Can I get into a pathology residency with no research experience?

[mmedw]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am currently in my 3rd year of medical school and really love pathology. My question is, if I have absolutely no research experience is it possible to match in pathology? The closest I have come to research is working as a lab assistant for a semester as an undergrad. I go to a communtiy school in the Midwest, with excellent preclinical grades and a pretty good Step 1, my clerkship grades have been fairly good so far. My ultimate goal is to work in a clinical setting - probably in a midsize community in the Midwest; I have no desire to be in academia. And if I have no desire to be in academia or to do much research - will it be hard for me to find a job as it seems jobs are hard to come by and most that are out there are in academia?

 

[beary]

Hello,

I certainly think it is very possible to match into a path residency without research experience. I have met many applicants with no research and no interest in it.

I think that just by the numbers there actually are more jobs in private practice than in academics.

 

[yaah]

1) A high percentage of applicants have little to no research experience. I had minimal.

2) Most jobs are private practice, not academia.

 

[mmedw]

The reason I ask about research experience is because I have read the program descriptions for many of the residencies and all either require a research rotation or strongly encourage it. Then for fellowships, which it seems like most people do, research is almost always required. I have no experience in research and don't want to do it as a career, but it seems like somewhere along the line I would have to get at least minimally involved. I am basically clueless when it comes to setting up a research project, from even figuring out a topic to experimental design to running statistics. For path residents out there, is there enough guidance from faculty for people like me and can you learn as you go along? Or would I be pretty much on my own? Would there even be other path residents as clueless as me? And how hard would it be for me to get a fellowship where research is required but I have no experience?

 

[yaah]

There are all different kinds of research. It doesn't mean you have to split the atom or run dilutions or gels or crystallize proteins. A lot of the research done in residency is translational, i.e. looking at clinically relevant things that don't require benchwork. An example would be looking at the pattern of immunostaining of a rare tumor, or looking at the utility of a new immunostain. Many faculty are happy to help you out and guide you through the process, a lot of times they simply need residents to help them with lots of the detail work (like organizing things in a spreadsheet or doing literature searches, etc).

 

[pathdawg]

Lets see. Can you get into a pathology residency without research experience? It depends. Do you have any fellony convictions on your record? Because if you do, you'll still have no problem getting into a pathology residency. Path, while probably slightly more competitive than in previous years, is still not an especially tough residency to score. If you are truly interested in path and do a few rotations in pathology as a student, you'll have absolutely no problem matching in a program.

 

[AngryTesticle]

Agree with the above.

Pathology residency isn't about doing research. It's about learning how to be an expert diagnostician. Research will come in due time if you wish. There seem to be plenty of opportunities out there and it's up to you to seek them out. You certainly can go through residency without doing much research and depending on the place, it sure won't be forced upon you.

I think you should be fine if you express a strong desire for becoming a member of the field. Pathology has gotten more competitive but still, compared to a lot of other specialties out there, it's still not that bad.

 

[yaah]

I agree - pathology residency is to learn how to be a pathologist, not how to do research. Now, doing research may help you learn and teach appropriate skills, etc, but at the same time it should not be the priority of residency training. The way things seem to be going at a lot of places is that department chairs, etc, want it both ways. They want people who will be able to do lots of research and publish, yet still somehow learn to be an expert diagnostician. When you break down the field into subspecialties, this is definitely possible, but not for training. Training is exposure to the whole field, the broad scope, etc.