Research track compromises training?

[ratherbefishing]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi all,
I'm getting my rank order list ready and am considering both research track and regular residency options. I've heard from many physician scientists that the short track is doable but some clinician only types have grumbled that it compromises the clinical training. Can anyone weigh in on this? Pro v con?
Thanks

 

[Shifty B]

Well, this is an easy question (sort of). Of course it compromises the clinical training. Think about it this way, someone with 3000 hours of relevant experience is probably not as good as someone with 4000, other things being equal. Some of this is offset because the learning curve is steeper at the beginning than it is in the later years of training, but a difference is still there.

But it's the wrong question. The proper (and much harder) question is: which do I need more?

- the skills that would be compromised by a shortened residency/fellowship, or
- the additional skills that would be gained by extra research time

Because you can only have one. That extra year of research time would make a huge difference too.

To answer that, you have to ask what kind of career you want or think you are likely to have. If you think you are going to do 80% research at a big academic center, have a half day of subspecialty clinic a week, and attend on service 2 weeks a year, then the research track is for you. If you expect you will want to do any significant amount of general work (general neurology, internal medicine, whatever), then the balance shifts. The problem is you have to take into account where you want to live, what kind of salary you want to make, and even what kind of jobs might be available in 10 years.

My advice: Take your best guess, and if you're headed into academic medicine take whatever shortcuts you can because you've already been training too long.

 

[Neuronix]

You'll hear a lot of different opinions on this within rad onc. I know people who did the research track and ended up 100% clinical, including in private practice, and none of them think that the research track hurt them clinically. Research has shown that the boards pass rates are actually higher for our research track graduates.

Conversely, you need every possible advantage to get a serious research job, i.e. anything other than minimal protected time to do something other than patient outcomes research. So I think if research is your real goal, you should do the research track pathway. Even if you're not sure, research time is easily taken and difficult to obtain. Research track residencies protect your time, so it's another reason to do one.

 

[gbwillner]

My 2c....

While having time devoted to research definitely means you spend less time in the clinic/OR/gross-room or whatever, another thing to consider is that there is a great deal of variability between training programs as well. only getting 3/4 the clinical exposure at some high quality institutions is still far better than full clinical time at other "lesser" institutions.

As a personal example, I did a fast-track program at a top place... and although I saw less clinical time than my colleagues, I knew far more than many of the fellows who came in from other institutions at the completion of their residencies. Those years I did spend doing clinical work, I was working far harder than counterparts at other institutions- logging more hours, seeing more patients, etc.

 

[gutonc]

I did the research track (ABIM, Med Onc) and while it may have compromised my training in things like outpatient rheumatology and endocrinology, I had the same number of wards and ICU months as any other 3 year resident had in my IM program. I also had exactly the same clinical exposure in fellowship that my non-research track co-fellows had. First year was identical in both tracks and, although I did fewer clinics at a time during the remaining years of fellowship (2 half days/week rather than 4 half days), I did them for an extra year so wound up getting nearly the same amount. I'm now in a completely clinical position and feel that, after the first 6 months, I'm not in any way compromised.

As Neuronix notes, you'll get lots of different answers to this question. Mostly that's because people believe that the way they did it is the only way that works. There is no tenure track for pedantry.

 

[Neuronix]

As Neuronix notes, you'll get lots of different answers to this question. Mostly that's because people believe that the way they did it is the only way that works. There is no tenure track for pedantry.

Well that and residents are cheap labor. Nobody will say so, but many residency programs don't like it when their residents aren't providing cheap clinical labor. It used to be if we had more research time, we could support faculty grants or become future stars of the field, but a lot of programs don't believe either of those things any more.