How to get into RadOnc

[RadOncMan]

---

Members don't see this ad.

While we're at it, I think that the whole RadOnc application process truly provides a microcosm of what is wrong with medicine and how the residency application process has become a sham of packaging, politics, and spin - indeed fed by the moderator herself who is a committee member.

Look at what one has to do these days to get in the field:
1. Obtain "big name" letters by completing a rotatation at a "big name" place with the PRIMARY motive of impressing the attending rather than educating oneself, expanding one's horizons, and diligently "impressing" one's patients by doing what's best for them rather then diverting one's attention on impressing the attendings.

2. Complete token research with the PRIMARY objective of demonstrating scholarship and academic potential instead of prioritizing one's time for research because of an innate curiosity to investigate and understand a question that one is genuinely passionate about.

3. Focusing on sharpening one's "interview" skills because, as indirectly conveyed by the moderator, it is how well you PRESENT yourself rather than who you TRULY are that will affect your ranking on their list. In other words, don't be yourself, be your polished, packaged best.

4. Convincing oneself through through enough repetition and internalization to sincerely believe and convey during the interview that financial reward, lifestyle, and prestige have nothing to do with one's interest in the field.

5. Spending hours upon hours on this very website to elicit perspectives and strategies for packaging and spinning one's application when better time could be spent on furthering one's knowledge or improving one's ability to relate to one's patients.

 

[jb2]

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Sad, how truly sad.

 

[COhiker]

It's funny because I once thought that I was the most cynical and nihilistic person who reads these boards. It seems I was underestimating the collective mood.

All that you say ROM can be viewed as true, but it can (and perhaps should) also be viewed as the far extreme of truth. I believe that you can (and must) be yourself throughout this process and that is the only way you'll find a place which is right for you.

1) Away rotations: you're only setting yourself up for pain if you aren't yourself during aways. Work hard certainly but no one should need to tell you that if you're really interested in a field. My perspective is that you don't need to be the first there and last to leave to impress people, just be inquisitive, willing, helpful, and interested. A month of spinning yourself would be exhausting and absolutely non-educational. As with every rotation in med school, your primary job should always be to learn. Become cynical when you’re not learning (i.e. in the OR) but not because you feel the need to put on a show.

2) Interviewing: I'm also not sure you need to put on a show during interviews - as with aways, just be yourself. Be willing (and able) to talk about non-research, non-radiation oncology things. When asked about something NOT in your applications, talk about your seashell collection and be excited about it. This isn't a show, you may well be very interested in those shells. Others certainly disagree but interviews for me were an opportunity to "meet" a program and get to know it and not to show off in some way. Listen, there are so many interviews that you go through, it would be nearly impossible to put on a consistent act (think 10+ per day at some places).

3) If you’re interested in the field for its lifestyle alone, I concur, you’re going to have to come up with some other aspect to emphasize during the process but that is true of any field.

4) Letters: Here I cannot disagree with you. I went into the process thinking it would be “pure” and that the best letter would be the best thing to send. For all I know, this could be true – I only have an n of 1 so take my perspective as such. I got repeated advice that name matters more than any other factor (as long as the letter wasn’t bad) and ended up succumbing to that thinking. I still sort of wish I had stuck to my guns but I wasn’t sure I wanted to be “right” and not at a place I wanted to be.

5) This board: If people are coming here to read about how best to package themselves it seems to me that they must leave feeling unfulfilled. If following the “script” provided by this site were to ensure success the world would indeed be a strange place. The posters here represent a relatively narrow slice of the applicant pool/residents and many, many match without becoming a part of this community.

So, while I agree there are some things to be cynical about, there are plenty of opportunities for optimism. I expect others would agree that being yourself is a winnable strategy but maybe I’m wrong…

(Of note, I don’t think there is anything exceptionable about me or my applications which allowed me to be myself where others could not.)

 

[RadOncMan]

Unfortunately, idealism alone these days doesn't get you very far though I would hope to think otherwise. I'm not espousing the fact that you have to put on a show to get into the field, but on the other hand, it's naive to think that being completely truthful and true to yourself will get you far.

In this case, you should not tailor your application to clinical versus academic programs because you will alway be less than truthful in one or the other.

In this case, if you really don't have any questions to ask at the end of an interview, you really should just say nope I don't have any questions - but how many people actually do this for fear of sounding less than enthusiastic about the program. If you truly have done this than I applaud you. How many applicants have continued to ask a question for which they already knew the answer, and you probably will be in this situation given the number of interviews most Rad Onc programs will have - I'm talking about straight up questions not a different perspective.

In this case, all med students probably would look like idiots because how much do med students know about Rad Onc anways (have you volunteered to ask something to an attending during conference when you were not sure or did you keep quiet because you knew it would expose yourself as someone who doesn't know very much?)

If we were all true to ourselves and others, why even be consciencious and careful about what one says during interview day? If you are a type that likes to b*tch about everything from working on call to bad traffic to airport delays, might as well let that out since you you might be working with your interviewers one day and it'll come out eventually. No need to put up a facade.

In this case, you wouldn't be writing on your thank you letters to every program that I will be ranking you highly because someone has to be at the end of your list.

