Non-Research ECs?

[Kardio]

M1. I notice many of my classmates are very involved with various campus organizations, leadership roles, volunteering, etc. I've limited myself to studying for school (established DO), keeping up with Anki cards from prior blocks, and one longitudinal research project. I will be adding more research and have additional unpublished research from undergrad on my CV.

I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong by not getting involved in the ways I've listed above? I would like to have options outside of primary care.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[_DeBakey_]

They're wasting their time. Keeping grinding and do research.

 

[slowthai]

Check out this thread if you haven't already: MD - Medical School ECs

This isn't premed anymore, thank God.

 

[FutureDoctor5000]

They're wasting their time. Keeping grinding and do research.

I can agree, no amount of leadership role of being president of XYZ club can compare with getting original research published in a journal or even a case report published, research is king and a huge plus to programs. Nobody cares that you wasted your time being president of XYZ club lol

 

[Kardio]

Thanks @slowthai and @_DeBakey_ . I’d really rather stick to the ECs I’m genuinely interested in than do club things just for ERAS. It seems like it won’t be a big deal if I abstain.

 

[_DeBakey_]

Thanks @slowthai and @_DeBakey_ . I’d really rather stick to the ECs I’m genuinely interested in than do club things just for ERAS. It seems like it won’t be a big deal if I abstain.

Ok I have shouldn't have been so absolute sounding lol...yes, if there is something you are genuinely interested in then go for it.

Just don't do it because everyone else is and under the impression anyone will be impressed.

 

[AnonymousDoctorGuyPerson]

They're wasting their time. Keeping grinding and do research.

People do also like volunteering, starting new organizations and/or managing them, etc

 

[slowthai]

People do also like volunteering, starting new organizations and/or managing them, etc

That's true, but we're talking about in the context of maximizing your chances in the match.

 

[ThatSerb]

That's true, but we're talking about in the context of maximizing your chances in the match.

so is working with the underserved not something that programs typically like a lot?

 

[slowthai]

so is working with the underserved not something that programs typically like a lot?

Generally, no. But it varies program to program as well. Some, particularly in primary care/primary care adjacent fields like psych, value it greatly.

I can talk about psych because I have some interest in the field. In psych, what matters most is demonstrated interest and the interview. Demonstrated interest includes research, volunteering with a suicide hotline, multiple audition rotations, etc.

For the most competitive fields (surgical subs, IR, derm), they couldn't care less about volunteering.

The best bang for your buck overall, regardless of which specialty (primary care or not) is going to be high step/COMLEX scores and research.

 

[Lawpy]

That's true, but we're talking about in the context of maximizing your chances in the match.

I don't think pumping out garbage research should be prioritized over pursuing volunteering experiences and interesting and fun hobbies

 

[Kardio]

I don't think pumping out garbage research should be prioritized over pursuing volunteering experiences and interesting and fun hobbies

There is some good in simply conducting a study and writing a paper - even if it isn’t all that impactful.

I have hobbies that I enjoy but don’t see a place for them on my ERAS. I personally wouldn’t enjoy the ‘hobbies’ I listed in the OP.

 

[slowthai]

I don't think pumping out garbage research should be prioritized over pursuing volunteering experiences and interesting and fun hobbies

I mean, we're basically doing what we'll be doing in residency. Most attendings are putting out relatively low quality studies in order to get promoted, using their residents/med students as their workhorses. It's just the name of the game. Blame the system.

 

[Lawpy]

I mean, we're basically doing what we'll be doing in residency. Most attendings are putting out relatively low quality studies in order to get promoted, using their residents/med students as their workhorses. It's just the name of the game. Blame the system.

If everyone has crappy research, high Steps and all honors, volunteering, hobbies and other stuff become important

I'm blaming the system alright but even the PDs and residents who review apps repeatedly mention the garbage they see and why they barely put any weight over it as opposed to those having high IF and awesome studies

 

[Lawpy]

There is some good in simply conducting a study and writing a paper - even if it isn’t all that impactful.

I have hobbies that I enjoy but don’t see a place for them on my ERAS. I personally wouldn’t enjoy the ‘hobbies’ I listed in the OP.

Yes there's value which is why 1st author papers always remain valuable. I'm talking about middle author papers on case reports or some other crap in very low impact journals or predatory journals just to get their name on something.

