The importance of 'Vision' in a research track applicant

[StilgarMD]

I recently spoke with someone familiar with the psychiatry research track at their program, mostly on what they're looking for in applicants and how to make the best of what i have for when I apply.

One of the points they said is regularly brought up by the director essentially boiled down to a strong vision of what you want to accomplish. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it sounded as though the program was looking for someone with a sort of core motivating drive that is already defined before beginning the program.

This makes sense, and I'm sure applicants with this in their portfolios are stronger for it, but I'm afraid this isn't the kind of person I am at the moment. My PhD has been a really challenging experience, and my goal is still to do research as a psychiatrist, but I am genuinely enthused by multiple research programs at most places and it feels a bit disingenuous to present a singular focus right now. Should I be narrowing the scope of my interest for the sake of being a strong applicant to specific programs? For instance, if I suggest I'd be interested in working with two PIs in different domains, would that come across as uncommitted? I'm not applying this cycle, so the reality is I have some time to figure these things out. I am keeping an eye out for investigators working on things I find interesting and relevant to my long term goals, and I am curious if I need to narrow my search. Any advice would be great.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dl2dp2]

Overall, the answer of "should I present myself X in a way so that my customer thinks that I can offer them what I want, even though it's not what I truly want?" is *always* to present yourself as someone that the customers want.

Does it feel disingenuous to write a grant application that the reviewers might like, instead of writing a grant application of things you really want to do, even though the latter won't get funded?

You get your customers first and dominate the market, THEN you dictate what you want to do after the fact. That's what Amazon does. That's what Facebook does. You need to think like Amazon and Facebook and stop thinking like a 3-year-old.

 

[StilgarMD]

Overall, the answer of "should I present myself X in a way so that my customer thinks that I can offer them what I want, even though it's not what I truly want?" is *always* to present yourself as someone that the customers want.

Does it feel disingenuous to write a grant application that the reviewers might like, instead of writing a grant application of things you really want to do, even though the latter won't get funded?

You get your customers first and dominate the market, THEN you dictate what you want to do after the fact. That's what Amazon does. That's what Facebook does. You need to think like Amazon and Facebook and stop thinking like a 3-year-old.

lol fair enough, maybe the more general form of my question is, outside of this program where I know this to be the case, should I be doing that? Is this a common feature in how programs assess their applicants?

For instance, I've heard that some programs don't care if you show them interest post interview, your rank is your rank, where other programs say they take expressed special interest very seriously.

 

[wolfvgang22]

Overall, the answer of "should I present myself X in a way so that my customer thinks that I can offer them what I want, even though it's not what I truly want?" is *always* to present yourself as someone that the customers want.

Does it feel disingenuous to write a grant application that the reviewers might like, instead of writing a grant application of things you really want to do, even though the latter won't get funded?

You get your customers first and dominate the market, THEN you dictate what you want to do after the fact. That's what Amazon does. That's what Facebook does. You need to think like Amazon and Facebook and stop thinking like a 3-year-old.

 

[tr]

Yes. What @sluox said. Play the game. I have observed over time that people who start out with a singular motivating drive tend to be more successful than the ditherers or dilettantes. As a self-admitted ditherer and dilettante, I strongly advise you to fake the singular motivating drive. Just pick the thing you've done the most of/been best at so far and pretend it's The One. Once you're in the program, switching interests is up to you.

 

[dl2dp2]

lol fair enough, maybe the more general form of my question is, outside of this program where I know this to be the case, should I be doing that? Is this a common feature in how programs assess their applicants?

For instance, I've heard that some programs don't care if you show them interest post interview, your rank is your rank, where other programs say they take expressed special interest very seriously.

You are still not thinking about this the right way.

