Internship Match Results 2008

[socal34]

I agree. I thought this forum was about internship match. It is interesting how everytime this professional school vs. traditional school topic comes up...as long as everyone is bashing the professional schools, there is no redirection to the original topic of interest. However, let one person play devil's advocate against these stereotyped comments and then all of a sudden its "Let's put this back on topic." Do biases exist on this board........certainly.

I'm afraid you are correct. I experienced this dynamic earlier this week while commenting on another thread. Clearly, this discussion now has very little to do with match rates but the bashing of the Vail model is often seen as "on topic" regardless of thread topic.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JockNerd]

People are also applying to upwards of 50 places because it's so competitive.

Wait, what? In psych? Do you know someone who applied to 50 sites? Because that would be ridiculous. One of the posters on the board applied to 27, which seems to me to be super overkill, and that's the highest number I've ever heard of. Most people I know applied to 5-13.

 

[psych00]

That wasn't directed at me I know but, I think Cosmo was referring to med schools, wondering what they are doing about the applicant/spot ratio. It's possible I guess, but I also have never heard of anyone in psych applying to that many programs or internships.

 

[Cosmo75]

Yep, wasn't referring to psych.

Different occupations, different job market, different specialties, different requirements, different job demand, different earning potentials. A med student could drop twice what professional schools charge and make it back without serious difficulty. And there's not really a saturation of doctors, and certainly not of specialists.

I'm sure you've heard that the average salary of MDs is going down due to managed care. I'm also sure you've heard about OB/GYNs either changing specialties or quitting medicine altogether due to skyrocketing malpractice costs. It's not as rosy as one might think. But yes, it's better than psych. But if you specialize in psych and find a niche, you can do just fine. Anyway, not trying to beat a dead horse. Was just curious.

I'm afraid you are correct. I experienced this dynamic earlier this week while commenting on another thread. Clearly, this discussion now has very little to do with match rates but the bashing of the Vail model is often seen as "on topic" regardless of thread topic.

I agree. It has been said that the definition of a fanatic is someone who can't change their mind and can't change the subject

I'm out, Jerry.

 

[Ollie123]

Those were different people Jon

Its true though. I'm failing to see how a discussion about professional schools could NOT be relevant to this topic.

Also keep in mind this is not about Boulder vs. Vail. Everyone confuses that. Vail model does NOT equal professional schools and I'm sure nowhere at the Vail conference did anyone say "You know what we need? We need to start letting in everyone who applies. That will fix the field".

You'll find far fewer people who have a problem with the Vail model. Despite being strongly opposed to professional schools, I have no qualms whatsoever about a school that operates within a true Vail framework (e.g. Rutgers). My problem is the schools that use the Vail model as an excuse for what they do.