Btw research stratifies based on school tier. Top schools will make sure their students publish good studies in good journals which puts them in a dramatically huge lead for any specialty vs students from anywhere else

 

[slowthai]

If everyone has crappy research, high Steps and all honors, volunteering, hobbies and other stuff become important

I'm blaming the system alright but even the PDs and residents who review apps repeatedly mention the garbage they see and why they barely put any weight over it as opposed to those having high IF and awesome studies

So what are you saying, exactly?

 

[Lawpy]

So what are you saying, exactly?

Don't waste any time on research unless it's essential (if it's necessary, find someone who publishes only in good journals early or take a research year). Focus on things that matter like grades/steps and also volunteering/hobbies to bring up something interesting.

 

[slowthai]

Don't waste any time on research unless it's essential (if it's necessary, find someone who publishes only in good journals early or take a research year). Focus on things that matter like grades/steps and also volunteering/hobbies to bring up something interesting.

Well it really just depends on what you're trying to do. You may or may not need research depending on your field of choice or your location of choice (California programs).

A med student just starting out probably isn't the best judge of what a good journal is. I would focus on finding the most prolific PIs instead. Pub count is what PDs will be looking at, mainly. Of course, avoid case reports if you can. A research year is unnecessary for the vast majority. I'd only recommend it if you're trying to maximize your chances in a field like ophtho or neurosurg.

Volunteering doesn't matter unless it's something you're seriously passionate about. People are naturally passionate about their hobbies, or at least strongly interested, so that checks the box as far as interview talking points go.

 

[Lawpy]

Well it really just depends on what you're trying to do. You may or may not need research depending on your field of choice or your location of choice (California programs).

A med student just starting out probably isn't the best judge of what a good journal is. I would focus on finding the most prolific PIs instead. Pub count is what PDs will be looking at, mainly. Of course, avoid case reports if you can. A research year is unnecessary for the vast majority. I'd only recommend it if you're trying to maximize your chances in a field like ophtho or neurosurg.

Volunteering doesn't matter unless it's something you're seriously passionate about. People are naturally passionate about their hobbies, or at least strongly interested, so that checks the box as far as interview talking points go.

Research quality matters far more than quantity though. Journal quality can be measured by looking online for journal rankings. And yeah by volunteering and hobbies, i'm assuming serious commitment and leadership

 

[slowthai]

Research quality matters far more than quantity though. Journal quality can be measured by looking online for journal rankings. And yeah by volunteering and hobbies, i'm assuming serious commitment and leadership

Ever heard the saying "PDs can count but they can't read"? As long as the journals are of a minimum standard, it's going to be all about the pub count.

But looking at the ranking, how do you even know when it starts to go from "outstanding" to "great" to "good" to "okay"? That's why I'm saying it's better to focus on finding a productive PI that actually knows what they're doing.

Again, all that volunteering and leadership stuff is pure fluff that no one cares about. It's CV padding that has no value. I make a distinction between those and hobbies because hobbies are about displaying your passion and how "interesting" you are. Dumb, I know.

You can parlay volunteering and leadership into passion, I guess, but most people are just CV padding.

 

[Kardio]

Don't waste any time on research unless it's essential (if it's necessary, find someone who publishes only in good journals early or take a research year). Focus on things that matter like grades/steps and also volunteering/hobbies to bring up something interesting.

Many schools have P/F preclerkship and my Step 1 is P/F. My academic performance only matters to the extent that I pass boards and have a good foundation for M3.

As far as I can tell, research is the best thing I can be doing with my time at the moment. The material is often interesting, doing research is a great way to learn how to assess papers (which will be useful throughout my career), and programs want a resident who they know will fulfill ACGME scholarly activity requirements.

 

[Lawpy]

Ever heard the saying "PDs can count but they can't read"? As long as the journals are of a minimum standard, it's going to be all about the pub count.

But looking at the ranking, how do you even know when it starts to go from "outstanding" to "great" to "good" to "okay"? That's why I'm saying it's better to focus on finding a productive PI that actually knows what they're doing.

Again, all that volunteering and leadership stuff is pure fluff that no one cares about. It's CV padding that has no value. I make a distinction between those and hobbies because hobbies are about displaying your passion and how "interesting" you are. Dumb, I know.

You can parlay volunteering and leadership into passion, I guess, but most people are just CV padding.

PDs aren't dumb. They know what the top journals in their fields are, especially PDs in derm and surgical subs. The statement of research quality is repeatedly back by PDs in fields that require research

Productive PIs are important and asking them help. Impact factors are a proxy for journal quality. There are others by searching online.

