2021-2022 Stanford

[caffeinatedbiochemist]

That is actually really low compared to what I would have thought.

same!!!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[drhealer]

Speaking of peer-reviewed publications, does not having a pub in a well-known journal hurt you? Idk if "hurt" is the right word but what I'm trying to say is - can it make a positive difference in your app? I have four publications but none of them are in reputable journals like Nature or Cell (we def tried but couldn't get accepted :/) They are all in mid-tier and low-tier journals. Thoughts?

 

[Dogruffle01]

Speaking of peer-reviewed publications, does not having a pub in a well-known journal hurt you? Idk if "hurt" is the right word but what I'm trying to say is - can it make a positive difference in your app? I have four publications but none of them are in reputable journals like Nature or Cell (we def tried but couldn't get accepted :/) They are all in mid-tier and low-tier journals. Thoughts?

Ehh I wouldn’t get caught up in it. Few people have pubs in Nature. I’m in the same boat with like 4 pubs in a journal with an IF of 5. I think , as an undergrad, you can’t really expect much more.

 

[caffeinatedbiochemist]

Is it bad to submit their secondary in a month from receiving?

 

[Angkorgo]

Is it bad to submit their secondary in a month from receiving?

It's so early in the cycle that I don't think this would be an issue at all... if one receives the secondary in September, however, I would move more swiftly...

 

[MD-PhD-NonTrad]

Application Management

apply.knight-hennessy.stanford.edu

If anyone marked they are applying to Knight Henessy, the portal is open now.

 

[deleted555445]

Application Management

apply.knight-hennessy.stanford.edu

If anyone marked they are applying to Knight Henessy, the portal is open now.

Stop it. No one wants to write more essays.

 

[Zuggelder]

Are these first author pubs? I have 4 first author pubs but they are in field-specific journals with an IF of 2-4 so I lack any very high impact work which is something I am a bit concerned about. Do you think that first author pubs in lower-tier journals are preferable to mid-author pubs in higher tier journals?

IMO, first author pubs in “lower tier” journals are better than middle author in high impact because it shows you can lead and execute a research project. Luck may have been involved for people who got those high IF pubs.

By the way, are your four papers clinical research? Or basic wet lab research?

 

[Zuggelder]

All four of my papers are clinical epidemiology research. I assume as far as showing an ability to lead and execute projects goes that doesn’t make too much of a difference though?

Yeah, I figured those first author pubs were clinical. IMO, it doesn’t make a difference that you executed a clinical paper vs a basic science paper, but do keep in mind that adcoms value research that is hypothesis based and rooted in the scientific method.
If your clinical papers are hypothesis driven, then you’re golden. If the papers are just numbers crunching and reporting, with no intervention treatments, then it’s not as great, but still pretty darn good.

 

[Dogruffle01]

Are these first author pubs? I have 4 first author pubs but they are in field-specific journals with an IF of 2-4 so I lack any very high impact work which is something I am a bit concerned about. Do you think that first author pubs in lower-tier journals are preferable to mid-author pubs in higher tier journals?

Those are all mid authors. 1 first author paper , ( let alone 4) is outstanding for an undergrad . I would say less than 1% of applicants have 2+ first author pubs.

 

[jojofu]

Are these first author pubs? I have 4 first author pubs but they are in field-specific journals with an IF of 2-4 so I lack any very high impact work which is something I am a bit concerned about. Do you think that first author pubs in lower-tier journals are preferable to mid-author pubs in higher tier journals?

You have 4 first-author pubs and you are concerned? Really?

 

[212kindofgal]

Today someone from Stanford University School of Medicine viewed my LinkedIn profile. Not sure if this is a good thing lmao

 

[Zuggelder]

Today someone from Stanford University School of Medicine viewed my LinkedIn profile. Not sure if this is a good thing lmao

Yeah, it's pretty common for schools to look up people's internet presence. It probably means you're currently under review and your Stanford reviewer decided to look you up. It's probably a habit some reviewers have.

 

[212kindofgal]

Yeah, it's pretty common for schools to look up people's internet presence. It probably means you're currently under review and your Stanford reviewer decided to look you up. It's probably a habit some reviewers have.

I thought so. Ngl it made me go private on all socmed accts immediately lmao. I wish they send Rs right away if they decide not to interview us instead of keeping us in limbo for the entire year….

 

[deleted1080380]

Yeah, I figured those first author pubs were clinical. IMO, it doesn’t make a difference that you executed a clinical paper vs a basic science paper, but do keep in mind that adcoms value research that is hypothesis based and rooted in the scientific method.
If your clinical papers are hypothesis driven, then you’re golden. If the papers are just numbers crunching and reporting, with no intervention treatments, then it’s not as great, but still pretty darn good.

