How many med students do a fifth year?

[JFK90787]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Do any med students know how many students in your class chose to do a fifth year for extra CV building (research etc)? I'm guessing it's a not so common thing to do, but a lot of schools tout this option on their school websites like it's some kind of incredible thing to do. What say you?

 

[Raryn]

Do any med students know how many students in your class chose to do a fifth year for extra CV building (research etc)? I'm guessing it's a not so common thing to do, but a lot of schools tout this option on their school websites like it's some kind of incredible thing to do. What say you?

My school it's probably on the order of 3-5%, depending on the year. Less if you don't count the MD/PhDs.

Some schools, if you believe them (and I have no idea why you wouldn't), it's on the order of 40%. (Stanford, Harvard are the ones I have friends at where they say a LOT of people either take research years or 1-2 years to get a masters).

The biggest thing if you take an extra year voluntarily is to have something to show for it. That's either a masters or publications.

 

[duckie99]

IMO doing an extra year is not helpful to your CV unless you are otherwise an extremely poor applicant. Here's why:

1. publications are hard to get and it takes a long time to have a substantial high impact research project. This is generally something medical students cannot do because you will not get full credit (your principle investigator will). Also big research projects take a long time to complete and taking a year off is a big gamble. Reason being that you don't actually have a full year to get it done. Applications for residency are sent out in September and the "school year" finishes in May. So that's really only 4 months to do something if you take a year "off" after 4th year.

If you do it between 3rd and 4th year you'll have more time but again you may only get at most one publication and it likely won't be of any impact and you won't get full credit for it. Medical students typically jump on to ongoing projects and are not a significant contributor to the question being addressed, the design, analysis, or writing. Usually they just collect data, write a few paragraphs that are heavily edited and then get their name on the paper. But programs aren't dumb and when they ask about research, medical students often cannot adequately describe what was done or why.

Also, here's the thing, it takes a long time to design a project, get approval for the project from the IRB, get all the data for the project, analyze the data either on your own or with a statistician, write a paper, submit to journals, edit paper, and then get published. It will always take longer than you think. Always.

Plus, you can always get publications in residency because you'll have 2 years before fellowship applications to get a couple things done.

You also gotta think about what field you are applying for. If it isn't a competitive surgical field you likely don't need publications unless you are shooting for the top of the top tier. In any case, likely all you'll need is a few case reports, some poster presentations, and "research experience". But you must have strong board scores and grades. Case reports are easy and anyone can present one at some conference on a poster. But having an real research project that you are a significant part of is very difficult for a medical student.

2. degrees such as MPH and MBA are pretty useless. You can get a MBA after residency with night/weekend classes. A MPH is just useless in general if you are not doing public health and it will not strengthen your cv. Nor, will it help you in any field of medicine. All you get is a few extra letters on your white coat. I would challenge someone to explain how knowing epidemiology and epi research makes you better at performing surgery, stabilizing ICU patients, or treating sepsis.

I think the only useful one is PhD as that is something that very significantly strengthens your CV and is very important if you want to do research for part of your career.


So I highly disagree with taking a year off either after 4th year or between 3rd and 4th year. It is extremely difficult to significantly strengthen your CV if you haven't done anything up until that point and might be of minimal help depending on the field you are applying for. So I would not pick a medical school based on the ability to take an extra year to do nothing.

 

[darkelven29]

IMO doing an extra year is not helpful to your CV unless you are otherwise an extremely poor applicant.

You are WRONG! (But I do agree with some of your points)
Taking an extra year can make a less stellar applicant become well sought.

A poor applicant (low step 1/2, weak grades) remains a poor applicant no matter what you do. If you are already a superstar in your desired specialty (AOA, top 10 school, publications), no need to take extra year. It makes the most difference in a mediocre/above average applicant.

Yes, getting MPH, MBA, other extra degrees are really for what you want to do later in life, not much for CV boosting, but they can convey your story/commitment to what you say you want to do in the future. Others taking an extra year for personal (having a baby, family deaths, financial) or academic reasons (getting held back). Doing research at home institution can work if you present in national conferences and publish, but you have to set things up before you start the research year.