It's not fluff but clearly we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about global health and creating organizations to help fight against health inequity and aggressively promoting social activism at national level. Those things are very rare and require significant dedication. Hobbies are like marathon running, world class athlete, renowned musician etc. Again very rare

 

[Lawpy]

Many schools have P/F preclerkship and my Step 1 is P/F. My academic performance only matters to the extent that I pass boards and have a good foundation for M3.

As far as I can tell, research is the best thing I can be doing with my time at the moment. The material is often interesting, doing research is a great way to learn how to assess papers (which will be useful throughout my career), and programs want a resident who they know will fulfill ACGME scholarly activity requirements.

Again a lot of those can be done by asking a productive PI if you can get a first author on a paper where you lead from start to finish. Just one first author paper alone tells all the info the PDs need to know. That doesn't take much time and avoids the crappy research flooding

 

[slowthai]

PDs aren't dumb. They know what the top journals in their fields are, especially PDs in derm and surgical subs. The statement of research quality is repeatedly back by PDs in fields that require research

Productive PIs are important and asking them help. Impact factors are a proxy for journal quality. There are others by searching online.

It's not fluff but clearly we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about global health and creating organizations to help fight against health inequity and aggressively promoting social activism at national level. Those things are very rare and require significant dedication. Hobbies are like marathon running, world class athlete, renowned musician etc. Again very rare

They're not dumb by any means. It's about having time to thoroughly evaluate an application. When you have 50000 applications for 3 spots, you're not really going to stop to check for how high quality the pubs of each applicant are. But we'll agree to disagree on this one.

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about at all, lol. It's like running a startup and having patents; that's just not going to be the case for 99% of applicants.

 

[Lawpy]

They're not dumb by any means. It's about having time to thoroughly evaluate an application. When you have 50000 applications for 3 spots, you're not really going to stop to check for how high quality the pubs of each applicant are. But we'll agree to disagree on this one.

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about at all, lol. It's like running a startup and having patents; that's just not going to be the case for 99% of applicants.

I'm pretty sure top journal names are immediately eyecatching for any PD in the field. With NEJM and JAMA (and obviously Science/Cell/Nature) being eyecatching anywhere. The surgical subs and derm PDs know what the top journals in the fields are and a quick glance on CV would draw their interest to papers in those journals

That said, ERAS should make papers their own true publication category to help separate gold from crap

 

[slowthai]

I'm pretty sure top journal names are immediately eyecatching for any PD in the field. With NEJM and JAMA (and obviously Science/Cell/Nature) being eyecatching anywhere. The surgical subs and derm PDs know what the top journals in the fields are and a quick glance on CV would draw their interest to papers in those journals

That said, ERAS should make papers their own true publication category to help separate gold from crap

Of course, but is the average applicant in those specialties getting pubs in those journals? No, so what's the next "best" metric? Pub count. It's pub count that drives promotions, not journal quality.

And I agree about the ERAS category separation.

 

[Lawpy]

Of course, but is the average applicant in those specialties getting pubs in those journals? No, so what's the next "best" metric? Pub count. It's pub count that drives promotions, not journal quality.

And I agree about the ERAS category separation.

Honestly the average applicant has to be outstanding for derm and surgical subs in the first place, and doing these things will only help

 

[Neopolymath]

The unfortunate truth is that this totally depends on the field and how ambitious you are within that field. Community radiology means just do some sweet hobbies and get great evals. Mid tier academic anesthesia or general surgery means some quality research, particularly required in a pass/fail boards world. Beyond boards (p/f for you; rip), any quantity of research is going to be important to keep doors open. Worry about quality later as opportunity presents itself. Get pubs where you can. It's easy to talk about quality from an MD student perspective but means almost nothing from a DO student perspective when research is much more of a luck and "get what you can" scenario for almost every DO student. Number of pubs is far more important because there isn't a real scenario where you are turning down a bunch of projects to find a really good one. That's just no reality IMO. Just do what you can by working to find chances and rolling with it if it looks productive.

As far as the original question, hobbies that you truly enjoy and can speak about for 5 minutes passionately are important for any field. Do not discount this. No one wants to be in a program with some robot. Anything that looks like premed volunteering is pointless and unnecessary unless applying to some bleeding heart FM programs, frankly. Psych is a unique case because early commitment to the field is shown through mental health advocacy (and can actually make a difference unlike all this other BS like FM soup kitchen resume fillers).

Try to get a leadership position, teaching position, and mentorship position if at all possible. You can usually kill two birds with one stone with these positions too on your resume. This comes up in all fields.

