Am I competitive for a top 5 Neurology Program?

[swhan]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I have recently decided to apply for neurology residencies in the fall and wanted some advice on my competitiveness for a top residency program.
Here are my stats: Med student from Philly. MD/PhD. PhD in neurosciences.
Published in neuroscience journals (15 total from PhD and undergrad). USMLE>230. 3rd year clerkships 50% high Pass 50 % Honors.

How competitive am I for a top neuro program? Is it essential I schedule an
away rotation at one of these programs?

 

[Oneuro]

Only 15 publications? I believe that most programs require 20+ First Authored publications.

 

[tofurious]

I think most IMGs have a better shot than you. You'd better retake the USMLE or better, get a second PhD in one of the Humanities.

 

[marchiafava]

I don't know how competitive you are but I have USMLE step 1 237, class rank 1/148, 4.0 3rd year GPA, incredible letters of recc. and contacts at Penn, cleveland clinic, and others, and some research. I also helped to make the new parkinsons medication being FDA approved this July. So it looks like you have to compete with me, huh? good luck and good riddens!

 

[GopherBrain]

On a related issue, I have a huge problem. My supermodel girlfriend wants me to go to Europe with her on our private jet this weekend, but I have a prior engagment giving the keynote speech at the regional MENSA convention. What ever shall I do?

 

[marchiafava]

That's an easy decision... Go with your girl, you cant get a BJ from MENSA!

 

[swhan]

Marchiafava, sounds like you and I have some similarities. Wow, #1 in your class! I'm probably far from being ranked #1. Our school doesn't rank students so I have no idea where I stand on that matter. I'm probably competetive for being elected Alpha Omega Alpha but we won't know after Neurology interviews are in full swing.

So what does it take to get into a top 5 program in your opinion? What have you read or heard? I'm finding it very difficult to get any info on neurology programs.

 

[GopherBrain]

I think an ability to detect sarcasm is a must for any tier-1 program.

 

[marchiafava]

hahahaha!!! GopherBrain, that statement actually made me laugh out loud! I like your sense of humor.

 

[Akscal]

Swhan every reply to your thread was a joke in case you didnt get it wow.

 

[swhan]

Are you telling me that marchiafava's stats are crap? There is no reason for me not to believe unless this forum is full of a bunch of freaking idiots.
Get a life.

 

[GopherBrain]

Idiots? Maybe. But idiots with syntax and punctuation.

On the off chance that you are actually serious about all this, I will give you a serious reply. You are competitive enough to get interviews. From there it depends on your skills as a conversationalist. 😀

 

[swhan]

Thank you.

 

[marchiafava]

This statement I am making now is not sarcastic. I feel the need to tell you this because you obviously are clueless. My stats are for REAL!! except for working on the new parkinsons med, duh!!!! I hate research. You are asking a question that none of us can really give you a definitive answer. We are in the same boat as you, therefore we can only speculate. I do know one thing though, if you are as monkey as you sound on your posts I am feeling better about my chances!

 

[Mitogen79]

Well, with all these wonderful honors/board scores/etc... I'm feeling quite inadequate myself... those in similar situations, would you like to create a "non-step 1 score of 237, less than 15 publications, positive ability to detect sarcasm" club?? 😎

Good luck to you all. Will hope to meet some of fiercelings on the interview trail.

Anyone going to either Stanford or Cornell/MSKC for an away elective???

vish~

 

[GopherBrain]

I'm with you mitogen79. I guess I am just going to have to rely on my sparkling personality to get a spot.

On the bright side, everyone matches somewhere - right? This isn't exactly ortho surgery.

 

[Mitogen79]

sounds fierce gopher... that's 2 for the "sparkling personality neuro" club...

actually, i hear that neuro is one of those residencies in which your letters of rec make or break you... if you're a US senior, you're pretty much guaranteed a spot at a reasonable spot (maybe not harvard, but certainly at a good top 25 program)...

and you're right, its certainly not ortho surgery; we're not as arrogant as the orthopods... (no offense to you orthopods out there, but ya'll know how you are) 😛

vish~

 

[Mollaret]

Grades, board scores, letters of recommendation and research expereince will get you interviews at any top 10 neurology program. Make sure you have your SFMatch application completed early. Prepare well for your interviews by being knowledgable about the program and the people at each institution. May will ask tough interview questions. Your preparation should include a well though-out replay to the following:
1) Why do you want to be a neurologist?
2) Why are you interested in our program?
3) Where do you see yourself in 10 years?
4) Tell me about your research

When I made my decision to rank various programs on my match list for neurology, I was very thoughful about what I was looking to accomplish in residency. The most important factors for me were:
1)large tertiary care program with high volume
2)liking the people I would be working with in residency
3)cutting-edge neurointerventional program
4)strong neurointensive care unit
5)excellent outpatient department experience
6)great research resources

Where you end up going for residency will depend on how you approach the above issues.

