Does a lack of resarch almost negate a high board score?

[GatorsWearJorts]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know a lack of research will make it difficult to match in a ROAD specialty even with 250+. But, what about for less competitive specialties at prestigious programs? Ive read a few times on these boards that top academic programs really value research regardless of specialty. Is it foolish to expect to match at a well-known academic program (say for EM or IM) with a 235+ but no research?
Thanks.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

A high board score means little by itself. Most programs look to other factors once you're above the 240 ish range. I would make sure your grades are in tip top shape if you're not big into research. With a 250 and a nice ammount of honours I think you have a good shot at matching at a top place in a less competitive specialty.

 

[H_Caulfield]

With a 250 and a nice ammount of honours I think you have a good shot at matching at a top place in a less competitive specialty.

This is just silly. With a 250 and a "nice amount of honors" you can match at a top place in many specialties, even the competitive ones. There are too many variables involved to make a prediction based on what the OP has stated. Some of the more important but less-mentioned ones being:

What's your race/ethnic background?
What tier school do you attend?
Do you spend a great deal of time engaging in kiss@ss activities like healthcare for the underserved and HIV testing?
Who is writing your letters?
Are you doing away rotations? What Sub-i's? What do the first 4 months of your 4th year schedule look like?

Answer this crap and I'll tell you what your chances of...umm..."matching into a top program in a competitive field" are.

 

[Excelsius]

This is just silly. With a 250 and a "nice amount of honors" you can match at a top place in many specialties, even the competitive ones. There are too many variables involved to make a prediction based on what the OP has stated. Some of the more important but less-mentioned ones being:

What's your race/ethnic background?
What tier school do you attend?
Do you spend a great deal of time engaging in kiss@ss activities like healthcare for the underserved and HIV testing?
Who is writing your letters?
Are you doing away rotations? What Sub-i's? What do the first 4 months of your 4th year schedule look like?

Answer this crap and I'll tell you what your chances of...umm..."matching into a top program in a competitive field" are.

Oh really? Care to elaborate, please?

 

[geogil]

I know a lack of research will make it difficult to match in a ROAD specialty even with 250+. But, what about for less competitive specialties at prestigious programs? Ive read a few times on these boards that top academic programs really value research regardless of specialty. Is it foolish to expect to match at a well-known academic program (say for EM or IM) with a 235+ but no research?
Thanks.

Not true. Look at the 'charting the outcomes of the match'.
Anesthesia: 220
Ophto: 230 something
Derm: 240
Rads: 230 something

take a look at that report, it should answer any questions about research and its relative importance in the ROAD (and other) specialties. Poke around on teh AAMC webpage and you can also find the report wherein PD's rank what they consider the most important portions of an application, including research, school ranking, class rank, grades in clinical and preclinical years, letters, research, publications, community service, etc..

here's the survey of pd's

 

[GatorsWearJorts]

Thanks. Ive actaully looked throuhg all that stuff a lot. It nearly has led me to the conclusion that high board score + middle of the class grades + no research= guaranteed match in non-competitive specialty, but small to no chance at big name programs in non-comp specialty.
I just wanted to get some other opinions about it.

 

[Re3iRtH]

Why does every SDNer with a 235+ board score so
SCARED they will end up in FM or IM? I feel like people these days
are too full of themselves to respond to someone, "oh I specialized in
IM, Peds, FM, etc". I'm not even a democrat but I hope Obama
does all he can to supress this arrogance.

What kind of opinions can you possibly be looking for that are better
than whats in print? Not trying to be a dick but there will always be
anecdotal examples and my cousin's husbands brother did this, etc.

 

[DoctorPardi]

Oh really? Care to elaborate, please?

From the NRMP's "Charting Outcomes" article (http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2007.pdf)

"For all specialties except Family Medicine, smaller percentages
of applicants who did not match to their preferred specialty were graduates of top 40 research intensive medical schools
compared to applicants who matched. " (Page 9)

Also:
"For U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties, being a graduate of a top 40 NIH research medical school
was a significant predictor of match success (OR=1.41), and the fourth best predictor overall." (Page 17)

It is interesting to mention the number one predictor for match success was number of contiguous ranks within a specialty. (That is, ranking 3 programs in orthopedics vs ranking 15 programs in orthopedics) Of course to be able to rank programs you had to interview there and to interview there you had to receive an interview. So # of ranks is somewhat dependent on other factors.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Thanks. Ive actaully looked throuhg all that stuff a lot. It nearly has led me to the conclusion that high board score + middle of the class grades + no research= guaranteed match in non-competitive specialty, but small to no chance at big name programs in non-comp specialty.
I just wanted to get some other opinions about it.

