Yale Psych drama and current state of the program

[milan95]

Hello,

There has been yale PD drama that has been making waves. Psychiatry residents voice concern over new program director

If there are any residents or those affiliated with the program willing to comment, can we get some insight into any resident concerns with the program? Do you feel supported at Yale? Is the training actually strong? What is the program culture like? Are residents cohesive? What are the attendings like?

Thank you!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Seems like Yale Psychiatry has been a frequent battlefield in the woke culture wars these past few years.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

So...let me get this straight. The residents are outraged because:

1) in a survey circulated in the program, Wasser only mustered a 4 percent approval rating from residents (but we aren't given any additional information about why)
2) In Wasser’s interview with residents, according to Godley, Wasser fielded questions about how he planned to support residents of color in the program, especially because, unlike the other two candidates — both Black women — Wasser was a white man with limited DEI experience. [but the author/article provides ZERO specifics about his answers to these questions and--I suppose--we are supposed to presume that they were offensive or unacceptable in some way?]
3) Based on the results of the search (and, I presume, the residents' expressed preferences via the survey) SOMEONE ELSE was initially offered the position but ultimately couldn't accept it
4) Ultimately, the faculty determined that Wasser was an acceptable candidate (at the last minute?) based on his actual record of performance over the years to serve in the position and offered him the position
5) Basically the residents (at least some vocal ones) are outraged that Wasser is a white man and not a black woman

I didn't see anywhere in the article where residents were even claiming (let alone providing specifics) that Wasser wasn't qualified for the position (based on merit, experience, scholarship, clinical experience--or lack thereof) or that he had said or done things (specific things) that were being pointed to as evidence of some sort of '-ism' that would otherwise disqualify him.

I mean, off-the-record, he may have done such things but are we just to assume that he did because we just want to assume that he did? It's either bad reporting or the story doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Edit: okay, combing over the article again we get: "concerns over Wasser’s “interpersonal leadership skills” and a “lack of empathy, relatability and responsiveness.”"

So, this was their opinion on a survey. Graduate education sure has changed a lot since I was in school...I didn't realize that faculty positions were elected positions based on 'votes' from the student body. Things like 'concerns over interpersonal leadership skills, lack of empathy, relatability, and responsiveness' strike me as pretty non-specific, subject to interpretation, and would need to be examined more closely to see if any 'offense' was actually committed or any breach of ethics.

 

[WisNeuro]

So...let me get this straight. The residents are outraged because:

1) in a survey circulated in the program, Wasser only mustered a 4 percent approval rating from residents (but we aren't given any additional information about why)
2) In Wasser’s interview with residents, according to Godley, Wasser fielded questions about how he planned to support residents of color in the program, especially because, unlike the other two candidates — both Black women — Wasser was a white man with limited DEI experience. [but the author/article provides ZERO specifics about his answers to these questions and--I suppose--we are supposed to presume that they were offensive or unacceptable in some way?]
3) Based on the results of the search (and, I presume, the residents' expressed preferences via the survey) SOMEONE ELSE was initially offered the position but ultimately couldn't accept it
4) Ultimately, the faculty determined that Wasser was an acceptable candidate (at the last minute?) based on his actual record of performance over the years to serve in the position and offered him the position
5) Basically the residents (at least some vocal ones) are outraged that Wasser is a white man and not a black woman

I didn't see anywhere in the article where residents were even claiming (let alone providing specifics) that Wasser wasn't qualified for the position (based on merit, experience, scholarship, clinical experience--or lack thereof) or that he had said or done things (specific things) that were being pointed to as evidence of some sort of '-ism' that would otherwise disqualify him.

I mean, off-the-record, he may have done such things but are we just to assume that he did because we just want to assume that he did? It's either bad reporting or the story doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Sometimes the E in DEI means Exclusion.

 

[Bartelby]

Yeah, I hope there is something about his performance during his time at Yale so far that has provoked such a strong reaction. The article seems to have only one line mentioning actual dislike of his leadership style. If this reaction is based only on his race and sex, that is a pretty sad reflection on the state of affairs at a top program.

