Official 2010 Internal Medicine Match List

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It's interesting about authorship . . . we too often make a bigger deal than we should about the order of authorship on a paper. We tend to assume that whoever is the "first author" did most of the work not only in writing, but all conducting the heavy lifting of the study, and the design of the initial investigation - there isn't some sort of "official" order. Also of note many of the old dogs who not longer need anything else added to their CV and likely did most of intellectual work on any project take their names on the end as "last author". Furthermore, it's a bit of an academic game, names often get added to projects to toss someone a bone - let them add it to their CV when they actually contributed enough to warrant an acknowledgment but not necessarily an authorship position. And then to top it all off, as far as the ethics and academic honesty is concerned regarding authorship (if any of you actually paid any attention the to the ubiquitous research tutorials you were supposed to do prior to starting work) every author is considered equal, as they all bear equal responsibility for everything contained therein . . . including any shenanigans that may eventually come out. There is more than one story where some famous guy tacking his name onto a publication, got his ass in a can because of nonsense that he didn't even know about.

I think academics makes too much ado about publications, and spends not enough time paying attention to experience, because at the end of the day anyone can add your name to the authorship list, but if you lack the experience, then you are as useless as the next guy. I'd rather have a guy with two years lab tech experience doing something I can use than someone with a few publications any day because now that I now the game better, outside of the PhD guys, I'm skeptical anyone actually did much of the work to which their name finds its way on the CV - NOT saying they didn't, but the skepticism kicks in hard.

Couldn't disagree with you more regarding the significance, or lack thereof, of being 1st author on something. Nobody's just going to throw someone a bone that didn't do much work and say, "Hey, you don't have any 1st author pubs, why don't we put you 1st on this one." If you don't do the lion's share of the work, you're not going to be 1st. And having the PI being last is pretty much the standard.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Couldn't disagree with you more regarding the significance, or lack thereof, of being 1st author on something. Nobody's just going to throw someone a bone that didn't do much work and say, "Hey, you don't have any 1st author pubs, why don't we put you 1st on this one." If you don't do the lion's share of the work, you're not going to be 1st. And having the PI being last is pretty much the standard.

I agree about this regarding original articles.- both bench and clinical.

However, I have seen steering committee reviews - or all the "guidelines" that often come out, or even a huge multicentric RCTs; often the first author and many of the authors form a separate "writing committee" who had nothing to do with conducting the research.

I agree with JDH71 about the experience though. Someone who has worked their ass off doing stuff is much more useful than someone who just has a ton of publications. A ton of first author original papers is different - but there are some people who work as technicians and thus never get to be first author (because they never aspire to be a PI). But some of these people are just a phenomenal asset to a research team. Unfortunately, program directors may sometimes select candidates with many 3rd author publications (which is what I think JDH71 was referring to, when PI's help their mentees "develop CVs") over someone with 1 first author publication, but who has enough experience. Sometimes it takes time to produce papers, but that does not necessarily mean you do not have the experience at the time of application.

Anyway, I think this has probably hijacked the thread, so we may want to get back on the topic soon.
 
Couldn't disagree with you more regarding the significance, or lack thereof, of being 1st author on something. Nobody's just going to throw someone a bone that didn't do much work and say, "Hey, you don't have any 1st author pubs, why don't we put you 1st on this one." If you don't do the lion's share of the work, you're not going to be 1st. And having the PI being last is pretty much the standard.

You have to show me the official agreed upon international rules with regard to authorship order.

You will look for a long time because it doesn't exist. We
make certain assumption which are not actually bourne out in any sort of official sense. And given that every name on a paper is equally redponsble for what is contained inside I find it to be a bit of a silly distnction, first vs second vs third.

Furthermore, if you actually think people don't get tossed a bone with regards to authorship you are very naive. Thr academic world is full of bull**** and there are many cases which demontrate this.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
And given that every name on a paper is equally redponsble for what is contained inside I find it to be a bit of a silly distnction, first vs second vs third.

