What percentage of residents at top IM programs have a PhD?

[_drinkcoffee_]

Title says it all.

I'm a naive MS-Zero. Shadowed extensively in cardiology and pretty sure I want to eventually do that for a career, although I understand things change.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gutonc]

Title says it all.

I'm a naive MS-Zero. Shadowed extensively in cardiology and pretty sure I want to eventually do that for a career, although I understand things change.

This is the most amazing non-sequitur I think I've ever seen on SDN.

It ranges somewhere between "Who Gives a S***" % and "Who Gives a F***" % +/- "Put Down the Crack Pipe".

At the outside, I'd say somewhere in the 10% vicinity which is what my class had. Two of us were bio PhDs, one had a PhD in Math. Exactly 0% of people cared about it once we were on the wards.

 

[_drinkcoffee_]

This is the most amazing non-sequitur I think I've ever seen on SDN.

It ranges somewhere between "Who Gives a S***" % and "Who Gives a F***" % +/- "Put Down the Crack Pipe".

I really fail to see why my question elicited such a rude response. Would it also have been a non-sequitur if I asked what percentage was AOA? What is your problem?

 

[Raryn]

Title says it all.

I'm a naive MS-Zero. Shadowed extensively in cardiology and pretty sure I want to eventually do that for a career, although I understand things change.

Why don't I put it this way...

In 2011 (the last year for which we have a charting outcomes), 167 matched US Seniors in IM (out of 2947 total) had PhDs.

Your average top tier program has ~40 seats. So pick your definition of "top" (top 10? top 20?) and you can see that even if every single one of those applicants with PhDs matched at an absolute top tier institution (which is pretty unlikely), the percentage comes out to be pretty small.

 

[Raryn]

I really fail to see why my question elicited such a rude response. Would it also have been a non-sequitur if I asked what percentage was AOA? What is your problem?

The non-sequiter being the fact your post had little-to-nothing to do with your title. GutOnc may be our resident grump, but he does make a point.

I'm surprised he didn't just move your post to pre-allo, since these specialty forums are generally for residents and attendings (or students far enough along to be applying to residency), and you already admitted to being an "MS-Zero".

 

[_drinkcoffee_]

I see, thanks for your help.

I was just explaining why I was asking. I thought it would be acceptable to ask current residents. Guess not.

Edit: I don't see a way to delete posts, so I'll have to leave this obviously, colossally stupid question up.

 

[padastra]

As I understand it, your question is "how much does a PhD matter in terms of obtaining a spot at a top residency?"

Very little. AOA status is always a large boon to your application, whereas a PhD is not (with a few exceptions, e.g. a PhD in math or physics applying to Rad Onc). If you have several publications it maybe helpful in landing a "top" residency and/or a "research track"--assuming the rest of your application is otherwise competitive--but even then the importance is dictated more by the research than by the degree itself.

Your peer applicants will also have significant accomplishments. Remember that medical schools select for a high-achieving portion of college-graduates, and that top residencies then select for the top within that high-achieving population. Thus, short of something truly exceptional (and I mean truly exceptional) you will be surprised at how little pre-medical school accomplishments mean in terms of your residency application.

 

[gutonc]

I just fail to see the point of your question, at least in the way you phrased.

Do you have a PhD? Are you in the process of getting one? Are you doing it because you want to be a scientist or because you think it will help you get a good residency program? Will you not apply to a program because of the number of PhDs in their current classes?

Maybe you just did a bad job of asking the question you actually wanted to know the answer to, like, "how much will a PhD help in getting a good residency spot?". In that case, the answer is, a little, about the same as being AOA or coming from a Top 10 school...not much really.

 

[Instatewaiter]

I just fail to see the point of your question, at least in the way you phrased.

Do you have a PhD? Are you in the process of getting one? Are you doing it because you want to be a scientist or because you think it will help you get a good residency program? Will you not apply to a program because of the number of PhDs in their current classes?

Maybe you just did a bad job of asking the question you actually wanted to know the answer to, like, "how much will a PhD help in getting a good residency spot?". In that case, the answer is, a little, about the same as being AOA or coming from a Top 10 school...not much really.

I'm guessing he is considering getting a PhD and isn't sure. I'd say about 1/3 of my class had a PhD. It helps for an academic residency. It obviously isn't the end all be all though.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Agree that the question is prima facie reasonable but I just don't see how it will affect decision making.

