Chairman issues

[deleted4401]

---

Members don't see this ad.

One thing that comes up is that a particular program may have a new chairman, a chairman that's retiring, an interim chairman, or another variation of chairman flux.

I'm trying to figure out how to value that. With radiation oncology becoming so competitive, and any spot being worth gold, how much weight should I put the chairman situation? I feel like other interviewees make an issue out of it, and I don't know, but frankly, it just doesn't seem to bother me much.

I feel like the training I get won't be dependent on the chairman - how wrong am I? I think having good faculty is obviously important, but it seems that at most places the chairman's role was part figurehead/part administrative/part ceremonial/part advisory. Most of them didn't spend much time teaching and some hardly saw patients.

It seemed as a resident I'd want an involved program director, an energetic and active education director, and at least a few staff that had been there for a little while. It seems that if I became an attending, the chairman situation becomes far more important.

So, if anyone can shed some light on the situation, that would be great.

Thanks,
Simul

 

[stephew]

Well your right and your wrong. The chairman MOST CERTAINLY will make the tone of the program, the role of the residents etc. However in some cases it s a bigger deal than others. Lets take Mallindkrodt. New chairman. Should that be unsettling? No. Because its a stable program, in a stable hosptial and the turnover is natural. Other programs are getting new people because they're struggling. Anything can go there.

Dont think the chairman wont touch your life though. It depends on the person. Some are ensconced and aren't doing anything day to day that effects (it seems) the residents. Others however will redesign the whole thing including your residency, the way rounds go, are you pimped and abused or taken care of and mentored. It makes a difference.