Feeling inadequate about my research experience

[StrongTackleBacarySagna]

My PI thinks my research experience is "great," but looking at some of the profiles here it seems completely average. I only have two years lab experience (doing three independent projects), one semester of lab class doing independent projects, and an honors thesis. This is all in my home institution and no publications that they would care about. 

It seems like everyone else has at least three years in a lab, but then they also have a few summers discovering the cure for cancer in three different labs all over the country/world, which got them a couple of publications. I think I'm good for mid-tier schools, but are these insane GradCafe research histories the norm at more elite programs? This is for neuroscience if it makes a difference.

[Eigen]

I don't think the summer REUs rank as highly in SC's minds as people think they do. They can be great for gaining experience, but consistent experience is also highly valuable. They're primarily a way to make connections at another school or to get experience if your home institution doesn't have any labs working in the area you want to go forward in.

The important thing about your research experience is that you've spent enough time (years) in a lab to understand how research goes, to know how to solve problems when they arise, and to be very, very comfortable with basic lab skills, taking and keeping notes, etc. 

Accordingly, if your PI thinks your experience is great (and it sounds pretty good to me), trust them. They're the ones who will be writing a letter saying that your research experience is great, and SCs will listen to and trust that. 

Also keep in mind that the population here is way skewed from average. 

[shovonreza]

My PI thinks my research experience is "great," but looking at some of the profiles here it seems completely average. I only have two years lab experience (doing three independent projects), one semester of lab class doing independent projects, and an honors thesis. This is all in my home institution and no publications that they would care about. 

It seems like everyone else has at least three years in a lab, but then they also have a few summers discovering the cure for cancer in three different labs all over the country/world, which got them a couple of publications. I think I'm good for mid-tier schools, but are these insane GradCafe research histories the norm at more elite programs? This is for neuroscience if it makes a difference.

same here! I also have only two years of research experience and one summer internship with no publications. But I'm still taking a shot at top schools like Harvard, even though I'm an international student, since all other parts of my application including GPA, standardized tests and recommendations are pretty good. I think you should also go for top schools as I don't think publications matter that much if you can show in your SOP that you are genuinely interested in what you want to do. At best you're gonna lose that 100 bucks spent on the application, but it's worth a shot. All the best luck to you and all the applicants!

[adiJ]

My PI thinks my research experience is "great," but looking at some of the profiles here it seems completely average. I only have two years lab experience (doing three independent projects), one semester of lab class doing independent projects, and an honors thesis. This is all in my home institution and no publications that they would care about. 

It seems like everyone else has at least three years in a lab, but then they also have a few summers discovering the cure for cancer in three different labs all over the country/world, which got them a couple of publications. I think I'm good for mid-tier schools, but are these insane GradCafe research histories the norm at more elite programs? This is for neuroscience if it makes a difference.

Looking here, there's more of a confirmation bias because I would think the applicants here that post their stats are on the better end. Also as mentioned above, listen to your PI, he/she has a lot of experience and probably isn't sugarcoating. (Just assumptions here)

[kire01]

Well, I've posted in the 2016 applicant forum about having seven years of research experience (I'm 27), but honestly, I think you're solid from a quantity standpoint. The quality is very important-- and your PI thinks your experience is great, meaning you're not just doing someone else's minipreps. The posters here are a self-selected group, so it's really not representative of the entire applicant pool. Two years with independent projects, plus an honors thesis, sounds totally fine to me. I think going beyond that is great, but not always necessary. For me? Well, I have a 3.0 undergrad. It took a while for me to feel confident that my experience will keep my application out of the trash cans. Assuming your numbers are fine and your letters are good, I wouldn't worry too much about quantity. 

[adiJ]

Thanks for the reassurance. I don't doubt my PI at all and I personally know I have a lot of research competence at this point, but I was just wondering about the importance of breadth.

I would say depth is way more important than breadth, and judging from your experience you seem to understand what's going on in the lab and that's really what people are looking for.

And @kire01 your 7 years of experience is pretty intimidating :/ 

[kire01]

I would say depth is way more important than breadth, and judging from your experience you seem to understand what's going on in the lab and that's really what people are looking for.

And @kire01 your 7 years of experience is pretty intimidating :/ 

Oh, don't worry, my application has it's weak points! I only have 7 years because I took some weird detours in getting around to applying, because of low GPA, and because I had some interesting opportunities come my way. It's frankly overkill to do this much research before a PhD, I don't really recommend it. Hah. And I'll be ancient by the time I finish. 

[Eigen]

Thanks for the reassurance. I don't doubt my PI at all and I personally know I have a lot of research competence at this point, but I was just wondering about the importance of breadth.

I would say depth is way more important than breadth. Chances are, you'll need to learn a lot of new techniques when you start grad school regardless of your undergrad prep- depth helps make sure you can easily learn them and keep on moving. It also shows that you have the dedication to keep on a project through the tough and un-interesting spots. Too much breadth without depth, and I start to worry that the individual doesn't really know what it's like to see a project through the problem areas.

[_kita]

Also, don't use this forum as a sampling pool. People come on here to get more information than their programs provided and are hyper-focused on their applications. You also see more acceptances on this forum than you would expect from random sampling.

[yolk]

I had the same feelings when I was applying. My advice, ignore them and focus on presenting what you've done in the best light possible. When I applied to graduate schools in the Fall of 2014 I had a total of seven months of research experience. Look at my signature to see the response to my application. Don't be discouraged, you can do it!

 

[Eigen]

First, you would need to clear the submission of the paper draft with all other authors. 

I don't think it would help all that much. List it as "in prep" on your CV, or better, submit it before your apps go in. 

[Eigen]

You would need your PIs approval to submit the draft, then. 

In my field, this would never be done- too much risk to patents, or the idea being stolen. 

[zipykido]

Oh I meant it was his idea to include a draft with the application in the first place. Sorry if the wording was unclear

Also when I asked if it would help, I meant if in-progress publications help in general, rather than the idea to include a draft.

You should only include publications that have already been submitted to a journal. Non-currently peer reviewed work should not make it until it has reached that point. 

[Eigen]

You should only include publications that have already been submitted to a journal. Non-currently peer reviewed work should not make it until it has reached that point. 

I completely disagree with this. It's also at odds with most of the advice I see for people going on the market.

Showing works in progress helps give a trajectory- it shows what you've done, but also that you currently have things you're working on.

Just note properly what stage they're in- In Preparation, Submitted, Under Review, Under Revision, Accepted.

I wouldn't submit a draft with the application, but you could always note (draft available on request) next to the CV entry.