Is research necessary?

[Catalina]

Is it a disadvantage to not have research experience (applying to Ontario med schools)?

 

I've noticed that most people seem to have research as part of that EC's. I have absolutely no research experience

[ellorie]

Well, I don't know if I got in yet, but I got interviews at 4/5 of the Ontario schools I applied to, and I don't have a speck of research experience. And the reason I didn't get an interview at Ottawa was because I didn't meet the OOP GPA cutoff, not because of my ECs.

[thehumanmacbook]

Not necessary, but good to have.

 

For more information, please have a look at the "research" forum

[Guest copacetic]

not necessary, but hellauseful

[Strategy99]

Does it make a difference if it is volunteer or paid research?

[shikimate]

No it doesn't. But on the other hand it's always nice to get paid for spending your time working. Also if you are getting paid by NSERC or some kind of research scholarship it looks really good on your resume.

[LLAV]

research is great to have not just for the cv

i do clinical research. it gets me face time with doctors and patients, and it's a good specialized learning experience.

[Catalina]

i'm not in a human biology type of program, so i doubt that i can get any research positions at hospitals and such. would it be just as good to get a research position in sociology or astronomy, for example? or are medical-based research positions seen as "better" for med school admissions?

[Cerena]

I had written answers to these questions in a massive FAQ about research which is in tooty's Premed FAQ thread: http://www.premed101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47062

 

Is it a disadvantage to not have research experience (applying to Ontario med schools)?

 

 

I've noticed that most people seem to have research as part of that EC's. I have absolutely no research experience

 

To answer this question, I wrote:

Yes, there are medical students who gain acceptance without prior research experience because technically, it is not a requirement and I’d be lying to you if I said it was. Medical schools acknowledge the fact that physicians need to participate in life-long learning. As a physician, you’ll have to be able to read journal articles, assess their findings, and evaluate new treatments for disease and illness. Even if you are not a specialist or medical researcher, it is my understanding that you will still need have that skill. However, if you feel that you would be unhappy doing research, it's too much of a hassle, it's not a requirement, and you simply do not want to do it, then don’t. It’s as simple as that. By participating in research just because you think it will look impressive, you are wasting your supervisor’s time and energy. It does not benefit you nor does it benefit the principle investigator to have an unproductive team member and I can not see this leading to anything beneficial. Now, if you want to pursue an MD/PhD, I think it is pretty obvious why you would have to gain research experience and I will not elaborate on this any further.

 

So just like every member has already said, no it's not required of you to do research and there are several members on this forum who have not had research experience. But, at least I hope that what I had written above sort of provides you with a rationale as to why research in undergrad might be a good thing to have for future physicians.

 

Does it make a difference if it is volunteer or paid research?

 

I had also answered this question in the FAQ with some references:

 

It seems that medical school applicants get a little bit, for lack of a better word, perplexed when it comes to being paid for an activity versus volunteering. I’ll offer my perspective on this, which is mine alone and may not represent the opinions of medical schools. Regarding research, getting paid is better than not getting paid since the time commitment for you to successfully complete a research project can be quite a long time and can be quite time consuming. Whether or not you get paid, as I've observed, will often come down to how much experience you have. If you are a lower undergraduate level student (i.e. first or second year) who will not find a supervisor that will take you on for a USRA NSERC and have absolutely no experience in a lab, I suspect that the only sort of lab experience you will get IS volunteer experience. There are always exceptions to this, but that is what I’ve seen in the majority of cases. But, having volunteer lab experience can be highly beneficial as it will likely increase the chances of you getting a paid position in the future. Now, if you are an upper level student who has had prior research experience, it is not unreasonable for you to want to be paid for your work and, as long as it does not compromise your research interests, I would seek out a paid position. You don't have to take my word for it, though. Here are some useful links for you if you're trying to weigh out the pros and cons yourself:

 

Research Position vs Research Volunteer Important Med School question

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...-question.html

 

Lab work: Volunteer or Paid

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=194540

 

Glad to hear LLAV has found clinical research It's a great experience.

