who is the most competitive?

[peehdee]

so here is the question.

which of these three candidate is the most competitive (i.e. who is most likely to be picked for Rad Con Residency)?

1) a student who went to med school right from college and good grades (mostly honors) and very good board scores

2) an older applicant with a PhD (or some doctorate), several first author papers, but average grades and board scores

3) an older applicant with lots of clinical experience (e.g. a nurse), no advanced degree and average grades and board scores.

obviously if you have lots of clinical experience, a doctorate and top grades and top board scores would be the best candidate.

so the question is does being an older applicant or having years of clinical experience make it 'easier' to get into top residency programs over younger applicants who went right to med school? does being 'older' have any weight? or do they have to be at the top of their class just like any other applicant?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[stephew]

so here is the question.

which of these three candidate is the most competitive (i.e. who is most likely to be picked for Rad Con Residency)?

1) a student who went to med school right from college and good grades (mostly honors) and very good board scores

2) an older applicant with a PhD (or some doctorate), several first author papers, but average grades and board scores

3) an older applicant with lots of clinical experience (e.g. a nurse), no advanced degree and average grades and board scores.

obviously if you have lots of clinical experience, a doctorate and top grades and top board scores would be the best candidate.

so the question is does being an older applicant or having years of clinical experience make it 'easier' to get into top residency programs over younger applicants who went right to med school? does being 'older' have any weight? or do they have to be at the top of their class just like any other applicant?

The short answer? No.

In fact historically, being older (even a few years) was a confounding factor. That's not so much the case now (so long as we're not talking extremes). Certainly if you've been, say, an attending in another field that might be viewed favorably, however you've really got to have "something" that makes you look like a strong applicant in this climate; strong boards, research, related experience. Merely being "older" or having "clinical experience" may likely not be enough.
You can't really parse things this way because, the "universal soldier" aside, program directors will probaby like different things.

 

[juicyfruit]

The applicant with the PhD and multiple papers is the clear favorite. Rad Onc is a very academic oriented field. They want future academics and people who are interested in research. In addition, a PhD is rare. There are only 300-400 MD-PhDs nationwide in a given year, while there are probably 2000-3000 AOAs. Multiple publications are also rarer than high board scores.

 

[stephew]

The applicant with the PhD and multiple papers is the clear favorite. Rad Onc is a very academic oriented field. They want future academics and people who are interested in research. In addition, a PhD is rare. There are only 300-400 MD-PhDs nationwide in a given year, while there are probably 2000-3000 AOAs. Multiple publications are also rarer than high board scores.

well... .actually while someone who's demonstrated some academic interest is by and large attractive, some programs point blank dont look for or favor PhDs or researchers. Its not their bent. Also a PhD isnt rare at all in this feild. However because of that the directors who *are* interested in the researching types try to balance their group. So dont think ranklists automatically go from MD/PhD with reserach down to the lowly MD with none. Its not that rigid at all.

 

[RadOncFever]

I completely agree. I am a mudphud that got interviews from most of the big academic centers, but talking to other mudphuds on the trail, did not receive the interviews from the same places. We came to the conclusion that while big academic centers with heavy research emphasis would favor interviewing those with extensive research background, it also makes sense that some other programs, albeit being strong in clinical training, would favor to interview straight MDs since their emphasis is to train strong clinicians and not necessarily strong researchers. There is probably a bias that if you are too focused into research, you are somehow deficient or less motivated clinically. I disagree with that bias, since I love both, but that is just my opinion....

 

[stephew]

I completely agree. I am a mudphud that got interviews from most of the big academic centers, but talking to other mudphuds on the trail, did not receive the interviews from the same places. We came to the conclusion that while big academic centers with heavy research emphasis would favor interviewing those with extensive research background, it also makes sense that some other programs, albeit being strong in clinical training, would favor to interview straight MDs since their emphasis is to train strong clinicians and not necessarily strong researchers. There is probably a bias that if you are too focused into research, you are somehow deficient or less motivated clinically. I disagree with that bias, since I love both, but that is just my opinion....

This is about right and additionally, many big names places dont want all research oriented people. They like a mix. Which of course via the match you cant guarentee - lord knows Hopkins for the life of them can't seem to match more than one female every couple of years and its nothing to do with unfair ranking practices.

And you are right that if the vibe is that a person is more interested in research than clinical work that this is often a big ding. Let me be clear: this is not to say anyone things good reseachers cant be good clinicians. However i can tell you that someone who doesnt seem "involved" in the clincal side of things can slide way down a match list.