[2018-2019] Emergency Medicine Application Thread

[ZX10R]

Use this thread for all application questions. Lets all match our goal residency of EM.

EM 2018-2019 Application spreadsheet

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Spagett!]

 

[whatisthisstuff]

So I want to make sure I'm clear on SLOEs/Letters. Are they written by the department when you do an away rotation there? Or are they written by individuals? Or is this program specific? If they are by individuals could you get > 1 from the same rotation?

My understanding was that we just got departmental SLOEs from our AI + Aways and thats all you needed. Atleast 2 but maybe 3. I'm seeing some places have 4 letter requirements though. Do I get these additional letters from individual ER people and are these "regular" letters (vs a SLOE)? Is it worthwhile to have an additional "regular" letter from a non-EM person assuming you have the SLOE requirements?

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

So I want to make sure I'm clear on SLOEs/Letters. Are they written by the department when you do an away rotation there? Or are they written by individuals? Or is this program specific? If they are by individuals could you get > 1 from the same rotation?

My understanding was that we just got departmental SLOEs from our AI + Aways and thats all you needed. Atleast 2 but maybe 3. I'm seeing some places have 4 letter requirements though. Do I get these additional letters from individual ER people and are these "regular" letters (vs a SLOE)? Is it worthwhile to have an additional "regular" letter from a non-EM person assuming you have the SLOE requirements?

You get evaluated by an attending/sr resident after each shift because you'll likely work with a different person each time (max for me was 3 shifts with the same doc). These evaluations get combined into your committee SLOE, usually by one of the program APDs. There are individual SLOEs but according to @gamerEMdoc they are seen as less impactful than committee SLOEs. You can certainly get a regular letter from a non-EM person or a non-SLOE from an EM doc. I got one from my medicine rotation so that I would have 3 letters on day 1. I doubt anybody really cared about it.

 

[gamerEMdoc]

So I want to make sure I'm clear on SLOEs/Letters. Are they written by the department when you do an away rotation there? Or are they written by individuals? Or is this program specific? If they are by individuals could you get > 1 from the same rotation?

My understanding was that we just got departmental SLOEs from our AI + Aways and thats all you needed. Atleast 2 but maybe 3. I'm seeing some places have 4 letter requirements though. Do I get these additional letters from individual ER people and are these "regular" letters (vs a SLOE)? Is it worthwhile to have an additional "regular" letter from a non-EM person assuming you have the SLOE requirements?

I'd be surprised if there are places requiring more than 3 SLOEs. Honestly, I'd say less than 10% of programs require more than 2. I see no problem with getting only 2 SLOEs and then having letters of recomendation from other specialties or personal letters from an ED doc. Assuming those 2 SLOEs are good ones, getting more is probably unnecessary. However, if one of the SLOEs isn't as good as expected, its nice to have a third (if its good) to boost the application.

 

[CajunMedic]

To quote Whitesnake: "Here I go again". Waiting for ERAS to get purged so I can start on my new app and get my SLOE's reuploaded.

 

[ABCDRE]

@gamerEMdoc Thanks for all of your advise on here, much appreciated. Wanted to ask how one finds out about the strength of one's SLOEs? Can you just ask the writers? Or is that a little taboo? Not really sure how you know if your SLOEs are strong or not. Any info appreciated.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

To quote Whitesnake: "Here I go again". Waiting for ERAS to get purged so I can start on my new app and get my SLOE's reuploaded.

Do you have to reupload the old sloes or do they stay on there?

 

[CajunMedic]

Do you have to reupload the old sloes or do they stay on there?

My understanding is they have to be reuploaded. Everything gets purged on May 31st, including supporting documents.

 

[EM2be1957]

Do you have to reupload the old sloes or do they stay on there?

You have to request the programs to re-upload them for you. They may update it/vouch for you if you didn't match last year if they really liked you.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

@gamerEMdoc Thanks for all of your advise on here, much appreciated. Wanted to ask how one finds out about the strength of one's SLOEs? Can you just ask the writers? Or is that a little taboo? Not really sure how you know if your SLOEs are strong or not. Any info appreciated.

As an applicant-very taboo. Some people get their home PD's to give them some info under the table. You just have to honestly evaluate your own performance at your rotation and ask your PD if you have any concerns IMO.

