PurposeThe goal of this manuscript is to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of a 3‐year medical physics residency program with the first year dedicated to research and the remaining 2 years dedicated to clinical training.MethodsAn anonymous survey was distributed to graduates of a 3‐year medical physics residency program with a dedicated year of research. Questions focused on several categories: (1) in retrospect, factors graduates considered at the time of application, (2) aspects of respondents’ career and life after graduating from residency, (3) respondents’ opinions on the residency duration, and (4) research productivity during residency.ResultsOf 22 graduates who were contacted, 17 filled out the survey. In retrospect, the most impactful consideration at the time of application was quality of clinical training. Extra time for research was reported as the factor with the most positive career impact and financial considerations as the most negative impact of completing a 3‐year residency. Preference for a 3‐year residency at the time of application and in retrospect was expressed by 47% and 88% of respondents, respectively. 71% of respondents would recommend applying to a 3‐year program to current residency candidates, and 29% respondents said their recommendation on entering a 3‐year program would depend on the candidate's interests. 76% of respondents preferred dedicated time for research during residency.ConclusionsThe optimal duration of medical physics residency depends on the goals and career objectives of the incoming residents. Two years may be an optimal duration for clinical training. For candidates interested in a career with a substantial research component, a 3‐year program may be a good option, and graduates express favorable opinions after completing such a program. A 4‐year residency duration is not viewed favorably by the graduates.
