Mandatory Video Interview
- Thread starter LostinLift
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2017
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 2,531
- Medical Student
I really hate this. I had reservations about posting on SDN but i finally gave in and made an account.
Seriously, what can we as students do about this? Do I email EMRA to cancel my membership? Should we all do that? Who provides oversight to the AAMC? This might be free this cycle, but rest assured it is going to be a future cash-cow for them. Not to mention all the test-prep $100/month courses that will pop up just to further prepare us for the interview trail. Keep in mind that it costs $80 just to upload a USMLE transcript... it was $60 last year. What could possibly cause electronic upload of a number score to cost 80$? That's $80 for step 1 and $80 for each part of step 2. DOs have to pay that, plus COMLEX scores.
The AAMC says this is still in research phase. If I don't want to participate as a research subject, can I opt out? Why are law firms not all over this kind of stuff? Isn't there any grounds for a class-action lawsuit? (before the discrimination suits start when white guys are the only ones to get high scores on this?) I can't apply to EM programs if I don't participate as a research subject... that should have been mentioned to me before I started med school specifically to become an EM doc. Although with all this nonsense, I am seriously considering going into another field now. SLOEs and away rotations are one thing, but now this? One of the things EM physicians pride themselves in is the ability to make important decisions with limited information. I guess that's not the case. How bad were previous match outcomes that they feel the need to add this to the process? Or is it just "academic EM docs" at pretentious programs that are having trouble making these kind of decisions? If you go to the SAEM site about this nonsense and google the physicians at the bottom who are "collaborating" with the AAMC, you'll see they are by and large representative of the pretentious pseudo EM programs that are typically implicated in this sort of thing.Emergency Medicine Standardized Video Interview Luckily I wasn't interested in any of theses programs except UT Southwestern... definitely won't be applying there anymore. I can't even imagine what the culture is like at places like this. How about, go see a patient every once in a while instead of sitting around trying to drum up fake research for your stupid CV. Since personality and humanism and all that stuff is going to contribute to the score you receive for this, does this mean that Mass General and Vanderbilt are now going to all of a sudden start taking DOs? If the program directors and leaders of the EM community really truly care about us students and our perpetual financial abuse, why don't programs drop out of the match all together? Seriously? Why do they need ERAS? New programs that begin mid-cycle do without it. We are adults- we can sign contracts. I can send a CV and board scores, free from the AAMC money racket, and come interview. There will be no shortage of well qualified applicants. I really think we need to boycott the overly-academic quackery that is infiltrating EM and start really seeking out leaders in EM who don't subscribe to this nonsense. And, we students need to find some legal representation for this perpetual increasing cost of medical education.
Also, If program directors arent going to watch all of these videos, then doesnt that invalidate the whole thing? Wouldn't that be like ranking someone who didnt even interview? This can only hurt students. Advisors often tell us where to and where not to audition based on perceptions of where we might do well. if we know that we wouldnt be strong video interviewes, why cant we opt out, and how is it fair or objective to only watch certain ones. Whats next? does EMS need to patch in video pre-triages to better help you decide how to examine the patient when they get there?
Seriously, what can we as students do about this? Do I email EMRA to cancel my membership? Should we all do that? Who provides oversight to the AAMC? This might be free this cycle, but rest assured it is going to be a future cash-cow for them. Not to mention all the test-prep $100/month courses that will pop up just to further prepare us for the interview trail. Keep in mind that it costs $80 just to upload a USMLE transcript... it was $60 last year. What could possibly cause electronic upload of a number score to cost 80$? That's $80 for step 1 and $80 for each part of step 2. DOs have to pay that, plus COMLEX scores.