Is "non-competitive specialty" a code word for IM?

That's the only field I've heard of where it seems like there is really a lower emphasis on the board score and a higher emphasis on research at the top programs.

Overall, there is really no point to worrying too much about this. Your board score is what it is; your grades are what they are. The question is - what can you do going forward to position yourself better for the match? You need to find a good advisor in your area of interest, who can better tell you what your chances are and help you shape your list of schools. If you really think research is that crucial to your application, then suck it up and do a fourth year research month early.

 

[Reimat]

I know a lack of research will make it difficult to match in a ROAD specialty even with 250+. But, what about for less competitive specialties at prestigious programs? Ive read a few times on these boards that top academic programs really value research regardless of specialty. Is it foolish to expect to match at a well-known academic program (say for EM or IM) with a 235+ but no research?
Thanks.

I'm guessing it depends on why you want to go to a well-known academic program. The research background serves to filter in people who are more likely to stay involved in academics - and from all that I've heard, if you're planning on not staying in academia there is no benefit to doing residency at an academic powerhouse (usually ranked highly because of their research $$).

Any reason in particular you want to match at a well-known academic program?

 

[Excelsius]

From the NRMP's "Charting Outcomes" article (http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2007.pdf)

"For all specialties except Family Medicine, smaller percentages
of applicants who did not match to their preferred specialty were graduates of top 40 research intensive medical schools
compared to applicants who matched. " (Page 9)

Also:
"For U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties, being a graduate of a top 40 NIH research medical school
was a significant predictor of match success (OR=1.41), and the fourth best predictor overall." (Page 17)

It is interesting to mention the number one predictor for match success was number of contiguous ranks within a specialty. (That is, ranking 3 programs in orthopedics vs ranking 15 programs in orthopedics) Of course to be able to rank programs you had to interview there and to interview there you had to receive an interview. So # of ranks is somewhat dependent on other factors.

Wow. So does that mean that very competitive specialties are going to be even tougher to get in to from lower tier schools? I wonder where are all those SDN medstudents who continuously claim that school name does not matter. It seems it matters a lot. I wasn't expecting it to matter at least for non-competitive specialties.

 

[Black Surgeon]

Not true. Look at the 'charting the outcomes of the match'.

This doesn't make much of an allowance for time sensitiviy. Its from 2006.

 

[DoctorPardi]

Wow. So does that mean that very competitive specialties are going to be even tougher to get in to from lower tier schools? I wonder where are all those SDN medstudents who continuously claim that school name does not matter. It seems it matters a lot. I wasn't expecting it to matter at least for non-competitive specialties.

Something you have to consider is that people who get in to more competitive schools are probably more likely to be better med students because they were better applicants.

I mean that is the goal of all this non-sense (MCAT, GPA, research etc) undergrads have to get through to get into medical school. So to some degree the higher "tier" school will have applicants who are likely to be better applicants than other schools.

Also though, and somewhat contradictory to what I just said, is that they are simply using NIH grants and the "intensiveness" of research to determine the top 40. While US N&WR's rankings depend heavily on NIH funding, they are definitely a different ranking. So they aren't ranking based on how selective a school is or how well the matriculants did on the MCAT. Even so, it is more likely that someone went to a top 40 NIH school did research, probably higher quantity and possibly higher quality than IN GENERAL students at non top 40 schools.

This has a higher impact on less competitive specialties because anyone graduating from a school that makes you do research will have an advantage on someone who didn't. For example anyone who graduates from UAB will have done 3 months of research after 2nd year and has the possibility of doing 2 months of research after 1st year. So even a student passing casually through school with no motivation to "gun" for a specialty will have research. Whereas someone at a school that doesn't mandate research will have done the same but not have a significant research experience associated with their residency application. (I don't mean to toot UAB's horn here, I just use my school as an example, certainly you can argue for or against making people do research. I personally like research so I appreciate it, but I understand some people don't)

Edit to include my point I forgot:
I really wanted to point out that, school doesn't matter because the top students at each school will have done significant research on their own (thus canceling out the top 40 NIH parameter). The top student will do well on the Steps regardless of where they go as well.

Various things medical schools do like mandate research generally will raise the bar for their medical students in the bottom of each class. Which would lead to an advantage for them in a less competitive match. This wont effect top specialties nearly as much because anyone matching into Ortho/Rad Onc is doing all this anyway no matter where they go to school.

 

[cpants]

Wow. So does that mean that very competitive specialties are going to be even tougher to get in to from lower tier schools? I wonder where are all those SDN medstudents who continuously claim that school name does not matter. It seems it matters a lot. I wasn't expecting it to matter at least for non-competitive specialties.