Which is why many basic science journals now require each author's role to be spelled out, so that those who planned experiments and wrote the paper can be recognized, and when fraud is proven every name on a paper is not held equally responsible. Why are we discussing this again?
 
You have to show me the official agreed upon international rules with regard to authorship order.

You will look for a long time because it doesn't exist. We
make certain assumption which are not actually bourne out in any sort of official sense. And given that every name on a paper is equally redponsble for what is contained inside I find it to be a bit of a silly distnction, first vs second vs third.

Furthermore, if you actually think people don't get tossed a bone with regards to authorship you are very naive. Thr academic world is full of bull**** and there are many cases which demontrate this.

But seriously....first author? People fight quite a bit for that. Second, third...I think what you say is true. Not that I am denying what you say...but I just think the true first author wouldnt give it up so easily.
 
It's interesting about authorship . . . we too often make a bigger deal than we should about the order of authorship on a paper. We tend to assume that whoever is the "first author" did most of the work not only in writing, but all conducting the heavy lifting of the study, and the design of the initial investigation - there isn't some sort of "official" order. Also of note many of the old dogs who not longer need anything else added to their CV and likely did most of intellectual work on any project take their names on the end as "last author". Furthermore, it's a bit of an academic game, names often get added to projects to toss someone a bone - let them add it to their CV when they actually contributed enough to warrant an acknowledgment but not necessarily an authorship position. And then to top it all off, as far as the ethics and academic honesty is concerned regarding authorship (if any of you actually paid any attention the to the ubiquitous research tutorials you were supposed to do prior to starting work) every author is considered equal, as they all bear equal responsibility for everything contained therein . . . including any shenanigans that may eventually come out. There is more than one story where some famous guy tacking his name onto a publication, got his ass in a can because of nonsense that he didn't even know about.

I think academics makes too much ado about publications, and spends not enough time paying attention to experience, because at the end of the day anyone can add your name to the authorship list, but if you lack the experience, then you are as useless as the next guy. I'd rather have a guy with two years lab tech experience doing something I can use than someone with a few publications any day because now that I now the game better, outside of the PhD guys, I'm skeptical anyone actually did much of the work to which their name finds its way on the CV - NOT saying they didn't, but the skepticism kicks in hard.

I was about to tear into you before I read your "PhD" disclaimer. Even then, I think your point is too cynical. There are a lot of expectations that go along with being first author, and in all publications where I have been first author, I have done the lion's share of the work. While there may be political fights from authors 1-3 (especially on a very large paper), one of those people is doing a whole lot of work, maybe all 3 of them. Sometimes it's not just about the work, but the intellectual contribution that takes place. Like an attending who rounds for 10 minutes on a patient and makes a brilliant observation or management change, despite the "hard work" of the housestaff/students overnight. Yes, this is supposed to come from the PI but in some cases can come from postdocs, other PhD's, etc. Similarly, I can credit the lab technicians who've probably spent much longer than I have on a project - performing PCRs and other assays, but their work is mechanical and routine - and give them a higher authorship than some random M1 who works with me, but the M1 contribution is totally different and may include much more IRB-type stuff that's more challenging but "less work".

I don't really know what you qualify as experience when you say "lack the experience". Just being a lab tech? You can teach so many lesser educated people how to do that, but it takes much more to have the research vision, study design, researching the topic, and hell, to write the damn thing. More "leaders" = more funding = more publications = more fame for the university. Can't get that by hiring a bunch of people whose basic qualification is cleaning glassware.

The "ado" that academics makes about research is for a reason. It's high stakes. To resolve your doubts about people's contributions, in EVERY interview I went where we talked about my research, I was asked to talk about my role in the various projects/papers listed on my CV. My M4 non-PhD classmates were all asked "so tell me more about X paper, what'd you do for it?" I think this solves your whole hubub about authorship. People can obviously lie though. But people can obviously lie about whether they can perform RT-PCR, blah blah. At any rate, a first author should be answerable for everything in the paper if asked about it. If not, then you don't hire that person. Same goes for #2-3 for larger papers.
 
