Interview offers later this year?

[radoncmonkey]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Does anybody think that because ASTRO is later this year than last (by ~ 3 weeks or so) that the interview offers are being pushed back at all?

Just wondering.

 

[radoncmonkey]

Now that a majority of the institutions have sent out interviews... does anyone know if we should continue to expect more offers during the next few weeks? I heard originally interview offers are sent up until the end of December (which I hope is true) but I also heard most places don't have rolling interviews...

 

[radiodog]

There still seems to be a handful of places which haven't sent anything out yet including some top programs (Hopkins, UCLA, Willie B, UWash...).

I also think some places will send out a second round as people start to cancel. In fact I just got an email today from a prestigious program in the South stating I was in the "second to invite group" and may receive an offer later.

Furthermore, many programs have sent out at least some rejections. If you have not received an interview or a rejection I would say you are still in the running. Who knows maybe being in this "second to invite group" could work out.

 

[Dave Evans]

There still seems to be a handful of places which haven't sent anything out yet including some top programs (Hopkins, UCLA, Willie B, UWash...).

I also think some places will send out a second round as people start to cancel. In fact I just got an email today from a prestigious program in the South stating I was in the "second to invite group" and may receive an offer later.

Furthermore, many programs have sent out at least some rejections. If you have not received an interview or a rejection I would say you are still in the running. Who knows maybe being in this "second to invite group" could work out.

I thought that "second to invite group" email was VERY tacky...😡

 

[RLMD]

I got that email too. It is certainly better than being rejected, and I guess its better than being left hanging without any idea of where you stand, but Im not really holding my breath. Im sure almost all people are gonna go to that interview if invited.

 

[Azamat Bogotov]

There still seems to be a handful of places which haven't sent anything out yet including some top programs (Hopkins, UCLA, Willie B, UWash...).

Since when was UCLA a top program???

 

[radiodog]

Since when was UCLA a top program???

You must be an East Coaster.

 

[radonc]

the only top programs on the west coast are stanford and ucsf.

ucla doesnt even break the top 50.

 

[napoleondynamite]

I dunno, I tend to think Seattle has the reputation for being a top program too. And if protons are ever proven to be superior for anything, overnight Loma Linda may look like a top program too.

 

[Gfunk6]

No doubt UW has a great reputation in Oncology, particularly medical oncology. FHCRC is a premiere research institution -- I would've loved to go there had I done med onc. One main problem with the RadOnc dept @ UW is that it's still in the Stone Age with regard to applications. Get on the ERAS train for the love of god! Still using paper applications in 2006 . . .

Loma Linda uses protons, but from what I understand they don't use their technology appropriately. Unlike places like Harvard and MDACC where protons are "just another modality," Loma Linda does not have a pt base large enough to support using anything other than protons. The chances of protons being compared to more "conventional" treatments anytime soon is unlikely.

 

[Dave Evans]

the only top programs on the west coast are stanford and ucsf.

ucla doesnt even break the top 50.

I totally agree. . . For whatever reason, UCLA is a total anomaly - a powerhouse for virtually everything besides rad onc. In terms of quality - UCLA is a third tier program, like Columbia. . .

As previously posted, the only top tier programs are SF and Stanford. UW is a 2nd tier program, certainly much better than UCLA. . .

 

[Azamat Bogotov]

You must be an East Coaster.

No. Just in touch with reality. . . 😉

 

[alvin]

presumably the top tier follows a pattern similar to that noted in the ranking thread from winter 2006?

 

[stephew]

i think you guys are trying waaaaay to hard to ranking things that frankly aren't that rigidly quantifiable. there is no realife tier cutoff. these are soft calls that people use as a lazy shorthand. Indeed they are useful if you *understand that*. US news and world report did us all a huge favor by neglecting to put in radonc as a specfic ranked field (they go by "cancer" as a whole rather than by department).