Value of Pathways in Medical School and Residency

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've noticed that many medical schools and residency programs have "pathways" or "tracks" for specialization in something like global health or underserved populations within the greater curriculum. I've always thought that undergraduate minors are useless but I find myself interested in these pathways because I'm interested in global health. I'm curious what value they add to a future career and how much they add (or detract) from learning medicine. Anyone have experience with these?

Here are some examples:

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/educa...s/elective-pathways/global-health-pathway.cfm

http://www.uwmedicine.org/education...udents/curriculum/pathways/pages/default.aspx

http://www.globalhealth.umn.edu/education/global-health-pathway/index.htm

http://medicine.iu.edu/globalhealth/

 

[dextor2003]

Bump. Am also interested in knowing this.

 

[CrimsonKing]

They're good to help you explore your interests.

They're pretty worthless as far as residency/career is concerned.

 

[dextor2003]

Haha well that's disappointing to hear, though admittedly expected. Thanks

 

[Goucher2013]

They can add a lot if they help you structure your research goals. Say you've been voraciously consuming Atul Gawande output and are thinking to yourself, "I really want to improve efficiency and safety in ORs". What does that actually entail? Well, as if by magic Pritzker has a Quality and Safety track you can hop onto.

That's not to say you can't do quality research elsewhere - you can do that pretty much anywhere - but there might be better guidance and specific funding available.

I'd speculate that tracks are particularly useful for research fields like quality and safety, which still appear to be vastly less popular with students than other fields like international health or straight old bench. For these less popular fields, easy access to projects, mentoring and funding can surely make life a lot easier. That might mean, in turn, that you accomplish more as a med student and put yourself in a better position for residency, fellowship and advanced degree options.

Bottom line, though: an enhancer, not an enabler.

 

[CrimsonKing]

They can add a lot if they help you structure your research goals. Say you've been voraciously consuming Atul Gawande output and are thinking to yourself, "I really want to improve efficiency and safety in ORs". What does that actually entail? Well, as if by magic Pritzker has a Quality and Safety track you can hop onto.

That's not to say you can't do quality research elsewhere - you can do that pretty much anywhere - but there might be better guidance and specific funding available.

I'd speculate that tracks are particularly useful for research fields like quality and safety, which still appear to be vastly less popular with students than other fields like international health or straight old bench. For these less popular fields, easy access to projects, mentoring and funding can surely make life a lot easier. That might mean, in turn, that you accomplish more as a med student and put yourself in a better position for residency, fellowship and advanced degree options.

Bottom line, though: an enhancer, not an enabler.

This whole response basically sums up the theory on track programs.

If you're really interested in quality and safety, you can find researchers in that field without needing a track. For scientific projects, it is ridiculously easy for medical student to find faculty to research with. Residency program directors don't care about tracks, just like AdComs don't care about minors.

Again, tracks are good for you to develop your interest, and you should do one if you want. Just keep in mind that in reality it will make no difference for your career in the long-run.

 

[Barcu]

It's not the track itself but the opportunities the track provides you (and I think a minor in ugrad is the same).

In a track, you have better access to professors that share similar interests and may have some funding that's available to you. That can make a difference when applying to residency.

I agree that you can do pretty similar things without having done the track (and maybe there are some annoying parts of the track that make it less worth it). However, if you are interested in a certain area, these tracks can be very helpful in making connections and getting opportunities. I think that is valuable, while being in the track itself is not. Look carefully into the tracks and what they may require of you, and then make a decision. I do think that it can help.

 

[dextor2003]

Unfortunately the only school I've been accepted to so far doesn't offer any special tracks or the like. Otherwise, it would be great to take advantage of and make connections through these tracks as you all point out...I guess we'll see..

Thanks for the informative feedback!

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

Thanks for the replies.

 

[Bangersandmash]

Speaking from experience with the Scholarly Concentrations program (kind of like a minor in UG) at University of South Florida, it is more about what you do with your track rather than what track you decide to choose.

For example, there is a "medicine and law" concentration where a JD/MD teaches you about the law aspect of medicine. It's cool if you're interested in the subject, but the real payoff is the development of a "thesis" project so to speak. A motivated student at USF will use their time in a concentration to develop a project related to their track that gets a publication or presentation somewhere after a couple of years. This is something that has been touted by alumni and faculty alike as something that almost always gets brought up on residency interviews.

Of course, there is no reason you couldn't develop a law and medicine project with your own initiative, but the track certainly puts students at a better advantage.