Something not discussed regarding masters degrees

[garceyues]

Whenever the question comes up as to whether someone should do a masters to get into medical school, the usual response seems to be that it isn't worth it purely for the sake of admission. However, the degree can provide a slight boost to GPA, research experience/publications, set you up for an alternate career etc. However, there is one topic that I don't see discussed very much: is a masters degree worth it to match into a competitive residency?

It seems to be the case that research productivity and publications are a very important component of matching to competitive residencies, alongside having relevant electives and good reference letters (with ECs playing a smaller role). Given that research and publications are almost required to even have a chance at a competitive residency match, would it be a good idea to do a masters before or during medical school to get adequate research experience and some publications? I know that it is possible to get publications and research experience during medical school, but time is obviously limited during 3 or 4 years of intense learning, shadowing, doing other activities etc. 

Of course, this is all contingent upon someone actually gaining admission to med, but let’s assume that is the case for the sake of argument here. Is a masters degree almost necessary now to be safe in matching to a competitive residency? 

[IMislove]

4 hours ago, garceyues said:

Is a masters degree almost necessary now to be safe in matching to a competitive residency? 

Not at all. Research done in a master may not be related to the field you wanna get in. Research done in med school is plenty, and even then, some people match to competitive specialities without. It's been shown many times over that elective experience and reference letters are most important. Now with the current situation, research may play a bigger role, but again that can be done in medical school. IDK about you, but I know very few grad student (e.g not any) who did research in competitive surgical or medical fields. Master can be done during residency, and probably encouraged in some programs.

[Bambi]

I am a surgical resident in a small competitive field. I had no research experience whatsoever. There were 40 Interviewees, most highly competitive gunners, for just 3 positions. I was selected solely because I was considered to be a good fit. Not one of the gunners were selected. I don’t know that research is going to give you a step up. Face time is all important so they actually know you other than on paper and through a short interview.

[Edict]

14 hours ago, garceyues said:

Whenever the question comes up as to whether someone should do a masters to get into medical school, the usual response seems to be that it isn't worth it purely for the sake of admission. However, the degree can provide a slight boost to GPA, research experience/publications, set you up for an alternate career etc. However, there is one topic that I don't see discussed very much: is a masters degree worth it to match into a competitive residency?

It seems to be the case that research productivity and publications are a very important component of matching to competitive residencies, alongside having relevant electives and good reference letters (with ECs playing a smaller role). Given that research and publications are almost required to even have a chance at a competitive residency match, would it be a good idea to do a masters before or during medical school to get adequate research experience and some publications? I know that it is possible to get publications and research experience during medical school, but time is obviously limited during 3 or 4 years of intense learning, shadowing, doing other activities etc. 

Of course, this is all contingent upon someone actually gaining admission to med, but let’s assume that is the case for the sake of argument here. Is a masters degree almost necessary now to be safe in matching to a competitive residency? 

I'm going to disagree with the other posters and say that it doesn't hurt. It really ultimately depends on the specialty you end up wanting. There is a common theme of research, so even if your masters research is not in the specialty you apply to, it still helps. The best masters to do is likely clinical epidemiology, which is outcomes research. It's broadly applicable and you learn skills and stats that will help you do research in any specialty. Additionally, once you've done the masters, your efficiency at doing research is enhanced as well so you will be more productive doing research in med school. It's a lot easier to do clin epi research after a masters than before one and in many specialties these days, physicians get masters in clin epi degrees during med school, residency or in early staff. 

It isn't unreasonable to do a masters in my opinion, it just depends on what you want. A masters without a doubt can give a slight bump to GPA, give you a stronger resume and set you up for an alternative career and it can help for residency matching, but just keep in mind that statistically most residencies don't really care. In only a few specialties and locations do they really look at publications with any real degree of care. 

[1D7]

The research you publish during your MSc is unlikely to be related to the specialty you want to enter and thus will be pretty low impact directly. You may also find yourself wanting a specialty that doesn't really care much about research. IMO the helpful part is helping open doors for better/more research during medical school and padding your CV with something meatier.

So even considering the slight boost it may give you for certain residencies, overall I still don't think spending 2 yrs is worth it (unless it's something you enjoy or would have otherwise pursued anyway).

[Snowmen]

Also, you need to get into medical school before worrying about residency.