 

[nexus73]

Yeah, I hope there is something about his performance during his time at Yale so far that has provoked such a strong reaction. The article seems to have only one line mentioning actual dislike of his leadership style. If this reaction is based only on his race and sex, that is a pretty sad reflection on the state of affairs at a top program.

racist/sexist if that's what's behind it

 

[G Sheb]

Yale is an excellent program with a very benign and supportive culture. They actually do appreciate quality of life for both residents and faculty.

What’s sad in this thread are people jumping to assumptions from a few sentences in an article.
Wasser was already in a leadership position (assistant PD) so the resident body was very much acquainted with him. You think they have reservations just because he’s a white guy? LOL. Please. If they liked him there would not be much of an issue. The previous PD was a white guy but was well beloved by faculty and residents. (Btw I’m not making any claim about wasser, just reading between the lines and from my experience with the program in general at Yale).

And there’s definitely nothing wrong in residents having an important say in choosing someone who’s going to run their lives.
Or valuing a minority PD.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Yale is an excellent program with a very benign and supportive culture. They actually do appreciate quality of life for both residents and faculty.

What’s sad in this thread are people jumping to assumptions from a few sentences in an article.
Wasser was already in a leadership position (assistant PD) so the resident body was very much acquainted with him. You think they have reservations just because he’s a white guy? LOL. Please. If they liked him there would not be much of an issue. The previous PD was a white guy but was well beloved by faculty and residents. (Btw I’m not making any claim about wasser, just reading between the lines and from my experience with the program in general at Yale).

And there’s definitely nothing wrong in residents having an important say in choosing someone who’s going to run their lives.
Or valuing a minority PD.

I think we're just going off what information was given (and, importantly, left out) in the article.

Beyond the issues of 1) he was a white guy and 2) they didn't like him... there don't seem to be any specifics (such as lack of qualifications) cited.

Is it possible that the faculty (and chair) of this 'excellent program with a very benign and supportive culture' that 'appreciate(s) quality of life for both residents and faculty' made a responsible choice (given their choices at the time) to place Wasser in the position?

Are you implying (or are the residents implying) that he was chosen because of his race/sex due to the machinations of 'the racist patriarchy?'

It would have been nice to see a comparison of specifics (in terms of publication history / scholarship, experience, etc.) between Wasser and the alternative candidates to allow the reader of the article to develop an informed opinion of the situation. Wasser's appointment is being presented as somehow 'problematic' but beyond him being found 'unpopular' with residents on that particular survey and being a white guy...the article has very little to say on the matter.

Really, before reading the article, I was expecting at least a couple of 'smoking gun' quotes harvested from his Twitter page ten years ago or some sort of expose on his choice of socks or something. Anything that involved specifics or specific allegations of '-ist' behavior or speech. I was quite disappointed and confused by the lack of specifics in the article. It is reasonable for me not to condemn the man as 'le Bad Man' when specific allegations against him haven't even been made.

 

[Bartelby]

G Sheb, did you read the article? It mentions issues of race and sex probably at least ten times, whereas I noticed only one throwaway line about actual dislike of his leadership style. I agree that is is fairly likely he is being rejected because the residents strongly dislike his leadership style, not mainly because of his race and sex, but I think if that is the case the article does a real disservice in its representation of the situation.

I also agree there is nothing wrong with valuing a minority PD. It sounds like Yale did just that, making two out of three in the finalist pool minority candidates and offering the job to one of the minority candidates. I think the concern comes more if there is blanket opposition to white males in positions of leadership. Without explicitly stating that, through sheer repetition the article seems to frame the situation in those terms (which again very well may be misleading). Posting in a place like this gives an opportunity for people involved to (anonymously) correct those misperceptions.

 

[G Sheb]

I think we're just going off what information was given (and, importantly, left out) in the article.

Beyond the issues of 1) he was a white guy and 2) they didn't like him... there don't seem to be any specifics (such as lack of qualifications) cited.

Is it possible that the faculty (and chair) of this 'excellent program with a very benign and supportive culture' that 'appreciate(s) quality of life for both residents and faculty' made a responsible choice (given their choices at the time) to place Wasser in the position?

