Dismiss Notice
Hey Texans—join us for a DFW meetup! Click here to learn more.

What makes a residency competitive?

Discussion in 'Clinical Rotations' started by rubyness, Feb 6, 2002.

  1. rubyness

    rubyness Senior Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a first year, I'm just beggining to think about residency requirements, and one thing I keep hearing over and over is "You want to match to a good residency" or a competitive residency, or something to that effect. My question is, what makes a residency good? Is this a matter of how much research money the institution receives? Or is it a quality of life issue? Or is is just that one program might be affiliated with a more prestigious school than another? I know that this is a basic question, and should seem obvious, but I've never heard the answer. Thanks!

    Oh--and what happens to you if you get a "bad" residency? :)
     
  2. Note: SDN Members do not see this ad.

  3. LR6SO4

    LR6SO4 Senior Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm only a second year, but from what I know there is a ton of hype on 'good vs. bad'. If you want a competitive fellowship then a 'good' residency is better. Of course good varies with the field. If you want a competitive field than any residency is better than nothing, and bad becomes a very relative term. I mean would anyone not take a 'bad' derm residency if that's what they wanted? Good can also mean that residents are treated better. Good can be in an area that is pleasing to you. Good to me will be within about a 5-6 state area known as the midwest, don't care where, just give me the field I want!
     
  4. rubyness

    rubyness Senior Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I'm starting to get the impression that "good" or "bad" is a matter of personal preference. It's good if it's in the right location, right field (of course), decent pay (relatively speaking!!), and the people are enjoyable.
    I guess bad would mean that you didn't see a lot or get many opportunites?? Or that you were not given enough responsibility?
     
  5. Fah-Q

    Fah-Q Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    504
    Likes Received:
    15
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    I really do think good vs. bad is a very subjective assessment and can vary greatly from on person to the next. It annoys the @#%! out of me when I hear people make wide-sweeping assumptions and conclusions about things they know very little about, i.e, a med school applicant proclaiming that a certain school is "bad" or that another school is "really good". Whenever I hear this BS I be sure to tell the student to contact the AAMC immediately and let them know that the institution should not be accredited in his/her expert opinion. I feel the same way about med students expressing opinions about residency programs. I have enough faith in the accreditation services. I don't think they would sanction a "bad" program. I would never dismiss a program based on reputation alone and I would never apply to a program based on rep alone. Trying to "rank" programs and place everything into "top 10" or "top 25" or "upper tier" is a complete waste of time and has no informational value to me.
     

Share This Page