Is a research year a draw for residency?

[deleted144060]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

This is a little bit of a switch, but I need some input from the MS-3s and 4s considering plastic surgery.

The program where I'm a craniofacial fellow has their residents do a research year, so it's a 3 and 3. The residents who have been through it say it's OK in that they get a publication and some time to study. But most of them are thinking private practice so it doesn't really matter otherwise.

The chair who instituted the research year thinks it's a draw for applicants to the program. I get the feeling that it isn't, especially since this is a busy place with attendings outnumbering residents by a fair margin and more cases than sometimes can be covered. I think that think the residents would get a better experience by having a shorter rotation in the lab and the rest of the year in the OR.

What I'm looking for is some input from the people who matter...that is you who are applying for a combined spot. With all other things being equal, would you be more or less likely to rank a program higher or lower if there was a mandatory lab year?

Thanks for your help.

--Moravian

 

[willowdesi]

Hi Moravian,

As an MS3 student currently doing a clinical research year, it would be attractive to me. I'm enjoying doing research a lot and want to stay in academics. Though, I think if I wanted to do private practice I would benefit from time in the OR more. Maybe the research year would be nice though for someone who eventually wants to go back to academics or stay affiliated with an academic center?

Cheers,
Willow

 

[deleted144060]

With all the people viewing this post, I'm wondering why I only got one reply. Maybe I'm kidding myself and it's a non-issue. Anyway, if you're hesitant to post in a public forum, please feel free to send me a private message.

Best to everyone with interviews,

--Moravian

 

[dilated]

It's not entirely clear in your post, is it 3+3+1 yr research? Or 3+2+1 yr research?

Judging by the plastic applicants at our school, most of them consider the 7 year programs to be a big drawback.

 

[deleted144060]

In response to an email, anyone in the MS years (including 1 and 2s), please feel free to send an answer to my previous question about the research year.

And to clarify, the program in question is 3 years of GS (with plastic and OMFS rotations), 1 year of research, and 2 years of plastics.

Thanks,

--Moravian

 

[Modanq]

I am a current M2.

I think that a req. year of research would be a drawback for those wanting to go directly into private practice. To my knowledge, most of the research oriented programs are at academic institutions. These programs don't necc. want to produce private practitioners. They want to enhance the science and clinical aspects of PRS, which is baller in its own right.

I think a better approach would be to allow for an optional research year with a bunch of perks like an MPH or a Masters in clinical science, etc at non-academic places, (Sagainaw Plastics). Thus, those who want to stay academic but end up matching at non-academic places have ways to make it back into the loop.

On the other hand, I think academic programs should require research years, because that is what they do. I think its also important to remember that people at these places are gifted and intellectually talented. Thus, I think it would be a waste not to put some of that mind toward the field that will put thier kids through college. Its like giving back.

Just my two cents,

 

[maxheadroom]

OK, I'm a resident, so my opinion might not be as important, but I think that mandatory research will be viewed as a NEGATIVE by the vast majority of applicants. They'll never tell you that at an interview because they want to get trained and most of them are willing to accept a year or two in the lab if that's required, but the vast majority of the residents that I know (at my place and several others) want to do their training and get out.

 

[medhacker]

MS2 here

A required research year would be a negative.

As has been mentioned, an optional research year would be a draw but not mandatory.

 

[Modanq]

I was just looking at the PRS programs list and realized that most of them were at academic institutions. Mostly affiliated with universities.

So, I don't know if a year of mandatory research is that much of a draw anymore, they all like research. I have to think about this some more, more for myself than anything else....

 

[pagemmapants]

MS2, on clerkships now. Duke, obv. I'd say an optional research year would be the best way to go, particularly since some people take a year out of med school to do research anyway in order to be more competitive for the combined programs. I personally *like* research, but I also like money and wouldn't mind being out in practice a year earlier, so it's kind of a wash in my opinion. I'm not sure it would sway me too much either way. I'd be happy to go to whatever combined program would accept me. . . 😉

 

[droliver]

All things being equal, I think it's a big turn-off for applicants. As a substancial % of graduates persue fellowships of some sort, I think to most people it will uneccesarily prolong their training.

 

[Pilot Doc]

The chair who instituted the research year thinks it's a draw for applicants to the program.

Does he think it's a draw for all applicants or a certain type he wants to attract?

Just out of curiosity, does it matter? Given that PRS is, by far, the most competitive NRMP specialty, I suspect a stream of superb applicants would beat down your door regardless.

 

[deleted144060]

Does he think it's a draw for all applicants or a certain type he wants to attract? Just out of curiosity, does it matter? Given that PRS is, by far, the most competitive NRMP specialty, I suspect a stream of superb applicants would beat down your door regardless.

Good questions. First off, I can even pretend (well...I guess I could pretend) what my chair is thinking about most of the time. There seems to be a mild to moderate disconnect between the leadership and the rest of the department. Although I don't know for sure, I don't think that this is unique to our program. We have had some discussion about this amongst the underlings and the general feeling is that we are selecting for the more academically minded because of the mandated research.

On the other side, I appreciate your comments about the competitiveness of the match. However, there is always seems to be a small "uber" group of applicants that are being competed for by the best programs. Since the stats show that the majority of graduates are going solo (and whether that's because they got fed up with academics or were always thinking private practice), is having a research year a draw for them?

Even among the cream of the crop, there are intangibles that come through in the interview process. So if there was a very strong candidate that fit in well, was well liked, and desired by more than one program, would they go elsewhere if they didn't have to do research?

And I guess in the end, you could ask yourself if it really matters anyway. I personally knew of these wunderkind overachievers that dropped out of a big name program after his intern year.

Anyway, I certainly appreciate all the input I've received.

Thanks to all,

--M

 

[maxheadroom]

My best guess is that most applicants say that they want to do research and academics because THEY KNOW THAT IT HELPS THEM GET IN. Most applicants will look at a research year as a small price to pay to GET IN. Most applicants, if they had a choice, would dodge the research year and use it as a fellowship or get into practice. Not that many people want to do research and one year of research really isn't enough to be productive -- you need at least two years and maybe three depending on what you're doing.

I hear lots of people say, "Northwestern/Michigan/Pitt is great, but I'd rather not be stuck in the lab for a year."

 

[Reesetnd]

As a 4th year with research experience, I plan on doing research in the future; however, I do not want when I do it and for how long to be mandated. I would consider this to be a negative thing, but the option and emphasis on research is a positive. Especially in a field with much left to development and in need of some evidence based medicine.

 

[rgarrig]

In response to an email, anyone in the MS years (including 1 and 2s), please feel free to send an answer to my previous question about the research year.

MS2 here. I say it's a turnoff to make it mandatory. Why not just make it optional? Let the applicants know that there's money, a lab, and support if they would like to complete a research year.

 

[Jackofknives]

The bottom line is med students are not in the position to choose. getting a seat is hard enough.

 

[driedcaribou]

The bottom line is med students are not in the position to choose. getting a seat is hard enough.

Here here!

You get what you get! 🙁