3-year MD programs: how will they match?

[virchow?]

Hi all,
As some of you may be aware, the Medical College of Wisconsin has opened regional campuses in Green Bay, WI and Wausau, WI, which train MD's with a 3-year program. You can read more about it on their website if you are interested.
MCW, Mercer, Texas Tech, NYU, UC-Davis, and LECOM (osteopathic) are among the only US schools to provide a 3-year curriculum option. What makes MCW unique (at least as far as I can tell from my personal research on the subject) is that most other 3-year programs are, for the most part, already lined up for a particular residency position from the time they enroll in medical school. They don't do the whole residency interview process during their 4th year.
I am wondering if anyone has heard or read anything about residency matching for 3-year programs? For those of you who have matched or are familiar with the process, are there any concerns you would have with applying for residency during a 3-year program (other than the lack of time that M4's typically spend applying)?
It would be great if there was data out there about how MCW-GB matches, but their M1 class is currently in their first year, so sadly that is not the case.
Thanks for your input, y'all!

For the record, while you are probably great and have great ideas and opinions, I would appreciate it if this thread kept to the topic at hand, so please no unsolicited opinions about the in/adequacy of 3-yr med ed. TY.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ChrisMack390]

It's a little odd that they don't do sub-Is, which is where LORs for residency match usually come from. At the same time, it isn't as if MCW doesn't know about that. They will probably just get the letters from their regular rotation attendings. If that's the case, they should match fine.

 

[gyngyn]

It's hard enough to go through the Match process with 4 years to work with (even with excellent students).
The competion has gotten so fierce for many specialties that a 5th year of research is becoming more common!

 

[order66.exe]

I know for NYU you interview for a residency spot after you are accepted but before you matriculate. You are guaranteed a spot in an NYU residency assuming you pass everything satisfactorily.

 

[virchow?]

It's hard enough to go through the Match process with 4 years to work with (even with excellent students).
The competion has gotten so fierce for many specialties that a 5th year of research is becoming more common!

Good point. MCW-GB trains exclusively for primary care and gen surg, though, so it wouldn't be a good choice for anyone hoping to go into more competitive residencies in the first place.

I know for NYU you interview for a residency spot after you are accepted but before you matriculate. You are guaranteed a spot in an NYU residency assuming you pass everything satisfactorily.

Right...different from MCW-GB :/ Students will enter the regular match.

 

[allantois]

It's hard enough to go through the Match process with 4 years to work with (even with excellent students).
The competion has gotten so fierce for many specialties that a 5th year of research is becoming more common!

So, the new norm seems to be to take two gap years to get into med school and a research year to get into a specialty. No wonder midlevels are pushing their argument of ineffective training.

*I'm not criticizing the system per se; it is what it is given the competitiveness and sheer number of applicants that it enjoys.

 

[ilg1]

bump

 

[ridethecliche]

It's hard enough to go through the Match process with 4 years to work with (even with excellent students).
The competion has gotten so fierce for many specialties that a 5th year of research is becoming more common!

What do you think about this trend for all but the most competitive specialties? Do you see any way to curtail it because at a certain point, I feel like it's pretty useless and a collosal waste of time for many applicants forced into it. Then again, I feel like it rarely impacts the 'not so competitive' specialties.

 

[KinesiologyNerd]

It used to be 3 years so...

 

[LizzyM]

This may be the way to solve the PCP shortage... with three years, the matches will be for family medicine, eh?

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

I'd imagine 3 year grads aren't super competitive, but isn't the point of the 3 year program to get people into primary care fields? The majority of those residencies aren't crazy competitive anyway.

 

[DKMA]

*I'm not criticizing the system per se; it is what it is given the competitiveness and sheer number of applicants that it enjoys.

I would criticize it. It would be pointless when the majority of phyisicians will not be involved in research and residencies already incorporate research. Plus, students with higher debtloads will be discouraged from accruing additional debt wasting time on research, which will just add another advantage for wealthier students.