No. No statistically significant OR was found for competitive specialties. Also, what premeds consider top tier and the top 40 NIH funded schools are not even close to the same thing. A lot of big name schools are not in the top 40, and a lot of state schools are.

What is more interesting and relevant to the thread is that neither number of research experiences nor number of abstracts, presentations, and publications showed any match advantage, while step I score >235 showed significant OR's of 3.15 and 1.90 for competitive and less competitive specialties respectively. That should put to rest the premise that lack of research can negate a high step score.

 

[Black Surgeon]

This is just silly. With a 250 and a "nice amount of honors" you can match at a top place in many specialties, even the competitive ones. There are too many variables involved to make a prediction based on what the OP has stated. Some of the more important but less-mentioned ones being:

What's your race/ethnic background?

I don't think this has much of an impact when it comes to residency placement.

 

[njbmd]

This is just silly. With a 250 and a "nice amount of honors" you can match at a top place in many specialties, even the competitive ones. There are too many variables involved to make a prediction based on what the OP has stated. Some of the more important but less-mentioned ones being:

What's your race/ethnic background?
What tier school do you attend?
Do you spend a great deal of time engaging in kiss@ss activities like healthcare for the underserved and HIV testing?
Who is writing your letters?
Are you doing away rotations? What Sub-i's? What do the first 4 months of your 4th year schedule look like?

Answer this crap and I'll tell you what your chances of...umm..."matching into a top program in a competitive field" are.

Things that can help with matching into a competitive residency program:

• Grades in medical school especially third year but everything counts.
• Scores on USMLE Step I (two doesn't matter that much)
• Letters of recommendation from department chair of specialty that you want to enter.

Things that make little difference in residency selection if you don't have the above:

• Research
• Activities in medical school

Things that don't matter at all:

• Race
• Ethnicity
• Medical School attended

If you want doors to open for you, post a AOA (Alpha Omega Alpha), have excellent grades and a very strong USMLE Step I score. If you don't have these things then you need to make sure that you have strong letters (definitely NEED one from the department chair) and you may need to do an audition rotation at the program that you want to enter and be ready to do extremely well.

A strong graduate from a "lesser" ranked medical school will go further than a weak graduate from a "higher" ranked medical school. I can tell you that we screen our residency applicants based on USMLE Step I first, grades second and then look at other things. We can only interview 75 people for 3 categorical slots. We generally rank everyone that we interview.

If your medical school is Pass/Fail, your USMLE Step I score become more important. We don't care about Step II unless you fail (which will result in a low ranking if we have interviewed you) and we will offer an interview to anyone who does a visiting clerkship with us and will rank them highly if they do a good job.

Research is of very minor importance unless it's groundbreaking because most medical students are not able to produce anything that is of substance between years.

In short, we want people who can get the job done and have shown by their achievements academically and clinically, that they can pass boards and have a strong work ethic.

 

[RoadRunner17]

Things that can help with matching into a competitive residency program:

• Grades in medical school especially third year but everything counts.
• Scores on USMLE Step I (two doesn't matter that much)
• Letters of recommendation from department chair of specialty that you want to enter.

Things that make little difference in residency selection if you don't have the above:

• Research
• Activities in medical school

Things that don't matter at all:

• Race
• Ethnicity
• Medical School attended

If you want doors to open for you, post a AOA (Alpha Omega Alpha), have excellent grades and a very strong USMLE Step I score. If you don't have these things then you need to make sure that you have strong letters (definitely NEED one from the department chair) and you may need to do an audition rotation at the program that you want to enter and be ready to do extremely well.

A strong graduate from a "lesser" ranked medical school will go further than a weak graduate from a "higher" ranked medical school. I can tell you that we screen our residency applicants based on USMLE Step I first, grades second and then look at other things. We can only interview 75 people for 3 categorical slots. We generally rank everyone that we interview.

If your medical school is Pass/Fail, your USMLE Step I score become more important. We don't care about Step II unless you fail (which will result in a low ranking if we have interviewed you) and we will offer an interview to anyone who does a visiting clerkship with us and will rank them highly if they do a good job.

Research is of very minor importance unless it's groundbreaking because most medical students are not able to produce anything that is of substance between years.

In short, we want people who can get the job done and have shown by their achievements academically and clinically, that they can pass boards and have a strong work ethic.

Very illustrative post, thank you.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

What is more interesting and relevant to the thread is that neither number of research experiences nor number of abstracts, presentations, and publications showed any match advantage, while step I score >235 showed significant OR's of 3.15 and 1.90 for competitive and less competitive specialties respectively. That should put to rest the premise that lack of research can negate a high step score.