Are you implying (or are the residents implying) that he was chosen because of his race/sex due to the machinations of 'the racist patriarchy?'

It would have been nice to see a comparison of specifics (in terms of publication history / scholarship, experience, etc.) between Wasser and the alternative candidates to allow the reader of the article to develop an informed opinion of the situation. Wasser's appointment is being presented as somehow 'problematic' but beyond him being found 'unpopular' with residents on that particular survey and being a white guy...the article has very little to say on the matter.

Really, before reading the article, I was expecting at least a couple of 'smoking gun' quotes harvested from his Twitter page ten years ago or some sort of expose on his choice of socks or something. Anything that involved specifics or specific allegations of '-ist' behavior or speech. I was quite disappointed and confused by the lack of specifics in the article. It is reasonable for me not to condemn the man as 'le Bad Man' when specific allegations against him haven't even been made.

Didn't you just cite where they bring up issues with interpersonal communication and empathy?
You don't think that's part of his "qualifications"? For his position as a PD, that's much more important than research and publications or whatever.

Seems like some people want to rant about 'woke culture'. So I'll leave it at that.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Didn't you just cite where they bring up issues with interpersonal communication and empathy?
You don't think that's part of his "qualifications"? For his position as a PD, that's much more important than research and publications or whatever.

Seems like some people want to rant about 'woke culture'. So I'll leave it at that.

'issues with interpersonal communication and empathy' strike me as interpretations of things that have been experienced or observed--about which reasonable, intelligent, informed, and experienced adults may differ.

If you had a student (or employee) who roasted you to a third party and said that they disliked your 'interpersonal communication style and empathy' wouldn't specifics (facts) of the situation matter or is it enough for the student (or employee) to merely express their opinion/interpretation of your behavior?

Tobias Wasser, MD

Tobias Wasser, MD is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry (Adjunct) in the Law and Psychiatry Division. Dr. Wasser is a clinician-educator whose scholarly work

medicine.yale.edu

Things like research productivity, publications, and even professional accomplishments (listed below and taken from the guy's professional web page) are relevant data to consider when making hiring/ appointment decisions:

Carol Davis Ethics Award	American Psychiatric Association	2021
Law and Psychiatry Faculty Teaching Award	Law and Psychiatry Division, Yale School of Medicine	2021
Resident-Fellow Member Mentor Award	APA Assembly	2018
Best Resident/Fellow Paper	American Association of Psychiatric Administrators	2016
Behavioral Health Leadership Development Program	Substance Abuse and Mental Health Systems Administration (SAMHSA)	2016
Medical Education Fellowship	Yale University School of Medicine, Teaching and Learning Center	2016
Laughlin Family Foundation Merit Award	Laughlin Family Foundation	2014
Howard Zonana Award	Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine	2014
Poster Award for Excellence in Medical Education Research	Yale University School of Medicine	2014
Benjamin S. Bunney Award	Yale Psychiatry Residents Association	2013

 

[PsyDr]

G Sheb, did you read the article? It mentions issues of race and sex probably at least ten times, whereas I noticed only one throwaway line about actual dislike of his leadership style. I agree that is is fairly likely he is being rejected because the residents strongly dislike his leadership style, not mainly because of his race and sex, but I think if that is the case the article does a real disservice in its representation of the situation.

I also agree there is nothing wrong with valuing a minority PD. It sounds like Yale did just that, making two out of three in the finalist pool minority candidates and offering the job to one of the minority candidates. I think the concern comes more if there is blanket opposition to white males in positions of leadership. Without explicitly stating that, through sheer repetition the article seems to frame the situation in those terms (which again very well may be misleading). Posting in a place like this gives an opportunity for people involved to (anonymously) correct those misperceptions.

Even I don't have the stones to argue with the residency director. The fact that residents have that power at Yale, is interesting. With that power, one wonders who invited the psychiatrist in 2021 who said, "I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step, like I did the world a favor...".

If Yale hosts such lectures, and students can direct hiring of leadership based upon class, it's reasonable to think that race is a divisive issue at that program.

*I'll also point out that Yale's quad was designed to hold whatever the Bible says is ideal number of people for the rapture. So, it's not unreasonable to see more militant ideas coming from there.

