NRMP-style fellowship match survey

[gbwillner]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Did anyone else get the link to fill out this survey? Looks like it is being seriously considered.

IMHO it is a complete waste of time. It's good for medicine where you've got 5-10 fellows/fellowship program and 5-10 subspecialty fellowships... so you want to get the best people for multiple spots and have to interview many applicants...

But in path it's usually 1 fellow per spot, and usually from the home institution. So programs don't have to interview more than 1 person if they choose, and same for the residents... so why the heck would they want the additional expense and paperwork? I think it only benefits smaller programs w/o fellowships.
The worst that happens in this system is 1) you get someone who doesn't really want to be there and you have to deal with them for a year or 2) you don't fill... both will cause dread with fellowship directors....

 

[pathstudent]

Did anyone else get the link to fill out this survey? Looks like it is being seriously considered.

IMHO it is a complete waste of time. It's good for medicine where you've got 5-10 fellows/fellowship program and 5-10 subspecialty fellowships... so you want to get the best people for multiple spots and have to interview many applicants...

But in path it's usually 1 fellow per spot, and usually from the home institution. So programs don't have to interview more than 1 person if they choose, and same for the residents... so why the heck would they want the additional expense and paperwork? I think it only benefits smaller programs w/o fellowships.
The worst that happens in this system is 1) you get someone who doesn't really want to be there and you have to deal with them for a year or 2) you don't fill... both will cause dread with fellowship directors....

I know it is on the agenda to be discussed at some of the subspecialty society meetings at USCAP.

I am all for it.

Your worst case scenario is no different than what could happen in the residency match.

A match is a much more fair ethical system that will be better for applicants and FDs, ensuring maximal happiness and less of the BS that is going on now.

 

[malchik]

Did anyone else get the link to fill out this survey? Looks like it is being seriously considered.

IMHO it is a complete waste of time. It's good for medicine where you've got 5-10 fellows/fellowship program and 5-10 subspecialty fellowships... so you want to get the best people for multiple spots and have to interview many applicants...

But in path it's usually 1 fellow per spot, and usually from the home institution. So programs don't have to interview more than 1 person if they choose, and same for the residents... so why the heck would they want the additional expense and paperwork? I think it only benefits smaller programs w/o fellowships.
The worst that happens in this system is 1) you get someone who doesn't really want to be there and you have to deal with them for a year or 2) you don't fill... both will cause dread with fellowship directors....

Can you post the link to the survey? I didn't get it.

I am very much in favor of a fellowship match. I see only benefits for outside applicants, and negligible risk for internal candidates and programs. How does a match add paperwork or expense? If you are an internal candidate, and the program wants you and you want them, then don't go on any interviews and only rank your program. Same goes for the program: just rank that person, don't interview anyone else. Only the fellowships who are interested in possibly accepting outside applicants would be interviewing and it would thus be clear which programs are in play.

If you don't trust each other, that's a problem that is not solved by the currrent situation in which fellows often bail on fellowships long after signing a contract or letter of intent. I concede that the only way for a paranoid applicant to insure herself would be to go on another interview, but again, I think that is a negligible risk.

Matching someone who doesn't want to be there is not unique to a match. People accept less-preferred fellowships all the time when they can't get into their top choices. Nor is failure to fill unique to a match system. In a match, as in the current free-for-all non-system, after failing to fill by the match, unmatched programs and applicants would then be free to scramble.

 

[KCShaw]

Haven't seen a survey request, but I may be considered too far out from the process to be asked, or it may be random, who knows.

The match-for-fellowships discussion has been batted around here in a thread or two not all that long ago. While I still don't know if it's the -best- alternative to the current situation, I do think it's a -better- solution. As it stands, IMO, your 2 worst case scenarios are already existant -- programs and applicants must to some extent consign themselves to whatever offers/acceptances come along first or risk losing the applicant/position to someone else, so I think some people -are- in places they don't necessarily want to be while other places don't fill because they were perhaps a little more discerning or overly patient.

A program or applicant doesn't have to rank a person or program they really don't want to be at. Sure, some will because they're paranoid -- much like with residency. And yes, many applicants will interview more places than they previously would have, expanding their experiences and learning more about other programs...as they probably should...rather than slinking into their local fellowship.

