Finding the balance:Grades vs Research Experience

[madshiver]

In order to give a quick background: I am a first-year university student. So far pretty much all I have been doing is to study from textbooks, solve problems, etc. Thus I have been able to attain A's in all exams so far. Yet, the question pops up whether it would be more beneficial (beyond the fun factor) to also get involved in a lab(be it as a volunteer or paid). The obvious downfall is the hit the grades would take from such a move and I am not really sure I can accurately assess what my best choice would be.

(I do intend to get research experience during the summer, so my question pertains to this parallel undertaking throughout the term. Also to avoid possible confusion, I am in Germany which means that the term just started and will end around the ~30th of July.)

Of course I'd also like to hear general advice in regards to setting priorities and finding a balance throughout one's years in university. (I really haven't managed to add social interactions, sports etc. into this whole set of equations, which I am afraid could lead to a burnout, although I doubt this could be the case.)

 

[fss]

Whatever you do, remember that "research/work experience" rarely flies as an excuse for poor grades. The best students will be able to do both.

 

[jowens1988]

I concur with fss. You shouldn't be spending so much time in the lab that it is dropping your grades in any noticeable way. Balancing the two shouldn't be too difficult, you will just have to shave off a little free time.

If you are considering becoming some sort of experimentalist, or just wondering what it would be like, getting experience in a real research lab is extremely important. I think that lab work can sometimes be glamorized, but you will spend a lot of time re-running the same experiments, redoing the same processes, and tweaking parameters, because the procedure hasn't been established in a nice way like it has in your lab classes.

Additionally, graduate schools and jobs will prefer someone who was real research experience. If you do well in both, that will be a plus for you.

 

[johng23]

Don't overload yourself so much that you can't even have a social life. Preparing for your career is important, of course, but these are also your college years. In your first year you don't need to be worrying so much. If the only way you can get into a good grad school is by completely sacrificing other aspects of life, then by the same token you will probably be sacrificing the same aspects of life to make it through grad school. Maybe you'll have a better career but I doubt you'll be happy. Just remember that there's no such thing as success if you're not enjoying your time...

 

[Simfish]

There are cases when EXCEPTIONAL research experience *and* EXCEPTIONAL recommendations can make up for poor grades IF AND ONLY IF your professors are WELL-connected with the professors in the schools you're applying for. This is most likely to happen in top research fields in small departments and small research areas where professors do talk to each other a lot (and the atmospheric science department here at UWashington may be one of the only places where this really is the case, since so few undergrads here do research) - when professors talk to each other a lot, you can get multiple recommendations off one continuing research project.

I've heard that this is a lot more common in the biology department, where there are students with sub-3.5 GPAs who do get in top schools (key thing is to choose one lab and stick with it for 3 years). BUT if you have a fallout with your advisor or change your research interests, you're completely screwed.

The thing with atmospheric science and biology is that there are often so few analytically-competent students who are interested in any particular subfield, so that any reasonably intelligent + determined person has a chance if they can maintain their interest in the field for several years (and so that they're not competing against hordes of applicants with top GPAs+GRE scores + research experience).

In most cases, though, you're much safer off sacrificing research for grades, if you have to choose between the two.

 

[physics girl phd]

There are cases when EXCEPTIONAL research experience *and* EXCEPTIONAL recommendations can make up for poor grades IF AND ONLY IF your professors are WELL-connected with the professors in the schools you're applying for. ...

In most cases, though, you're much safer off sacrificing research for grades, if you have to choose between the two.

I tend to concur here. Graduate selections committees are also looking to be sure you can pass your preliminary "core" coursework. I remember once rejecting a student with an REU recommendation from an REU that the student did at OUR institution (and with a recent Nobel laureate at that!) because the students HOME university grades were low. Ouch. (Note that we'd become a pretty competitive institution in that area of research, and lots of other students with good research experience, publications AND good grades also expressed an interest in that field.)

 

[madshiver]

Despite those insightful replies, I am still not really sure where the line should be drawn. So, although it is clear that research generally can't make up for bad grades, how much does it help? For example would it be worth it to sacrifice a 3.9-4.0 GPA for a 3.7 one in order to also get some extra research experience?

I do realize that all of this depends on the whole package and the university one applies to, but I'd just like to have a rough idea.

 

[Simfish]

Despite those insightful replies, I am still not really sure where the line should be drawn. So, although it is clear that research generally can't make up for bad grades, how much does it help? For example would it be worth it to sacrifice a 3.9-4.0 GPA for a 3.7 one in order to also get some extra research experience?