Finally, this could be debated by others, but I feel that a lot of students think that step going p/f is going to mean volunteering and other premed things are now important. DO schools already push this stuff for some reason and will do so even more now. They try to tell their students not to worry about academics as much because programs want to see all kinds of dumb **** like volunteering and being on 4 club committees. It's like a built in excuse for underperforming academically for the school. This idea is just plain not true though IMO. Programs' number 1 objective is finding people with academic competency and superiority. This did not change with p/f step 1. It just got a lot harder to find a new metric and easier for people at good schools. There is just a search for new metrics. Step 2 and clinical evals (lol) are now way more important. Some may argue preclinical grades will factor in more but I doubt it. Basically, I'm saying don't go out doing premed things and overloading the schedule with clubs and whatever because it isn't going to help like some people think. The goal should still be focusing on the medicine.

 

[Lawpy]

The unfortunate truth is that this totally depends on the field and how ambitious you are within that field. Community radiology means just do some sweet hobbies and get great evals. Mid tier academic anesthesia or general surgery means some quality research, particularly required in a pass/fail boards world. Beyond boards (p/f for you; rip), any quantity of research is going to be important to keep doors open. Worry about quality later as opportunity presents itself. Get pubs where you can. It's easy to talk about quality from an MD student perspective but means almost nothing from a DO student perspective when research is much more of a luck and "get what you can" scenario for almost every DO student. Number of pubs is far more important because there isn't a real scenario where you are turning down a bunch of projects to find a really good one. That's just no reality IMO. Just do what you can by working to find chances and rolling with it if it looks productive.

As far as the original question, hobbies that you truly enjoy and can speak about for 5 minutes passionately are important for any field. Do not discount this. No one wants to be in a program with some robot. Anything that looks like premed volunteering is pointless and unnecessary unless applying to some bleeding heart FM programs, frankly. Psych is a unique case because early commitment to the field is shown through mental health advocacy (and can actually make a difference unlike all this other BS like FM soup kitchen resume fillers).

Try to get a leadership position, teaching position, and mentorship position if at all possible. You can usually kill two birds with one stone with these positions too on your resume. This comes up in all fields.

Finally, this could be debated by others, but I feel that a lot of students think that step going p/f is going to mean volunteering and other premed things are now important. DO schools already push this stuff for some reason and will do so even more now. They try to tell their students not to worry about academics as much because programs want to see all kinds of dumb **** like volunteering and being on 4 club committees. It's like a built in excuse for underperforming academically for the school. This idea is just plain not true though IMO. Programs' number 1 objective is finding people with academic competency and superiority. This did not change with p/f step 1. It just got a lot harder to find a new metric and easier for people at good schools. There is just a search for new metrics. Step 2 and clinical evals (lol) are now way more important. Some may argue preclinical grades will factor in more but I doubt it. Basically, I'm saying don't go out doing premed things and overloading the schedule with clubs and whatever because it isn't going to help like some people think. The goal should still be focusing on the medicine.

I guess i'm confused because if research is hard to come by, getting the necessary derm or surgical sub research would be next to impossible unless a research year is done. Finding a productive PI is everything

 

[slowthai]

I guess i'm confused because if research is hard to come by, getting the necessary derm or surgical sub research would be next to impossible unless a research year is done. Finding a productive PI is everything

In the DO world, auditions are king. If you're trying to match on the MD side, a research year will be your best bet.

 

[DrRedstone]

Do ECs if you enjoy them, not because you need to. I get to talk about my ECs/hobbies during interviews, so it is a nice touch to filling out who you are as a person on interview day. They aren't worthless, but they aren't worthwhile unless you truly enjoy them.

 

[Neopolymath]

What would you say is most valued by mid or top tier academic radiology?

To answer this question we need to first examine some differences in radiology from truly competitive fields. In my opinion, competitive radiology programs are like any other competitive specialty with two caveats. The difference between radiology and orthopedic surgery for example is simple. First, the worst ortho residency program is still super competitive while radiology has a more bimodal competitiveness due to the number of decent community programs. The second difference is that radiology programs in general do not require evidence of long term commitment to the field starting early in medical school. They welcome people who change their minds as long as the rest of their application is solid. This is different than psych and surgical subs, for example.

So to match radiology in general requires a sort of medium competitive application. The applicant needs to be well-rounded with good board scores and clinical grades because the field is so broad. LORs from non radiologists are more important than a bland radiology LOR. The applicant needs evidence that they work really well with people. Contrary to popular belief, rads requires interpersonal skills and also selects for people who fit in well sitting right next to another group of people in the reading room all day long. There is no leaving to round and write notes separately and whatnot so this is important.