I was about to tear into you before I read your "PhD" disclaimer. Even then, I think your point is too cynical. There are a lot of expectations that go along with being first author, and in all publications where I have been first author, I have done the lion's share of the work. While there may be political fights from authors 1-3 (especially on a very large paper), one of those people is doing a whole lot of work, maybe all 3 of them. Sometimes it's not just about the work, but the intellectual contribution that takes place. Like an attending who rounds for 10 minutes on a patient and makes a brilliant observation or management change, despite the "hard work" of the housestaff/students overnight. Yes, this is supposed to come from the PI but in some cases can come from postdocs, other PhD's, etc. Similarly, I can credit the lab technicians who've probably spent much longer than I have on a project - performing PCRs and other assays, but their work is mechanical and routine - and give them a higher authorship than some random M1 who works with me, but the M1 contribution is totally different and may include much more IRB-type stuff that's more challenging but "less work".

I don't really know what you qualify as experience when you say "lack the experience". Just being a lab tech? You can teach so many lesser educated people how to do that, but it takes much more to have the research vision, study design, researching the topic, and hell, to write the damn thing. More "leaders" = more funding = more publications = more fame for the university. Can't get that by hiring a bunch of people whose basic qualification is cleaning glassware.

The "ado" that academics makes about research is for a reason. It's high stakes. To resolve your doubts about people's contributions, in EVERY interview I went where we talked about my research, I was asked to talk about my role in the various projects/papers listed on my CV. My M4 non-PhD classmates were all asked "so tell me more about X paper, what'd you do for it?" I think this solves your whole hubub about authorship. People can obviously lie though. But people can obviously lie about whether they can perform RT-PCR, blah blah. At any rate, a first author should be answerable for everything in the paper if asked about it. If not, then you don't hire that person. Same goes for #2-3 for larger papers.

http://img4.studentdoctor.net/images/icons/icon14.gif
 
Which is why many basic science journals now require each author's role to be spelled out, so that those who planned experiments and wrote the paper can be recognized, and when fraud is proven every name on a paper is not held equally responsible. Why are we discussing this again?

Why do you think we were discussing it? Why do you think I brought it up?
 
But seriously....first author? People fight quite a bit for that. Second, third...I think what you say is true. Not that I am denying what you say...but I just think the true first author wouldnt give it up so easily.

"true first author" . . . this is what I'm talking about. What does that mean? Where is it addressed in any sort of specific, meaningful, and binding way? We all kind of assume what it means, those of us who have worked in labs and gotten published. We all tend to assume it means the person that did most of the intellectually heavy lifting, and this is much easier to assume in the basic science investigations as opposed to the the "clinical" stuff many people toss around.
 
I was about to tear into you before I read your "PhD" disclaimer.

Good! Because I was about to be scared!!1!!11!eleven!

Even then, I think your point is too cynical.

World's a cynical place hun . . .

There are a lot of expectations that go along with being first author

Please show me where this is formally deliniated . . . anywhere

and in all publications where I have been first author, I have done the lion's share of the work. While there may be political fights from authors 1-3 (especially on a very large paper), one of those people is doing a whole lot of work, maybe all 3 of them. Sometimes it's not just about the work, but the intellectual contribution that takes place. Like an attending who rounds for 10 minutes on a patient and makes a brilliant observation or management change, despite the "hard work" of the housestaff/students overnight. Yes, this is supposed to come from the PI but in some cases can come from postdocs, other PhD's, etc. Similarly, I can credit the lab technicians who've probably spent much longer than I have on a project - performing PCRs and other assays, but their work is mechanical and routine - and give them a higher authorship than some random M1 who works with me, but the M1 contribution is totally different and may include much more IRB-type stuff that's more challenging but "less work".

You just wasted a lot of time not only missing my point but typing a lot of stuff I already know.

I don't really know what you qualify as experience when you say "lack the experience". Just being a lab tech? You can teach so many lesser educated people how to do that, but it takes much more to have the research vision, study design, researching the topic, and hell, to write the damn thing. More "leaders" = more funding = more publications = more fame for the university. Can't get that by hiring a bunch of people whose basic qualification is cleaning glassware.

