3-year MD programs: how will they match?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
That same year could be spent as a fellow without the downside and more benefit...

Sure, but only if not taking that initial year doesn't preclude you from succeeding in the match (which it may or may not depending on what your definition of succeeding is, your career goals, and possibly the strength of the rest of your application).

Truthfully, provided I decide to continue pursuing the specialty I'm currently interested in, will I likely take a research year? Yes. If the added benefit of the research year was extremely marginal in terms of application and the only benefit was additional research skills and portfolio, would I take the extra year? Likely not. However, given that in order to need to meet my career goals, it is likely that I will have to take that extra year, I am going to make the best possible use of my research year not only as an added bonus to my application, but also as a training ground for running my own clinical projects, learning how to navigate resident-level research at a major academic institution, and becoming as much of an expert in my area of research (which should theoretically translate to my intended specialty) as possible. I understand that, as you have said, it is not an ideal solution, but I think that given certain circumstances, you have to make these types of compromises in order to achieve whatever goal you are setting for yourself, and a resourceful person should be able to turn the situation into an advantage for them on multiple fronts.
 
>mfw nurses start claiming they are better than MDs because they go to school for more years and are thus more "educated."
>mfw I have no face
 
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.

What specialities would you say this is especially relevant for? I've been peeking over at the medical school forums to try and see if there is a loose outline of what certain specialities look for in an applicant (outside of grades + test scores) and I've been having trouble figuring out signal vs. noise. My impression has been that step scores + clinical grades get your foot in the door and ECs get you through it, similar to med school applications? Ultimately I'll engage in the things that interest me, but it is confusing to go on those forums and see things like "You really should focus on research as opposed to community service unless you want to do primary care" or "Research is really only necessary for specialities like derm, rad onc, and ortho". Additionally...is a research year generally done by students who don't do research throughout medical school? Or does it serve a different purpose?
 
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.

I feel this reasoning might be a little shaky. I have yet to meet a single premed tell me they are taking a gap year because they want to 'find themselves' or 'explore the world' or 'slow down' or any such screamingly 'millennial' thing. Anyone I've ever spoken to who has taken a gap year took it because they believed that their applications were incomplete or noncompetitive after three years of undergrad. I might be inclined to believe you if the majority of pre-meds I had encountered in undergrad happened to be curious people with varied interests who place little worth in money and structure and time and more on their personal experience (indeed, from your description, you seem to imply a certain degree of narcissism involved with the notion of taking time for yourself, an implication RTC poked fun a). That is not the case. The vast majority of pre-meds I have met are neurotic, ends-justify-the-means, tunnel-visioning, structure-loving, risk-averse, money-and-time obsessed individuals. I am not saying that not pursuing a gap year necessarily means you are such an individual nor am I implying the converse to be true. I'm not making any positive claims. I am making the negative claim that your hypothesis does not line up with the pre-med personalities I have met.

If I were to put forth a slightly more plausible hypothesis, I would say that the 21st century undergrad is way, way, way too focused on extracurriculars. Although ECs are not radical, new things, the internet age has made group and event organizing easier, faster, and cheaper to do. Further, everyone and their mother wants to "start" something or be a founding member. The internet makes it easier to do that (since founding something just takes an internet connection, a facebook account, and a room reservation on campus) and the quest for "leadership positions" no matter how useless is a powerful motivator. Go to any college campus in this country and I guarantee you that 8 out of 10 undergraduates (not just premeds) spends more time worrying about, planning, and doing EC rather than academic activities. Premeds are even worse because of the pervasive and somewhat unfounded belief that the more involvement in ECs, the better. As a result, many people neglect their grades (unsurprising considering many premeds are hilariously dispassionate about anything having to do with academics), are too involved to have time to properly study for the MCAT and therefore put off the exam or end up taking it multiple times. Second, the cost of an undergraduate education has increased greatly in a relatively short amount of time. It is very normal for students to have to work a significant number of hours (15+) every week in order to curb or cover the cost of their education and living expenses. This was not necessary before and one of the major consequences is that people either take longer to complete all of their degree requirements much less the obvious expectations of medical school adcoms all over the country (research, clinical experience, service). Sure, some can juggle it all without too much issue or are exceptions to the rule but if you want to keep a strong GPA, work enough to pay your living expenses, and build a competitive application then the smart thing to do is take more time and do it properly, not to take less time and sabotage your grades or health in the process.

In general, I don't think wishy-washy and airy ideas like "finding yourself" and wanting to see the world are powerful enough motivators to explain large trends. The two biggest reasons people take gap years, I would posit, are that they either do not feel prepared to apply or would like to make themselves more competitive in an increasingly competitive field.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but only if not taking that initial year doesn't preclude you from succeeding in the match (which it may or may not depending on what your definition of succeeding is, your career goals, and possibly the strength of the rest of your application).