The most useful I think is to do a prestigious fellowship like NIH Howard Hughes, Doris Duke, CDC, Sarnoff... etc. There are others too. You get great mentors, research training, presenting in conferences, publications (if you work hard), and networking. Plenty of med students present in national conferences within 1 year, and publish within 2 years.

Do research year between 3rd and 4th year is your best bet. There are many students who spend 5 years for a variety of reasons as above.

 

[Raryn]

So I highly disagree with taking a year off either after 4th year or between 3rd and 4th year. It is extremely difficult to significantly strengthen your CV if you haven't done anything up until that point and might be of minimal help depending on the field you are applying for. So I would not pick a medical school based on the ability to take an extra year to do nothing.

I just wanted to add, I don't think anyone here, nor would I think any school in the country, suggested taking a research year off between 4th year and residency. It is an extremely poor decision that makes every program director wonder whether you had simply failed to match the previous year.

On the other hand, taking off a year (or more) between 3rd and 4th year (or, more commonly, between 2nd and 3rd) can be an advantage if you have something to show for it. In some specialties (ex: rad onc), it's pretty much the only way (barring having done extensive pre-med school research) to have enough time to get productive research to have a good chance of matching where you want. In most specialties, it's not necessary, but it is definitely not looked down upon.

As for the utility (or lack thereof) of masters degrees, that really depends on an individuals career goals. It may be useless *for you*, but not for everyone.

 

[duckie99]

You are WRONG! (But I do agree with some of your points)
Taking an extra year can make a less stellar applicant become well sought.

A poor applicant (low step 1/2, weak grades) remains a poor applicant no matter what you do. If you are already a superstar in your desired specialty (AOA, top 10 school, publications), no need to take extra year. It makes the most difference in a mediocre/above average applicant.

Yes, getting MPH, MBA, other extra degrees are really for what you want to do later in life, not much for CV boosting, but they can convey your story/commitment to what you say you want to do in the future. Others taking an extra year for personal (having a baby, family deaths, financial) or academic reasons (getting held back). Doing research at home institution can work if you present in national conferences and publish, but you have to set things up before you start the research year.

The most useful I think is to do a prestigious fellowship like NIH Howard Hughes, Doris Duke, CDC, Sarnoff... etc. There are others too. You get great mentors, research training, presenting in conferences, publications (if you work hard), and networking. Plenty of med students present in national conferences within 1 year, and publish within 2 years.

Do research year between 3rd and 4th year is your best bet. There are many students who spend 5 years for a variety of reasons as above.

My main issue is people who do MPH years. Just seems completely useless. Conveying a story is not a good reason to do one.

I think that if you can get some strong research going for a year then that would be a pretty good thing for some fields (I didn't really indicate that sentiment haha). If this is done between 3rd and 4th year then that gives almost 18 months to get some good stuff done which will help most people in most circumstances. But before someone does that I would highly advise the individual to consider the competitively of their field and their career goal. It may not be necessary and all this year will do is further your training and increase your debt.

However, if a student is smart they will start research much earlier so a year off would be unnecessary... My advice is to finish med school as fast as possible (4 years) and get the most out of it that you possibly can. You should be able to get research without taking an extra year. Some scholarships are great for a year but are they necessary? Most of the time they are not if a student starts research early enough.

 

[airplanes]

My main issue is people who do MPH years. Just seems completely useless. Conveying a story is not a good reason to do one.

I think that if you can get some strong research going for a year then that would be a pretty good thing for some fields (I didn't really indicate that sentiment haha). If this is done between 3rd and 4th year then that gives almost 18 months to get some good stuff done which will help most people in most circumstances. But before someone does that I would highly advise the individual to consider the competitively of their field and their career goal. It may not be necessary and all this year will do is further your training and increase your debt.