Some people at some programs would want to attract you into their topic of interest. These people would prefer if your vision dovetails well with theirs. Others (esp. high-level admin) prefer you have a clear vision so that you can attract external support as soon as you possibly can and do not require substantial mentorship and represent attrition risk. You have an overarching mission statement/pitch that is much more focused than "I don't know what I want to do", then you investigate the "customers", figure out what they might want to hear, then say that. People are selfish and don't care about you per se. They only care about how your existence can improve their agenda. It's very useful to not think from the perspective of the applicant but from the perspective of the boss. WHY would they want to hire you? What do they really want in the short, medium, long run for their department? Just be very radically honest about it.

A successful marketing campaign of any kind is much more sophisticated than I think every single program (customer) would want X, so I'm gonna twist my back to say X. It's also not your customer's job to tell you exactly what they want. They might not even know what they want.

This sounds like woowoo, but I'm pretty sure I basically got into my residency program ONLY/LARGELY because I said the right things to the right people in a way that's very strategic.


Also, you think that admins who are interviewing you don't know that you could drop out at any time no matter WHAT you say? They know that you know that they know. LOL Nobody's born yesterday. It's more about the *smoothness* with which your narrative is than your ACTUAL interior state. The skill that's being evaluated itself is how self-consistent the vision is. It's not a tribunal. They are not lie-detectors. That's really between you and your psychoanalyst anyway.

 

[StilgarMD]

You are still not thinking about this the right way.

Some people at some programs would want to attract you into their topic of interest. These people would prefer if your vision dovetails well with theirs. Others (esp. high-level admin) prefer you have a clear vision so that you can attract external support as soon as you possibly can and do not require substantial mentorship and represent attrition risk. You have an overarching mission statement/pitch that is much more focused than "I don't know what I want to do", then you investigate the "customers", figure out what they might want to hear, then say that. People are selfish and don't care about you per se. They only care about how your existence can improve their agenda. It's very useful to not think from the perspective of the applicant but from the perspective of the boss. WHY would they want to hire you? What do they really want in the short, medium, long run for their department? Just be very radically honest about it.

A successful marketing campaign of any kind is much more sophisticated than I think every single program (customer) would want X, so I'm gonna twist my back to say X. It's also not your customer's job to tell you exactly what they want. They might not even know what they want.

This sounds like woowoo, but I'm pretty sure I basically got into my residency program ONLY/LARGELY because I said the right things to the right people in a way that's very strategic.


Also, you think that admins who are interviewing you don't know that you could drop out at any time no matter WHAT you say? They know that you know that they know. LOL Nobody's born yesterday. It's more about the *smoothness* with which your narrative is than your ACTUAL interior state. The skill that's being evaluated itself is how self-consistent the vision is. It's not a tribunal. They are not lie-detectors. That's really between you and your psychoanalyst anyway.

Yes. What @sluox said. Play the game. I have observed over time that people who start out with a singular motivating drive tend to be more successful than the ditherers or dilettantes. As a self-admitted ditherer and dilettante, I strongly advise you to fake the singular motivating drive. Just pick the thing you've done the most of/been best at so far and pretend it's The One. Once you're in the program, switching interests is up to you.

That makes a lot of sense. I was hoping you two would chime in. Seems I have some 'market research' to do... Thanks for the perspective.

 

[FlowRate]

Also just noting some of your expressed ambivalence about research. It would take a lot of grieving of the years spent on the PhD if it were the case that you don't actually like research and are fine with being in a regular categorical spot (this is a not uncommon situation.)

 

[comp1]

This is complicated because who the heck knows what "a vision of what you want to accomplish" means. Does that mean you have your research years lined up with plans for specific papers to publish? I mean not only is that not realistic, but it definitely will turn off some programs because it's generally the PIs who are going to be making those decisions and plans. You ARE a dilettante as a research track resident. You aren't a postdoc. This is a part time thing you're doing for a couple of years in the middle of doing residency which is your main focus. I would recommend having a general idea of both what sort of career you want after residency and the work of the PIs at the program you are applying to. I think that's really all they can expect of you for "vision." And honestly, the PI you think you will work with probably won't be the one and your career will definitely not be the one you're imagining now.

