Chief residency

[Hellothere111]

Is being a chief resident considered a matter of prestige vs skill set development vs both by academic institutions at time of employment applications (fellowship or faculty)?
Does it make a significant difference on obtaining future leadership roles?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[typhoonegator]

It's an honor, to be sure. It's also a lot of work, depending on the size of the program. Typically the chiefs are chosen as the people best able to represent the interests of the residents both to the program director as well as GME, other departments, etc. Usually these are the friendly, non-toxic, great communicators in the residency -- not just the people that score best on the RITE or something. It is good exposure to administrative responsibilities, but really putting it on your CV says more about the fact that you're a standout all-around good person than anything else. It might help with job applications, but if I were choosing between two people I don't think the fact that one was a chief and one was not would make a huge difference overall. Others may disagree. Remember, some residencies are really small and you could theoretically have like a 50/50 shot at being chief. And some residencies just call the PGY4 class the chief residents because there are only a couple of them and they share the administrative responsibilities. So in that context it might hold less meaning than being chosen from a class of 10 or 15 or whatever.

 

[Hellothere111]

Thank you. This is helpful.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Acherona]

Just to offer another opinion, some of the absolute worst people in my program were chiefs. Toxic people on power trips. Also some awesome people. I don't think it says anything about your competence as a neurologist or goodness as a person, and if a CV ever comes across my desk I certainly will not use this as a criterion for anything. It does show marginally that you are interested in "leadership", which in this case involves mainly making call schedules and arranging sick coverage. Not sure why anyone would want to do it, and in my program people often had to be asked politely to do it.

 

[NOSfan]

Just to offer another opinion, some of the absolute worst people in my program were chiefs.

FWIW: That's a failure of the selection process and should not be representative of the position.

 

[neurochica]

I agree with Acherona,

During residency, I had two GREAT chiefs and two mediocre ones.

Just recently, we decided not to offer an offer to an excellent candidate who was AOA, chief resident, triple boarded etc. coming from a great fellowship. Personality of a board and questionable work ethic. not a good match for the group.

 

[OasisMan]

at my place
there is 1 main administrative chief and then a scheduling "vice" chief (co-chief)
the other non-chief 4s are unofficial chiefs when they are leading the inpt service

 

[kchan99]

In some programs, chiefs are selected by residents, and at others, they could be nominated by faculty. In some years, there could be the difficult situation in which no one wants to be chief.

 

[Hellothere111]

So I guess the consensus is that it's an administrative post rather than a stamp of being the best in the class. And being the chief resident may/ may not be a strong advantage in future leadership roles.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[807crash]

I would avoid it, if possible. Spend the time applying for fellowships, doing research, reading/studying for boards, or enjoying life. Very little is to be gained by being a Chief, especially if you are already at a program with a good reputation.

 

[Nonphysiologic]

Well in regards to getting a fellowship, I don't think it helps much IMHO. Research, strong LORs, networking, and in some rare cases in service scores, trumps being a chief by far. Believe it or not, some places still look at Step scores still. I actually had two rejections because they said my board scores did not meet their criteria. So in regards to being chief for fellowship, I don't think it matters really. Sounds like from the above posts it doesn't really help towards landing a job. So I guess from a strictly objective and practical point of view there isn't much to gain by being a chief and potentially just more hassle to deal with your final year of residency in which you could be chilling, studying, rounding out your knowledge and finishing up any research.

But for whatever its worth I think it can help in the future on your practice website stating you were a chief resident and it shows you were a leader amongst your peers I guess. Personally, I don't think I can stand doing things like making a schedule for other people and settling scores between faculty and residents. I have enough trouble organizing my own life. And I have a short tolerance for inefficiency. But I think if you're super organized and passionate about the program I definitely think one should do it because it can't really hurt and there are a lot of intangibles skills you gain from it like conflict management and organizational skills...which may pay dividends in the future. I used to think being chief would be a waste of time and energy but in retrospect I think it is a good thing to do for its value beyond the CV.

 

[MemberX]

This may a silly question but does that include STEP 3? I heard that step 3 doesn't matter that much for fellowships so I was just planning on taking it sometime during intern year without much studying. I did well on step 1&2 and just matched into a well known neuro program. However, if step 3 matters I'll obviously give it more preparation. Thanks and any feedback from people would be greatly appreciated.