Aspiring ENT with research issues

[ThisIsSpinalTap]

I am hoping for some advice on the relative importance of ENT-related research and how to get involved if I can't make it happen at home...

I attend a small U.S. allopathic M.D. school without a home ENT program, so we have a paucity of research opportunities available to students. I have set my heart on the field but I'm deeply concerned that I won't be able to measure up in what seems to be a critical area for most serious applicants. Just trying to figure out what I need to do to make this thing happen...

Overall Stats:
Step 1 - 270
Year 1-2 - Reported grades are pass/fail, and while I'm pretty sure I ranked at the top based on grades, this will not be reflected in the Dean's letter/MSPR. Only that I was in top 10%.
Year 3 in progress - We don't do honors, high-pass, etc., just raw scores. Got 89 in Family Med, 91 in Peds, 96 in surgery. These were at the top of the class distribution thus far... shelf scores in the high 80's to low 90's.

Research:
Undergrad- some research in medicinal chemistry, no publications, two presentations, one modest grant.
Post-bac- worked for a year as a research asst.- yielded only one 2nd authorship, related to endocrine/surgical hypertension, not ENT.
MD- scrambling to find something - the possibility of a weak ENT project at home but no serious prospects. Spent my summer after 1st year serving in the military as a reserve medic, so no summer research project (but it was for a good cause and I don't regret it).

Extras:
Some good prior military experience as a medic, no crazy medals or heroics.
Some great extracurriculars at my home institution.

The rest is basically banking on the presumption that I'm a nice/normal guy, a fast learner, and easy to talk to, work with and teach.
Many thanks, please advise!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[neutropeniaboy]

I am hoping for some advice on the relative importance of ENT-related research and how to get involved if I can't make it happen at home...

Your Step I is excellent.
A lot of people have pass/fail across the nation; no one will hold that against you.
Your raw scores during your 3rd year clerkships are more concrete than the plethora of grades we see: honors, excellent, honors with honors, super honors, pass, high pass, satisfactory, etc. It's all bullsh*t. I'd appreciate a good old 90% over any of that other stuff.
Military = good.
Medic = good

Your goals: away rotations. If you have no home institution, you have to do them. Be excellent on them.

Research: do a research away rotation.

You'll get in.

 

[ThisIsSpinalTap]

Your Step I is excellent.
A lot of people have pass/fail across the nation; no one will hold that against you.
Your raw scores during your 3rd year clerkships are more concrete than the plethora of grades we see: honors, excellent, honors with honors, super honors, pass, high pass, satisfactory, etc. It's all bullsh*t. I'd appreciate a good old 90% over any of that other stuff.
Military = good.
Medic = good

Your goals: away rotations. If you have no home institution, you have to do them. Be excellent on them.

Research: do a research away rotation.

You'll get in.

Thanks for the advice! I hadn't seriously considered a research away, mainly because I'm not sure I will have time. I have already decided to put off step 2 until November. I won't be permitted to begin electives until early July and I had planned to rotate for 2-4 wks with some local ENTs to gain as much knowledge and experience as possible prior to my away rotations. Then I planned to do 2 separate clinical away rotations. By the time that is done, it will be mid-to-late October and basically time to prepare for Step 2 and interviews.

Just how critical is the research away, because I am pretty sure I will have to give up something else to do it in time?

 

[neutropeniaboy]

Just how critical is the research away, because I am pretty sure I will have to give up something else to do it in time?

I'll put it this way: The majority of applications I review have research on them -- at least in some fashion (contribution, authors, presentations, LORs).

To not have any research on your application makes you stand out.

When I applied, it was uncommon to have research on one's CV. Now, it's pretty common.

 

[ThisIsSpinalTap]

I'll put it this way: The majority of applications I review have research on them -- at least in some fashion (contribution, authors, presentations, LORs).

To not have any research on your application makes you stand out.

When I applied, it was uncommon to have research on one's CV. Now, it's pretty common.

Duly noted. While I will have research on my application, there likely won't be any substantive research in ENT, so I will have to see how I can squeeze a research rotation into the schedule.

I suppose it would make sense to do the research away at the earliest possible date, but even then I know there won't be much chance of getting an abstract or landing my name on a paper before October. I suppose just being able to show some involvement in a worthwhile project is helpful, right?