 

[reca]

Yale is an excellent program with a very benign and supportive culture.

Lol, this is not what I've heard.

 

[milan95]

Lol, this is not what I've heard.

Please tell me more. I want more clarity on the actual program culture

 

[Bartelby]

Lol, this is not what I've heard.

And from the article:

"Only 7 percent of residents were “confident in the leadership of John Krystal as chair of the Department of Psychiatry.”"

And:

"“It’s a classic paradigm of wanting to be perceived as diverse and social justice oriented, but not addressing deeply discriminatory roots,” Marlow added. “Dr. Wasser’s appointment, including the search process and his qualifications, feels like it is imbued with nepotism and maintaining the status quo, since he trained at Yale and was mentored by the same people (in power) that appointed him.”"

It seems the article frames the situation as residents being pretty unhappy with the status quo. When I interviewed at Yale's residency long ago it did seem like the program took resident welfare and work/life balance seriously, for whatever that is worth.

 

[G Sheb]

Lol, this is not what I've heard.

I can only speak of my own experience.

The fact that residents are having a say and take part in recruitment of PD is already ahead of the curve.
Doesn't mean there are no problems or politics or or...

And let's not kid ourselves here. It's no surprise that right wingers come out of the woodwork in these cases with their Fox recordings and start railing against 'woke culture' and 'reverse racism' when they don't have a clue.

 

[WisNeuro]

I can only speak of my own experience.

The fact that residents are having a say and take part in recruitment of PD is already ahead of the curve.
Doesn't mean there are no problems or politics or or...

And let's not kid ourselves here. It's no surprise that right wingers come out of the woodwork in these cases with their Fox recordings and start railing against 'woke culture' and 'reverse racism' when they don't have a clue.

Would it surprise you that left wingers and independents can also have a problem with some of these issues? Or, is everyone right of far left automatically a right winger?

 

[G Sheb]

Would it surprise you that left wingers and independents can also have a problem with some of these issues? Or, is everyone right of far left automatically a right winger?

I mean semantics is the least of my concerns honestly.
Clearly some are threatened by recent changes.
The article merely suggests that diversity was an important criterion in the residents' choice (and not the only one). Yet quite a few jumped in a very caricaturish way that this guy was disqualified by residents because he's white. It is very telling. They do seem to watch Fox News a whole lot.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The burden of 'proof' is always squarely on the claimant. This is true in science, in (respectable) academia, in the legal system, etc.

If someone is claiming that Wasser was an 'inappropriate,' a 'biased,' or a 'poor' choice for the position (given what was available at the time) then the onus is on the person making the claim to support their assertion with logic and evidence--e.g., to 'make their case.'

 

[WisNeuro]

I mean semantics is the last of my concern honestly.
Clearly some are threatened by recent changes.
The article merely suggests that diversity was an important criterion in the residents' choice (and not the only one). Yet quite a few jumped in a very caricaturish way that this guy was disqualified by residents because he's white. It is very telling. They do seem to watch Fox News a whole lot.

I'd be willing to bet most, if not all, of the people who commented here actually do not watch Faux News, but are used to that ad hominem for daring to disagree. As to the issue of why he was disqualified by the residents, seems that people commented on what data they had, as well as what they have likely seen play out in other instances to inform their comments.

 

[brainmedicine]

Why do residents appear to have the strongest say in hiring the PD? The article did not provide specifics besides political reasons and disliking interpersonal skills. I don’t like my PD’s interpersonal skills, should we fire them?

 

[milan95]

Yeah, I hope there is something about his performance during his time at Yale so far that has provoked such a strong reaction. The article seems to have only one line mentioning actual dislike of his leadership style. If this reaction is based only on his race and sex, that is a pretty sad reflection on the state of affairs at a top program.

I feel like if there truly was something concerning about his performance or behavior, these residents would not have hesitated to highlight the specifics. Some of the residents have their names listed and not hiding behind anonymity. If there was other egregious information about Dr. Wasser, why not reveal it to the authors..

That being said, empathy and compassion is very important in a PD. If he is truly lacking in that, that is a concern.