Yes definitely. No one cares whether you have 3.9 or 3.7. It's when it gets below that when people start taking issues (at least in physics). Math is more GPA-obsessive, and the other sciences have lower psychological cutoffs (biology in particular, as well as Earth science, since it gets many of its strongest students from physics majors whose GPAs may not be as high as the others)

It's quite amazing to see how many people with 3.9s get rejected by numerous schools (on the physicsgre.com website) because they didn't have enough of the other things like research and PGRE scores.

 

[Choppy]

Despite those insightful replies, I am still not really sure where the line should be drawn. So, although it is clear that research generally can't make up for bad grades, how much does it help? For example would it be worth it to sacrifice a 3.9-4.0 GPA for a 3.7 one in order to also get some extra research experience?

I do realize that all of this depends on the whole package and the university one applies to, but I'd just like to have a rough idea.

I would say no. Grades are quantitative. Research experience is going to be evaluated in a subjective manner. Thus, it *might* make up for a drop in grades. It also might not.

I think if you are seriously considering graduate school you should attempt to get some research experience. One of the best ways of doing this is to work over the summer so that you're not competing with study time. But if you end up doing it during an academic semester, it doesn't automatically mean your grades will slip. You can't spend all your time with your nose in the books and getting minimum wage to do research is better than minimum wage for flipping burgers.

Generally speaking, I would put the brakes on as soon as there is clear evidence your grades are starting to slip because of time you're spending on research.

 

[Simfish]

Yeah, well, the thing is, it depends on the schools that you're most interested in, and whether these schools correspond to schools with professors who are *close* with the professors *you* work with (also the more professors from those departments, obviously, then the better). Basically, if you have a low GPA, you're pretty much restricted to applying only to schools with professors who are close to the professors you work with (although a good enough LOR + available research positions can land you an good chance at one of these schools).

I might say that if you sacrifice GPA for research, the *variance* in your outcomes will increase. There's a greater chance that there will be someone who REALLY wants you, but at the same time, your application might be discarded at other schools

Also, truly good research does take time (seriously, professors don't restrict their research to the summer - you simply can't do a project that results in a first-author paper in a major scientific journal that way), and sometimes that time must be done through the school year. That being said, some schools do let you take research credits, which are often automatic 4.0s

 

[Simfish]

Might I also add that you should probably ONLY sacrifice grades for research if you're doing research that you REALLY want to do (as opposed to doing research because you feel like you HAVE to do research - it seems that most undergrads who do research now are only doing it because they feel like they have to do it) - it's simply much easier to be an effective researcher when you're doing something you're genuinely interested in.

Also, in the case of biology, I highly suspect that they don't care about GPA as much because there aren't really "core courses" in all of biology that you have to pass first. Rather, you only have to take core courses in your field of interest (and only a few of your major-specific undergrad courses will be relevant). Whereas with physics/math, you do have to do "core courses" where ALL your major-specific undergrad courses are relevant.

 

[twofish-quant]

Yet, the question pops up whether it would be more beneficial (beyond the fun factor) to also get involved in a lab(be it as a volunteer or paid). The obvious downfall is the hit the grades would take from such a move and I am not really sure I can accurately assess what my best choice would be.

It depends on how much the hit is. If you are talking about moving from a 4.0 to a 3.8, then yes research would be useful. If you are talking about moving from a 4.0 to a 3.0, then this would be bad.

Also, you really should get involved in undergraduate research because that will tell you whether or not you want to be in graduate school at all. If you start doing undergraduate research, and then you find that you hate it, the sooner you find out the better, since at that point you can think of doing things other than applying to graduate school.

Also to avoid possible confusion, I am in Germany which means that the term just started and will end around the ~30th of July.)

Note that the above applies to the US.

 

[twofish-quant]

it's simply much easier to be an effective researcher when you're doing something you're genuinely interested in.

On the other hand, if you are finding research a pain, then you seriously, seriously need to reconsider whether you want to go to graduate school at all.

 

[twofish-quant]

In most cases, though, you're much safer off sacrificing research for grades, if you have to choose between the two.

Strongly, strongly disagree.

If you are in a situation where research kills your GPA (i.e. goes from 4.0->3.0 rather than from 3.9->3.7) then you should reconsider whether or not you want to go to graduate school.

The most important part of undergraduate research is not to help you to get into graduate school, but rather to let you know if you should even try at all.

 

[Simfish]

Well, the thing is, not all research is really the same. I didn't find any of the research I did to be very stimulating until now, but I'm now extremely excited over my latest research project (3D models of exoplanetary atmospheres) - and find that to be extremely stimulating. Plus, now that the new professors I'll work with are connected with other professors in the new field, I'll most likely continue in it for grad school