So more here some more looks at the match data in internal medicine. This time we look at effect of research and publications. I found the results somewhat surprising since I'd heard that research was a way to stand out from other candidates. The data may not support this, at least with respect to the number of research projects and publications. Unfortunately, the NRMP does not provide data concerning the quality or impact of research, Even so, I am becoming convinced that we may vastly overestimate the impact of research on IMGs matching in IM,
Keep in mine that US MDs (97%) and DOs (93%) matched at much higher rate than IMGs (60%) and US-IMGs (57%) in IM.
As before, I'll start with US MDs and us them for comparison,
American graduates have a better than 93% chance of matching without any research. This ticks up to 95% with a single project. After that, it hovers around 97-98% regardless of the number of additional projects.
For IMGs (non-US), research has a some effect, but not to the extent I expected.
The match rate is around 57% for no research, and it climbs up (although not directly) to around 67% for 4 projects. There is a slight drop in the match rate for 5+ projects. I'm not sure if this is noise or if there is something there. (I have some suspicions, but I'll wait till after the US-IMG data.)
Speaking of US-IMG, this was the most surprising.
US-IMGs sit at 60+% for a couple of projects and then drop of to 45% for 5+ projects. What is happening here? And is it a stronger instance of the drop in IMG match rates for 5+ projects?
Here are my suspicions. Please weight in with your thoughts.
1. Why does research not have a a larger impact for IMGs and US-IMGs?
I
suspect (These seem reasonable to me, but I lack data.) that the majority of the internal medicine programs that consider IMGs are not generating much research. The faculty of all accredited residency programs are required to publish to maintain accreditation, but it is not a huge quota. There is also not a requirement that it be ground-breaking research. At academic programs, the faculty are motivated to publish as part of their career and compensation. For community programs, research may be seen more as an additional administrative requirement that is not well motivated or compensated. Having research-intensive residents may not be a benefit to these programs.
2. Why is there an apparent downward trend for a larger number of research projects?
I don't know. This surprised me. Some
guesses. (Please suggest your own.)
- More research projects may be tied to a longer time since graduation. Residency programs look down on older Year of Graduations. Many applicants spend time after graduation doing research. It could be that having more research projects is a problem. It may be real problem is an old YOG and there is a correlation with a larger number of projects,
- Community programs may be concerned that research-intensive applicants might not be happy at a low-research program.
Is there any way to remediate this? If YOG is the problem, I don't think so. Older YOGs are a know challenge, especially if you have no way of maintaining US clinical experience. If the problem is projected happiness, I think this can be addressed in the personal statement and (maybe) letters of interest.
Now that we've looked at the number of projects, can we say anything about the effect of the quality of research? NRMP does not provide direct data for this. However, maybe we can infer some. If we take publications as a proxy for good (or at least productive) research, Here, we can say a little.
For the US-IMGs, the data (or at least my analysis) has enough noise that I don't think I can say anything. But for non-US IMGs, there may be a slight upward trend for a larger number of publications. Productive researchers may benefit from being attractive to more academic programs. It may also be that the more productive researchers have more contacts with American programs, better LOR, etc.
