Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Is there any actual proof that places practice yield protection? Or are you simply just extrapolating based on how many applications there are per spot. Like I said it could be a myriad of other reasons one doesn’t “fit the program”. But for a program to say that they don’t want someone because they’re “too good for us” seems BS to me and is something cocky med students say when they don’t get every interview they apply for.
No one denies what your saying, but my comments came on your posting where you said;
Again, how do you know this. I've been a PD for ~13 years and I would never pass on a highly qualified applicant. This is a community program. My applicant position ratio is 100. One-half of them are literally junk. Our number to ranks/fill is 12 over the last 3 years. We have not gone unmatched for ~15 years.
I know for a fact I was not offered an interview at at least one program because my app was better than what they usually take and they didn’t think I would actually come.
This is completely off topic but you’re very much wrong. How competent you are after training has absolutely nothing to do with the rank and prestige of your program. Many highly ranked programs honestly produce a crappy clinical product, and their grads require multiple fellowships to achieve competence.
Interesting. I figured that there is some of that going on but my main point is that it is nowhere near as prevalent as some people on here make it sound. Like the classic SDN thing is to blame almost every non-interview place on something like that and my thought is that it isn't as simple as that and unfortunately there just isn't a way for us to know in a way that's generalizable to every (or even most) programs
I only got two community interviews. One was from an away and the PD told me she wouldn’t have taken me seriously had I not done the rotation because of how competitive I am.
This is wildly, completely false. Only at the top of the top levels in these institutions is this even partly true.
Sorry, but one comment from one program does not make this a thing. I can imagine other reasons; I have a good imagination.
I disagree. At least in surgery, clinical ability and research productivity are largely independent.
Not only is this not common sense, it's wrong. The "top-tier" places are "top-tier" because of institutional prestige and faculty notoriety. These days, there are very few famous academic faculty (at least in my field) who are famous because of their clinical mastery. In the past it was much more common, but today the top names are at the top because of their research, not because of their surgical ability outside of a few individuals.
True but multiple others have been in this situation too.
Are you one of those people who needs a peer reviewed paper before believing things like water is wet? What I think is a plausible and defendable reason experienced by other applicants in multiple specialties is just as likely as... Wait, you never offered an explanation besides saying you in your one program in your one specialty don't do it so it isn't the reason... Yeah, hard to argue with someone who isn't actually saying anything or making any points lol. Go ahead and explain why with some realistic reasons so we can all be educated by your perspective on the other side, seriously.
This concept even exists at the med school application level...
I don't think this works unless programs coordinate to release their interview invitations at the same time. I know this is happening in a few specialties but I think it would have to be the standard in order to enforce a rule like this.
Last season.
First of all, I never mentioned literally anyone in particular. Weird to get so passionate about a general statement. I stand by that some people (on here especially) default to it even though there really isn't proof in whichever specific case. This whole thing is a relative crapshoot anyway depending on whos reading your application, what time of day, what mood they're in, etc. You cannot tell me based on pure word of mouth that its a widespread thing when I can provide literally the same level of proof to the contrary. Which is what I said. Yes it happens, but it isn't everywhere, and blaming not getting an interview on it is also lazy and lacks self reflection on what other things could have been in your application differently. LORs for example.
Other fun facts:
These dont seem fun lol
He had a couple of online months and booked a ton of them during this time. The rest were during the rotations but only missed like 9 days during that time.
That's a good point and I think that would be fine to try to make it more uniform. That way, it isn't a complete mess when everyone is applying.
those numbers are completely unsustainable in the long term. we def need reform of some kind.
Yes, indeed. I can understand why current applicants do not want their choices restricted, but blindly adhering to this principle will ultimately break the entire process. Extrapolate out far enough and every applicant will simply apply to every program in their field(s) of choice. Some already do.
The 1990 numbers also predate the internet, the advent of which probably accounted for a huge, discrete increase in applications due to a fundamental change in the way applications are sent and processed. I assume the growth has been more modest since 2000, for example, although I am sure it is still substantial.