I think it will be a busier and more costly process, and I do have some concerns as to how that will affect time away from training, cost, etc. There are certainly things to be worried about.. I just don't think I've heard any to make me want to avoid giving it a substantial try. I do have a very, very strong preference that it be uniform, i.e. not just applicable to heme positions or just accredited fellowships, otherwise it fails to address the biggest problems of scheduling inconsistencies among programs.

 

[zao275]

Can you post the link to the survey? I didn't get it.

I am very much in favor of a fellowship match. I see only benefits for outside applicants, and negligible risk for internal candidates and programs. How does a match add paperwork or expense? If you are an internal candidate, and the program wants you and you want them, then don't go on any interviews and only rank your program. Same goes for the program: just rank that person, don't interview anyone else. Only the fellowships who are interested in possibly accepting outside applicants would be interviewing and it would thus be clear which programs are in play.

If you don't trust each other, that's a problem that is not solved by the currrent situation in which fellows often bail on fellowships long after signing a contract or letter of intent. I concede that the only way for a paranoid applicant to insure herself would be to go on another interview, but again, I think that is a negligible risk.

Matching someone who doesn't want to be there is not unique to a match. People accept less-preferred fellowships all the time when they can't get into their top choices. Nor is failure to fill unique to a match system. In a match, as in the current free-for-all non-system, after failing to fill by the match, unmatched programs and applicants would then be free to scramble.

Well said. Excellent points. APC is set to vote on this issue in late February, as far as I understand.

Regarding paperwork, how on earth could a match be worse than the numerous different non-standardized applications that residents have to send out now. It is very tedious work. I hope that a Match will help to force the use of a standardized application (CAP already has a standardized app, but not all programs use it still).

 

[malchik]

Zao275, do you know anything about this survey? I would be interested in participating.

 

[zao275]

Zao275, do you know anything about this survey? I would be interested in participating.

No, actually I don't. It was not CAP initiated as far as I know. I can ask the ASCP Resident Council chair if she knows about it on the ASCP end. I do know that they are seriously considering this and will discuss with the ADASP at USCAP and then will vote on the issue. My feeling is that once the chairs decide to go (if they do), then the program directors will be essentially forced to follow, for better or for worse (for better, I think).

Jerad

 

[KluverB]

Next thing you know, everyone will want a match system to get a job post-residency/fellowship, because the current system is just so blatantly unfair with the job market sucking ba**s and *ll. 🙄

 

[Autopsy Sweet]

No, actually I don't. It was not CAP initiated as far as I know. I can ask the ASCP Resident Council chair if she knows about it on the ASCP end. I do know that they are seriously considering this and will discuss with the ADASP at USCAP and then will vote on the issue. My feeling is that once the chairs decide to go (if they do), then the program directors will be essentially forced to follow, for better or for worse (for better, I think).

Jerad

I received the link from my fellowship director who said that it was also sent to residency program directors to send to residents. If you're a resident you should get it soon.

I'm not entirely in favor of the match because I don't know how certain special situations will work. First, neuropath just won't work in the match. A 2 year fellowship for which the director may choose to overlap or stagger positions any way he/she pleases is too complicated. Second, what about non-traditional applicants such as those who do non-boarded fellowships out of sequence. This is a caveat that, again, complicates things. Third, do we require EVERY resident (who wants a fellowship) to match? What about those who are internal applicants who have been promised spots since the first day of residency? And, how does the program work that with the match system? They can't do it partially through the match and partially not. What about the added expense? Everyone will have to pay to be involved and we don't know what that cost will be.

I an definitely see some benefits, but I just don't think it's going to be as easy as jut setting a match and saying "go!".

Thoughts?

 

[pathstudent]

Not complicated at all. The fd just submits how many positions are available that year. Sometimes it can be 0 or 1 or 2 or more in a two year fellowship.

I received the link from my fellowship



director who said that it was also sent to residency program directors to send to residents. If you're a resident you should get it soon.