 

P.S. mods thanks for the bump

[thehumanmacbook]

i'm not in a human biology type of program, so i doubt that i can get any research positions at hospitals and such. would it be just as good to get a research position in sociology or astronomy, for example? or are medical-based research positions seen as "better" for med school admissions?

 

It doesn't matter which field your research is in. The reason why many people choose clinical-type research is that it is easier to relate to the medical field, which helps for sup apps sometimes and interviews. But on paper and assessment it shouldn't (unless adcom does it in secret) be a difference between non-medical and medical research.

[LLAV]

i'm not in a human biology type of program, so i doubt that i can get any research positions at hospitals and such. would it be just as good to get a research position in sociology or astronomy, for example? or are medical-based research positions seen as "better" for med school admissions?

 

Tbh i'd say try the medical field if you want to. You'd be surprised at how many PIs hire students from other fields.

Bottom line: it's the experience over what you put on the resume. You should get excited talking about your research, and be proud to present it.

I have all these friend who get bored talking about their own work. While i'm all excited talking about my t-values and standard devs lol. So do something you'll be proud of

[sleeping_sickness]

i'm not in a human biology type of program, so i doubt that i can get any research positions at hospitals and such. would it be just as good to get a research position in sociology or astronomy, for example? or are medical-based research positions seen as "better" for med school admissions?

 

i haven't done any clinical based research either. in fact, i'm doing research in geology! the scientific method is universal, so i would say that it really doesn't matter where the experience comes from. do something you enjoy!

[move.along]

Is it a disadvantage to not have research experience (applying to Ontario med schools)?

 

I've noticed that most people seem to have research as part of that EC's. I have absolutely no research experience

 

Research is not necessary for admission. It is just something that you can add to your application to show that you actually did something besides studying the past four years. That's essentially what they want - students that can do many things at once. Multi-tasked, multi-dimensional people. It is okay not to have research provided you invested the time doing something else worth noting on your app.

[thehumanmacbook]

Research is not necessary for admission. It is just something that you can add to your application to show that you actually did something besides studying the past four years. That's essentially what they want - students that can do many things at once. Multi-tasked, multi-dimensional people. It is okay not to have research provided you invested the time doing something else worth noting on your app.

 

That's a good perspective on it. However, given the immense competition for med, unless you're a pro-something (ex. Olympians) it's hard to tell adcom that you have invested time into something "worthwhile" on the OMSAS app.

 

I think research is a staple investment in the game, that is not "required" but it does improve chances.

[Leon]

No.

 

I did it to find out what it really is and why some people are so fascinated with research. I love the little that I do, though it has absolutely nothing to do with medicine. I also wanted a taste of research to see whether a Masters is a realistic backup. It's not essential but I would encourage you to try getting involved in research since it's such a major component of modern science.

[osteon]

That's a good perspective on it. However, given the immense competition for med, unless you're a pro-something (ex. Olympians) it's hard to tell adcom that you have invested time into something "worthwhile" on the OMSAS app.

 

I think research is a staple investment in the game, that is not "required" but it does improve chances.

 

I don't think schools place emphasis on worthwhileness - at least not in the way you or the guy you quoted are referring to it. If they did, the next generation of doctors would all be Olympians, NHLers and movie stars. Personally, I think most schools don't care what you do, as long as it's worthwhile TO YOU. There's no secret formula to EC success.

[apache]

i think what he was saying it's really easy to lie, like, i could say i'm passionate about biking, and go an hour a day, and maybe never owned a bike in my life, and get my buddy to verify my enthusiasm... if you're a musician and have played shows or something like that then you have something which obviously shows you invested time into what you are writing

 

I don't think schools place emphasis on worthwhileness - at least not in the way you or the guy you quoted are referring to it. If they did, the next generation of doctors would all be Olympians, NHLers and movie stars. Personally, I think most schools don't care what you do, as long as it's worthwhile TO YOU. There's no secret formula to EC success.