I will have time for only 3 ENT rotations before the ERAS deadline, and I had originally planned to do 2-4 weeks at home to prep for aways, with the plan to do two separate clinical away rotations. Which of those three would you suggest dropping to make room for the research?

Your advice has been greatly appreciated, by the way!

 

[OtoHNS]

I think you are overestimating how "substantive" your research needs to be. Just get a case report or 2 published. I'm sure the ENT folks at your institution have a few interesting cases you could write up, and you could also do the same during one of your aways.

 

[ThisIsSpinalTap]

I think you are overestimating how "substantive" your research needs to be. Just get a case report or 2 published. I'm sure the ENT folks at your institution have a few interesting cases you could write up, and you could also do the same during one of your aways.

That sounds like a plan I could execute. A lot less heavy lifting than reorganizing my entire approach to away rotations in the fall, though I do still like the sound of a research away rotation...

I guess I was just having a hard time figuring out what was generally expected from program directors with regard to research. I understand that it means more to be listed as an author on noteworthy publications than it does to have a couple of case reports, but if the point is to determine someone's genuine interest in (or capacity for) doing research then I would hope some attention would be given to that person's overall track record of involvement in research activities.

I've always been passionate about research even in undergrad, but I've always been at smaller programs without the NIH/NSF/etc. funds pouring in. Not everyone has the same opportunity to get involved in leading-edge research, but unfortunately many people who do have that opportunity actually have no real interest in the process of discovery. They are simply trying to check another box on their applications.

 

[neutropeniaboy]

I guess I was just having a hard time figuring out what was generally expected from program directors with regard to research. I understand that it means more to be listed as an author on noteworthy publications than it does to have a couple of case reports, but if the point is to determine someone's genuine interest in (or capacity for) doing research then I would hope some attention would be given to that person's overall track record of involvement in research activities.

Listen, we were all medical students. We know how busy students are and that for some, research isn't a possibility.

The research is a marker for your ability to extend yourself beyond strict academic pursuits. Often this indicates your ability to multitask, manage your time, write, present, assimilate data, be independent, be reliable/accountable, etc.

So, when I look at an applicant who does extremely well academically and has some first author publications in ENT journals and has even presented, I think that's impressive. On another note, personally I think it is more impressive to have done some research and had a series of publications on breast cancer (e.g.) genetics than it is to have a case report about bilateral parotid tumors in a 3y/o.

It's nice to have ENT research. I'll say that. But having ENT research isn't necessarily better than research in other areas.

I think the amount of time you put into it and the quality of the result and what you did with the research is more compelling than the field of research.

Of course, if you got some NIH grant to study the genetics of SNHL and discovered a new receptor along the way and this resulted in 13 publications and 6 national presentations, that'd be excellent too...

You're busy; we know that. All students are busy. Some manage to get a lot of research, others do not. If you do not manage to get research, this will make you a part of the minority. This is something that you will need to discuss during the interview and it should be discussed in a manner that is not defensive ("Well, we didn't have any labs at XYZ University").

 

[Fah-Q]

The vast majority of "research" done by medical students is crap. The programs know it. The applicants know it. The substance does not matter. It is just part of the game. It is a box you don't want to leave blank on your application. Many top programs only want to train residents that wish to pursue an academic career and research is what demonstrates that interest. Discussion about research also fills a lot of time during an interview.

 

[ThisIsSpinalTap]

Listen, we were all medical students. We know how busy students are and that for some, research isn't a possibility.

The research is a marker for your ability to extend yourself beyond strict academic pursuits. Often this indicates your ability to multitask, manage your time, write, present, assimilate data, be independent, be reliable/accountable, etc.

So, when I look at an applicant who does extremely well academically and has some first author publications in ENT journals and has even presented, I think that's impressive. On another note, personally I think it is more impressive to have done some research and had a series of publications on breast cancer (e.g.) genetics than it is to have a case report about bilateral parotid tumors in a 3y/o.

It's nice to have ENT research. I'll say that. But having ENT research isn't necessarily better than research in other areas.

I think the amount of time you put into it and the quality of the result and what you did with the research is more compelling than the field of research.

