2019-2020 SOAP Pledge

[elementaryschooleconomics]

Alright, the supplemental "Letter to the Editor" came out yesterday with additional programs stating they would not SOAP applicants without a "demonstrated interest in Radiation Oncology".

To recap, an interest in RadOnc is defined as "candidates should have participated in a 1-month clinical radiation oncology rotation and have obtained at least 1 radiation oncology letter of recommendation".

The programs signing on the original article:

1) University of Cincinnati
2) Cleveland Clinic
3) Virginia Commonwealth University
4) UPMC
5) Vanderbilt
6) Mayo

The programs signing on in the supplemental letter:

7) Wake Forest
8) City of Hope
9) Medical College of Wisconsin
10) MD Anderson
11) Yale
12) Indiana University
13) University of Colorado
14) Rush
15) Chicago
16) OHSU
17) Henry Ford
18) Stanford
19) Penn
20) Nebraska
21) Sloan
22) University of Minnesota

In total, there are 22 programs which have pledged to not SOAP “candidates without a demonstrated interest in RadOnc”.

Optimistic View:

These programs and program directors are absolutely to be commended for an attempt to take actionable steps towards preserving the health and integrity of the specialty.

Pessimistic View:

There are 85 Radiation Oncology residency programs in the United States.

Only 22 out of those 85, or ~26% of programs, decided it was worth publicly pledging to not SOAP uninterested applicants.

Of those 22 programs, 7 are considered in the “top 15”, per the Google Spreadsheet (Cleveland Clinic, Mayo, Anderson, Yale, Stanford, Penn, Sloan), so ~32% of those programs pledging are unlikely to need to utilize the SOAP anyway.

22-7 = 15, 15 of 85 programs or around 17.5% of programs with at least an average risk to SOAP have made the pledge.

Is that the best we can hope for? Again, hats off to these 22 PDs for at least taking SOME step to preserve and improve the integrity of Radiation Oncology.

The question I’m left with: is this pledge a day late and a dollar short?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[OTN]

Five years and $5.00 short would be more accurate

 

[deleted774703]

Alright, the supplemental "Letter to the Editor" came out yesterday with additional programs stating they would not SOAP applicants without an "demonstrated interest in Radiation Oncology".

To recap, an interest in RadOnc is defined as "candidates should have participated in a 1-month clinical radiation oncology rotation and have obtained at least 1 radiation oncology letter of recommendation".

The programs signing on the original article:

1) University of Cincinnati
2) Cleveland Clinic
3) Virginia Commonwealth University
4) UPMC
5) Vanderbilt
6) Mayo

The programs signing on in the supplemental letter:

7) Wake Forest
8) City of Hope
9) Medical College of Wisconsin
10) MD Anderson
11) Yale
12) Indiana University
13) University of Colorado
14) Rush
15) Chicago
16) OHSU
17) Henry Ford
18) Stanford
19) Penn
20) Nebraska
21) Sloan
22) University of Minnesota

In total, there are 22 programs which have pledged to not SOAP “candidates without a demonstrated interest in RadOnc”.

Optimistic View:

These programs and program directors are absolutely to be commended for an attempt to take actionable steps towards preserving the health and integrity of the specialty.

Pessimistic View:

There are 85 Radiation Oncology residency programs in the United States.

Only 22 out of those 85, or ~26% of programs, decided it was worth publicly pledging to not SOAP uninterested applicants.

Of those 22 programs, 7 are considered in the “top 15”, per the Google Spreadsheet (Cleveland Clinic, Mayo, Anderson, Yale, Stanford, Penn, Sloan), so ~32% of those programs pledging are unlikely to need to utilize the SOAP anyway.

22-7 = 15, 15 of 85 programs or around 17.5% of programs with at least an average risk to SOAP have made the pledge.

Is that the best we can hope for? Again, hats off to these 22 PDs for at least taking SOME step to preserve and improve the integrity of Radiation Oncology.

The question I’m left with: is this pledge a day late and a dollar short?

very nice breakdown. Agree with you

We are about 6 weeks from finding out one way or the other

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Reminder, it costs nothing to throw your name on some nonbinding agreement with malleable definitions. When push comes to shove the chairman will tell the PD what to do.

 

[RickyScott]

This is good news, but highly symbolic. When you think about the numbers, we would still have major issues if we reduced residency slots down to 0. Also not much of a commitment that top programs agreeing only take candidates that did a radiation rotation! bar really cant be any lower.

 

[BobbyHeenan]

“candidates without a demonstrated interest in RadOnc”

That is pretty subjective.

 

[scarbrtj]

Reminder, it costs nothing to throw your name on some nonbinding agreement with malleable definitions. When push comes to shove the chairman will tell the PD what to do.

Ha. Maybe so, pessimistically. Like some of the virtue signaling French in Nazi occupied France who’d say to each other, and the outside world, “Je ne suis pas un collaborateur!”

 

[fiji128]

The place that I graduated from 3 years ago had maybe 60% of the applications they would have received in prior years and were able to fill less then half of their total inverview slots. In all likelihood they will have to SOAP unless there is a local candidate who wants to stay in the area. Knowing the folks that run the department the first goal is to make sure the department is run as cheaply as possible and that all attendings are 100% covered with residents. The "health" of the future of the field is probably not even a consideration. They have not signed the above pledge.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

The place that I graduated from 3 years ago had maybe 60% of the applications they would have received in prior years and were able to fill less then half of their total inverview slots. In all likelihood they will have to SOAP unless there is a local candidate who wants to stay in the area. Knowing the folks that run the department the first goal is to make sure the department is run as cheaply as possible and that all attendings are 100% covered with residents. The "health" of the future of the field is probably not even a consideration. They have not signed the above pledge.