 

[gamerEMdoc]

@gamerEMdoc Thanks for all of your advise on here, much appreciated. Wanted to ask how one finds out about the strength of one's SLOEs? Can you just ask the writers? Or is that a little taboo? Not really sure how you know if your SLOEs are strong or not. Any info appreciated.

To answer the last question about asking the writers first. DO NOT do that. Absolutely do not ask the writers of a letter where you have waived the right to see the letter what is in the letter. This would be an immediate professionalism red flag.

Instead, if you are worried about what a place thinks of you as a candidate, ask them in a different fashion. Meet with the clerkship director, or APD or PD or whoever writes the SLOEs and ask them for feedback about what you could improve on, and ask them for a realistic assessment of your competitiveness as an EM candidate. Its important to know who is writing the SLOEs. If you get feedback from the PD and they say you are doing terrific, but the PD has no part in writing the SLOEs, that isn’t going to tell you anything about your SLOEs, the PD could be saying that to everyone.

The majority of the time when students have some idea about what their SLOEs said by the end of interview season, its because their advisor tells them or it gets brought up in an interview. For instance, if the interviewer asks, “I noticed 2 of your sloes were really highly ranked, but program X gave you a middle of the road eval. Why do you think that is?” A comment like that lets you know that “program x” is a middle 1/3 and the other two are higher (top 1/3, top 10). Basically, its reading between the lines from what gets asked in the interview sometimes.

 

[ski89]

Anyone heard back from Denver or USC for aways this cycle?

 

[MikeJoel]

Anyone heard back from Denver or USC for aways this cycle?

I applied to Denver and haven't head back from them. The website says they will begin accepting students mid-April.

 

[GonnaBeADoc2222]

To answer the last question about asking the writers first. DO NOT do that. Absolutely do not ask the writers of a letter where you have waived the right to see the letter what is in the letter. This would be an immediate professionalism red flag.

Instead, if you are worried about what a place thinks of you as a candidate, ask them in a different fashion. Meet with the clerkship director, or APD or PD or whoever writes the SLOEs and ask them for feedback about what you could improve on, and ask them for a realistic assessment of your competitiveness as an EM candidate. Its important to know who is writing the SLOEs. If you get feedback from the PD and they say you are doing terrific, but the PD has no part in writing the SLOEs, that isn’t going to tell you anything about your SLOEs, the PD could be saying that to everyone.

The majority of the time when students have some idea about what their SLOEs said by the end of interview season, its because their advisor tells them or it gets brought up in an interview. For instance, if the interviewer asks, “I noticed 2 of your sloes were really highly ranked, but program X gave you a middle of the road eval. Why do you think that is?” A comment like that lets you know that “program x” is a middle 1/3 and the other two are higher (top 1/3, top 10). Basically, its reading between the lines from what gets asked in the interview sometimes.

As someone who's already gone through the match, I never really understood why SLOEs should be blinded to the applicant. I understand why a letter from an individual writer should be confidential, but I don't see why this should be the case for what is essentially an evaluation by committee. Doesn't seem right that some people have access to this "under the table" information while others do not. An applicant should have the right to know how they stack up vs others. Symmetry of information makes the process fair. Enough of this smoke and mirrors game.

 

[kansas2texas]

Anyone heard back from Carolina's Medical center?

 

[radkat101]

As someone who's already gone through the match, I never really understood why SLOEs should be blinded to the applicant. I understand why a letter from an individual writer should be confidential, but I don't see why this should be the case for what is essentially an evaluation by committee. Doesn't seem right that some people have access to this "under the table" information while others do not. An applicant should have the right to know how they stack up vs others. Symmetry of information makes the process fair. Enough of this smoke and mirrors game.

Agreed. Know a couple EM applicants in my class that got blindsided with SLOES this year causing them to not match. I guess it would be fair enough if they knew in time to initiate a back-up plan, but it's really awful to be completely oblivious to deficiencies in an app until November rolls around with no interview invites and no idea why. I don't see why it's such a big deal to tell an applicant after a rotation whether they were bottom/middle/top 1/3 so they don't unwittingly drop a grenade in their app.