I'm not entirely in favor of the match because I don't know how certain special situations will work. First, neuropath just won't work in the match. A 2 year fellowship for which the director may choose to overlap or stagger positions any way he/she pleases is too complicated. Second, what about non-traditional applicants such as those who do non-boarded fellowships out of sequence. This is a caveat that, again, complicates things. Third, do we require EVERY resident (who wants a fellowship) to match? What about those who are internal applicants who have been promised spots since the first day of residency? And, how does the program work that with the match system? They can't do it partially through the match and partially not. What about the added expense? Everyone will have to pay to be involved and we don't know what that cost will be.

I an definitely see some benefits, but I just don't think it's going to be as easy as jut setting a match and saying "go!".

Thoughts?

 

[gbwillner]

Can you post the link to the survey? I didn't get it.

I am very much in favor of a fellowship match. I see only benefits for outside applicants, and negligible risk for internal candidates and programs. How does a match add paperwork or expense? If you are an internal candidate, and the program wants you and you want them, then don't go on any interviews and only rank your program. ....

First off, the process will not be free. Be prepared to pay upwards of $1000 for the privilege of getting an internal fellowship spot, that would have otherwise have been obtained by a handshake. Second, programs won't be able to "promise" you anything in advance, since they will have to hold all spots for all fellowships for some arbitrary deadline. This will hurt recruiting top residents, since you may wish to offer them a fellowship spot up front. Third, programs are going to worry about what their program looks like to others if they offer a spot for the match but in reality it is already filled. They will waste the time (and $$) of many applicats if they even offer interviews for it. And IF they get burned by the interval guy, who promised to come, for what ever reason... let's just say it's not likely to happen in the current system compared to how it will be with the blanket of a match system. So now programs will have to get a comittee together, to review and rank.... maybe 3 applicants? maybe 10? What a waste of time.

Botton line is that there are ways of fixing the current system without all this BS. Why not just have an "official" on-line list of all unfilled fellowship positions, listed by program. Maybe even throw in a deadline by which all fellowships must be filled, otherwise they are up-for grabs, and make this date the same for all subspecialties. This way if a program fills with an internal/preferred candidate, they simply remove the position from the list or show it as "filled". Wouldn't this solve most of the problems?

 

[KCShaw]

This (programs only entering positions in the match that they wish to fill, and not listing those they have offered outside the match) is an option with the residency match system, and I don't see why it wouldn't be in a fellowship match system. My feeling is that programs are more likely to NOT offer outside the match because of the uncertainties surrounding it (like the current system, though now they have essentially no choice but to offer early).

If programs could work on a standardized schedule that would be great, there is just no system or schedule currently in place. There is no interview season, there is no earliest or latest time to send an application, there is no widely accepted or enforced standardized application though one has been put forth, there is no earliest or latest time to offer or to accept a position, and there is no real impetus to honor an offer or an acceptance though usually it's the applicant who backs out. The closest thing to an official list is still FRIEDA, as far as I can think, and everyone knows that's usually out of date. A match still appears to address those common problems of the current no-system. It may add some, yes..but still seems to be a better alternative.

 

[icpshootyz]

First off, the process will not be free. Be prepared to pay upwards of $1000 for the privilege of getting an internal fellowship spot, that would have otherwise have been obtained by a handshake. Second, programs won't be able to "promise" you anything in advance, since they will have to hold all spots for all fellowships for some arbitrary deadline. This will hurt recruiting top residents, since you may wish to offer them a fellowship spot up front. Third, programs are going to worry about what their program looks like to others if they offer a spot for the match but in reality it is already filled. They will waste the time (and $$) of many applicats if they even offer interviews for it. And IF they get burned by the interval guy, who promised to come, for what ever reason... let's just say it's not likely to happen in the current system compared to how it will be with the blanket of a match system. So now programs will have to get a comittee together, to review and rank.... maybe 3 applicants? maybe 10? What a waste of time.

Botton line is that there are ways of fixing the current system without all this BS. Why not just have an "official" on-line list of all unfilled fellowship positions, listed by program. Maybe even throw in a deadline by which all fellowships must be filled, otherwise they are up-for grabs, and make this date the same for all subspecialties. This way if a program fills with an internal/preferred candidate, they simply remove the position from the list or show it as "filled". Wouldn't this solve most of the problems?

