Scheduling Research and Rotations

[CCLCMer]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have a question for those of you who are done with your MD/PhD or nearly done (back in med school after the PhD part). My program is a five year MD/MS with one year for research. I just started my second year and I'll be taking the boards in June. After that, the schedule is very flexible. I can either do my year of research in between M2 and M3, or I can do my M3 year and then do a year of research before M4, or I can alternate back and forth for two years between doing a block of research, block of rotations, block of research, etc. where each block is four months. I don't actually have to spend all four months of the research blocks doing research though because I can also sprinkle in some two and four week clinical electives. I've been thinking about how to schedule my research and rotations and asking the upperclassmen at my school why they picked the schedules they picked, and I can see pros and cons to each. Complicating things is that I don't know yet what kind of research I'm going to do for my MS except that it will definitely be something clinical, not basic science because I'm getting my MS in clinical research. I'm just wanting to hear what you think the pros and cons are of each choice. Here are my thoughts.

M2, then research year, then M3
-Pros are that this seems to be the normal way that these things get scheduled, I won't forget my clinical skills after M3 while I'm in the lab, I can apply for a research fellowship.
-Cons are that I have to choose my research advisor and project pretty soon (like by the end of the year), I won't be able to study for Step 2 while I am doing my research year.

M3, then research year, then M4
-Pros are that I'll have more time to make sure I really know what kind of clinical research I want and I'll get a lot more clinical exposure, I can still apply for a research fellowship, I can study for Step 2 while I do my research year.
-Cons are that I might forget my clinical skills after a year away and struggle during M4, I'll have less time to finish my project and publish before I graduate.

M2, then alternating research and clinical rotation blocks
-Pros are that this seems to be the most humane schedule, I can do electives and rotations during times that are slow for my research, I won't be out of clinic long enough to forget everything I've learned, I can study for Step 2 during a research block.
-Cons are that I probably won't be able to apply for a research fellowship (not the end of the world because I can get support from the school), my research and MS class schedule may not fit in with alternating blocks, again I have to choose my research advisor and project pretty soon.

I actually like the third option best if I can work out the scheduling issues. Some of the upperclassmen at my school have done this and they seem to be pretty happy with it so far. Can anyone who is far along in their program think of any good reasons why I should pick one option versus another that I haven't mentioned so far? Thanks for your help.

 

[gbwillner]

Hmmm....

choices 1 and 2 are probably equal in my book... I would NOT choose 3.

 

[CCLCMer]

Hmmm....

choices 1 and 2 are probably equal in my book... I would NOT choose 3.

I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but could you be a little more detailed about why not choice 3?

 

[Neuronix]

My opinion is that doing your research year between M3 and M4 would be more useful because by then you'll know how to tailor your research to the medical specialty or area of interest you want to be working on. You don't have the time to get a broad, general research training, so I would recommend focusing yourself in the research in the career you want. I'm not worried about your cons at all. M1 and M2 are more useful for M3 it seems to me than M4, and a year isn't that long for that knowledge anyways. M4 is so much less stressful because the grades don't really matter that much anymore, and typically if you're rotating you're busy learning specialized material that wasn't covered that much before anyways.

I can't state enough how helpful I think being in clinics was to putting research in perspective for me. Both in terms of picking and thinking about a project and perspective about how medicine and research fit together.

As for the third option... I'm not sure what I think about it. To me it seems like you'd be more skipping the pond of research rather than immersing yourself in it. In other words, it might lead to a more superficial experience. Then again it has some appeal because if you need to wait for something like an IRB approval, a collaborator, or backordered parts you can go back to what you were doing and come back to the project when it's ready to move forward. I do still like the idea of getting clinical experience before picking an advisor and project.

 

[nosugrefneb]

Agreed with Neuronix. I've done two years of the MD and recently started PhD work, so I can't necessarily comment on the utility of having done some clinical work before research, but I can definitely see how it'd be useful. I'm not sure how I feel about #3 either. My feeling is that you'd lose most of the continuity in your research that is so important, and you'd lose much of the continuity in the grind of third-year that is also important. If I were in your position, I'd stick with #1 or #2 for sure.