That particular study doesn't differentiate research at all. It counts as a "research experience" anything from a 2 week stint washing dishes in a lab to a first author paper in Nature. Therefore its not possible to tell the effects of quality published research.

 

[cpants]

That particular study doesn't differentiate research at all. It counts as a "research experience" anything from a 2 week stint washing dishes in a lab to a first author paper in Nature. Therefore its not possible to tell the effects of quality published research.

Well, yes and no. It doesn't evaluate the quality of the research, that's true. But these are all experiences listed on residency applications, so most of them probably are not total BS. Independently, it measured publications and presentations which surely were more than dish duty. Regardless, it shows that the type of research that medical students put on their applications do not significantly effect their match chances. I don't doubt that a first author pub in a prestigious journal would be great for your application. The reality is that most medical students simply cannot and do not get that type of research experience.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Well, yes and no. It doesn't evaluate the quality of the research, that's true. But these are all experiences listed on residency applications, so most of them probably are not total BS. Independently, it measured publications and presentations which surely were more than dish duty. Regardless, it shows that the type of research that medical students put on their applications do not significantly effect their match chances. I don't doubt that a first author pub in a prestigious journal would be great for your application. The reality is that most medical students simply cannot and do not get that type of research experience.

I think you may be overestimating the quality needed for something to be listed on a residency application.
Also it does not tell us much about the unquantifiable advantages of research: early demonstration of interest, building connections in the field, improved letters of recommendation.

 

[TMP-SMX]

"Selection Criteria for Residency: Results of a
National Program Directors Survey" from the March 2009 Journal of Academic Medicine.

"Abstract
Purpose
To assess the relative importance of
criteria used for residency selection in
21 medical specialties given current
available data and competitiveness of
specialties.
Method
In 2006, questionnaires were distributed
to 2,528 program directors in university
hospital or university-affiliated
community hospital residency programs
across 21 medical specialties. Responses
were recorded using a five-point Likert
scale of importance. Mean values for
each item were calculated within and
across all specialties. Mean scores for
item responses were used to create rank
orders of selection criteria within the
specialties. To facilitate comparisons,
specialties were grouped according to
the percentages of positions filled with
U.S. medical school graduates.
Results
The overall response rate was 49%. With
the data from all specialties pooled, the
top five selection criteria were (1) grades
in required clerkships, (2) United States
Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)
Step 1 score, (3) grades in senior
electives in specialty, (4) number of
honors grades, and (5) USMLE Step 2
Clinical Knowledge (CK) score.
Conclusions
The top academic selection criteria are
based on clinical performance, with the
exception of USMLE Step 1 score.
Indicators that reflect excellence in
clinical performance are valued across
the specialties by residency program
directors regardless of competitiveness
within the specialty. USMLE Step 2 CK
ranks higher in the less competitive
specialties, whereas research experience
is more prominent in the most
competitive specialties. The Medical
Student Performance Evaluation was
ranked lowest of all criteria by the
program directors.
Acad Med. 2009; 84:362–367."

 

[Excelsius]

Something you have to consider is that people who get in to more competitive schools are probably more likely to be better med students because they were better applicants.

I mean that is the goal of all this non-sense (MCAT, GPA, research etc) undergrads have to get through to get into medical school. So to some degree the higher "tier" school will have applicants who are likely to be better applicants than other schools.

Also though, and somewhat contradictory to what I just said, is that they are simply using NIH grants and the "intensiveness" of research to determine the top 40. While US N&WR's rankings depend heavily on NIH funding, they are definitely a different ranking. So they aren't ranking based on how selective a school is or how well the matriculants did on the MCAT. Even so, it is more likely that someone went to a top 40 NIH school did research, probably higher quantity and possibly higher quality than IN GENERAL students at non top 40 schools.

This has a higher impact on less competitive specialties because anyone graduating from a school that makes you do research will have an advantage on someone who didn't. For example anyone who graduates from UAB will have done 3 months of research after 2nd year and has the possibility of doing 2 months of research after 1st year. So even a student passing casually through school with no motivation to "gun" for a specialty will have research. Whereas someone at a school that doesn't mandate research will have done the same but not have a significant research experience associated with their residency application. (I don't mean to toot UAB's horn here, I just use my school as an example, certainly you can argue for or against making people do research. I personally like research so I appreciate it, but I understand some people don't)

Edit to include my point I forgot:
I really wanted to point out that, school doesn't matter because the top students at each school will have done significant research on their own (thus canceling out the top 40 NIH parameter). The top student will do well on the Steps regardless of where they go as well.