 

[Idiopathic]

good luck and good riddens!

Riddance...I am really getting tired of following you around and correcting your typographical errors. Please refrain from any more of this.

 

[jimdo]

BTW... anyone wonder why it is so important for us to be in a "Top 5 program?" Is it really that we want to get the "best" training or is it that we want to feel morally and intellectually superior to others while using the training argument as an excuse? is the training at the imagimnary #3 spot really better than at #72? I think its time we check our egos at the door and realize that training is training and we dont always have to be some ultracompetitive...Orthopod or not. Neurology is neurology and the information and skills learned at Harvard or Penn are the same as at any other American University. the research level may be different but clinical neurology is pretty standard across the board.

 

[GopherBrain]

It is a symptom of that age-old quest to have others tell you how beautiful you are. Not that I'm knocking it. I'm as interested in the top 5 as everyone else (4 of them anyway).

Part of it has to do with the lack of extrinsic rewards in med school, as compared to college, high school, etc. You work hard in the basic sciences, you hustle on the wards, study for boards, etc - it is nice to get a big pat on the back on match day.

I agree that the lower programs probably turn out clinicians that are just as good, or at least the differences fade after a couple of years of practice. However, would you really have worked as hard for the past 3+ years if you knew you wanted to go to the U of Nowhere, where a passing USMLE score and a couple of good clinical grades make matching a sure thing?

So shoot for the big programs. Then you won't have to wonder if you could have, and you will be able to spend your years at the U of Nowhere and enjoy every minute of it.

 

[Aspalgarry]

Unlesss you want a career on academic medicine .Who cares about the top five programs?

Fellowships?
Neurology itself is not very competetive and don't think that geeting a fellowship will be either. I interviewed at programs that although were not consider top 5 were bigger institutions and more known that the one that I end up ranking first on my list. (and matched)

One of the faculty at one of the big programs gave me a very good advice: Basically if you want a career in academic med go to the best known program even if is not the best. because name and politics is all it matters in the academic enviroment.

I you want to go to private practice like eventually most of us will (just statistically) go to the program you like the most/the one that will allow you to have a life outside of medicine/ gave you a good feeling/ and is in a geographical area that is better for you/ because at the end nobody really cares or even will ask you were you did your trainning. Mainly because because all the programs will give you the clinical exposure needed to become a competent neurologist/ what the top programs add to your training is research experience but if you are truly interested on research you will find opportunities almost everywhere.

If during your training you change your mind and decide to do academic medicine you can still do fellowship at one of the "top" programs and still get and academic position.

 

[tofurious]

However, would you really have worked as hard for the past 3+ years if you knew you wanted to go to the U of Nowhere, where a passing USMLE score and a couple of good clinical grades make matching a sure thing?

External reward wise, maybe you should look at where the biggest, most groundbreaking papers have come out from in your particular field of interests in the past few years. I think we have the notion that the "top X" produce the best academicians, but the quality of these academicians is really determined by the quality of the work they produce and how they are judged among their peers. Many people here are interested in stroke, and lots of the exciting work have come out of Stanford recently, clearly not a "top 4" on most people's lists.

 

[jimdo]

I wonder if these "Top 5" programs are such because of quality of training or simply reputation. For example, do they genuinely train better or is it that everyone has heard of them and by default they receive the research dollars, funding and acadmenic interest simply due to increased exposure and demand. My argument is that they probably do not train any better, but rely mainly on image because there are many who quest after having "University of ____ " written on their credentials. Not to say they are not great places to train, but I wonder if they really deserve to look down their noses at everyone else or if it is an artificial image of self importance.

 

[GopherBrain]

I think there is a very real difference, but it is a self-perpetuating selection effect. The best people go there, so they get a reputation for being a place where the best people go, so the next batch of best people go there..... On and on to eternity.

As the whether they are really better, I think the quality of the residents make a dramatic difference in the quality of training. Being around the best makes everyone better. So maybe they don't "train" any better, but it seems like a peripheral issue. And yeah, maybe part of the draw for everyone is just reputation, but I would still rather go to UCSF than U of Nevada.

 

[BPKurtz]

I wonder if these "Top 5" programs are such because of quality of training or simply reputation.

I thought the top five were:
1) wherever you rank number one, if you match there
2) your number 2
3) your number 3
4) your number 4
5) some famous ivory tower institution with mad research moolah

bpkurtz

 

[jimdo]

point taken!! Still though, Id imagine those at University of Nevada may consider themselves "better" than those at _____ Community hospital. I think there's an element of relativity here.

 

[medlaw06]

we have jimdo to thank for finally placing these things into perspective 🙂

 

[GopherBrain]

No, the U of Nevada is worse. Plus, their Program Director is a tool, and all of the residents are very unattractive.