3
305985
deleted
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 24,004
- Reaction score
- 16,778
I think the more competitive a field is, the more likely that research and research in the area is highly looked upon...
If you look at "charting the match" on the nrmp website http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf
The specialty with the highest number of research experiences are: Rad Onc (3.8 matched, 3.6 unmatched), Plastics (3.7 v 3.1), Derm (3.6 v 3.0), ENT (3.4 v 2.9), Neurosurg (3.3 v 2.8), and Transitional year (?, 3.1 v 2.7). a few specialties had fewer in the matched vs unmatched (FM 1.3 vs 1.8, Peds 1.8 v 1.9, Med/Peds 1.7 v 2.2, OB/Gyn 2.1 v 2.2, PM&R 1.8 v 2.1, Psych 1.8 v 1.8)
There is probably a lot more that goes into it, and you can also look into each specialty one by one... In rad onc, 7 people reported no research projects, 5 matched, 2 did not, 11 did only 1, with a rate of 10:1. 5 or more, rate of 41:7 (so, statistically speaking, it would have been better odds if you only did 1 project vs 5 or more). I think the value of research is greatly overplayed, and not having research will not make it impossible to get a spot, just like having research will not assure you a spot. If you have a field you really want to go into, do whatever you want to do to make your application strongest you can. Clerkship grades (both 3rd and 4th year), Step scores (both 1 and 2 if you take it) and Letters of Recommendation all have more impact than a research project does, so don't forsake any of them just to be able to put a research project into ERAS.
If you look at "charting the match" on the nrmp website http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf
The specialty with the highest number of research experiences are: Rad Onc (3.8 matched, 3.6 unmatched), Plastics (3.7 v 3.1), Derm (3.6 v 3.0), ENT (3.4 v 2.9), Neurosurg (3.3 v 2.8), and Transitional year (?, 3.1 v 2.7). a few specialties had fewer in the matched vs unmatched (FM 1.3 vs 1.8, Peds 1.8 v 1.9, Med/Peds 1.7 v 2.2, OB/Gyn 2.1 v 2.2, PM&R 1.8 v 2.1, Psych 1.8 v 1.8)
There is probably a lot more that goes into it, and you can also look into each specialty one by one... In rad onc, 7 people reported no research projects, 5 matched, 2 did not, 11 did only 1, with a rate of 10:1. 5 or more, rate of 41:7 (so, statistically speaking, it would have been better odds if you only did 1 project vs 5 or more). I think the value of research is greatly overplayed, and not having research will not make it impossible to get a spot, just like having research will not assure you a spot. If you have a field you really want to go into, do whatever you want to do to make your application strongest you can. Clerkship grades (both 3rd and 4th year), Step scores (both 1 and 2 if you take it) and Letters of Recommendation all have more impact than a research project does, so don't forsake any of them just to be able to put a research project into ERAS.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,868
- Reaction score
- 887
Remember that within many specialties, some programs will expect some form of research results while others won't really care. It isn't as uniform as you might like. My residency class was mostly MD/PhD, and everyone had lots of research experience. But that certainly isn't true across all programs in my specialty.
You should also consider why some specialties seem to 'require' research experience. Some do it to add another metric by which to compare applicants. Others do it because they are actually a research-oriented discipline.
You should also consider why some specialties seem to 'require' research experience. Some do it to add another metric by which to compare applicants. Others do it because they are actually a research-oriented discipline.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 99
- Reaction score
- 0
I may be biased, but I would have to say Radiation Oncology is the specialty that places the strongest emphasis on research (though somebody going into Derm may beg to differ). In every interview, without fail, the interviewer wanted to discuss your research projects in great detail. Why? I can think of a few reasons:
1. Some of the top tier programs give you one full year to do research, while even many "middle-tier" programs give you six months to do research. Keep in mind that while you are doing research, you are obviously not seeing patients in clinic and so it obviously costs the program to have you do research for that six months. Therefore, they want to know that you will be productive during that time frame and churn out some publications to help boost the prestige of the program and/or generate some funding in the way of research grants.
2. Due to the fact that is such a research/technolgically driven field, the program directors and attendings realize that it is incredibly important that the applicant understand the basics of how research specific to radiation oncology is conducted.
3. I believe that extensive research in radiation oncology shows that you are committed to the field and not going into the field primarily for the "lifestyle". In the eyes of the program director, if you are someone that decides early in your MS-IV year that you want to go into RadOnc, you are a higher risk (of leaving) than someone that has been doing RadOnc research since their MS-I year and has shown a greater devotion to the field.
4. RadOnc is such a competitive field, it is very easy to screen out applicants who do not have "x" number of publications or "y" research experiences (akin to using Step 1 scores to screen applicants).
I hope this help and wish you the best of luck...Stanley
1. Some of the top tier programs give you one full year to do research, while even many "middle-tier" programs give you six months to do research. Keep in mind that while you are doing research, you are obviously not seeing patients in clinic and so it obviously costs the program to have you do research for that six months. Therefore, they want to know that you will be productive during that time frame and churn out some publications to help boost the prestige of the program and/or generate some funding in the way of research grants.
2. Due to the fact that is such a research/technolgically driven field, the program directors and attendings realize that it is incredibly important that the applicant understand the basics of how research specific to radiation oncology is conducted.
3. I believe that extensive research in radiation oncology shows that you are committed to the field and not going into the field primarily for the "lifestyle". In the eyes of the program director, if you are someone that decides early in your MS-IV year that you want to go into RadOnc, you are a higher risk (of leaving) than someone that has been doing RadOnc research since their MS-I year and has shown a greater devotion to the field.
4. RadOnc is such a competitive field, it is very easy to screen out applicants who do not have "x" number of publications or "y" research experiences (akin to using Step 1 scores to screen applicants).
I hope this help and wish you the best of luck...Stanley
