Pulm/CC Fellowship much LESS competitive than IM residency?

[SS Normandy]

Hey guys,
I'm a USMD graduate PGY-1 at a mid-tier NYC IM program, and am interested in pulm/cc. I was looking on FREIDA recently and realized the composition of some big name programs have significant IMG graduates. I'm new to the fellowship arena but I remember as a general rule during residency applications, the higher the USMD%, the most competitive the program.

Looking at some NY programs, for Pulm/CC (according to FREIDA):
-NYU 65%US, 33% IMG
-Cornell 55%US, 45%IMG
-NSLIJ 14%US, 66%IMG
-no data on Columbia/Montefiore
(Exception seems to be Mt. Sinai with 100% USMD)

Does this mean by the time we apply for fellowship, US vs. IMG MD simply don't matter that much? And LORs and Research mean a lot more? Or is fellowship in general less competitive to get into than the respected IM residencies for those programs? I didn't do any research during medical school, but would love to train at a large academic fellowship, and trying to gauge the competitiveness of pulm/cc in today's cycles. Thanks for any insight!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Hernandez]

No, pulm is starting to become very competitive.

 

[timbuktu]

i noticed the same thing, OP. honestly, some of the programs with the highest % of USMDs seemed to have mostly in-house (read: from that med school or IM program) fellows.

 

[Super Turrican]

By the time you apply for fellowship, med school is a long way back at the end of your CV. I would say it is equally competitive, but you face a larger pool of "real" competitors. On second thought it may even a little more competitive if you don't develop in your career as much as your peers. Where you went to school might matter, a little or maybe more some in some places. In most places, neither where you went to school, or your USMLE scores will make much of a case for you.
What did you build on you USMD? That's a better question.
Where did you go to residency and how they like you there? Are your LORs reflective of this?
What is your research production by the time of application?
Most academic places have 12-18 months of research. They need people to use it to publish and be productive not to moonlight like you'd like to pay off your med school loans that year (not that you couldn't do both things at the same time.....). Needing a visa is more of a problem (not for the visa itself but for being unable to be funded by a T32) than not being a USMD.

 

[Super Turrican]

Good luck everybody.

Remember that this is about selecting the best program for YOUR career.

If you're not interested in spending your life as a physician scientist, doing at least an extra year of fellowship, with lots of research, applying for grants, and are willing to work for peanuts until your funding hits, then don't be sad when places like UW, UCSF, Hopkins, Penn, Michigan, and Colorado say, "No".

Make a list of this things you want to do, want to see, want to be trained in, and go looking for places that will give that to you. If your interest is more critical care than pulm, it won't matter too, too much where you do your training, honestly.

Make sure places can cash the checks their asses are writing to you when you visit. If it's not happening when you interview, assume it not happening during your fellowship. Look at their product, and see if the fellows they are producing is what you see yourself as generally - ie. if no one is staying on in academics and that what you want to do, pay attention to that.

Lots of you will, no doubt, be interested in "interventional pulmonary" but don't get too caught up on the fancy bronchs. You need to be a good basic bronchoscopist before doing anything fancy. If the program struggles to get you 100 bronchs that is a problem. Expect to do EXTRA training (an additional 6 months to a year) if you want to do a lot of interventional pulm these days.

This was a wise comment... That got posted when I applied for a spot.