But how do you enforce your suggestions? Why not just create the match, but also give programs the option to take internal candidates prior to accepting applications from outside candidates for a match system? That way, programs can still take internal>external if they want, and good internal candidates aren't forced to travel and interview unnecessarily. Make the internal deadline something like 18 mos prior to fellowship start date, and then make the match ~12 mos prior.

I don't look at the match as a cure all, but the current system is really tough on resident applicants to competitive fellowships. Maybe a match would alleviate some of the stress in the process. The current system works far better for the programs than the candidates, and that's my issue with it.

 

[pathstudent]

First off, the process will not be free. Be prepared to pay upwards of $1000 for the privilege of getting an internal fellowship spot, that would have otherwise have been obtained by a handshake. Second, programs won't be able to "promise" you anything in advance, since they will have to hold all spots for all fellowships for some arbitrary deadline. This will hurt recruiting top residents, since you may wish to offer them a fellowship spot up front. Third, programs are going to worry about what their program looks like to others if they offer a spot for the match but in reality it is already filled. They will waste the time (and $$) of many applicats if they even offer interviews for it. And IF they get burned by the interval guy, who promised to come, for what ever reason... let's just say it's not likely to happen in the current system compared to how it will be with the blanket of a match system. So now programs will have to get a comittee together, to review and rank.... maybe 3 applicants? maybe 10? What a waste of time.

Botton line is that there are ways of fixing the current system without all this BS. Why not just have an "official" on-line list of all unfilled fellowship positions, listed by program. Maybe even throw in a deadline by which all fellowships must be filled, otherwise they are up-for grabs, and make this date the same for all subspecialties. This way if a program fills with an internal/preferred candidate, they simply remove the position from the list or show it as "filled". Wouldn't this solve most of the problems?

All the things you mention as negatives would apply to the residency match. The match works well for residency positions. And other specialties have matches for their fellowships. Why should path be any different?

You sound like a total griper. Just like the gripers who complained about path having to recertify for boards when every other specialty had long ago made the move.

A match would be infinitely better than the shadowy system we have now.

Besides this would only apply for the "real" fellowships like NP, HP, PP, CP, FP etc.... It wouldn't apply to unregulated undefined surgpath fellowships like surgpath, gipath, gupath, etc....

 

[yaah]

Please do not post a link to the survey - I am not a part of it but I don't want SDN to be a party to interfering with proper data collection. If you want to see it and are eligible you should talk to your program director because they should have it.

As I have posted before, my main problem with the fellowship process is the timeline. Some programs try to fill > 2 years ahead of time, others wait until close to 1 year. And there is no transparency for many programs. They will fill a spot and not tell anyone.

 

[malchik]

First off, the process will not be free. Be prepared to pay upwards of $1000 for the privilege of getting an internal fellowship spot, that would have otherwise have been obtained by a handshake. Second, programs won't be able to "promise" you anything in advance, since they will have to hold all spots for all fellowships for some arbitrary deadline. This will hurt recruiting top residents, since you may wish to offer them a fellowship spot up front. Third, programs are going to worry about what their program looks like to others if they offer a spot for the match but in reality it is already filled. They will waste the time (and $$) of many applicats if they even offer interviews for it. And IF they get burned by the interval guy, who promised to come, for what ever reason... let's just say it's not likely to happen in the current system compared to how it will be with the blanket of a match system. So now programs will have to get a comittee together, to review and rank.... maybe 3 applicants? maybe 10? What a waste of time.

1) Where does the $1000 figure come from? Residency is like 10$ per program isn't it?

2) If all programs are held to a rule of not being able to offer fellowships up front then no program is at a disadvantage competing for top residents. Alternatively, if no such rule were part of the match system, as I tend to prefer, programs could opt out of the match if they want an internal candidate.

3) If a program has filled internally, simply don't offer it in the match. See 2 above. It seems to me that committees, reviewing, and ranking applicants all goes on now; these are not specific to a match system.

 

[Tiki]

I just applied and interviewed at outside institutions, as my current residency doesn't have a fellowship in my desired field.

I love where I'm going, but the whole process was really annoying. Some places offered me a spot right away, others said they would get back to me in 2 weeks-1 month. Some places aren't honest when there are internal candidates. Some places review applications in October/November (almost 2 years before), others won't look at them until March.

I wasn't for a match until I went through the process. Now I'm all for it.