However, if a student is smart they will start research much earlier so a year off would be unnecessary... My advice is to finish med school as fast as possible (4 years) and get the most out of it that you possibly can. You should be able to get research without taking an extra year. Some scholarships are great for a year but are they necessary? Most of the time they are not if a student starts research early enough.

MPH's actually can be quite useful if you have interests in international health, health care administration, biostatistics, public policy, etc, etc etc. People don't just do them to "convey a story." I found both of your posts to be rather unhelpful and know plenty of people who would disagree as it directly contradicts advice they have received from mentors, advisors and residency program directors.

 

[Stixman28]

I would challenge someone to explain how knowing epidemiology and epi research makes you better at performing surgery, stabilizing ICU patients, or treating sepsis.

Wow. I can't believe you would think this!

An ICU is as close to a laboratory you can find in all of clinical medicine. Epidemiological training is so crucial for establishing protocols. ICU docs are often prolific clinical researchers.

 

[duckie99]

MPH's actually can be quite useful if you have interests in international health, health care administration, biostatistics, public policy, etc, etc etc. People don't just do them to "convey a story." I found both of your posts to be rather unhelpful and know plenty of people who would disagree as it directly contradicts advice they have received from mentors, advisors and residency program directors.

An MPH degree is only necessary for public health. It doesn't help you be a better physician. Obviously when a student asks a person who has an MPH if it is useful the person will defend it. You can do what you want. But the MPH degree is sort of like med/ped specialty for the vast majority of people who do med/peds... you spend the extra 2 years doing IM and peds but only end up practicing one. I know several docs this applies to. Most people who do an MPH do not do public health. You don't need an MPH to do international work and knowing epid won't make you a better physician when it comes to treating patients.

Wow. I can't believe you would think this!

An ICU is as close to a laboratory you can find in all of clinical medicine. Epidemiological training is so crucial for establishing protocols. ICU docs are often prolific clinical researchers.

I think you missed my point. An ICU doctor is not a better ICU doctor because of the MPH degree. He becomes better by practicing and treating patients. Knowing epi won't change anything. Most places already have protocols but an ICU doc trained at a good residency and fellowship with the desire to do research doesn't need an MPH.


I'm merely saying that a person shouldn't spend a year on something without understanding it's usefulness and his/her career goals. MPH are good for public health. That's what it is there for. That's pretty much it. You can find hundreds of docs with just the MD degree who do all sorts of work people spout as you needing an MPH to perform. If you want to get better at research then do research. If you are particularly interested in epi research do an MPH. But an MPH degree will not increase your clinical prowess.

 

[Live4Life]

An MPH degree is only necessary for public health. It doesn't help you be a better physician. Obviously when a student asks a person who has an MPH if it is useful the person will defend it. You can do what you want. But the MPH degree is sort of like med/ped specialty for the vast majority of people who do med/peds... you spend the extra 2 years doing IM and peds but only end up practicing one. I know several docs this applies to. Most people who do an MPH do not do public health. You don't need an MPH to do international work and knowing epid won't make you a better physician when it comes to treating patients.



I think you missed my point. An ICU doctor is not a better ICU doctor because of the MPH degree. He becomes better by practicing and treating patients. Knowing epi won't change anything. Most places already have protocols but an ICU doc trained at a good residency and fellowship with the desire to do research doesn't need an MPH.


I'm merely saying that a person shouldn't spend a year on something without understanding it's usefulness and his/her career goals. MPH are good for public health. That's what it is there for. That's pretty much it. You can find hundreds of docs with just the MD degree who do all sorts of work people spout as you needing an MPH to perform. If you want to get better at research then do research. If you are particularly interested in epi research do an MPH. But an MPH degree will not increase your clinical prowess.

I don't think you understand the broad topics offered by the various MPH degrees available. For example, look at the MPH in Biostats. I highly doubt that even 5% of MDs can perform the statistical analysis that those with the MPH in Biostats can perform. You are right in that having a MPH in Biostats won't help you be a better clinician, but it will allow you to become an academic clinician who wants to conduct research without having to fork over tons of money for statistical support for every study you want to design.

