Applying to both 4 and 6 year programs

[Regmata]

I have heard mixed opinions on whether or not it is looked upon unfavorably to apply to both 4 and 6 year programs or if at the very least, applying to only one track is viewed as a positive because the applicant knows exactly what they are looking for. The extra time and curriculum that medical school tacks on makes the tracks notably different from one another and for many, there seems to be a line drawn in the sand between the two.

What opinions on this have people encountered on this issue. For those of you applied to both and already interviewed, was it brought up?

Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[servitup]

It matters to some people and not to others. Personally, if you come to my program for an interview, I can usually tell within 30 seconds of meeting you if you are really interested in a 6 yr program or not. Therefore, be honest with yourself up front and apply to the track you truly want. It is a big financial and emotional expense to go to a bunch of different places when 99% of people know deep down whether or not the MD is valuable to them. If the MD itself is not valuable, then I submit to you that you can find a good 4 year program to teach you how to operate.

You have to decide eventually so save yourself some trouble and decide up front. The only people I think should apply to both are people who would prefer a 6 yr program but have sub-90 board scores. In that scenario, I would apply to 40 programs or so and let the chips fall.

 

[Thunderdome23]

The only people I think should apply to both are people who would prefer a 6 yr program but have sub-90 board scores. In that scenario, I would apply to 40 programs or so and let the chips fall.

Well, actually 4-years are more competitive than most 6-years due to a higher volume of applicants, so I wouldn't go as far as to say a sub-90 board score will get you into a 4 year program but not a 6 year if that's what you're implying. That being said there does seem to be some 6-year programs who have a 90 cutoff due to a study that showed a significant failure rate of the USMLE for applicants who had an NBDE score below a 90. But that was just one study.

 

[servitup]

Well, actually 4-years are more competitive than most 6-years due to a higher volume of applicants, so I wouldn't go as far as to say a sub-90 board score will get you into a 4 year program but not a 6 year if that's what you're implying. That being said there does seem to be some 6-year programs who have a 90 cutoff due to a study that showed a significant failure rate of the USMLE for applicants who had an NBDE score below a 90. But that was just one study.

Interesting thought. Inaccurate, but interesting. Does that mean that minor league baseball is more competitive than major league baseball because there are more players in the minors? Or could it be the average player in the majors is actually better, thus making the major league more competitive. Food for thought.

 

[1992Corolla]

Interesting thought. Inaccurate, but interesting. Does that mean that minor league baseball is more competitive than major league baseball because there are more players in the minors? Or could it be the average player in the majors is actually better, thus making the major league more competitive. Food for thought.

Are you saying the average 6 yr resident is better than the average 4 yr resident?

 

[servitup]

No but I am saying the average 6 year applicant has a stronger application than the average 4 year applicant.

 

[Thunderdome23]

Interesting thought. Inaccurate, but interesting. Does that mean that minor league baseball is more competitive than major league baseball because there are more players in the minors? Or could it be the average player in the majors is actually better, thus making the major league more competitive. Food for thought.

So 4-year surgery programs are the minor leagues? Many of the top applicants apply to 4-year programs my friend. You don't have a clue about what you're talking about. And you're getting into some shady territory saying something like that. 4 vs 6-years is a choice, not a default. The MD does not dictate the quality of the program by far. There are many good and bad 4 and 6-year programs. In fact I have heard of some 6-year programs that wave their MD component to attract applicants to join what is in reality not a a very thorough program. Not every applicant is interested in training for an additional 2 years and paying an additional debt to get training that will not, for the most part, change how they practice, how they manage patients, or how much money they will make. For this reason couldn't one argue that smarter applicants go to 4-year programs? Food for thought for you.

 

[1992Corolla]

No but I am saying the average 6 year applicant has a stronger application than the average 4 year applicant.

Wouldn't a stronger average of applicants produce a stronger average of residents?

 

[InMyCrossHairs]

Interesting thought. Inaccurate, but interesting. Does that mean that minor league baseball is more competitive than major league baseball because there are more players in the minors? Or could it be the average player in the majors is actually better, thus making the major league more competitive. Food for thought.

I doubt this logic. I interviewed at both, and I interviewed at solid 6 year programs, not Ivy League ones have you (joke), but good programs. I was absolutely competitive at these programs, and I can assure you I wasnt the most qualified applicant. I would be surprised if the average matched applicants to 6 year programs are any more qualified than those of 4 year programs.

 

[GreatOMFSHope]

It matters to some people and not to others. Personally, if you come to my program for an interview, I can usually tell within 30 seconds of meeting you if you are really interested in a 6 yr program or not. Therefore, be honest with yourself up front and apply to the track you truly want. It is a big financial and emotional expense to go to a bunch of different places when 99% of people know deep down whether or not the MD is valuable to them. If the MD itself is not valuable, then I submit to you that you can find a good 4 year program to teach you how to operate.

You have to decide eventually so save yourself some trouble and decide up front. The only people I think should apply to both are people who would prefer a 6 yr program but have sub-90 board scores. In that scenario, I would apply to 40 programs or so and let the chips fall.

