Interview experiences: grades and scores vs research?

[TOMOrrowTherapy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I was wondering if a few of the interview trail people could comment on their experiences with this:
Specifically, what attitudes have interview faculty expressed towards a person with the highest grades and scores vs a person with decent grades and scores but with extensive research and other background in the field. Rad onc just seems to have this highly academic aspect to it, plus it is a small field, so it seemed a bit unique in how programs may evaluate candidates.
I wonder about this because I am very interested in rad onc and I kinda fit into the latter above category. I'm generally in the top quarter of the class but pretty sure I'm not getting elected into AOA. My step 1 score was a bit below the rad onc average but I have a graduate degree in applied particle physics and a few rad onc poster presentations and manuscript publications. I was previously employed as a rad onc physicist, but I am genuinely interested in the rad onc physics research. Will programs look favorably at all on these types of things?

I understand that it is all a tapestry and everything, including the interview, is all taken into account. Any shared experiences would be greatly appreciated!

I apologize if I didn't see this in the FAQ.
Thanks for your time.

 

[Cancerdancer]

You're way ahead of the ballgame, IMHO. I had a fair amount of research and better than average boards, grades, etc, so was probably equally represented on these two fronts that you break down an application into. At only one program was there any mention of my board scores, and I never had anyone mention grades, AOA status etc. At every interview was my research experience brought up. Your extensive experience within the field and obvious interest & aptitude with radiation physics will make you far more attractive to most programs than someone with excellent scores & grades but only an average research background (what's average?--probably one abstract presented and 2-3 ongoing research projects). Just my two cents.

Keep up the good work, and consider taking step 2 early. Given that most people taking step 2 are only doing so to pass it, but it's still graded "on the curve" if you put in substantial effort you can probably best your step 1 score significantly.

 

[LCK]

I wrote you a long response, but it somehow got deleted. So...I will make this short and sweet. Take it from someone with very high boards/grades (AOA), but minimal research in comparison to other rad onc hopefuls- rad onc/cancer bio research is absolutely the most important thing. This is especially true if you want to go to a "top" program. I did get many interviews, but only 1 at a perceived top 10 institution. Even with only above average boards/grades (not stellar), your background will likely land you interviews at many of the top places. Good luck to you- although I know you will not need it.

One more thing I wanted to comment on that I though was a bit weird about rad onc. Teaching experience seems to matter little in comparison to research in terms of what is considered "academic". My fiance who is applying to medicine (who wants to do academics) has similar teaching experience as myself and was asked about it all the time. I, on the other hand, also want to do academics and was never asked about these experiences- I was only asked about my research. So I always felt I had to bring up how some people want to do academics in large part b/c of a love of teaching and not just because of research. Sorry for the soapbox, but I just think it's weird that in rad onc this seems to be ignored when someone thinks about what it is to be "academic". Anyone else in this situation?

 

[radonc09]

At only one program was there any mention of my board scores, and I never had anyone mention grades, AOA status etc. At every interview was my research experience brought up.

I don't disagree with the other posters, but to be fair, how can an interviewer discuss board scores/grades/AOA status in an interview? "So, you got a 250 on Step 1...what was that like?!?" All of these aspects are likely considered in reviewing applications and making interview invitations, but research is one of the aspects of your application that can lead to some meaningful discussion during an interview.

 

[TOMOrrowTherapy]

I don't disagree with the other posters, but to be fair, how can an interviewer discuss board scores/grades/AOA status in an interview? "So, you got a 250 on Step 1...what was that like?!?" All of these aspects are likely considered in reviewing applications and making interview invitations, but research is one of the aspects of your application that can lead to some meaningful discussion during an interview.

My apologies, the question I meant to ask in the original post was how current interviewees felt that the program faculty perceived grades vs research and background experience in an applicant. I don't necessarily mean specifically during an interview session. Sorry about the mix-up.