The AAMC says this is still in research phase. If I don't want to participate as a research subject, can I opt out? Why are law firms not all over this kind of stuff? Isn't there any grounds for a class-action lawsuit? (before the discrimination suits start when white guys are the only ones to get high scores on this?) I can't apply to EM programs if I don't participate as a research subject... that should have been mentioned to me before I started med school specifically to become an EM doc. Although with all this nonsense, I am seriously considering going into another field now. SLOEs and away rotations are one thing, but now this? One of the things EM physicians pride themselves in is the ability to make important decisions with limited information. I guess that's not the case. How bad were previous match outcomes that they feel the need to add this to the process? Or is it just "academic EM docs" at pretentious programs that are having trouble making these kind of decisions? If you go to the SAEM site about this nonsense and google the physicians at the bottom who are "collaborating" with the AAMC, you'll see they are by and large representative of the pretentious pseudo EM programs that are typically implicated in this sort of thing.Emergency Medicine Standardized Video Interview Luckily I wasn't interested in any of theses programs except UT Southwestern... definitely won't be applying there anymore. I can't even imagine what the culture is like at places like this. How about, go see a patient every once in a while instead of sitting around trying to drum up fake research for your stupid CV. Since personality and humanism and all that stuff is going to contribute to the score you receive for this, does this mean that Mass General and Vanderbilt are now going to all of a sudden start taking DOs? If the program directors and leaders of the EM community really truly care about us students and our perpetual financial abuse, why don't programs drop out of the match all together? Seriously? Why do they need ERAS? New programs that begin mid-cycle do without it. We are adults- we can sign contracts. I can send a CV and board scores, free from the AAMC money racket, and come interview. There will be no shortage of well qualified applicants. I really think we need to boycott the overly-academic quackery that is infiltrating EM and start really seeking out leaders in EM who don't subscribe to this nonsense. And, we students need to find some legal representation for this perpetual increasing cost of medical education.
Also, If program directors arent going to watch all of these videos, then doesnt that invalidate the whole thing? Wouldn't that be like ranking someone who didnt even interview? This can only hurt students. Advisors often tell us where to and where not to audition based on perceptions of where we might do well. if we know that we wouldnt be strong video interviewes, why cant we opt out, and how is it fair or objective to only watch certain ones. Whats next? does EMS need to patch in video pre-triages to better help you decide how to examine the patient when they get there?
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2017
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 2,531
- Medical Student
These are your colleagues though buying into this nonsense ... can't you talk some sense into these people at faculty conferences or whatever?
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2017
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 2,531
- Medical Student
yup, this is why those who want to go into academics choose the 4 year programs... they are a bit slower and lack the common sense that us community-bound folk have, so they need the extra year. Can you imagine getting ready to go into practice and actually start seeing patients after 3 years of paper pushing and coming up with this BS... umm, can I apply for that simulation fellowship now???
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2017
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 2,631
Dude, you sound really stressed out. I agree with you, I'm not convinced this is a good thing but if you think that EM is the only specialty in medicine where you're going to have to jump through hoops because the suits/higher ups say so, you are going to be forever bummed out. I had a career before medicine and have friends in other fields. Unless you run your own business you will get bent over by leadership in almost every industry.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,419
- Reaction score
- 2,536
- Points
- 5,331
- Location
- United States
- Fellow [Any Field]
Man, if I weren't already matched (in a different specialty) and I were applying EM, I would be really stressed out too. This whole thing is a sick joke.
Anyone have any idea if this is going to spread to other specialties?
Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,570
- Reaction score
- 15,162
- Points
- 7,276
- Location
- On a box.
- Attending Physician
Hey, firestarter.... take some advice from a guy who still likes to start fires.
Be careful.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2016
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 62
- Points
- 4,631
You're clearly stressed, so I'll give it a pass. Seriously though, that 4 year remark is incredibly ignorant. Some of the most baller programs are 4 years, which produce tons of non-fellowship community docs.
D
da8s0859q
In all fairness, this video requirement thing is silly, and I get that you're frustrated, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh man, I saw my chief on your list of collaborating docs. Going to have to turn my pseudo-board certification in! 🙂
But seriously, I'm a paranoid/cynical nihilist who doubts the motivation of... everyone. I get your take on this, but I also see the move by many competitive programs inundated with applicants thus relying on board scores to at least narrow the field of applicants. If we all agree that 260 step scores are cool but not necessarily the be-all end-all of EM applicants, then we might have to open our minds to other ways to look at applicants in efficient / scaleable ways.
BTW this is just personal off the cuff opinion, I hadn't heard of this pilot until this thread.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Points
- 5,516
- Attending Physician
I will say, if this reduces the over utilization of board scores as a screening for interviews or rotations, this could at least potentially be a good thing. The key will be if it actually does do that. If it allows people who are great candidates and great interviews to get past some of the board hurdles by scoring well on something like this, maybe its a good thing. Maybe. Time will tell.
After-all, one of the questions students often contact me about is "how do I get programs to look past my board scores to get an interview". The answer, beyond rotating there (which you can't do everywhere) is "you can't". Programs have to filter applicants. They can filter by scores and they can filter somewhat by geography. You can't read 800 applications. So if this allows a different way to filter applications, it may actually help some people.