If you can weed out who really wants an MD or not, is "I just want to be an oral surgeon. I don't care if I have to do 2 more years of med school" a decent answer?

I plan on applying to both because I just want to do this for a living, no matter the path I have to take. I would prefer a 4 year because I don't really care about the MD, but if I had to do it, I would in a heartbeat.

 

[southomfs]

I applied to both 4 and 6 year programs this past application cycle and matched to a 6 year slot at a program that I applied to both 4 and 6 year slots.

I'm not going to jump in the 4 vs 6 year debate. I can tell you that really talented surgeons come from both. I'll make a general statement that the quality of the individual determines the quality of your residency experience. A really crappy resident in a strong program = crappy resident. A less than "known" program with a strong resident = a decent resident. Obviously I'm about to be low man on the totem pole, so take those comment as sheer opinion with little to back them up.

Regarding the 4 vs 6 debate in applications. Some guys will apply 4 only because it's two years shorter and they're older to start (28+). I applied to both because I externed at both and liked each setup. The whole "I want to be an oral surgeon, so the most likely way to accomplish that is to apply to both" doesn't work. Wait till you run into a dual degree faculty at a 4 year program -- they will eat your lunch. I applied on that premise that OMFS is what I wanted to do. That's kind of like saying you want to go to dental school to "help people." I think that invokes a bullsh*t/vomit in trashcan reflex because I've heard that response a million times.

From my limited experience, I think having fully accredited years of gsurg in a 6 year program with your MD makes fellowship opportunities more likely. That's not to say you can't do cancer or CF as a fellowship 4 year guy -- it's more likely to occur as 6 year OMFS. You can use that argument not as a "I want to be a CF fellow", but as a "I want to leave the doors open" to the fellowship.

Don't apply 4 and 6 year at the same program. I'm probably the only idiot that did that. Houston had problems with it. Florida interviewed me for a 6 year spot -- no mention of the 4 year app was ever made.

For the pro 4 year argument after you told them that you applied to both, I would say that "you don't see the additional benefit in the 2 extra years of training" considering that you spend the same amount of time on medicine/anesthesia/critical care etc. G surg is a pinnacle difference between the two. You can also say that you want the most months on service, as "most" 4 year programs offer more time on OMFS service.

I used the "I didn't make a 90" on the boards and didn't know what med school admissions would say argument fairly effectively. It usually got a grunt response that I interpreted as:
1) Screw med school admissions, they don't own us
2) Who cares about 90
3) You're so f***** anyway, why are you here?

It all worked out for me in the end. I think it depends on how you respond in each situation. Most interviews are the same over and over again. Don't be a giant bag of douche and you'll be fine.

 

[servitup]

If you can weed out who really wants an MD or not, is "I just want to be an oral surgeon. I don't care if I have to do 2 more years of med school" a decent answer?

No. I think most people at 6 year programs would prefer applicants who genuinely want to attend that program. Therefore, that answer would not go over well at most places.

 

[servitup]

So 4-year surgery programs are the minor leagues? Many of the top applicants apply to 4-year programs my friend. You don't have a clue about what you're talking about. And you're getting into some shady territory saying something like that. 4 vs 6-years is a choice, not a default. The MD does not dictate the quality of the program by far. There are many good and bad 4 and 6-year programs. In fact I have heard of some 6-year programs that wave their MD component to attract applicants to join what is in reality not a a very thorough program. Not every applicant is interested in training for an additional 2 years and paying an additional debt to get training that will not, for the most part, change how they practice, how they manage patients, or how much money they will make. For this reason couldn't one argue that smarter applicants go to 4-year programs? Food for thought for you.

You made the statement that 4 year programs are more competitive than 6 year programs and justified it based on the number of applicants. I responded with an analogy that shows that your argument doesn't mean that 4 year programs are more competitive. My opinion is that they are equally competitive for different reasons.

 

[libratl]

Well, actually 4-years are more competitive than most 6-years due to a higher volume of applicants, so I wouldn't go as far as to say a sub-90 board score will get you into a 4 year program but not a 6 year if that's what you're implying. That being said there does seem to be some 6-year programs who have a 90 cutoff due to a study that showed a significant failure rate of the USMLE for applicants who had an NBDE score below a 90. But that was just one study.

I disagree. Just because more applicants apply for 4-year program doesn't mean 4-year programs are more competitive. A part of it is due to the fact that the requirement of an average 6-year programs is higher - board score cut-off and undergraduate GPA. As a result, fewer applicants are eligible for the 6-year programs. But more applicants satisfy the 4-year pool.

Last year I applied to both 6 and 4s. I ended up going to 15 interviews (roughly half and half). I have been told by some applicants that even though they externed at certain 6-year programs, they didn't get an interview or didn't apply because the PD told them their board scores were too low. I also know applicants who have high 90s on board and at the interview was rejected for the 6-year track because the med-school deemed their undergraduate GPAs insufficient and were instead offered the 4 year spots.

