Identifying gap-year/pre-PhD options?

[mockturtle]

Hey all, I'm a rising senior with a double major in neuroscience and biology, and before I begin my foray into the wonderful world of PhD admissions I definitely think I would benefit from some more experience, some more perspective, and some better identification of my interests.

 

I'm curious, then, how those of you who worked some number of gap years went about finding your positions?

What kinds of positions tend to be the most readily available... or at least, what should I expect (i.e., are they largely just openings for techs, or is the opportunity for actual research there?)

Are they insanely competitive or rare? Should I be afraid? 

Is cold-contacting possible PIs and praying for their good graces the name of the game, or do positions tend to be advertised (and where)?

 

Also: I'm intrigued by the Neurasmus program, but in my searches so far, research-based masters/post-bacc programs relevant to neuroscience don't seem overly abundant.

Am I looking in the wrong places?

Does anyone know of any other structured pre-PhD (masters, post-bacc, or otherwise) programs which allow for research?

Are they even worth it compared to just working some gap years? Both from a financial standpoint and otherwise.

 

Thanks in advance everyone!! 

[eeee1923]

The NIH has a pretty interesting postbacc program. Also many major universities tend to have some sort of postbacc program.

 

If it would be funded, pursuing a master's degree in something related (does not necessarily have to be in nuero) would be useful in bolstering your research experience.

 

I know a few people who got jobs as research techs at either a university, a biotech company, etc for 2 yrs or so and were fine when they applied to PhD programs.

[MidwesternAloha]

I found the best luck browsing universities' websites (career openings) and applying for anything remotely resembling a position I'd be qualified for. With a bachelor's degree, you are OVER qualified to be a tech. They will not pay you to spin tubes all day, no matter how willing you are. I found a full time research assistant position within 2 weeks. Also, going through scientific recruiting (aka temp agencies like Kelly Services) is a great, underutilized option. Certain desirable companies (Cleveland Clinic, for example) only use staffing agencies to weed out applicants. I highly recommend using them.

[mockturtle]

With a bachelor's degree, you are OVER qualified to be a tech. They will not pay you to spin tubes all day, no matter how willing you are.

This is so relieving to hear, hahaha 

 

My main worry is that I'm getting my hopes up too high, in regards to how close to my personal interests I could expect a gap year project to be (or a masters one, for that matter). Most of the point of this strategy is to get myself closer to the heart of my interests, both to make my background more relevant for neuroscience PhD admissions, and for my own benefit in helping me learn what it is exactly that I want to do.

 

Doing a masters in biology would be fine, but I'm not sure what *more* it would give me unless there were some way to incorporate neuro into my thesis... Or maybe I'm completely off base, I don't know. I just feel like if I want to get into a neurobiology program, I should at least try to do some work in neurobiology, in particular, if at all possible.

[eeee1923]

 I just feel like if I want to get into a neurobiology program, I should at least try to do some work in neurobiology, in particular, if at all possible.

 

Not necessarily. PhD programs understand that not all applicants would have the opportunities or resources to conduct neurobio research. Now if one is able to do so it's definitely seen as a plus but not as a requirement. As long as your research experience allows you to gain transferable skills that would pair well once you start your doctoral training you should be fine. Just be able to understand the direction that research is going in the field (i.e. through the reading of current literature) and be able to speak intelligently on the subject. Then when it comes to putting together your SoP, you will be able to state how your experiences will help you be successful in PhD program X. 

 

If you are planning on taking a gap year, I would definitely look at some of the options MidwesternAloha mentioned. Good luck and don't stress over the process too much since anxiety rarely does anything to solve future issues. 

[mockturtle]

Not necessarily. PhD programs understand that not all applicants would have the opportunities or resources to conduct neurobio research. Now if one is able to do so it's definitely seen as a plus but not as a requirement. As long as your research experience allows you to gain transferable skills that would pair well once you start your doctoral training you should be fine. Just be able to understand the direction that research is going in the field (i.e. through the reading of current literature) and be able to speak intelligently on the subject. Then when it comes to putting together your SoP, you will be able to state how your experiences will help you be successful in PhD program X. 

 

If you are planning on taking a gap year, I would definitely look at some of the options MidwesternAloha mentioned. Good luck and don't stress over the process too much since anxiety rarely does anything to solve future issues. 

Oh yeah, I getcha. Neuro is definitely very interdisciplinary, and I know neuro programs admit people with strong backgrounds in other fields who then decide to steer themselves towards neuroscience.

 

But seeing as I *do* have background in neuroscience, and *have* had that opportunity, I'm afraid that would seem like a step backwards in my particular case? To go from neuro at the undergrad level, to not-at-all-neuro, back to neuro again at the PhD level... and having to justify why I did that, when I always knew I wanted to end up in neuro? It just feels like that could be a little questionable, and I hope it's avoidable.

[peachypie]

Sounds to me like a masters unless in neurobiology, which I don't think I've seen a lot is not really what you should be doing.  I'd suggest taking a year or two to do research-related to neurbiology and apply to a PhD program if that is your goal.  If you spend a year doing neuro research and hate it then it gives you a reason to explore other options, if you still are interested in it, then apply away.  Personally, I don't understand the point of getting a masters if your intent is to get a PhD, sounds like a waste of resources (time and money).  The most important item for your PhD application will be gaining research experience and general understanding of what it means to do research full-time.  They are looking for maturity and knowledge.  Spending a year or two working full-time gives you that credibility that nothing in undergrad speaks to.