 

[stephew]

i was going to comment directly to the complaints above but I decided rather than reiterating things ive said before, Ill just say I believe you've really missed the gist of many of my comments. I'd also suggest that you reread the original post on this thread and substitute "law" or "business" or " teaching" or any field besides medicine and you'll see there's little difference in how things work. Indeed pretend the whole commentary about the interview you made above is about going on a date. Its like complaining about being on your best behavior during a date. (and like on a date, you reveal more at the interview than you clearly realize) Finally, if you have a better way of doing things, please do suggest. Several countries make students take one exam and the results of that determine if you can practice medicine and where. That's totally objective. No interivew, no letters of rec, nothing else. Implement that here and let loose the cry "But being a doctor is about so much more than testing well!". And you'd be right.

 

[pat]

I am addicted to this forum but it is very depressing. Even though I am a good student with the right scores and grades, and am sincerely interested in this field, I am seriously considering trying to like something else instead because I don't have all those other factors (prestigous med school, big name recs, research, the right away rotations). I guess this is not really related to this thread, because the info on this forum is just the truth about the way things are. I guess I am just sad that it seems so unlikely I could get in even though I know I could do well.

 

[CNphair]

Pat,

Please don't get too discouraged...you have to keep everything on this board in perspective. Yes, it helps to have big name recs, a top ten school, a 4.0, multiple publications, and a 255 on the boards. But remember, there are only a handful of people on this earth that have all of those things. Most of us only have a piece. Many people match into the field with more human attributes. Try to do away rotations, try to get good letters, and apply early. I would advise you to apply broadly and not overanalyze until interview invitations come in...Don't get me wrong, it is a very, very tough market. But if you really feel the field is right for you, try! Keep a backup plan that involves research or electives during your PGY-1 year in case the worst happens. Many people are able to get in on a second try....

 

[pat]

Thanks for the encouragement, I will think about it. I guess it might be better to try and fail than to always wonder if I could have done it.

 

[stephew]

ithinik before throwing in the towel you should talk personally with some program directors and people in the field. There is balance between realizing the reality of the situtation and understadning that people are considered individually. I think CNPhair makes the point very well.

I would also add that I've been doing this radonc mod thing for many years now and in 'net terms am rather ancient. I can also tell you that as the compititveness of the field has increased, we're also seeing a change in the nature of the applicant. A little background; I am an IMG- I graduated from SGU in grenada. I can tell you that there is a an unexpectedly large body of students who *do* fit the Uberstudent profile (in terms of pedigree, gpa, boards, etc) and who are more anxious regarding their match opportunites than any IMG i ever met. And some of that is reflected here. In fact the irony is that all along my comments about things like letters of rec and interviews are meant (in part) to show how the nebulous "other" features of a candidate can trump the hard core numbers and why this in fact is a good thing. You're looked as more than your ability to test well. Yet in this thread it is lamented as merely part of a game.

Please do youself a favor and talk to folks face to face before throwing in the towel due the anxiety provoked from the internet.

 

[RadOncMan]

I concur that you should give it a try instead of rejecting yourself even before you apply. The application process is quite nebulous with many applicants looking very similar; you never know what you have in your application that might strike a chord with a committee member - and hence you will often be surprised at where you receive interviews from. My advice -apply broadly and don't rule out any program because you think it might be a reach because you never know - heck apply to every program if you can - I know a lot of people that do.

When I am in a position of power, I will definitely hold in high regard those candidates who remain relentlessly uncompromising in their integrity, who truly exemplify the virtues of medicine by exhibiting unselfishness and dutifullness to their patients and the broader community, and who remain committed to realizing their vision of improving the quality of life for patients with cancer over the many Bill Clintonesque "I will do whatever I need to do to get in - as long as I don't get caught, i.e. a summer of research in Rad Onc even though I only have a FLEETING track record because I find it boring" phonies out there.

 

[stephew]

I concur that you should give it a try instead of rejecting yourself even before you apply. The application process is quite nebulous with many applicants looking very similar; you never know what you have in your application that might strike a chord with a committee member - and hence you will often be surprised at where you receive interviews from. My advice -apply broadly and don't rule out any program because you think it might be a reach because you never know - heck apply to every program if you can - I know a lot of people that do.

When I am in a position of power, I will definitely hold in high regard those candidates who remain relentlessly uncompromising in their integrity, who truly exemplify the virtues of medicine by exhibiting unselfishness and dutifullness to their patients and the broader community, and who remain committed to realizing their vision of improving the quality of life for patients with cancer over the many Bill Clintonesque "I will do whatever I need to do to get in - as long as I don't get caught, i.e. a summer of research in Rad Onc even though I only have a FLEETING track record because I find it boring" phonies out there.

Radoncman, just a point for you to consider and reject if you so see fit. The first is, being a caring doc who also wants to know how to optimize their chance of getting into a program is not mutually exclusive. I think what you arent getting to see from your vantage point right now is that the problem is that there are more excellent applicants than we have spaces for; and by that i mean candidates with the kind of soul you are talking about. Not just a bright guy with an angle.