 

[wolfvgang22]

I don't know if this is more about diversity activism or pretty clear hate of Wasser by some residents. I'm also surprised residents were even asked their opinion to the degree they were, to be fair. Most program directors are hired without much resident input.

Regardless, if I was looking to work at Yale as either a student or staff, I would be having second thoughts.

 

[TexasPhysician]

My concern with Yale psych is that it appears to be appropriate to publicly call out your “boss” as being inappropriate with poor skills important to the job, and no one has been fired.

Either the PD has serious issues and should be terminated or the residents damaging the reputation of the institution should be terminated.

This happens at my clinic and you can turn in your keys now.

 

[milan95]

My concern with Yale psych is that it appears to be appropriate to publicly call out your “boss” as being inappropriate with poor skills important to the job, and no one has been fired.

Either the PD has serious issues and should be terminated or the residents damaging the reputation of the institution should be terminated.

This happens at my clinic and you can turn in your keys now.

In the current discord server, it was mentioned that the residents stated to an applicant that "Their concerns have been made very publicly so there's more pressure on the PD to actually work towards those DEI goals that they were hoping to achieve with the other candidates"

 

[TexasPhysician]

In the current discord server, it was mentioned that the residents stated to an applicant that "Their concerns have been made very publicly so there's more pressure on the PD to actually work towards those DEI goals that they were hoping to achieve with the other candidates"

Yeah, that’s not how that works in the real world. Yale must be an unusual place.

 

[G Sheb]

My concern with Yale psych is that it appears to be appropriate to publicly call out your “boss” as being inappropriate with poor skills important to the job, and no one has been fired.

Either the PD has serious issues and should be terminated or the residents damaging the reputation of the institution should be terminated.

This happens at my clinic and you can turn in your keys now.

There has been a trend to 'democratize' leadership selection at top institutions. Obviously your clinic or most private places do not work that way,
This usually opens things for 'controversy'.
But it is absolutely a positive development.
It is absurd to think that the resident body should have no say in the selection of the program director.

I think the case is more about a power battle between the resident body and the Yale leadership who sought to override any resident input. It's not about tarnishing Tobias Wasser. He may be an excellent academic/researcher..etc, but perhaps not the best fit for the PD job? At least that's what the residents think.

There were recently similar issues at Columbia; but again that's only because the student/resident body is growing more assertive in being involved in leadership selection.
It's a good sign.

 

[milan95]

Yale is an excellent program with a very benign and supportive culture. They actually do appreciate quality of life for both residents and faculty.

What’s sad in this thread are people jumping to assumptions from a few sentences in an article.
Wasser was already in a leadership position (assistant PD) so the resident body was very much acquainted with him. You think they have reservations just because he’s a white guy? LOL. Please. If they liked him there would not be much of an issue. The previous PD was a white guy but was well beloved by faculty and residents. (Btw I’m not making any claim about wasser, just reading between the lines and from my experience with the program in general at Yale).

And there’s definitely nothing wrong in residents having an important say in choosing someone who’s going to run their lives.
Or valuing a minority PD.

Thank you for mentioning a bit about the culture and the quality of life. There has been talk about residents feeling the program is disorganized. Would you be happen to know anything about this?

 

[TexasPhysician]

But it is absolutely a positive development.
It is absurd to think that the resident body should have no say in the selection of the program director.

I think it is absurd to think the resident study body should have a say at all. What do residents know about academic leadership, training requirements, publishing, evaluating clinical sites, and faculty admin duties?

Having built multiple businesses, I usually enjoy control, but I’d absolutely have passed on this as a resident.

I donate money to my Alma Mater. Do I get a vote in the next athletic coach? Absolutely not. I don’t believe I should have one either.

You shouldn’t get to control the levels above you - if you knew enough about that level, you’d have been promoted long ago.

