Competitiveness of research heavy residencies.

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

10me

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
How competitive are research heavy residencies/fellowships at well respected research hospitals? How important is medical school reputation in getting into these programs? Will a student from a community-focused, research-light state medical school with a reasonable publication record, good boards and good grades have a chance at getting into one of these programs?

Do programs publish the CVs of their residents?

Thanks for any information,

Tech. currently facing the following admissions decision: 1) cheap State School MD with no debt or 2) NIH funded MD-PhD at small name school.

Members don't see this ad.
 
This is completely dependent on your own level of commitment to academic research. If you have any feeling that you might want to be a straight clinician, don't waste your time with the PhD. But if there is no doubt in your mind that you want to do biomedical research, and you are willing to sacrifice your twenties for this goal (!), then the dual degree will serve you better than anything else.

In answer to your question, you can definitely get a research-heavy residency without a PhD (I think MD-PhDs fill maybe half of those slots, depending on the specialty and institution? but perhaps Andy or someone farther ahead than I am will weigh in on this). But you will have to have a lot of research experience - at least a year, two is better - by which time it's almost like you might as well go the whole hog and get the PhD, since you have the opportunity. It will definitely improve your chances at that research residency slot.
 
This question was also posted in the General Residencies Forum. I answered the question there and I've cut and pasted my response below:

Medical school reputation helps maybe a little bit but basing an application heavily on the reputation of one's medical school would be equivalent to judging a book by its cover or only looking at the tip of the iceberg. If you have a reasonable publication record and good stats, why shouldn't you have a good chance of getting into a research-oriented residency program?

I haven't seen CVs of residents being published...but I haven't really looked hard enough for them either.

Research-oriented residencies will have strong mudphud representation however there is a significant number of MD-only folks at these programs. Again, it's about the overall application rather than the letters attached to the end of your name. Now, if you have like zero publications and you're going up against all those mudphud applicants (stats being equal) who have a substantial # of publications, of course you'll be at a disadvantage when applying to research-oriented residencies.

If you're interested in research-oriented residencies, is it because you want to be a physician-scientist? If so, why not go the MD/PhD route? That's why NIH created MSTP programs...to train people like you :)

------------------------------

As an addendum, there is this Molecular Medicine Training program at UCSF. It is open to those who are applying to Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, Pathology, and I think Derm & Neuro as well. It basically ensures you a spot in a post-residency fellowship of your choice at UCSF at the start of residency. Also, it funds up to 3 years of your post-doc research. But here's the catch. You have to be an MD/PhD to be considered for admission to the program. Exceptions can be made for MD only applicants with strong research credentials but they clearly favor the dual-degree folks.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
There are many reasons not to do the PhD route -> required rotations, required classes, TA loads, the pressure of pleasing a demanding thesis committee, pleasing a demanding PI, and the list goes on...

If one can get into a situation where they can do research fulltime without all of these extra requirements, why not go for it? Wouldn’t this route be more efficient in terms of time spent vs. number of quality publications?
 
10me said:
There are many reasons not to do the PhD route -> required rotations, required classes, TA loads, the pressure of pleasing a demanding thesis committee, pleasing a demanding PI, and the list goes on...

If one can get into a situation where they can do research fulltime without all of these extra requirements, why not go for it? Wouldn’t this route be more efficient in terms of time spent vs. number of quality publications?
The whole MD vs. MD/PhD routes to the end of doing research has been discussed quite thoroughly in this forum. If I can find it, I will append the link to this post.

The decision whether or not to do the combined degree training is solely up to you. You seem to have good insight as to the pain in the ass aspects of the graduate phase of training.

Again, research-oriented residencies do not fill exclusively with MD/PhDs so the door leading to these residencies are not locked shut by any means. Stats being equal though, when you compete against the MD/PhD candidate with a solid publication record, you will likely be at a disadvantage. I'm not saying this to be pompous...I am only telling you this based on my limited observations. The good news is once you get into a research-oriented residency, stuff you did up to that point become less significant. Always think of the future...don't rest on your previous laurels.

Best of luck, man. If you keep up the dedication and know what you want and know how to get it, you'll do just fine.
 
Thanks so much for all the candid words. Great website and best of luck in Boston, it's a great town.

Any other residents who would like to comment on the competitiveness of research heavy residents would be much appreciated.
 
Top