 

[lurksalot]

I do think there needs to be more uniformity in the process, but I worry that a match for fellowships may instigate other issues.

For example, programs that currently tend to favor internal candidates may actually shift gears a bit. A uniform electronic application makes it a heck of a lot easier to apply to multiple programs. If programs advertise their positions and get an onslaught of fantastic candidates, it would be very alluring to interview these people. In these situations internal candidates may be put on the backburner.

Yes, this may in the end be fairer for all applicants. But those of you that have your eye on a fellowship spot within your own institution- be wary!

I also think residents, after four more years of training, tend to have more obligations in life than when they were in medical school. Many are married, some have small children. I wonder if these types of applicants would want to resign their fate to another match program.

The job market doesn't work this way. Again, I do think uniformity is necessary, but do we really need another match?

 

[icpshootyz]

. . .but do we really need another match?

Yes. Wholeheartedly yes. The negatives you bring up could simply be avoided by allowing programs to take their internal candidates outside the match, prior to the match occurring. Make a universal internal candidate deadline early, and then have the match later. I don't see the problem in that sort of situation. My program basically does this now - if there's a good internal candidate who wants a spot, they usually don't even interview outside people. Why would that necessarily change? I don't think anyone's arguing that EVERY position be put into the match system, but this would make a HUGE difference for those applying to fellowships like dermpath.

 

[pathstudent]

Yes. Wholeheartedly yes. The negatives you bring up could simply be avoided by allowing programs to take their internal candidates outside the match, prior to the match occurring. Make a universal internal candidate deadline early, and then have the match later. I don't see the problem in that sort of situation. My program basically does this now - if there's a good internal candidate who wants a spot, they usually don't even interview outside people. Why would that necessarily change? I don't think anyone's arguing that EVERY position be put into the match system, but this would make a HUGE difference for those applying to fellowships like dermpath.

Totally agree with the above all these arguments against a match are either illogical, easily dismissible or smack of insecurity by those that want the simplest path to get what they want versus a system that is transparent fair and rational for everyone.

 

[lurksalot]

Totally agree with the above all these arguments against a match are either illogical, easily dismissible or smack of insecurity by those that want the simplest path to get what they want versus a system that is transparent fair and rational for everyone.

This issue actually doesn't affect me personally as I am several years out from fellowship training. I am involved in fellow recruitment at my institution, however, and I have seen years when the outside applicant pool is larger and very attractive, and we don't necessarily promise our in-house candidates the spots. Usually if we have very strong internal candidates, yes, the point is moot. Again, uniformity will help ALL applicants. I'm just not sure a match is necessary.

Personally, I don't care either way.

 

[Thrombus]

No system will ever be "fair to everyone".

I much rather enjoyed my single interview trip to a place I KNEW was WIDE OPEN, handshake agreement, contract signing, and the costs and time that went with it rather than.....

Signing up for 10-15 interviews to maximize my chances at getting a spot, wondering how many of these interviews were "token" interviews, stressing about some magical match day, spending thousands of dollars that me and my family never had, putting them through this complete randomness, stressing the family with me being away, and paying some MATCH AGENCY just to be part of this ridiculous system.

Yes, a match sounds "wonderful" to the naive and utopians amongst us. But reality tells me it will be a nightmare to deal with and live through. That being said, we already have to deal with the "great ideas" of many bureaucrats in the gov't, CAP, state licensing agencies, etc. etc.....whats one more taking aim at plundering our paycheck?

 

[green mantis]

I wonder why there's a big fuss about internal candidates & a match process. The same thing already occurs when you apply for residency. There are certain programs, usually affiliated w/ a medical school, that tend to take their own students for competitive residencies. I don't think this really hurts the match.


----- Antony

 

[icpshootyz]

No system will ever be "fair to everyone".

I much rather enjoyed my single interview trip to a place I KNEW was WIDE OPEN, handshake agreement, contract signing, and the costs and time that went with it rather than.....

Signing up for 10-15 interviews to maximize my chances at getting a spot, wondering how many of these interviews were "token" interviews, stressing about some magical match day, spending thousands of dollars that me and my family never had, putting them through this complete randomness, stressing the family with me being away, and paying some MATCH AGENCY just to be part of this ridiculous system.