 

[yeasterbunny]

I agree with what radonc09 is getting at. If your grades and scores are nowhere near the average it will preclude you from being considered at a lot of places. The field is becoming so competetive this is one easy applicant filter (with plenty of exceptions depending on big strengths in other areas, esp. graduate degrees IMHO). But as long as you are close in grades and scores, even if below the radonc average, the real payoff is in the research.

To give more personal concrete examples: my grades and scores were both above radonc average. My research was limited to a little token non-cancer stuff as an undergrad (resulted in a poster and a 7th author pub), some little token non-cancer stuff my first summer off (resulted in a poster), and a radonc clinical project during 3rd year (resulted in 1st author pub but was only submitted at time of residency application). I got plenty of interviews but not really at the super big name academic places, with exception of Mayo where I did my away. No one ever mentioned my grades. The only person that ever asked me about AOA was my home chair, when meeting as my MS3 advisor discussing the application process and my 4th year courses.

Hope this helps.

 

[ABCXRT]

I think the people with a lot of research will tell you that grades and step are important if they didn't get all the interviews they wanted. People with great scores will tell you research is important. Their both important and many people have both. If you're really strong in either one and average in the other you'll get plenty of offers. (I think you'll do well because of your rad onc experience)

There is also a lot of randomness in this process. I have no idea how some programs decided to one person and not another. In general they only have 1-2 spots and have 150-180 highly qualified applicants. Just do the best you can, and throw your name in the hat.

 

[G'ville Nole]

There is also a lot of randomness in this process. I have no idea how some programs decided to one person and not another. In general they only have 1-2 spots and have 150-180 highly qualified applicants. Just do the best you can, and throw your name in the hat.

Absolutely true, which is why the best advice to potential applicants, regardless of your step scores/research, etc. is this: APPLY BROADLY!

 

[mikedc813]

I agree with what radonc09 is getting at. If your grades and scores are nowhere near the average it will preclude you from being considered at a lot of places. The field is becoming so competetive this is one easy applicant filter (with plenty of exceptions depending on big strengths in other areas, esp. graduate degrees IMHO). But as long as you are close in grades and scores, even if below the radonc average, the real payoff is in the research.

To give more personal concrete examples: my grades and scores were both above radonc average. My research was limited to a little token non-cancer stuff as an undergrad (resulted in a poster and a 7th author pub), some little token non-cancer stuff my first summer off (resulted in a poster), and a radonc clinical project during 3rd year (resulted in 1st author pub but was only submitted at time of residency application). I got plenty of interviews but not really at the super big name academic places, with exception of Mayo where I did my away. No one ever mentioned my grades. The only person that ever asked me about AOA was my home chair, when meeting as my MS3 advisor discussing the application process and my 4th year courses.

Hope this helps.

I have to second this. I was pretty much in the same boat regarding grades, scores, research. Nobody asked me around grades AT ALL. My interviews were mostly about my 2 research projects. I ended up with 12 interviews. So you don't have to be #1 in your class or have a 280 Step 1 score. If you're reasonably competitive regarding your grades/score try to get involved in radonc-related research and get strong letters preferably from well-known faculty. That's the road I went down and ended up with a position outside of the match this year. I remember reading through these forums as an anxious 2nd and 3rd year thinking I had no chance at matching when I saw the stats of people on here. I hope I can dispel some of these misconceptions about what it takes to match.

 

[LCK]

I definitely agree with mikedc813. As has been said, applying broadly is key. An applicant with decent grades/scores and at least 1-2 rad onc projects in the works has a pretty good shot at getting enough interviews to match (10 or so) IF they apply all over. All rad onc hopefuls should keep in mind the data from the 2007 NRMP charting outcomes in the match- 82% of US grads who ranked at least 1 program matched. Though competitive when compared to pediatrics or medicine, these are still pretty good odds. Much better than our derm or plastics peers. Now hopefully I will still be thinking like this in 8 days...

