Don't be wishy-washy. . .

[juddson]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I'm interesting in getting something as close to definitive as possible on this question: is research during medical school becoming necessary to land a residency in a competitive field or a competitive residency in a non-competitive field?

I've read a bit about this before, but the answers seem wishy-washy. The admin at my school seems equally so (things like, "research is 'helpful'" - whatever that means). In my estimation there are a handful of "competitive residency fields. The include Urology, ENT, Dermatology, Radiology, optho and, perhaps, neurology. It's no secret that you need a relatively high Step-1 score to land one of these spots. But it still seems to be a secret (at least to me) whether one must do research in order to land one of these positions. What is the word. I'm looking for statements like, "yes, you will be a disadvantage in matching to urology if you have done no research" or "while research is always a plus on an application, it is a minor player for matching in Urology - plenty of people match there without research".

What's the word? Is it needed or not?

Judd
ps. I know at least some of you will be tempted to say something along the lines of "don't do research if you don't have a passion for it no matter what residency position you want". This is well taken, but IF some of these fields do require research, i will eat my own shoe if the majority of people who match in them did research in med school because they had a passion for it.

 

[Tenesma]

STEP 1 is most important, next is connections - networking can either be accomplished by kissing ass with specific people in the right places, or by doing research with specific people in the right places.... so research isn't all that important if you are willing to kiss a lot of ass....

 

[Bono]

This was a quote from an attending who regulary interviews 4th years for positions at my school for Urology. " Dont apply to this program or any other program if you dont have at least a 235 on step 1....I dont give two s#its how much research you did or what you did it in.......However, if you do have at least a 235 AND you have relevant research in urology you are a step up from people who dont have it and thats a fact."

-Bono 😴

 

[Pikevillemedstudent]

Research helps regardless of the field. It's better to spend time in the lab now rather than regretting it later when you apply to residency. It's obvious you want to be the best applicant you can be, so YES do research. Do applicants get accepted without research? I am sure they do, but I would bet they had a stellar CV in every other catergory.

Also, I don't think neurology is very competitive.

 

[Gfunk6]

I'm interesting in getting something as close to definitive as possible on this question: is research during medical school becoming necessary to land a residency in a competitive field or a competitive residency in a non-competitive field?

Well, it really depends on the field you are going into. If you are going into a Surgical subspeciality (ENT, Ortho, Urology, Integrated Plastics), Dermatology, Diagnostic Radiology, or Opthomalogy then the answer is YES, BUT you still need high Board scores (230+), good clinical grades, and AOA membership to make your application competitive.

However, for other specialities such as Neurosurgery (10% applicants were MD/PhDs in 2004 applicant pool) and Radiation Oncology the answer is YES, AND it had best be relevant to the field. These fields tend to be more academic and you really do need research (basic or clincal) to be competitive.

Then, there is an additional caveat. If you are applying to Academic residency programs (e.g. in a major University) then research will clearly be relevant and desired. It can ONLY help you to have some, even if you disliked it. However, you can still match in a highly competitive field but you are likely a more desirable candidate for community programs.

My two cents.

 

[juddson]

This was a quote from an attending who regulary interviews 4th years for positions at my school for Urology. " Dont apply to this program or any other program if you dont have at least a 235 on step 1....I dont give two s#its how much research you did or what you did it in.......However, if you do have at least a 235 AND you have relevant research in urology you are a step up from people who dont have it and thats a fact."

-Bono 😴

That's exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks.

Judd

 

[juddson]

Well, it really depends on the field you are going into. If you are going into a Surgical subspeciality (ENT, Ortho, Urology, Integrated Plastics), Dermatology, Diagnostic Radiology, or Opthomalogy then the answer is YES, BUT you still need high Board scores (230+), good clinical grades, and AOA membership to make your application competitive.

However, for other specialities such as Neurosurgery (10% applicants were MD/PhDs in 2004 applicant pool) and Radiation Oncology the answer is YES, AND it had best be relevant to the field. These fields tend to be more academic and you really do need research (basic or clincal) to be competitive.