Yes, a match sounds "wonderful" to the naive and utopians amongst us. But reality tells me it will be a nightmare to deal with and live through. That being said, we already have to deal with the "great ideas" of many bureaucrats in the gov't, CAP, state licensing agencies, etc. etc.....whats one more taking aim at plundering our paycheck?

Good for you. But as someone who has not had the same experience, I would rather have a match.

 

[lipomas]

Fellowship application process SUCKED. Anything would be better than the status quo, aside from a barter system where the desperate would offer to train for free.

Things the application process needs:
1) A timeline. A match would be beneficial in forcing this into existence
2) Transparency. Programs lie. If they aren't lying, they withhold information about whether a spot is truly available. Candidates also lie big time. They apply for three different specialties and lie about it. They hold three acceptances and lie about it. They say they will accept a spot and then bail. They all say they want to do academics when what they really want to do is make money.

I was rejected from a spot when I was applying and the program director told me (who was honest and said I would be considering both private practice and academic jobs when I finished) that he was taking a different candidate who had academic aspirations. Where is that candidate today? In private practice, he didn't even look at academic jobs.

Problems with a match would be what would happen if a program didn't participate? A lot of fellowships aren't accredited so they don't really answer to anyone. And what happens if a program doesn't fill "by accident." Can they scramble in someone who also didn't match "by accident"? Also, the volume of candidates isn't really that high - it's not like the IM specialties. One subtle way in which the current dysfunctional system actually helps matters is that it keeps a lot of people out of the application process. If a person from JHU is promised an internal spot, say in GU, then he won't be applying to every other GU fellowship and wasting everyone's time by interviewing there especially if he wants to go to JHU anyway.

 

[pathstudent]

There wouldn't be any token interviews in a match system. Just like there aren't any token interviews for residency positions. If a spot was going to be filled internally without question the spot wouldn't be part of the match.

Hopefully there could be a match for non acgme fellowships like gi and surgpath which are notorious for being full of monkey business when it comes to getting a spot.

No system will ever be "fair to everyone".

I much rather enjoyed my single interview trip to a place I KNEW was WIDE OPEN, handshake agreement, contract signing, and the costs and time that went with it rather than.....

Signing up for 10-15 interviews to maximize my chances at getting a spot, wondering how many of these interviews were "token" interviews, stressing about some magical match day, spending thousands of dollars that me and my family never had, putting them through this complete randomness, stressing the family with me being away, and paying some MATCH AGENCY just to be part of this ridiculous system.

Yes, a match sounds "wonderful" to the naive and utopians amongst us. But reality tells me it will be a nightmare to deal with and live through. That being said, we already have to deal with the "great ideas" of many bureaucrats in the gov't, CAP, state licensing agencies, etc. etc.....whats one more taking aim at plundering our paycheck?

 

[KeratinPearls]

I was rejected from a spot when I was applying and the program director told me (who was honest and said I would be considering both private practice and academic jobs when I finished) that he was taking a different candidate who had academic aspirations. Where is that candidate today? In private practice, he didn't even look at academic jobs.

Ouch that sucks. Yup that goes on in a lot of fields, esp the competitive ones (derm).

 

[2121115]

2 thoughts....


1. If fellowships have the option of not entering the match (i.e. we prefer to fill internally) then very few programs will participate because most fellowships are already filling internally just fine, particularly the competitive ones that residents feel they are excluded from by not training at that program. In other words, this process basically is designed to only help residents at lower/mid tier programs get access to these competitive spots. However, these spots won't be the ones open to a match. The matched spots will be the ones that were less competitive to start with.

2. It will cost the applicants A LOT of money in interviewing costs (airfare/travel, food, etc). No one is going to suicide match just because their program director said they have a spot (I know of 2 people who did this for internal medicine fellowships and got left out in the cold). Everyone is going to be doing more interviews. The result = more $$$.

 

[malchik]

2 thoughts....


1. If fellowships have the option of not entering the match (i.e. we prefer to fill internally) then very few programs will participate because most fellowships are already filling internally just fine, particularly the competitive ones that residents feel they are excluded from by not training at that program. In other words, this process basically is designed to only help residents at lower/mid tier programs get access to these competitive spots. However, these spots won't be the ones open to a match. The matched spots will be the ones that were less competitive to start with.

