Research can really help :-)

[SmallBird]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I have often noticed how applicants in psychiatry are advised that research experience is something of a "Cherry on top", really only relevant for getting into the very top programs. I wish to share my own experience, which I feel was rather contrasting. I recognise that a single experience is by know means enough to argue against these presumably well-considered claims, but let me then just provide my own data for the aspiring applicant to use in his own meta-analysis...

Discussing both my research experience and research goals took up around 75% of my interview time at all six of the programs where I interviewed. I do not have a particularly distinguished research background - I have three publications of which only one is in psychiatry. However, my involvement in several new projects, which I listed on my application as "Research Experiences", proved to be of particular interest to my interviewers. It was more a case of hard evidence that I was interested and motivated, which appeared to be almost as important as having something behind my name (a disclaimer - I am applying straight out of med school, and am 23, I am not sure if having publications would be more relevant to an older applicant).

Of even greater importance was my ability to articulate a clear research goal. Whereas my stated goals of obtaining clinical proficiency were generally met with "We have really great teaching and supervision here", talking about my research aims led to responses like "That sounds interesting, and Dr X here is doing something just like that. Let me see if he is available to meet you".

As an international applicant with average (literally, average) scores, and no US clinical experience, I feel really lucky to have gotten the interviews I did. Whatever led me to getting these interviews, it was my research interests that ultimately allowed me to turn all of my interviews into highly positive experiences.

🙂

 

[TexasPhysician]

Maybe it's the places you interviewed at. My research was never mentioned and I interviewed at 10+ places. Hmmm

 

[Roslyn89]

As an international applicant with average (literally, average) scores, and no US clinical experience, I feel really lucky to have gotten the interviews I did. Whatever led me to getting these interviews, it was my research interests that ultimately allowed me to turn all of my interviews into highly positive experiences.

🙂

You showed yourself as an initiative and responsible person. And it worked the best for you.

 

[spinnerette]

Psych research might help perhaps because it shows your interest

But none of my interviewers discussed with me about my non-psychiatry research (one interviewer even said to me that he doesn't think I have much research experience other than my psych research, despite the fact that I spent a couple years doing biomedical engineering work)

 

[pysch4sure]

Psych research might help perhaps because it shows your interest

But none of my interviewers discussed with me about my non-psychiatry research

Did any of your work get published? The general rule I go by is never put down research experience that didn't lead to a pub. If you to do research for any amount time, you should be able to show a product for your work. At least a poster for every year, at a minimum

To rephrase the title of this thread, I think published research does seem to help a little. At least the couple of PDs liked that aspect of my CV.

From what they they told me, it's not going to compensate for any gaping deficiencies. Which is too bad. But if you look at the match stats, no-one with 5+ publications didn't match, so I'm hoping that'll hold for me 🙂

 

[pysch4sure]

PS. Congrats to Small bird for all your interviews! Good luck

 

[spinnerette]

Did any of your work get published? The general rule I go by is never put down research experience that didn't lead to a pub. If you to do research for any amount time, you should be able to show a product for your work. At least a poster for every year, at a minimum

To rephrase the title of this thread, I think published research does seem to help a little. At least the couple of PDs liked that aspect of my CV.

From what they they told me, it's not going to compensate for any gaping deficiencies. Which is too bad. But if you look at the match stats, no-one with 5+ publications didn't match, so I'm hoping that'll hold for me 🙂

True, publication is more important. For me, my work directly translated into commercial products and I thought that would count for something but it didn't.

 

[SmallBird]

To rephrase the title of this thread, I think published research does seem to help a little. At least the couple of PDs liked that aspect of my CV.

I cannot say that this isn't the case, but I would not want to rephrase the title of this thread, because my precise experience was that the ongoing research I was involved with seemed to interest the PD's, more so than what I had published.

I don't think its a case of research having gotten me X number of points on some kind of real or imagined mark sheet. Rather, being involved with research provided me a platform to discuss my career goals in a more detailed and specific way. This, in turn, allowed me to build a stronger case for why I felt I would be a good fit for a big academic program, more so than any kind of clinical interest would have, in my opinion. Again, however, this was just my experience, and I decided to share it almost because of the fact that it seems to be quite different to the general trend!

 

[SmallBird]

PS. Congrats to Small bird for all your interviews! Good luck

Thank you very much!

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I cannot say that this isn't the case, but I would not want to rephrase the title of this thread, because my precise experience was that the ongoing research I was involved with seemed to interest the PD's, more so than what I had published.