The second is this; to the extent that some day you may be in power and you may be the guy people are vying to impress, please realize you've not asked for anything different that we try to ask for now. As you';ve noted, Ive been involved in resident interviews for some years and I know the sort of people the higher ups are looking for and you are mistaken in thinking its anything other than the people of the highest ethical principles. And don't think its all that difficult for us to identify applicants who've done little more than connect the dots to get a residency.

Finally, refering back to your first post regarding being sadden at how students play the admissions game rather than somehow "meaning it" and how this is evidence of a flaw in medicine; Realize that if someday a young student decides he wants to go to Radoncman's program, he'll just have to read your posts to give himself a better idea of how he should finesse his CV and interview with you. There is no way to stop shapeshifting candidates from identifying key things that might be attractive to say to increase their chances. Its your job to have a critical eye. and this is what the letters of rec, the cv, the interview all do.

 

[trublu]

RadOncMan,

Coming from a student who is currently going through the process with genuine sincerity, I find your cynicism upsetting. There are many students out there for whom the "application hoops" fit very well simply because they are well-suited for this career. Was this not the case for you? If it was, why do you now assume the students coming after you are any different?

 

[jbernar1]

Thanks for the encouragement, I will think about it. I guess it might be better to try and fail than to always wonder if I could have done it.

That's exactly right. If I had listened to "people" then I would not have matched in Rad Onc. That includes some people in the field and program directors. If you think you can do it then go for it no matter what anyone says. If you don't make it, at least you tried. I know someone who matched in derm with only two interviews....it only takes one!

 

[stephew]

you know that whole quote really reads differently if you move those quotes around.
For instance: If "I" had listend to people then,...
or
If I "had" listened to people then
or "If" I had listened to people then...

 

[deleted4401]

It's sort of the truth, as much as Steph and others don't feel that way.

Steph, I think it's very hard to compare your situation. I know it was beginning to become difficult when you applied, but I just don't know if you would have matched at such a strong program as an American FMG if you were applying now. We all know now that you've become an excellent physician and a huge contributor to the field and aren't in it for the lifestyle, as you're in a very academic atmosphere. But, it's so different now, it really is, and I know you have to agree with that to at least a point.

I know you emphasize the interview so much, but I don't buy it. I think an AOA, MD/PhD with a 250 step 1 and letters from D'Amico and Gundersen will match if she applies to every program even if she is a TERRIBLE interviewee. I think a non-AOA, no research background person with great letters from non-famous people may or may not match even if she applies to every program and interviews fabulously. Everyone has anecdotes contradicting, but I'm making a general point ...

Also, as far as COHiker, not sure if I met you on the road, but I'm sure you're a great person and dedicated to the field and not a lifestyle junkie either, but from what I remember in a previous post, your stats were absolutely amazing and you had strong research and excellent letters.

Here's the deal: I was a strong medical student, but not nearly as strong as everyone else. I was a solid student, top 1/3 of my class, I did well on my boards (240+ on both), and I had some strong letters (got to read 'em on a few interviews), including 1 big name. I didn't have a lick of research, though. I applied to 95% of the programs and got ... drumrolll please ... 7 interviews (8, if you include UT-SW after the match). And, I guess this is pretty subjective, but I'm a good guy and I've always interviewed well. The best I got was to be selected as the "alternate" for the UT spot, but I doubt anything will come of it. I've spoken to almost all of the programs that negged me, and they ALL said that they were surprised that I didn't match, but they agreed that I needed to do more research, as there were no other flaws with the application or interview or my rotation there.

I met enough people on the road, and I know this could be construed as judgemental, but many weren't engaging or interesting or charismatic, but they matched easily into amazing programs. And, I know it had a lot to do with celebrity letters and being AOA and research-oriented. I also have a strong feeling that all things being equal, being female helps. I hate saying that, because I'm not sexist, and I think the female presence in medicine has changed it for the better. Please don't flame: this is purely opinion. I don't think that the female applicants weren't as strong, I'm sure those that matched were likely better than me - I just think that with all applicants being "uberstudents", being female was a bonus.

They are looking for the creme de la creme, and if they see someone with some sort of proxy that signifies a potential academic career (i.e. PhD, tons of pubs, history of basic science research), most programs will be more interested (though not all). The part that ROM is absolutely correct about is that people flat out lie. If 100% of the applicants (all that I met on the road) say that they want an academic career in front of the program director, yet only 30% become academic doctors, that says something.

I'm not cynical (yet). I'm still in love with the field. After not matching, I've rotated at a few other places and met faculty that were amazing role models for me, and have already begun to help me during "Round 2". The people in the field are compassionate and bright and dedicated, the subject matter is far fascinating than anything else I'd consider, and I've realized that research doesn't have to be a hoop to jump through, that it is in itself intellectually challenging and stimulating.

I want to be a radiation oncologist so bad, but I think the selection process has swayed in a direction that doesn't favor people who are honest about wanting to be clinicians first and just have an intense desire and interest in treating malignancy, and not perform research.

See ya' on the road,
Simul

 

[RadOncMan]

I completely agree... to the contrary of what I have been labeled, I am actually quite an idealist - which is why I am so troubled and saddened by the lying, politicking, packaging, and dishonesty that has pervaded the application process. Having recently gone through the application and interview process not too long ago, I KNOW many individuals that have finagled their way through the process.

Can the Committee Members connect the dots? Doubt it - remember there are pretty smart applicants out there, and to many it's just called playing the game. Are there residents (note the plurality!) that I have talked to at the Harvard Combined Program, where Steph works, who told me directly that they did not want to go into academics and yet lied about it on their interview. Absolutely - as much a shock as it must come to you Stephew. They are still "good" people otherwise but what's dissapointing is that the system has made it where they feel they have been forced to compromise their integrity to get into the field.

In contrast to law or business or to other professions, I have always held Physicians to a higher standard. When so much of our work involves taking care of other people, any lapse in integrity becomes especially troubling. If someone is doing it for the money, won't there eventually be a conflict of interest where financial reimbursement might challeneg quality of care?

To those out there who disagree with my comments, WOULD YOU BET YOUR CAREER ON IT? If so then I challenge you to:

1. Say "I don't have any questions" if you really don't have any questions for a program.

2. Never ask a question for which you already know the answer.

3. Avoid research if you truly don't have an interest in it. Instead, do something you really enjoy like travelling to Europe.

4. Don't write any thank you letters - (especially since you are going to recycle the same spiel on all your letters anyways). And especially don't write thank you letters to ALL 10-23 interviewers you'll have at each program.

5. Limit "I will be ranking you highly" on your thank you letters only to your top 3 programs.

6. Focus just on doing what's best for your patient during your RadOnc rotations even if this involves compromising face time with your attending.

7. Be completely sincere in your reasons for entering the field - if it's foremost big money and easy lifestyle, then mantion that. If it's taking care of cancer patients and continuity of patient care, mention that, but not if it comes after big money and easy lifestyle.

8. Most importanly be yourself - nobody is perfect so it's ok to show your faults even at an interview.

 

[stephew]

simul- i dont disagree with you at all that if i were to apply today id likely not get a spot. no question. But my point is if you have 100 people applying for 3 spots, chances are 50 + will be very good candidates who any idealistic doc like radoncman or any of us would love to have. So why not evaluate among the most academically qualifed folks and narrow from there? I think some folks are setting up a very false dichotomy- great by the cv versus great in their soul and that's just false. (many points on the list above is a perfect example of this black and white picture that just doesn't exist.) The real world is far more complex. There is nothing at all wrong with being idealistic but (and this is the key thing) realism and idealism are not in conflict. Programs today are really not choosing between kids who've are fantastic pull-themselves-up-by -their-bootstraps heros and spoiled brats who's daddy gave them some secret handshake like in the movies. Were are seeing more excellent people- who meet radoncman's vision- than we have spots for. Perhaps some of you out there are indeed more wise than those currently in the position of choosing, and you'll have your day to make choices. But right now, there are very good people (included some of the "big names" you cite above) who are making the choices with honesty and integrity and more often than not, I am impressed with what they value in an applicant. I honestly think that many are being extremely unfair towards seniors who are honestly trying to better the field and who, while they may make mistakes, really have integrety about how they're going about choosing applicants.

In fact you name dropped someone I know quite well. One of the reasons his letters of rec are taken seriously is because of his personal integrity. He's a big name alright, but we all know how to read between the lines of an LOR. What really counts is that a glowing review means it from him. We all know what a letter of faint praise means.

Finally, I think most adults know there is a difference between being honest, and lacking simple social politeness. (ie the thank-you note example). I consider the recognition of this part of the integrity of the phyisican (i mean how would you feel about a rali-lifeDr. House who tells a patient exactly what they think of them on a personal level? He's honest, no?) I'm drawn to thinking of some teenager who complains "people are phonies" when they observe some social gracess. We all have to decide where that line is but that's part of growing up.

In any event I respect the idealism out there- I only will assert that you are doing a disservice to many men and women out there who are trying to choose such candidates who might meet that ideal. Again, the value of the interview and the letters! And yes I realize that nevertheless Id have gone by the wayside if choosing radonc today. Many of those in the field would.

 

[CNphair]

Sim,

Your thoughts about women on the application trail have intrigued me. I am applying this year, and I am female. Through my rotations (3), I have encountered two attitudes. The first has been people who say "Oh, you are a woman...you will get more interviews than any man with the same stats." The second has been a warning that "There aren't many women in Rad Onc for a reason." The former has been primarily from other students who probably don't have a clue what they are talking about. The latter was from one attending and one resident...both at a "big name" program. From looking at match data, I got the impression that though there are fewer female applicants, men and women have about the same match rate - i.e. there is no real sex advantage. Anyone walk away from the process feeling differently?

Thanks!

 

[deleted4401]

CN,

I really have hesitated to say anything about this all year, because it may make me sound sexist, which just isn't the case. My mother's hem-onc and rad-onc were both amazing women, and it did make a difference. Because it was a "female" malignacy, and because of her culture, it made things better for her. She even had me meet and talk to both of them. Her surgeon was a man, and she adores him, as well, but it wasn't the same.

But, here is my thinking: if two candidates are equally capable, and your program has all men (and the entire field is 80% men), why wouldn't you choose a woman? If I was a PD, I'd want diversity without sacrificing quality, and you can have that if you select a female over a male that have equal qualifications (or a southerner over a northerner, or a state schooler over an ivy leaguer) ...

Quantitatively, say there are 25 amazing applicants (18 men, 7 women) that are assured spots, and then another 175 applicants that are good, and relatively equal in quality (130 men, 45 women). There's approximately 125 spots. If they were all equivalent applicants, then the remainder of the 100 spots could be filled with 100 men without a decrease in quality, or it could be 55 men and all 45 women, again without a decrease in quality ... if all things are equal, why not sway towards the latter result? Either way, highly-qualified people get shafted, but with the latter result, there is some societal benefit by having more women chosen.

Does that make sense? I'm just very sensitive about sounding like a chauvinist. I want to make it clearer that I don't think less qualified women are getting spots over more qualified men.

Simul

Sim,

Your thoughts about women on the application trail have intrigued me. I am applying this year, and I am female. Through my rotations (3), I have encountered two attitudes. The first has been people who say "Oh, you are a woman...you will get more interviews than any man with the same stats." The second has been a warning that "There aren't many women in Rad Onc for a reason." The former has been primarily from other students who probably don't have a clue what they are talking about. The latter was from one attending and one resident...both at a "big name" program. From looking at match data, I got the impression that though there are fewer female applicants, men and women have about the same match rate - i.e. there is no real sex advantage. Anyone walk away from the process feeling differently?

Thanks!

 

[hermanbean]

Finally this forum is getting interesting again! SimulD, as a female I am not offended by your comments. I wanted to go to a certain program which will be all male in the next year, however they still took only male residents. My application was strong and I rotated there and had a great time at the program. As you alluded, I feel that only in a very specific situation (two aplicants with very very similar applications) would the issue of sex really have a great deal to do with the final decision.

As far as the research issue....I guess one interesting way to look at it is this. If you have a great publication of your work on your CV either A) you love research and will be a great asset to the program (even if you don't go into academics you will contribute to the field during your residency). or B) you really aren't that interested in research (would have rather been sunbathing in Greece), but you are willing to work hard to get into your field of interest, you put your nose to the grindstone and came out with a great publication. To me it is an honorable thing to do any way you slice it.

Also, I agree with stephew comparison of the interview to a date. Every interview is supposed to last a certain amount of time. You shoot the S*#% for 15 minutes but your conversation lost some steam and the interviewer has five minutes left. In every interview when they didn't know what to ask they all asked "do you have any questions". They didn't care if I asked about what good restaurants are in town or what. In fact, at the program where I ended up matching the chair asked me "do you have any questions" I said "Where are you from?" I had a feeling he was from my grandmother's home country and we ended up talking about that for 10 minutes.

 

[CNphair]

I don't think SimulD's comments were sexist at all. I had assumed women would have an advantage when I first started looking at Rad Onc. But it seems the female numbers are staying about the same...Like I said, I have even encountered some hostility towards the motivation of female applicants. I am just curious as to what the "generalized" mood is...

 

[stephew]

i ahve to say, i have NEVER seen being female to the detrement of a resident candidatre since ive been in the field. I know at jHH for a few years it was male dominated but not for lack of trying on the rank list- a lot of top candidates were women but they all wound up elsewhere. I think that as a generalization is rather female friendly. There are "old boys" everywhere but frankly knock wood its never been an issue here.

 

[stephew]

BTW- I believe there are more women interested in the field now adays. Please see my faq for my personal completely unconfrimed thoughts on why its such a popular field. for the smae reason i think that's why there are more women. its always beena good "lifestyle" field which previously was more the domain of women. Now med students in genral want a full life and its not split down gender lines. But i do think the technohead bias of the past made it more male dominated. just my view with nothing to back it up.

 

[Ursus Martimus]

simul- i dont disagree with you at all that if i were to apply today id likely not get a spot. .

I am not so sure why you comment with such authority on this topic. I also wonder if this forum should be moterated by someone who is more familiar with the trials and tribulations of what is like today. Are other forums moderated by such antiquity?

 

[leroyk]

Ursus,

Why so rude? Have a little respect for the moderator who puts a lot of time into answering posts to help us all......

 

[radiaterMike]

Ursus,

Why so rude? Have a little respect for the moderator who puts a lot of time into answering posts to help us all......

I have to agree. Ursus, you are entering a small field where it is not going to be to your advantage to make enemies. Though most people post with anonymity (the moderator being an exception), it is not difficult to figure out who people are (i.e. based on where people say they matched, went to medical school, etc). Just because someone disagrees with you (i.e. dual training) does not make them useless as a monitor.

In fact someone who reads applications and is involved in applicant interviews is going to be knowedgable about matters relevant to MSIVs (maybe moreso than someone just starting their internship).

 

[RadOncMan]

I second Ursus' comments that the Moderator's thoughts - though well-intentioned - are sometimes misguided and out of touch. Nevertheless, anyone who is spending their precious time contributing to this forum should be applauded. How the Moderator, with clinical, teaching, and research among other responsibilities, finds the time to contribute to this forum is an enigma to me.

 

[Thaiger75]

Getting feisty in here. Let's keep in mind that although it has been at least a few years since steph applied to Rad Onc, she has been in the thick of things in the selection process both as a chief and faculty. Having said that, that doesn't mean her opinion reigns supreme. I think that alot of students on this forum can say that overall, her comments have been helpful.

Nothing wrong with a little controversy to spice things up

I second Ursus' comments that the Moderator's thoughts - though well-intentioned - are sometimes misguided and out of touch. Nevertheless, anyone who is spending their precious time contributing to this forum should be applauded. How the Moderator, with clinical, teaching, and research among other responsibilities, finds the time to contribute to this forum is an enigma to me.

 

[bigfrank]

I Like This Thread!!!

 

[stephew]

I can't say that I have a current view of what it feels like to be an applicant. I'm sure I am out of touch with that. But I have a different perspective than applicants (note I don't say "better") as to what programs are looking for. I'm not quite sure how I'm misguided, but I will say some times I find it difficult to provide a view for you from that perspective. Take that for what its worth..or don't. I am truely interested in what those currently in the process of applying will think about these things we mull in, say, 6 years time.

In any event i have absolutely zero problem with anyone disagreeing with me; of course that says nothing about others feel feel about my disagreeing with them.

Finally in terms of time; like everything else, you make the time. With patients, work, whatever. It's easy if you like it and most of the time I find it really rewarding to chat w/students and residents.

 

[Ursus Martimus]

Although I very much appreciate the comments of Steph and the contributions she has made, I am not sure that they are always accurate. To be completely honest, I believe she is an instructor - which may indeed lead to being a faculty member, but not yet. This is the accuaracy people should ask from this forum. The question remains as to which forums still have non-residents as moderators. Lastly, I have never been one for remaining unknown and I am sure many probably know who I am and are supportive of such criticism, and the arguement remains...It is better to be correct than nice, however both is ideal and your concerns are well heeded.

 

[deleted4401]

ERAS's current response to those that want to apply this year but who's schools happen to be in cities that are evacuated:

"We have no solution at this time. Please call us every day. It's too hard for us to contact all of you."

1. Calling every day for an intern is quite a pain in the ass. 2. Put all the social security numbers of affected people and send a message telling us what the hell to do.

Steph, got your message - Dr. D'Amico's advice is appreciated, but I think he's missing some of the point. I can't get my Dean's Letter into the system. I can't get my letters into the system. The way it works is I have to have my letters sent to my home school, who then scan it into the computer, and electronically transmit to ERAS. So, I don't have anyone that can scan it in for me. And - transcripts! I don't have that either ...

I wonder if another school can be my 'home school' for this ... I have transcripts at UT-Southwestern, from when I rotated and interviewed there.

I don't even feel bad for me. I feel worse for the T4s and L4s from New Orleans who up the creek further than I am.

Simul

 

[stephew]

Although I very much appreciate the comments of Steph and the contributions she has made, I am not sure that they are always accurate. To be completely honest, I believe she is an instructor - which may indeed lead to being a faculty member, but not yet. This is the accuaracy people should ask from this forum. The question remains as to which forums still have non-residents as moderators. Lastly, I have never been one for remaining unknown and I am sure many probably know who I am and are supportive of such criticism, and the arguement remains...It is better to be correct than nice, however both is ideal and your concerns are well heeded.

IThanks for appreciating me.
To be accurate: I am a full faculty member. At Harvard Med school I am the rank of Instructor. Had I taken a job elsewhere Id likely have started at the rank of assistant professior but juniors very very rarely get that at our institution. so if you'd like to be a stickler for accuracy, instructor = faculty. appracited

 

[MSTP boy]

I know you emphasize the interview so much, but I don't buy it. I think an AOA, MD/PhD with a 250 step 1 and letters from D'Amico and Gundersen will match if she applies to every program even if she is a TERRIBLE interviewee. I think a non-AOA, no research background person with great letters from non-famous people may or may not match even if she applies to every program and interviews fabulously. Everyone has anecdotes contradicting, but I'm making a general point ...

Here's the deal: I was a strong medical student, but not nearly as strong as everyone else. I was a solid student, top 1/3 of my class, I did well on my boards (240+ on both), and I had some strong letters (got to read 'em on a few interviews), including 1 big name. I didn't have a lick of research, though. I applied to 95% of the programs and got ... drumrolll please ... 7 interviews (8, if you include UT-SW after the match).

I met enough people on the road, and I know this could be construed as judgemental, but many weren't engaging or interesting or charismatic, but they matched easily into amazing programs. And, I know it had a lot to do with celebrity letters and being AOA and research-oriented. I also have a strong feeling that all things being equal, being female helps.

I agree with SimulD. Applicants simply aren't interviewed who don't meet the cutoffs. After that point, non-objective information becomes much more important. Famous names are important, yet even most applicants now probably have fairly well-known recs. Being attractive and charismatic during the interview is certainly a plus, but these days almost all applicants are good-looking. Having AOA or MD/PhD is a significant advantage, although even here there are no guarantees.

Being female strongly weights things in your favor, all else being equal. I would venture to guess that females who get interviews have a much higher match % than the interviewing males match %. This is because: 1. females tend to interview well; they are better at communicating, preparing, grooming, and being charismatic than most males are, on average. 2. Most academic programs are 80%+ male, and female residents are preferred by the PDs to change the atmosphere. In general, female residents are adored because in general they are less arrogant, more humble, and more personable.

 

[Thaiger75]

I agree with SimulD. Applicants simply aren't interviewed who don't meet the cutoffs. After that point, non-objective information becomes much more important. Famous names are important, yet even most applicants now probably have fairly well-known recs. Being attractive and charismatic during the interview is certainly a plus, but these days almost all applicants are good-looking. Having AOA or MD/PhD is a significant advantage, although even here there are no guarantees.

Being female strongly weights things in your favor, all else being equal. I would venture to guess that females who get interviews have a much higher match % than the interviewing males match %. This is because: 1. females tend to interview well; they are better at communicating, preparing, grooming, and being charismatic than most males are, on average. 2. Most academic programs are 80%+ male, and female residents are preferred by the PDs to change the atmosphere. In general, female residents are adored because in general they are less arrogant, more humble, and more personable.

Are you kidding me? Is this written by a guy or a girl? The only thing that may weigh in females' favor is the pure numbers. Less female applicants might mean higher chance of matching, and even that's iffy. But the rest of that stuff is nonsense. And unless you have inside info, I've never heard of any program having a status quo on female/male ratio in any program. I've met just as many non-charismatic females as males on the interview trails.

 

[RadOncMan]

Let's get real... African-American MD/PhD female vs. Caucasian-American MD male - equally strong grades, personal statement, letters, interview skills. Both very likable and easy to work with. Both equally compatible with program's directions and goals. Both trained at elite medical schools. Both with immense potential for contribution to the field.

You think any Program Director wouldn't want the rare commodity who might add diversity to a program? With the strength of applications these days, this type of scenario probably isn't too uncommon. In fact, I would imagine that most program directors would be pleased to be working with any number of incredible applicants far down their rank list - and regret that they couldn't take them all.

Problem for applicants is that Program Directors really can't go wrong with anyone they choose because of the high quality and depth of applicants - only in 15-20 years will they regret not having selected a future Nobel Laureate.

 

[Thaiger75]

Let's get real... African-American MD/PhD female vs. Caucasian-American MD male - equally strong grades, personal statement, letters, interview skills. Both very likable and easy to work with. Both equally compatible with program's directions and goals. Both trained at elite medical schools. Both with immense potential for contribution to the field.

You think any Program Director wouldn't want the rare commodity who might add diversity to a program? With the strength of applications these days, this type of scenario probably isn't too uncommon. In fact, I would imagine that most program directors would be pleased to be working with any number of incredible applicants far down their rank list - and regret that they couldn't take them all.

Problem for applicants is that Program Directors really can't go wrong with anyone they choose because of the high quality and depth of applicants - only in 15-20 years will they regret not having selected a future Nobel Laureate.

That definitely is a valid point. But I don't think that you can make a general statement that all PD would do that. I personally, if I was a PD, would not weigh race as a strength to add diversity to my program. Other factors like personal background, philosophies, geographical location would weigh in more.

 

[Ursus Martimus]

Other factors like .... geographical location would weigh in more.

I have to say that geography is perhaps the most ******ed reason to consider an applicant. Most serious applicants, in such a competitive discipline, are quite willing to go for the best oppotunities, geography aside.

Last year I called an institution to follow up about an interview. They responded, "Oh you lived in California and had strong midwest letters, we never thought you would consider a midatlantic program seriously." They resended there rejection and granted me an interview. Although I did not match there, I did rank them highly. I think it is detrimental for the field to consider geography in this day of the internet and airplanes. Considering geography is such a small town view, quaint but stupid.

 

[Thaiger75]

I have to say that geography is perhaps the most ******ed reason to consider an applicant. Most serious applicants, in such a competitive discipline, are quite willing to go for the best oppotunities, geography aside.

Last year I called an institution to follow up about an interview. They responded, "Oh you lived in California and had strong midwest letters, we never thought you would consider a midatlantic program seriously." They resended there rejection and granted me an interview. Although I did not match there, I did rank them highly. I think it is detrimental for the field to consider geography in this day of the internet and airplanes. Considering geography is such a small town view, quaint but stupid.

Actually, what I meant was that being from a different geographic location would be a plus for adding diversity (at least for me if I were a PD). But, yes, I do know of programs that do not invite applicants solely on geographic distance, quite like what you wrote. I guess in today's world of filtering and screening through massive piles of equal looking applications, geography is one (sad), but easy way of slimming the applicant pool down. I would assume that these programs think that there are plenty of high quality applicants to choose from within their area...which is probably true, but sucks for students.

 

[JTradonc]

I haven't posted in a REALLY long time, but I couldn't resist.

What is so interesting about this entire discussion thread is that (Stephew excluded) all the theories being positted on "what it takes" to match into Radiation oncology are being offered by people who have not completed the process. It's a little bit like observing political pundits waxing poetic on TV.

I know that nobody asked for my opinion, but as PGY3 who did match, here is my perspective.

1) There are a lot of programs out there. Nobody can possibly predict what each program is or is not looking for. Therefore, the process remains a "black box"

2) Perhaps the most sage insight into what programs are looking for was offered to me by Anthony D'Amico, who briefly mentored me during a clerkship at the so-called Joint Center in Boston. I hope I do him justice when I paraphrase: "what programs are looking for are people who have a genuine interest in radiation oncology, and who exude a kind of spark of enthuiasm that is clear to people making admission decisions"

Lastly, I just want to say, that being an informed savvy applicant who knows how to spin his/her application and personal presence to help match is NOT mutually exclusive of personal integrity and the highest degree of ethical conduct.

 

[RadOncMan]

With all due respect, I think many of us posting HAVE gone through the application process and been successful. I too am a resident at a consensus top Rad Onc program, having interviewed at over 15 of the top programs in the country, though I must admit that I haven't personally had an active role in the selection and ranking of applicants. What I CAN offer is my perspective based on my experience having recently gone though the application process, watching others go through the same process, and eliciting perspectives from a network of fellow residents across the country.

 

[G'ville Nole]

I thought I'd revive this thread at now that the interview season is coming into the final few weeks. Having now gone through my first cycle on the "institutional" side of the fence, I wanted to offer some observations. I can't be sure if these are universal truths, just what I see here:

1) Steph is right; the INTERVIEW is key. Yes, your application package gets you the interview, but the interview by-and-large determines your rank. A faculty member told me that all applicants who come to interview basically walk in the door as equals; they are then graded primarily based upon the interview itself, and this grade determines your rank. They DO solicit resident input, and will shift candidates who receive overwhelmingly positive or negative reviews accordingly. I didn't fully appreciate this beforehand, and shared some of everybody's skepticism towards Steph's assertions before interview season; I now find myself fully agreeing with her.

2) As far as things in your app that get you interview invites, I think it's been hashed over ad nauseum, but here are a few observations based on the interviewees we brought in this year:

-Boards matter, but board scores at the median or lower can be made up for with an otherwise strong application. Interpret this as: If you "tanked" your Step I, but are passionate about rad onc, work hard in your clinical rotations, get a mentor, do research, get good letters, etc. You ARE still in the ballgame!

-No one cares about pre-clinical grades per se, but they play a small role inasmuch as they help to define class ranking. This is put in just to discourage the "I made a B+ in histology, is rad onc out of the question?" threads from appearing (or is that just endemic to the pre-allo board?).

-People care more than you think about hobbies and extracirriculars. These say something about you as a person, not just as a doctor, and you're likely to find faculty with common interests asking you more questions about your hobbies than about radiation oncology. That's not a bad thing!

I'm interested to know about the observations of residents at other institutions. I'm also happy to field additional questions from students.

 

[stephew]

I feel so impotent.

 

[G'ville Nole]

I feel so impotent.

 

[CNphair]

Ok, I have finished my interviews. Thank God. Glory be. Now, just please let someone rank me...

I have to say I went into this process thinking that interviews would matter a lot. For the most part, I still hold that impression. But do the residents out there believe this varies with institution? That is the thought I walk away with...For example, at Wisconsin, the interview seemed very important. At Harvard, the interview seemed very important. However, there were a few places (like, say, Michigan) where they seemed much more interested in whether your research fit in as opposed to whether you fit in. And the 15 minute round robins at Jefferson did not strike me as having a "get to know the true person" intent. Were these really just veiled personality tests?

 

[stephew]

Im sure it varies to greater or lesser degree. who knows. I think lots of things become 'veiled personality tests' even though they may not be desigend so per se.
Steph

 

[happyradonc]

i have decided to go back into academics and we have already started receiving applications, even though eras is not open! can you believe that? people are actually sending in their own applications, that they made up. i have to say, that definitely shows initiatives. our chair has set aside these ad hoc apps, and i'm sure they're going to get invites.

it seems that we're going to interview 50% md/phds off the bat. also, we're going to have 3/4 of applicatnts be above 240 on step 1 since we had a few residents fail their written boards and want to make sure this doesn't happen again. i'm really excited to be involved in the selection process. you all are great, but we really want someone who's had at least a science, nature, or cell paper.

something to aspire to, i hope!

 

[deleted4401]

 

[pakhanachua]

being someone who has a gender and is very attached to it, i think i've been approaching my own feelings about my gender totally wrongheadedly. i mean, on the one hand, being a woman, i benefit greatly from an understanding of female urogenital anatomy, in addition to being very comfortable with alpha cradle positioning during postlumpectomy interstitial brachytherapy when it requires precise targeting of the periareolar subcutaneous incision site, perhaps slightly more so than a guy (unless he has a LOT of experience with that sort of thing). now that's not sexist, is it? i mean, i'm certainly not the world's expert at HUP in the pediatric prostatic exam to check for the zebra small cell of the prostate in a metabolic kid. i would leave that to a guy, since he would use greater dexterity, and also build better rapport with the patient. i think as a girl and as a guy i could have a lot to offer, and i want to be looked at from within, not from the inside out.

but that's just my two cents.