[Paradocs]

I agree that research is not necessary, but may be advantageous because it is quantifiable in terms of your progress (papers, presentations, etc). That makes a lot of sense. Especially because your app is often going to be reviewed by a clinician at an academic center, who is likely exposed to research on a daily basis. The reviewer might be interested/fascinated by your research problem and would have a good idea of your progress using very little info.

 

Another thing that research provides is a decent way of showing you have a strong, diverse skill set. In my experience there is a spectrum of people within the high academic success group (read: high marks), the extremes are those who are pure bookworms (good at memorizing/regurgitating) and those who are high functioning (good at doing what they want to do). A person who is successful in research is often on the high functioning side of the spectrum. This person can learn, do experiments, interpret data and communicate that data. Papers and conference presentations on your app are often used as surrogates for discerning the high functioning people, for better or worse.

 

Those are my thoughts after four years of grad school and maybe can help people decide if research is a good way to help their app. But honestly you need to love it too! If you don't love what you are researching then there are other ways to show abilities and skills.

[quackster]

I agree that research is not necessary, but may be advantageous because it is quantifiable in terms of your progress (papers, presentations, etc). That makes a lot of sense. Especially because your app is often going to be reviewed by a clinician at an academic center, who is likely exposed to research on a daily basis. The reviewer might be interested/fascinated by your research problem and would have a good idea of your progress using very little info.

 

Another thing that research provides is a decent way of showing you have a strong, diverse skill set. In my experience there is a spectrum of people within the high academic success group (read: high marks), the extremes are those who are pure bookworms (good at memorizing/regurgitating) and those who are high functioning (good at doing what they want to do). A person who is successful in research is often on the high functioning side of the spectrum. This person can learn, do experiments, interpret data and communicate that data. Papers and conference presentations on your app are often used as surrogates for discerning the high functioning people, for better or worse.

 

Those are my thoughts after four years of grad school and maybe can help people decide if research is a good way to help their app. But honestly you need to love it too! If you don't love what you are researching then there are other ways to show abilities and skills.

++

That's one of the best posts I've read on this forum.

[Paradocs]

Thanks quackster! That is a nice thing to hear after my first post.

[Catalina]

thanks for the responses. to be honest, i don't enjoy research at all. there are many other things that i would rather be doing in my free time.

 

i'm just hoping that i won't be at a disadvantage considering that almost everyone seems to have some research experience. "research" is even a separate heading on the omsas application form and it would probably look bad if i left that part blank.

[thehumanmacbook]

thanks for the responses. to be honest, i don't enjoy research at all. there are many other things that i would rather be doing in my free time.

 

i'm just hoping that i won't be at a disadvantage considering that almost everyone seems to have some research experience. "research" is even a separate heading on the omsas application form and it would probably look bad if i left that part blank.

 

Just make sure that you have notable time commitments to other activities then. Or that your time is dedicated to the pursuit of a very high level of a particular activity (think regular competitions for an instrument, for example)....it's because as you noted, almost everyone has some research these days that it becomes somewhat of a norm.

 

It's not "necessary" but it is "beneficial". People do get in without research; they make a minority however. I like to play my odds with the majority, and I have some project courses so I do it anyway...I enjoy some forms but at times it is, albeit, boring.

[Catalina]

would it be just as beneficial to have done research in a field of study that's not medically related, or even biology-related? such as in a humanities field? or is it more beneficial to have medically-related research?

[thehumanmacbook]

The FAQ states that any field of research will be accepted (one of my research pubs, for instance, is on cell phones...) but having the experience is what matters. There are some more evident advantages to doing clinical research such as patient interaction and exploring healthcare topics (ex. triaging) that you can express in your interview. But maybe your "non-clinical" research can still be related...it's really up to you. If you're interested, why not?

[repede]

Familiarity with the research process is far, FAR more important than the actual subject matter of your research. In fact, even if you get a medically-related research project, chances are pretty high that you'll never really hear about it again unless you end up specifically in that field.