 

[Technorino]

Agreed. Know a couple EM applicants in my class that got blindsided with SLOES this year causing them to not match. I guess it would be fair enough if they knew in time to initiate a back-up plan, but it's really awful to be completely oblivious to deficiencies in an app until November rolls around with no interview invites and no idea why. I don't see why it's such a big deal to tell an applicant after a rotation whether they were bottom/middle/top 1/3 so they don't unwittingly drop a grenade in their app.

What were their stats, any idea? It's hard to think one mediocre SLOE can tank an entire application.

 

[towelonthefloor]

What were their stats, any idea? It's hard to think one mediocre SLOE can tank an entire application.

In my experience, its all about the comments.
You can have 1/3 middle with supportive comments. And thats fine.
But you can also have a 1/3 middle with comments stating youre pretty average in all aspects. Youre "okay" but indirectly saying youre unremarkable. And this can be pretty damning. Since this is not a blatantly negative remark it might never even be brought up. But it has weight on if you get interviews and where they rank you.

SLOEs are everything.

 

[radkat101]

What were their stats, any idea? It's hard to think one mediocre sloe can tank an entire application.

Stats were fine. 230+ step 1/2. No red flags. Board scores really don't matter much for matching EM though (everyone says it but it really sinks in after going through the process). It's amazing how little anyone cares unless there are failures. A couple bad comments on a sloe can really sink an entire app/career and the subjectivity and secrecy of the process makes it very difficult to predict if your sloes have them or not.

 

[medschoolmyname]

Anyone hear back from UCSD, UC davis, or UCLA for away rotations? Thanks!

 

[Donald Kimball]

Anyone heard back from Carolina's Medical center?

Two M3s at my school have secured away rotations at CMC.

 

[gamerEMdoc]

As someone who's already gone through the match, I never really understood why SLOEs should be blinded to the applicant. I understand why a letter from an individual writer should be confidential, but I don't see why this should be the case for what is essentially an evaluation by committee. Doesn't seem right that some people have access to this "under the table" information while others do not. An applicant should have the right to know how they stack up vs others. Symmetry of information makes the process fair. Enough of this smoke and mirrors game.

I agree and sympathize. I wish students had better understanding of where they stand. But I also am a realist, and I know that if students were to know everything about their SLOEs, then the SLOEs would stop being valuable. The reason they are valuable is, the authors know the students are blinded, and they can be honest without fear of the students knowing. Physicians are humans, and humans don’t generally like giving blatant negative feedback when the person is going to find out about it. This is the whole reason why there is a huge discrepancy in grades vs SLOE ranks. If you look at the SLOEs, you’ll see many places give way more honors / HP than they give top 10 / top 1/3. Some places give 90% honors. Because for whatever reason, they just don’t want to tell students they aren’t great.

I think there could be a balance, but I don’t think we’ll ever see it anytime soon personally. The SLOEs are what they are. You waive your right to see the letters. And if you choose not to waive the right, you basically aren’t going to have any chance of getting a SLOE and therefore any chance of matching. So you basically have to fall in line. And if you wanted to change the system, you’d be trying to fight for change without any bargaining power. Students aren’t in the drivers seat. The residencies hold all the cards, its a buyers market for them. EM is super popular, and if you want to take a stand and say “I’m not going to waive my right to see these letters” and “I’m not going to get a SLOE”, there will be 100 more students that will fall in line and apply for that position for every one person who takes a stand. Unfortunately for students, they don’t have much leverage at a bargaining table at the moment, because EM is just super competitive right now.

That’s why I believe SLOEs aren’t going to change. Doesn’t mean that’s what I believe is a great system or that it shouldn’t change, just that I don’t think it will. I do think SLOEs need to be anonymous for them to be completely unbiased. However, I also think that it would be great if there was some way for students maybe to get an “average SLOE rank”, or a SLOE GPA (top 10 4.0, top 1/3 3.0, mid 1/3 2.0, etc). Lets say a student had 3 SLOEs and got a top 1/3 (3.0), and two mid 1/3 (2.0). Their SLOE GPA would be 2.33. Having a number to basically tell them they on average scored just above a middle 1/3 accross 3 SLOEs. Doesn’t out which programs wrote/ranked what, and therefore would maintain anonimity. On the otherhand, I don’t have any idea how any of this would work. The SLOE system is managed by CORD, not ERAS. Students are waiving their right to see their letters in ERAS, yet would be getting some info about those letters technically. And how would CORD give this info and distribute it to the students? Also, how would CORD collect all the data? Sure, the ESloe would make it easier for the data collection, but tons of people still use the PDF SLOE and don’t use the ESLOE.