I read a good comment on (I think) KevinMD where a phyisician said that the hubris of doctors and their unwillingness to innovate medical education will drive the field into the ground and how that has allowed the rise of mid-level providers. I can definitely see where that comment is coming from

 

[virchow?]

This may be the way to solve the PCP shortage... with three years, the matches will be for family medicine, eh?

Is this a question, or a statement?

I'd imagine 3 year grads aren't super competitive, but isn't the point of the 3 year program to get people into primary care fields? The majority of those residencies aren't crazy competitive anyway.

Do you mind sharing why you don't think 3-year grads wouldn't be competitive. Yes, the point is to train PCPs. For individuals interested in PC, what would stop them from getting matched at a more competitive PC residency?

 

[ridethecliche]

This may be the way to solve the PCP shortage... with three years, the matches will be for family medicine, eh?

If the argument is that you can train MD's in 3 years to be PCP's then imho that only bolsters the argument that NP's can be more than competent GP's with a residency.

The correct answer, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

I would criticize it. It would be pointless when the majority of phyisicians will not be involved in research and residencies already incorporate research. Plus, students with higher debtloads will be discouraged from accruing additional debt wasting time on research, which will just add another advantage for wealthier students.

I read a good comment on (I think) KevinMD where a phyisician said that the hubris of doctors and their unwillingness to innovate medical education will drive the field into the ground and how that has allowed the rise of mid-level providers. I can definitely see where that comment is coming from

Agreed. How much has nursing changed in the last few decades? Why aren't there more research track and practice track programs? If you decide you want to do research 'late' in the game, then spend that additional year or two doing it. Right now the system lumps everyone together in a pretty bizarre way. I see why it is that way, but that doesn't mean it's the best way.

Is this a question, or a statement?

Do you mind sharing why you don't think 3-year grads wouldn't be competitive. Yes, the point is to train PCPs. For individuals interested in PC, what would stop them from getting matched at a more competitive PC residency?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[MatthewDamon]

I saw some of the 3 year grads from NYU go into really competitive specialties.

 

[ilg1]

As an old nontrad pretty set on the field of psychiatry, I guess my main fear with the 3 year MD program is that residency directors at competitive programs on the east coast (ex: MA & NY) will discard my application despite solid metrics. Some of these programs do have a mandatory community based research project and in comparison to a 4 year md program (at least for MCW) time in lectures/clinicals is about a ~18 week difference.

 

[virchow?]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Surely getting a residency in a desired location and/or at a prestigious institution is more competitive?

As an old nontrad pretty set on the field of psychiatry, I guess my main fear with the 3 year program is that residency directors at competitive programs on the east coast (ex: MA & NY) will discard my application despite solid metrics. Some of these programs do have a mandatory community based research project and in comparison to a 4 year md program (at least for MCW) time in lectures/clinicals is about a ~18 week difference.

By "some of these programs" do you mean residencies or 3-year med schools? The ~18 week difference is the space where specialty/elective rotations usually happen.

 

[ilg1]

By "some of these programs" do you mean residencies or 3-year med schools? The ~18 week difference is the space where specialty/elective rotations usually happen.

Oh yeah, I should have worded it better, I was referring to 3 year medical schools such as MCW-GB.

 

[DKMA]

I saw some of the 3 year grads from NYU go into really competitive specialties.

I think at NYU you specify your specialty when you apply to med school and you go to NYU's residency program (they may have a free-standing program where you don't decide your specialty right away?). And Dr. Grossman (dean of NYU Med) wrote an article recently about how med school can be reduced to 3 yrs without compromising the quality of education and without financially harming schools, so they might end up trying to pioneer a school-wide 3 yr curriculum

 

[gyngyn]

What do you think about this trend for all but the most competitive specialties? Do you see any way to curtail it because at a certain point, I feel like it's pretty useless and a collosal waste of time for many applicants forced into it. Then again, I feel like it rarely impacts the 'not so competitive' specialties.

The strong candidates don't need the extra year and it doesn't help the weak ones. I've seen strong candidates not match (even with a productive year)!
The exceptions where I think it may have made a difference are Ophthalmology, and Otolaryngology.