 

[IRISH22]

I might be beating a dead horse here, but let me echo what has been said based on my experience:

I think I got interviews (ie, got one foot in the door) based on my grades/step scores. BUT, when I got to the interviews, only a FEW individuals even mentioned grades or scores (and you meet tons of interviewers on the trail). Contrast that to EVERY SINGLE interviewer asking me about my project, like that was the be all and end all.

Actually, it really bothers me if I can be perfectly honest. I may decide to enter a career in academics, but I really kept getting the feeling that all they care about is your research. This is oncology. We will spend most of days treating cancer patients, not working in a lab. Shouldn't someone care about my interpersonal skills, my volunteer experience, etc? Really irks me the more I think about it...

If I could give advice to those of you interviewing next year, it would be to know your answer to these 2 questions (which you will answer at each and every interview, multiple times per day, in back-2-back sessions):

1) why rad-onc? (most will appear wholly uninterested in your answer, however, as they lick their chops at the prospect of the next question)
2) Tell me about that project of yours! (Read: this is all 95% of people interviewing you care about)

and one final point on my interview harangue, I'd say about 2/3 of interviewers had clearly not even picked up my file prior to our meeting. Many of the interviews started with a "so you're from which medical school?" I know I'll get a response from someone out there reminding me how busy attendings are, etc, but when you spend hours prepping an application and fly 2000 miles to be somewhere, they should at least be expecting you. Enjoy the process next year!

 

[yeasterbunny]

I might be beating a dead horse here, but let me echo what has been said based on my experience:

I think I got interviews (ie, got one foot in the door) based on my grades/step scores. BUT, when I got to the interviews, only a FEW individuals even mentioned grades or scores (and you meet tons of interviewers on the trail). Contrast that to EVERY SINGLE interviewer asking me about my project, like that was the be all and end all.

Actually, it really bothers me if I can be perfectly honest. I may decide to enter a career in academics, but I really kept getting the feeling that all they care about is your research. This is oncology. We will spend most of days treating cancer patients, not working in a lab. Shouldn't someone care about my interpersonal skills, my volunteer experience, etc? Really irks me the more I think about it...

If I could give advice to those of you interviewing next year, it would be to know your answer to these 2 questions (which you will answer at each and every interview, multiple times per day, in back-2-back sessions):

1) why rad-onc? (most will appear wholly uninterested in your answer, however, as they lick their chops at the prospect of the next question)
2) Tell me about that project of yours! (Read: this is all 95% of people interviewing you care about)

and one final point on my interview harangue, I'd say about 2/3 of interviewers had clearly not even picked up my file prior to our meeting. Many of the interviews started with a "so you're from which medical school?" I know I'll get a response from someone out there reminding me how busy attendings are, etc, but when you spend hours prepping an application and fly 2000 miles to be somewhere, they should at least be expecting you. Enjoy the process next year!

At least they knew which medical school you are from. In at least one interview on basically every trip, someone would say something to the effect of, "so you're from Medical College of Wisconsin, huh? how's Dr. Harari these days?"

 

[koolaidkid]

i would agree with above posts. no one spoke to me about my grades or scores. i think that's because how many residents or attendings talk to eah other around the water cooler / bar about "hey man, how'd you do on step 3?" or "wow, I heard you were AOA. how's that feel?"
the scores are just for screening initially.
come interview time, they will ask about research. definitely. if you don't have any, that's fine too. the issue is that rad onc has some 75% of grads going into private practie. there's nothing wrong with that, but few academicians will say, "I am excpetionally proud of the fact that 100% of my program's graduates form the past 5 years have gone private."

now, as for motivation and patient care or teaching, you can always work that in. i think that's actually particularly important, especially if your research is weak. people in rad onc aren't socially inept (or at least most aren't).
you chose to rad onc for a reason, and it's hopefully not the prestige (who says "wow, radiation oncology. that's cool", generally it's more like, so, you "push that button, right?" or for those more well-informed "so, you draw those circles, right?") but to us, it's a lot about the relationships, the different modalities of treatment, the fact you treat freakin' everything in cancer, and most importantly, the patients we treat and the continuity.