Assuming you're referring to MSTP (or research driven apps) then the difference between a clinical paper and science paper is absolutely important.

Not to be crude but anyone (literally anyone) can pump out clinical research. On the other hand, in some basic science labs, it can take months and even years before you can competently participate and provide meaningful impact. There are some cases where this is easier (see some bio labs) but for things like biomedical engineering, you have to have a rigorous understanding to contribute meaningfully.

As someone whose done both, I can't really draw much from my clinical research. Like, honestly nothing. I studied health disparities and essentially spent 6 months in a lab and published 2 papers all of which told me that black and latinos have worst treatment and outcomes than white and asians for a certain illness. Cool but like...nothing we didn't already know, and I'm literally contributing nothing to society.

Meanwhile in my gap year and latter years of undergrad I worked in a biomed engineering lab where I did nothing for the first year, then later worked alongside a PhD on his project. The project took 2 years to publish (not abnormal for this type of work) and I got 3rd author. Published in a 20+ IF journal. IMO from both experiences, this pub was worth an indefinite amount of the clinical ones I could have kept pumping out.

I think many people like to point out "luck" in pubs like these but that is the far minority. A lot of these PIs know how much work goes into a work like this and are pretty stingy about crediting who actually deserves it, especially at the strong unis.

Even if that isn't the case, your PI LoR will sniff out any BS.

Edit: re-reading that I kind of **** on clinical research as a whole, which I didn't mean to. There's plenty of respectable works. That was just my experience and what I've heard from some AOs on the topic.

 

[Zuggelder]

Assuming you're referring to MSTP (or research driven apps) then the difference between a clinical paper and science paper is absolutely important.

Not to be crude but anyone (literally anyone) can pump out clinical research. On the other hand, in some basic science labs, it can take months and even years before you can competently participate and provide meaningful impact. There are some cases where this is easier (see some bio labs) but for things like biomedical engineering, you have to have a rigorous understanding to contribute meaningfully.

As someone whose done both, I can't really draw much from my clinical research. Like, honestly nothing. I studied health disparities and essentially spent 6 months in a lab and published 2 papers all of which told me that black and latinos have worst treatment and outcomes than white and asians for a certain illness. Cool but like...nothing we didn't already know, and I'm literally contributing nothing to society.

Meanwhile in my gap year and latter years of undergrad I worked in a biomed engineering lab where I did nothing for the first year, then later worked alongside a PhD on his project. The project took 2 years to publish (not abnormal for this type of work) and I got 3rd author. Published in a 20+ IF journal. IMO from both experiences, this pub was worth an indefinite amount of the clinical ones I could have kept pumping out.

I think many people like to point out "luck" in pubs like these but that is the far minority. A lot of these PIs know how much work goes into a work like this and are pretty stingy about crediting who actually deserves it, especially at the strong unis.

Even if that isn't the case, your PI LoR will sniff out any BS.

Edit: re-reading that I kind of **** on clinical research as a whole, which I didn't mean to. There's plenty of respectable works. That was just my experience and what I've heard from some AOs on the topic.

Hey! I specifically said if the clinical papers were "hypothesis based and rooted in the scientific method," the person would be fine. What you're describing and bemoaning is numbers crunching clinical reports, which I agree is not as good as wet lab research. Notice how I asked whether his/her 4 papers were clinical or basic science? I "figured" that the 4 first author papers were likely not wet lab research and wanted to make sure.

 

[deleted1080380]

Hey! I specifically said if the clinical papers were "hypothesis based and rooted in the scientific method," the person would be fine. What you're describing and bemoaning is numbers crunching clinical reports, which I agree is not as good as wet lab research. Notice how I asked whether his/her 4 papers were clinical or basic science? I "figured" that the 4 first author papers were likely not wet lab research and wanted to make sure.

I mean I would hesitate with this one because you can pass a lot of number crunching clinical research as 'hypothesis-driven.' Generally if you're able to publish frequently in low tier journals, it's probably aligning with the stereotypical 'clinical' research, especially if it's a scenario where you are routinely being denied from more prestigious or otherwise impactful journals.

Nothing against you though. I just quoted you generally, not to counter you or anything (sorry if it came off that way).

For the purposes of MD I don't really think they care, though. The person in question with 4 clinical pubs will be looked at positively, though probably not as good as someone with some 'mid author pubs' in high IF journals for basic science. At least for MSTP, many know the caliber needed to publish stuff like this as a first author. It's usually not feasible for most basic science labs (undergrad) barring 2-4 year commitments in a single lab, which most undergrads lack the time and motivation to commit towards.