2. It will cost the applicants A LOT of money in interviewing costs (airfare/travel, food, etc). No one is going to suicide match just because their program director said they have a spot (I know of 2 people who did this for internal medicine fellowships and got left out in the cold). Everyone is going to be doing more interviews. The result = more $$$.

1) It may be the case at some competitive programs that they would still prefer to fill internally, but I suspect that if given a match option, a lot of these programs would open up to it with the possibility of getting even better candidates than their own internal, known, but sometimes less than stellar applicants. Secondly, it's not only applicants from mid-lower tier programs that are interested in going outside for a fellowship. For example, would you consider Stanford a mid-tier place? If you are coming from there and want a GI, GU, breast, you are going to have to look outside (correct me if I'm wrong on this). Lots of great places just don't have the specific fellowship that a great applicant might want.

2) I agree it will cost more money. I think the benefit is well worth the cost.

 

[pathstudent]

I disagree. Competitive programs will be in the match as they want to get the best fellows. ANd in competitive fellowships (i.e. ones with a perceived lucrative career), many programs have more than one spot, so even if they give one to an internal candidate, they will interview others as part of a match.

 

[pathstudent]

We demand a fellowship match now! So we can be normal like the rest of physicians!

 

[2121115]

So we can be normal like the rest of physicians!

But pathologists are not normal like the rest of physicians. And pathology is not like the rest of medicine.

 

[gbwillner]

I disagree. Competitive programs will be in the match as they want to get the best fellows. ANd in competitive fellowships (i.e. ones with a perceived lucrative career), many programs have more than one spot, so even if they give one to an internal candidate, they will interview others as part of a match.

...Except that it's extremely difficlut to judge how "good" an applicant is from a one-day interview. You know the quality of your in-house applicants, so if they're no good you send them packing. If they are good you take them.

Someone else said not everyone wants to stay at their home insitution. People coming out of stanford and places like it are way more likely to take the unfilled spots at a second institution over someone from a "lesser" program. A match won't change that either.

 

[Sulfinator]

Overall, I am a bit skeptical of a fellowship match process. It seems like it would create additional bureaucracy, work (for both programs and applicants), and will certainly increase costs. And that might be okay if it really did a huge amount of good . . . . but I doubt that it will change things very much.

And, speaking personally, I think a match system is more likely to hurt me as an applicant than help me (though I doubt it will really affect me at all).

 

[zao275]

I wasn't for a match until I went through the process. Now I'm all for it.

My sentiments exactly. And I got the best possible set up that I could ever hope for. But the process was so tricky and time consuming and the politics were so delicate that I was converted to the idea of a Match being the best option. Dr. Crawford's paper pretty much covered any additional concerns that I had. Any naysayers who have NOT read his very thorough paper should consider holding their concerns until they get a chance to read and digest it.

Jerad

 

[Pathologee]

My sentiments exactly. And I got the best possible set up that I could ever hope for. But the process was so tricky and time consuming and the politics were so delicate that I was converted to the idea of a Match being the best option. Dr. Crawford's paper pretty much covered any additional concerns that I had. Any naysayers who have NOT read his very thorough paper should consider holding their concerns until they get a chance to read and digest it.

Jerad

No...MY sentiments exactly. Like you I feel that I got a position I never would have had a chance at if there was a match. After looking at the papers and listening to discussion regarding a match, I feel it would benefit both residents and institutions.

 

[gschl1234]

Can you post the link to the survey? I didn't get it.

Is this the survey you're talking about?

u************************/SE/?SID=******************

Our SP director circulated this via our chiefs.

 

[gschl1234]

Is this the survey you're talking about?

u************************/SE/?SID=******************

Our SP director circulated this via our chiefs.

Sorry, don't understand why it's not copying.

 

[yaah]

Sorry, don't understand why it's not copying.

Because I blocked it. I posted earlier about requesting you all not to post the survey because I do not want SDN to be a party to messing up data collection. Posting it on the web means anyone can visit it, including people who are not residents or fellows or even pathologists. So don't share it (the link) with people who aren't residents. If you want to indicate what the questions are if people are that fascinated, that would be ok.