walk you application into admissions and insist that they want you. Because you're enthusiastic, you probably have a good shot and being a productive MSc student and can leverage that into a successful PhD application. PS. Just a gentle nudge and constructive criticism: you may want to work on your written communication skills. I know fora are informal, but I had quite a bit of difficulty figuring out what you are trying to do.
  14. What makes you think that this work is good enough to be published? There is a huge difference between writing something and writing something that's publishable. I don't think I've ever seen an UG (or even a MSc) thesis good enough to publish. And BTW, being too lazy to revise something down to 10 pages is going to be a big problem, not just for this project, but for most of what you want to do in life. Sorry to be the jerk that has to tell you this, but better you hear it now than after you fail at something that you really wanted.
  15. What is your GPA now? Unless it's really bad, I wouldn't go back to do more courses to raise your GPA- I'd start looking into doing more research. A lot of programs are far more dependent on a potential supervisor telling the department that they want you than you just sending in an application. I think most competitive schools want a 75% average (whatever that is in GPA), but some of the smaller schools are just happy to get a motivated MSc student. Once you're a good MSc student a LOT of opportunities will open up for a PhD once people realize you can work independently and publish research. I was a terrible undergrad but managed to convince someone to take me on as a MSc then PhD student. I did very well in those programs and got a couple decent fellowships afterwards.
×
×
  • Create New...