A lot of those guys that did the 1-2 years research didn't get into cards the first time around, so they try to bolster their applications for the next time. Failed radiology applicants are also encouraged to do research, but it won't necessarily help them get in the next time around.
I agree with most of what you said; however, your statement here is ludicrous. First of all, unless you're at a top 5-10 program and sit on the admissions committee, there is no way you can say this with much validity. Like cards, research allows you to not only make yourself more competitive by pursuing scholarly work and trying to advance a particular field of interest, but also opens doors through working with well respected people in the field (if you choose to). This isn't limited to cardiology, or radiology, but also true for extremely competitive fields including Plastics, Nsgy, Rad-Onc, etc. Bottom line is, no one knows whether it guarantees anything--heck, nothing in life is guaranteed other than, maybe, dropping the cosby's after a huge taco bell meal, and even then, you may need to rely on that colace if you're a narc addict or didn't eat that healthy breakfast. Even for cards, of course doing a year or two of research won't guarantee anything, nor does it necessarily help if you were counterproductive. So, your statement that research doesn't help failed radiology residents is premature, at best, because unless you sit on the admissions committee and know that applicants who have decent numbers, personable, and utlized that time to do
productive research, and this did not help them, then I'd half-heartedly agree with you.
The fact is that I know at least a few people who didn't match, took a year, or took a year between medical school and matched at good places. I just don't think you can say that research will guarantee you a cardiology fellowship, but won't necessarily get you a rads residency. It's the whole package and what you make of that time. Radiology really isn't THAT competitive. And, we also failed to mention, that applicants going into TOP Cards fellowships are equally as bright (objectively on paper) as rads applicants, because they're usually coming from TOP IM programs.
And, also, on that note, I'd like to add--not to say that cardiology fellowships are not attainable from smaller tiered schools right out of IM residency (without having to take time off in between or pursuing a chief year), but certainly it's hard and less common. If you look at a lot of the top 20-possible even 30 cards programs, I am willing to bed that those most of those applicants were US grads and did quite well in med school/and, or residency. And, if you make the division even further, I can almost bet that the top 10 cards programs mostly are taking applicants from the top IM programs, which we all know, is more than likely a quality american medical school graduate. I know of several small radiology programs, even "university affiliated", that takes rads residents with very mediocre numbers, if not below average.
There is no reason to argue about this. Like others have mentioned, both radiologists and cardiologists are smart people. But, for those who like to stroke their ego, that radiology is more competitive than cardiology, there's more to it than just saying it's easier to get into IM than rads, cuz you really can't compare that. I have tried to put a few things in perspective, but even then, it's not as objective as people make it seem.
they are very entertaining.