Experience = being part of the project from beginning to end, even if you didn't get your name on the paper.

The "ado" that academics makes about research is for a reason. It's high stakes.

no wai?!11/1!?!/

To resolve your doubts about people's contributions, in EVERY interview I went where we talked about my research, I was asked to talk about my role in the various projects/papers listed on my CV. My M4 non-PhD classmates were all asked "so tell me more about X paper, what'd you do for it?" I think this solves your whole hubub about authorship.

No, not really. It doesn't resolve much and I don't personally have much of a "hubub", your over-reaction and mild outrage noted and notwithstanding. I'm merely making an observation.

At any rate, a first author should be answerable for everything in the paper if asked about it. If not, then you don't hire that person. Same goes for #2-3 for larger papers.

I agree, as all authors should be essentially answerable about the paper if they put their name on it, and as such, I don't think people should be all apologetic about not being first author.
 
No, not really. It doesn't resolve much and I don't personally have much of a "hubub", your over-reaction and mild outrage noted and notwithstanding. I'm merely making an observation.

You posted a really long diatribe, longer than any other post in thread before yours, about authorship of papers. This was meant to be a thread for people to share their statistics, including publications (and I suppose authorships). You were the original irrelevant poster here and continue to be so. This thread is about sharing statistics and match. For whatever reason, publications seemed to have some relationship to likelihood to match, and that is the reason they have been posted here. As someone who has little say in who matches and who doesn't (and even if you did, it wouldn't be at the top 5 or 10 programs with the highest NIH funding which I ranked), and as such, have little qualification to say what matters and doesn't for residency admission. You can't even post a cogent reply without resorting to "lolspeak" just to try to belittle people. Ad hominem is pretty much the lowest you can go to debase someone and support your argument. I'm frankly surprised you didn't post a picture or something. I and I'm sure others may appreciate your continued posting about topics where you have some authority and experience, such as replacement of magnesium/potassium or whatever.
 
You posted a really long diatribe, longer than any other post in thread before yours, about authorship of papers. This was meant to be a thread for people to share their statistics, including publications (and I suppose authorships). You were the original irrelevant poster here and continue to be so. This thread is about sharing statistics and match.

In case you had not noticed, people were done posting their stats and places they matched. Apparently the elitist self-fellating had stopped, so I started the thread in another direction. I could have changed the topic to midget farts for what anyone cares.

For whatever reason, publications seemed to have some relationship to likelihood to match, and that is the reason they have been posted here.

Way to continue to miss the point, which was NOT about publications per se, but about, and I'll slow it down here and not use any of the big and confusing words so that you can keep up: authorship and authorship order. You weren't accepted as some sort of "special needs" program quota or anything were you?

As someone who has little say in who matches and who doesn't (and even if you did, it wouldn't be at the top 5 or 10 programs with the highest NIH funding which I ranked), and as such, have little qualification to say what matters and doesn't for residency admission.

Oh bull****. I've not been wrong on any of my advice around here. Getting into a top 10 program is fairly formulaic. This is rocket science. I fail to see the relevance of your rank list to any of it. An appeal to elitism? Think you're better than me honey? How quaint . . . merely rubber stamps my assessment that you are really a horrible person.

You can't even post a cogent reply without resorting to "lolspeak" just to try to belittle people.

All I'm doing is responding to your asshattery. You showed up and decided to be a raging douchebag, and then attack me personally, repeatedly, and cry foul when I condescend to you? Seriously who has that kind of ****ing temerity and lack of insight? You're a real ****ing piece of work. I'm sure your parents are proud.

Ad hominem is pretty much the lowest you can go to debase someone and support your argument.

Ahhhh, the ad hominem card. The last ditch effort of anyone getting their ass handed to them vary roughly on an internet message board. You obviously have not the first ****ing clue what an ad hominem is. Once again, I am going to help you out because I feel pity for how much of a fool you're making out of yourself. An ad hominem is NOT merely an insult. It is an insult that is used as an argument against an argument. Nowhere in any of our interactions have I used an insult as an argument. When I say, you are a raging douchebag, I'm merely stating an opinion, not asserting an argument. If you have any further question please consult the fallacy files for further information.

