- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi everyone:
I'll be applying for internal medicine residency in the 2008-2009 cycle. I've had a lifelong passion for internal medicine and working with underserved populations. I recently started a family and I've realized that with these extra responsibilities I will not always be able to work with underserved patients. But whenever it is financially and logistically possible for my family and I, I want to make good on my dream. Right now I'm interested fellowship training in GI or Infectious Diseases. But I'm not 100% certain either that I will not become a primary care doctor or hospitalist and just forgo fellowship training.
I'm unsure about the pros and cons of applying to categorial medicine vs. primary care residency programs., especially with regard to the effect on applying for competitive fellowships like GI. I've heard many conflicting things. If anyone has any knowledge or experience, I would really appreciate your feedback.
Pros:
I hope to earn acceptance to the best possible training program I can be accepted to. Besides the unique benefits of each program, it seems applying to both tracks at top competitive places (e.g. Harvard, Columbia, UCSF) will give me more chances (open spots) to match in. I'm aware that PC tracks have less openings than categorical, but is there no harm in trying to increasing the number of slots I can be considered for?
Many primary care programs seem less rigid and more innovative than traditional categorical paths. They often allow for more flexibility and elective time. Many I've seen also allow residents to integrate community service projects for more hands on experience with the underserved. Seems to be overall more balanced training experience.
Less stressful? With less ward months and more clinic + eletives, this might mean more time and energy to do research or work with underserved.
More time, less stressful when babies/children still young?
Is primary care training at a "top" program (e.g. Mass General, Hopkins, or UCSF) better than categorical at a very strong but not top tier program
(e.g. UCLA, Northwestern?)
Cons:
-Yes, primary care applicants do match into competitive fellowships. But are they the exception rather than the rule? Perhaps they are getting matched IN SPITE OF not because of the primary care program.
-I've heard of primary care program directors getting angry with residents applying to fellowships. Especially some programs with a proud PC culture, they have accused some residents of being dishonest about their intentions when they applied.
-Do fellowships look down on PC applicants? Worst yet do they judge them as being not good enough for categorical training or that they were dishonest about going into PC in the first place?
-Does applying to both categorical and PC hurt chances of matched at both? Perhaps you come across as unfocused.......
If anyone has experience with the pros and cons of dual applying into these programs for applicants like me, your advice is much appreciated! Thank you.
I'll be applying for internal medicine residency in the 2008-2009 cycle. I've had a lifelong passion for internal medicine and working with underserved populations. I recently started a family and I've realized that with these extra responsibilities I will not always be able to work with underserved patients. But whenever it is financially and logistically possible for my family and I, I want to make good on my dream. Right now I'm interested fellowship training in GI or Infectious Diseases. But I'm not 100% certain either that I will not become a primary care doctor or hospitalist and just forgo fellowship training.
I'm unsure about the pros and cons of applying to categorial medicine vs. primary care residency programs., especially with regard to the effect on applying for competitive fellowships like GI. I've heard many conflicting things. If anyone has any knowledge or experience, I would really appreciate your feedback.
Pros:
I hope to earn acceptance to the best possible training program I can be accepted to. Besides the unique benefits of each program, it seems applying to both tracks at top competitive places (e.g. Harvard, Columbia, UCSF) will give me more chances (open spots) to match in. I'm aware that PC tracks have less openings than categorical, but is there no harm in trying to increasing the number of slots I can be considered for?
Many primary care programs seem less rigid and more innovative than traditional categorical paths. They often allow for more flexibility and elective time. Many I've seen also allow residents to integrate community service projects for more hands on experience with the underserved. Seems to be overall more balanced training experience.
Less stressful? With less ward months and more clinic + eletives, this might mean more time and energy to do research or work with underserved.
More time, less stressful when babies/children still young?
Is primary care training at a "top" program (e.g. Mass General, Hopkins, or UCSF) better than categorical at a very strong but not top tier program
(e.g. UCLA, Northwestern?)
Cons:
-Yes, primary care applicants do match into competitive fellowships. But are they the exception rather than the rule? Perhaps they are getting matched IN SPITE OF not because of the primary care program.
-I've heard of primary care program directors getting angry with residents applying to fellowships. Especially some programs with a proud PC culture, they have accused some residents of being dishonest about their intentions when they applied.
-Do fellowships look down on PC applicants? Worst yet do they judge them as being not good enough for categorical training or that they were dishonest about going into PC in the first place?
-Does applying to both categorical and PC hurt chances of matched at both? Perhaps you come across as unfocused.......
If anyone has experience with the pros and cons of dual applying into these programs for applicants like me, your advice is much appreciated! Thank you.