[bsharpe269]

Personally, I don't understand the point of getting a masters if your intent is to get a PhD, sounds like a waste of resources (time and money).  The most important item for your PhD application will be gaining research experience and general understanding of what it means to do research full-time. 

 

I want to chime in here as someone who is finishing up a masters. For me, getting my masters was the best possible decision I could imagine making. If you go about it in a smart way then it doesn't have to be expensive at all. I ended up in a lab that expected me to perform at the same level of PhD students and gave me just as much independence. I am in the process of submitting a couple 1st author papers to great journals on topics similar to my PhD work and I haven't even started my PhD yet (and I have more middle author ones as well)... I am staying in a similar research area so I already know the literature in my subfield like the back of my hand and have already networked in the field. Since I have already been doing graduate level research in my subfield for 2 years, I am starting my PhD program with a huge head start.

 

There are certainly other ways to get this sort of head start AND there are also ways to be very successful without a head start. Working full time in a lab could be a great way to gain knowledge. In my field, these sort of opportunities are rare since we don't have wet lab work and PIs would usually rather pay a student instead. Also, in my experience, post bacs are not given the level of independence that graduate students are given. I'm not trying to say that getting a masters is preferable to other options but I did want to show some of the benefits of it since in my situation, it was certainly not a waste of resources. I definitely think that funded MS programs would with worth considering for the OP.

Edited May 13, 2015 by bsharpe269

[ilovelab]

 I definitely think that funded MS programs would with worth considering for the OP.

That's the key thing though. For the OP an unfunded masters is a Waste of money. Unless you have no choice but to do one. A research tech job in a lab/industry is far more valuable.

[mockturtle]

I've honestly been thinking the same thing: that for a masters to be useful for me, it'd have to be both funded and very research-heavy. I just don't know where to find programs like that.

Bsharpe269, your experience sounds like exactly what I'd hope to get out of such a program! But again, I've been having trouble locating any related to my interests, the way yours related to your subfield. My search has been far from exhaustive, though.

[ballwera]

I harp on the same thing to everyone that asks this question. Unless the masters will be funded take the tech job. There is no sense in shelling out that much $$ for a degree that is not terminal. Tech jobs are also very lab dependent. I know certain techs who just perform experiments laid out by their PI and others who perform independent research ( in the same way as a student). In my lab, the techs are treated as if they are students and expected to perform at the same level. Also depending on where you work, most places offer tuition remission. 

[mockturtle]

I harp on the same thing to everyone that asks this question. Unless the masters will be funded take the tech job. There is no sense in shelling out that much $$ for a degree that is not terminal. Tech jobs are also very lab dependent. I know certain techs who just perform experiments laid out by their PI and others who perform independent research ( in the same way as a student). In my lab, the techs are treated as if they are students and expected to perform at the same level. Also depending on where you work, most places offer tuition remission. 

Yeah, the one remaining value I could foresee in a masters program would be increased breadth of options for a research topic, to allow me to explore my interests more thoroughly, as opposed to joining one lab and studying one topic for a few years (although if I already loved the topic that would be A-OK with me, I just really need more perspective on my interests).

 

But I'm definitely on board with an unfunded masters being a bad choice. I'm just curious whether I could even reasonably *expect* a funded masters, or if they're 1) super-duper-rare-like-don't-count-on-it and/or 2) super-duper-competitive-like-don't-even-try.

[peachypie]

Yeah, the one remaining value I could foresee in a masters program would be increased breadth of options for a research topic, to allow me to explore my interests more thoroughly, as opposed to joining one lab and studying one topic for a few years (although if I already loved the topic that would be A-OK with me, I just really need more perspective on my interests).

 

But I'm definitely on board with an unfunded masters being a bad choice. I'm just curious whether I could even reasonably *expect* a funded masters, or if they're 1) super-duper-rare-like-don't-count-on-it and/or 2) super-duper-competitive-like-don't-even-try.

there is certainly no reason not to try to apply for a funded masters if you can find an appropriate one that you feel suits you.  At the same time there is no reason you can't at the same time or as you approach the end of your undergraduate career, look into applying for jobs.  This does not have to be one or the other approach, you can pursue both and see what ends up.  Masters programs will likely want to know in late spring or mid summer (I'm not really sure on MS timelines), if you plan on enrolling.  After applying no one says you have to take a job or a program offer unless you want to. 

[mockturtle]

there is certainly no reason not to try to apply for a funded masters if you can find an appropriate one that you feel suits you.  At the same time there is no reason you can't at the same time or as you approach the end of your undergraduate career, look into applying for jobs.  This does not have to be one or the other approach, you can pursue both and see what ends up.  Masters programs will likely want to know in late spring or mid summer (I'm not really sure on MS timelines), if you plan on enrolling.  After applying no one says you have to take a job or a program offer unless you want to. 

Oh, absolutely! I'm sure I'll end up applying to some kind of spread of both, but I wanted to make this topic to figure out how much I can *expect* from my searches into either option, how rough the competition is, and how people found their programs/positions. The practical side of things, more than the "what should I, personally, do" side of things.