Harmful to take a research year?

[davidxavi]

I heard something interesting from a family member who is a current resident. He said that when his program ranks prospective applicants to his residency, taking a research year during medical school looks bad and "automatically goes to the bottom of the pile." The rationale there is that a research year is just to package your CV, so the program sees through this and ranks these applicants at the bottom.

I've seen many students on here say that a research year is the standard for those who want to pursue a competitive field or program..has anybody else heard of why a research year would harm your application?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MSTP18]

I've only ever heard of community hospitals downgrading people for research years because the assumption is that they don't actually want to be at that hospital. Otherwise I've never heard of the research year as a negative thing.

 

[Anti-PD1]

I heard something interesting from a family member who is a current resident. He said that when his program ranks prospective applicants to his residency, taking a research year during medical school looks bad and "automatically goes to the bottom of the pile." The rationale there is that a research year is just to package your CV, so the program sees through this and ranks these applicants at the bottom.

I've seen many students on here say that a research year is the standard for those who want to pursue a competitive field or program..has anybody else heard of why a research year would harm your application?

It all depends on grades, specialty and program I'd assume.

If you have poor stats, and take a research year in an attempt to boost your app, if you're ranked lower it's probably because of the poor stats.
If you have high stats, and take a research year, you're fine.

Research matters to certain, not all specialties.

 

[AcademicNeurosurgery]

I heard something interesting from a family member who is a current resident. He said that when his program ranks prospective applicants to his residency, taking a research year during medical school looks bad and "automatically goes to the bottom of the pile." The rationale there is that a research year is just to package your CV, so the program sees through this and ranks these applicants at the bottom.

I've seen many students on here say that a research year is the standard for those who want to pursue a competitive field or program..has anybody else heard of why a research year would harm your application?

This makes no sense to me and I've always heard the exact opposite. How is adding to your CV seen as a negative? If you are willing to take a research year and the accompanying sacrifices, that's on you. As long as you produce something from the research year, it will strengthen your application (the more you get done, the more it'll help). Even in primary care/community settings, there is always a need for research.

At its core, research is simply figuring out how we can do things better. I don't know this for a fact but I think you could easily make research experience a positive at any program, including community hospitals. What you get out of a research year is often more than just studying some incredibly specific topic, it's about developing the skills necessary to independently develop and pursue research projects. These skills can often be transferred from a basic science project you did during a research year to a community research project (health outcomes, hospital protocols, population studies, etc) you might do as a resident/attending at a community hospital.

Also, this may be a biased perspective because I am of the belief that every single health care provider should have the skills necessary to do "research". From the private practice doc practicing in rural Alaska to the chair of a large academic center, everyone should be objectively tracking how well they are delivering patient care and seeing if there are ways they can improve. Just my personal opinion.

 

[MrChance2]

Pretty sure most just click sort by step 1.

 

[AcademicNeurosurgery]

Pretty sure most just click sort by step 1.

Any proof of this or did you just pull it out of that one spot where the sun doesn't shine? I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

 

[673441]

Any proof of this or did you just pull it out of that one spot where the sun doesn't shine? I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

I'm with chance... the only way I can see a research year being detrimental is if you compound it with poor stats...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[MrChance2]

I over simplified a bit. I just matched this year and most programs would get 1000+ apps for 6-12 positions. Sorting by step 1 is a very large part of the process from the residents and fellows I talked to.

I also think it's also fairly easy to tell who had a mental breakdown and took a "research year" and who is passionate about research in their specialty.

 

[AcademicNeurosurgery]

I over simplified a bit. I just matched this year and most programs would get 1000+ apps for 6-12 positions. Sorting by step 1 is a very large part of the process from the residents and fellows I talked to.

I also think it's also fairly easy to tell who had a mental breakdown and took a "research year" and who is passionate about research in their specialty.

Fair enough. I can certainly believe that applicants are initially sorted by objective criteria but I doubt any program submits rank lists simply by sorting by Step 1. These forums are often plagued by a "step 1 or bust" mentality that just doesn't hold up when looking at match data.

Congrats on matching!

 

[neoevolution]

Fair enough. I can certainly believe that applicants are initially sorted by objective criteria but I doubt any program submits rank lists simply by sorting by Step 1. These forums are often plagued by a "step 1 or bust" mentality that just doesn't hold up when looking at match data.

Congrats on matching!

There was a rads PD I think on SDN who said he created a formula that combined and weighted Step 1 and Step 2 and clerkship grades. I think programs with enough applicants almost have to toss out the ones below their cutoff to be able to read through the ones they might want to interview. My general impression was that Step is something that will definitely close doors when it's low and beyond that it's based on the rest of the app

 

[FutureDoc1088]

I think part of it has to do with when you took the year. Willingly and enthusiastically taking a year between M3-4 shows initiative and passion for the field. If you do it after not matching, it makes it look like you just did it as a backup... which is probably true. The year promotes your future career and gives you a leg up with not only getting into residency, but fellowship and beyond. Step 1 scores kind of lose their significance and you lose your academic status after you get into residency. After that, passing your specialty's boards and publishing/getting grants, etc matters. And that research will stay on your CV while your step score will not.

I took a research year for a competitive specialty with otherwise good boards and good (not perfect) clinical grades. Best decision I ever made, regardless of whether I would have gotten into residency the previous cycle. It made me a more mature and independent learner, essentially quadrupled my CV, got me connections that helped me get interviews, and also made me absolutely certain that I wanted to pursue the field I was doing research in. I had other personal reasons that made it even more enticing, as my significant other was one year behind me (never bring that part up in interviews though).