 

[SmallBird]

I don't know if its true that the advice given here will make it more likely you get into a research track residency spot but I would be disappointed if you needed to take the approach being suggested. I certainly did not go in with anything approaching the kind of 'strategy' that is being described. I just told my story and had evidence speaking to my interests, commitment, and abilities. It was likely clear to them that the mentorship I would need would include identifying more clear career goals and helping to refine my research aims but this didn't seem to be something that was viewed as off-putting. I think the interaction is so different to applying for a grant and it seems that being inauthentic is a huge risk. If you have done a post-doc and have 50 fMRI papers and thats all you want to do then great, you can tell them that. If you have done a bunch of things and learned a ton of skills and now want to apply that to the important questions that will arise in your clinical work then thats also great. It is ridiculous to expect you to commit before you are ready and residency involves exposure to a huge number of new areas. Almost everyone in my programs research track underwent a total evolution of their specific area of focus and chosen methods over time and so I would be surprised if programs had the expectation that this could or should be screened-out. I do think that there is concern if the applicant is ambivalent about their commitment to research in general as this could mean a less meaningful use of resources.

 

[dl2dp2]

... it seems that being inauthentic is a huge risk...

Of course. This is why you drill until what seems inauthentic becomes authentic-appearing. Commitment is backed up by a "track record".

As you said yourself, it is also a huge risk to be authentically ambivalent. So you want to craft your narrative such that you are authentically non-ambivalent, even though in reality you are ambivalent. In reality, everyone's ambivalent--emphasizing that is noninformative. What people care about is whether you can avoid communicating your ambivalence and craft a story that seems genuine and feasible.

 

[StilgarMD]

Also just noting some of your expressed ambivalence about research. It would take a lot of grieving of the years spent on the PhD if it were the case that you don't actually like research and are fine with being in a regular categorical spot (this is a not uncommon situation.)

I'm not ambivalent about research (or perhaps, my desire to do it in the future), I've had a garbage experience during my PhD but I know it is tremendously tied to the lab environment. I don't think I've had an experience that could generalize to the broader research endeavor and allow me to say "I don't like research".

@comp1 - I view the 'vision' topic as more about being someone with concrete plans, as presenting oneself that way. Plans wouldn't go to the level of papers, but more so "I want to work with X, my experience in Y would allow me to do Z which helps solve a problem I care about". In my OP, I was wondering how I'd come across if I had like 3 version of that plan and presented it as such, but given my discussion with the person I mentioned, I wasn't sure if that would be wise. I've been investigating different programs, their PIs, and what kind of a trajectory I could sell based on how those align with my interests. What Tr and Sloux's messages say to me is to pick one thing.

 

[SourceOfDenial]

Some people are laser focused on one research idea. But most I know have several buckets and there is a theme that runs between them. The key is being able to walk the reader(committee, review panel etc) through how things are connected.

I have three(maybe 4?) big buckets where my research interests lie. In the grant submissions or CDAs you emphasize one and talk about how the skills from others relate(one teaches an advanced stats approach, one is mixed methods, yadda yadda). Every grant or pitch some variation of ‘this helps Dr SourceofDenial develop xyz skills to become an independent investigator in ABC’

As projects come and go I tell a slightly different story with a different emphasis. I also recognize that my work will be different in 5 to 10 years compared to now, that’s okay. If someone is saying you need laser focus on one particular area, my biggest worry is their ability to mentor you as a researcher, because they have a goal that you don’t share—and it’s not you being successful, it’s you finishing whatever project you said it was.

You’re an early career investigator. Grants you write will likely have a large training and development plan. Find a place that will support you on the journey to find what it is about research you love, and grow that.

Also, every talk I’ve ever heard from funded PIs starts with some variation of ‘I was about to throw in the towel…but applied for one last grant….now I have a R/K/Merit/MacAurthur/etc’

research is 95% persistence, 2% writing good, and 3% realizing you’re too idealistic for pharma

 

[dl2dp2]

Also, every talk I’ve ever heard from funded PIs starts with some variation of ‘I was about to throw in the towel…but applied for one last grant….now I have a R/K/Merit/MacAurthur/etc’

But isn't that the definition of survivorship bias? This is statistically the most likely outcome, which is why you encounter it.

research is 95% persistence, 2% writing good, and 3% realizing you’re too idealistic for pharma

Where is the percentage for luck? And, especially, if you consider being #bornrich as part of that equation?

 

[clausewitz2]

But isn't that the definition of survivorship bias? This is statistically the most likely outcome, which is why you encounter it.


Where is the percentage for luck? And, especially, if you consider being #bornrich as part of that equation?

Can we designate you this forum's official evil fairy godparent?

I want to hate so much of what you write and am infuriated that it is almost certainly true.

 

[SourceOfDenial]

But isn't that the definition of survivorship bias? This is statistically the most likely outcome, which is why you encounter it.


Where is the percentage for luck? And, especially, if you consider being #bornrich as part of that equation?

Well of course it’s biased—just questioning any program director who desires the ‘core motivational drive’—I haven’t met a researcher who questioned their path. Clearly those that left questioned it louder, ha.

Since we are making up statistics, sure we can throw in luck, #bornrich, and a solid mix of white supremacy, racism, and boring funding for incrementalism.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Doesn't matter--you're an MD/PhD who wants to pursue academic research in Psychiatry. You're a HOT COMMODITY. Not quite a unicorn, but if you're at all a decent communicator, you can write your own ticket.
Now whether you'll still be doing research in 5, 8, 10 years...no way to know for sure.

 

[StilgarMD]

Doesn't matter--you're an MD/PhD who wants to pursue academic research in Psychiatry. You're a HOT COMMODITY. Not quite a unicorn, but if you're at all a decent communicator, you can write your own ticket.
Now whether you'll still be doing research in 5, 8, 10 years...no way to know for sure.

🙏 Lets hope... I am obviously going to practice a lot and have a coherent narrative. I've just known people from my program who went unmatched trying to do the same thing. I'm not going to stack my list with just the top X programs that offer research tracks, but given where science seems to cluster at these places, and the emphasis some folks place on pedigree, I feel like I'm sliding into a risky space. Also I'm generally neurotic and have a PTSD-like response to application cycles from the MD/PhD applications, so 🤷‍♂️

 

[comp1]

Applying to a MD/PhD program and applying to a research track residency have...very different levels of competition.

 

[Ludwig2000]

I can very much relate to you, OP.

My PhD lab was a difficult environment and while I had moments of enthusiasm for the work, I had more predominant burnout from it. When applying to residency I was pretty darn sure I wanted to do psychiatry research, but definitely not the same type of [wet lab] work I had been doing.

I think I was too honest about my ambivalence at my research track interviews. I had things I was interested in but probably came off as a dilettante. And I fell a good ways down my rank list come match time. I had some very high-falutin’ places on my list and alas here I am still at a mid tier institution, like I was at med school. Oh woe is me. To what extent my lack of a specific vision played a role I’ll never know. But I think it’s worth taking sluox’s advice, maybe combined with the bucket principle- wherein you don’t need to have a full project proposal- but you want to have a specific overarching theme and specific ideas that relate to it.

The happy ending is that I still matched in a research track and so far I’m deeply interested in the project I’ve settled into (now a PGY-2). It feels night and day from the kind of work I was doing before, and very relevant to both disease phenomenology and treatment. In retrospect I did have a fascinating discussion during my interview here - with the doc who is now my research mentor. Happy to answer any questions

 

[ridethecliche]

Doesn't matter--you're an MD/PhD who wants to pursue academic research in Psychiatry. You're a HOT COMMODITY. Not quite a unicorn, but if you're at all a decent communicator, you can write your own ticket.
Now whether you'll still be doing research in 5, 8, 10 years...no way to know for sure.