And no I don't have an MPH, but I have had to rely on many MDs with MPHs in biostats for statistical support when designing studies.

 

[duckie99]

look at the MPH in Biostats.

perfect example of a reason to get an MPH if your career goal is academics and research. However perhaps a MSCR would be more useful than an MPH... Regardless I think a 5th year can be useful if it furthers your career.

But people often do 5th years for the wrong reasons, often thinking it boosts their CV or will make them a better clinician or is needed for things like "international work". Having had personal experience with research and statistics I can see how having that knowledge would vastly improve the strength of your projects, even if you still need a statistician.

 

[Law2Doc]

IMO doing an extra year is not helpful to your CV unless you are otherwise an extremely poor applicant. Here's why:

1. publications are hard to get and it takes a long time to have a substantial high impact research project. This is generally something medical students cannot do because you will not get full credit (your principle investigator will). Also big research projects take a long time to complete and taking a year off is a big gamble. Reason being that you don't actually have a full year to get it done. Applications for residency are sent out in September and the "school year" finishes in May. So that's really only 4 months to do something if you take a year "off" after 4th year.

If you do it between 3rd and 4th year you'll have more time but again you may only get at most one publication and it likely won't be of any impact and you won't get full credit for it. Medical students typically jump on to ongoing projects and are not a significant contributor to the question being addressed, the design, analysis, or writing. Usually they just collect data, write a few paragraphs that are heavily edited and then get their name on the paper. But programs aren't dumb and when they ask about research, medical students often cannot adequately describe what was done or why.

Also, here's the thing, it takes a long time to design a project, get approval for the project from the IRB, get all the data for the project, analyze the data either on your own or with a statistician, write a paper, submit to journals, edit paper, and then get published. It will always take longer than you think. Always.

Plus, you can always get publications in residency because you'll have 2 years before fellowship applications to get a couple things done.

You also gotta think about what field you are applying for. If it isn't a competitive surgical field you likely don't need publications unless you are shooting for the top of the top tier. In any case, likely all you'll need is a few case reports, some poster presentations, and "research experience". But you must have strong board scores and grades. Case reports are easy and anyone can present one at some conference on a poster. But having an real research project that you are a significant part of is very difficult for a medical student.

2. degrees such as MPH and MBA are pretty useless. You can get a MBA after residency with night/weekend classes. A MPH is just useless in general if you are not doing public health and it will not strengthen your cv. Nor, will it help you in any field of medicine. All you get is a few extra letters on your white coat. I would challenge someone to explain how knowing epidemiology and epi research makes you better at performing surgery, stabilizing ICU patients, or treating sepsis.

I think the only useful one is PhD as that is something that very significantly strengthens your CV and is very important if you want to do research for part of your career.


So I highly disagree with taking a year off either after 4th year or between 3rd and 4th year. It is extremely difficult to significantly strengthen your CV if you haven't done anything up until that point and might be of minimal help depending on the field you are applying for. So I would not pick a medical school based on the ability to take an extra year to do nothing.

Meh, pretty much everyone I know who took a year to do research to bolster the CV felt it helped and ended up with some interviews With programs they would not have otherwise been competitive for. So it does work if you are going down a path where it's necessary. In particular I've seen It helpful for derm, rad onc and ortho.

As for the advanced degrees, I don't think it's as high yield.

 

[DreamingTheLive]

I think its more beneficial to do after 3rd year vs. After 4th year. Its also HIGHLY dependent on what you do during that time and what field of medicine you're pursuing.

I'd tend to argue that, in general, it is far less beneficial than med students would like to believe ane in many instances could possibly raise questions about said applicant. . But, as always, this is a case by case basis and depends on your audience.