 

[ridethecliche]

Surely getting a residency in a desired location and/or at a prestigious institution is more competitive?

It's still FM though... What sets people apart is board scores, sure, but more likely related to research interests etc. It's just a hilarious argument to make.

The strong candidates don't need the extra year and it doesn't help the weak ones. I've seen strong candidates not match (even with a productive year)!
The exceptions where I think it may have made a difference are Ophthalmology, and Otolaryngology.

I'm guessing Ortho and Plastics as well.

And the 'strong candidates not matching' bit is the same for residency as it is for med school. Though I suppose this can be more crushing especially if your home institution doesn't have the program, which many often don't.

 

[DokterMom]

This may be the way to solve the PCP shortage... with three years, the matches will be for family medicine, eh?

Agreed - I'm thinking that a "package deal" program consisting of a 3-yr med school curriculum combined with an assigned slot from a predefined group of residencies -- ex. rural primary care (mini-match within the program to pair applicants with slots) and substantial (total?) loan forgiveness could be an effective way to recruit more PCPs. Significant financial penalties for those who bail.

Accept applicants to the 'package' or to the school at large. I'm thinking many waitlist slots could be saved until the spring and still find plenty of well-qualified applicants for whom this would be their only acceptance.

Just day-dreaming, but ... what do you think SDN?

 

[DKMA]

IMHO, these extra years for research or extra degrees are driven much more by the desires of the modern (i.e. "Millennial") student to have a decelerated track with more flexibility to <travel, do iron mans, bike across Asia, etc> than anything else.

Even if you accept that they are necessary, thus speaks more to the strong desire of students to avoid primary care fields, such that they would self-incur the extra time and debt to accomplish that goal.

Your status says that you are a resident. Millenials are generally people born 1981-1996, are you included in that?

I don't know why you are making this a millenial matter anyways when it's more likely just about the competition and people not wanting to go into primary care.

 

[DKMA]

Yes, and I watched many of my classmates take research years to do things exactly like I said above. People in my/our generation have this silly desire to "find themselves" and seem to think life should take a convenient pause while they do so. It's contributed tremendously to the rise in gap years as premeds and extra years as med students.

Well then you'll be happy to know that I took 2 gaps years because I couldn't afford to apply to med school without the money from the first year. No finding myself here. Just a few thousand hours commuting to my full-time research job (on my 2 hr train ride right now).

Most of the people I know took gaps years for the money and to increase their competitiveness, so we might just be around different people

 

[justadream]

Alternatively, a "3 year track" student could do TWO research years (or get TWO additional degrees) and thus have achieved more in 5 years than the traditional 4+1 student.

 

[Danbo1957]

The strong candidates don't need the extra year and it doesn't help the weak ones.

We have a winner!

As I mentioned somewhere else on this forum, my older brother graduated med-school in three years (1978-1981) and went into neurosurgery at the same program. A three year program should be the norm for those who are willing to decide on a specialty prior to matriculation . The NYU program basically avoids the modern Match (education is "integrated" from start to finish-- like it was done thirty years-ago and before).

 

[DKMA]

What a shocker. Newbie gets offended because they can't see generalities beyond themselves and takes everything personally.

Nah, not offended. I'm counteracting your generalities with generalities of my own. I've seen more people get angry about needing to take a gap year for whatever reason than I have seen people willingly take one to find themselves. But this is getting off topic

 

[Spector1]

I thought the nyu 3 year folks usually match to their own home program

 

[gyngyn]

We have a winner!

As I mentioned somewhere else on this forum, my older brother graduated med-school in three years (1978-1981) and went into neurosurgery at the same program. A three year program should be the norm for those who are willing to decide on a specialty prior to matriculation . The NYU program basically avoids the modern Match (education is "integrated" from start to finish-- like it was done thirty years-ago and before).

I was referring to a 5th research year...