I don't think its a case of research having gotten me X number of points on some kind of real or imagined mark sheet. Rather, being involved with research provided me a platform to discuss my career goals in a more detailed and specific way. This, in turn, allowed me to build a stronger case for why I felt I would be a good fit for a big academic program, more so than any kind of clinical interest would have, in my opinion. Again, however, this was just my experience, and I decided to share it almost because of the fact that it seems to be quite different to the general trend!

If I can offer my opinion, it may be more because of your approach to the research than due to the research itself.

I'm often asked, "What kind of research SHOULD I do to 'impress the Committee'?" or "What kind of volunteering will get me into medical school?" I always answer that it's not about the specifics, but about how those choices display who you are, what your interests and passions are. Apparently smallbird's choices hit a resonant frequency of sorts, and it is paying off in a more enjoyable interview process.

 

[Saluki]

I don't feel like my research made too much of a difference even at programs that are more research oriented, despite having a couple publications.... That may be because most of my research was outside of psychiatry....

I also feel like got asked most about my research at the programs that were academic but not terribly strong in the research area versus the academic powerhouses.

It seems very individual.... And I think it also may depend on whether you are marketing yourself as a future physician scientist..... I sort of feel like that can be the cherry on top to get you into the upper echelon of programs when you're already a strong applicant.

I suppose I'll never know for sure how much of an effect any one thing did or did not have, but my impression was that the programs didn't seem to care overly much about my research....

 

[pysch4sure]

True, publication is more important. For me, my work directly translated into commercial products and I thought that would count for something but it didn't.

You mean you didn't contribute to esoteric work that became published so that maybe 30 people (including the editorial review board) in the whole world will actually read it? Are you saying you actually made something practical and useful?

That should definitely count for something, it really makes no sense that it didn't. That's academia for you.

My hope was for just one of my papers to be a footnote in a Wikipedia article, you know, to help contribute to the world's knowledge. I edited it in, but the editor of the article said it wasn't convincing enough evidence! For Wikipedia! Yikes, talk about being put in my place. Won't be mentioning that on the 'trail 🙂

 

[desivanu]

I have often noticed how applicants in psychiatry are advised that research experience is something of a "Cherry on top", really only relevant for getting into the very top programs. I wish to share my own experience, which I feel was rather contrasting. I recognise that a single experience is by know means enough to argue against these presumably well-considered claims, but let me then just provide my own data for the aspiring applicant to use in his own meta-analysis...

Discussing both my research experience and research goals took up around 75% of my interview time at all six of the programs where I interviewed. I do not have a particularly distinguished research background - I have three publications of which only one is in psychiatry. However, my involvement in several new projects, which I listed on my application as "Research Experiences", proved to be of particular interest to my interviewers. It was more a case of hard evidence that I was interested and motivated, which appeared to be almost as important as having something behind my name (a disclaimer - I am applying straight out of med school, and am 23, I am not sure if having publications would be more relevant to an older applicant).

Of even greater importance was my ability to articulate a clear research goal. Whereas my stated goals of obtaining clinical proficiency were generally met with "We have really great teaching and supervision here", talking about my research aims led to responses like "That sounds interesting, and Dr X here is doing something just like that. Let me see if he is available to meet you".

As an international applicant with average (literally, average) scores, and no US clinical experience, I feel really lucky to have gotten the interviews I did. Whatever led me to getting these interviews, it was my research interests that ultimately allowed me to turn all of my interviews into highly positive experiences.

🙂

Thank you. Can you suggest some places where I can apply for psychiatry research ???
I am an IMG with low USMLE scores...I want it badly

 

[splik]

how low is low? if your step 1 score is less than 200 you are unlikely to match (though it is not impossible)

Where are you from? If you are in India I would suggest NIMHANS in Bangalore. Another possibility is the Govt Medical College in Chandigarh. If you are a medical student you could apply to do a research elective at the institute of psychiatry, king's college london. If you have zero research experience it is unlikely you would be able to get a research position in the US though Yale seems to be the most popular for postdoc research for IMG applicants to psychiatry.

Research experiences, publications, presentations, and a general enthusiasm and commitment for psychiatry help your application but please do not think they are a substitution for USMLE scores (most important), letters of recommendation, and clinical experience (ideally hands on) which does not necessarily have to be in the US - many places will accept experience in Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.