 

[greg1184]

IMO doing an extra year is not helpful to your CV unless you are otherwise an extremely poor applicant. Here's why:



2. degrees such as MPH and MBA are pretty useless. You can get a MBA after residency with night/weekend classes. A MPH is just useless in general if you are not doing public health and it will not strengthen your cv. Nor, will it help you in any field of medicine. All you get is a few extra letters on your white coat. I would challenge someone to explain how knowing epidemiology and epi research makes you better at performing surgery, stabilizing ICU patients, or treating sepsis.
.

🙄
It may be useless to you, but it was definitely not useless to me. I did an MBA, and I would do it over and over again if I have to. So many doctors I have interacted with wished they would have had an opportunity to do it while they were still studying instead of having to enroll for the weekend classes while they are in their career. Ironically in my MD/MBA program, I was enrolled in some of those health-care focused weekend classes where I got to interact with some of those doctors. Every interview I have been on I have talked about the MBA and my plans for it. Thanks to the MBA, I found myself interested in informatics and business IT, which I will apply to my career in Radiology. Finally, I know some of my colleagues where it had help get interviews in institutions they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

So no, it is not merely "extra letters for my white coat."

 

[duckie99]

I know some of my colleagues where it had help get interviews in institutions they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

look bro, you're making my point. 1. I said people who get these degrees usually don't say they are useful, though most find it hard to defend how they use the knowledge they acquire. You are saying it was useful as I said people like you would do. 2. I said that if you plan to apply the extra year of training you get to your future career (like you are doing) and it is actually something that is applicable in the real world (as it is in your case) then by all means do it. One thing I stand by is the useful of MPH and that the reasons why people think it is useful are usually not realistic (e.g. it being necessary or drastically improving your ability to do international work).

I however, will take issue with the above statement... how can you prove this extra year got people these interviews? There are 2 ways I can think of... either they applied one year and did not get the interview then applied the following year to the same program, got the interview, and was told specifically it was because of the extra year OR the person was told specifically they would not have been interviewed without that extra year. I somehow doubt either of these situations occurred with the people you know...

 

[Law2Doc]

...OR the person was told specifically they would not have been interviewed without that extra year. I somehow doubt either of these situations occurred with the people you know...

actually PDs can be quite candid about the things that impressed them once you are accepted. It's not like adcoms where you generally don't have regular interaction with them once you are in. If you got in to pad their stats regarding research or advanced degrees, you'll know it. Plus a lot of borderline applicants get feedback from mentors, based on discussions with faculty in the specialty, regarding what you are going to need to get considered. Faculty talk, and if your mentor is plugged in, and tells you third year that the programs you are interested in are going to need to see a little more on the CV, you will know that taking a research year between 3rd and 4th year is advisable. But I also know several folks who didn't match into a Competitive specialty (ortho) and instead of scrambling, delayed graduation to do a research year and subsequently matched into the same specialty, so yeah, this isn't as unheard of as you suggest either. So a lot of people who fix things do learn that it made a difference.

 

[airplanes]

look bro, you're making my point. 1. I said people who get these degrees usually don't say they are useful, though most find it hard to defend how they use the knowledge they acquire. You are saying it was useful as I said people like you would do. 2. I said that if you plan to apply the extra year of training you get to your future career (like you are doing) and it is actually something that is applicable in the real world (as it is in your case) then by all means do it. One thing I stand by is the useful of MPH and that the reasons why people think it is useful are usually not realistic (e.g. it being necessary or drastically improving your ability to do international work).

I however, will take issue with the above statement... how can you prove this extra year got people these interviews? There are 2 ways I can think of... either they applied one year and did not get the interview then applied the following year to the same program, got the interview, and was told specifically it was because of the extra year OR the person was told specifically they would not have been interviewed without that extra year. I somehow doubt either of these situations occurred with the people you know...

There's more to being a physician than clinical patient encounters. You have a very narrow view of "useful." Given the vast testimonials exhibited here and your refusal to acknowledge them, I can see why. Lol @ "I somehow doubt" as if you know enough at this point to be a judge of what is realistic. Please....

