Research vs. Clinical Experience

[ActionFigure]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I know this differs for every specialty, but for people who didn't match and are going to participate in the 2014 psychiatry match:

what does a program director value more: research experience or clinical experience?

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I know this differs for every specialty, but for people who didn't match and are going to participate in the 2014 psychiatry match:

what does a program director value more: research experience or clinical experience?

It depends on the program and on the applicant.
If you have published research, but can't communicate effectively or demonstrate real interest in caring for the needs of the mentally ill, you aren't going to look good to a program that prides itself on clinical training.
If you have years of experience as a social worker or psych RN or whatever, you'll have a hard time getting an interview at a traditional academic psychiatry department.

 

[shan564]

I know this differs for every specialty, but for people who didn't match and are going to participate in the 2014 psychiatry match:

what does a program director value more: research experience or clinical experience?

It also depends on the nature of the experience. If by "research experience" you mean "first-author paper in Nature," then that'll look impressive to everybody. If you mean "washed dishes at a lab for two years," then that's completely different.

And if by "clinical experience" you mean "licensed social worker with psychotherapy training," I'm sure that'll carry a lot more weight than "I did a couple of extra psych electives in med school."

In general, programs will look at you as a whole. But as OPD said, traditional academic programs will generally value research more than a strong independent program. And it will all depend on how well it integrates with their picture of you as an overall applicant. If you give us more information, we can advise you accordingly.

 

[nitemagi]

I think it's slightly more complex. Many academic programs have research tracks (dedicated slots for research residents). You can guess what they prioritize.

Many research institutions though want good clinicians primarily, but can equally weigh research background if it seems that person is a rising star in academia.

Beyond that, I had noticed a year to year difference in priorities, often a bit reactionary (if there's some real trouble residents the year before, then the PD may make an extra effort to not make that mistake again), which I found leans more towards favoring stronger clinical backgrounds.

There's also a factor of good clinical but coming from a strong academic med school. That seems to hold some weight too.

I personally viewed research background as icing on a cake. It's pretty sweet when it's there, but if there's no cake to go with it, you're more likely heading for a sugar crash.

 

[ActionFigure]

well i'm actually asking for one of my friends. she applied for 2013 but because she ended up taking CK late, she ended up not getting many interviews or matching. so right now she is trying to figure what she should do to improve her CV for the following 2014 match.