 

[Zuggelder]

I mean I would hesitate with this one because you can pass a lot of number crunching clinical research as 'hypothesis-driven.' Generally if you're able to publish frequently in low tier journals, it's probably aligning with the stereotypical 'clinical' research, especially if it's a scenario where you are routinely being denied from more prestigious or otherwise impactful journals.

Nothing against you though. I just quoted you generally, not to counter you or anything (sorry if it came off that way).

For the purposes of MD I don't really think they care, though. The person in question with 4 clinical pubs will be looked at positively, though probably not as good as someone with some 'mid author pubs' in high IF journals for basic science. At least for MSTP, many know the caliber needed to publish stuff like this as a first author. It's usually not feasible for most basic science labs (undergrad) barring 2-4 year commitments in a single lab, which most undergrads lack the time and motivation to commit towards.

Yeah, I completely agree.

In fact, I would be in complete shock if an applicant designed, executed, and wrote up a true hypothesis-driven clinical trial (w/ actual treatment groups) with significant results. You would for sure need an MD degree to do that. It would be rarer than an undergrad with a first author basic research pub.

 

[deleted555445]

Yeah, I completely agree.

In fact, I would be in complete shock if an applicant designed, executed, and wrote up a true hypothesis-driven clinical trial (w/ actual treatment groups) with significant results. You would for sure need an MD degree to do that. It would be rarer than an undergrad with a first author basic research pub.

Lol or work for a biotech startup and be the only one to volunteer to do all that work. I'm writing my second clinical protocol rn for a new trial starting next year, publishing data from the first sometime this fall. The CSO's name goes on the protocol, but you know that dude hasn't been around in years.

 

[deleted1080380]

Yeah, I completely agree.

In fact, I would be in complete shock if an applicant designed, executed, and wrote up a true hypothesis-driven clinical trial (w/ actual treatment groups) with significant results. You would for sure need an MD degree to do that. It would be rarer than an undergrad with a first author basic research pub.

Lol or work for a biotech startup and be the only one to volunteer to do all that work. I'm writing my second clinical protocol rn for a new trial starting next year, publishing data from the first sometime this fall. The CSO's name goes on the protocol, but you know that dude hasn't been around in years.

I would separate clinical trails from typical undergraduate clinical research. I think they are completely different.

Again I think it's important to have perspective here. Even at Stanford, half of the acceptees have zero publications (MD it seems). I really don't think they mind. Anyone with 4 pubs, unless in predatory journals, has already checked the 'above and beyond' benchmark for pure MD.

 

[MD-PhD-NonTrad]

Lol or work for a biotech startup and be the only one to volunteer to do all that work. I'm writing my second clinical protocol rn for a new trial starting next year, publishing data from the first sometime this fall. The CSO's name goes on the protocol, but you know that dude hasn't been around in years.

PREACH.

 

[deleted1080380]

Luckily, in my particular case, one of the publications describes the results of a true hypothesis-driven trial with a intervention and another describes the results of its pilot study. The other two are descriptive epidemiological papers that are certainly more of the plug n chug variety.

I agree that 'clinical research' describes a rather large range of activities that are probably viewed with varying degrees of favorability. On top of that, I think that it is hard to make a true comparison between first author clinical research pubs in mid-tier journals and mid author basic science pubs in high-tier journals without knowing the exact details of either situation which would / will likely come out during an interview. In trying to compare the two I also think it makes a huge difference if by 'mid author' we mean 2nd or 3rd author or if we mean 8th author out of 20.

Makes sense. And before I forget to mention, congratulations! Sounds like cool work now that you described it a bit more

I think interviews do make the difference though, and PI letters. I think you said "8th out of 20" as a joke but for plenty of multi-year, rigorous studies in basic science across multiple disciplines, 15-20 authors might be completely valid.

 

[lostmed]

Hi everyone, hope you are well and not too stressed!
I was wondering if anyone knew if there was a Knights-Hennessy Scholars thread for this cycle? I am not sure I am overlooking anything and wanted to be sure! Thank you!

 

[caffeinatedbiochemist]

for the advocacy question did any of you talk about more than one experience?

 

[caffeinatedbiochemist]

For the prior application page, are you guys choosing all that apply and talking about it each category or just talking about either research, employment, or volunteer work that made the most significant difference between prior and current application?

 

[MD-PhD-NonTrad]

For the prior application page, are you guys choosing all that apply and talking about it each category or just talking about either research, employment, or volunteer work that made the most significant difference between prior and current application?