I still remain skeptical, but since its free for students (at least this year), I'm not opposed to seeing how it gets utilized before everyone freaks out.
After-all, one of the questions students often contact me about is "how do I get programs to look past my board scores to get an interview". The answer, beyond rotating there (which you can't do everywhere) is "you can't". Programs have to filter applicants. They can filter by scores and they can filter somewhat by geography. You can't read 800 applications. So if this allows a different way to filter applications, it may actually help some people.
I still remain skeptical, but since its free for students (at least this year), I'm not opposed to seeing how it gets utilized before everyone freaks out.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 4,298
- Reaction score
- 2,594
- Points
- 6,591
- Location
- U.S.
- Attending Physician
What if we want our board scores to be utilized appropriately lol? Could be a bad thing for those that are at or above the average S1 score for EM.
If admins cant read 800 applications, how will they have time to watch a 20 min video in addition to the application materials?
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Points
- 5,516
- Attending Physician
They aren't going to watch the video while sorting applications. The videos are scored. No program sits down and looks at every question you answered on your board exam, they just look at the end result. Same here.
I do agree that it could be a bad thing for someone with high board scores if they have an awkward personality. But honestly, that stuff gets reflected in SLOE grades anyways, and is quickly realized in the interviews as well. I wouldn't worry.
It takes me about 30-45 min to read and score an individual application. It takes me all interview season just to get through about 100 applications. But basically you have a few weeks after ERAS opens to decide who gets interviews. There's just no way to look at the individual application in any detail for everyone that applies in such a short period of time. There has to be a way to quickly sort the applicants, and each program decides how they are going to do that based on what they think will be the best strategy to try to maximize their chances of getting great candidates while minimize chances of not matching their spots
I do agree that it could be a bad thing for someone with high board scores if they have an awkward personality. But honestly, that stuff gets reflected in SLOE grades anyways, and is quickly realized in the interviews as well. I wouldn't worry.
It takes me about 30-45 min to read and score an individual application. It takes me all interview season just to get through about 100 applications. But basically you have a few weeks after ERAS opens to decide who gets interviews. There's just no way to look at the individual application in any detail for everyone that applies in such a short period of time. There has to be a way to quickly sort the applicants, and each program decides how they are going to do that based on what they think will be the best strategy to try to maximize their chances of getting great candidates while minimize chances of not matching their spots
This is what I don't get. If it reflects what is in a SLOE then what is the advantage? Is it supposed to make it easier to sort through large amounts of applications and save time on your end? The whole process is getting ridiculous and I would be curious to see the type of burnout and stress students are experiencing as a result.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
D
deleted109597
Easier to set a filter for a minimum score for this and get sorted out than for SLOEs. They already do this with board scores.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2017
- Messages
- 344
- Reaction score
- 647
- Points
- 3,206
- Medical Student
The worst part about this is having to trust your potential career to somebody grading how well you talk to a computer. Its not like board scores that take years of preparation and have highly vetted questions. Its 20 minutes of acting. An extra hoop to jump through sucks, but this is like doing it blindfolded.
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,185
- Reaction score
- 851
- Points
- 5,496
- Medical Student
The more data a student has about his or her competitiveness, the more efficient this entire process is for PD and applicant alike. Unless students are allowed to see their scores from the video interview, this is going to add to applicant insecurity and drive up the number of places each person applies to. That means more applications for PDs to screen, which is the opposite of the intended effect!
Unless PDs put an excessive amount of faith in the validity of the interview score and use it to make coarse cuts in the list of applicants, application numbers will go up and their jobs will become harder as a result of this new metric. If they DO put a lot of faith in this score, they're potentially cutting corners and ending up with a worse group of residents as a result. If that outcome is something they're comfortable with, they might as well just stick to using Step scores as a filter - Step scores don't say all that much about the applicant, but I have no reason to think that the mandatory interview score tells a program any more about the applicant, either.
Meanwhile, unless program directors come out and explicitly agree to only use the video interview score to decide who to invite for a real interview (i.e., agree to NOT use the video interview score to decide position on a rank list), it could even drive up the number of places each person interviews at. Again, this decreases efficiency! Everyone loses.
If PDs want to reduce the number of interviews they need to conduct to match a great set of applicants, the solution is for CORD to make the process more transparent - Let students see their SLOEs. If there are concerns that this will cause SLOE writers to be dishonest, then go ahead and implement this mandatory video interview, and make that available to the student as well. The video raters have no incentive to protect an applicant's feelings. And if you believe strongly enough in the validity of the mandatory video interview score to use it to filter applicants out, you should certainly believe in it enough to offset the effect of making SLOEs transparent to the student.