I'm frankly surprised you didn't post a picture or something.

Like this? (Bonus points for the first people who can tell me what this picture is!!)
clubbin_baby_seals.jpg


I and I'm sure others may appreciate your continued posting about topics where you have some authority and experience, such as replacement of magnesium/potassium or whatever.

You know what kid, good luck, and I mean that. You'd almost be cute if you were simply naive. Naivete' can be forgiven, but willful, arrogant, elitist ignorance, well, that just begs to be pointed out.
 
authorship and authorship order

Only an iota of your post was devoted to this point. Most of it was geared towards accusing people of doubting people putting in the work and claiming a high authorship order. Then you went on to talk about how you'd rather work with a tech, than someone with "publications" under their belt. Most people who have succeeded this far in medicine are sedulous people. It takes some extra skill (in addition to the hard work many people have) to have true success as compared to people with numerous worthless publications in third-rate journals. If an applicant reviewer/interviewer can't differentiate this then that's their loss. Publications, authorships, yadda yadda are still meaningful.

Also, just because people stopped posting their statistics for a little bit doesn't mean they were done with posting them (I know some people still celebrating), authorizing you to post your derailing, off-color, and frankly against the congratulatory (or informative?) spirit of this thread.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Only an iota of your post was devoted to this point. Most of it was geared towards accusing people of doubting people putting in the work and claiming a high authorship order. Then you went on to talk about how you'd rather work with a tech, than someone with "publications" under their belt. Most people who have succeeded this far in medicine are sedulous people. It takes some extra skill (in addition to the hard work many people have) to have true success as compared to people with numerous worthless publications in third-rate journals. If an applicant reviewer/interviewer can't differentiate this then that's their loss. Publications, authorships, yadda yadda are still meaningful.

Also, just because people stopped posting their statistics for a little bit doesn't mean they were done with posting them (I know some people still celebrating), authorizing you to post your derailing, off-color, and frankly against the congratulatory (or informative?) spirit of this thread.

Are you ****ing dense?! I can't even believe I'm having this conversation with someone who's supposed to be so smart. Almost my WHOLE original post was about authorship - go back and read it sweetheart. Here, this would be a good exercise for you. Count up ALL the sentences devoted to authorship and then count the total sentences from the post and finally tell me the percentage of the post that dealt with authorship. Then perhaps we can argue about your definition of "iota", but I doubt that would be a terribly successful endeavor.

I never said publications and authorships were not meaningful. Seriously where the **** is the disconnect?! Are we having the same conversation?! I'm fairly confident this is nothing more than a manifestation of the cognitive dissonance and being so very, very wrong about what I'm saying. Emotionally, you appear ill equipped to handle it, and again, I wish you good luck residency, especially with that being wrong thing.

The most horrifying thing about you is that you actually think you are better than the rest of us, and I simply don't find much more repugnant than that (raping children for sure, stealing money from old people, and torturing animals, but you're not too far off) and worthy of scorn than that. You think you are special . . . yeah . . . special, just like everybody else.

And honey, match was thursday, people had all weekend to post if they wanted to. This isn't my first rodeo around here, the posting is done in here or anywhere else about where they matched. It's not as fun to come in here and post about State University match, and average scores and CV after the super-stars decided to yuck it up. And most of these guys are super-stars without being douchebags. It apparently can be done, but you, have not learned the skill yet, apparently. And with that, I do wish upon you humility. The universe will see to it one way or another, and I would love, and I know it's a personal failing, that when you get served your helping of humility I was there to point and laugh.
 
You have to show me the official agreed upon international rules with regard to authorship order.

You will look for a long time because it doesn't exist. We
make certain assumption which are not actually bourne out in any sort of official sense. And given that every name on a paper is equally redponsble for what is contained inside I find it to be a bit of a silly distnction, first vs second vs third.

Furthermore, if you actually think people don't get tossed a bone with regards to authorship you are very naive. Thr academic world is full of bull**** and there are many cases which demontrate this.

