Competing for competitive residency positions harder than getting into med school?

[battleford]

I think the competitive residencies are much harder.

 

1. With medical school, you cannot look at the % of successful applicants. Because there's certain number of people who are applying who just have no shot.

 

2. With residency, everyone has already cleared the first hurdle, so now you have the top people from the premed pool. The competitive specialties attract the cream of that crop.

[Real Beef]

Inquiry: If you have research from previous degrees (i.e. Grad school) how would this match up to people who do research in medical school that is non-specialty specific?

 

I mean I have health related research in my MPH degree. Would I need to scramble and try and be a research whiz as much as another med student who had no research at all? Obviously I would want specialty specific research if I were gunning for something.

[NLengr]

Everyone applying to a competitive specialty has multiple publications in 'well-acclaimed' journals. This isn't even an exception, but just the minimum to get yourself into the game.

 

That's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. But most people applying to competitive specialties have some published specialty related research in a relevant journal.

I matched to a top 5 competitive specialty in the most popular program in the country, I certainly didn't have the credentials your describe. I don't think most people do.

 

I always end up repeating this: Research is a small part of being a competative candidate. The most important factors are:

1) Work Ethic

2) Like-able

3) General intelligence/knowledge

 

Everything else is gravy and a weakness in one area can be compensated for. If you are deficient in 1, 2 or 3 you will have a tough time matching.

[1234]

Inquiry: If you have research from previous degrees (i.e. Grad school) how would this match up to people who do research in medical school that is non-specialty specific?

 

I mean I have health related research in my MPH degree. Would I need to scramble and try and be a research whiz as much as another med student who had no research at all? Obviously I would want specialty specific research if I were gunning for something.

 

No, you have an advantage. But you should continue with some of the work you did in your masters.

 

One of the biggest things Carms admissions boards like to see is consistency. If you are changing your interests every 6 months, they start to worry that you are at risk of switching programs half way into PGY1 and leave the program down a resident (their second biggest fear, second to having a resident that they absolutely despise),

[1234]

That's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. But most people applying to competitive specialties have some published specialty related research in a relevant journal.

I matched to a top 5 competitive specialty in the most popular program in the country, I certainly didn't have the credentials your describe. I don't think most people do.

 

I always end up repeating this: Research is a small part of being a competative candidate. The most important factors are:

1) Work Ethic

2) Like-able

3) General intelligence/knowledge

 

Everything else is gravy and a weakness in one area can be compensated for. If you are deficient in 1, 2 or 3 you will have a tough time matching.

 

I would generally agree. But the caveat is that the list you provided are more specific to sites where you actually did electives. Research leapfrogs a lot of that when you haven't been to a site and you are going for something more competitive.

[Lactic Folly]

No, you have an advantage. But you should continue with some of the work you did in your masters.

 

One of the biggest things Carms admissions boards like to see is consistency.

 

This is a good point that I haven't seen raised very often yet. Most people have excellent records which gained them admission to medical school. However, some have continued to excel during medical school, whether that be in research productivity, leadership initiatives, or superlative clinical evaluations, which distinguishes them from others in their class.

[rogerroger]

 

I always end up repeating this: Research is a small part of being a competative candidate. The most important factors are:

1) Work Ethic

2) Like-able

3) General intelligence/knowledge

 

Well said. If I was to sum up all my clerkship AND CaRMS advice into one sentence it would be this:

 

Performance in clerkship and CaRMS is almost entirely about how well you play with others.

 

This means being the guy who is pleasant to work with, and is ok digging in and plugging away and getting stuff done. Yeah, this sounds easy, I know. Sometimes it is easy. But sometimes on a service you despise while post-call the challenge factor in this regards goes up several notches.

 

It is in these situations as a clerk you start to notice some are better than others at this skill. I think many prior to clerkship would be surprised by how many struggle with this type of social tactfulness. But with this said, many are also superstars and easy and pleasurable to be around. You want to make sure you are in the later group.