If you have significant improvements in each category, I would try to address each of them as meaningfully as you can. If one of them is mentioned in another essay, don’t bother

 

[deleted1080380]

Heard down the line that some II's were sent out this morning. This is my alma mater and were also alma mater for the sources, but am still unsure. Anyone heard anything?

 

[redsky2000]

When does Stanford usually start giving out IIs?

 

[MichaelScott23]

When does Stanford usually start giving out IIs?

Says August in MSAR, so could be any day now

 

[Kmani6]

Stanford only allows updates post II.

 

[premed-int'l]

Any IIs yet?

 

[yokiguz]

Any IIs yet?

I promise within minutes of IIs people will post it on this thread.

 

[KnightDoc]

I promise within minutes of IIs people will post it on this thread.

You mean, like every other thread??

 

[deleted1080380]

I'm pretty sure they sent out II's but maybe it was like an only-URM or high admit chance thing like Harvard did. I have...semi-reliable (i hope) sources as it's my alma mater. I made a comment here a while ago about it.

 

[throwaway01564]

I'm pretty sure they sent out II's but maybe it was like an only-URM or high admit chance thing like Harvard did. I have...semi-reliable (i hope) sources as it's my alma mater. I made a comment here a while ago about it.

I haven't seen anything in the actual threads about anyone receiving IIs for these schools asides from these supposed occurrences, so I'm inclined to not believe tbh.

 

[star-lily]

You mean, like every other thread??

Actually though!! People don't hesitate (myself included)

 

[deleted1080380]

I haven't seen anything in the actual threads about anyone receiving IIs for these schools asides from these supposed occurrences, so I'm inclined to not believe tbh.

Yeah I mean it doesn't matter, in the slightest, for us. We'll see soon enough

 

[CiderChill]

Just received my Casper results - scored in the bottom quartile. Does anyone know how badly this hurts my application? I'm pretty good everywhere else i.e. MCAT, GPA, ECs, and I have a published paper in Viruses from my undergraduate research. However, I am an international student. Pretty concerned, although trying not to be.

 

[NormalUsername42]

Just received my Casper results - scored in the bottom quartile. Does anyone know how badly this hurts my application? I'm pretty good everywhere else i.e. MCAT, GPA, ECs, and I have a published paper in Viruses from my undergraduate research. However, I am an international student. Pretty concerned, although trying not to be.

I didn't think Stanford even asked for CASPer

 

[CiderChill]

I didn't think Stanford even asked for CASPer

It doesn't clearly my brain is fogged with worry. I meant to post under SUNY, but was following Stanford for updates on IIs.

 

[nicesecrets]

Is there anyone else who applied to Stanford and has not even gotten a secondary yet? The only two schools I have not received secondaries from are UCSF and Stanford. Was verified on 07/25. Thanks!

 

[nicesecrets]

Is there anyone else who applied to Stanford and has not even gotten a secondary yet? The only two schools I have not received secondaries from are UCSF and Stanford. Was verified on 07/25. Thanks!

I finally got the secondary!

 

[coolcucumber04]

Does anyone know if you can opt out of applying for Knight-Hennessey after you've already submitted your secondary?

 

[lostmed]

Does anyone know if you can opt out of applying for Knight-Hennessey after you've already submitted your secondary?

I believe if you checked the box on your secondary but are no longer interested, you just don’t have to apply? I believe that was the consensus on old threads.

 

[coolcucumber04]

okay that's what i thought, thanks! would it affect the order in which my app is reviewed? i heard somewhere that they don't send out IIs for people applying to KH until like after they've submitted their KH app if they've selected the option

 

[Sapphia]

okay that's what i thought, thanks! would it affect the order in which my app is reviewed? i heard somewhere that they don't send out IIs for people applying to KH until like after they've submitted their KH app if they've selected the option

I just listened to an info session on the KH Scholars program. While they didn’t say specifically, I got the Impression that applying to KH might trigger an expedited review of the SOM application because KH sends out invites for the video submission in December and interviews in January (I think) and I don’t think you progress to this point unless you’ve been accepted to your grad program. Also - they do mention that some schools have a special earlier deadline for those applying to KH. 🤷‍♀️

Can anybody corroborate this?

 

[abcdedcba]

Check my comment earlier in this thread for my anecdotal past experience with KH/SOM in a previous cycle.

 

[babybluee]

Just saw a few II's on the interview tracker. Anyone else get one? Trying to manifest it lol

 

[dolphinlover99]

Does anyone know if Stanford has officially started sending interviews?

 

[Dogruffle01]

Just got one today ! Complete 7/16