Various things medical schools do like mandate research generally will raise the bar for their medical students in the bottom of each class. Which would lead to an advantage for them in a less competitive match. This wont effect top specialties nearly as much because anyone matching into Ortho/Rad Onc is doing all this anyway no matter where they go to school.

I have to disagree. The scores to get into any medical school are very high. So a difference between a top 20 school and top 100 school is often non-existent in terms of the MCAT and the GPA scores. Even if you look at the prestigious schools like Harvard and Hopkins, their GPAs and MCATs vary from the bottom schools only by slight percentages. The difference can often come down to one person receiving an extra B. Does that say anything about being a better student number-wise? I don't think so. If we were talking about law school, I'd agree. But with medical school there is barely any variation. Even if you have close to 4.0 and 39, you should be happy to get an acceptance to any medical school within US. Plus once you are in medical school, what does it matter how you performed in college anyway? They are only going to look at your school performance and I would bet that the vast majority of medschools in US have pretty similar number of students who score in the same bracket of high Step 1s and honoring clinicals. So again, I do not see how performance in undergrad somehow translates into positive review by residency programs unless there is a strong bias towards top tier medschools and an assumption that their students are intrinsically better.

You also mention the research opportunity at top schools. Again, I wouldn't agree that it is a reason why the name of the school matters. If you look, you'll see that research (even publications!) is regarded to be several orders less important than school name. That says a lot. I think we're missing something here.

The only non-prejudicial explanation for top tier preference I can see must have something to do with undergad ECs that are relevant to the residency applications. It is not hard to imagine that the only EC important to be worthy of residency application is research. So, then the assumption is that top medical schools accept students with plenty of research experience in undergrad and then this in turn helps them to secure residency positions in the field where they did research. Can this be? I think this would be a far stretch. I am already working on two research papers one of which will be my first author publication in a medium impact journal, but my grades are far less than the average. I will get to test this "EC" hypothesis of top tier schools when my application cycle comes. I just find it very hard believe that the only reason top tier schools have such a clear advantage is only because of the research experience of their students as undergrads who continued some of their research in med school. As you might know, pretty much all medschools have a lot of research opportunities. The top ten school with 300mln grant vs the bottom 100 school with 10mln grant doesn't amount to much as long as you do your research.

The "self-selection" theory is that credible either. I don't see how someone attending UCLA would want to go into top specialty/residency program while a Drexel student might not want that. Pretty much everyone wants to get the best residency spot.

 

[GatorsWearJorts]

Why does every SDNer with a 235+ board score so
SCARED they will end up in FM or IM? I feel like people these days
are too full of themselves to respond to someone, "oh I specialized in
IM, Peds, FM, etc". I'm not even a democrat but I hope Obama
does all he can to supress this arrogance.

What kind of opinions can you possibly be looking for that are better
than whats in print? Not trying to be a dick but there will always be
anecdotal examples and my cousin's husbands brother did this, etc.

I think you may have misunderstood my question.

 

[GatorsWearJorts]

Things that can help with matching into a competitive residency program:

• Grades in medical school especially third year but everything counts.
• Scores on USMLE Step I (two doesn't matter that much)
• Letters of recommendation from department chair of specialty that you want to enter.

Things that make little difference in residency selection if you don't have the above:

• Research
• Activities in medical school

Things that don't matter at all:

• Race
• Ethnicity
• Medical School attended

If you want doors to open for you, post a AOA (Alpha Omega Alpha), have excellent grades and a very strong USMLE Step I score. If you don't have these things then you need to make sure that you have strong letters (definitely NEED one from the department chair) and you may need to do an audition rotation at the program that you want to enter and be ready to do extremely well.

A strong graduate from a "lesser" ranked medical school will go further than a weak graduate from a "higher" ranked medical school. I can tell you that we screen our residency applicants based on USMLE Step I first, grades second and then look at other things. We can only interview 75 people for 3 categorical slots. We generally rank everyone that we interview.

If your medical school is Pass/Fail, your USMLE Step I score become more important. We don't care about Step II unless you fail (which will result in a low ranking if we have interviewed you) and we will offer an interview to anyone who does a visiting clerkship with us and will rank them highly if they do a good job.

Research is of very minor importance unless it's groundbreaking because most medical students are not able to produce anything that is of substance between years.

In short, we want people who can get the job done and have shown by their achievements academically and clinically, that they can pass boards and have a strong work ethic.

Thats what I was looking for. Thank you.

 

[Re3iRtH]

I think you may have misunderstood my question.