I'm interested to hear thoughts from the PDs and attendings reading this thread. I don't think the mandatory video interview is the end of the world, but I do think it's a step in the wrong direction when superior alternatives exist.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 4,298
- Reaction score
- 2,594
- Points
- 6,591
- Location
- U.S.
- Attending Physician
I would also say it would be bad for someone who finds it unnatural to speak to a computer rather than an individual, or someone that doesn't interview all that well. This sounds like it boils down to a popularity contest on who answers questions the best and looks good while doing so. Additionally the purpose of the video interview is not to help making sorting applicants a faster and easier task, but to portray that applicants "professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills". Both those are listed as you mentioned in the SLOE, and thus having another modality to mention it sounds unnecessary. Its also interesting that this video interview is measuring interpersonal skills, when there is no other person on the other end to communicate with and instead is a blank screen.
Isn't that the problem they are trying to avoid? To have applicants be more than their board scores/numbers? I dont see how placing another numerical value helps in doing that. This is also assuming that the person on the other end of the scoring is objective and not biased and that there is a proven track record for this scoring system. I dont think the latter is true, and thus the next few years of applicants will be guinea pigs testing out a system that may not be valid in the first place. If there is already a filter for both S1 and S2 that can be used, how many more filters do you truly need...
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2017
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 249
- Points
- 3,171
- Resident [Any Field]
Yeah this a resoundingly terrible idea, there really is no good rationale for this. I wonder if this is more a way to screen out the real duds of applicants, i.e. the creepy ones that everyone takes one look at and knows that they're not going on the rank list. The idea of being scored by software on the nonverbal parameters of your response is slightly alarming, although I'm not 100% sure that is actually going to happen.
Amazing username.
People primarily do 4 year programs for 2 reasons: name and location.
With the exception of a select few programs (Fresno and New Orleans) most 4 year programs are associated with a prestigious name or in a desirable location.
Which is how they can get away with offering the same product (board certification in EM) while charging you an extra $250,000 for an extra year of indentured servitude.
I’ll also add that the whole academics arguement is complete garbage. If you want to do academics do a fellowship. Its that simple.
D
deleted109597
I'm not a PD, aPD, or even on any med student evaluation committee. It's not for me.
But yeah, the Austin residency got somewhere on the order of 200 applications for every slot. If there's a way to get a better interview cadre without making the Step scores in the 250s, then they'll do it. This is what this is, nothing more. Otherwise they would be watching the videos themselves instead of taking someone else's word for it.
Interviewers at the residency can be biased as well, so you're not going to fix human nature. If anything, this tide will raise all the boats, because schools will start teaching interview skills where heretofore they haven't been doing it.
Dr. McNinja,
I think this perspective may oversimplify this process. I believe there will be ripple effects, as you suggested in saying schools will start teaching interview skills. I don't think they will teach any "skills," but rather "correct answer and body language coaching."
There will be additional infrastructure (recording, review, evaluation) needed for this process and the cost will surely trickle down to medical students. Medical students will have to set aside time to "train," for their interview with HAL 9000 ().
The stress may serve as a genuine distraction to their medical education.
Medical students' personal interactions and characteristics are commented on within their SLOEs and Dean's letters- I don't know if an 18 minute computerized assessment will provide enlightenment beyond what 4 years of constant objective and subjective assessments already provides.
All the best,
-wtffng
I think this perspective may oversimplify this process. I believe there will be ripple effects, as you suggested in saying schools will start teaching interview skills. I don't think they will teach any "skills," but rather "correct answer and body language coaching."
There will be additional infrastructure (recording, review, evaluation) needed for this process and the cost will surely trickle down to medical students. Medical students will have to set aside time to "train," for their interview with HAL 9000 ().
The stress may serve as a genuine distraction to their medical education.
Medical students' personal interactions and characteristics are commented on within their SLOEs and Dean's letters- I don't know if an 18 minute computerized assessment will provide enlightenment beyond what 4 years of constant objective and subjective assessments already provides.