 

[duckie99]

There's more to being a physician than clinical patient encounters. You have a very narrow view of "useful." Given the vast testimonials exhibited here and your refusal to acknowledge them, I can see why. Lol @ "I somehow doubt" as if you know enough at this point to be a judge of what is realistic. Please....

uh... I'm about to graduate med school so I have some experience with people who think like you. And of course you didn't say if either situation I stated occurred. Thus I still "somewhat doubt" they did...

If a PD tells you after you get accepted that the fifth year is what made the difference (as was described above) then so be it. It is my opinion for the majority of people it isn't all that helpful and is mostly a waste of time if you never end up using the knowledge you acquire. If you look around on the IM and Gen Residency boards it is the general advice that an MPH year will not make an applicant significantly more competitive. So if a person is doing the MPH for that sole reason it is a mistake IMO. But people can do what they want. But just because a "mentor" says you need to do something doesn't mean it's true.

Now, as the resident described above doing extra research time for competitive fields such as ortho can help. Never did I deny this. Surgical fields are very competitive and it's hard to find a spot without some good research behind your name. Sometimes if a person decided on a field late they may need to take that extra year for research related to the field. However I know of people who have research in other fields and still matched ortho. But for people doing most other fields it isn't necessary to take a whole year and work can be done during other med school years in your free time.

 

[CremasterFlash]

At Yale about 80% of my class is taking a 5th year to do research, that's outside of the 16ish people who are doing an MD-PhD which leaves about 6 of us who are graduating in 4 years. Most people I talk to really enjoy the experience and, beyond the intellectual satisfaction involved, seem to think it will be helpful jobsearchwise. That being said, most of them are going into pretty competitive specialties and the year is usually fully funded and tuition free.

 

[airplanes]

uh... I'm about to graduate med school so I have some experience with people who think like you. And of course you didn't say if either situation I stated occurred. Thus I still "somewhat doubt" they did...

If a PD tells you after you get accepted that the fifth year is what made the difference (as was described above) then so be it. It is my opinion for the majority of people it isn't all that helpful and is mostly a waste of time if you never end up using the knowledge you acquire. If you look around on the IM and Gen Residency boards it is the general advice that an MPH year will not make an applicant significantly more competitive. So if a person is doing the MPH for that sole reason it is a mistake IMO. But people can do what they want. But just because a "mentor" says you need to do something doesn't mean it's true.

Now, as the resident described above doing extra research time for competitive fields such as ortho can help. Never did I deny this. Surgical fields are very competitive and it's hard to find a spot without some good research behind your name. Sometimes if a person decided on a field late they may need to take that extra year for research related to the field. However I know of people who have research in other fields and still matched ortho. But for people doing most other fields it isn't necessary to take a whole year and work can be done during other med school years in your free time.

Are you aware that an MPH yeah often combines research in your field of interest? Apparently not. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Obviously an extra year is not necessary, but there should be little doubt that getting an MPH --if it is aligned with your professional interests and as such is conveyed in your application-- would be a positive.

 

[duckie99]

Are you aware that an MPH yeah often combines research in your field of interest? Apparently not. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Obviously an extra year is not necessary, but there should be little doubt that getting an MPH --if it is aligned with your professional interests and as such is conveyed in your application-- would be a positive.

Right I agree that a MPH would not be viewed as a negative. I just question the usefulness of it for some people because it doesn't help as much as people probably think...


Interesting to hear soooo many people at Yale do a fifth year. I think at my school about 20% do an extra year for various reasons. Some get MSCR (which for research heavy people is great), but lots do an MPH... just don't always get that. Some of the reasons people say are imo not good ones (discussed above). But that's just me.

 

[TAWS]

I think a 5th year to get a MPH or do research is useful in case you ever decide to leave clinical medicine to do research or work in another field. It never hurts to have more options later on in life. 1 year of your life is really not that significant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[CanIMakeIt]

I tihnk about 5-10% of my class did MPH