Yea I think I did. But you came across (as many people on here do) that
you just want to match into a competitive speciality, as long as it rolls
good off of the tongue, or even IM or FM at Harvard. If you actually were
interested in a specific speciality, no matter which, there is no
problem with that.

Its almost as if "I need the prestige of something competitive, but I'll take
my chances with whatever it happens to be
because I'll probably enjoy it since it pays well."

Maybe its more important to match into something that is simply
competitive, rather than something you truly enjoy, even if that happens
to be something that is not competitive. I don't see the validity in that,
but after rotations, who knows I might have the same viewpoint as
what I'm criticizing. 😎

Anyhow some good info in this thread.

 

[TMP-SMX]

FYI for those of you too lazy to click the image attachment on my post here is what the 2006 survey of residency program directors ranked as most important in order. Those of you interested should read the article. The article also goes into how the different specialties, differentiated by competitiveness based on the percent of that USMGs that fill the spots, rank these factors:

1) Grades in required clerkships
2) USMLE Step 1 score
3) Grades in senior electives in specialty
4) Number of honors grades
5) USMLE Step 2 score
6) USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills pass
7) Class rank
8) Membership in Alpha Omega Alpha
9) Medical school reputation
10) Medical school academic awards
11) Grades in other senior electives
12) Grades in preclinical courses
13) Published medical school research
14) Research experience while in medical school

 

[cpants]

Why does every SDNer with a 235+ board score so
SCARED they will end up in FM or IM? I feel like people these days
are too full of themselves to respond to someone, "oh I specialized in
IM, Peds, FM, etc". I'm not even a democrat but I hope Obama
does all he can to supress this arrogance.

What kind of opinions can you possibly be looking for that are better
than whats in print? Not trying to be a dick but there will always be
anecdotal examples and my cousin's husbands brother did this, etc.

Maybe it has less to do with pride and arrogance, and more to do with the state of primary care. Frankly, the PC specialties just are not appealing jobs to most students right now. Long hours, tedious work (not the pt. care, the insurance/paperwork struggles), low pay, and yes, low prestige. Ask your PCP what he thinks. He will probably tell you to consider something else.

 

[cgk]

FYI for those of you too lazy to click the image attachment on my post here is what the 2006 survey of residency program directors ranked as most important in order. Those of you interested should read the article. The article also goes into how the different specialties, differentiated by competitiveness based on the percent of that USMGs that fill the spots, rank these factors:

1) Grades in required clerkships
2) USMLE Step 1 score
3) Grades in senior electives in specialty
4) Number of honors grades
5) USMLE Step 2 score
6) USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills pass
7) Class rank
8) Membership in Alpha Omega Alpha
9) Medical school reputation
10) Medical school academic awards
11) Grades in other senior electives
12) Grades in preclinical courses
13) Published medical school research
14) Research experience while in medical school

Does #4 refer to grades in clerkships only or in preclinical classes as well?

 

[TMP-SMX]

Does #4 refer to grades in clerkships only or in preclinical classes as well?

Pretty sure it is clerkship honors as that is what it says in the other tables breaking the specialties down by competitiveness.

 

[Blesbok]

double post

 

[Blesbok]

From the NRMP's "Charting Outcomes" article (http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2007.pdf)

"For all specialties except Family Medicine, smaller percentages
of applicants who did not match to their preferred specialty were graduates of top 40 research intensive medical schools
compared to applicants who matched. " (Page 9)

Also:
"For U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties, being a graduate of a top 40 NIH research medical school
was a significant predictor of match success (OR=1.41), and the fourth best predictor overall." (Page 17)

It is interesting to mention the number one predictor for match success was number of contiguous ranks within a specialty. (That is, ranking 3 programs in orthopedics vs ranking 15 programs in orthopedics) Of course to be able to rank programs you had to interview there and to interview there you had to receive an interview. So # of ranks is somewhat dependent on other factors.

And going to a top 40 med school probably increases the likelihood of you both having research and also the school having enough funding to pay well known professors to teach their students which in turn results in higher board scores. I highly doubt it has much to do with the school's name on your application. They didn't state that all other factors were held constant for these students.

 

[dkb86]

I'm starting med school in August and like many others, I do not know what I want to specialize in yet. My question is, should the content of your research coincide with your specialty?
Like lets say I decide to do research in psych because it interests me, and then I decide to specialize in orthopedics. Would my psych research be of little importance when I'm trying to match?

 

[Blesbok]

I'm starting med school in August and like many others, I do not know what I want to specialize in yet. My question is, should the content of your research coincide with your specialty?
Like lets say I decide to do research in psych because it interests me, and then I decide to specialize in orthopedics. Would my psych research be of little importance when I'm trying to match?

