Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the preferences and productivity of participating in Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs) versus conducting research at one's home institution. Participants explore the benefits and drawbacks of each option, considering factors such as networking, productivity, and personal circumstances.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Exploratory
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants suggest that research at one's home institution may be more productive due to the ability to work on a project for an extended period.
- Others argue that REUs provide valuable networking opportunities and are viewed favorably by professors during applications.
- One participant mentions that starting research at their home institution helped them secure a choice of REU programs the following year.
- A participant expresses satisfaction with their home research, noting the potential for publication and conference presentations, while contemplating whether to apply to more REUs for exposure to new fields.
- Another participant prefers to apply to various REUs to work with different professors and gain diverse experiences, emphasizing the importance of networking and recommendation letters.
- One participant advises that for rising sophomores or juniors, staying at the home institution might be more productive, especially if they have already spent previous summers there.
- Concerns are raised about the variability of productivity at REUs, which may depend on the student's commitment, project specifics, and mentor involvement.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing opinions on the merits of REUs versus home institution research, with no clear consensus on which option is definitively better. The discussion highlights multiple competing views regarding productivity, networking, and personal development.
Contextual Notes
Some participants note that their decisions are influenced by their previous experiences and the specific opportunities available at their institutions, which may affect the generalizability of their claims.