Do a PhD if you love research and want a career that incorporates bench work. Otherwise, don't.

For residencies, 10-15 years ago, the PhD could mean quite a bit (read, a lot in IM, peds, path, and (child) neuro - which I would say were the traditional fields). Nowadays, it's just another credential (part of the credentials inflation across the board) and probably less useful than AOA.

Honestly, my impression is that the people who are doing the best nowadays in securing tip top residency spots are those who do the 1 year research tracks which are often translational/clinical research. These tracks tend to select excellent students based on prior CV + MS1/2 performance, but they also put the student in a position/lab tailored towards a particular field (e.g. rad onc interest, you go to a rad onc lab), which then gives you publications in the field and networking in the field, which can be very useful come application time. You often will get another nice credential with it such as an MS or MPH or something.

 

[padastra]

For residencies, 10-15 years ago, the PhD could mean quite a bit (read, a lot in IM, peds, path, and (child) neuro - which I would say were the traditional fields). Nowadays, it's just another credential (part of the credentials inflation across the board) and probably less useful than AOA.

I would argue much less useful than AOA status, especially if you exclude MSTP from this calculation.

 

[ratherbefishing]

Agree that the question is prima facie reasonable but I just don't see how it will affect decision making.

Do a PhD if you love research and want a career that incorporates bench work. Otherwise, don't.

For residencies, 10-15 years ago, the PhD could mean quite a bit (read, a lot in IM, peds, path, and (child) neuro - which I would say were the traditional fields). Nowadays, it's just another credential (part of the credentials inflation across the board) and probably less useful than AOA.

Honestly, my impression is that the people who are doing the best nowadays in securing tip top residency spots are those who do the 1 year research tracks which are often translational/clinical research. These tracks tend to select excellent students based on prior CV + MS1/2 performance, but they also put the student in a position/lab tailored towards a particular field (e.g. rad onc interest, you go to a rad onc lab), which then gives you publications in the field and networking in the field, which can be very useful come application time. You often will get another nice credential with it such as an MS or MPH or something.

Agree that the research year is now in vogue but I have yet to see many of these people seriously interested in majority research careers that are the lifeblood of most academic enterprises.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I would argue much less useful than AOA status, especially if you exclude MSTP from this calculation.

How so? How could a 3-5+ yr effort resulting in multiple publications, presentations, etc. be much less useful than a redundant credential which in most cases merely recapitulates the academic record?

I assume you are controlling purely for AOA status, NOT the clinical record that backs up that status? Because I have to say that there have been multiple people at my school who had practically impeccable academic records yet did not get AOA for political reasons (not that they were troublesome, but they were MD/PhD and thus not politically/socially plugged into the class that was voting in AOA). Yes, lack of AOA seemed to have hurt these MD/PhDs.

But still, it's utterly bizarre that a medical school equivalent of something as silly as National Honor Society could matter more than a PhD.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Agree that the research year is now in vogue but I have yet to see many of these people seriously interested in majority research careers that are the lifeblood of most academic enterprises.

That's also true, but it doesn't matter. They can sell themselves. The papers they publish are much closer to the clinical realm and thus accessible to PDs. PDs know very little about basic science other than that Nature and Science have big name reputations (if that!). Most PDs would probably not be able to tell that J Ex. Med and J Clin Invest are top journals and that J Theoretical Biol or Biochimica et Biophysica Acta are not.

 

[padastra]

How so? How could a 3-5+ yr effort resulting in multiple publications, presentations, etc. be much less useful than a redundant credential which in most cases merely recapitulates the academic record?

I don't agree with it, but sadly that doesn't make it less true. When you're applying for residency you will find that AOA status has the bigger impact (at most programs).

You're right that this is confounded by the importance of doing very well in your clinical years. Similarly, the value of a PhD is confounded by the importance of publications and research (at the time of residency application, I had 3 first-author papers in reputable journals and lots of abstracts--but no PhD; some PhD students have the degree but just one or two publications).

At the end of the day I can only speculate on the marginal benefit of having the grades but not AOA, or having the publications but not a PhD. Of note, medical schools have significant variation in how they grade, and PDs may sometimes use AOA as a proxy for evaluating medical school performance.