Then, there is an additional caveat. If you are applying to Academic residency programs (e.g. in a major University) then research will clearly be relevant and desired. It can ONLY help you to have some, even if you disliked it. However, you can still match in a highly competitive field but you are likely a more desirable candidate for community programs.

My two cents.

Thank you. That clears it up.

Judd

 

[deleted4401]

As someone who is currently applying to radiation oncology with no/minimal research activity, the answer is a RESOUNDING YES. High board scores, excellent recs, and good grades haven't cut it for me - yes, I have some interviews, but this is a treacherous process and very difficult without research. I'd imagine the same for Derm, Radiology, and anything else ultracompetitive.

I agree with with what you said, juddson, because no one gave me a 'definite' answer - I heard a lot of 'it would be helpful' etc, but if I was telling someone now, I'd say "it is almost mandatory".

Take care,
Simul

 

[Mirror Form]

Research is DEFINITELY NOT absolutely necessary to match into any field, (except maybe the very small and tough academic ones like derm and rad onc). There are plenty of people every year who match in to ortho, ophtho, ENT, rads, etc, w/o any research. However, research can help a lot, especially if the research is meaningful. Even if it isn't meaningful, it will still show that you're trying, and effort counts. If you want to be the best applicant you can be, then I'd recommend getting involved in research! It shows that you're dedicated to the field, want to contribute to it, and may give something back to your future dept by bringing in research grants or getting the dept's name out in the literature.

However, research takes a LONG time. I spent an entire month of vacation time, plus hours and hours of time during my following rotations working on my research, and all it was just a stinking chart review. While I'm sure it helped me a little bit in the application process, it's hard to say if the time spent was worth it. It did help me get a strong letter from a big wig though, so that may have helped too.

 

[pikachu]

I agree with above posters that research is essential for most competitive residencies especially the heavily academic ones like rad onc; probably also true for rads, derm, ENT, or any highly competitive program no matter what the field. I also think that research can help fill out an application that may have some weak points. Programs will screen by step 1 scores, this is unavoidable, but publication(s) can somewhat make up for a "deficit" like not being AOA. I am applying for rad onc this year, my preclinical grades were frankly not great (did ok on step 1, not 250 or anything like that), and I am getting interviews I think mainly based on my research CV, possibly with some help from LOR's. Although I am also getting used to rejection.

Keep in mind that your research does not have to be lab work. A solid clinical paper is just as good for your residency application as a basic science project and is much easier to get through as a med student. if you are interested in research the key is to find a good mentor early. It's better to go with a more established attending because they don't "need" the first authorship on your paper. Let your mentor know that your goal is to get a first author publication and if they seem resistant to this idea you might be better off with a different attending to work with.

 

[DrIng]

Interesting debate isn't it. Yes research helps. But it can take up a great deal of your time and if that coems at the cost of your grades then it certainly wont 'help' and if it coems at the cost of your family life then you may get the residency you want but still be miserable. It's a balancing act and research is still only one element and the main purpose is to help you get your foot in the door.

 

[novacek88]

Research is a requirement for competitive specialties. The exception if you attended a top 10 medical school or have amazing numbers like having both AOA and 240+ on Step 1. Otherwise, research is almost a requirement. And yes, it research is very time intensive and tedious. Therefore, only do research in a field you are absolutely sure about. Otherwise, it could be a waste. The reason why research is needed is because it shows your committment to a field and so many competitive candidates have it which will arouse suspicion if you lack it

 

[space_monkie]

I totally agree w/ Simul. I am also applying for Rad Onc and I have good board scores, good grades, aoa, etc but no research in the field and I think that must be what is spoiling my application, I feel like it's a requirement to do research to be considered, so I would say you should do research regardless b/c you never know if you end up wanting something competitive.

 

[brendang]

My publications in two different Cardiology/Vasc Surg texts were brought up in all my ophtho interviews... I did present a paper at a Canadian ophthalmic society as well, but there really didn't care that I focused my research in something else... It just demonstrates your capacity to handle your proverbial sh#t... So, in answer of your question, I believe it is important once you are there (i.e. the interview)... Some programs even interview you with a PhD and what else are you supposed to talk about for 20-30 minutes? His exquisite taste in tweed?