So while I think a “SLOE gpa” system would be helpful for students to have some idea where they stand, there are too many hurdles for something like this to ever get implemeneted, and certainly isn’t going to happen when the programs have all the bargaining power. So while I understand students angst about the SLOE situation, it is what it is. That’s life. You don’t always get what you want or what is fair. And to get where you want to go in life, you will always have to do things maybe that you don’t agree with or don’t think are fair to you. But unfortunately, that’s just part of the real world as a professional, and that will never change for the rest of your career. The “SLOEs aren’t fair” will get replaced by “I don’t think its fair that my EM program is making me do XYZ” and when you graduate and are an attending you’ll be saying “I think it’s ridiculous admin wants me to do XYZ”. By all means, lobby to make the system better, but realize the system isn’t about the individual, its always about the people that hold the bargaining power.

 

[liveonthewater]

Anyone with knowledge or experience with Mount Sinai in Miami? Recently received an offer for a rotation and an upperclassman warned me about two of their classmates who received a bad SLOE from them.

 

[bengaltiger211]

I agree and sympathize. I wish students had better understanding of where they stand. But I also am a realist, and I know that if students were to know everything about their SLOEs, then the SLOEs would stop being valuable. The reason they are valuable is, the authors know the students are blinded, and they can be honest without fear of the students knowing. Physicians are humans, and humans don’t generally like giving blatant negative feedback when the person is going to find out about it. This is the whole reason why there is a huge discrepancy in grades vs SLOE ranks. If you look at the SLOEs, you’ll see many places give way more honors / HP than they give top 10 / top 1/3. Some places give 90% honors. Because for whatever reason, they just don’t want to tell students they aren’t great.

I think there could be a balance, but I don’t think we’ll ever see it anytime soon personally. The SLOEs are what they are. You waive your right to see the letters. And if you choose not to waive the right, you basically aren’t going to have any chance of getting a SLOE and therefore any chance of matching. So you basically have to fall in line. And if you wanted to change the system, you’d be trying to fight for change without any bargaining power. Students aren’t in the drivers seat. The residencies hold all the cards, its a buyers market for them. EM is super popular, and if you want to take a stand and say “I’m not going to waive my right to see these letters” and “I’m not going to get a SLOE”, there will be 100 more students that will fall in line and apply for that position for every one person who takes a stand. Unfortunately for students, they don’t have much leverage at a bargaining table at the moment, because EM is just super competitive right now.

That’s why I believe SLOEs aren’t going to change. Doesn’t mean that’s what I believe is a great system or that it shouldn’t change, just that I don’t think it will. I do think SLOEs need to be anonymous for them to be completely unbiased. However, I also think that it would be great if there was some way for students maybe to get an “average SLOE rank”, or a SLOE GPA (top 10 4.0, top 1/3 3.0, mid 1/3 2.0, etc). Lets say a student had 3 SLOEs and got a top 1/3 (3.0), and two mid 1/3 (2.0). Their SLOE GPA would be 2.33. Having a number to basically tell them they on average scored just above a middle 1/3 accross 3 SLOEs. Doesn’t out which programs wrote/ranked what, and therefore would maintain anonimity. On the otherhand, I don’t have any idea how any of this would work. The SLOE system is managed by CORD, not ERAS. Students are waiving their right to see their letters in ERAS, yet would be getting some info about those letters technically. And how would CORD give this info and distribute it to the students? Also, how would CORD collect all the data? Sure, the ESloe would make it easier for the data collection, but tons of people still use the PDF SLOE and don’t use the ESLOE.

So while I think a “SLOE gpa” system would be helpful for students to have some idea where they stand, there are too many hurdles for something like this to ever get implemeneted, and certainly isn’t going to happen when the programs have all the bargaining power. So while I understand students angst about the SLOE situation, it is what it is. That’s life. You don’t always get what you want or what is fair. And to get where you want to go in life, you will always have to do things maybe that you don’t agree with or don’t think are fair to you. But unfortunately, that’s just part of the real world as a professional, and that will never change for the rest of your career. The “SLOEs aren’t fair” will get replaced by “I don’t think its fair that my EM program is making me do XYZ” and when you graduate and are an attending you’ll be saying “I think it’s ridiculous admin wants me to do XYZ”. By all means, lobby to make the system better, but realize the system isn’t about the individual, its always about the people that hold the bargaining power.

