LoR from pathologist

[newbie333]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I will not be undertaking my pathology elective until October or Novermber due to scheduling constraints that are beyond my control. I have one glowing and another very good LoR; I can get another from a prior rotation. If my path elective LoR is done by November or December will it be helpful at that late stage? Will I get interviews/ranked with only non-path LoR's?
Thanks for any guidance.

 

[yaah]

It would help you a great deal to have a pathology letter - even if it is from a pathologist who has taught you in med school who you can meet with and give your CV to. November and december is kind of late, most programs are well into interviewing at that point. So while this is probably technically possible, it might be tough.

 

[veo1]

Along similar lines...

I've got a question about LORs as well. I did my path rotation in May/June. The pathologist I spent the most time with is willing to provide me with a letter as well as two internists (one from my 3rd year clerkship and one from my subinternship). How necessary is it for me to get a letter from the chair of my path department? I plan on applying to a few of the 'big name' institutions (U Chicago, Emory, UTSW) and want to make myself more competitive, however I haven't spent much time at all with the department chair. He doesn't respond to my e-mails for requests to meet with him and along with the responsibilities of dept. chair he keeps himself busy as the second year pathology course director and president of my state's medical association. Should I keep bugging him? As a side note I've heard of instances where faculty in other departments at my institution pulling these tricks to make applicants less attractive as they want students to stay on here as residents. Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[yaah]

A letter from the chairman is nice but isn't going to do much good if he doesn't know you that well. A letter from the program director of the residency program there is just as good, if not better. I wouldn't worry. If he gets back to you, ask him if he can write you a good letter but if not, don't worry.

As far as faculty trying to make applicants less attractive, I highly highly doubt that. I feel that is probably a bizarre rationalization made up by someone who didn't get their first choice of residency and is looking for anyone to blame except him/herself.

 

[newbie333]

A letter from the chairman is nice but isn't going to do much good if he doesn't know you that well. A letter from the program director of the residency program there is just as good, if not better. I wouldn't worry. If he gets back to you, ask him if he can write you a good letter but if not, don't worry.

With that said - all else being equal, how much of a difference is there in the mind of a program director b/w "I recommend...", "I recommend highly...", "I recommend very highly...", etc? All of mine say something different.

 

[yaah]

It's code when it refers to a med school dean in the dean's letter, but I would guess all bets are off for another letter from someone else. I think the substance of the letter matters.

But why are you seeing your letters? Most people waive their right to see them, it's kind of expected. I have seen one of my letters but that was because the writer sent it to me to ask me what I thought (because that's just the way she is).

 

[mlw03]

It's code when it refers to a med school dean in the dean's letter, but I would guess all bets are off for another letter from someone else. I think the substance of the letter matters.

But why are you seeing your letters? Most people waive their right to see them, it's kind of expected. I have seen one of my letters but that was because the writer sent it to me to ask me what I thought (because that's just the way she is).

i've heard of this mystical 'dean's letter code' a few times here on SDN. anyone care to explain in a little more detail what that's about and maybe provide an example of coded language and its translation? anyone know with some level of certainty whether such a code is fiction or fact? if true, do these codes exist because many students do in fact have access to their dean's letters, and this is a way to let deans be honest without hurting their students' feelings?

 

[djmd]

i've heard of this mystical 'dean's letter code' a few times here on SDN. anyone care to explain in a little more detail what that's about and maybe provide an example of coded language and its translation? anyone know with some level of certainty whether such a code is fiction or fact? if true, do these codes exist because many students do in fact have access to their dean's letters, and this is a way to let deans be honest without hurting their students' feelings?

It is just a way to refer to students class rank/gpa with out saying it...

Of course this is a big let down to the Medical students who live by P=M.D.
(it does still equal that btw, just not Derm, Ortho, Uro, Optho, etc M.D.)

 

[yaah]

My school, for example, we see our deans letters and approve the text. I think most schools let you see it. I'm sure every school has slightly different wordings and meanings.

