Do you really need to do a year of research for competitive specialties?

[Gabujabu]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Many people at my school suggest that in order to be able to get into a competitive specialty/residency program, you need to take a year off for research. However, when I was looking at the NRMP's Charting Outcomes in the Match, publications were not a statistically significant factor in predicting matches into these specialties, while USMLE Step I was far and away the strongest predictor. Thus, I was wondering if such advice is accurate. Thanks.

 

[Law2Doc]

Many people at my school suggest that in order to be able to get into a competitive specialty/residency program, you need to take a year off for research. However, when I was looking at the NRMP's Charting Outcomes in the Match, publications were not a statistically significant factor in predicting matches into these specialties, while USMLE Step I was far and away the strongest predictor. Thus, I was wondering if such advice is accurate. Thanks.

Depends which specialties we are talking about. But you certainly improve your stats by having research, whether it's a necessity or luxury. And it's a lot easier to line up a research project then to score 250. So sure, a high board score is going to be most significant, but as between the group of folks with high board scores, the things that differentiate them tend to be things like research. It benefits you to have both. Bear in mind that a lot of the big name institutions are going to expect research from their residents once you get there, so if you are looking at research as a negative, you may not even find some of the more competitive programs appealling. I know of quite a few programs that like to brag about how many residents presented at this or that annual meeting.

 

[njbmd]

Many people at my school suggest that in order to be able to get into a competitive specialty/residency program, you need to take a year off for research. However, when I was looking at the NRMP's Charting Outcomes in the Match, publications were not a statistically significant factor in predicting matches into these specialties, while USMLE Step I was far and away the strongest predictor. Thus, I was wondering if such advice is accurate. Thanks.

If you have the grades/board scores, then participating in research (any research) is less of an issue. When I say having the grades, I mean being at the top of your class and doing very well (not sitting below top 20%) and being well above average for US grads on boards. In addition, you need to have done extremely well during your clinical years.

If you meet these criteria minimally, then you don't NEED research in order to match into a competitive specialty or into a competitive residency location in a less competitive specialty. No one NEEDS to take a year off from medical school to perform research. There are plenty of good opportunities that can be done over the course of a summer or even an elective month that can lead to publication if that is your aim.

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

*BIAS ALERT: Making med school a 5 year plan to match competitively is one of my biggest pet peeves*

I agree with what others have said before. This is on a sliding scale.

If you're AOA, top of the class, killed boards, research is icing in the cake. Now, there are some fields who like to see research anyway. I'd throw in Derm, Rad Onc, ENT as things I've heard. However, if you're top of the class, you should be able to handle this with less effort, stuff like a case report or something in your fourth year. Just try to track down an attending who wants to publish but doesn't have time.

If you're top middle to middle of the class, you CAN probably match, but you want to guarantee it, that's probably going to require a bit more in depth. But most stuff could be worked on in your "spare time" without taking a year off.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Even those at the top of their class grades and scores wise aren't going to easily match into competitive institutions in competitive residencies, i.e. derm at UCSF. Research can be very helpful even to those with top academics.

 

[Long Dong]

The number 1 guy in my class matched harvard plastics without taking a year off for research. Granted he was the #1 guy, and had a memory that I can only describe as uncanny, and got publications off while in med school and involved in research threwout it.

But I think if you are competitive you can match in the competitve fields (derm,plastics etc.) without taking a year off to do research just as long as you can show some type of research/pub/presentation. Rad Onc might be a different story since that field probably has the most PhDs applying to it.

 

[RxnMan]

I've looked into this as well, and what I found agrees with the above. If you've got high scores and grades, you don't need a year off to match in most specialities, most of the time.

Folks want to ensure that they Match, but a long ROL will go further than doing a research year.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

I think we're forgetting that just matching into a specialty is not the end all of goals.

 

[RxnMan]

I think we're forgetting that just matching into a specialty is not the end all of goals.

Of course! 😀 But that seems to be the OP's concern...

 

[SocialistMD]

I'd say very few people who match into the most competitive specialties actually take a year off "for research." That's not to say they don't have "research experience;" they probably have publications, they just didn't take time out specifically to get them (read: clinical research). You don't need to take a year off for this, and if you do take a year off and don't get anything publishable from your time, I bet it won't be of any help to you at all.

 

[Gabujabu]

Of course! 😀 But that seems to be the OP's concern...

I am certainly not suggesting that getting into a competitive specialty is the sole reason to do a year of research. In fact, research is something I'm really interested in and am currently involved with. However, I am a bit concerned about adding yet another year to the lengthy training process (after residency & fellowship I'll be well in my 30s). Also, whenever thinking about things like this, I always think about all other things that could possibly be done in a year, the so-called opportunity costs of this kind of decision (i.e. doing an additional one-year fellowship, doing research after completing training instead, getting another degree, etc.). For instance, I feel that a doing a year of research as a physician could be more productive for a number of reasons. By that time, I'll already know exactly what field/subspecialty I want to pursue, I won't necessarily have a one year time constraint to do projects (many take >1 year), and the techniques I'd be using would be more current. Thank you everyone for your input!

 

[sendwich]

dfdsdf