IM - Research tract

[sschance]

Hey all,

Apologies if this is not the right place to ask. I searched around the forum, but was unable to get a clear picture to my question.

I looked at some IM programs, and some of them provide research tract for their IM residents.

I am curious what population of applicants usually get these positions? I assume there are a high % of MD/PhDs, but what about candidates with MD only? How competitive do MD-only candidates need to be to get these positions (however much stats you can share)? In addition, where would I find more info?

Thank you for your time!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[justin1390]

It depends on the size of the tract and how you get into it. Many programs have tracts that you don't split off to until your second year, and thus you have a year to think about it, apply, and get accepted while an intern. Other programs get you in pretty quick. The people looking strongly at fellowship or with past experience in research MD/PhD are going to be the most competitive, but let's face it, even a moderately sized program will maybe have 1 or two of these candidates a year, and they may be burnt out on research.

Because these programs are highly specific to the residency, you need to wait until interview season or inquire personally about these programs. On the plus side, if you do inquire (without being pesky), you might actually land yourself an interview since you have already shown interest. Just an idea. Be polite and tactful! Good luck!

 

[gutonc]

Track dammit. The word is track.

 

[CatFactorial]

She's rich, she's beautiful, she's got huuuuuuuuuuge...tracts of land?

 

[SXMMD]

Track dammit. The word is track.

Thankkkkkk youuuuuuuuuu

 

[justin1390]

Well durp.... I won't change it. I have no excuses...

 

[gutonc]

Every time you guys say something about the Primary Care and Research Tracts, it makes thing come out both ends of my GI track.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Back on track here:

I have this conversation with several applicants each year. In general, you need a PhD to be in the research track -- or at least a solid research Masters. Here's why:

First of all, the research track is not a "fast track". It's one year LONGER than just doing the fellowship. You trade your PGY-3 IM clinical year for 2 years of research. The fellowship remains the same length. If you can get hired into a research position in your home institution, you can finish one year earlier on the research track -- which is exactly where you would have finished doing it the regular way.

Second, the usual structure of the research track is 2 years IM + 2 years research + 1-2 years clinical fellowship + 1 year research. Occasionally, if your research is going to require clinical specimens / procedures, you'll do one year of research in the PGY-3, then the fellowship, then 2 years of research at the end. So, after those two middle years, you'll apply for a K award which you want to win by the time you get to that last year of research. This means that you need to produce encouraging results in those 2 years, enough to garner a K. You need to hit the ground running to make that work, and that usually requires a PhD or similar level of research experience first.

I talk more people out of the research track than those that go in. Once you start, you can't stop -- or if you do stop, you need to come back and complete your PGY-3 IM year.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Track dammit. The word is track.

Unless it's GI research. Then it's a GI Research Tract. Or perhaps Research GI Tract.

 

[visari]

1) Do you want to be a physician scientist (i.e spend most of your time running a lab)?
2) Do you have the means to be a physician scientist (PhD, masters, extensive lab research experience, grant writing...etc)?
3) Do you understand the difficulties nowadays in starting up a career as a physician scientist?

In my opinion, you need to answer with a resounding YES to the above three questions before considering a CI track

 

[gutonc]

I did the Research Track.

Don't do the Research Track.

 

[sschance]

lmao, sorry I used "track" wrong. It was pretty late, and embarrassingly didn't catch it.

It depends on the size of the tract and how you get into it. Many programs have tracts that you don't split off to until your second year, and thus you have a year to think about it, apply, and get accepted while an intern. Other programs get you in pretty quick. The people looking strongly at fellowship or with past experience in research MD/PhD are going to be the most competitive, but let's face it, even a moderately sized program will maybe have 1 or two of these candidates a year, and they may be burnt out on research.

Because these programs are highly specific to the residency, you need to wait until interview season or inquire personally about these programs. On the plus side, if you do inquire (without being pesky), you might actually land yourself an interview since you have already shown interest. Just an idea. Be polite and tactful! Good luck!

Thank you! This is very helpful. I have a master's, and was considering taking a year out for HHMI (if i can get it). Do you think it is worth it to go into research?

Back on track here:

I have this conversation with several applicants each year. In general, you need a PhD to be in the research track -- or at least a solid research Masters. Here's why:

First of all, the research track is not a "fast track". It's one year LONGER than just doing the fellowship. You trade your PGY-3 IM clinical year for 2 years of research. The fellowship remains the same length. If you can get hired into a research position in your home institution, you can finish one year earlier on the research track -- which is exactly where you would have finished doing it the regular way.

