Hello everyone,
how is research from different surgical subspecialties looked at? Is basic science or clinical better?
Have the opportunity to work in a otolaryngology basic science lab in a big 5 university and couldn't find anything neurosurgical.
With the average 15 research experiences people have now it can't all be nsg right?
Thanks!
Sounds like you're not committed.
What on earth is a Big 5 university?
Basically as long as you're able to tie it back into neurosurgery it's fine. Even if you're doing breast cancer research you could say "i think this [technique/concept] could also be important in the treatment of GBM" or some shit like that. So no, it wouldn't be completely worthless.
That being said, that experience wouldn't weigh as heavily as a neurosurgery research experience, mostly because the LoR you get from your research mentor won't matter to half the programs. If it's not from a neurosurgeon whose name the PD recognizes a lot of them won't even read the letter.
Basic vs clinical science really depends on the program, but in general basic science is better if you can actually publish. Problem is most people don't. So you're usually much better off spending that time pumping out 3 or 4 first author clinical papers, rather than being in the lab working on what will likely amount to 1 basic science abstract or something.
I meant top5, dunno just wanted to say that its a renowned lab I guess. It is oncology research, but I will have to figure out how to make that connection.
Thanks for your insight. In general I thought it's good to show you're productive, but I guess cramming through data for retrospective studies in nsg is better than working on a decent paper in a different field.
You're completely right about the LOR. But I do know that the Professor has connections to two nsg PD's so maybe that'll help me in the future.
Love that other sdn level comment.
research in any field is better than no research
