2018 Match

[Guest]

(03-23-2018, 11:07 PM)Guest Wrote: ^^now programs are requiring a research year or a PhD for an interview? this process has turned into a joke. that is a terrible precedent to set for future applicants. adding more years to an already inefficient process. fortunately the program was already going downhill anyway. I hope other programs do not follow suit. So many things wrong with this whole concept, it’s almost as if people are intentionally trying to bring down this specialty.

I interviewed with people at MGH this year who did not take a year for research or do a PhD. The initial poster is right that MGH and other academic programs do select for a track record of research productivity, which happens to be easier to attain when applicants take extra time. But the extra time in and of itself is certainly not a prerequisite.

[Guest]

i'm dense af. but is "manuscripts only" saying papers only?

[Guest]

(03-25-2018, 06:22 PM)Guest Wrote: i'm dense af. but is "manuscripts only" saying papers only?

yes.

[Guest]

(03-23-2018, 11:07 PM)Guest Wrote: ^^now programs are requiring a research year or a PhD for an interview? this process has turned into a joke. that is a terrible precedent to set for future applicants. adding more years to an already inefficient process. fortunately the program was already going downhill anyway. I hope other programs do not follow suit. So many things wrong with this whole concept, it’s almost as if people are intentionally trying to bring down this specialty.

Although I definitely do not agree that a research year / PhD should be required for an interview, your thinking on this is so backwards. Bringing the speciality down? Seriously? NSGs involved in basic science are the leaders of the field. Research is what drives innovation. All I'm saying is time spent doing research is far from time wasted.

[Guest]

(03-26-2018, 05:30 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-23-2018, 11:07 PM)Guest Wrote: ^^now programs are requiring a research year or a PhD for an interview? this process has turned into a joke. that is a terrible precedent to set for future applicants. adding more years to an already inefficient process. fortunately the program was already going downhill anyway. I hope other programs do not follow suit. So many things wrong with this whole concept, it’s almost as if people are intentionally trying to bring down this specialty.

Although I definitely do not agree that a research year / PhD should be required for an interview, your thinking on this is so backwards. Bringing the speciality down? Seriously? NSGs involved in basic science are the leaders of the field. Research is what drives innovation. All I'm saying is time spent doing research is far from time wasted.

Research year/PhD are not at all required, I agree. This is definitely not bringing the specialty down. Neurosurgery has always done well because we have led the way when it comes to things as varied as imaging and cell/molecular based technology in addition to surgery.

[Guest]

(03-26-2018, 09:23 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-26-2018, 05:30 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-23-2018, 11:07 PM)Guest Wrote: ^^now programs are requiring a research year or a PhD for an interview? this process has turned into a joke. that is a terrible precedent to set for future applicants. adding more years to an already inefficient process. fortunately the program was already going downhill anyway. I hope other programs do not follow suit. So many things wrong with this whole concept, it’s almost as if people are intentionally trying to bring down this specialty.

Although I definitely do not agree that a research year / PhD should be required for an interview, your thinking on this is so backwards. Bringing the speciality down? Seriously? NSGs involved in basic science are the leaders of the field. Research is what drives innovation. All I'm saying is time spent doing research is far from time wasted.

Research year/PhD are not at all required, I agree. This is definitely not bringing the specialty down. Neurosurgery has always done well because we have led the way when it comes to things as varied as imaging and cell/molecular based technology in addition to surgery.

 No one has said that it is required. However, the data does seem to support  some more favorable outcomes for these applicants.

[Guest]

No one said that research is bringing the field down. They said that making the research year a requirement would. Residency is already long enough and medical school could be shorter as well. No need to add requirements that will probably add lower quality research just to impress. Innovators in the field will be innovators without a forced year of research in medical school, when they still know nothing about neurosurgery.

[Guest]

(03-27-2018, 03:18 PM)Guest Wrote: No one said that research is bringing the field down. They said that making the research year a requirement would. Residency is already long enough and medical school could be shorter as well. No need to add requirements that will probably add lower quality research just to impress. Innovators in the field will be innovators without a forced year of research in medical school, when they still know nothing about neurosurgery.

It was pretty clear that programs saw right through B.S. research/CV padding on the trail. They were happy to call applicants out on it. A year taken off for research is a year wasted if it doesn't produce something of value.

[Guest]

I think it'll be up after a few more weeks

[Guest]

(03-20-2018, 10:52 PM)MrGyrus Wrote: Here is the report and an analysis of the date. BTW, two other surveys have been filled out since my last export. But it shouldn't change the analysis too much.

---

Here is the Raw Data file

---

Hope you all find this useful

---

Let me know if you have any questions.

How do we know that these are legit? Can’t random people put in random stats?