WAMC for ENT (low research)

[mackndcheezy]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hi all, long time lurker since before med school, first time poster. Current M4 planning on applying ENT hoping to get some feedback on my app.

School: mid/low tier USMD
Home program: mid-upper tier (strongest dept at my school)
GHHS: yes
AOA: yes
Clnical grades: P/F school, Shelf exams reported on MSPE (>90th percentile on all)
Step2: >275
Awards: valedictorian, various scholarships for merit and service to community, research travel awards
Leadership: Student clinic, president of IG, student disciplinary commitee rep, started some clubs and stuff
LOR: i think will be quite strong? have longitudinal involvement in home dept..good feedback in my ai's
Service: heavily involved in student run clinic (>300 hours and stuff), intl surgical mission trip, and some other smaller volunteer stuff
Research (think this is my weakpoint): 2x low impact 1st authors pubs, 2x first author mid impact hopefully submitted by ERAS, 2 mid author high impact basic science pubs (1 of these think Nature, Cell, Science), 30+? posters and handful of orals. All research done during med school..had none before so took a second to get a hang of things.

Along with my home program being my best shot just wondering what my chances at some of the top schools would be...Vandy, Johns hopkins, Mayo, Umich, MUSC, Jeff, WashU etc...otherwise what schools should i target? hopig to stay at university programs

Family in midwest/south and east coast...

LMK thx! Hope this is not excessive info to identify myself..could someone let me know lol so plz dont quote. Feel free to DM.

Plz be nice i am sensitive

 

[operaman]

App looks pretty solid to be honest. If you get those pubs done by eras you should be in a good position. Impact factor doesn’t matter quite as much in ent mainly because even our biggest journals have small impact factors. Having solid first author pubs is what counts, and those mid author and orals/posters fill things out well too.

There are many applicants with oodles more research, but even that doesn’t wow everybody the same way. You’ve definitely checked the research box, though your productivity in itself isn’t going to wow anyone. Leave that to the wiz kids with 50+ papers on their CV! But you won’t really get dinged for not having enough either. It’s like your boards score - it’s solid, it won’t open any doors for you, but it doesn’t close any either.

Arguably the most important part of the application for you will be your letters. And maybe the phone calls that can sometimes go with them. Make sure you’re getting letters not only from your mentors, but also from the most connected people in your department. If you don’t know who those people are, ask your chairman when you meet to talk about your application. It really is more about the name at the bottom of the letter. I had one letter in my packet and from across the tables I could see that it was 2-3 lines long. It would have fit on a post it note with room to spare. But I had multiple faculty at multiple programs including nearly all the ones you listed tell me that letter was why they interviewed me. So be sure your letters are solid and from the most influential people you’ve got.

I think you can target top schools, especially ones in your region. My approach was targeting all the top programs I really liked and then anything I could drive to for my interview. That gave me a nice mix of top tiers and mid tiers, with most interview rejections coming from lower tier programs. My app was similar to yours and I think I got 32 II out of 40 apps. You’ll get some random rejections that make no sense but I think you’ll have a nice rank list and as solid a chance at matching as one can have.

You also have a fantastic backup plan if for some reason you don’t match. If you did a research year (and keep publishing even during M4 just in case you have to reapply) you’d have an even stronger app for the second go around. I doubt you’ll need it, but always good to know what plan B is ahead of time rather than trying to figure it out during match week.

 

[mackndcheezy]

App looks pretty solid to be honest. If you get those pubs done by eras you should be in a good position. Impact factor doesn’t matter quite as much in ent mainly because even our biggest journals have small impact factors. Having solid first author pubs is what counts, and those mid author and orals/posters fill things out well too.

There are many applicants with oodles more research, but even that doesn’t wow everybody the same way. You’ve definitely checked the research box, though your productivity in itself isn’t going to wow anyone. Leave that to the wiz kids with 50+ papers on their CV! But you won’t really get dinged for not having enough either. It’s like your boards score - it’s solid, it won’t open any doors for you, but it doesn’t close any either.

Arguably the most important part of the application for you will be your letters. And maybe the phone calls that can sometimes go with them. Make sure you’re getting letters not only from your mentors, but also from the most connected people in your department. If you don’t know who those people are, ask your chairman when you meet to talk about your application. It really is more about the name at the bottom of the letter. I had one letter in my packet and from across the tables I could see that it was 2-3 lines long. It would have fit on a post it note with room to spare. But I had multiple faculty at multiple programs including nearly all the ones you listed tell me that letter was why they interviewed me. So be sure your letters are solid and from the most influential people you’ve got.

I think you can target top schools, especially ones in your region. My approach was targeting all the top programs I really liked and then anything I could drive to for my interview. That gave me a nice mix of top tiers and mid tiers, with most interview rejections coming from lower tier programs. My app was similar to yours and I think I got 32 II out of 40 apps. You’ll get some random rejections that make no sense but I think you’ll have a nice rank list and as solid a chance at matching as one can have.