 

[wolfvgang22]

I don't donate to my Alma Mater. They'll just spend money on stuff like athletic facilities. I instead donate to individual students in need via the student counseling office. They have a food bank and clothing closet. I'm considering an anonymous endowment for economically disadvantaged students. Sorry for the tangential thought, lol

 

[TexasPhysician]

I don't donate to my Alma Mater. They'll just spend money on stuff like athletic facilities. I instead donate to individual students in need via the student counseling office. They have a food bank and clothing closet. I'm considering an anonymous endowment for economically disadvantaged students. Sorry for the tangential thought, lol

Most universities have different funds or departments that makes this easy. I assume you are taking advantage to direct your funds toward an area dear to your heart. Totally appropriate.

In keeping the thread semi on-track, does your generosity qualify you to determine the next director of endowment?

 

[Liquid8]

I think it is absurd to think the resident study body should have a say at all. What do residents know about academic leadership, training requirements, publishing, evaluating clinical sites, and faculty admin duties?

While the views of residents can certainly be sought, I wouldn't have thought that much weight would be attributed to this when determining selection.

Unless there were some significant red flags with Wasser, I don't see the decision to hire him being anything other than the most pragmatic outcome. The article state the preferred candidate fell through, so taking an internal applicant who is already in the system and doesn't have to relocate makes more sense than subjecting applicants to a new selection cycle. Such a process could only be justified if none of the applications were available.

You shouldn’t get to control the levels above you - if you knew enough about that level, you’d have been promoted long ago.

Exactly. It would be like medical students being involved in the selection of residents. Perhaps this happens at Yale?

 

[Cath Up]

Medicine has a long history of eating its own and mistreating residents. It's probably not optimal that residents choose their superiors (hierarchy has some value, and residents don't commonly know what's best for them) but the act of moving away from tossing resident concerns entirely in the trash is progress, especially as the match process becomes less of a "I like this program and wanted to end up in this area" and more of a "this is the program that would take me" (match getting more competitive). 26-34 year olds have some sense of what someone overseeing them should do.

 

[pisekar]

Hello,

There has been yale PD drama that has been making waves. Psychiatry residents voice concern over new program director

If there are any residents or those affiliated with the program willing to comment, can we get some insight into any resident concerns with the program? Do you feel supported at Yale? Is the training actually strong? What is the program culture like? Are residents cohesive? What are the attendings like?

Thank you!

Wasser definitely looks better on paper compared to 2 other candidates and he is a yale graduate- it does not look strange to me.

 

[G Sheb]

Medicine has a long history of eating its own and mistreating residents. It's probably not optimal that residents choose their superiors (hierarchy has some value, and residents don't commonly know what's best for them) but the act of moving away from tossing resident concerns entirely in the trash is progress, especially as the match process becomes less of a "I like this program and wanted to end up in this area" and more of a "this is the program that would take me" (match getting more competitive). 26-34 year olds have some sense of what someone overseeing them should do.

I was going to say I am shocked that quite a few people think residents should be completely removed from picking literally the person who's running their job. But I guess that's just another generational difference.
The idea btw that adult men and women in their 30s are so clueless as to who can direct and lead them better is just more infantilization in medical culture.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I was going to say I am shocked that quite a few people think residents should be completely removed from picking literally the person who's running their job. But I guess that's just another generational difference.
The idea btw that adult men and women in their 30s are so clueless as to who can direct and lead them better is just more infantilization in medical culture.

Residents don't usually have the experience needed to decide who would or would not make a good program director. They can offer their thoughts on someone as a teacher certainly, and whether they think that person would fit the program.

But what do residents know about ACGME compliance? Or dealing with hospital administration?

 

[G Sheb]

Residents don't usually have the experience needed to decide who would or would not make a good program director. They can offer their thoughts on someone as a teacher certainly, and whether they think that person would fit the program.

But what do residents know about ACGME compliance? Or dealing with hospital administration?

They certainly would know the best when it comes who they can trust, can hope to rely on, inspire them and help them attain their goals. Which is like more than half of the PD's job.
Again these are not babies, LOL. Most of them are highly accomplished individuals in their late 20s and 30s.
Of course other stuff matters, but no one is saying they should make the pick. Just that their contribution is very important and that they should be sitting at the table, being involved in decisions that literally shape their lives with enormous power consequences.