Fair points. I think:

1) Students haven't actually tried to advocate for transparency in SLOEs yet in an organized fashion. If the student councils of EMRA, AAEM and SAEM were to come together on this issue I think it would be a worthwhile debate.
2) If programs are unwilling to provide applicants with the single most important factor in their residency application, then I think programs also should stop complaining about the "over application problem" in EM. Obviously people will apply broadly if they don't know a major component of their competitiveness for the specialty.

 

[gamerEMdoc]

Fair points. I think:

1) Students haven't actually tried to advocate for transparency in SLOEs yet in an organized fashion. If the student councils of EMRA, AAEM and SAEM were to come together on this issue I think it would be a worthwhile debate.
2) If programs are unwilling to provide applicants with the single most important factor in their residency application, then I think programs also should stop complaining about the "over application problem" in EM. Obviously people will apply broadly if they don't know a major component of their competitiveness for the specialty.

Fair points.

 

[CliveStaples]

Good point about people being conflict averse and not wanting to give honest opinions about students and then having to face up to it when the student finds out.

That said, the real biggest problem with students no longer being blinded to the SLOE results is that weak SLOEs will simply not get uploaded, making them worthless to evaluate students with.

Maybe I'm overthinking this but the solution is to have a system where you can find out roughly how strong your SLOEs are after they've been uploaded. This way, students have the most important piece of information when evaluating their competitiveness in order to inform their decisions on where/how many program to apply to but will still keep SLOEs useful pieces of information.

 

[gamerEMdoc]

Good point about people being conflict averse and not wanting to give honest opinions about students and then having to face up to it when the student finds out.

That said, the real biggest problem with students no longer being blinded to the SLOE results is that weak SLOEs will simply not get uploaded, making them worthless to evaluate students with.

Maybe I'm overthinking this but the solution is to have a system where you can find out roughly how strong your SLOEs are after they've been uploaded. This way, students have the most important piece of information when evaluating their competitiveness in order to inform their decisions on where/how many program to apply to but will still keep SLOEs useful pieces of information.

Except students could easily game the system, bc you can choose which letters to send to which programs. So if you have 3 sloes, you apply to one program, find out what they are, and only submit the good ones to all the other programs you apply to after you know what your sloes say.

Pretty soon all programs only see sloes that say good things. Which again would make them meeningless.

The problem is, when everyone has things that only says good things about them, then you go back to doing what other fields do, basing your decision to rank off board scores, bc the SlOE would be meeningless. I have read thousands of LORs and I have, not once, seen a non-SLOE LOR ever sat anything objectively critical about a student. Not one time. Everyone in non-SLOE letters seems the same, and I have interviewed people on the same day who rotated at the same place and had non-SLOE LORs that were actually the same, a copy and paste job where the name was changed.

The SLOE system, while painful in that its an unknown to the student, actually benefits most students, because their career is being based on how they perform clinically, not how good they are at standardized tests. Im not sure students want that, bc then the only way to get into EM is a high USMLE.

 

[surely]

Except students could easily game the system, bc you can choose which letters to send to which programs. So if you have 3 sloes, you apply to one program, find out what they are, and only submit the good ones to all the other programs you apply to after you know what your sloes say.

Pretty soon all programs only see sloes that say good things. Which again would make them meeningless.

The problem is, when everyone has things that only says good things about them, then you go back to doing what other fields do, basing your decision to rank off board scores, bc the SlOE would be meeningless. I have read thousands of LORs and I have, not once, seen a non-SLOE LOR ever sat anything objectively critical about a student. Not one time. Everyone in non-SLOE letters seems the same, and I have interviewed people on the same day who rotated at the same place and had non-SLOE LORs that were actually the same, a copy and paste job where the name was changed.

The SLOE system, while painful in that its an unknown to the student, actually benefits most students, because their career is being based on how they perform clinically, not how good they are at standardized tests. Im not sure students want that, bc then the only way to get into EM is a high USMLE.

