Loved that previous message! Ha! Currently going through the DR Match and have also tried to make sense of messages I've received from various programs. Some messages have come in unprompted, which has been exciting I'll admit. Others have come in after emailing them first, and responses have ranged from "we enjoyed meeting you" to effusive letters of interest. My personal experience has been that I initially reacted by "up-ranking" programs that sent me unprompted e-mails, as I took their kindness/consideration to represent that they truly valued me. However, as the days pass, I've found myself scrutinizing the myriad of intentions for them doing so and becoming quite cynical; obviously, programs have their own agendas not all of which are genuine, sadly.
After reading a couple of JACR articles and reading previous years' threads for specialties other than DR, I've concluded that there really isn't any reliable way to predict outcomes and "game" the system. There is no way to guess programs' true motives, and I have more or less reverted to my first ROL sans email considerations, the ROL that reflects my instincts. Programs have various styles of communication, interviewers may forget to answer e-mails, and again, motives for messaging are diverse... even for two applicants ranking the same program and receiving messages. There are 900+ other applicants' preferences to consider as well, and it makes more sense that matching should be more a function of this than PDs' e-mails. My two cents.
I would argue then that there is little if no utility to messages on this thread from members that state they've been responded to by "X" program, especially when the details of their messages are not shared. The case could be that program "X" may have not e-mailed its tier 1 students but e-mailed its tier 2 to ensure it should fill with more preferred applicants should its tier 1 students opt to match elsewhere. It could also very well be the case (yes, worst nightmares can definitely be true) that program "X" e-mailed only its tier 1 students. It's hard to tell. Perhaps one thing can be garnered from post-interview communications: if you get a love letter from a program implying you'll match, you're very likely not the last person on that program's list.
You know, I've also wondered if perhaps the reason some people don't match into their dream programs is because they forget to certify their ROLs... I'm kind of thinking it's happened AT LEAST a handful of times in the past... so... remember to certify that ROL if you make changes!
Also, shouldn't PD-to-PD communications about specific applicants (i.e., ranking, interview specifics, programs interviewed at, etc.) be considered a Match violation? It creates a horrible information asymmetry between programs and interviewees. If it's a violation, great. If it isn't... well... it kind of seems like an unfair advantage. :-/
Again... my opinions... and not even good ones at that. If you received an awesome letter, feel free to share if you're so inclined. If you don't want to be psyched out, don't read the posts on this thread. Choices. Choices. I'm too squirrelly to post any specifics about my communications. I'm just gonna go with my BMI 40 gut on this one.
http://www.jgme.org/doi/pdf/10.4300/JGME-D-15-00062.1
http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(14)00434-7/abstract
I'm not drinking the koolaid that NYU > Cornell > Columbia, or any of the top tier programs for that matter. Unless there is an objective measure of how these programs differ in training (aside from factors like culture, resident well-being, etc), I doubt training is different. This is radiology, your best teacher is StatDx and a cup of coffee. Why do we consider NYU/Cornell better than Columbia, other than "I heard that NYU/Cornell have better training"? If one looks at the faculty at Columbia vs say NYU...they pretty much have the same caliber of training. More than another other specialty, radiology is a field where excellence is really up to the individual.
This is exactly the wrong mentality to have as a future radiologist... that reviewing statdx is sufficient to make one a good radiologist... that online resources make the training. Simply sitting in a reading room and churning out impressions is the reason we're commoditized and exactly what we're trying to do away with as we focus more on value based radiology and a new healthcare paradigm. Training location/program DOES matter, as the ethos of each program differs insofar as research (i.e., pushing the field forward) and being a good clinician is concerned (yes, even for rads)... and the efforts each program takes to materialize its visions for the role radiologists should have in the new healthcare landscape. Nobody is asking you to drink the NYC program hierarchy koolaid but do have some of the one called value based radiology. ;-)
Riddle me this: At some of the programs (top 20) they tell me "come here we will turn you into a great radiologist." And then I go and look up these interviewers...they went to schools and programs 3 tiers below where they work. How did that happen? By your logic great radiologists comes from "great" programs. Yes adding value to radiology blah blah blah. Care to give a concrete example on how programs differ in that? I'm not saying reviewing statdx is sufficient, but do know that this is no longer the 1950s, and great cases (at least diagnostic, I admitted don't know much about interventional as I'm not interested) don't come in physical films anymore.
Think you're misinterpreting my comment. There definitely is value in going to tumor boards and interacting with clinicians about tough cases. No disagreement there. Most top academic centers will have these conferences, so it is not a distinguishing factor among programs. Merely asking readers who are ranking right now to think critically about choices, as my perception among my classmates is there is subtle fear among us that if we don't go to the 'best' training program that we will be at a loss. I myself almost fell victim to this thought and had to dial back on that when making my list. The perceived values of 'prestigious' programs are due to the value we as applicants place in them, not neccessarily due to their intrinsic worth. When you don't think critically, you will buy into the massive groupthink and may end up making suboptimal decisions that wouldn't affect (or will marginally affect) your job prospects, but will lead to misery/unhappiness/"oh why did I pick this program over that one". Examples of buying into hypes/reputation can be seen throughout the history of the stock market. This happened with tulips in the 1600s, with the internet market in late 1999, with Enron in the early 2000s, with the housing market in 2007, etc etc. All I'm saying is, rank base on where you think you will be happy, within reasonable tiers of programs.
What f' is grape juice?! Give me some of that purple stuff!
Yeah, I kind of agree with you on this one. Utterly confused about the poorly described tulip/stock market analogies. I was also thinking about replying to that post, but stopped myself out of fear of wasting time. Someone posted a reply to this person about the erroneous nature of the "statdx should be enough to make you a good radiologists" mentality.
Think you should read the JACR in your mailbox once in a while... you might learn that "value based" is more than JUST a marketing term (i.e., efforts to improve clinical informatics, find objective methods using informatics to show how imaging reduces costs, decrease radiation exposure, decrease rates of superfluous procedures, increase radiologist presence at the bedside, etc.).
Agreed. Think the way to keep radiology indispensible is to amp up translational research to 1) create better imaging technology, 2) prove that such technology can be used in new ways to provide useful information in either diagnosis or treatment. Most of the good work is done by PhDs and not MDs, though.