Another observation already brought up is that older applicants tend to favor 4-year programs (the ones that are a few years past graduation). I don't think age itself has anything to do with the competitiveness of a candidate at all.

These are just my observations and my opinions.

 

[Thunderdome23]

For those of you who are still having trouble with this concept of 4-years being competitive let me break it down for you. This is basic economics 101: when there is a greater demand (more applicants) for a small supply (spots available) you have a little something called competition. The more applicants there are competing for a spot the more competitive the spot becomes (regardless of the nature of the spot to begin with). Are you still with me? good! So despite what you may think about 6-year programs demanding higher stats, while they may have a 90 cutoff, it's ultimately the number of applicants, their stats, and the number of spots available that ultimately drive the competition. Don't assume that everyone with stellar stats wants an MD, because you'd be wrong. Many people went into dentistry for a great lifestyle, not to be in school forever, and most of us are also very practical people, hence explaining why many more apply to 4 year omfs spots than 6-year. These are facts my friends. Don't waste time arguing this, just move on.

 

[Yahtzee]

This really isn't worth a fight. I think what the previous poster is getting at is the difference between "competitive" and "selective." Neither makes a particular track better or worse.

When I was fifteen I applied for a job at McDonald's against 5 other applicants - that's only a 1 to 6 chance of placement, which is more competitive than OMFS residency. And yet I don't flaunt my career as a burger flipper (unless I really want to impress). Other positions are less competitive because they are selective in that they require particular experiences, education, skills or test scores.

Clearly, each factor will vary depending on the residency and associated medical school (when applicable). For those applying, I wouldn't base my application targets on vague notions of superiority in 4 vs. 6 year programs based upon competitiveness. Just go get the most complete training you can, however you may choose to define it.

 

[Thunderdome23]

This really isn't worth a fight. I think what the previous poster is getting at is the difference between "competitive" and "selective." Neither makes a particular track better or worse.

When I was fifteen I applied for a job at McDonald's against 5 other applicants - that's only a 1 to 6 chance of placement, which is more competitive than OMFS residency. And yet I don't flaunt my career as a burger flipper (unless I really want to impress). Other positions are less competitive because they are selective in that they require particular experiences, education, skills or test scores.

Clearly, each factor will vary depending on the residency and associated medical school (when applicable). For those applying, I wouldn't base my application targets on vague notions of superiority in 4 vs. 6 year programs based upon competitiveness. Just go get the most complete training you can, however you may choose to define it.

Well said! Finally someone who can articulate this absurdity!

 

[armorshell]

When I was fifteen I applied for a job at McDonald's against 5 other applicants - that's only a 1 to 6 chance of placement, which is more competitive than OMFS residency. And yet I don't flaunt my career as a burger flipper (unless I really want to impress). Other positions are less competitive because they are selective in that they require particular experiences, education, skills or test scores.

So you're saying being at a 4 year program is like working at McDonald's?!?!??!

 

[servitup]

So what is more competitive, being number one in your class at Ohio State or number one in your class at Harvard? Ohio State has 3x more students so by your logic I guess it is automatically 3x more competitive, right?

 

[Yahtzee]

So you're saying being at a 4 year program is like working at McDonald's?!?!??!

Actually, if you read between the lines I was suggesting that by working at Mcdonald's you have a much better chance of matching into an OMFS residency. It's simple science, really.

 

[SydB]

I feel that the people that argue this issue were the same people 4 years ago that argued in the dental school vs dental school threads. Who really cares? I think someone earlier said that it is the resident not the program that makes the surgeon. Thunderdome it is obvious you are on some hell bent mission to prove 4 years are not inferior to 6 years, I agree they are not. Getting an MD allows you some extra knowledge and a level playing field with physicians, but does not make you a better surgeon. Four year programs expect you to learn the medical knowledge on the fly with no tests. If you learn great, if not you can still make it through and be a poor surgeon the rest of your life. Nobody in a 6 year program is excited about the 2 extra years and +100k of debt that is required, and if they say they are, they are lying to you. My opinion is that if you apply to both 4 and 6 year programs and they ask you why you need to be honest. If being honest is going to make you look like an idiot then you can say something to the effect of; "I'm looking for the program I feel will provide me with the best situation to fulfill my potential."

 

[1992Corolla]

Wait, so what's the difference between DMD and DDS? Does that play a factor when applying to 4 yr programs?

 

[rlee99p]

The characteristics of the resident will obviously determine his/her omfs residency experience. However, it must be noted that the strength of the programs will determine what type of applicants they'll attract. Oftentimes, people who come from weak programs with virtually no faculty oversight rationalize their training by stating the obvious "the strength of the resident determines the type of surgeon one becomes." Don't kid yourself. The strength of the program which is, in large part, determined by the strength of the faculty determines the type of applicants it attracts. The whole debate about 4 vs 6 yr track don't really matter in regards to the type of surgeon one becomes.

 

[live]

What if one is interested in academics at some point in their career? Should a 6yr program be more heavily considered if this is the case?

 

[Regmata]

What if one is interested in academics at some point in their career? Should a 6yr program be more heavily considered if this is the case?

I would think so