Make it mandatory for students to submit all SLOEs regardless of strength and content. It's already implicitlt mandatory, in that it's a red flag if a program figures out you rotated somewhere but didn't submit a SLOE. My interviewers occasionally asked if I had done any other EM rotations, even though I had 3 SLOEs as soon as ERAS opened.

Best way to enforce mandatory SLOE submission: SLOEs are already all created via the CORD website (technically they're eSLOEs for this reason). CORD can easily manage a centralized SLOE respository for each student with a unique identifier like an AAMC ID number. The SLOEs would still get uploaded to ERAS, but it'd be possible to verify via the CORD website whether there were other missing SLOEs.

There. Now no one can game anything, but students can apply appropriately after seeing their SLOEs (or at least seeing their global assessment of top 10%, top 1/3rd, etc). It would save programs so much time spent reviewing applications or even interviewing people who are using your shop as a backup.

 

[gamerEMdoc]

Make it mandatory for students to submit all SLOEs regardless of strength and content. It's already implicitlt mandatory, in that it's a red flag if a program figures out you rotated somewhere but didn't submit a SLOE. My interviewers occasionally asked if I had done any other EM rotations, even though I had 3 SLOEs as soon as ERAS opened.

Best way to enforce mandatory SLOE submission: SLOEs are already all created via the CORD website (technically they're eSLOEs for this reason). CORD can easily manage a centralized SLOE respository for each student with a unique identifier like an AAMC ID number. The SLOEs would still get uploaded to ERAS, but it'd be possible to verify via the CORD website whether there were other missing SLOEs.

There. Now no one can game anything, but students can apply appropriately after seeing their SLOEs (or at least seeing their global assessment of top 10%, top 1/3rd, etc). It would save programs so much time spent reviewing applications or even interviewing people who are using your shop as a backup.

That would be fine, I think enforcing mandatory submission and allowing for students to know their global assessment (average of all their sloe ranks) would be a perfect compromise. It would take cord and eras integrating somehow.

 

[surely]

That would be fine, I think enforcing mandatory submission and allowing for students to know their global assessment (average of all their sloe ranks) would be a perfect compromise. It would take cord and eras integrating somehow.

If they can integrate the goddamn SVI into ERAS, I think they can make this happen.

 

[medschoolmyname]

So I literally just talked to a coordinator for a summer emergency medicine rotation this year and they told me that there have been people expressing an interest in the EM rotation at their program since last may 2017. So because I didn't know I wanted to do EM until later I essentially have almost a zero % chance to get that rotation. How is it fair to be expected to sign up for some rotations when some programs have wait lists starting the year prior to the rotation being offered.

 

[surely]

So I literally just talked to a coordinator for a summer emergency medicine rotation this year and they told me that there have been people expressing an interest in the EM rotation at their program since last may 2017. So because I didn't know I wanted to do EM until later I essentially have almost a zero % chance to get that rotation. How is it fair to be expected to sign up for some rotations when some programs have wait lists starting the year prior to the rotation being offered.

I've never heard of this being a thing. Was it a particularly competitive/desirable program or something?

 

[Donald Kimball]

So I literally just talked to a coordinator for a summer emergency medicine rotation this year and they told me that there have been people expressing an interest in the EM rotation at their program since last may 2017. So because I didn't know I wanted to do EM until later I essentially have almost a zero % chance to get that rotation. How is it fair to be expected to sign up for some rotations when some programs have wait lists starting the year prior to the rotation being offered.

I mean, it's not "fair," but life isn't fair. Luckily though, there are plenty of programs that don't have ridiculous waitlists, and it's not even necessary to rotate at a program with such a waitlist to match there or match extremely well!

 

[medschoolmyname]

I mean, it's not "fair," but life isn't fair. Luckily though, there are plenty of programs that don't have ridiculous waitlists, and it's not even necessary to rotate at a program with such a waitlist to match there or match extremely well!

Yeah I guess your right. Just kind of disheartning because I really wanted to go to that program. I may still do one later in the year as an elective. Oh well gotta trudge along. I guess I just wish I could have known that information before I actually applied for those spots if you know what I mean?

 

[medschoolmyname]

Denied from USC and UCSF-Higland.

 

[Waterlover]

Denied from USC and UCSF-Higland.

When did you submit app to Highland?