when they ask you, so why rad onc, that's when you spew forth all those motivating factors that genuinely got you interested in medicine and this field. if you have a really touching story about a patient or a great experience, tell that. the rad onc acadmeicins love their reserach but also care tremendously about their patients. it's life or death, not "can you give me a little more botox here, i still see that wrinkle". talk to them about teaching if that's your bag. tell them that's why you want to do academics if that's your thing.

in general, when it comes to selecting people for interview, these would the factors that are prob impt (in no order):
grades/steps
letters of rec
reputation of school
research
(each is important, but interestingly, b/c rad onc doesn't have to churn through 10000 applications like derm, they will actually look closely at the guy/gal who scored a 200 on step 1 but has a letter of rec from Hak Choy (someone well-respected but not on the same level as Cox/Harris) and a nice little IJROBP paper/abstract rather than just tossing it in the circular filer; if that LOR is really hot stuff, even the big names may be interviewing him/her)

for the interview it's more, place yourself in their shoes. they're looking for someone who will fit in, who has academic aspirations, and who will work hard. when you're thrown into a blind date, you start scrambling for things to talk about. hence the research and the stock question why rad onc. interview time, they want to know you're not nuts, will not quit the program, and will not be disruptive. you will be fairly happy at said institution / locale and have good reason to come there.
research, research, research is great. but if you are a genuinely excellent clinician, esp when it comes to compassion, bring it up if they don't.
my 1.5 cents
these are great.... boy should be prepping for step 2

 

[radonc]

grades and scores are used for preliminary screening prior to interviews. also used are letters, regional issues, and prestige of school. i know pd's who call each other (to chit chat b/c they are friendly) or see each other at conferences and end up talking about applicants from each others medical schools.

when you are at the interview, they mainly focus on how well you would fit into their program. this could entail a lot of diff things, like ability to speak (ie about research), how you carry yourself, personality, and other things that applicants bring to their attention...like my fam is from the area or my fiancee is a resident here or other such issues that may make you a more attractive candidate.

 

[stephew]

I think you should be careful before dismissing grades out of hand. Remember: mediocre grades raise a red flag even if the setting of a great CV otherwise. It indicates either poor clinical skills- something folks are very wary of an do see even in the Great PhD/Pubs/Boards setting- and at worse that the person just doesnt give a damn about patient care.

 

[MidwestRO]

I had the exact same experience. I have both a strong background and a dedicated interest in teaching, but I received a "ho hum" response at most institutions. Discussing a case report often garnered more enthusiasm. For a field with a shortage of academics, I find this to be discouraging.

One more thing I wanted to comment on that I though was a bit weird about rad onc. Teaching experience seems to matter little in comparison to research in terms of what is considered "academic". My fiance who is applying to medicine (who wants to do academics) has similar teaching experience as myself and was asked about it all the time. I, on the other hand, also want to do academics and was never asked about these experiences- I was only asked about my research. So I always felt I had to bring up how some people want to do academics in large part b/c of a love of teaching and not just because of research.

 

[RoentgenRay]

I don't think the "ho-hum" attitude was meant to be a disregard for the value of good clinical evaluations, I just think that now with the field being so ridiculously competetive, it is assumed that EVERYBODY will be strong clinically. Personally, I was extremely impressed with everyone I encountered on the rad onc interview trail and saw a noticable drop off in applicant quality when interviewing for some prelim/TY positions. It also made me feel good that our field will be in good hands.

 

[koolaidkid]

it would be nice if there were probably more people genuinely interested in academics though. yes people change, but I had the feeling we were becoming like derm and plastics where everyone does research and says they'll go academic but end up private. I agree with steph that grades are still really important. I do think the dedication to teaching is a strength, particularly if it is backed up with experience. sincerity does count, and playing to your strengths generally helps. it would be nice if people were more honest.