Hmmm.... we probably know eachother.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Only places on that list have any realistic change at being likely to need SOAP (IMO) are the following:

1) University of Cincinnati
3) Virginia Commonwealth University
6) Mayo (not at Rochester but maybe AZ, maybe Jacksonville)
7) Wake Forest
8) City of Hope
12) Indiana University
14) Rush
20) Nebraska
22) University of Minnesota

So maybe 9 spots that go unfilled assuming all of these programs need to SOAP one person.

Really disappointed that the number of programs who are participating in this, even on paper, is not closer to 100%. Sure this is not a binding agreement, but you can bet that any program that is on this list and accepts a SOAP candidate will be heavily scrutinized.

Shame on the 63 PDs/Departments that didn't sign this pledge. I'm actually surprised I thought it'd be closer to 50-75% participation but you see who is actually interested in the future of the field. Somewhat surprised Fox Chase isn't on there given how vocal they've been against expanding their own residency in the past.

 

[elementaryschooleconomics]

Per this Tweet, I guess Loyola is #23 (not that it makes a huge difference, just in the interest of accuracy):

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Sure this is not a binding agreement, but you can bet that any program that is on this list and accepts a SOAP candidate will be heavily scrutinized.

By who?

SDN? We'll do that anyway.
US med students? They will have already voted on the program as undesirable by not ranking it.
Other institutions? Who cares?

My guess is the greater fear of scrutiny lies with the dean asking the chair and the chair asking the PD why there were unfilled spots.

We'll see. But I wouldn't be *shocked* if one of these few programs SOAP'd in a candidate with a small rad onc "interest" or FMG rad onc looking for a visa. (to be clear, I'm not disparaging anyone, just stating that the market has been set for rad onc needs in America and it doesn't include a shortage that we must fill externally)

I think the greater theme is.... this was likely done in an effort to demonstrate that medical students should have confidence in their academic leaders to right the ship, That their future is a legitimate top priority. Whelp, that blew up in their face.

 

[deleted956486]

I think the greater theme is.... this was likely done in an effort to demonstrate that medical students should have confidence in their academic leaders to right the ship, That their future is a legitimate top priority. Whelp, that blew up in their face.

Yeah that seems to be the anthem of the PDs who have consistantly been embarrassed by their elder chairs.

 

[radoncgrad2019]

TO be fair - do we know that the programs that didn't sign on were asked to and declined? this might have just been an extension of the original 6 of 'people we know'

 

[deleted774703]

TO be fair - do we know that the programs that didn't sign on were asked to and declined? this might have just been an extension of the original 6 of 'people we know'

im hoping this is the case!

To be honest it’s better if it’s informql and everyone has signed on

that way Ben Falit and ASTRO can’t wuss out and cry about anti trust bs

 

[radoncgrad2019]

im hoping this is the case!

To be honest it’s better if it’s informql and everyone has signed on

that way Ben Falit and ASTRO can’t wuss out and cry about anti trust bs

I mean the problem with this place Is no one thought to think for a second that this is obviously the case and that it's not that 80 other programs said no LOL.

any excuse to bring out the pitchforks.

 

[elementaryschooleconomics]

I mean the problem with this place Is no one thought to think for a second that this is obviously the case and that it's not that 80 other programs said no LOL.

any excuse to bring out the pitchforks.

You're saying you believe that academic Radiation Oncologists are going to act in the best interest of the specialty as a whole while potentially making their own lives/departments face hardship and not take credit for it?

Yeah...no.

I know for a fact that PDs received an email asking them to sign on.

I don't know (right now) if every PD received an email, though I can probably find out. It seems likely that the original authors just used the ADROP listserv.

I think the most likely scenario is that the people who signed this want us to know they're the good guys/gals.

I think the people who didn't sign it don't care or don't want to have to go back on their word when they're staring down the barrel of a gun wielded by their Chair.

 

[PhotonBomb]

 

[evilbooyaa]

I know PDs received e-mails about it as well. It'd be weird to send it to some PDs (especially at smaller programs like City of Hope and Nebraska, who both responded) and not send it to every PD in the country. Some of them may not have replied 'fast enough' for the IJROBP supplement or whatever, maybe in a month (still before Match day) they can do a supplement to the supplement with an updated list.

 

[Reaganite]

You're saying you believe that academic Radiation Oncologists are going to act in the best interest of the specialty as a whole while potentially making their own lives/departments face hardship and not take credit for it?

Yeah...no.

LOL. Exactly. My chairman and PD didn't give two ****s about where their own graduates ended up professionally. I'm quite confident they care even less about the plight of random residents.

 

[elementaryschooleconomics]

I know PDs received e-mails about it as well. It'd be weird to send it to some PDs (especially at smaller programs like City of Hope and Nebraska, who both responded) and not send it to every PD in the country. Some of them may not have replied 'fast enough' for the IJROBP supplement or whatever, maybe in a month (still before Match day) they can do a supplement to the supplement with an updated list.

Yeah I followed up on this today. Evidently it was just a single email sent to PDs, and based on Kharofa's Tweets, there was a quick turnaround.

Again, I don't think there's some malicious conspiracy where a bunch of departments were like "lol FILL THE RANKS NO MATTER WHAT". Do I think there are some departments who feel this way? Yes. Do I think it's a lot/the majority? Probably not.