Research done by most residents is largely a pro-forma illusion to give program directors the impression you have done something worthwhile.
I rarely have seen a resident sincerely interested in advancing medicine. I see people EVERY DAY competing for high payed subspecialty fellowships.
Oh how I long for a genuine desire to eradicate illness.
Research is hard to measure for most program directors. A published article in peer reviewed journals is very clear, but “I was in the lab” for a few months is hard to measure.
If there are two applicants of equal value, both with similar school and USMLE scores, then research will make a difference.
A small project completed all the way and presented at a meeting of for publication is MUCH better than just a rotation.
Generally, research performance is not looked at until after you are invited for interview. this is a big disadvantage if you are someone who had many meaningful peer-reviewed publications and you are concerned people will not see them.
This is because residency is a CLINICAL event and most program directors are much, much more concerned that you can function clinically with patients rather than in a lab.
What is ‘Meaningful’ research experience?
It is an experience that results in a publication in the peer reviewed medical literature.
I understand completely that it is VERY difficult to have enough time as a student to do this, but that is why it is a competition.
If you have two students from the same type of school and the scores and transcripts are roughly equal, then research productivity will make a difference.
Research value is VERY subjective. Some directors will make huge value judgements on having publications. Some may value it MORE than the interview.
Also, ‘hanging around’ a lab is not too valuable. A SMALL project you can complete is MUCH more valuable than just ‘participating’ in something big.
Send in your questions.
Conrad Fischer's Blog 