 

[medschoolmyname]

When did you submit app to Highland?

i submitted in early February if i recall correctly.

edit: yep early February on the 1st day the app opened. dont really know what else could have been done lol

 

[Spagett!]

I've seen on this forum a few people saying the away rotation process is first come first serve. That is not true based on this account, others, and the very fact that the application includes data to discriminate candidates like step 1 score.

 

[surely]

I've seen on this forum a few people saying the away rotation process is first come first serve. That is not true based on this account, others, and the very fact that the application includes data to discriminate candidates like step 1 score.

First come, first served doesn't mean that the first people to apply are guaranteed anything. It just means that those who apply later are at a relative disadvantage, everything else being equal. Make sense?

 

[Spagett!]

First come, first served doesn't mean that the first people to apply are guaranteed anything. It just means that those who apply later are at a relative disadvantage, everything else being equal. Make sense?

Yes! That does make sense actually. But I think the traditional understanding of that idiom is "whoever gets here first is served first" which is a bit confusing for rising M4s on the hunt.

 

[surely]

Yes! That does make sense actually. But I think the traditional understanding of that idiom is "whoever gets here first is served first" which is a bit confusing for rising M4s on the hunt.

Well, the "serving" is the processing of apps, just like it was with AMCAS. It wouldn't make sense for an employer to hire the first 10 people to apply solely on the basis of being the first ones!

 

[Waterlover]

i submitted in early February if i recall correctly.

edit: yep early February on the 1st day the app opened. dont really know what else could have been done lol

Damn I'm sorry about that! I hope you get the next one! I haven't heard back, I submitted mid-March though lololol.

 

[clibby]

Except students could easily game the system, bc you can choose which letters to send to which programs. So if you have 3 sloes, you apply to one program, find out what they are, and only submit the good ones to all the other programs you apply to after you know what your sloes say.

Pretty soon all programs only see sloes that say good things. Which again would make them meeningless.

The problem is, when everyone has things that only says good things about them, then you go back to doing what other fields do, basing your decision to rank off board scores, bc the SlOE would be meeningless. I have read thousands of LORs and I have, not once, seen a non-SLOE LOR ever sat anything objectively critical about a student. Not one time. Everyone in non-SLOE letters seems the same, and I have interviewed people on the same day who rotated at the same place and had non-SLOE LORs that were actually the same, a copy and paste job where the name was changed.

The SLOE system, while painful in that its an unknown to the student, actually benefits most students, because their career is being based on how they perform clinically, not how good they are at standardized tests. Im not sure students want that, bc then the only way to get into EM is a high USMLE.

Having gone through this, I can attest to hearing this from multiple PDs. Nobody wants to go back to just board scores, but having a part of the application that the applicant is totally blind to, but dependent on is unheard of in other careers. While I understand the idea behind the SLOE, not knowing where you stand increases anxiety. Increased anxiety increases the number of apps sent out. I find it hilarious that program directors lament about how many apps each applicant is sending out while at the same time reducing how much info each applicant has about the process by making the SLOE more opaque. If you want to use the SLOEs and reduce the number of apps, make them both mandatory to send and transparent. Otherwise PDs have to stop acting like the increased number of apps is a mystery. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[whatisthisstuff]

Ya'll think I should withdraw dates for a location in order to improve my chances at another date? I applied at my top 2 choices for August and September, ranked August 1st for both and got one. Would love the other one for September just not sure if there is any etiquette here. Or really all other programs that I also applied for in August?

 

[medschoolmyname]

Damn I'm sorry about that! I hope you get the next one! I haven't heard back, I submitted mid-March though lololol.

thx man its a bummer but hey what can you do. as you said on to the next one. best of luck to you!

 

[surely]

Ya'll think I should withdraw dates for a location in order to improve my chances at another date? I applied at my top 2 choices for August and September, ranked August 1st for both and got one. Would love the other one for September just not sure if there is any etiquette here. Or really all other programs that I also applied for in August?

Hmmm, tough call. My stance is that you should take the one you've been given, be grateful, and kindly withdraw all your other August apps. I don't think it'll necessarily improve your chances of getting a September spot at your other top choice, but I think it's the sportsmanlike thing to do. You should at the very least withdraw from any programs that you wouldn't rather go to over the one you got. That is to say, withdraw your August apps from any non-top-choices.

