Why is research not considered at UofC??

[Dr. Happy Hippo]

 

 

OK, so the deal is that I

[Jochi1543]

It IS considered, there's a section on the app asking whether you have any publications, as well as what's the highest level of education you've completed, so both your master's degree itself and your pubs are part of the evaluation. Your scholarships would go in the EC section. However, they can only compensate for a poor MCAT or GPA to an extent, as MCAT/GPA are a significant component of the evaluation process. You need to realize that for you, both are way below the averages, so you need to bring those up. You would benefit most from rewriting the MCAT, since it's fairly easy (compared to improving undergrad GPA after having already done a degree, anyway), and your score is low enough that with enough effort, you can expect to improve. I think you'll need to get at least a 30 to have a decent chance of admission at schools that consider the MCAT.

 

For schools that don't consider the MCAT, you have to face the really daunting GPA averages, and yours would be hard to bring up at this point (I also have a modest GPA, so speaking from experience here). So I personally think your best bet is to make your MCAT more competitive.

 

ETA: you will soon know what exactly was lacking from your app, as U of C lets us know our pre-interview scores.

[sky2685]

Did your master's program include coursework? If you take at least one credit per year, U of C does count that as part of your GPA calculation - and in general, it's often fairly straightforward to do well in grad courses. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Jochi that your MCAT scores don't work very well with the OOP regression formula. I strongly suspect that might be one of the areas that affected your application.

 

Otherwise, I agree, your research CV is excellent! U of C does actually have a decent emphasis on the value of research, and a number of students each year opt to enroll in the dual MSc (or PhD)/MD program.

 

For the record, my undergrad GPA wasn't stellar either, but MCATS were around 32R, and I did well in my 2 years of grad school courses (counted by U of C as a 4.0), had a decent publication record, and a variety of volunteering and extracurricular activities. I was rejected from Mac as well.

[Oldboy82]

Hey Dr. Happy Hippo, your track record is so eerily similar to mine I almost think we were lost at birth!

 

I have slightly higher GPA than you with 3 papers, 16 abstracts and 9 scholarships - but first time when I wrote the MCAT I received 9, 10, 6 with R!

 

In order to improve my score I retook the MCAT and luckly got 33R... Which thank god..surely helped me to obtain an interview at U of C this year. So yeah, like Jochi said you have to study like crazy and get those MCAT scores up.

 

Good luck.

[Alyzee]

i agree with everyone who posted here, its most likely your MCAT that prevented you from getting your interview. So i'd write that again.

 

But your research is awesome! i'm a little jealous!

[Laika]

According to a faculty member I spoke to yesterday, U of C gives NO weight to research productivity in the admissions process. There may be a spot for publications in the application form, but apparently they don't count for anything.

[Devari]

According to a faculty member I spoke to yesterday, U of C gives NO weight to research productivity in the admissions process. There may be a spot for publications in the application form, but apparently they don't count for anything.

 

Would you consider that information reliable, i.e., is the faculty member who told you this directly involved in the admissions process or is this something they may have simply overheard and/or misunderstood? If the information is acurate that's very interesting because some schools (such as U of T) specifically state that research productivity is an important apsect that is used to assess graduate student applicants.

 

Personally I think it would be a good thing if schools give research productivity little to no weighting in the application process. A researcher's publication record really has far more to do with the project/lab/supervisor/luck than it does with their actual research ability. The overemphasis on publication record is one of the things I really dislike about scientific research in general since it pressures scientists to publish as frequently as possible instead of focusing on doing their research as thoroughly and rigorously as possible.

[Laika]

Yes, I'm sure it was reliable. In fact, they thought it was a very misguided admissions strategy and wished U of C would move more towards a U of T mentality.

 

I agree that the project, supervisor, and luck are all factors that determine a grad student's research productivity. However, I feel that ultimately it is the student themselves that is the most important determinant. A strong grad student can really push a project to the next level, while a weaker student would flounder with the same project. "Luck" in grad school is often knowing when to drop a hopeless project, or choose a new direction that really breaks open a project.

[Devari]

I agree that the project, supervisor, and luck are all factors that determine a grad student's research productivity. However, I feel that ultimately it is the student themselves that is the most important determinant. A strong grad student can really push a project to the next level, while a weaker student would flounder with the same project. "Luck" in grad school is often knowing when to drop a hopeless project, or choose a new direction that really breaks open a project.