All the best,
-wtffng
D
deleted109597
Don't get me wrong, I think it's dumb, but I'm not on any of the groups that make any difference. It's like me disagreeing with who is the PM of some country. Short of assassinating them, there's nothing I can do, as I don't vote in that country.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Points
- 5,516
- Attending Physician
That's not how interviews work. Programs don't interview more when they get more applicants. Programs have a number of interview slots to fill. Lets say that is 100 (general rule of thumb is 10 per every 1 residency spot). You schedule 100 interviews whether you get 200 applications or 800 applications. If everyone applies to more programs, that doesn't make the job of programs harder. They are still only going to schedule 100 interviews.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Points
- 5,516
- Attending Physician
SLOEs and this video interview have nothing to do with one another. Being able to see your SLOE isn't going to happen, and it has nothing to do with this process.
SLOEs are anonymous just like all med student letters. You waive the right to see the letter when you request it. If you choose not to waive it, people generally will not write you the letter. The only way to be objective about someone is to know that the evaluation is anonymous. Even with the SLOEs being anonymous, the grade distribution almost always is slanted heavily in the students favor. Rarely do you see a true bell curve. This would be even worse if the SLOEs were not anonymous, and it would turn into what happens at many schools I see, where the Deans letters show classes where the lowest grade you can get is a "B". When 80% of the class scores a 90% or above on clinical rotations, it makes you all look bad at that school because everyone just looks average.
So people aren't going to suddenly get access to knowing what they're SLOEs say. That's a pipe dream.
As for the video interview causing more people to apply to more places, causing PDs more work, again this isn't how interviews work. No one is screening 800 applications. They use ERAS to filter them to narrow them down to a reasonable number then send out invites. They let ERAS do the screening work. The video interview will give programs another number to choose or not choose to use to help in screening. Some people might care, some might not. In the end, I still think it's much more likely to help students than hurt them. But I don't know yet, since few details have been released, so I'm witholding judgement.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Points
- 5,516
- Attending Physician
Just for some perspective, my med school class was the first one to take the USMLE Step 2 PE exam. So I get it. People were freaking out then in a similar fashion when it was announced we were going to have to talk to actors and be graded on simulated interactions. And it was costly, and was only offered I think in one place in the US. It didn't go over well.
But I assure you, for the rest of your career, you will jump through hoops that will annoy you at best, and enrage you at worst. Pointless maintnance of certification stuff that just keeps getting added on, ridiculous law suits, hospital administration making decisions that directly affect your job you don't agree with.... the list goes on an on. This video interview, while seemingly a bad thing now, may actually not be. We don't know yet. It might be, it might not be. We shall see. The fact that its been endorsed by CORD and EMRA implies that at least some people on each side of the aisle think it actually may help people. Again, we'll have to wait and see if they are right.
But honestly, if this makes anyone not want to do EM, then I assure you, you should not do EM. Because if this stresses you out to the point of quitting before you start, then EM is not the right field for you. We are a field of people that adapt in the face of near constant adversity.
But I assure you, for the rest of your career, you will jump through hoops that will annoy you at best, and enrage you at worst. Pointless maintnance of certification stuff that just keeps getting added on, ridiculous law suits, hospital administration making decisions that directly affect your job you don't agree with.... the list goes on an on. This video interview, while seemingly a bad thing now, may actually not be. We don't know yet. It might be, it might not be. We shall see. The fact that its been endorsed by CORD and EMRA implies that at least some people on each side of the aisle think it actually may help people. Again, we'll have to wait and see if they are right.
But honestly, if this makes anyone not want to do EM, then I assure you, you should not do EM. Because if this stresses you out to the point of quitting before you start, then EM is not the right field for you. We are a field of people that adapt in the face of near constant adversity.
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,185
- Reaction score
- 851
- Points
- 5,496
- Medical Student
You're right, my assumption was that as the number of apps per person increases, programs would have to offer more interviews to ensure that they fill their spots. Having given it some further thought, I suppose it would only be an issue in unlikely scenarios - As an extreme example, if the top 100 candidates in the country applied to every single program and sopped up all the interviews, other applicants would be left out in the cold while programs went unfilled. But that's not realistic. Thanks for setting me straight.
At any rate, it sounds like you're saying SLOEs aren't currently being used to filter out the bulk of applicants because they're too cumbersome to interpret en masse. But if the standardized video interview score is incorporated into the ERAS data used to weed out people from receiving an interview invite, as @Dr.McNinja suggested, and there are stellar SLOEs among the pile of people who have been filtered out, then that's essentially signaling that your SVI is more important than your SLOE. This sounds pretty "garbage in -> garbage out" to me, and is unlikely to maximize a program's chance of getting great candidates.