 

[ABCXRT]

it would be nice if there were probably more people genuinely interested in academics though. yes people change, but I had the feeling we were becoming like derm and plastics where everyone does research and says they'll go academic but end up private. I agree with steph that grades are still really important. I do think the dedication to teaching is a strength, particularly if it is backed up with experience. sincerity does count, and playing to your strengths generally helps. it would be nice if people were more honest.

We're going off the topic of the thread, but I think the OP's question (numbers vs research for apps) was answered.

I agree with you that applicants should be honest about their goals. But it's a folie à deux. Programs also need to be honest about how much they really want to (or are able to) help you on an academic path. I think that rad onc residency programs in general (with perhaps a half dozen exceptions) could do MUCH more to improve the research experiences of residents who do want to go into academics. They say they want to train academicians. If the programs are honest they should put their money where their mouth is.

BTW, A 2003 survey of residents (link below) showed roughly a 2:1 private to academic career path. That seems okay to me, considering residency programs need to train doctors who will work in the community treating patients. Not every patient can be treated at an academic center. Granted this was just a survey, not an actually accounting of who actually does what, but it's a good measure of honesty since it's a survey of residents, not applicants.

I'm sure there's a better reference for who really wants to do what , but this is the first that popped up:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=4253ca0b2a012a50eea658aedfc53e87

 

[radonc]

i dont think it is a program which pressures med students to say they want to go into academics...i think its all on the students...they feel the need to put on a 'guise' for interviews.

i think a much more appropriate response to a program asking if you want to do academics vs private is to say that you are open to both and want to test the waters during residency to come up with the best informed decision for yourself.

a lot can happen in the 5.5 years since you applied for residency as a medical student...and programs understand that.

that being said, certain programs have a track record of residents going into academics or private...and one should choose/rank that program if they are willing to put up with the 'pressure' of going into academics or the lack of opportunities for research if one wants to go into academics.

 

[yeasterbunny]

i dont think it is a program which pressures med students to say they want to go into academics...i think its all on the students...they feel the need to put on a 'guise' for interviews.

i think a much more appropriate response to a program asking if you want to do academics vs private is to say that you are open to both and want to test the waters during residency to come up with the best informed decision for yourself.

a lot can happen in the 5.5 years since you applied for residency as a medical student...and programs understand that.

that being said, certain programs have a track record of residents going into academics or private...and one should choose/rank that program if they are willing to put up with the 'pressure' of going into academics or the lack of opportunities for research if one wants to go into academics.

I agree with this. My answer to the question a few of times (depending on the personality of the interviewer) was, "honestly my radonc experience at this point is two months of rotating and one clinical research project. I would be crazy to make up my mind solely based on that! That being said, I enjoyed the research and I like teaching so if I had to decide today I would give academics a try." The response was universally the same. They agreed that this was a totally sensible and honest approach, and I got kudos from a couple for being brave enough to admit it instead of just saying academia like most people do. In fact, I think I answered along these lines at the place I matched.

And then other times I sensed from the interviewer that this approach would be a bad idea, so I just said academia like most people do. 😛

 

[koolaidkid]

great response to the question. the sincerity helps and i think radonc is totally correct. wish I had thought of that response.

I agree with this. My answer to the question a few of times (depending on the personality of the interviewer) was, "honestly my radonc experience at this point is two months of rotating and one clinical research project. I would be crazy to make up my mind solely based on that! That being said, I enjoyed the research and I like teaching so if I had to decide today I would give academics a try." The response was universally the same. They agreed that this was a totally sensible and honest approach, and I got kudos from a couple for being brave enough to admit it instead of just saying academia like most people do. In fact, I think I answered along these lines at the place I matched.

And then other times I sensed from the interviewer that this approach would be a bad idea, so I just said academia like most people do. 😛