chairs, resident selection and training

[sleeping beauty]

during interview season, I find that it is the chair but not the committe who select residents in most of programs. In several programs, faculty directly told me it is the Chair who makes the final decision. This is particularly true for recently appointed chairs.

Chairs have so much to do. How come they have so much time to interview every candidate? I am curious how much time your chair indeed interacts with residents during your training if they do have so much time.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mlw03]

during interview season, I find that it is the chair but not the committe who select residents in most of programs. In several programs, faculty directly told me it is the Chair who makes the final decision. This is particularly true for recently appointed chairs.

Chairs have so much to do. How come they have so much time to interview every candidate? I am curious how much time your chair indeed interacts with residents during your training if they do have so much time.

does "Chair" = program director or chairperson of the department?

in either case, i find it hard to believe that such an important decision as deciding which residents a program wants to rank most highly would be such a unilateral decision. everyone, from faculty, fellow residents, fellows, administrative staff, and especially in pathology, ancillary staff such as PAs and various lab techs, interacts with residents. so presumably the decision should be a collaborative decision between many of the affected parties.

 

[sleeping beauty]

I mean CHAIRMEN of the department.

I had thought that it was a collaborative decision. However, I was surprised when faculty members told me that their Chairs makes the final decision. Actually I was convinced it was true in their programs.

I know so many people will interact with reisdents. MY Q is: how much time will the Chairs spend with residents if they play such big role in resident selection?

 

[CameronFrye]

At our program, the chairman has an office over in one of the research buildings and rarely even ventures into the actual clinical areas of the department. He has absolutely ZERO input on resident selection. The decision is made by the committee who highly considers resident input. I don't know how it is at other depts, but I did interview with Chairmen at some places (Michigan, Hopkins, the vice-chair at BWH).

 

[yaah]

I think chairmen rarely have the final say. As the chair, they can give their input and if they put their weight behind a candidate the candidate is likely to be successful. But the program director does the ultimate ranking and decision making.

For many programs, the most interaction you will ever have with the chair face to face is your residency interview. The chair as the person in charge of the department is obviously interested in recruiting the best residents, so they do have quite a bit of involvement often, I guess it can vary from peripheral to more direct involvement. There are a few programs where the chairman is the program director.

 

[sleeping beauty]

since an issue of new chairs is raised in another thread, i just want to move this one forward.

 

[sleeping beauty]

http://www.apcprods.org/chairsnew.html

 

[DarksideAllstar]

I think chairmen rarely have the final say. As the chair, they can give their input and if they put their weight behind a candidate the candidate is likely to be successful. But the program director does the ultimate ranking and decision making.

For many programs, the most interaction you will ever have with the chair face to face is your residency interview. The chair as the person in charge of the department is obviously interested in recruiting the best residents, so they do have quite a bit of involvement often, I guess it can vary from peripheral to more direct involvement. There are a few programs where the chairman is the program director.

Agree. Completely.

 

[JustInCASE]

Done

 

[sleeping beauty]

it seems that i am a perfect candidate to fill your spot. i am a PhD/MD and just want to do what you CP only residents don't do=AP only. can you talk to your PD?

 

[yaah]

I know of several programs where the department chair is usually given one spot a year for who they want. Often these spots are given to MD/Phd candidates or CP only residents. Either way, the choice usually mess up the residency program because the MD/Phd's only want to do research and no service work while the CP only residents don't gross creating more work for everyone else.

I think in general if any senior or influential faculty member pushes hard for a certain candidate they are likely to be successful. Doesn't have to be the chairman necessarily. And having a CP only resident doesn't mess up the residency program, neither does having a researcher. I would agree that if any resident is not doing their required work and faculty are looking the other way that is pathetic.

 

[JustInCASE]

Done

 

[yaah]

It bothers me when this happens, because the function of pathology residency training is not to let someone do research. That's a post doc. If you want to offer residents extra years of "training" in which they will do pure research apart from their actual residency training that's fine, or if you want to allow them to use elective time in such a way that allows this. But you shouldn't be able to manipulate the system to get someone else to pay for the resident's salary by classifying them as a resident when in actuality they are a post doc. That's BS.

Now, CP-only residency is pretty low volume in terms of actual service work, so it's realistic to pursue substantial research during your training. And an AP only program may bunch rotations together so that you have an extended research block (as elective time) later in your training. But making other residents do more work than they should have to just to cater to the whims of others is, as I said, pathetic.