If the problem is that reading SLOEs is too cumbersome to allow SLOEs to be used as a first-pass filter, and programs are sick of using board scores to filter out applicants, you know what would be nice and potentially more valid than the SVI? Instead of contracting Hirevue to watch and rate 3,400+ EM applicant videos, contract someone else to read and distill 2-3 SLOEs per applicant into an "average SLOE ranking," and filter by that. Or CORD could revise the format of the SLOE to make it more numerical.
gamerEMdoc,
Respectfully, don't you think there are times to point out issues that you disagree with? I don't want students to "rise up" or demand retribution. I want there to be greater transparency between the AAMC and applicants regarding the collection and utilization of this data, prior to making participation mandatory.
I have no problem completing administrative tasks and requirements, and your point of being an adaptive field to constant adversity is well-understood, however, this seems to be somewhat self-imposed adversity.
Using your example, I'd like to reference that the debate over the utility of Step 2 CS continues, as does that over ABIM's publicized MOC debate.
In order to have conversation, disagreeing sides need to meet and share views- and potentially preliminary data in this case.
You conclude that those who perceive this as a barrier shouldn't pursue a career in EM (unless I misunderstood your point of "But honestly, if this makes anyone not want to do EM, then I assure you, you should not do EM. Because if this stresses you out to the point of quitting before you start, then EM is not the right field for you.").
It seems to me that you're questioning someone's ability to be an EM physician, simply because they are expressing their opinion that this is yet another barrier to the field. I think there's significant merit to dissenting opinions regarding this pilot study.
All the best,
-wtffng
Respectfully, don't you think there are times to point out issues that you disagree with? I don't want students to "rise up" or demand retribution. I want there to be greater transparency between the AAMC and applicants regarding the collection and utilization of this data, prior to making participation mandatory.
I have no problem completing administrative tasks and requirements, and your point of being an adaptive field to constant adversity is well-understood, however, this seems to be somewhat self-imposed adversity.
Using your example, I'd like to reference that the debate over the utility of Step 2 CS continues, as does that over ABIM's publicized MOC debate.
In order to have conversation, disagreeing sides need to meet and share views- and potentially preliminary data in this case.
You conclude that those who perceive this as a barrier shouldn't pursue a career in EM (unless I misunderstood your point of "But honestly, if this makes anyone not want to do EM, then I assure you, you should not do EM. Because if this stresses you out to the point of quitting before you start, then EM is not the right field for you.").
It seems to me that you're questioning someone's ability to be an EM physician, simply because they are expressing their opinion that this is yet another barrier to the field. I think there's significant merit to dissenting opinions regarding this pilot study.
All the best,
-wtffng
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Points
- 5,516
- Attending Physician
Now we're talking. The problem is that the SLOE is just a substitute for a LOR. CORD publishes the SLOE, but its AAMC/ERAS that runs the system that compiles the data for applications. The only way to sort ERAS re: SLOEs is number of EM LORs. The SLOEs themselves are just imputed in as PDF's like any other LOR. It would be awesome if the ERAS allowed you to filter more based on the content of the SLOE instead of the # of SLOEs, but unfortunately they do not.
While SLOEs are more scrutinized during the interview process rather than the initial screening as to who interviews, I will say that they do play a part. Once you filter applications down to a reasonable number, there are always a group of people on the bubble who you will pull up their applications and just quickly look at their SLOEs and CV's to try to determine who should get an interview. It's certainly not a perfect science.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Points
- 5,516
- Attending Physician
Oh no, I think you misunderstand what I meant by that. I wasn't saying those who disagree shouldn't do EM. Believe me, I'm ALWAYS the guy in the group who's playing devils advocate. I was more referring to the sentiment posted by someone earlier in the thread that this is making them question not applying to EM. My point was, if something like this makes you not want to do EM, there will be way worse things you'll have to put up with in EM, so its probably not the right field if something like this is enough to push you away. You don't give up on your dream field because of a speed bump, and if you do its probably not deep down your dream field. Not liking it, or questioning its utility, is perfectly valid, and I understand the anxiety about the unknown in the process. I'm just trying to put things in perspective.
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,185
- Reaction score
- 851
- Points
- 5,496
- Medical Student
Well, sure, but if AAMC/ERAS finds a way to incorporate the SVI score into ERAS, they should have no issue finding a way to incorporate the "average SLOE ranking" into ERAS, provided that we find a group willing to rate the SLOEs and distill them into an ASR and provide that information to the AAMC. Just because it's not done that way now doesn't mean it wouldn't be a worthwhile initiative to explore.