You also have a fantastic backup plan if for some reason you don’t match. If you did a research year (and keep publishing even during M4 just in case you have to reapply) you’d have an even stronger app for the second go around. I doubt you’ll need it, but always good to know what plan B is ahead of time rather than trying to figure it out during match week.

Wow! Thank you so much for taking the time to type this out. Yes, I'm really hoping to get those papers published by Eras deadline...theyre submitted and under review so its out my hands unfortunately. I'm worried that although I may have the stats my research will limit me at the very top programs. In terms of my letters, I'll have the usual chair & PD who are well known and 2 faculty mentors that I have known since day 1 of med school and planning on letters from ai's too. I do have some faculty connections that I wont be getting letters from that trained at some of my dream reach schools so maybe they can send a note on my behalf too. If u have any other advice plz let me know. This was some of the most valuable feedback Ive gotten.

 

[operaman]

Wow! Thank you so much for taking the time to type this out. Yes, I'm really hoping to get those papers published by Eras deadline...theyre submitted and under review so its out my hands unfortunately. I'm worried that although I may have the stats my research will limit me at the very top programs. In terms of my letters, I'll have the usual chair & PD who are well known and 2 faculty mentors that I have known since day 1 of med school and planning on letters from ai's too. I do have some faculty connections that I wont be getting letters from that trained at some of my dream reach schools so maybe they can send a note on my behalf too. If u have any other advice plz let me know. This was some of the most valuable feedback Ive gotten.

If they’re submitted and under review that’s basically about the same as published. I think most people count them about the same and they show up looking quite similar in how eras presents the data to the programs.

You may not need the AI letters. Just feel it out when you’re there, but it’s hard to make enough of an impression in a few weeks. They can end up being quite generic or they become more like summative letters with snippets from many people you worked with. They’re essential for people coming from no home program, but may be less important for you. Maybe you could replace one of the mentor letters with a particularly good AI letter - I do think you’re limited to 4 per program still.

The key for the AIs is to be a superstar and secure yourself a match slot. This isn’t easy to do and many students do the exact opposite, but given your past performance you’re clearly a likable normal person so you’ve got a good chance. Most people match their home program or an away. I think about 50-60% of our matches were students we had worked with before.

Just remember it’s a month long interview and you want to put on a good performance from start to finish. The key is more about being actually good and actually useful rather than simply eager and enthusiastic. It’s recognizing that shift from a purely learner role to a hybrid one where you are actually helpful and making meaningful contributions to the team. That’s not always easy to do, but im always amazed at how well some students are able to do it.

 

[mackndcheezy]

They can end up being quite generic or they become more like summative letters with snippets from many people you worked with.

Based on your previous point of all that matters is the name on the bottom of the letter, wouldnt a well know chair letter from an ai that I worked with twice be better than an assistant/asssociate professor from home that has known me for 3 years? My preference would of course be the longitudinal relationship from home mentor being more valuable but it seems like you were asserting the opposite.

 

[operaman]

Based on your previous point of all that matters is the name on the bottom of the letter, wouldnt a well know chair letter from an ai that I worked with twice be better than an assistant/asssociate professor from home that has known me for 3 years? My preference would of course be the longitudinal relationship from home mentor being more valuable but it seems like you were asserting the opposite.

Yeah it’s not a hard and fast rule, just a generality. It also does matter what they say in the letter. For strong letters, best name wins. When they’re less strong, gets harder to say.

In such a case, it would depend on just how great an impression you made on the AI program. A well known letter writer who just writes a generic “this student rotated with us for 4 weeks and did a fine job, worked hard, and were well liked. Representative comments include (insert resident /faculty comments the chair’s admin emailed everyone for). They will make a fine resident and future otolaryngologist” may not be terribly compelling. Its not bad, but basically just tells people you did an away rotation there.

If that same well known writer says something like “this student was one of the finest we’ve ever had rotate through our program. The praise from residents and faculty has been overwhelming to say the least, and they will be at the top of our rank list. Needless to say, they will be a star resident anywhere they choose to go.” Then you’re talking about something very different. These letters are rare for rotators. Generally you need to have had the opportunity to establish a good working relationship with your writer and also make yourself beloved by all.

Presumably your mentor letters should be absolutely glowing. If they’re the senior author on all or most of your pubs, the absence of their letter will be noticed and not in a good way. But if it’s some other junior faculty not well known person whose letter will be strong but maybe not glowing, then perhaps the AI letter even if less personal and more summative would be better. It’s a tough call honestly.

This is where top tier schools offer some advantages because nearly every faculty member is well known and a start in their field. Lower tier schools will have fewer of those to go around. Everyone has a chair letter plus a PD or other well known person letter. Everyone has one from their primary research mentor. It’s that fourth letter where you have some flexibility. Ideally you can establish enough relationship with some other well known person such that it’s obvious which letter to send. The only conundrum is strong unknown local faculty vs weaker generic but well known AI faculty. Really hard to say which is better in the end.