03-21-2024, 10:51 PM
Hi,
I am a medical student currently interested in either neurology or neurosurgery. I understand that research is very important for applying to neurosurgery. I have a background in basic neuroscience research from before I came to medical school, and I am now getting involved in clinical research. Is it suggested to pursue a balance of both clinical and basic science research, or does it matter? Is one more respected over another? I see lots of people saying to just do clinical research because it is less of a time sink and you can get a lot more publications.
I did greatly enjoy my time working in animal research, I actually like it more than clinical research because it is not just laborious excel charting. It feels more involved.
Although I enjoyed basic science work, I do worry about the time commitment and my ability to balance it. Even now, with my clinical projects, I have found it difficult to strike a balance and I worry about my grades dipping if I overcommit. And to be honest, even though I enjoy basic science work, I do not want to strain myself if the bang isn't going to be worth the buck. Why would I spend excessive time caring for lab animals when I could spend the same amount of time in clinical research while cranking out more publications? If the residencies actually care about quantity > quality, it doesn't seem like doing basic bench work would be worth the investment.
I see people online saying that for residencies in general, quantity > quality. I find it hard to believe that this is entirely true. I would think a neurosurgery PD would understand and respect that there is a difference in scholarly between a multi year comprehensive basic science project and a simple observational chart review that you could quickly crank out in a couple of weeks. Wouldn't basic science research been seen as more scholarly?
I am a medical student currently interested in either neurology or neurosurgery. I understand that research is very important for applying to neurosurgery. I have a background in basic neuroscience research from before I came to medical school, and I am now getting involved in clinical research. Is it suggested to pursue a balance of both clinical and basic science research, or does it matter? Is one more respected over another? I see lots of people saying to just do clinical research because it is less of a time sink and you can get a lot more publications.
I did greatly enjoy my time working in animal research, I actually like it more than clinical research because it is not just laborious excel charting. It feels more involved.
Although I enjoyed basic science work, I do worry about the time commitment and my ability to balance it. Even now, with my clinical projects, I have found it difficult to strike a balance and I worry about my grades dipping if I overcommit. And to be honest, even though I enjoy basic science work, I do not want to strain myself if the bang isn't going to be worth the buck. Why would I spend excessive time caring for lab animals when I could spend the same amount of time in clinical research while cranking out more publications? If the residencies actually care about quantity > quality, it doesn't seem like doing basic bench work would be worth the investment.
I see people online saying that for residencies in general, quantity > quality. I find it hard to believe that this is entirely true. I would think a neurosurgery PD would understand and respect that there is a difference in scholarly between a multi year comprehensive basic science project and a simple observational chart review that you could quickly crank out in a couple of weeks. Wouldn't basic science research been seen as more scholarly?