Some more thoughts on the SVI:
SAEM's statement on the SVI says"... results ... are promising. ... The best way to determine if the tool adds value to the residency selection process is through the operationalization of the tool. We believe strongly that residency leadership teams must have an opportunity to actually use the tool within their selection processes in order to properly assess its viability."
In what way is this the "best way" to determine if it adds value? What if the residency leadership teams improperly assess the viability? What if they put too much faith into it? What if they act on bad data and the integrity of the matching process is compromised?
Seems to me that the fair and reasonable "best way" to establish the viability/validity of the SVI would be to make the SVI mandatory but not release the score to programs for the first few cycles. File the scores away for a few years, along with the rest of the applicant data, and ultimately interrogate the data to see if there are correlations between SVI scores and resident performance. If correlations exist, great, I'm sold, let's move forward with implementing it. But in the meantime, let's not operationalize something that hasn't been fully vetted yet! The only vetting they've done is having last year's applicants voluntarily participate (without sharing their scores with programs). Anyone else at all concerned that the results are skewed as a result of the selection bias inherent in voluntary participation?
Meanwhile, you know what HAS been shown to correlate well with resident performance? SLOEs!
Side note: In case anyone missed it, the AAMC says they are "still evaluating feedback from our community and assessing the feasibility of providing applicants with their numerical score in a way that protects the security of the interview. The AAMC will announce a final decision on before [sic] the ERAS application season opens in early June."
Needless to say, I hope they decide to make the score available to applicants. I don't know why they haven't decided this yet. My cynical guess is that it's already been decided, and the answer is no, but they're trying to soften the blow by waiting until we've all adjusted to this news already.
On the bright side, I'm reassured that computer scoring will at least not be in play for the Class of 2018, and that they're looking at it carefully to confirm its viability before potentially deploying it for future cycles:
"What role will computer scoring play in delivering Standardized Video Interview scores to program directors?
If the Standardized Video Interview moves beyond the pilot stage and expands into specialties that have large applicant pools, it is unlikely that the AAMC could resource enough professional raters to score the interviews and make them available to program directors by mid-September when ERAS opens. As part of our current research, the AAMC is exploring the possibility of computer scoring as a supplement to human scoring. During this operational pilot for the 2018 ERAS application season, the AAMC is conducting a parallel research project (without implications on applicants’ scores) to explore the possibilities of computer scoring. For the operational pilot, the scores delivered to residency program directors would be provided by human raters only."
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Points
- 5,516
- Attending Physician
You will get no argument from me there. I'd much rather have the ability to set SLOE filters in ERAS. Things like "no low 1/3 SLOEs" or "average top 1/3" for all SLOE's, or "at least one top 1/3", etc. The possibilities would be endless. This is something that I think would be very, very helpful.
I also agree that the AAMC will probably not let students know their score. The reason is, I'm pretty sure they aren't going to have 1000 different questions. So if they are asking the same few questions, and one student knows their answers led to a really high score, then its easier for students to leak out how to answer the questions. That's one of my big problems with the SVI in the first place, it seems like it will be easy to game the second the questions start getting out.
I also agree that the AAMC will probably not let students know their score. The reason is, I'm pretty sure they aren't going to have 1000 different questions. So if they are asking the same few questions, and one student knows their answers led to a really high score, then its easier for students to leak out how to answer the questions. That's one of my big problems with the SVI in the first place, it seems like it will be easy to game the second the questions start getting out.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 6,172
- Points
- 5,516
- Attending Physician
No problem. Welcome aboard at SDN!
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2016
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 4,601
- Attending Physician
So it was optional this cycle and I did it for the free $50. I am now mildly interested in what my score was given that I did it while lying in bed in my boxers and no t-shirt.
Sorry for the future generation of applicants. Rest assured, there will be more hoops to go through in the future. Think about all those you are avoiding by applying now.
Sorry for the future generation of applicants. Rest assured, there will be more hoops to go through in the future. Think about all those you are avoiding by applying now.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2012
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 4,621
- Pre-Medical
So it wasn't a Skype thing? Or was it just like a recording of your answers that you submit?
Sent from my SM-G386T using SDN mobile
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2016
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 4,601
- Attending Physician
It's just a recording, you have two minutes out so to speak and then it cuts off automatically
No redo if you fuk up
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2012
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 4,621
- Pre-Medical
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2016
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 4,601
- Attending Physician
It's a video recording
Hence the part about me doing it while only wearing boxers
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2012
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 4,621
- Pre-Medical
Oh I thought you said no shirt as well so you were just face timing.