Of course, if you got some NIH grant to study the genetics of SNHL and discovered a new receptor along the way and this resulted in 13 publications and 6 national presentations, that'd be excellent too...

You're busy; we know that. All students are busy. Some manage to get a lot of research, others do not. If you do not manage to get research, this will make you a part of the minority. This is something that you will need to discuss during the interview and it should be discussed in a manner that is not defensive ("Well, we didn't have any labs at XYZ University").

Your point is well taken, and I apologize if I lapsed into a bit of self-indulgent whining, but I sometimes forget that this isn't the student lounge. And I certainly didn't intend to say that I don't have time for research; on the contrary, I fully intend to make time for research, and I'm willing to make significant sacrifices to achieve that end. My only concern is that those sacrifices might be unwise given the fact that I only have about 3 months to squeeze in any ENT-related rotations before programs start downloading my ERAS application.

However, I completely agree with your last post and I appreciate your perspective on the matter. I think you really have articulated (better than anyone else I've asked) the reasons why program directors find research experience so important.

So I'm taking your advice and planning to pursue a research away rotation. I will have to substitute it for one of my two planned clinical away rotations, but I am now convinced it will be a worthwhile effort. My situation being what it is, I will just have to adapt and overcome. And I assure you that even if I have nothing to show for my efforts by this fall, I certainly won't be defensive about it come interview season.

Thanks again for your time and your insight on this issue!

 

[ThisIsSpinalTap]

The vast majority of "research" done by medical students is crap. The programs know it. The applicants know it. The substance does not matter. It is just part of the game. It is a box you don't want to leave blank on your application. Many top programs only want to train residents that wish to pursue an academic career and research is what demonstrates that interest. Discussion about research also fills a lot of time during an interview.

I'm definitely hearing mixed opinions on this matter... so you're saying just do what it takes to check the box...? It's all just a game?

I admit I have felt that way more than a couple of times...

 

[OtoHNS]

The vast majority of "research" done by medical students is crap.

Change that to medical students + residents + faculty and I fully agree.

Personally, I think that >90% of ENT related research is complete garbage whose main purpose is to add another couple lines to the authors' CVs. It's unfortunate that so much importance is placed on research in the application process for ENT residency, but that's life.

One of the (many) benefits of attendinghood is not having to fake interest in this crap anymore.

That being said, I do skim through the white journal and the laryngoscope each month and pay attention to the (few) articles that might actually have some bearing on what I do day to day.

 

[neutropeniaboy]

Personally, I think that >90% of ENT related research is complete garbage whose main purpose is to add another couple lines to the authors' CVs.

Agreed.

Ever go to the North American Skull Base Society Meetings? I was a member the first year out of fellowship and did not renew my membership there. After attending one meeting, it was clear to me that all the "leaders" in the field wanted to do is to hear themselves talk and have an audience who would listen. Studies with small Ns. Retrospective. Pointless in the long run.

What even worse is that many of these people will think that there research is something important and memorable.

For the other 10%, you have a mix of people who do research because it gets them places (and know it's not ground-breaking) and then still fewer who do GOOD research that makes or could make a difference.

 

[neutropeniaboy]

So I'm taking your advice and planning to pursue a research away rotation. I will have to substitute it for one of my two planned clinical away rotations, but I am now convinced it will be a worthwhile effort. My situation being what it is, I will just have to adapt and overcome.

Before you do this, just be sure that it is going to be productive for you. If they have nothing waiting for you to pick up when you arrive, then you're essentially wasting your time. If they have ongoing projects that you can pick up or branch from, then great.

This research rotation can help you in an area that is relatively deficient for you and demonstrate an interest in this area as well as paint you as someone who is a "go getter" when the opportunities were not there for you.

Don't forget that when you are doing a research rotation, you should inquire as to whether you can participate in clinical activity when time permits.

 

[Fah-Q]

Agreed.

Ever go to the North American Skull Base Society Meetings? I was a member the first year out of fellowship and did not renew my membership there. After attending one meeting, it was clear to me that all the "leaders" in the field wanted to do is to hear themselves talk and have an audience who would listen. Studies with small Ns. Retrospective. Pointless in the long run.

Agreed. Skull base meetings are nothing but a series of "look what I can do" talks. It's great entertainment but hardly science.