<p>Do top medical schools ("top 15" or so) have any interest in educating doctors that have no interest in research or academic medicine? I guess what I'm asking is whether or not it is possible to get into a top school without a substantial research background, but on the other hand, lots of hospital service/health-related work experience?</p>
<p>Yes, it's possible. No school is so bent on research that it shuns clinical medicine entirely.</p>
<p>thanks for the response.</p>
<p>so would you say that a public med school dedicated to primary care would be a better environment than a top school that leans more towards research for someone interested mostly in primary care?</p>
<p>I don't know if I want to make any blanket statements. Visit the schools you're really interested in, see if you can sit in on some classes, meet some students, etc. When you get that warm, fuzzy feeling, you're home.</p>
<p>Also check the match lists of fourth year students to see the type of programs they enter. Some schools, e.g., University of Washington are very strong in both areas. Although, I am not a big fan of rankings, they have some use as a general guide. You may want to see which schools in U.S. News have high rankings as a research and primary care program. Most of the very top medical schools like to think they are training academicians; however, I would say the trend is changing from the past. I recently attended my class reunion at medical school noted primarily for its production of leading academicians, and about half of my cassmates were in non-academic positions, whether it be in private practice, administration, government, or industry.</p>
<p>It's always possible, but these schools usually have 90%+ of their students having done undergrad work in college. If you want to go to a research-heavy school, you should do research in undergrad -- locking yourself into that 10% really, really isn't a safe bet.</p>
<p>Besides which -- trust me, these schools are going to be talking about research a lot, and some of them (Stanford, Yale, Duke) are actually going to require you to do some. Research-heavy residencies (surprise) will have research years as a part of their curriculum.</p>
<p>I think what BDM says is generally true. Research universities want applicants who have research experience, and future academicians. Even if one were interested in primary care medicine, they are looking for students who will be leaders and teachers in that field rather than a physician who will be in private practice. Having said that, it does not always turn out that way when looking at the ultimate directions that graduates take. Still, I know that places like Harvard and Hopkins typically have over 60% of their graduates in academia although that may have decreased in recent times. Academic medicine can include teaching, clinical research, in addition or instead of what undergrads will think of as bench research.</p>
<p>As far as research in residency goes. It is rare that one can do any significant research in most residencies. There simply is not enough elective time to do so. On the other hand, physicians who pursue a subspecialty fellowship can and will often spend signficant amounts of their time to do research. Going to a more-recognized medical school will not necessarily give you a better clinical education; however, like it or not, it probably will give you significant advantages to applying for top residencies, particularly highly competitive fields that have very limited slots e.g., ophthalmology, dermatology, radiology, etc. I have been on medical school and residency selection committees-the perceived strength and rigor of the medical school program-not necessarily the clinical training which presumably comes later-does make a difference in how applicants are evaluated.</p>
<p>An increasing number of residencies at academic medical centers are including mandatory research years in their curricula. All the surgical residencies at my school have expanded from five to seven years to accomodate two years of exclusive research time.</p>
<p>What I said applies mostly to medicine, pediatrics, and OB-GYN residencies. For surgery, many residencies in the specialty areas of surgery at top academic centers (including Duke) may require some research. However, this is not the case for programs outside major academic centers. Additionally, these specialty areas are pursued after one or more years of general surgery residency. It still is unusual for residents in general surgery to pursue research.</p>
<p>While I think such emphases on research may be worthwhile to train future academic surgeons, not all surgical residents are enthusiastic to participate. For some, it is something they put up with in order to train in a top program. Several friends, who are Ph.D. research scientists who belong to surgical research labs, have commented at the lack of enthusiasm among surgical residents at some of the very top programs. They seem to be marking time rather than trying to develop their research skills. This is not always the case, as the same drive and persistence that is required for surgery, can also lead to a brilliant career that combines surgery with research. Some examples that come to mind are Steve Rosenberg of NCI who is a leader in gene therapy who as a fairly young surgeon also oversaw Reagen's surgery after an assasination attempt, and Pat Donohoe who is a pediatric urologist at Mass General and has done ground breaking basic and surgical research in reproductive endocrinology.</p>
<p>At least at my school*, general surgery residents definitely do have two years of set-aside research.</p>
<p>They generally are excited about that time but not because of the research itself; they're simply burned out from the surgery years and look forward to the "break".</p>
<p>*I did my undergraduate work at Duke but did not remain there for medical school.</p>
<p>what about the difference between clinical vs. laboratory research in undergrad? Does that make a difference?</p>