Second, the usual structure of the research track is 2 years IM + 2 years research + 1-2 years clinical fellowship + 1 year research. Occasionally, if your research is going to require clinical specimens / procedures, you'll do one year of research in the PGY-3, then the fellowship, then 2 years of research at the end. So, after those two middle years, you'll apply for a K award which you want to win by the time you get to that last year of research. This means that you need to produce encouraging results in those 2 years, enough to garner a K. You need to hit the ground running to make that work, and that usually requires a PhD or similar level of research experience first.

I talk more people out of the research track than those that go in. Once you start, you can't stop -- or if you do stop, you need to come back and complete your PGY-3 IM year.

Apologies for the ignorance, but are K awards "relatively easy" to come by? I was reading around and it seemed like the research arena really needs physician-scientists.

1) Do you want to be a physician scientist (i.e spend most of your time running a lab)?
2) Do you have the means to be a physician scientist (PhD, masters, extensive lab research experience, grant writing...etc)?
3) Do you understand the difficulties nowadays in starting up a career as a physician scientist?

In my opinion, you need to answer with a resounding YES to the above three questions before considering a CI track

1) yes
2) maybe, I have stronger background than most medstudents, but i am not sure if it is enough - but def not on PhD level for sure.
3) no, please do explain!

I did the Research Track.

Don't do the Research Track.

What happened, mang??? you sound traumatized.

 

[visari]

1) yes
2) maybe, I have stronger background than most medstudents, but i am not sure if it is enough - but def not on PhD level for sure.
3) no, please do explain!

It goes without explaining. Starting up your lab and keeping the funds is an uphill battle. A lot of well established labs are struggling so you need something really solid to compete out there. Also I don't know where you are in your training but if you're asking if the K awards are easy to come by, you have a whole lot of research to do before you commit yourself to any track.

 

[gutonc]

What happened, mang??? you sound traumatized.

The reality of basic research funding happened.

After 2 years of grant rejections and working twice as hard as my clinical colleagues for 1/4 of what they made, I learned to love clinical medicine. And still do.

 

[VCorp]

Track dammit. The word is track.

Corticospinal track.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

lApologies for the ignorance, but are K awards "relatively easy" to come by? I was reading around and it seemed like the research arena really needs physician-scientists.

Shoot, I meant to mention this in my response so thanks for pointing it out. No, K awards are a nightmare to get. That's why you need a PhD first, so that you have any hope of getting enough done in 2 years to get a K. And even with that, it's very difficult.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I did the Research Track.

Don't do the Research Track.

I spend much of my time convincing my young padawans that the research track is a bad idea. Every once in awhile a Yoda comes along that is just right for it.

 

[gutonc]

Shoot, I meant to mention this in my response so thanks for pointing it out. No, K awards are a nightmare to get. That's why you need a PhD first, so that you have any hope of getting enough done in 2 years to get a K. And even with that, it's very difficult.

K awards are super easy to get...in comparison to R01s. Depending on the institute you submit to, you're looking at somewhere between a 15 and 25% chance of funding overall. This is about double your chances of scoring an R01.

 

[gutonc]

I spend much of my time convincing my young padawans that the research track is a bad idea. Every once in awhile a Yoda comes along that is just right for it.

I was more of a Jar-Jar Binks.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

K awards are super easy to get...in comparison to R01s. Depending on the institute you submit to, you're looking at somewhere between a 15 and 25% chance of funding overall. This is about double your chances of scoring an R01.

Apparently your definition of "super easy" and mine are different. Agreed that K's are a walk in the park compared to R01's. But a 25% chance of getting the funding you need vs begging a dept chair vs your research career is over isn't great. Anyway, my point was that if you want a realistic chance of getting a K, you need to be super productive during your 2 years of research and that usually requires a PhD prior so that you can continue the work you've already done, or can hit the ground running.

EDIT: Crap, just re-read your answer and realized that's what you meant. Sorry!

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I was more of a Jar-Jar Binks.

That explains a lot around here.

 

[gutonc]

Apparently your definition of "super easy" and mine are different. Agreed that K's are a walk in the park compared to R01's. But a 25% chance of getting the funding you need vs begging a dept chair vs your research career is over isn't great. Anyway, my point was that if you want a realistic chance of getting a K, you need to be super productive during your 2 years of research and that usually requires a PhD prior so that you can continue the work you've already done, or can hit the ground running.

EDIT: Crap, just re-read your answer and realized that's what you meant. Sorry!

And I think 25% is a significant overestimation.