It’s the application platform, silly!

[oldtown]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Are residency directors blaming ERAS for the unfilled spots the last several years, and not the fact that the specialty has turned into a dumpster fire?
Or is this a needed change?
I truly don’t know, but the cynic in me (that’s most of me for the record) can’t help but suspect the former.

Emergency medicine considers new residency application platform

"Emergency medicine specialty to develop its own platform for residency applications, moving away from ERAS. Other specialties also transitioning. AAMC defends

www.beckershospitalreview.com

 

[doggydog]

No, that’s not why the switch is being made. There are multiple public reasons as to why that seem reasonable: cost, programs getting access to data rather than the ERAS embargo, etc.

I suspect the true reason is a bit more cynical, but only the CORD leadership can speak to that.

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

I suspect the true reason is a bit more cynical, but only the CORD leadership can speak to that.

Go on...

 

[Porfirio]

Go on...

$

 

[deuist]

OB/Gyn is already switching due to multiple problems with ERAS, such as applicants who have to spend thousands of dollars applying to hundreds of programs that they are not interested in.

 

[gutonc]

OB/Gyn is already switching due to multiple problems with ERAS, such as applicants who have to spend thousands of dollars applying to hundreds of programs that they are not interested in.

I'm (honestly) curious how switching platforms will fix this problem. And also if all these new app services are going to use their own independent match or are they still going to use NRMP?

 

[AlmostAnMD]

I'm (honestly) curious how switching platforms will fix this problem. And also if all these new app services are going to use their own independent match or are they still going to use NRMP?

Maybe it's because they spent thousands of dollars applying to ERAS and the residencies didn't get a cut. So now they just get the money directly.

Like someone else said, it's all about money. "making it better for students" is too altruistic to possibly be true.

 

[CliveStaples]

My N=1 experience of talking to the program director at my institution:

ERAS doesn’t let them see the things that they really want in an easy to filter and search way. It is difficult to determine who may have geographic ties to your program/region for instance. Institutions are also able to make certain aspects of the ERAS application “blacked out” to the program, for instance making the program blind to some things in an effort to prevent discrimination against certain classes of people, but end up making it challenging to figure out who the applicants really are by blinding too much. ERAS also makes it too ‘easy’ to shotgun out applications to places the applicants will likely never even bother to interview with or consider seriously.

That’s just the perspective of a microscopic analysis, however. I’m sure there are larger financial considerations in place as some other posters here alluded to.

 

[Apollyon]

"It's the economy, stupid"
"Follow the money"
"The American solution to any problem - throw money at it"

It's the $$, full stop. Beginning and end.

 

[gutonc]

Maybe it's because they spent thousands of dollars applying to ERAS and the residencies didn't get a cut. So now they just get the money directly.

Like someone else said, it's all about money. "making it better for students" is too altruistic to possibly be true.

Oh no, I get that perspective. If CORD-EM (or any other specialty) can put together a system that gets them free money, of course they're going to do it. But that's not the question I was asking (although I guess it's the easy one to answer).

The post I was replying to by @deuist was specifically referring to the applicant side of things where a new OB/Gyn application system will somehow magically save applicants thousands of dollars by not "requiring" them to apply to programs they don't want to apply to. But unless the new system limits the number of programs a person can apply to, I'm not sure how that's going to work.

 

[dozitgetchahi]

Oh no, I get that perspective. If CORD-EM (or any other specialty) can put together a system that gets them free money, of course they're going to do it. But that's not the question I was asking (although I guess it's the easy one to answer).

The post I was replying to by @deuist was specifically referring to the applicant side of things where a new OB/Gyn application system will somehow magically save applicants thousands of dollars by not "requiring" them to apply to programs they don't want to apply to. But unless the new system limits the number of programs a person can apply to, I'm not sure how that's going to work.

I’m confused. Does ERAS now “require” you to apply to a huge number of programs or something?

When I applied to IM through ERAS, I put programs in, got a certain percentage of interviews, and then I ranked programs. Seems straightforward. Is there some other sort of application method that is supposed to focus this earlier, so that you don’t have to apply to more programs? Or what?

(And I agree with others here that this sounds like it’s all about $$$.)

 

[Rekt]

I’m confused. Does ERAS now “require” you to apply to a huge number of programs or something?

When I applied to IM through ERAS, I put programs in, got a certain percentage of interviews, and then I ranked programs. Seems straightforward. Is there some other sort of application method that is supposed to focus this earlier, so that you don’t have to apply to more programs? Or what?

(And I agree with others here that this sounds like it’s all about $$$.)

Agree. This reason makes no sense. If there is no cap people are going to apply to how many ever programs they want. It’s pretty simple. The more programs you apply to the more you increase your chances. Of course the diminishing return curve will be different for everyone.

If an application has caps the it’s automatically inferior and will not be liked by applicants.

 

[CliveStaples]

Without any kins of cap, or any ability to indicate preference for some programs over others (more nuanced than the attempted token system), the natural end-game of applications is as follows:

1) Every applicant applies to every single program. If the end goal is to match at all costs, why not do this?
2) The top X% of applicants are all offered interviews by every program. The applicant schedules as many of them as possible. If the end goal is to match at all costs, why not do this?
3) Halfway through the interview season, the top X% of applicants start dropping interviews when they realize they do not need to go on all the interviews they have scheduled (which is now much easier to do than before since it's all virtual).
4) Programs scramble to interview an adequate number of applicants to get their spots filled reasonably because applicants now drop previously scheduled interviews at rates much higher than before.
5) We simultaneously end up with programs that go unfilled and applicants that go unmatched while expending the maximum amount of resources on scheduling, re-scheduling, re-offering interviews, etc.
6) Even worse, some programs intentionally do not interview who would otherwise be the most competitive applicants because they cannot afford to offer interviews to people they think (but can't really know currently in the ERAS system) aren't actually seriously considering their program. Paradoxically you may be a more competitive applicant by having a less competitive application if it means that based on your application alone you appear more likely to match at that particular program.