Research experience for Carms Application

[Guest Rome1]

Although Carms application is a long time away, I have heard people talking about doing research electives and how this can enhance one’s application. Could someone be able to shine some light on how important is research experience for your Carms application? I did not take on any research projects in undergrad and now in medical school, don’t feel too comfortable spending time in the lab during elective time that I could be seeing patients in the wards.

 

Would anyone be able to comment on specific specialities or even schools that value a person’s research experience?

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi there,

 

As mentioned in another thread, I was speaking to a Residency Program Director today and the topic of the importance of research came up during our talk. Essentially he feels that the top two components of a medical student's residency application are: 1) electives; 2) research in the field. He said that both activities within a given field demonstrate a proven interest in the field and that research, especially, is becoming an increasingly important factor in the residency application process.

 

A few specific points are of interest. Firstly, apparently some selection committees look very carefully at research productivity, especially that which has been generated during medical school years. They do this, I'm told, as they know that some students were quite productive in research prior to medical school for various reasons, e.g., completing a graduate degree prior, or being in a lab with a very productive supervisor. Thus, research which has taken place during the medical school years is very valuable to them, again, especially if it has been completed in the field to which the candidate is applying for residency. Secondly, one of the reasons why many electives in the field of interest are positive is because programs often have a very difficult time recruiting the resources, i.e., doctors, required to conduct interviews. This is one reason why Program Committees often choose a very short list of candidates for interviews. Thus, those candidates who have an application that clearly demonstrates an interest in that field and program will have the best chance of receiving an interview.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest Rome1]

Thanks for your reply Kirsteen. I can see how having research in the field under your belt can enhance your application, but is this always the case, or do some shools/ specialities value this more than others?

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi again,

 

The importance of research in recruiting residents will probably vary between schools and specialties, for example, if you look at the CaRMS pages of the big research schools they often clearly state that research is an asset to some degree. The push for research is often embedded in the schools' mandates/mission statements so it follows that they're keen on recruiting those who are keen on research. What I found interesting though, was that this Program Director was from UofC--not generally one of the most highly ranked schools in terms of research activity. To boot, they noted that research was becoming increasingly important to Program Directors in many disciplines (per the consensus at a recent Program Directors' meeting).

 

My feeling is that research within a residency application for some selection committees might be less about recruiting those who are interested in research and more about identifying those who are interested in the specialty as evidenced by their research productivity within the field. After all, on paper it can otherwise be tough to tell which applicant is truly gunning for that specialty and who is in need of a back-up if their primary choice doesn't happen.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest peachy]

Any comments about how important research that is unrelated to your chosen specialty is? That is, would research productivity that happens to be in another area still be a significant asset?

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hey again,

 

A caveat: first let's take these comments for what they are: my interpretation of the opinions of one Program Director at one Canadian school.

 

In terms of research value and CaRMS, the feeling that I received was that research productivity was valued in the following order:

 

1) Research conducted within the specialty during the medical school years.

2) Research conducted within the specialty prior to medical school.

3) Any other research.

 

Again, mine is a subjective point of view and an interpretation of a the opinion of someone at a school where research experience might be used to gauge true interest in a given specialty (in addition to electives and selectives). This value of research might differ at schools such as UofT, McGill or UBC where research skills, irrespective of field, might be highly valued and perhaps viewed as a good basis for a clinical academic career. Research value might also be viewed quite differently depending on the personal philosophy of the Program Director.

 

However, a couple of things to note: 1) this is not the first time I've heard the above, especially re: productivity during medical school--a pal of mine spoke to another person on a completely different selection committee who noted similar points; 2) it's probably safe to say that if you manage to conduct some research--even a little bit--in the field to which you're aiming most of your CaRMS efforts, then you're truly putting your money where your application is. After all, it's hard to refute an applicant's interest in a given field if they have relevant research experience since research can be a complete slog and a good self-deterrant if the individual has no interest in the subject matter.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

Being in the midst of the CaRMS slog, I'd tend to agree with Kirsteen's assertions thus far- that research is definitely an asset if you have it, moreso if applying to the more research-oriented schools (ie: UT, UBC) in specific fields, and definitely a must if you are planning on pursuing a Clinician Scientist/Investigator Program (CIP) to do your residency in. Research can definitely make or break you in particularly competitive specialties (ie: derm, plastics), but unless you are applying to an overly competitive program like those ones, I wouldn't sweat it too much if you don't have any research on your CV.

I mean, sure, research is nice to have, even if it is from your undergraduate degree (anything is better than nothing), but I don't think that it is necessary to lose sleep over not having anything to put under that section come CaRMS time. Besides, often the decision on what field to pursue comes late to a 3rd year medical student, much too late to run out and sign on to do any significant research in your given field- that's what research electives are for, and even then, their utility depends on the field you are going into- the family medicine programs don't expect you to have two or three research electives in family on your application (although, as Kirsteen mentioned, it does demonstrate interest, and would make you a virtual lock for any family medicine program in the country, although that's a pretty extreme example).

Personally, I think that clinical electives in a given field demonstrate as much interest as research electives do and I'd much rather be out seeing patients and gaining experience (and hopefully a decent letter!) in my field of interest than pouring over a big pile of charts trying to determine how much marginally better one treatment outcome is than another.

You'll get lots of chances to do research as a resident- I say save it until then! Besides, most programs teach you research methods and critical appraisal as part of their core programs anyway, so what's the rush? I'd rather be a strong clinician first and a bad researcher heading into a residency program than an okay clinician and a competent researcher, but that's just me. I know that others are different and more power to them- research is good- it's just not for me!

 

Best of luck!

Timmy

[Guest Valani9]

I still think the most important factor is simply how much the faculty like you and how impressed they are with you as a person. Think about it - what would be the most important thing to you, if you were selecting a candidate?

 

That said, research is still a great asset. I wouldn't worry if your work was done before your MD degree. When they look at your publications, they're not going to check the dates and try to figure out exactly when you were working on a given project.

 

And if you don't have research - don't worry about it! If they like you, and have a good feeling about you, that will do so much more for you than a few publications.

 

good luck!

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hey there Valani9,

 

Just a few comments in response: I agree that the faculty and residents need to like you as a person and feel that they can work with you, and that's the purpose of the interview and the reference letters. However, the letters in addition to the elective rotations and research is apparently what wins applicants interviews to demonstrate their affability for some residency programs.

 

Contrary to what you'd mentioned re: research done before medical school and checking of research dates by selection committees, the Program Director did emphasize, much to my surprise, that they do look very carefully at when the research was completed. He noted, for example, that there are many medical students who completed graduate degrees or research prior to entering medical school, and in some cases, out of necessity, not out of the sheer enjoyment of it. Thus, he noted that applicants' research track records are picked over quite carefully before a score is assigned to that component of the application.

 

Ultimately, there are a number of factors which are important in gaining entry to the residency of your choice and these differ by school and program. Research, electives, letters and whether you're a likeable person are but a few that are considered important in general.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest Valani9]

Yeah, I guess I just disagree with that, based on my experience. I've had more than a few selection committee people tell me that the most important factor is simply what their impression is of you (from meeting you, from letters, etc.) Similarly, all I've heard about research is that it really doesn't matter when you did it (though I'm sure it's good to continue it through the med school years).

 

Bottom line - research, electives, etc. are all great. BUT - you will not get into any program - no matter how many publications you have - if the staff doesn't like you, and get a good feeling about you.

 

So do your research, pad your resume - it will only help you. But never at the expense of just being a nice, interested person.

[Guest cheech10]

On the other hand, few people can really differentiate themselves from the pack in a 30 minute interview. My feeling is that the interview only solidifies their impression of you from the paper application, and you just have to make sure you don't screw it up. Most med students are intelligent, highly-motivated, hard working people who genuinely want to be in the programs that they apply to and have at least acceptable social skills, so they'll be an acceptable addition to any residency program. I'd say 10% of people are social all-stars and will make a strong positive impression at interview, 5% are poor interviewers, and the ranking of the rest will not be affected much by the interview. So electives, research, and performance on the wards/reference letters are the things that are really in the applicant's control as far as making a good impression. These are just my thoughts, although I've heard them echoed by some faculty, and I'd appreciate any feedback from others.

[Guest noncestvrai]

Ok, I have to agree with Vilani, why? Simply because at the point of the interview, you will have enough "credentials" to be worthy of the position, and that the interview will be the time to make these shine or even add more. That's my opinion, I'm not a PD!

 

In terms of research, it is totally program and location dependent. Truth to be told, research in the field, may it be during or after or before medschool is the important thing. Let's say you did a PhD in the molecular genetics of basal cell carcinoma vs doing a few case reports on some interesting mole, the former will have the edge in the research category, again I'm saying this as a lowly medstudent, as this will show interest in the field one's applying.

 

As well, I imagine that research is more icing on the cake, and that ref. letters, personal statement and clinical evals are the key ingredients to get an interview. If one is wise, one will tailor these accordingly, if applying to a research intensive program.

 

noncestvrai

[Guest TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

I agree with cheech- it is the interview that will play the greatest role in whether you are ultimately accepted or not, not the sheer volume of research that you have done. If you are a jerk or have the people skills of a hermit, then you're probably not going to be offered a spot, no matter how much research you have done (within reason and depending on the program director, who himself may have the social skills of a hermit).

Program directors are looking for residents who are likeable, like-minded and ultimately will get along with each other over the next five or so years. Remember that these people will end up on the same call schedule and in close quarters with each other for the next five years and who wants to be on the same team as someone who's always ducking out of call or their clinical responsibilities to attend to their research or furthering their own personal careers?

While research can give you a leg up on the competition, especially in uber-competitive fields, it is ultimately the person that you are and how well you are able to convey that you are a match for a given program that will determine whether you get a spot there or not.

 

Best of luck!

Timmy

[Guest kosmo14]

Its funny how we all seem to know what it takes to get in, but for the most part even the residents in thier respective fields don't know what really got them the position. Remember every program is different with a different selection committee/PD, and each will value different things. Some programs will make a big deal out of research while others don't care at all.

[Guest TimmyMax]

Hey,

 

Some programs will make a big deal out of research while others don't care at all.

 

Very true. Pretty much says it all!

 

Best of luck!

Timmy

[Guest Rome1]

Hey everyone,

 

thanks for all your valuable comments, I think I will have to sit down and figure out what programs I'm interested in and then take a look at how much each of the school value research.

 

Have a happy new Year!!!