I don't know how true it is since I have not gone through the match yet, but I have heard that most specialties don't really care what the research is in, however orthopaedics is the oddball in that they do care.

 

[copingmethods]

And going to a top 40 med school probably increases the likelihood of you both having research and also the school having enough funding to pay well known professors to teach their students which in turn results in higher board scores. I highly doubt it has much to do with the school's name on your application. They didn't state that all other factors were held constant for these students.

Professors become well known for their research, not for their teaching. A professor can be at the top of his/her field, but if they get into the classroom and talk only about some esoteric research, how does that help you be more prepared for boards?

 

[Blesbok]

Professors become well known for their research, not for their teaching. A professor can be at the top of his/her field, but if they get into the classroom and talk only about some esoteric research, how does that help you be more prepared for boards?

I would say goljan is pretty well known unno:

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I would say goljan is pretty well known unno:

He is very well known (and well paid by the board prep companies) for his teaching; but he is not "top of his field" by any means.

 

[Blesbok]

He is very well known (and well paid by the board prep companies) for his teaching; but he is not "top of his field" by any means.

I didn't really mean top researchers. I just meant that they have the funding to keep good teachers on staff (well known was probably not the terminology I should have used) rather than have them leave for a more lucrative salary at another school.

 

[Excelsius]

I didn't really mean top researchers. I just meant that they have the funding to keep good teachers on staff (well known was probably not the terminology I should have used) rather than have them leave for a more lucrative salary at another school.

Nope. Many of those top schools actually pay even LESS than lower ranked schools simply because the lower ones want piece of the pie too - and they get it.

I second the opinion about famous researcher vs teacher. Renowned researchers are very often notorious teachers who don't care about teaching the material. One of my teachers was like that. We ended up learning a lot about his research (which was interesting), but the textbook was probably skipped at the rate of close to 60%.

 

[decal]

Virtually no one is paid well to teach in academia, and "top 40" schools are certainly not ranked highly because of the quality of their educational programs. Speaking of Goljan, you all realize he is faculty at Oklahoma State, an osteopathic college, right?

 

[astrocreep96]

To address two points:

One, in terms of research and competitive specialties, from an anecdotal perspective - a student at my school matched into what is probably a top 5 or top 10 ortho program this past year with no research in medical school, but that student did have a 259 Step 1, Junior AOA, ranked 3rd in the class, etc. So it's possible, but obviously difficult (on the other hand, getting into a top residency is difficult in the first place so that may be a null point).

Two, also in regards to Ortho (to offer a different perspective from NRMP's rankings of importance) - UNC offered a quantitative view of what they considered important for residency selection. Medical school reputation was one factor, but it's quantitative point value on their scale was equivalent to honoring two preclinical classes.

So...obviously this doesn't apply to all specialties and all schools, but I think it still demonstrates that while medical school reputation matters, its importance is probably decently overemphasized.

 

[sport29883]

Something you have to consider is that people who get in to more competitive schools are probably more likely to be better med students because they were better applicants.

I mean that is the goal of all this non-sense (MCAT, GPA, research etc) undergrads have to get through to get into medical school. So to some degree the higher "tier" school will have applicants who are likely to be better applicants than other schools.

Also though, and somewhat contradictory to what I just said, is that they are simply using NIH grants and the "intensiveness" of research to determine the top 40. While US N&WR's rankings depend heavily on NIH funding, they are definitely a different ranking. So they aren't ranking based on how selective a school is or how well the matriculants did on the MCAT. Even so, it is more likely that someone went to a top 40 NIH school did research, probably higher quantity and possibly higher quality than IN GENERAL students at non top 40 schools.

This has a higher impact on less competitive specialties because anyone graduating from a school that makes you do research will have an advantage on someone who didn't. For example anyone who graduates from UAB will have done 3 months of research after 2nd year and has the possibility of doing 2 months of research after 1st year. So even a student passing casually through school with no motivation to "gun" for a specialty will have research. Whereas someone at a school that doesn't mandate research will have done the same but not have a significant research experience associated with their residency application. (I don't mean to toot UAB's horn here, I just use my school as an example, certainly you can argue for or against making people do research. I personally like research so I appreciate it, but I understand some people don't)

Edit to include my point I forgot:
I really wanted to point out that, school doesn't matter because the top students at each school will have done significant research on their own (thus canceling out the top 40 NIH parameter). The top student will do well on the Steps regardless of where they go as well.

Various things medical schools do like mandate research generally will raise the bar for their medical students in the bottom of each class. Which would lead to an advantage for them in a less competitive match. This wont effect top specialties nearly as much because anyone matching into Ortho/Rad Onc is doing all this anyway no matter where they go to school.