Sorry for the notification, NAPD. Don't mind me here. I know you aren't part of this convo and I really think you shouldn't even waste your time reading it lol but I just found the timing funny that you said this in another thread.
Total application volume from US seniors increased by 238,632 (20.4%) just from 2016-2020.
It doesn't matter. The Coalition for Physician Accountability has been tasked with finding a solution to the so-called UME to GME transition. We will patiently await their orders.
The only reason it costs the amount it does is because it's a total racket. Similar to NBOME and the COMLEX, in particular the PE. Total, mobster stuff. And the poor applicants suffer the most, particularly low income applicants. PDs and Programs are handcuffed as well so they don't have much of a chance to fix it.
ERAP would mainly benefit AMGs. Is it your goal?Great study article about addressing ERAS FEVER explained by behavioral psychology behind GAME THEORY!
Just in IM and GS alone, 12% of applicants holds 50% of the interviews!
Possible solutions:
- Informative: programs publish cut off criteria.
- Marketplace: increase costs and put limits on interviews if not applications all together!
- Early Result Acceptance Program “ERAP”
Application Fever: Reviewing the Causes, Costs, and Cures for Residency Application Inflation
Over the past decade, the number of residency applications submitted per applicant has nearly doubled. This epidemic of “Application Fever” is expensive for applicants, burdensome for programs, and ultimately does not improve overall Match outcomes. In this review, we discuss the phenomenon of...www.cureus.com
More people went unmatched this year (if even true, no numbers have been released for applicants) because there were more applicants, plain and simple. There is some regional metrics report available for all of us on NRMP showing that there was no difference from previous years in terms of number of unfilled programs. The Match was technically even more successful for everything but family Med, IM, and surgery because there were almost zero spots left unfilled for things like rads, anesthesia, and EM; EM had 14 unfilled spots total around the country with half of those being a single program.
I don’t remember if it was this thread or the ERAS panic thread but there’s someone who claims to be involved in the process who admitted as such. They specifically said “if I think for any reason you’re making your ranklist and I’m going to fall at #20, I’m not going to even invite you for an interview”. Paraphrased.
So you'd rather have your mother/father/son/daughter be operated on by a US MD solely because you feel they should have first dibs? Shouldn't taxpayers get the best irrespectively of where they come from?
Was gonna take this on but I feel this is a slippery slope towards SPF territory and is just a way to get burnt at the stake...in short, yes but its complicated. If a US grad meets all criteria set by the US to establish competent physicians then yes they should get the opportunity to practice medicine in this country over someone who is trained to a different countries set of standards and protocols. There are a million very complex things in this that aren't warranted to get into on a spot like this.
USMLE Steps true believer, are you not?
Do we have an unequivocal way to make sure any given non-US applicant meets “all criteria set by the US to establish competent physicians”?
Exactly. The Steps are all we've got. And IIRC, matched IMG's stats are higher than matched AMG's stats. (could be wrong, though)
I feel your pain. I'm waiting for the eventual release of WhambamthankyouMab.
The steps aren’t all we’ve got though. We’ve got the steps AND nationally standardized training overseen by US entities.
I'm a cancer researcher. It's actually joy, not pain. But I believe most people simply don't care or don't need to care.
No, I think that when there is this much debt involved those American tax dollars are best spent on American graduates, so as to not waste the massive investment taxpayers have been funding throughout that students medical education, and as to not ruin the lives of American graduates.
American taxpayers don’t care about US medical education or what’s happening to people who are SOAPing right now. They only care about how good they think their doctor is, not his or her path. Born and raised here, even I've been asked what country I'm fromt and often they confided in me they want a foreign doctor taking care of them because they've heard they are smarter. Politically, these are the same Americans who align themselves with the bolded policy not for the reasons you or I care about, but to further their politically right world view. You can’t expect world class care and by the same token expect that US grads are all prioritized. To a large extent in residency recruitment, they already are. Additionally:
