Tips for Matching into Ophthalmology

[scullybythesword]

There's probably an old thread already but I've been thinking about ophtho lately. For those who have applied - what are some of the most overlooked aspects of ophtho application besides honoring clinicals and high step 2?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cde]

letters of reference

 

[m1redsox]

Basically exactly what you think. Research, LORs, extracurriculars (leadership, service, club participation). It helps if your app is unique or interesting in some aspect, but of course that’s pretty vague. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them here or DM me. But I think that covers it, so don’t overthink it too much.

Edit: of course networking with your home department and doing some away rotations can help

 

[medschoolaspirant]

There's probably an old thread already but I've been thinking about ophtho lately. For those who have applied - what are some of the most overlooked aspects of ophtho application besides honoring clinicals and high step 2?

I feel we over think of quantitative aspects vs. qualitative. While numbers in clinical rotation , class quartile and step 2 has its place, but they are kind of gate and you have minimum required. You are qualified. Important aspect much overlooked in ophthalmology is networking and connections. That counts more than numbers. That will land you a seat on table. Ophthalmology is very small field with handful of spots PD has. They select people they know. People they feel comfortable to work with. People theyknow will be happy to join them. I have heard PD mention, we will not bring anyone we dont know of. They will select lower quantitative applicant they know of, over perfect quantitative applicant they have not known from before. So to me, most important aspect is your relationship with your home and away PD. Residents in home and aways. Residents go to bat for you with PD. when time comes for ranking. So number one thing is build relationships.

 

[eyeeye_captain]

Three words: connections, connections, connections. Especially since this is still in academics, if you don’t know someone’s letter writers, there’s probably no more than a 2 person chain of phone calls to find someone who does. I could rattle off a list of names on a good letter that will get you, bare minimum, a strong chance for an interview anywhere.

The “don’t know them” rule is more common with applicants from schools with lower ranked or out-of-region departments where you have to figure out who the LOR author is. If you know and are comfortable with the mentor, you more or less know the applicant. It’s also more common with lower “prestige” departments because they worry if the superstar applicant is at all interested in going there. Yes, your PD and the residents help (with your PD and other attendings being exponentially stronger). Your away PD? Only at that school because you probably didn’t work with them for more than a week. Rank lists are made with a panel, and residents have some influence and usually a certain number of votes to cast, but it’s a substantial minority to attending votes and influence. Where residents do have power is telling the attendings you’re a bad fit, and then you’re sunk.

 

[blameitonbaby]

There's probably an old thread already but I've been thinking about ophtho lately. For those who have applied - what are some of the most overlooked aspects of ophtho application besides honoring clinicals and high step 2?

Here's what I woud say--it's a small world. Remember that, as you go through your ECs, LoR requests, interact with different health professionals, etc. RESEARCH is very important for competitive specialties like optho.

I would rank
1) LoRs
2) Research
3) ECs

in that order.
Remember that a mediocre LoR will tank your application.
Good luck <3

 

[damien_chazelle_fan]

Three words: connections, connections, connections. Especially since this is still in academics, if you don’t know someone’s letter writers, there’s probably no more than a 2 person chain of phone calls to find someone who does. I could rattle off a list of names on a good letter that will get you, bare minimum, a strong chance for an interview anywhere.

The “don’t know them” rule is more common with applicants from schools with lower ranked or out-of-region departments where you have to figure out who the LOR author is. If you know and are comfortable with the mentor, you more or less know the applicant. It’s also more common with lower “prestige” departments because they worry if the superstar applicant is at all interested in going there. Yes, your PD and the residents help (with your PD and other attendings being exponentially stronger). Your away PD? Only at that school because you probably didn’t work with them for more than a week. Rank lists are made with a panel, and residents have some influence and usually a certain number of votes to cast, but it’s a substantial minority to attending votes and influence. Where residents do have power is telling the attendings you’re a bad fit, and then you’re sunk.

Incoming M1 interested in ophtho: question based on what is being said here. Am I incentivized to pick research mentors at my home institution based on how well-known they are in the field/how connected they are? In the final analysis, would it be better to crank out 3-5 clinical first author papers over 4 years with a lesser-known ophthalmologist or have 1 basic science pub with somebody that is super well-known both in the field and at residencies that I am interested in matching?

