in terms of getting that mighty application and shiny and polish for residency... how much weight do board scores have in an mdphd application?
Mud Phuds vs. Boards
- Thread starter beebe00
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,863
I think step 1 score is the most important factor for matching to a competitive specialty and/or region.
Though this depends somewhat on specialty. The very competitive programs or specialties care about step 1 score a lot--in my experience far more than any other factor except class rank/clinical grades. The not so competitive programs probably don't care as long as you didn't fail, and even if you did that could be forgiven if you passed later.
Though this depends somewhat on specialty. The very competitive programs or specialties care about step 1 score a lot--in my experience far more than any other factor except class rank/clinical grades. The not so competitive programs probably don't care as long as you didn't fail, and even if you did that could be forgiven if you passed later.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 1
I had a talk from an alumnus earlier this summer who's doing his residency at MD Anderson in Rad Onc (I'd say a damn competitive spot). According to him, he said that with the exception of derm, most of the current competitive residencies require a score of at least better than average. He advocated research opportunities with doc's doing research as well as networking at conferences and still believed (in disagreement with Neuronix) that the PhD held some sway.
Personally I'm in between his beliefs and Neuronix. Dont underestimate the boards. You'll have plenty of things on your CV from the PhD and perhaps other from ambition but dont shoot yourself in the foot by getting screwed over by residency cutoff's by blowing off the step 1.
Personally I'm in between his beliefs and Neuronix. Dont underestimate the boards. You'll have plenty of things on your CV from the PhD and perhaps other from ambition but dont shoot yourself in the foot by getting screwed over by residency cutoff's by blowing off the step 1.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,863
Funny you should mention that program. I interviewed there and went below them on my match list. I had some connections there from conferences and the like and met with them when I interviewed in addition to the committee interview, which I thought went very well.
In the "Who's Who" thread for Rad Onc 2012 and 2011 threads MD Anderson only matched 2 MD/PhDs out of 11 matches.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=804920
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=709741
In 2009, according to Charting Outcomes about 20% of rad onc applicants were MD/PhDs.
http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf
So to me, it doesn't seem like the top programs like MD Anderson have much bias towards MD/PhDs.
Now let me say I don't think the PhD is meaningless. I just think it's maybe the fourth thing considered. You also have to realize that a year of research is almost standard for MDs applying in rad onc, which makes your PhD look less impressive. This is especially true when the MD publishes in that year, especially multiple times. Unfortunately, most programs don't make much distinction between easier to publish clinical research and harder to publish basic research.
The most important factors it seems to me are step 1, clinical grades, LORs/connections, and research experience, in that order. Your research experience looks much stronger to programs if it is in the field to which you're applying. This also helps you get top LORs and connections. Similarly, there is a journal article in academic radiology where PDs of academic radiology programs were surveyed about factors for selecting who to interview. Quoting the article, where 10 is most important and 1 was least important:
"According to respondents, USMLE scores were the most important criterion, with a score of 8.65; followed by a dean's letter (7.52), class ranking during medical school (7.50), letters of recommendation (7.36), and honor society membership (7.24). The least important criteria were volunteer and employment experience, with scores of 5.02 and 5.07, respectively. Other criteria also stated were prior rotation to the institution, social engagement, and GPA during medical school. All these criteria are considered to decide selection for interview." [Research was factor #7 at 6.35]
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1076633206003291
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 4
I've been involved in resident recruitment in pathology. Boards scores, clinical grades and dean's letter are just as important for the MD/PhD graduates as for the MDs. For one thing, they are standardized. Together they paint a good picture of the kind of medical student the person has been. That's a pretty good predictor of the kind of resident they will be. In less competitive specialties, MD/PhDs do not need to ace step 1, but they do need to show that they took this part of their training seriously (at a minimum by scoring above average; you are presumably an overachiever in other areas of life, so if step scores are below average, that is kind of fishy). Remember that all training programs lead to board exams, so if you were borderline on your steps, the program could justifiably wonder how you will do on your specialty boards.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 6,894
- Reaction score
- 2,398
It's best to look on the PhD like garnish on the cake. Try to have an "MD-only" competitive application (letters, grades, exam scores), and then your publication record and having a PhD is not so much compensating for a deficiency, as it is a testament to you research prowess and overall excellence. Too many MD/PhD's take it easy on the Step 1 and then have regrets.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,863
Many MD/PhDs who graduated with me commented a 230 step 1 score used to be much more impressive to residency directors 5 years ago than it is now. Scores in competitive specialties, and likely even at top programs in less competitive specialties, are creeping up every year. You might want to aim for more like a 250 for competitive specialties, rather than the ~240 average that exists now.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 118
I was deciding between UCI's MSTP and the MD-only program at Yale. I'm interested in radiology and my advisor, a radiologist at Stanford, said that the school you come from and your USMLE score matter more than a PhD. I don't understand the logic in residency directors' minds, but it is what it is.