 

[doctalaughs]

They certainly would know the best when it comes who they can trust, can hope to rely on, inspire them and help them attain their goals. Which is like more than half of the PD's job.
Again these are not babies, LOL. Most of them are highly accomplished individuals in their late 20s and 30s.
Of course other stuff matters, but no one is saying they should make the pick. Just that their contribution is very important and that they should be sitting at the table, being involved in decisions that literally shape their lives with enormous power consequences.

Sure they can have a say and input. But if they don’t like the decision and don’t have a REALLY good reason (ie the person is a convicted child molester) then going public with their gripes should lead to THEIR dismissal.

You can’t tarnish your own employer and expect good results.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

They certainly would know the best when it comes who they can trust, can hope to rely on, inspire them and help them attain their goals. Which is like more than half of the PD's job.
Again these are not babies, LOL. Most of them are highly accomplished individuals in their late 20s and 30s.
Of course other stuff matters, but no one is saying they should make the pick. Just that their contribution is very important and that they should be sitting at the table, being involved in decisions that literally shape their lives with enormous power consequences.

Wait, do what now? PDs are supposed to do that? Seriously? My PD's job from my perspective was, first and foremost, to keep the residency running smoothly and make sure we all graduated ready to be practicing physicians and to have our backs when needed. I liked the guy certainly but that was a very distant second.

 

[doctalaughs]

Also I love how some people think that DEI as it’s currently deployed in this country is some sort of unassailable moral compass, and anyone who disagrees or believes race should play no role in employment is evil / fringe / uneducated / extreme.

There are, in fact, a large number of people (some would say a majority) that vehemently disagree with DEI practices altogether.

 

[WisNeuro]

Wait, do what now? PDs are supposed to do that? Seriously? My PD's job from my perspective was, first and foremost, to keep the residency running smoothly and make sure we all graduated ready to be practicing physicians and to have our backs when needed. I liked the guy certainly but that was a very distant second.

Agreed, out TDs were there to make sure everything ran smoothly and we finished with what we needed. Not be a surrogate parental figure. If these people are adults, why do they need someone in a training setting to be responsible for their emotional development? Talk about infantilizing people.

 

[G Sheb]

Wait, do what now? PDs are supposed to do that? Seriously? My PD's job from my perspective was, first and foremost, to keep the residency running smoothly and make sure we all graduated ready to be practicing physicians and to have our backs when needed. I liked the guy certainly but that was a very distant second.

Isn't that exactly what I mentioned? LOL. Like how do you keep the residency running smoothly, you ensure people graduate "ready" and have "their backs when needed" if the residents don't trust you, or you don't have a good relationship with them??
I think some people have issues with power being challenged. Unsurprisingly I guess.

 

[WisNeuro]

Isn't that exactly what I mentioned? LOL. Like how do you keep the residency running smoothly, you ensure people graduate "ready" and have "their backs when needed" if the residents don't trust you, or you don't have a good relationship with them??
I think some people have issues with power being challenged. Unsurprisingly I guess.

I think some people just prefer that hired positions place competence to do a job as the key piece of the hiring process.

 

[G Sheb]

I think some people just prefer that hired positions place competence to do a job as the key piece of the hiring process.

Yeah, cry me a river.
There are no systemic issues that have prevented minorities for centuries from reaching leadership positions.
Or you know, interpersonal skills, getting along with residents or having a good relationship with them are not part of your 'competence' for a PD.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, cry me a river.
There are no systemic issues that have prevented minorities for centuries from reaching leadership positions.
Or you know, interpersonal skills, getting along with residents or having a good relationship with them are not part of your 'competence' for a PD.

You can believe in the former statement and still value competence in such a position as a key characteristic. As for the latter, it seems that teh residents will not have a good relationship with a person unless they meet an arbitrary criteria that they have set forth, regardless of anything else that actually pertains to the job at hand. That's on them.

 

[TexasPhysician]

They certainly would know the best when it comes who they can trust, can hope to rely on, inspire them and help them attain their goals. Which is like more than half of the PD's job.
Again these are not babies, LOL. Most of them are highly accomplished individuals in their late 20s and 30s.

Huh? Trust and inspiration? Having been on both sides, I’ll admit that I had no idea what the PD did most of their time. It seems you don’t either.