Could you define significant research (not trying to sound arrogant; just to get some more information 🙂?

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Could you define significant research (not trying to sound arrogant; just to get some more information 🙂?

It'll surely be debated but I'll give it a shot: one or more first author publication(s) in a journal with impact factor of 1.0 or greater OR two or more second author publications in journals with impact factor 1.0 or greater.

 

[chap20]

when everyone mentions research with respect to the match process, does it matter when you did this research? If you did medically relevant research in college and got it published in a medical related journal, would this help you out during match time, or will it only help you during match if your research was done during medical school? thanks for your help.

 

[chap20]

when everyone mentions research with respect to the match process, does it matter when you did this research? If you did medically relevant research in college and got it published in a medical related journal, would this help you out during match time, or will it only help you during match if your research was done during medical school? thanks for your help.

can anyone help me out with the above question. thanks

 

[TexasTriathlete]

I think the general idea is that they want to see you work on a project during med school, not before.

 

[Excelsius]

I think the general idea is that they want to see you work on a project during med school, not before.

No. A publication is a publication. I have heard some residents here mention that research during undergrad definitely counts. It is especially helpful if the research in undergrad was related to your specialty and you continued it in medschool. There are many medstudents who don't have a single publication by the time they apply for the match. It is logical that any publications in undergrad, especially first author in peer reviewed journals (I think almost all of those have at least and impact of 1), is going to be helpful.

 

[chap20]

No. A publication is a publication. I have heard some residents here mention that research during undergrad definitely counts. It is especially helpful if the research in undergrad was related to your specialty and you continued it in medschool. There are many medstudents who don't have a single publication by the time they apply for the match. It is logical that any publications in undergrad, especially first author in peer reviewed journals (I think almost all of those have at least and impact of 1), is going to be helpful.

that's great to hear. its good to know my publication still "counts". thanks for answering my question.

 

[bodonid]

I have a paper in the works, but my lab is shutting down. If I don't get published but I have posters, abstracts, presentations, etc., where am I?

 

[bcat85]

Wow. So does that mean that very competitive specialties are going to be even tougher to get in to from lower tier schools? I wonder where are all those SDN medstudents who continuously claim that school name does not matter. It seems it matters a lot. I wasn't expecting it to matter at least for non-competitive specialties.

No, it means that really really smart students go to higher tier schools.

Look, if you have a 36/3.9, it is quite likely that you will end up in a Top 40 school, and it is also quite likely that you are smarter than the average medical student (and can thus match into a competitive specialty). Conversely, if you have a 3.4/28, you may not be headed to a Top 40 (and probably not to a competitive specialty either). It's a self-reinforcing statistic. Smart kids go to smart kid schools because smart kid schools make smart kids. Get it? There isn't some sort of amorphous improvement in your education. If you start out smarter, you're likely to stay that way, and the opposite also applies.

 

[Excelsius]

No, it means that really really smart students go to higher tier schools.

Look, if you have a 36/3.9, it is quite likely that you will end up in a Top 40 school, and it is also quite likely that you are smarter than the average medical student (and can thus match into a competitive specialty). Conversely, if you have a 3.4/28, you may not be headed to a Top 40 (and probably not to a competitive specialty either). It's a self-reinforcing statistic. Smart kids go to smart kid schools because smart kid schools make smart kids. Get it? There isn't some sort of amorphous improvement in your education. If you start out smarter, you're likely to stay that way, and the opposite also applies.

Incorrect. ALL US MD schools are very competitive. Almost every school has an average GPA of 3.7. Do you really think that a difference between 3.9 and 3.7 is significant at all? That is incorrect also. In fact, if you are really going to use GPA to judge intelligence, then someone's 3.3 in physics major is much better indicator of that than a 4.0 GPA in criminology or 3.8 in biology. We also have to factor in many variables - how difficult the classes were, did the student "avoid" all the hard courses, etc. There are also personal circumstances. Get it? I have said this before - some of the smartest kids in the schools I attended were in hardcore sciences and had GPA ranges all over the place, but rarely much higher than 3.6. As for premeds with near perfect GPA, the intelligent ones are very scarce.

The MCAT can be a better indicator, but this assumes that the person must overcome any issues with test taking skills. Given that, a 38 MCAT with 3.0 GPA >>> 28 MCAT with 4.0 GPA in most cases.

Finally, one of the factors deciding between top school attendance vs not is the EC. Some of us have to work a lot and participation in inane student clubs is not our idea of productive time.

For a guy who's so religious you certainly have a lot of biases.