- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 1
I know that during interviews, everyone needs to be "interested" in research and want to do "academics", but this post is meant for those that honestly want to spend some time in the lab during residency and have a scientific career
With the ROL due soon, i wanted to give some advice to really choose carefully. I am in a program where I get good clinical training, but there are no NIH funded investigators (within the department). The program proved to be exceedingly inflexible in terms of allowing me to incorporate research into residency, and ultimately I think I burned too much political capital trying and achieved very little.
Fortunately, with the help of old mentors, I've secured a fellowship that will put my scientific career get back on track, but my frustrations during residency reached a point where I was seriously looking at private practice. Based upon my experience in residency, I thought that a research track was just not a viable career path, and came to understand why so many MD/PhDs enter dermatology and end their scientific careers.
The path would have been much easier if i had made a smarter decision when making my ROL. "Research" was talked about a lot during my interviews and it seemed that despite it not being a major element of the program, that it would not be difficult for me to carve out a niche. I regret being that naive.
In retrospect these are the things that I would have looked for as they represent tangible signs that "research" is more than just talk.
1. Chair who has NIH funded lab. In retrospect, I would have made this my first filter. I think having leadership who has done this before, ideally someone who has done a post-doc or trained at NIH is a huge factor.
2. Recent graduates who have secured research fellowships or research track faculty positions. Shows that they have provided others with the tools to be successful.
3. Faculty Mentors. If you can find someone right now who you would want to work with, that is tremendously valuable. Inside or outside the dept doesn't matter, but finding a PI in advance is I think huge. If I had to do it all over again, I would have tried harder to connect with potential PI's during the actual residency interviews.
4. 2+2? I am still not sure that this is the most important factor. i am not in a 2+2, and the upside is that I finished a bit earlier and can moonlight during fellowship, which is critical. The ABD allows up to 3 months of research time during a standard residency, and for me I would have been happy with that. A 2+2 might be a sign of commitment toward this type of training, but I remain skeptical.
With the ROL due soon, i wanted to give some advice to really choose carefully. I am in a program where I get good clinical training, but there are no NIH funded investigators (within the department). The program proved to be exceedingly inflexible in terms of allowing me to incorporate research into residency, and ultimately I think I burned too much political capital trying and achieved very little.
Fortunately, with the help of old mentors, I've secured a fellowship that will put my scientific career get back on track, but my frustrations during residency reached a point where I was seriously looking at private practice. Based upon my experience in residency, I thought that a research track was just not a viable career path, and came to understand why so many MD/PhDs enter dermatology and end their scientific careers.
The path would have been much easier if i had made a smarter decision when making my ROL. "Research" was talked about a lot during my interviews and it seemed that despite it not being a major element of the program, that it would not be difficult for me to carve out a niche. I regret being that naive.
In retrospect these are the things that I would have looked for as they represent tangible signs that "research" is more than just talk.
1. Chair who has NIH funded lab. In retrospect, I would have made this my first filter. I think having leadership who has done this before, ideally someone who has done a post-doc or trained at NIH is a huge factor.
2. Recent graduates who have secured research fellowships or research track faculty positions. Shows that they have provided others with the tools to be successful.
3. Faculty Mentors. If you can find someone right now who you would want to work with, that is tremendously valuable. Inside or outside the dept doesn't matter, but finding a PI in advance is I think huge. If I had to do it all over again, I would have tried harder to connect with potential PI's during the actual residency interviews.
4. 2+2? I am still not sure that this is the most important factor. i am not in a 2+2, and the upside is that I finished a bit earlier and can moonlight during fellowship, which is critical. The ABD allows up to 3 months of research time during a standard residency, and for me I would have been happy with that. A 2+2 might be a sign of commitment toward this type of training, but I remain skeptical.