The % of MD/PhD's that went unmatched in psych was just a little lower than those that went matched. I'm guessing it was likely a mismatch issue, i.e. all their research was in a different specialty, but your comment reminded me of the fact that everyone always says it but the one datapoint I've seen seemed to challenge this notion. Or they were just really hard to talk to....

 

[StilgarMD]

I can very much relate to you, OP.

My PhD lab was a difficult environment and while I had moments of enthusiasm for the work, I had more predominant burnout from it. When applying to residency I was pretty darn sure I wanted to do psychiatry research, but definitely not the same type of [wet lab] work I had been doing.

I think I was too honest about my ambivalence at my research track interviews. I had things I was interested in but probably came off as a dilettante. And I fell a good ways down my rank list come match time. I had some very high-falutin’ places on my list and alas here I am still at a mid tier institution, like I was at med school. Oh woe is me. To what extent my lack of a specific vision played a role I’ll never know. But I think it’s worth taking sluox’s advice, maybe combined with the bucket principle- wherein you don’t need to have a full project proposal- but you want to have a specific overarching theme and specific ideas that relate to it.

The happy ending is that I still matched in a research track and so far I’m deeply interested in the project I’ve settled into (now a PGY-2). It feels night and day from the kind of work I was doing before, and very relevant to both disease phenomenology and treatment. In retrospect I did have a fascinating discussion during my interview here - with the doc who is now my research mentor. Happy to answer any questions

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate it.

The % of MD/PhD's that went unmatched in psych was just a little lower than those that went matched. I'm guessing it was likely a mismatch issue, i.e. all their research was in a different specialty, but your comment reminded me of the fact that everyone always says it but the one datapoint I've seen seemed to challenge this notion. Or they were just really hard to talk to....

I personally know 2 MD/PhDs who aimed at research tracks - both had trouble putting together their list I think - one due to a kind of odd geographic constraint, the other basically ranking only the top programs. Based on Doximity, I figure If I rank many of the top ones then I have a few who are 15 - 20ish in Research/Reputation (funny enough my #1 pick atm is 15 - 20 in Reputation, idk how this ties into competitiveness). I'm guessing I'll be safe, but lets see. Also I've known folks who did research that had nothing to do with brains and matched great, so my hope is my PhD being in Neuroscience is a leg up both on paper and in terms of persuasively drawing out a vision, based on my experience.

 

[tortuga87]

Vision does not really matter to be honest with you. There were people who matched at MGH, Yale, Columbia etc basically saying "I dont know" when I interviewed. There were also people with clear vision and multiple Science/Nature/PNAS publications who did not match into any research track.

What matters way more is your step scores and clinical grades.

After that, be nice during the interview, identify people who you may want to work with, send thank you letters immediately afterwards.

Program directors are not researchers. They in general cannot differentiate which applicant does better research. The more sophisticated ones literally rank the applicants by their h-index on Google Scholar and send invites down the list until they fill up. Others just interview whoever got an F30. Most just check off whether you have a PhD and at least one publication. But nearly all interview applicants with good step scores and clinical grades. I know it's shallow, but it's the truth.

Again, step scores and grades >> research vision or publications.

To be more detailed, there are basically three types of programs depending on the culture of the department (not mutually exclusive, but helps with organization):

1) Free for all. They let you work on anything. Some residents succeed with flying colors, others flounder. Vision is more important here, but the program director may not realize this.

2) It's just for the K award. They focus on making you apply for a K award by gathering preliminary data and baby stepping you through the grant process with classwork. The argument is that there is not much time to do research in residency anyways, so just focus on the K. They want you to have ideas about who to work with, so the K award process is smoother.

3) Forgot you had a PhD. Their program is a bunch of classes that begin by introducing you to what research and a t-test is. These are generally departments with a few well funded PIs, so you don't have much choice. Their goal is to churn out research assistants. Vision not important.

 

[StilgarMD]

Thanks for the heads up. I'd be surprised to hear things in more detail if you wouldn't mind PMing. I can't imagine this is how they're doing things at top tier places, but I don't know much, so 🤷‍♂️