 

I have to disagree completely here, for several reasons. First, the criteria for authorship on publications is often applied very inconsistently between different labs and even within the same lab. One student can spend several months or years on a project and receive minor authorship or not even receive any authorship at all, while another student can make a very minor contribution and receive a significant authorship on a paper. Since the vast majority of papers don't specify authorship contributions it’s often impossible to know what any given authorship actually means. Second, substandard data that is submitted to a journal by a well-known researcher's lab will often be published in a much higher impact journal simply because of the lab and not because of the quality of the data. And I agree that if you give two students exactly the same project the one who is smarter, more dedicated and/or works harder will get better results, but unfortunately everyone doesn't get the same project. Ultimately it’s the supervisor who decides which students have the opportunity to contribute to which projects. If a student is continuing a project that is already established they can often produce papers within a few years since they are continuing existing work and already have a clear research direction. And if a supervisor gives a student the opportunity to contribute to a project that is nearing publication that student will often receive an authorship for very little investment of time and effort. Conversely, a student who starts a project from scratch will typically need to put in several years of work without any publishable results just to get the project off the ground, and at the end of all that work it often won't produce a significant publication. These types of issues tend to make authorship on scientific papers a very nebulous issue, with the end result being that a graduate student's publication record can often tell you little or nothing about their actual abilities as a scientist.

 

The most amusing part is that anyone who has spent any significant amount of time working in a research lab knows exactly what I'm talking about here. But the idea of using a researcher's publication record as a measure of their scientific ability has been around for so long that few people question its validity simply because it happens to be convenient and allows for easy comparisons. Now, I'm not suggesting that a researcher's publication record should be ignored completely, but the idea that "research productivity" (i.e., publications) = "good scientist" simply isn't true for the vast majority of scientists I've met, because there are far too many factors that affect authorship on papers that have absolutely nothing to do with someone's ability as a scientist.

[Entorhinal]

First author means you did the majority of the work. You designed the experiment, you executed it, you wrote the paper and you survived the slings and arrows of the competition. When you're first author- the amount of work performed is understood.

 

In regards to the author levels of authorship - second isn't too bad but after that I could honestly care less about that publication. If you're below second chances are you contributed 10% of experiments and data to the project.

 

- VW

[Icebox]

First author means you did the majority of the work. You designed the experiment, you executed it, you wrote the paper and you survived the slings and arrows of the competition. When you're first author- the amount of work performed is understood.

 

Not necessarily.. I know of quite a few people that managed to get tagged as a first author on a paper when they didn't do as much, mainly because their mentor was trying to get them some recognition on paper to move up in the ranks in research or for a med app.

[Entorhinal]

Not necessarily.. I know of quite a few people that managed to get tagged as a first author on a paper when they didn't do as much, mainly because their mentor was trying to get them some recognition on paper to move up in the ranks in research or for a med app.

 

That is seriously dirty. I've never heard of that where I studied. I can see that happening if the article was entering an incredibly low impact journal. If it was Neuron or Nature - I doubt that would happen.

 

- VW

[Devari]

First author means you did the majority of the work. You designed the experiment, you executed it, you wrote the paper and you survived the slings and arrows of the competition. When you're first author- the amount of work performed is understood.

 

This is what first authorship is supposed to mean, but unfortunately I've seen cases where someone puts more work into a paper but ends up listed lower on the author list. The principal investigator has a very large degree of latitude in determining the authorship rankings on a paper and in many instances their assessment of relative contributions can be very subjective (and also very biased).

 

Not necessarily.. I know of quite a few people that managed to get tagged as a first author on a paper when they didn't do as much, mainly because their mentor was trying to get them some recognition on paper to move up in the ranks in research or for a med app.

 

I've seen this type of thing happen on numerous occasions as well. I've also seen students included on publications who have done next to nothing - basically the professor asks the student to do a few weeks of simple experiments just so they can list their name on the paper. After seeing these types of issues happen with several people I've made a point of keeping my thesis work as separate as possible from what everyone else in my lab is doing to try to avoid these types of problems.

 

That is seriously dirty. I've never heard of that where I studied. I can see that happening if the article was entering an incredibly low impact journal. If it was Neuron or Nature - I doubt that would happen.

 

Actually, I think these problems can often arise more frequently with the moderate-impact and higher-impact publications simply because there's more to be gained from being higher in the authorship list.

[ddong]

This is what first authorship is supposed to mean, but unfortunately I've seen cases where someone puts more work into a paper but ends up listed lower on the author list. The principal investigator has a very large degree of latitude in determining the authorship rankings on a paper and in many instances their assessment of relative contributions can be very subjective (and also very biased).

 

 

 

I've seen this type of thing happen on numerous occasions as well. I've also seen students included on publications who have done next to nothing - basically the professor asks the student to do a few weeks of simple experiments just so they can list their name on the paper. After seeing these types of issues happen with several people I've made a point of keeping my thesis work as separate as possible from what everyone else in my lab is doing to try to avoid these types of problems.