Outstanding: Reserved for those students who have earned ratings of "Outstanding Performance" in most or all of
the required core clerkships and whose clinical performance has been consistently above the expected level. Most
of these students have also earned "Honors" in a majority of preclinical courses. These students are expected to
do exceptionally well in residency training and subsequent practice.
Excellent and Potentially Outstanding: Those students who have done quite well and earned grades of
"Outstanding" and "Above Expected Performance" in the majority of required core clerkships and usually many
"Honors" grades in preclinical courses. Often this student shows increasingly strong performance as third year
clerkships are completed and fourth year status is attained. This student is expected to do extremely well in
residency training and subsequent practice.
Excellent: These students have done very well academically, receiving a number of "Outstanding" or "Above
Expected Performance" grades in core clerkships and often many "Honors" grades in preclinical courses. This
student is considered highly competent and is expected to do very well in residency training and subsequent
practice.
Very Good and Potentially Excellent: The student has received one or two clinical grades of "Outstanding" or
"Above Expected Performance" in core clerkships or electives and has successfully completed all preclinical
coursework. This student has achieved a solid academic performance and is expected to perform quite
competently in residency training and subsequent practice.
Very Good: The student has successfully completed all coursework, generally at an "Expected" or "Credit" level.
This student may have received ratings of "Outstanding" or "Above Expected Performance" in electives but
generally has not received them in core clerkships. This student may have experienced some academic difficulty
but has remediated it successfully and should be able to perform competently in residency training and subsequent
practice.
Good: The student has met all requirements but has had academic difficulty that has been remediated
successfully. Performance is considered quite acceptable at the current time, and the student should be able to
perform competently in residency training and subsequent practice.
Recommended: The student has had academic difficulty in both basic science and clinical areas that has been
remediated by repeating one or more course(s) or clerkship(s). The student is considered competent to progress to
postgraduate training but has needed additional supervision or has taken longer to master clinical skills.
(N.B.: Any grade of "No Credit" (preclinical) or "Fail" (clinical) must be remediated; a successful remediation
from these grades will be noted on the transcript. In addition, any grade of "Below Expected Performance" in a
clerkship must be remediated. All clinical remediations from any previous grade are discussed in the body of the
Medical Student Performance Evaluation).


Thus, at the end they say, "Candidate x is an excellent and potentially outstanding candidate" or whatever.

 

[mlw03]

Thanks for the explanation - seems like it'd be a lot easier to just use a 1-10 ratings scale or something like that. It seems like a lot of effort to be cryptic about something which is pretty important and should be said straightforward, for the benefit of the program directors.

 

[newbie333]

Thanks for the explanation - seems like it'd be a lot easier to just use a 1-10 ratings scale or something like that. It seems like a lot of effort to be cryptic about something which is pretty important and should be said straightforward, for the benefit of the program directors.

You hit the nail on the head. That is why they recently introduced the MSPE and no longer call it a "Dean's Letter". Here is a link to the template that the AAMC has asked all schools to adopt:

http://www.aamc.org/students/eras/resources/downloads/mspeguide.pdf

As for a "rating scale", see appendices A through B at the bottom of that document, which rank students relative to their class in four different areas.

Each school uses a summative assessment, in narrative format, of the student’s comparative performance, relative to his/her peers, in medical school, including information about any school-specific categories used in differentiating among levels of student performance - similar to Yaah's post above. Here is what is used at Penn as another example (I don't go there I just googled "medical mspe"):

* Superior 5%
* Outstanding 25%
* Excellent 50%
* Very Good 20%

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/md/students/mspe.html

 

[Cabbage Head]

You hit the nail on the head. That is why they recently introduced the MSPE and no longer call it a "Dean's Letter". Here is a link to the template that the AAMC has asked all schools to adopt:

http://www.aamc.org/students/eras/resources/downloads/mspeguide.pdf

As for a "rating scale", see appendices A through B at the bottom of that document, which rank students relative to their class in four different areas.

Each school uses a summative assessment, in narrative format, of the student’s comparative performance, relative to his/her peers, in medical school, including information about any school-specific categories used in differentiating among levels of student performance - similar to Yaah's post above. Here is what is used at Penn as another example (I don't go there I just googled "medical mspe"):

* Superior 5%
* Outstanding 25%
* Excellent 50%
* Very Good 20%

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/md/students/mspe.html

I find this whole system to be "Very Good".