Truthfully, provided I decide to continue pursuing the specialty I'm currently interested in, will I likely take a research year? Yes. If the added benefit of the research year was extremely marginal in terms of application and the only benefit was additional research skills and portfolio, would I take the extra year? Likely not. However, given that in order to need to meet my career goals, it is likely that I will have to take that extra year, I am going to make the best possible use of my research year not only as an added bonus to my application, but also as a training ground for running my own clinical projects, learning how to navigate resident-level research at a major academic institution, and becoming as much of an expert in my area of research (which should theoretically translate to my intended specialty) as possible. I understand that, as you have said, it is not an ideal solution, but I think that given certain circumstances, you have to make these types of compromises in order to achieve whatever goal you are setting for yourself, and a resourceful person should be able to turn the situation into an advantage for them on multiple fronts.

Ortho research years:
  1. For marginal candidates, 50-50 on whether they are helpful. Who cares if you have 10 pubs, when your Step 1 is 230, you've got average grades, and the program is worried about you passing your speciality boards and keeping up cognitively with your peers. At best if you knock a research year out of the park with the right PI it well help you match at the program you did the research for -- your app will still be Step screened out of the majority of other programs interview piles. It's a risky eggs all in one basket strategy and you are gambling with a year of your life.
  2. For great candidates a research year can be the difference between matching at a solid mid- to upper- tier program and matching at a top-5 academic program. You've got a 250+ Step 1, AOA, come from a top-20 med school, got great EC's and good LOR's from big names, and there are 200 other people just like you vying for the 40 spots at these top programs. What makes the difference?? Proven dedication to the field of orthopaedics and to research. These programs want productive academic orthopods and researchers just like they are, to bolster the name of the program in the field and for more useful future colleague connections. I believe it is in the setting of a great candidate gunning for a top residency that research years are maximally beneficial.
  3. Many surgical subspecialty programs build in a research year during residency that is PAID, you are an MD, and you have a much greater understanding of the field, and better connections. Doing a research year as a medical student for the "experience" is pointless -- just go to a program that has a built in research year if you are gungho about research and you will be in a much better position to conduct meaningful research. The only reason to do a research year as a medical student is to bolster your residency application.
 
Ortho research years:
  1. For marginal candidates, 50-50 on whether they are helpful. Who cares if you have 10 pubs, when your Step 1 is 230, you've got average grades, and the program is worried about you passing your speciality boards and keeping up cognitively with your peers. At best if you knock a research year out of the park with the right PI it well help you match at the program you did the research for -- your app will still be Step screened out of the majority of other programs interview piles. It's a risky eggs all in one basket strategy and you are gambling with a year of your life.
  2. For great candidates a research year can be the difference between matching at a solid mid- to upper- tier program and matching at a top-5 academic program. You've got a 250+ Step 1, AOA, come from a top-20 med school, got great EC's and good LOR's from big names, and there are 200 other people just like you vying for the 40 spots at these top programs. What makes the difference?? Proven dedication to the field of orthopaedics and to research. These programs want productive academic orthopods and researchers just like they are, to bolster the name of the program in the field and for more useful future colleague connections. I believe it is in the setting of a great candidate gunning for a top residency that research years are maximally beneficial.
  3. Many surgical subspecialty programs build in a research year during residency that is PAID, you are an MD, and you have a much greater understanding of the field, and better connections. Doing a research year as a medical student for the "experience" is pointless -- just go to a program that has a built in research year if you are gungho about research and you will be in a much better position to conduct meaningful research. The only reason to do a research year as a medical student is to bolster your residency application.

Thanks for the info! Re: the last point, as I said earlier, if it were not a huge application booster, I likely would not do a research year, but because it is a good idea to do so for the application boost, I figure I might as well make the most out of it anyway. (Not saying I'm interested in ortho, but I assume this general sentiment applies to other competitive specialties as well)
 
Thanks for the info! Re: the last point, as I said earlier, if it were not a huge application booster, I likely would not do a research year, but because it is a good idea to do so for the application boost, I figure I might as well make the most out of it anyway. (Not saying I'm interested in ortho, but I assume this general sentiment applies to other competitive specialties as well)

I'd think this applies for all other competitive surgical subspecialties with the possible exception of neurosurgery where research productivity is the standard, not a bonus to the application. What speciality are you interested in, if you're willing to share?
 
I'd think this applies for all other competitive surgical subspecialties with the possible exception of neurosurgery where research productivity is the standard, not a bonus to the application. What speciality are you interested in, if you're willing to share?

I'll PM you
 
Top