 

 

 

Actually, I think these problems can often arise more frequently with the moderate-impact and higher-impact publications simply because there's more to be gained from being higher in the authorship list.

 

I'm sure there are cases like this happening, but I think its too generalizing to think publications as next to nothing. Research can be slow at times, and those people that persist and exhaust all possibility in reaching the answer should be credited. How admissions committee view the significance of publications is up to them, I can totally see biases in evaluating publications because MDs might not appreciate the work of basic sciences while PhDs may not value clinical research, again, two totally different approaches. I think research is part of your life experiences and will for sure make you a better doctor, or at least someone with a scientific habit of mind.

[Entorhinal]

I would say that I only know of one incident where the person didn't do too many experiments but landed first author on a very high impact journal. For that event to happen, however, the student performed a key experiment which explained the mechanism which was key for that level of publication.

 

I am sorry to hear that some of you have experienced issues with their supervisors throwing students onto papers with minimal contribution. I guess I was fortunate to never have experienced that. Although, it really shouldn't matter if the kid is 3rd author. I honestly don't give much value to third level.

 

In regards to dropping an authorship level - that can happen sometimes when the primary author leaves the lab. At that point some students can be vultures and land first author as the supervisor knows that the remaining individual will attend to the dirty work.

 

- VW

[Laika]

... One student can spend several months or years on a project and receive minor authorship or not even receive any authorship at all...

 

Wow... I've never heard of someone spending months on a project and not being an author on a paper. If I were in that situation, I would leave the lab. There's no reason to put up with a supervisor who thinks that's acceptable. My supervisor is extremely aware of authorship issues, and always strives to make the listing as equitable as possible. I know all supervisors may not be like that, but I would hope he's not in the minority.

 

You raised several valid points about publishing in science. I think we just disagree about the relative importance of the student in the final product.

 

Remember that schools that weigh research (e.g., U of T) also ask for a letter from your supervisor. This is an opportunity for him or her to describe your exact contribution and abilities, which may not be reflected in your publication list. I can't speak for how U of T looks at letters, but I do know LOR play important roles in both graduate scholarships and faculty hiring decisions.

[Devari]

Wow... I've never heard of someone spending months on a project and not being an author on a paper. If I were in that situation, I would leave the lab. There's no reason to put up with a supervisor who thinks that's acceptable. My supervisor is extremely aware of authorship issues, and always strives to make the listing as equitable as possible. I know all supervisors may not be like that, but I would hope he's not in the minority.

 

What I was referring to was more about situations where the authorship doesn't accurately reflect the work done by each of the authors. An example would be when a student puts a large amount of time into the initial stages of a project where it can take several months just to create plasmids/strains, develop the experimental conditions and work out the preliminary results. If another student starts to work on the project after all the preparatory work has been done they can often produce large amounts of data in a relatively short amount of time because all of the difficulties have already been worked out. Although you would expect that the student who put in the larger amount of time working on the project would recieve a higher authorship I've seen situations where someone who spends a much smaller amount of time generating data is given a higher authorship because they "produced more of the data" that was used in the publication. This doesn't necessarily occur frequently, but I've seen these types of things happen often enough to know that the relative rankings of authors on a publication don't always reflect the actual contributions that were made.

 

I have also seen situations where someone doesn't appear on a paper at all, although this tends to occur primarily with summer students who work on a project during the summer but the majority of the work is done by graduate students or other researchers. In most of these cases the contribution from the summer student was minimal and wouldn't necessarily warrant authorship so I can understand why they would appear in the acknowledgements instead of being listed as one of the authors.

 

You raised several valid points about publishing in science. I think we just disagree about the relative importance of the student in the final product.

 

I do agree that a good graduate student can definitely make a very significant impact on the direction a project takes and on the quality of the data that is produced, I'm just not convinced that this will necessarily be reflected in their publication record.

 

Remember that schools that weigh research (e.g., U of T) also ask for a letter from your supervisor. This is an opportunity for him or her to describe your exact contribution and abilities, which may not be reflected in your publication list. I can't speak for how U of T looks at letters, but I do know LOR play important roles in both graduate scholarships and faculty hiring decisions.

 

Reference letters can help to a certain extent but for the most part scientists tend to be judged almost exclusively on their publication record (particularly with scholarships and funding issues). If you don't have a strong publication record you generally aren't competitive as a researcher, regardless of your reference letters or other factors. Although I can understand this to a certain extent I don't think that the process really produces or selects for the best scientists.