- Joined
- May 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 1
USMLE scores maybe, but school you come from probably doesn't carry as much weight. Average grades/boards at a top 10 school vs. high boards/possible AOA at a lower tier, most residencies will pick the latter. PhD does carry weight, more in certain specialties vs. others. However, if you're looking to do a PhD to pad your CV for a top residency, you're wasting your time.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 6,894
- Reaction score
- 2,398
I already took the exam, so it's a moot point for me, but I think everyone should study anything and everything they can get their hands on and aim for a 300. You won't even be close, but might land a 260 or so.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
I take it this means MD/PhDs should aim for what will be an impressive score for their desired specialty 5 years from the time they take it since most programs have 5-6 years from end of second year to when application season starts. So while during your year a 230 may have been above average, by the time you apply the average of fellow applicants will be well above that and your 230 is now merely average or below average. Essentially, do the absolute best you can on step 1. Is this what you mean?
- Joined
- May 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 1
Yeap, regardless if you plan on going into a less competitive residency. Your specialty interests could easily change or a field could become progressively more competitive. Therefore the best way is to just crush that thing and not have to worry about it.
No one ever says, "I like this applicant but their step 1 score is way too high."
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 8,863
Yep!
I mean the reality is you have to do what is feasible. For example, when I took step 1 I was only given 4 weeks to study, while my med school counterparts were often taking 5-6 weeks to study. Should I have studied longer? Maybe. But if I did that I would have gotten no vacation time that year. Thus, it can be a difficult balancing act, and you don't have infinite resources and time. I don't know if an extra 20 points on step 1 would have helped me per se because I did well, but if I had scored 220 (national average) I'm uncertain that I would have matched at all. Thus I talk about this as a warning to the junior students. i.e. Do everything you would do as if you were one of your classmates shooting for a competitive residency.
It's just a pet peeve of mine when people say "well sure you won't match if you fail step 1 and are a med school disaster." That goes without saying. But you can easily not match even if you are an average student as an MD/PhD. It irks me because I'm a physics PhD with a total physics/engineering bent, and those specialties are the most competitive due to lifestyle/money from people who want to match academic for the prestige and not for the research. The programs just want the best residents possible to minimize any chance of difficulties and to lessen their teaching demands. And thus MD/PhDs can be squeezed out by being made to be outstanding in everything. Some people can manage it, but what about those are decent med students and decent PhD students? They are left in the lurch. What about people who want some sort of life-work balance, like the females who are sorely needed in MD/PhD programs to approach 50% women in our area? They will continue to avoid us if they need to work 200% of the time to have a decent physician-scientist career. Still, if you're going to excel at anything, my advice is to excel at med school. If you get one okay publication in your PhD, that's all you really need to match well. And as long as you match well you will have a decent career.
This advice/discussion pisses off the higher ups in the MD/PhD world who are trying to make us into 80%+ researchers. But don't say bad things about me behind my back like you always do. Rather, do a better job of advising your own students. Do something to change your own residency programs.
Last edited:
