They juxtapose previous influenza outbreaks with COVID, they talk about immunity may confer benefit, vaccination potential, and then they give three different models that may happen. This is all theoretical. I agree that we may see something moving forward, but we may not. COVID could be similar to previous flu out breaks or it may not. Immunity may or may not help. A vaccine may or may not be available or efficacious. The models may be accurate or not. If we look at the models that were first introduced they have been redacted or revised time and time again.
Cancelling aways and virtual interviews are the prudent and responsible measure given what you think is so much uncertainty. If things are so shaky, being proactive and anticipatory is the smart move, right?
your first point will be addressed by the ACGME and all The other organizations on/after may 11th. It may or may not happen. My conjecture is irrelevant.
Ill never understand how “removing a requirement” isn’t feasible for this year. Like it seems pretty straightforward and easy to remove something and a lot harder to add but that’s just me haha
I still don't understand what you're saying... step 2 CS is still going to be administered this year even though there's a huge backlog, but subsequent years might not have to take it either?
Yeah that was my understanding of it.
The problem is that these requirements are probably written into the law for states, and medical boards. You would have to remove those, and that requires as much effort as it does to incorporate new requirements.
The PA state board requires submission of your CS transcript.
What story? sorry I am new here.
1. It is not scored.
Yeah, my money says CS gets waived as a requirement to rank/match/graduate, but is still required of us after graduating.
Look you are thinking way to logically here and I'm gonna have to ask you to slow down.
You mean like that thing called 3rd and 4th year???
I would argue that a system in which a student evaluated on not failing 24 months of rotations is non-inferior (and in fact, superior) to a test with a 90 something percent pass rate. The argument that someone could slip through the cracks is problematic for two reasons. The first is that a single test day exam is more likely to be beaten by a bad student than 24 MONTHS of evaluation. Also, a good student is more likely to have a bad day that cannot be countered with 23.9 months of work to the contrary in this scenario as well. The second is that CS/PE do not test real life procedures and practices in comparison to rotations (debatable on how out of touch but definitely some amount) so 24 months of actual work with real people would be better.
So your argument isn't to fix what you actually consider a shortcoming (and many would not agree) but to create/maintain an additional flawed system that also has the feature of not fixing the actual problem either.
I'm just reading your initial post that I responded to. You believe CS/PE should exist to "demonstrate baseline clinical competency" and that without it we have no standard (lol). This is because you don't believe the 24 months of real life clinical work is up to standard as a metric as evidenced by your responses to my rebuttal that it is and even has advantages over 1 stupid test day in a fake setting. So instead of fixing the actual perceived problem with clinical years, as mentioned above, you want to add something else (PE/CS) that doesn't actually provide a meaningful solution and creates more problems but none of the strengths.
Idk how this would work in the US, at least to the level canada is. Canada is having their entire interview season take place in a 20 day window. That could never happen here there is too many applicants.
unless they switch to zoom.
And is also doing online interviews
