Fast Track vs Top Tier IM

[LuckyNYC]

Wanted to get everyone's input as to this decision. For someone interested in fellowship after IM which one would you rank higher

1. A fast-track IM residency at a mid tier program (Cornell, NW, etc). This is essentially 2 years of IM with 4 years of fellowship. Not shorter, just guaranteed fellowship at your IM institution

OR

2. A categorical IM residency at a top tier program (MGH, Hopkins, etc) and then apply for fellowship like everyone else

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[disorder]

Wanted to get everyone's input as to this decision. For someone interested in fellowship after IM which one would you rank higher

1. A fast-track IM residency at a mid tier program (Cornell, NW, etc). This is essentially 2 years of IM with 4 years of fellowship. Not shorter, just guaranteed fellowship at your IM institution

OR

2. A categorical IM residency at a top tier program (MGH, Hopkins, etc) and then apply for fellowship like everyone else

when did cornell, NW, etc become mid-tier?

 

[rokshana]

let's see...someone is interested in doing fellowship and the fast track guarantees a fellowship...hmm...

did you REALLY have to ask this question?

 

[gutonc]

Someone who is competitive for a Research Pathway residency won't have any trouble finding a fellowship in the future. I applied to about 50/50 integrated and "supportive" programs and wound up ranking a non-integrated program (where I matched) #1 then 3 integrated programs afterwards. That meant I had to re-apply less than 1 year later (now you'd get almost a year and half) but I got better fellowship interview offers than I did residency (and I got some pretty good residency interviews).

The way I see it is, if you think you can find a perfect research mentor at one of the integrated programs, go for it. If you don't like what you see there from a research perspective (because, quite honestly, that's what's going to build your academic career...the clinical training will be close enough everywhere else that it won't matter much), pick the "best" residency program you can (however you define "best") and throw your hat back in the ring for fellowship.

 

[jsimny]

Someone who is competitive for a Research Pathway residency won't have any trouble finding a fellowship in the future. I applied to about 50/50 integrated and "supportive" programs and wound up ranking a non-integrated program (where I matched) #1 then 3 integrated programs afterwards. That meant I had to re-apply less than 1 year later (now you'd get almost a year and half) but I got better fellowship interview offers than I did residency (and I got some pretty good residency interviews).

The way I see it is, if you think you can find a perfect research mentor at one of the integrated programs, go for it. If you don't like what you see there from a research perspective (because, quite honestly, that's what's going to build your academic career...the clinical training will be close enough everywhere else that it won't matter much), pick the "best" residency program you can (however you define "best") and throw your hat back in the ring for fellowship.

agree with above. go to top tier medicine residency, you may want to change mind for subspecialty when you start your residency so it will give you better option later. you can still apply for short tracking as second year at any program (with approval of program I guess - did not know) or not bad idear to do three year medicine residency and apply

whatever you do, you have to be a good internist.

 

[TCR255]

Wanted to get everyone's input as to this decision. For someone interested in fellowship after IM which one would you rank higher

1. A fast-track IM residency at a mid tier program (Cornell, NW, etc). This is essentially 2 years of IM with 4 years of fellowship. Not shorter, just guaranteed fellowship at your IM institution

OR

2. A categorical IM residency at a top tier program (MGH, Hopkins, etc) and then apply for fellowship like everyone else

Has anyone heard from Cornell who is applying for the Physician Scientist Track in Heme/Onc? Are they going to give us any sort of indication before rank lists are due whether fellowship spots at either MSKCC or Cornell (or both) are guaranteed if we match into a Physician Scientist spot? This wasn't clear to me on interview day...

 

[gutonc]

Has anyone heard from Cornell who is applying for the Physician Scientist Track in Heme/Onc? Are they going to give us any sort of indication before rank lists are due whether fellowship spots at either MSKCC or Cornell (or both) are guaranteed if we match into a Physician Scientist spot? This wasn't clear to me on interview day...

Not sure if they still do it, but they did when I applied. It changed my rank list.

 

[Dr Love]

Someone who is competitive for a Research Pathway residency won't have any trouble finding a fellowship in the future. I applied to about 50/50 integrated and "supportive" programs and wound up ranking a non-integrated program (where I matched) #1 then 3 integrated programs afterwards. That meant I had to re-apply less than 1 year later (now you'd get almost a year and half) but I got better fellowship interview offers than I did residency (and I got some pretty good residency interviews).

The way I see it is, if you think you can find a perfect research mentor at one of the integrated programs, go for it. If you don't like what you see there from a research perspective (because, quite honestly, that's what's going to build your academic career...the clinical training will be close enough everywhere else that it won't matter much), pick the "best" residency program you can (however you define "best") and throw your hat back in the ring for fellowship.

Is this really true? I was under the impression that the Research track applicants were evaluated separately and the standards were different (obviously, placing greater importance on research accomplishments).