it should give you an advantage when applying for research track or fast track residencies, no?
I applied for almost all of the research track residency programs in my specialty choice. Over half rejected me without an interview. I am middle of my medical school class (with no red flags) and have slightly above last year's average step 1 for the specialty. My PhD/research experience is extremely strong and directly related to my specialty of interest.
What I find particularly amusing is interviewing at the non-research track programs (>75% of my interviews). They often ask me why I'm there. Shouldn't I be at X institution which is extremely strong in my particular area of research? Or how about Y place who has A B and C big names who I've collaborated with or know pretty well? What about my home institution where I obviously have outstanding letters and have been extremely productive? Well, X, Y, and my top-tier home school already rejected me. So I'm in the awkward position of explaining that I have to choose the strongest research-oriented program among the programs that decided to invite me. Of the 5 places I'd say are strongest in my area of research, none invited me. Maybe 1 depending on exactly how you load that list. So while I may be interviewing at not the strongest research places in the country, they're what I've got. So I am in the awkward position of begging the programs that invited me to rank me highly regardless of me being a research-oriented guy, and their institution not being all that strong for the research that I do. Because not matching seems like it would really suck. At least I can be a physician someday if I match.
That brings up another point, hiding your enthusiasm for research at these places. Like you have to like research, but not profess any sort of love for a majority-research career or the research track residencies that I really want. That's a topic for some other day I guess.
texan2009 said:
Are you seeing that you are getting much better interview invites than applicants with the same scores as you but much less research experience?
It seems to me that this would be a better group to compare yourself with.
I am and this is true to some extent. I think someone with the same medical school performance and step 1/step 2 scores would match as well, but probably at a more community oriented program as opposed to lower-mid tier academic, where I am mostly interviewing. It's just been a shock to me to see how much step 1 and AOA status really matter, even at research-oriented institutions. When I started my program I was always told "you're MD/PhD, it doesn't matter how you do on Step 1" -- "Just pass, you'll pick up the clinical stuff. You're MD/PhD, you'll get whatever residency you want." This was ridiculous, and I want to dispel it for anyone else hearing it.
Another thing I'm finding is that I'm mostly getting interviews in the midwest, for the simple reason that it is less competitive. I am not from the midwest and have no ties to the midwest. I received one whole interview in my entire home region. The four programs I was most interested in because they are strong programs in the area of the country where I have strong reasons for wanting to live all rejected me without an interview. This included my away rotation where I had previously performed significant research and received an outstanding letter of recommendation as well as an extremely positive review from the PD. Why? Step 1 and AOA cutoffs. So keep that in mind as well. You may match as an MD/PhD, but if you have a regional preference, you may have a hard time getting it. Unless your preference is midwest. That's not as bad.
I do have something of a control. I can't go into too much detail except to say there's someone very similar to me applying with a much weaker PhD in the same specialty. His step 1 score is sky high and he is AOA. He is getting every top-tier and mid-tier academic interview, research-oriented interviews, and even interviews from places that are very weak in research, in addition to interviews most places he applied. So he has to turn a lot of them down. They see those stats and check the invite button.
My advice for matching in a competitive specialty: do extremely well in medical school and crush step 1 and step 2. Get out of your PhD as quickly as possible with one publication and don't stress about loading your CV.
Back to the topic of the thread,
was my PhD a waste of time? For me, the answer is
no for several personal reasons. But I don't think it's helping me much get the residency I want. I think I could have done just as well with a year out of medical school for research. This is doubly true if I had focused more on medical school. Instead of taking hard grad classes on top of my first two years of med school, I could have made junior AOA. But I think I bought into beliefs both that I should "pace myself", and be more focused on research. I never thought I'd have to worry that much about the grades I would receive in clerkships or after being out of medical school for over four years... What a mistake that was. I did well in medical school regardless, and I'm probably going to match reasonably well, even if there's a good chance it's in the midwest. But, I post all this so that the impressionable pre-MD/PhDs and junior students will realize that if they someday want a competitive residency in some area of the country they want to raise their family in when they're over 30, they need to really work hard. Because I'm seeing my classmates apply in specialties they didn't want to apply in. Or matching into "backups". Or not matching at all (5 MSTPs in the last 2 match cycles). Or matching far away from their spouses. And it's sad. And it all comes back to the fact that we're not as competitive as we thought we were.
Since this turned into an emotional rant, I will again reference the true objective post:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=10322423&postcount=13.
