ranklist09 - 06 March 2009 12:13 PM

D. muscipula, thanks for your post. It’s always nice to read the opinions on this website, as they’re often thoughtful and provoking. I had an unrelated inquiry about neurosurgical personality. We had an attending surgeon (not neuro-) explain to us that as we rotate through clerkship year, we’ll come to find that we vibe with certain specialists over others-that we’ll naturally enjoy being around people working in particular fields. Is there a distinctive neurosurgical personality or commonality that many/most neurosurgical trainees possess? Thanks.

Interesting question - perhaps best addressed as a new topic?

Neurosurg_Applicant - 06 March 2009 10:38 AM

serious nerd question: did you get preliminary data during your PhD for a later K08 or whatever early-career grant? or are you planning on this during your research years in residency?

did you rank any programs with 1 year of research?

Great question! (Nerd.) lol

So, there are difficulties of eligibility for the K08 or K23 grants for residents. For these you need: preliminary data, a 3-5 year project, to devote 75% of your time to it, and you must have a full-time faculty appointment (probably the rank of “Instructor” would be sufficient). So, it would be tough, but I suppose it could be done with the support of your chair/faculty. I actually breached this very subject during interviews with various chairs and, although none gave promises or specifics, two were rather positive and only one had a negative reaction to it.

The NIH F32 NRSA (still quite competitive/prestigious as you would be competing with PhD-only candidates) is more appropriate for most ambitious residents. You don’t necessarily need preliminary data for these, but I think it is certainly helpful.

As far as ranking programs with “only” 12 mos research time… I did. However, I did a postdoc after MD/PhD and so 1 versus 2 years of research during residency was not a huge concern. I was more concerned with the sense of flexibility of the PDs/Chairs/curriculum so that I felt I had several options… from being hardcore research guy even outside the prescribed research years… to getting an MBA or MPH instead… to doing an infolded fellowship to fast track to Assistant Professordom. So, it depends on what you are looking for. Definitely something to probe during interviews as attitudes vary.

ranklist09 - 06 March 2009 10:46 AM

Seems like many people’s advice is to do a PhD because that’s what you want to do-not for any other reasons such as it improving your chances of successful match. I want to know what this advice is based on-is it based on experienced?-who have you actually spoken to that has had a disaster because they went into a PhD for other reasons...? Or better yet, who after completing a PhD would ever admit that they went into it for “impure” reasons and I quote “impure” because reasons are personal and don’t belong within the realm of objectivity as we commonly think of objective (24 hrs/day)-they belong in the objective realm of subjective truth.

When I was in my PhD years, I know that the chief resident at my institution did not initially match into neurosurgery.  He then got a PhD, re-applied, and got in.  So yeah people do it to improve a CV.  Everyone has their own reasons, but statistically less than 75% of Mudphuds finish the PhD, however most finish the MD.  Also the NIH now has CTSTP (clinical translational scientist training program) because the hard core basic sci research MuDPhuDs tend to do takes forever to reach the clinic.

Think that you can take more hits to your overall application with a PhD (i.e. have a lower board score).  I personally have never been to a neurosurgical conference, done neurosurgical research etc (a lot of things that other candidates have done showing their dedication to the field).  BUT no-one seemed to care.  I definitely thinked the PhD helped me get more interviews.

buscephalus - 07 March 2009 09:24 AM

ranklist09 - 06 March 2009 10:46 AM

Seems like many people’s advice is to do a PhD because that’s what you want to do-not for any other reasons such as it improving your chances of successful match. I want to know what this advice is based on-is it based on experienced?-who have you actually spoken to that has had a disaster because they went into a PhD for other reasons...? Or better yet, who after completing a PhD would ever admit that they went into it for “impure” reasons and I quote “impure” because reasons are personal and don’t belong within the realm of objectivity as we commonly think of objective (24 hrs/day)-they belong in the objective realm of subjective truth.

When I was in my PhD years, I know that the chief resident at my institution did not initially match into neurosurgery.  He then got a PhD, re-applied, and got in.  So yeah people do it to improve a CV.  Everyone has their own reasons, but statistically less than 75% of Mudphuds finish the PhD, however most finish the MD.  Also the NIH now has CTSTP (clinical translational scientist training program) because the hard core basic sci research MuDPhuDs tend to do takes forever to reach the clinic.

Think that you can take more hits to your overall application with a PhD (i.e. have a lower board score).  I personally have never been to a neurosurgical conference, done neurosurgical research etc (a lot of things that other candidates have done showing their dedication to the field).  BUT no-one seemed to care.  I definitely thinked the PhD helped me get more interviews.

Where can I find out more about this CTSP?