One person told me their friend did a research year and was asked why he did it during an interview, then was asked if he thought he wouldn't get in without the year. I never encountered this on any of my interviews and received nothing but praise for being so committed and having foresight. Hope this helps!

 

[ChrisMack390]

This sounds crazy to me. Research years exist to make your app more competitive. The only way I could see it being a problem is if you apply to community programs and/or fields that don't value research as highly.

 

[ProfMD]

I view a research year as a positive thing. Should be a productive year though.

 

[spiker268]

I considered taking a research year strongly; however, I also heard from some of my mentors that subconsciously some programs would view it as a negative. The thought was that you had to take an extra year to do what your peers were able to do during their normal 4 year Med school. I think this is probably program dependent, but for me it was only one part of what ultimately made me decide against doing a research year, especially since I already had a decent amount of research experience.

 

[seeinghowitgoes]

I think the people who say it's not good are probably subconsciously trying to rationalize why they don't need to (or didn't) take one. I don't mean that to come off mean, we all use rationalization defense mechanisms that inform biases to make our own real actions match our own idealized actions for ourselves (mine for the pro-research year side), but to say picking up a useful set of skills makes you less desirable does not make sense and no resident or faculty I've ever spoken to in any specialty (at both a county hospital and an academic center) has ever indicated that a research year and well-developed research skills are anything but a positive. It's Obvious why academic residencies should appreciate the skill set, but even community programs need quality improvement programs.

Furthermore, it's getting to be where up to half of the students at top med schools (i.e. Harvard, Yale, etc, not to mention a bunch of research-oriented programs like cclcm) take a 5th year (most often times to do research, though sometimes to work in policy, etc). Not only does that suggest to me it absolutely isn't a negative, but it's a sign that if anything research years are becoming more valued - it's becoming more expected that physicians are capable of conducting research. Can people accomplish this without a research year? Sure, but as anybody who has conducted research of their own (and not just piggybacked off another's project) can attest to, having dedicated time is a whole different ballgame when it comes to productivity and personal skillset growth.

Admittedly somewhat unrelated, but in England's medical education system, it has recently become expected at many places that students take a year off and get a master's degree or conduct research because physicians are now being expected to do more than just care for patients. Not a direct parallel to the US, but I think that it does mirror the trend here as well, that people want more complete residents and appreciate the year off, not that research or gap years are harmful.

Furthermore, and quickly building off that last point, isn't part of the reason for taking a research year to actually become skilled at research to make a bigger difference? If that's the case and you believe it will make you more able to make the type of impact you want to have in medicine, forget the residency application world and think about your future in the field.

So in summary, right now, is a research year necessary? Absolutely not. Would some PD not appreciate it? I'm sure you can always find a few. Can you conduct meaningful research without a dedicated year? Absolutely. But does a properly used research year provide or enhance a marketable and appreciated skill set that will only help with residencies/jobs/making a difference? In my opinion and experience, without a doubt.

 

[spiker268]

I think the people who say it's not good are probably subconsciously trying to rationalize why they don't need to (or didn't) take one. I don't mean that to come off mean, we all use rationalization defense mechanisms that inform biases to make our own real actions match our own idealized actions for ourselves (mine for the pro-research year side), but to say picking up a useful set of skills makes you less desirable does not make sense and no resident or faculty I've ever spoken to in any specialty (at both a county hospital and an academic center) has ever indicated that a research year and well-developed research skills are anything but a positive. It's Obvious why academic residencies should appreciate the skill set, but even community programs need quality improvement programs.

Furthermore, it's getting to be where up to half of the students at top med schools (i.e. Harvard, Yale, etc, not to mention a bunch of research-oriented programs like cclcm) take a 5th year (most often times to do research, though sometimes to work in policy, etc). Not only does that suggest to me it absolutely isn't a negative, but it's a sign that if anything research years are becoming more valued - it's becoming more expected that physicians are capable of conducting research. Can people accomplish this without a research year? Sure, but as anybody who has conducted research of their own (and not just piggybacked off another's project) can attest to, having dedicated time is a whole different ballgame when it comes to productivity and personal skillset growth.

Admittedly somewhat unrelated, but in England's medical education system, it has recently become expected at many places that students take a year off and get a master's degree or conduct research because physicians are now being expected to do more than just care for patients. Not a direct parallel to the US, but I think that it does mirror the trend here as well, that people want more complete residents and appreciate the year off, not that research or gap years are harmful.

Furthermore, and quickly building off that last point, isn't part of the reason for taking a research year to actually become skilled at research to make a bigger difference? If that's the case and you believe it will make you more able to make the type of impact you want to have in medicine, forget the residency application world and think about your future in the field.

So in summary, right now, is a research year necessary? Absolutely not. Would some PD not appreciate it? I'm sure you can always find a few. Can you conduct meaningful research without a dedicated year? Absolutely. But does a properly used research year provide or enhance a marketable and appreciated skill set that will only help with residencies/jobs/making a difference? In my opinion and experience, without a doubt.

Yea, I think you're definitely right; I found it really difficult to imagine that it would hurt and I agree it would definitely add very marketable skills. I was just saying what some people had told me; and those people were a very small reason of why I decided not to do it. Like you said, we all have our own biases, and I had a bunch of other reasons that I convinced myself I shouldn't or didn't need to do a year

 

[Snoopy2006]

Like someone suggested above, taking a research year between M3/M4 years shows a real commitment to a field and is appreciated by most fields I'm aware of. Doing one after graduation doesn't hurt you by itself, but your application weakens as a re-applicant than a first-timer. So there's multiple factors involved. If you do a research year at the right time for the right reasons and are productive, it can only help.