 

[gamerEMdoc]

Having gone through this, I can attest to hearing this from multiple PDs. Nobody wants to go back to just board scores, but having a part of the application that the applicant is totally blind to, but dependent on is unheard of in other careers. While I understand the idea behind the SLOE, not knowing where you stand increases anxiety. Increased anxiety increases the number of apps sent out. I find it hilarious that program directors lament about how many apps each applicant is sending out while at the same time reducing how much info each applicant has about the process by making the SLOE more opaque. If you want to use the SLOEs and reduce the number of apps, make them both mandatory to send and transparent. Otherwise PDs have to stop acting like the increased number of apps is a mystery. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It’s true it’s unheard of in other careers. So is the match. Can you imagine telling a teacher that they have to apply to 50 schools, go on 12 interviews, then rank where they would like to work, and in the end a computer will tell them where they end up? And they may not get to teach in the field they want, no matter how much they like Chemistry, they may have to settle for teaching Physical Education. The GME system we have is unheard of. It is what it is. It’s hard to compare it to other systems in the real world when there really isn’t much like it.

As Ive said Id be for some system as described, where students would have some idea of how competitive their SLOEs are, but I dont believe it will happen because students just don’t have the lobbying power to change it. So if the system stays as is as I’d expect it to, I’d say Id rather just accept the increased application numbers. Its not that big of a deal to me in the end, because its not that hard to filter apps. The thing I dislike about over application isn’t about the program being overwhelmed. Its about excluding students with genuine interest in the progam based on filters. Some students with actual interest lose out because of a computer algorithm. And that stinks for the students, but has little effect on the program itself. The programs will match their spots whether they get 200 applications or 1000 applications. IMO, over application is bad for students (increased costs, exclusionary filters), but is little more than an annoyance to programs.

 

[medschoolmyname]

It’s true it’s unheard of in other careers. So is the match. Can you imagine telling a teacher that they have to apply to 50 schools, go on 12 interviews, then rank where they would like to work, and in the end a computer will tell them where they end up? And they may not get to teach in the field they want, no matter how much they like Chemistry, they may have to settle for teaching Physical Education. The GME system we have is unheard of. It is what it is. It’s hard to compare it to other systems in the real world when there really isn’t much like it.

As Ive said Id be for some system as described, where students would have some idea of how competitive their SLOEs are, but I dont believe it will happen because students just don’t have the lobbying power to change it. So if the system stays as is as I’d expect it to, I’d say Id rather just accept the increased application numbers. Its not that big of a deal to me in the end, because its not that hard to filter apps. The thing I dislike about over application isn’t about the program being overwhelmed. Its about excluding students with genuine interest in the progam based on filters. Some students with actual interest lose out because of a computer algorithm. And that stinks for the students, but has little effect on the program itself. The programs will match their spots whether they get 200 applications or 1000 applications. IMO, over application is bad for students (increased costs, exclusionary filters), but is little more than an annoyance to programs.

If students don't have the power to make this change, which I agree with you we don't, then why isn't there a concerted effort from some of the newer generation of physicians who go into these programs to use some of the power that they assuredly must have (at least compared to the students) to fix an issue that they themselves had to trudge through? I'm not saying there aren't those who are trying, but it sure doesn't feel like there is any concerted effort to fix this system. The prevailing thought process feels to me, "it is what is, can't really expect it to change." I mean a large portion of these programs are comprised of people who were at some point students like us, so I don't understand this general lack of trying to improve the process by these programs. Not trying to blame my peers/future colleagues as I am sure it's more complicated than I am making it appear, but can't help feeling this way when I hear this matter discussed by our superiors.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

If students don't have the power to make this change, which I agree with you we don't, then why isn't there a concerted effort from some of the newer generation of physicians who go into these programs to use some of the power that they assuredly must have (at least compared to the students) to fix an issue that they themselves had to trudge through? I'm not saying there aren't those who are trying, but it sure doesn't feel like there is any concerted effort to fix this system. The prevailing thought process feels to me, "it is what is, can't really expect it to change." I mean a large portion of these programs are comprised of people who were at some point students like us, so I don't understand this general lack of trying to improve the process by these programs. Not trying to blame my peers/future colleagues as I am sure it's more complicated than I am making it appear, but can't help feeling this way when I hear this matter discussed by our superiors.

There aren't really any feasible alternatives out there right now.