how impt is AOA for top tier peds?

[bradberry0712]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

hey everyone, i'm a relatively new poster to this board. at peds programs such as CHOP, harvard, columbia, hopkins - how important is AOA status? is there a high proportion of residents (like derm, radiation onc, plastics) at this caliber of programs who are AOA?

thanks

(PS - i'm not AOA, average grades, decent boards)

 

[michigangirl]

AOA is not a must at these programs. It can't hurt, and AOA usually means that you were at the top __ % of the class for basic and clinical-- which translates to doing well on applications to any residency. Peds, unlike some surgical specialties, etc., does not look at AOA as a must-have at most top tier programs.

What I'm saying is, if you're not AOA, don't sweat it. But you do have to have done well in your clerkships and have reasonable to high board scores to get an interview. So it sounds like you're in the running! Good luck!

 

[SurfingDoctor]

It won't hurt you if you're not, but it does help if you are. Top tier programs tend to be top tier programs based primarily on research. The USNews ranking are heavily based on NIH funding to the institutes, meaning top tier programs are top tier because they are heavy into research and receive a lot of funding (good number of RO1s, PIs of large multicenter studies, etc.). Thus when you look at those residencies classes, there tend to be a larger proportion of MD/PhD at those programs. I'm not saying you have to have a PhD to get residencies there, but I would suspect that research productivity holds more weight than AOA status. Just my opinion, some one else is welcome to say otherwise, as I have been at a couple of top tier programs, but never on the resident selection committees.

Just as a caveat, know that some medical schools don't offer AOA status to students because grades are pass fail (Havard is an example).

 

[michigangirl]

I am gonna disagree with this-- very few residency programs, even top tier ones, focus on research productivity as a medical student. If you are focused on doing well in coursework and clinical rotations, its understood that you won't really have the time to get nitty gritty with a research project unless that is a major focus and elective time is devoted to it. Of course, if you are an MD/Ph.D and you apply for residency, then your research pursuits will be closely analzyed, because you obviously are marketing yourself as a clinician-scientist from the get go. In my class of 27 residents at a "top-tier" program, there were 2 MD/Ph.Ds.-- the other thing is that during residency, there isn't much time to do research either, unless you get funding for an extra year or use all your elective time toward research. So even when I interview fellows at a "top-tier" program, I don't really focus on research productivity-- I care most about how they performed clinically, what they are like interpersonally, and their potential to be a great clinician and enter a clinician-scientist track or clinician-educator track.

So in a nutshell, what I'm saying, is that clinical rotation performance and overall academic performance in residency matters a lot more on the selection committees. If you are average to below-average clinically but have a great research profile vs great clinically and was third author on a paper in medical school-- I'll go with the latter anyday. The caveat is if you bring something so extra special on the research front and one of my colleagues is recruiting you so that you can work with them in their lab because it's novel and amazing stuff.

It won't hurt you if you're not, but it does help if you are. Top tier programs tend to be top tier programs based primarily on research. The USNews ranking are heavily based on NIH funding to the institutes, meaning top tier programs are top tier because they are heavy into research and receive a lot of funding (good number of RO1s, PIs of large multicenter studies, etc.). Thus when you look at those residencies classes, there tend to be a larger proportion of MD/PhD at those programs. I'm not saying you have to have a PhD to get residencies there, but I would suspect that research productivity holds more weight than AOA status. Just my opinion, some one else is welcome to say otherwise, as I have been at a couple of top tier programs, but never on the resident selection committees.

Just as a caveat, know that some medical schools don't offer AOA status to students because grades are pass fail (Havard is an example).

 

[twilightdoc]

... very few residency programs, even top tier ones, focus on research productivity as a medical student. ...

I absolutely agree with this statement. I have known a number of med students, some of whom were my advisees, who have "matched" and done well at programs based in research-heavy departments, and only a few of them have had publications in peer-reviewed journals or have had what I would consider to be significant research experience as a med student. The exceptions would be MD/PhD students and students who took time to do research between undergraduate and medical school.

As to the AOA question, it doesn't hurt, for sure. It provides a quick way for a program to "size up" applicants. But it depends in part on the applicant's med school. As was mentioned, there are some excellent schools that don't offer AOA. Of those students to whom I referred who matched at the "top tier" programs (whatever that means), about a third were AOA. The rest were very good students with a well-rounded application and above average grades and scores.