- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
Do PDs at top tier residency programs (IM) like MD, PhDs as applicants in general? What's the consensus?
Residency
- Thread starter arc1479
- Start date
B
b&ierstiefel
arc1479 said:
By no means will having an MD/PhD guarantee entry into a top tier program. However, you will generally be more favorably looked on by PDs over straight MD applicants. This holds true if you're applying to a program that is research-oriented (i.e., short-track IM programs).
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,663
- Reaction score
- 5,086
I concur with Dr. Milonakis.
Fast track IM programs are basically designed for MD/PhD grads specifically. Otherwise, it will have some impact but your grades in your medicine clerkship and sub-internships are of supreme importance. Also, you are required to have an LoR from the Chairperson of Medicine at your school which also bears considerable weight.
Research will, however, be a tremendous advantage for fellowships applications. You generally apply for a fellowship during your 2nd year of IM residency. Considering the clinical demands placed on the intern, they will not have the time to do serious research. You, on the other hand, will have a PhD and multiple 1st author publications (hopefully in the field you want to go into).
Fast track IM programs are basically designed for MD/PhD grads specifically. Otherwise, it will have some impact but your grades in your medicine clerkship and sub-internships are of supreme importance. Also, you are required to have an LoR from the Chairperson of Medicine at your school which also bears considerable weight.
Research will, however, be a tremendous advantage for fellowships applications. You generally apply for a fellowship during your 2nd year of IM residency. Considering the clinical demands placed on the intern, they will not have the time to do serious research. You, on the other hand, will have a PhD and multiple 1st author publications (hopefully in the field you want to go into).
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
What is the difference between a fast track R and a regular one? Does one need to possess a PhD in order to be eligible for those? Is the level of clinical training in a fast track R comparable to that in a regular R? Finally, how common are these programs (are they only found in a handful of institutions)? Thanks.
B
b&ierstiefel
Here's the scoop I got from the MSTP director at my institution:
Fast track = 3 year medicine residency where clinical duties are intermixed with time in the lab as a researcher. This has fallen out of favor to give birth to.........
Short track = 2 year medicine residency with the 3rd year being part of a research fellowship. This made more sense as there was more continuity in performing clinical duties and then laboratory duties afterwards.
I don't believe that there are fast track programs anymore but I may be wrong.
So...the difference between short track and regular residency? One year...that's all. However, during the 2 years of the medicine residency (in short track), your two years can be more grueling and less flexible in terms of time scheduling than the first 2 years experienced by a regular residency resident.
What does this amount to? Well for a person like me who wants to minimize clinical duties for the sake of doing research, I would only have to do 2 years of clinical stuff after med school. This is IF I were to go into medicine. But I'm not.
Fast track = 3 year medicine residency where clinical duties are intermixed with time in the lab as a researcher. This has fallen out of favor to give birth to.........
Short track = 2 year medicine residency with the 3rd year being part of a research fellowship. This made more sense as there was more continuity in performing clinical duties and then laboratory duties afterwards.
I don't believe that there are fast track programs anymore but I may be wrong.
So...the difference between short track and regular residency? One year...that's all. However, during the 2 years of the medicine residency (in short track), your two years can be more grueling and less flexible in terms of time scheduling than the first 2 years experienced by a regular residency resident.
What does this amount to? Well for a person like me who wants to minimize clinical duties for the sake of doing research, I would only have to do 2 years of clinical stuff after med school. This is IF I were to go into medicine. But I'm not.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,663
- Reaction score
- 5,086
Well, my understanding of "fast-tracking" or "short-tracking" (I didn't know there was a difference! 
) is the following:
2 years of IM residency + 1-2 years of fellowship + 3 years of bench research
OR
2 years of IM residency + 3 years of bench research
The variable fellowship time depends on what speciality you go into, with procedure-based disciplines like Cardiology taking more time than, say, Medical Oncology. Either program should, theoretically, give you the benefits of a residency and a post-doc. Though your research training will obviously be good (the time during those 3 years is largely protected with minimal clinical duties), the jury is out on your clinical skills.
Some have commented that they will be from sub-par to barely adequate. However, these indivduals are (usually) going by hearsay. I do know that you will have to have strong evaluations during the 2-4 years of clinical duties for them to let you move on to research. Although simply based on time you are clearly not as well off as the standard 3-year IM resident.
To answer your other questions, technically you don't HAVE to have a PhD to pursue these paths but you had better have a strong research background (e.g. NIH cloister program or its equivalent) in any case. Finally, virtually all "top" academic institutions have this program usually under the heading of "research track."
) is the following:2 years of IM residency + 1-2 years of fellowship + 3 years of bench research
OR
2 years of IM residency + 3 years of bench research
The variable fellowship time depends on what speciality you go into, with procedure-based disciplines like Cardiology taking more time than, say, Medical Oncology. Either program should, theoretically, give you the benefits of a residency and a post-doc. Though your research training will obviously be good (the time during those 3 years is largely protected with minimal clinical duties), the jury is out on your clinical skills.
Some have commented that they will be from sub-par to barely adequate. However, these indivduals are (usually) going by hearsay. I do know that you will have to have strong evaluations during the 2-4 years of clinical duties for them to let you move on to research. Although simply based on time you are clearly not as well off as the standard 3-year IM resident.
To answer your other questions, technically you don't HAVE to have a PhD to pursue these paths but you had better have a strong research background (e.g. NIH cloister program or its equivalent) in any case. Finally, virtually all "top" academic institutions have this program usually under the heading of "research track."
IMO, the learning curve in IM residency is pretty steep, and by the third year the marginal benefit of additional time is significantly reduced. This needs to be considered because the average age of receipt of first RO1 grant for MD-PhDs is 42. If it were me, I would rush with all deliberate speed to complete the training and get into an independent faculty position as soon as possible. An extra year may not seem like much, but an extra year here and there adds up to the point where you are eligible for membership in AARP about the time you submit your second competing renewal. Obviously, this is not the pathway for everybody, but then MD-PhDs are a breed apart.