 

[ridethecliche]

Yes, and I watched many of my classmates take research years to do things exactly like I said above. People in my/our generation have this silly desire to "find themselves" and seem to think life should take a convenient pause while they do so. It's contributed tremendously to the rise in gap years as premeds and extra years as med students.

Wait, hold the presses!

You're saying that they chose to do things for themselves when they were young, had little in the name of responsibility to anyone other than themselves, and had the health to do so? Maybe people had different priorities than you did.

Woah!

Also, you sound a bit bitter, no? I'm confused why you seem to be speaking so negatively about those that decided to put their life on pause because they were able to. They wanted to and did so. You didn't want to and didn't. So it goes, no?

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

The amount of sarcasm in this thread is amazing. People seem usually salty today lol

 

[ridethecliche]

The amount of sarcasm in this thread is amazing. People seem usually salty today lol

Haha, fair enough. I just don't get why people get so worked up over what others are doing with their time. If you don't agree with it, then don't do the same with your life!

That said, I think the gap year thing is a bit of a myth, i.e. it strengthens some apps, sure, but for the most part it doesn't make someone competitive if they weren't before. I think that's been said here a few times. It can skew things like publications etc, but people also look at dates and productivity as metrics.

 

[Psai]

Wait, hold the presses!

You're saying that they chose to do things for themselves when they were young, had little in the name of responsibility to anyone other than themselves, and had the health to do so? Maybe people had different priorities than you did.

Woah!

Also, you sound a bit bitter, no? I'm confused why you seem to be speaking so negatively about those that decided to put their life on pause because they were able to. They wanted to and did so. You didn't want to and didn't. So it goes, no?

It's part of how our society values the present over the future. A lot of people are going into even more debt to fuel these trips so that they can have a bunch of beautiful cell phone pictures to put on facebook and snapchat. Seems a little silly to me

 

[Petrichor1]

It's part of how our society values the present over the future. A lot of people are going into even more debt to fuel these trips so that they can have a bunch of beautiful cell phone pictures to put on facebook and snapchat. Seems a little silly to me

I actually don't hold sympathy for those that do this. I am sure their trips are crowd funded by family or other means, so that they could tell a story behind exotic pictures they captured while out doing "service-work". If they can do it good for them, but don't equate that to productivity. I wud much rather be doing med school and getting the hard parts over with before kiko is born.

 

[AsianPersuasion]

Hopefully they don't screw me over cause I am planning on applying to some of them. I'm set on primary care, so if I can cut out a year of COA then that would help out a lot.

 

[ridethecliche]

It's part of how our society values the present over the future. A lot of people are going into even more debt to fuel these trips so that they can have a bunch of beautiful cell phone pictures to put on facebook and snapchat. Seems a little silly to me

Again, I'm not advocating for anyone to go in debt over something like this, but if they decide it's worth it to them...

 

[WedgeDawg]

The strong candidates don't need the extra year and it doesn't help the weak ones. I've seen strong candidates not match (even with a productive year)!
The exceptions where I think it may have made a difference are Ophthalmology, and Otolaryngology.

I would like to offer a slightly different perspective here. At my school, many people take a research year, especially if they're trying to match into competitive surgical subspecialties. I think about 1/2 of our neurosurgery applicants take a research year and most of our ENT applicants take a research year, all of whom are standalone exceptional applicants. With neurosurgery in particular, our home program is exceptionally inbred, but all of the residents I've talked to here from my medical school have taken a research year (and our home neurosurgery program is extremely strong). I think that the research year has more impact in where you are matching within a specialty rather than if you will match or not, particularly if you're a strong applicant. If you're a borderline applicant (ie mediocre but not poor step 1 score), a research year could make the difference between matching or not in the smaller surgical specialties. It may be a school dependent phenomenon, but within the surgical subspecialties at my school, those who take research years match more strongly than those who do not. I can only really speak about the surgical subspecialties because those are what I'm familiar with, but I do know several people planning on going into IM that have also taken a research year (or are planning to). Just my two cents.