Most PD’s are also either outside hires or have been groomed for the job internally.

If residents get a say, are you going to have PD applicants do 30+ interviews with residents and faculty? How much can you trust someone after 1 interview anyway?

Most PD’s have an assistant PD or someone being groomed for the role. Applicants to the residency likely interviewed with or knew who this would be. If they chose Yale, they knew the structure and culture of faculty and were fine with it then. Those that got into Yale had other options.

Residents are not highly accomplished psychiatrists or faculty admin. They have no clue what is done behind the scenes. Residents are essentially babies when it comes to the ACGME process and running an academic center.

 

[SmallBird]

The new PD has all appropriate credentials and experience. This department chair has overseen a period of insane success for the department and the residency. Residents at Yale hold strong beliefs and lack perspective, believing that the issues they care about should supersede everything else. That is ok, as long as the adults don't listen.

 

[doctalaughs]

Residents at Yale hold strong beliefs and lack perspective, believing that the issues they care about should supersede everything else. That is ok, as long as the adults don't listen.

To be honest reading about this as an outsider, I think the only reason these residents weren’t fired is because their gripes are mired in DEI complaints. Yale is woke - and is afraid to get more bad press that they disciplined the residents over this issue - especially if some of them are minorities.

Which goes to show how badly the DEI policies are going in this country. Imagine if you were a junior lawyer at a law firm and complained to the MEDIA that the head of your firm wrongly picked a new manager — your boss—who had bad intrapersonal skills and wasn’t supportive of his reports. You would literally be fired in the next 15 minutes, no questions asked.

The residents ONLY (perverse) defense is that somehow YALE didn’t follow a DEI narrative (even though the institution clearly favors, perhaps even over-favors DEI). If they didn’t bring DEI into the conversation, how in any world would this be ok to bring to media?

 

[When is graduation again?]

While I understand the article frames this issue as DEI related, I think the true issue is how residency programs have marketed themselves to residents recently. On the interview trail, all applicants hear about is the amount of authority and power we will have to institute changes and how much leadership cares about our opinions. Because of this, when there is inevitably a situation that occurs that goes against resident wishes, the residents feel unheard and protest. In this case, I think it was amplified by the fact that they included residents in the process in the beginning, but then when the decision was made Yale cut them out completely.

I type this from experience because I was one of the residents suckered into thinking we actually had authority. If residency programs told residents the truth which is "you have say over this program's decision-making within X parameters." And specify the parameters early, it would avoid the protests and feelings of betrayal. Without this clarification, there are a lot of residents who are unequipped to handle the shock of learning their opinions really don't matter (or matter only to a certain extent).

 

[doctalaughs]

While I understand the article frames this issue as DEI related, I think the true issue is how residency programs have marketed themselves to residents recently. On the interview trail, all applicants here about is the amount of authority and power we will have to institute changes and how much leadership cares about our opinions. Because of this, when there is inevitably a situation that occurs that goes against resident wishes, the residents feel unheard and protest. In this case, I think it was amplified by the fact that they included residents in the process in the beginning, but then when the decision was made Yale cut them out completely.

I type this from experience because I was one of the residents suckered into thinking we actually had authority. If residency programs told residents the truth which is "you have say over this program's decision-making within X parameters." And specified the parameters early, it would avoid the protests and feelings of betrayal. Without this clarification, there are a lot of residents who are unequipped to handle the shock of learning their opinions really don't matter.

Wait, I thought it was clear the residents did have some influence because the top candidate (that had to drop out) was the first choice of the chairman and the prior two PDs were to their liking on their specific agendas?

But for some wild reason, the residents felt they should have absolute veto power over the chairman’s second choice? In fact, felt this strongly enough that they bring their discontent to the media, thus tarnishing Yale’s name so that it’s being discussed by outside randos all over?

Sounds insane on the residents side to me. Like they somehow had a break with reality and confused themselves with the chairman of the department. At least that’s what the story sounds like on the outside. Like I said, it seems to me that it would be totally reasonable/justified to just fire all the residents at this juncture for damaging to program’s reputation and trying to derail someone’s career.