 

[eyeeye_captain]

Incoming M1 interested in ophtho: question based on what is being said here. Am I incentivized to pick research mentors at my home institution based on how well-known they are in the field/how connected they are? In the final analysis, would it be better to crank out 3-5 clinical first author papers over 4 years with a lesser-known ophthalmologist or have 1 basic science pub with somebody that is super well-known both in the field and at residencies that I am interested in matching?

A lot of nuance there. Some programs will place a premium on research output, others not so much. I’ll say basic science on average doesn’t get you as far as clinical. Also, if your 5 first authorships are case reports, you’re not moving the needle a ton. I err on the side of names, but also diversification - try to get projects with a couple people and then you have multiple LORs and maybe a combination of short and long term projects that can get into publication by the time it matters. It also doesn’t hurt that a sizable percentage of residents match at their home programs, so if you have folks pushing to keep you, it helps.

 

[Sudopino]

A lot of nuance there. Some programs will place a premium on research output, others not so much. I’ll say basic science on average doesn’t get you as far as clinical. Also, if your 5 first authorships are case reports, you’re not moving the needle a ton. I err on the side of names, but also diversification - try to get projects with a couple people and then you have multiple LORs and maybe a combination of short and long term projects that can get into publication by the time it matters. It also doesn’t hurt that a sizable percentage of residents match at their home programs, so if you have folks pushing to keep you, it helps.

Sorry to chime in on a months-old thread, but when you say "5 first authorships", I read that as if having 5+ first authorships is a given/quite expected in ophtho. Is this a correct interpretation?

 

[m1redsox]

Sorry to chime in on a months-old thread, but when you say "5 first authorships", I read that as if having 5+ first authorships is a given/quite expected in ophtho. Is this a correct interpretation?

Absolutely not. I matched ophtho this year with 15+ interviews with 0 publications. I had a few papers "submitted" but not published and they were not all first author.

I would say that 3-4 pubs is solid with 1-2 of them being first author.

With that said, don't underestimate how much effort and time each pub requires. I thought I was going to have 4 by the time I submitted my application, but between editing, waiting to hear back from PIs, and being rejected from high IF journals before settling on some middle IF journals, I ended up with 0 at application time.

 

[eyeeye_captain]

Sorry to chime in on a months-old thread, but when you say "5 first authorships", I read that as if having 5+ first authorships is a given/quite expected in ophtho. Is this a correct interpretation?

SF Match doesn’t appear to publish data on this point. If you believe the self-selection and limited data in the last couple spreadsheets, the median is like 4 pubs with 2 first authors.

My earlier reply basically means you’ll get more mileage out of a solid first author pub that you can discuss at an interview. Years later I can rattle off some of the data from the paper everyone asked me about because I did it so much. 3-5 case reports certainly won’t hurt you, but they’re kind of just fluff. They do show you’re willing to do some work though, so any bit can help.

I agree with the above that research, while definitely useful, is not 100% massive. If you want to go to Harvard/Hopkins, yes it is, but plenty of programs have that farther down their priority list. Sox’s case is a little bit of an outlier as you can usually get away with discussing things in submission, so it’s not like they had zero production.

 

[m1redsox]

SF Match doesn’t appear to publish data on this point. If you believe the self-selection and limited data in the last couple spreadsheets, the median is like 4 pubs with 2 first authors.

My earlier reply basically means you’ll get more mileage out of a solid first author pub that you can discuss at an interview. Years later I can rattle off some of the data from the paper everyone asked me about because I did it so much. 3-5 case reports certainly won’t hurt you, but they’re kind of just fluff. They do show you’re willing to do some work though, so any bit can help.

I agree with the above that research, while definitely useful, is not 100% massive. If you want to go to Harvard/Hopkins, yes it is, but plenty of programs have that farther down their priority list. Sox’s case is a little bit of an outlier as you can usually get away with discussing things in submission, so it’s not like they had zero production.

I agree with this. I did not have any "doximity top 20 interviews," but I did well with middle and low tier programs that didn't place a lot of emphasis on research. I also agree that case reports are seen as short term, "knock it out in a month before applying" type of projects whereas my "submitted" papers were all full length, so it was a talking point.

With all that said, 5 first author pubs certainly is not "a given/quite expected." I think 5 first author pubs would be a standard deviation or two above the median, closer to the MD/PhD applicants who have 10 pubs with 5 first authorships. This would make you competitive at top programs as long as the rest of your application is top program material (ie step 2 score, clinical grades, LORs, reputable medical school, etc).