 

[gyngyn]

If you're a borderline applicant (ie mediocre but not poor step 1 score), a research year could make the difference between matching or not in the smaller surgical specialties. It may be a school dependent phenomenon, but within the surgical subspecialties at my school, those who take research years match more strongly than those who do not. I can only really speak about the surgical subspecialties because those are what I'm familiar with, but I do know several people planning on going into IM that have also taken a research year (or are planning to). Just my two cents.

This was once true, not so much lately,

 

[WedgeDawg]

This was once true.

You don't think it is anymore?

 

[gyngyn]

You don't think it is anymore?

It just part of the generalized escalation for ortho and derm.

 

[WedgeDawg]

It just part of the generalized escalation for ortho and derm.

Oh, I don't know too much about ortho or derm (really I know next to nothing about derm), so I can't really comment on those two. I don't think a high percentage of our ortho matches take a research year, but I know that at least half our neurosurgery and most of our ENT do.

I do know that the advisors/PDs at my school in the surgical subspecialty I'm currently interested in recommend that people looking into the field at least think about the possibility of doing a research year, and the students who just matched also highly recommend it.

 

[gyngyn]

Oh, I don't know too much about ortho or derm (really I know next to nothing about derm), so I can't really comment on those two. I don't think a high percentage of our ortho matches take a research year, but I know that at least half our neurosurgery and most of our ENT do.

I do know that the advisors/PDs at my school in the surgical subspecialty I'm currently interested in recommend that people looking into the field at least think about the possibility of doing a research year, and the students who just matched also highly recommend it.

In the specialties in which there are more than a hundred over-qualified candidates for the total number of positions, it's becoming another way to screen. It's a lot like the escalation in EC's for medical schools. There is also the tendency to validate the research year when there is a positive result. With a controlled denominator it's hard to say what the real value is, but it's probably less than described.

 

[WedgeDawg]

In the specialties in which there are more than a hundred over-qualified candidates for the total number of positions, it's becoming another way to screen. It's a lot like the escalation in EC's for medical schools.

Good to know. I think for some people it still holds intrinsic value (especially if you are considering a career in academics) but for others its likely jumping through hoops, then.

 

[gyngyn]

Good to know. I think for some people it still holds intrinsic value (especially if you are considering a career in academics) but for others its likely jumping through hoops, then.

I am especially concerned by the fact that the PI gets a year of slave labor and is therefore not an unbiased source of information.

 

[WedgeDawg]

I am especially concerned by the fact that the PI gets a year of slave labor and is therefore not an unbiased source of information.

Which PI?

 

[gyngyn]

Which PI?

The one you are beholden to for a strong letter and in whose lab you are slaving.
Students are often encouraged to do this by the people most likely to benefit from their work.

 

[WedgeDawg]

The one you are beholden to for a strong letter and in whose lab you are slaving.

Wouldn't that be the case if you're applying to medical school and did a lot of research as part of your application too?

 

[gyngyn]

Wouldn't that be the case if you're applying to medical school and did a lot of research as part of your application too?

The decision to spend an entire precious year in a lab while you are just acquiring nascent clinical skills is a different matter.

 

[WedgeDawg]

The decision to spend an entire precious year in a lab while you are just acquiring nascent clinical skills is a different matter.

Fair, but if you want to incorporate in element of research into your eventual career, I think it would be a beneficial experience (assuming you put in the effort and weren't doing it just to buff your app). I have no data on whether or not taking a research year produces surgical (or medical) interns with diminished clinical skills, and, if it did, how long it took for these interns to catch up to their 4 year track colleagues in terms of ability. Might be an interesting study...

 

[gyngyn]

Fair, but if you want to incorporate in element of research into your eventual career, I think it would be a beneficial experience (assuming you put in the effort and weren't doing it just to buff your app). I have no data on whether or not taking a research year produces surgical (or medical) interns with diminished clinical skills, and, if it did, how long it took for these interns to catch up to their 4 year track colleagues in terms of ability. Might be an interesting study...

That same year could be spent as a fellow without the downside and more benefit!