Importance of research?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

fanofdancing

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
7
Reaction score
5
Hello all,

Longtime lurker here. I am an MS4 at a Midwestern medical school looking to match in neurology. I am at a branch of the main campus and we do not have a neurology residency here. 247 and 248 on steps 1 and 2 respectively, with a 3.45 GPA, upper half of the class, half honors/superior my Ms3 year and the other half high pass. I did honor neurology. I have 2 letters from neurologists, 1 family doc who knows me very well, and another letter from an internal medicine doctor. No away rotations, I did not have any particular place I wanted to go to, felt I had enough neurology to make my decision, and honestly feel that 4th year is a time I should be learning lots of internal medicine and broadening my education. I'll have 3 years of neurology. But I was perhaps unwise and never did any research. Grades and clinical education along with having a life were my priorities.

I'm going to apply broadly, since I would like to get out of Dodge, and just to see where I can get interviews. So my question is, should I think it very unlikely to get good chances at prestigious, big academic programs with no research track record? What will they think when they see my application? I realize it always helps to have something on your CV, it never hurts. Some of these institutions it seems place more emphasis on research, all the big name ones and such. I have a patient I could possibly submit a case study on who was an interesting neurological case, but that is it. Is this even worth going after? Thanks for any input.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Academics at big-name institutions tend to think of themselves as clinicians, clinician-educators, or clinician-scientists (or just scientists, but they're not on ADCOMs). They "bin" people. They think this way because that's roughly how tenure tracks work. As a result, they often think of applicants in the same way -- where is this guy going to be in 10 years (or more like 15 if you sub-specialize)? Now, the reason they think in this way is because most of the premier east and west coast academic institutions consider it their mandate to train the next generations of academic leaders in neurology, and those people will have to get onto a "track" if they're going to be successful. It's a pompous way of thinking but that's how the elite works. The more you can help them understand which track you're going to be on, the better. Most of the big names these days are open-minded enough to think of success beyond the "3 R01's or your name on a textbook" approach, and so it is totally viable to come into residency at a leading center with a goal of being a "Master Clinician" as the Harvard Medical School track is named, with no research at all beyond seeing boatloads of patients with a very specific set of diseases, and rendering your expert opinion on them.

So don't feel like there is some sort of glass ceiling for people who haven't done any research or don't plan on it. Sure, you can fill that hole if you think it would be a worthwhile endeavor, but if you really don't think it's your bag then you should think about how to best position yourself in the absence of a clinician-scientist career path. It takes a bit more imagination, but that's OK. For the big name places you need to go all-in and be persuasive and convincing about what you want to do and how you will be excellent at it -- and therefore worthy of a spot. You've got the scores to do it, but you will need to be proactive about your message. Case reports are fine and realistically they are all many people get a chance to participate in early in their careers. They don't even carry the weight of a review article in my view because they are far from comprehensive, but if you can spin the story such that this case report is an example of the population you really want to devote your career to, it will fly.

One last word about clinician-educators. While it sounds hunky-dory, this is a very hard track to be successful in -- in some ways even tougher than the highly competitive research space, at least at the big name places. And with good reason; it's a rigorous field that is crucially important. Anyone can give lip-service to their love of teaching, but devoting time and energy to managing a residency or clerkship, getting a masters in education, or developing quantitative tools to measure relative benefits of different teaching approaches? It's a science that requires commitment. If you're up for it, fine, but you better have an emerging track record beyond unfocused platitudes. It's not just a willingness to develop a really awesome teaching file and doing more months on the wards than most other people in your department. The Master Clinicians will eat your lunch on both of those. You've got to write articles and books and reviews and do internal studies and whatnot about educational approaches and their plusses and minuses. I've seen a lot of people fool themselves into thinking that being a good friend to the residents and making "lasting impressions" is what the track is about. You can get the "best teacher" award every year and not get promoted as a clinician-educator. Sorry that this sounded weirdly aggressive, but I'm too tired to edit. Welcome to the forum and may you live to be 1000 years-old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Thanks for the reply! I hope to live as long as the knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
 
Top