Surprisingly, mid-tier academic programs do not seem to require research and definitely not radiology specific research. In my opinion, the programs are far more interested in an applicant's grades and evals than any research. If you have research at all then this will help because it sells your brand as someone interested in academics but it's still not a requirement. Most university programs still know that most of their residents are going into private practice and don't want to do any research. They just want to go to a big hospital for training. This is a difference between radiology and other more competitive fields like ortho where even "bad" programs seem to think their residents need to be some bull**** academic scholar instead of a blue-collar hard worker...

As far as top tier programs go, they are just like every specialty's top programs. They require the total package to match. A combination of school prestige, boards, evals, LORs, leadership, teaching and some evidence of commitment to the field. Top programs require research because they are creating academic radiologists first and foremost unlike the rest of the programs. That doesn't mean they want some big researcher with suboptimal grades and evals though as the CORE exam is a monster. It has a bigger emphasis than other fields.

So to actually answer the question, top tier programs most value academic achievement and evidence of interpersonal skills the most as radiology is obsessed with board scores due to the CORE exam but unlike less competitive programs they also expect you to have the rest of the package. Mid tier programs on the other hand seem to interview people who have weaknesses in some areas as long as they have strengths in other areas. This is not really different than other fields. The benefit of radiology is that if you want to be a solid PP radiologist then you can match a community program to get there because they are less competitive but still offer very similar training for a non-academic career as the residency program standards are definitely more strict than other fields. There is not that much variability in training from what my mentors say and I have seen on the interview trail.

 

[Neopolymath]

I guess i'm confused because if research is hard to come by, getting the necessary derm or surgical sub research would be next to impossible unless a research year is done. Finding a productive PI is everything

If I'm not mistaken, the original post was talking about keeping their options open for medium competitive fields not derm or surgical subs. That's why I phrased my response the way I did. For medium competitive fields, any research and more of it can drown out any criticism one might receive at a single isolated interview about not having a SDN quality 1st author pub in a great journal. To be frank, I think SDN greatly overanalyzes and scrutinizes posters' research unlike anything I have seen in real life. It's one of the few inaccuracies of SDN IMO. The difference between having some research and none is huge and the difference between having 1 pub in NEJM and 2 BS pubs is small from what I have seen in real life.

Furthermore, the title was non-research ECs. The main message of my post is to not jump to the conclusion that doing multiple 1 hour pre-med style ECs is going to suddenly matter just because we lost a great standardized metric for academic achievement. Programs aren't going to throw away academic achievement as the biggest and most important factor in selecting residents and change tack. They are just going to find a new metric to look for the same thing.

 

[Lawpy]

If I'm not mistaken, the original post was talking about keeping their options open for medium competitive fields not derm or surgical subs. That's why I phrased my response the way I did. For medium competitive fields, any research and more of it can drown out any criticism one might receive at a single isolated interview about not having a SDN quality 1st author pub in a great journal. To be frank, I think SDN greatly overanalyzes and scrutinizes posters' research unlike anything I have seen in real life. It's one of the few inaccuracies of SDN IMO. The difference between having some research and none is huge and the difference between having 1 pub in NEJM and 2 BS pubs is small from what I have seen in real life.

Furthermore, the title was non-research ECs. The main message of my post is to not jump to the conclusion that doing multiple 1 hour pre-med style ECs is going to suddenly matter just because we lost a great standardized metric for academic achievement. Programs aren't going to throw away academic achievement as the biggest and most important factor in selecting residents and change tack. They are just going to find a new metric to look for the same thing.

I don't think research is important for medium competitive specialties. Is it nice to have? Sure but even then PDs can tell the difference. I'm just strongly opposed to the crap that gets churned out just for the sake of checking the research box. Also arguing research quality always matters far more than research quantity. SDN hypes quantity and inflating the ERAS research count to double digits. I think that's insane and having one paper in a good journal is more than sufficient.

Also the volunteering/leadership i'm talking is way beyond the premed style ECs. But they're rare and hard to come by

 

[slowthai]

Its really awesome how relatively straightforward and low-BS radiology is both in the application process and the work itself.

My exact thoughts. DR continues to beckon to me more and more by the day, lol

 

[Neopolymath]

Thanks a bunch for going so in-depth with your answer. It's super helpful and informative.

Its really awesome how relatively straightforward and low-BS radiology is both in the application process and the work itself.

We will see what March brings but it has certainly been refreshing. Good luck to you.