Sent from my SM-G386T using SDN mobile
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 207
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 4,581
- Pre-Medical
Doesn't passing the Step 2 PE/CS mean "some random analytical expert dude" literally just observed your every clinical encounter and move 12 times and thought you would make a good clinician and would not be a sociopath? So why is that not enough?
I already matched (thank god) but I feel for my 3rd years & future EM applicants. Feel like medical student applicants are a vulnerable group of subjects and whoever is heading this project is unethical for pushing this on them.
Would hope CD's & PD's who have any voice in this would see this and speak up at CORD meetings on our behalf.
Thank you for your questions about the AAMC Standardized Video Interview. Please visit the updated FAQs at http://bit.ly/AAMC-SVI-FAQ for answers to recently asked questions. Additional questions and feedback can be sent to [email protected].
AAMC,
Thank you for updating your FAQ to address the many concerns brought forth both on SDN and Reddit.
Respectfully, how is this process evaluating applicants separate from what Step 2 CS has already done? Also, do you intend on sharing your preliminary data with the EM community beyond the the CORD meeting?
I personally would like to see the participate selection characteristics broken down by race, ERAS application characteristics, and scoring outcomes- especially if the scoring rubric could be made available.
Also, financial transparency would be appreciated too- in that I'm wondering how much it cost to have HireVue conduct/process the study pilots, and what the estimated cost would be to roll out to all applicants. Additionally, did the AAMC request bids from multiple video-interviewing companies? If so- what were the criterion by which HireVue was selected?
Lastly, was there any student/student group involvement in the formation of this study pilot or included on the EMSIV Working Group?
All the best,
-wtffng
Thank you for updating your FAQ to address the many concerns brought forth both on SDN and Reddit.
Respectfully, how is this process evaluating applicants separate from what Step 2 CS has already done? Also, do you intend on sharing your preliminary data with the EM community beyond the the CORD meeting?
I personally would like to see the participate selection characteristics broken down by race, ERAS application characteristics, and scoring outcomes- especially if the scoring rubric could be made available.
Also, financial transparency would be appreciated too- in that I'm wondering how much it cost to have HireVue conduct/process the study pilots, and what the estimated cost would be to roll out to all applicants. Additionally, did the AAMC request bids from multiple video-interviewing companies? If so- what were the criterion by which HireVue was selected?
Lastly, was there any student/student group involvement in the formation of this study pilot or included on the EMSIV Working Group?
All the best,
-wtffng
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 274
- Points
- 4,716
- Attending Physician
While I appreciate the update, I find it does not address my primary concern of trying to draw any conclusions from this "pilot". Of course there will be a correlation to rank lists when you add in another number to stratify applicants or interview invites in an era of programs sorting through hundreds of applicants. By giving this information to the programs to use and then drawing conclusions that the number has a correlation to rank lists, you are not actually proving anything. All it shows is that a grade was used as a factor, not that the number has any correlation to how programs would have ranked applicants without it, performance as a resident, or any other factor. Unless med schools are producing unprofessional applicants that programs cannot currently detect on an interview, I don't see how this is going to add anything other than more stress/cost/time. If there is no way to show that this correlates to final rank lists, then how does it actually help programs? However, by not blinding the programs to the score/videos while also mandating that applicants use it, there is an intentional confounding factor added to the mix that will "prove" what the "pilot" is looking for. This is why we don't tell patients in a medication trial whether they are receiving a placebo or the drug in question.
If you really want to test if this has any intrinsic value, then make this mandatory for 3-5 years for students, but do not send the scores or videos to programs. Then you can see where correlations exist in the interviews sent out, final rank lists, resident performance, board pass rates, etc. Otherwise, this pilot cannot draw any valid conclusions and calling it a pilot is only a marketing tool.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,007
- Reaction score
- 983
- Points
- 5,266
- Location
- Anytown, USA
- Resident [Any Field]
Hi, @AAMC Today! Could you expand on how babbling at my MacBook allows you to assess my interpersonal skills?
For all additional questions and feedback, please send an email to [email protected].
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,419
- Reaction score
- 2,536
- Points
- 5,331
- Location
- United States
- Fellow [Any Field]
I wonder how these videos will put people with some physical injury at a disadvantage. Think burn victims, for example, or trauma survivors. Anyone with a lot of scarring of the face.
Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile
Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile
