Iserson's Academic Criteria for selecting Path Residents

[skinknee]

---

Members do not see this ad.

In the 7th edition (2006), Iserson's Getting into a Residency there's a table that ranks how important program directors regard academic criteria. This list was supposedly taken from surveys completed by program directors.

Here's the top twelve:

1. Published research
2. Class rank
3. awards
3. specialty elective grades
5. AOA membership
6. Number of Honors grades
7. Med school reputation
8. Grades in required clerkships
9. Step 2
10. Step 1
11. Other senior elective grades
12. Grades in other preclinical courses

I couldn't find this discussed on previous threads, although I'm sure people have asked. I'm curious how everyone feels about this list. Is it accurate?

 

[longlakeboy]

1. Published research
2. Class rank
3. awards
3. specialty elective grades
5. AOA membership
6. Number of Honors grades
7. Med school reputation
8. Grades in required clerkships
9. Step 2
10. Step 1
11. Other senior elective grades
12. Grades in other preclinical courses

I'm someone who had one publication from undergrad as a fourth author, whose school didn't release class rankings, who had no awards to speak of and just missed out on AOA, and went to a middling med school (SLU). I still ended up where I wanted to be. So I find this list abritrary at best...

When push comes to shove, I think grades, scores and how you interview matter most... But that's just my guess, which is probably worth about what I think this list is worth.

 

[levels x3]

Published research?? For residency?? Either they only polled the program directors at Brigham or Hopkins and the like; or every other program director is deluding themselves into thinking that their program is Brigham or Hopkins.

 

[djmd]

I actually wouldn't argue with that list...

Except to say that of the top 5 only elective grades (pathology) is "expected" in pathology residency apps. Yes published research is going to be more important than awards or grades in required clerkship.. but not having it is not a no go.


I would add LOR somewhere on that list... pretty high too.. strong letters usually mean a lot.

 

[schrute]

Some of those factors might get you an interview at some big name places, but having a personality is exceedingly more important come that interview...unless the people interviewing you are just as bad...

 

[levels x3]

I would doubt published research as the most important, or highest weighted criterion at most programs. I've seen plenty of applicants in the past 3 years with a good amount of published research, but with deficiencies in other areas. The research does not bump them up in the ranking significantly.

I would agree though that LOR's should be somewhere on the list.

I also think that USMLE scores are way underrated here. They are a convenient screening tool that many places use.

 

[TMZ2007]

I also think that USMLE scores are way underrated here. They are a convenient screening tool that many places use.

Maybe USMLE scores are strictly for (interview) screening and not actually that significant for final selection? Sounds nutty to me. I was always of the impression that USMLE scores are quite important (maybe top 3 of all criteria)?

Tangent: is there any specialty that doesn't highly value step scores? Even better, is there any situation/specialty where the person with higher scores loses out to the person with lower scores, all other factors being equal?

 

[djmd]

Maybe USMLE scores are strictly for (interview) screening and not actually that significant for final selection? Sounds nutty to me. I was always of the impression that USMLE scores are quite important (maybe top 3 of all criteria)?

Tangent: is there any specialty that doesn't highly value step scores? Even better, is there any situation/specialty where the person with higher scores loses out to the person with lower scores, all other factors being equal?

I would say they make an easy numerical way to screen applicants, but only the very first screen so the bar is usually fairly low...

And once in the door, the scores are not very important...
At least in pathology. The ranking committee may not even have the USMLE scores directly in front of them while ranking people..

So I would say that it is possible, someone with lower USMLEs could best someone with higher USMLEs all other things being equal.....

 

[Thaitanium]

In no particular order, to get an interview I would say the following are most important.

1. Board scores
2. Grades
3. Strong letters of recommendation (from pathologists)
4. Pathology-related experience (research, etc.)

When you get to the interview stage, then the following come into play:

1. Genuine interest/enthusiasm for pathology (I was asked "Why pathology?" in all my interviews)
2. Fit in the program

 

[mlw03]

iserson's book is a huge waste of money and time. step 1 score is quite important, as thaitanium points out. grades are important too, because clinical understand is necessary to be a good pathologist, and program directors know this. personality is extremely important. i cannot overemphasize the following: no one wants to work with an a@^hole for 4 years. get to the interview with numbers, but once there, show the residents and faculty that you're a normal human being and that'll score you major points. because plenty applicants will be socially challenged, so if you're not, that's big props to you.

 

[KeratinPearls]

iserson's book is a huge waste of money and time. step 1 score is quite important, as thaitanium points out. grades are important too, because clinical understand is necessary to be a good pathologist, and program directors know this. personality is extremely important. i cannot overemphasize the following: no one wants to work with an a@^hole for 4 years. get to the interview with numbers, but once there, show the residents and faculty that you're a normal human being and that'll score you major points. because plenty applicants will be socially challenged, so if you're not, that's big props to you.

I agree. Fit into the program and with other residents I think is probably the most important factor (for me) once you get to the interview stage. You have to work with that "someone" for 4 years which is a helluva long time. If you have personality issues, and if it shows during interviews, I would not consider you.

I think enthusiasm to be at the place you interview at is most important. If someone comes across as disinterested, how do you think that person will be in 1 year, if they make it that far. If I could tell someone genuinely wants to be at my program, that would be a plus.

 

[MirkoCrocop]

In the 7th edition (2006), Iserson's Getting into a Residency there's a table that ranks how important program directors regard academic criteria. This list was supposedly taken from surveys completed by program directors.

Here's the top twelve:

1. Published research
2. Class rank
3. awards
3. specialty elective grades
5. AOA membership
6. Number of Honors grades
7. Med school reputation
8. Grades in required clerkships
9. Step 2
10. Step 1
11. Other senior elective grades
12. Grades in other preclinical courses

I couldn't find this discussed on previous threads, although I'm sure people have asked. I'm curious how everyone feels about this list. Is it accurate?

Dude! Iserson is smoking crack... talk about a screwed up list.

For 80% of programs, the 5 most important things are, in various particular orders: step 1, step 2, class rank, publications, grades.

Medical school reputation is fairly inconsequential nowadays.

 

[gbwillner]

Dude! Iserson is smoking crack... talk about a screwed up list.

For 80% of programs, the 5 most important things are, in various particular orders: step 1, step 2, class rank, publications, grades.

Medical school reputation is fairly inconsequential nowadays.

I would say that schools have different criteria for MD/PhDs, and for them the list is actually pretty good with the omission of the LOR. For regular applicants I would think that Step1, grades/rank, and interest/personality are the most important. Also, if your husband/wife is already a faculty member/fellow/resident in another department at the same institution that seems to get your foot in the door pretty easily.