Can anyone answer why there is such a thing as a "research-oriented" school? If you want to do research, you do a MD/PHD or a PHD. If you want to do clinical work, you become a MD? Isn't this how it's supposed to be?
Why is there such thing as a "Research-oriented" school?
- Thread starter bdc142
- Start date
The simple answer is no. First, you do not need a Ph.D. to have a career in basic science. Second, many physicians at research oriented schools will enter academic careers where they'll have the opportunity to perform clinical/translational research or oversee clinical trials (i.e. situations where you really do not need a Ph.D.). Third, even if a physician does not want a career in research, having an understanding and appreciation for research is always a valuable asset. Finally, the most competitive residencies (both in terms of specialty and the prestige of the program) expect applicants to have research experience, so if a school requires students to have dedicated research time, they'll increase the competitiveness of their students
Last edited:
Thanks for the quick reply. I'm still a little confused - it seems on these forums that people claim unless you haven't been published or the like, then you won't have a chance at all for a top 20 school. This is what I don't get at all because my impression was that medical schools usually ask about "why do you want to be a doctor?" in interviews. That emphasize clinical work and not research.
The reality is that it's never just "why do you want to be a doctor?". Your GPA, MCAT, quality of your undergrad (esp for top-20 schools), volunteer work, medical experience, research (again, esp for top-20 schools), and uniqueness are all important factors.
- Joined
- May 14, 2011
- Messages
- 513
- Reaction score
- 1
SDN is not, in any way, representative of the average applicant pool. It is false that you need a publication to get into a top 20 -- heck, you don't even need a publication to get into an MD/PhD program -- (though, it does look good); however, these top schools do prefer and usually accept applicants with some research experience. If you do not have this experience, unless you have some other unique EC, your chances at these top schools are greatly diminished.
Medical schools do, in fact, usually ask "why do you want to be a doctor/why medicine/etc?". This is because, for the most part, every medical school's main goal is to train physicians, not researchers. Wanting to train physicians first and foremost, however, is not contradictory to being "research focused" or wanting to train those who know how to do research -- as has been pointed out, those with an MD (or DO) only (no PhD) do research all the time, especially clinical and translational research; this is particularly true for those in faculty positions (working at medical schools).
Think of it this way: for true medical research to be done, you will, at some point, need access to patients, hospitals/clinics, treatments, physicians, researchers and, of course, grants to find said research. The obvious place for this all to occur is in an academic institution (grants, researchers, etc) with close ties to a hospital/clinic (patients, treatments, etc). A medical school fits this definition and, as a result, a lot of research will be done at them; they are needed to do it. Some schools just choose to do more research than others.
Another way to think of it: some schools focus their mission on producing primary care doctors who will work in rural/undeserved areas, other schools (for the most part, those "top 20" schools) focus on producing research and academically-oriented practitioners (note: obviously, this does not mean everyone from that school will end up having a career that is in line with that mission - in fact, I might even say that most won't - but it is what the school is looking/hoping for). Furthermore, the school that focuses on rural/undeserved populations will usually expect you to have volunteer experience working with such groups and, likewise, the research focused school will want you to have that king of experience.
tl;dr: Doctors do research. You don't need a PhD, especially for clinical research. A lot of research happens at medical schools. Some schools do more research than others. Those that do a lot of research are, obviously, research focused. They will want students who share their interests and goals and research experience shows them an applicant does. (You do not, however, need a publication).
Last edited:
G
gmcguitar4
Maybe not the applicant pool. But the accepted Pool.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2009
- Messages
- 4,532
- Reaction score
- 13
I probably wouldn't say that, either. ~17k accepted overall, compared to how many would you say are relevant contributors on this forum? Sample size aside, wouldn't you think there's selection bias at work here?
It's like reading Internet forums about <x> product -- you'd think all products sucked based on Internet comments alone.
- Joined
- May 14, 2011
- Messages
- 513
- Reaction score
- 1
I would dispute that. Though SDN does have members from all stat groups, there are a disproportionate number of contributing members in the 3.7+/33+ with awesome ECs applicant pool, including quite a lot of members in the 3.8+/35+ with outstanding/super unique ECs group. These types of applicants are more likely to gain an acceptance than one with lower stats, yes; however, every year, there are a lot of people (read: it's not rare at all) accepted with 3.5/30 with average ECs.
And what is being discussed in this thread is a great example. A lot of people here have, in some way (even if it's just a fifth author or abstract), been published. In reality, very, very few people who are accepted have said publications, including those in MD/PhD programs.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 11,799
- Reaction score
- 2,808
But oh-so-many do... I wish Apple made everything.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 0
It's wrong to say clinical work and research work are two distinct paths nowadays. There is a lot of integration between the two fields and is reflected by the presence of "research orientated" medical schools. Even medicals that are not considered "research orientated" by SDN standards still have some level of research going on in them.
Last time I read, publications were pretty important to your residency application. I am not positive about this though.
As for needing published papers; this is a case where SDN really shoots far from the average. You don't need published papers to get into the top 20; however, it obviously helps and differentiates your research work from everyone else who has hours but with nothing to show for it
Last time I read, publications were pretty important to your residency application. I am not positive about this though.
As for needing published papers; this is a case where SDN really shoots far from the average. You don't need published papers to get into the top 20; however, it obviously helps and differentiates your research work from everyone else who has hours but with nothing to show for it