I'm not sure why there have to be international rules on authorship order. There aren't rules about a lot of things in medicine. Just like certain treatments, prophylaxis, followup, etc., there's a general consensus (but no hard and fast rule) about authorship based on the way things have been done for longer than either of us have been around.

Also, I don't doubt that people get thrown bones in research and get on papers that they may have had little contribution to as a middle of the pack author. I agree that other than being 1st or last author, the order doesn't mean too much. However, I expect the cases are few and far between (if at all) where someone is made 1st author as a personal favor without having made a major contribution to the topic at hand. Even if this happened 1% of the time, which is a ridiculously high figure, 99% of the time you would know that the 1st author on a paper did the majority of the work and thus deserves the credit and distinction of being listed 1st. Thus, I think admissions committees are justified in distinguishing between primary and ancillary authors when considering the strength and significance of applicants' research experience.
 
Emotionally, you appear ill equipped to handle it, and again, I wish you good luck residency, especially with that being wrong thing.

The most horrifying thing about you is that you actually think you are better than the rest of us, and I simply don't find much more repugnant than that (raping children for sure, stealing money from old people, and torturing animals, but you're not too far off) and worthy of scorn than that. You think you are special . . . yeah . . . special, just like everybody else.
.... And most of these guys are super-stars without being douchebags. It apparently can be done, but you, have not learned the skill yet, apparently. And with that, I do wish upon you humility. The universe will see to it one way or another, and I would love, and I know it's a personal failing, that when you get served your helping of humility I was there to point and laugh.

After reading some of Speculatrix's posts on other threads as well, I have been wanting to say this since a long time. Thanks for saying it out loud.

Having said that, jdh, can we use another thread for the authorship and publications discussions? Let's keep this thread for people who may want to post their matches on this one...even if later. I know one of the other posters shifted all the comments concerning a particular discussion to a new thread altogether...I wonder if the mods can help with this.
 
Are you ****ing dense?! I can't even believe I'm having this conversation with someone who's supposed to be so smart. Almost my WHOLE original post was about authorship - go back and read it sweetheart. Here, this would be a good exercise for you. Count up ALL the sentences devoted to authorship and then count the total sentences from the post and finally tell me the percentage of the post that dealt with authorship. Then perhaps we can argue about your definition of "iota", but I doubt that would be a terribly successful endeavor.

I never said publications and authorships were not meaningful. Seriously where the **** is the disconnect?! Are we having the same conversation?! I'm fairly confident this is nothing more than a manifestation of the cognitive dissonance and being so very, very wrong about what I'm saying. Emotionally, you appear ill equipped to handle it, and again, I wish you good luck residency, especially with that being wrong thing.

The most horrifying thing about you is that you actually think you are better than the rest of us, and I simply don't find much more repugnant than that (raping children for sure, stealing money from old people, and torturing animals, but you're not too far off) and worthy of scorn than that. You think you are special . . . yeah . . . special, just like everybody else.

And honey, match was thursday, people had all weekend to post if they wanted to. This isn't my first rodeo around here, the posting is done in here or anywhere else about where they matched. It's not as fun to come in here and post about State University match, and average scores and CV after the super-stars decided to yuck it up. And most of these guys are super-stars without being douchebags. It apparently can be done, but you, have not learned the skill yet, apparently. And with that, I do wish upon you humility. The universe will see to it one way or another, and I would love, and I know it's a personal failing, that when you get served your helping of humility I was there to point and laugh.

I think part of your issue lies in the fact that I am better than you, at the very least because I don't use an infantilizing, sexist, abusive, and pejorative tone, such as calling people "honey", "sweetheart", posting irrelevant pictures, and not cogently attacking the substance of what someone is saying. And superstars "yucking" things up? Statistics being high doesn't amount to "yucking", and if anything is par for the course for SDN. You were the first person in here to derail the topic of this conversation in a major way. You were the one that took this topic from a majority "List 5 attributes" and attempted to interject your egocentric "I'm skeptical, the skepticism kicks in hard" blah blah that presupposes you carry the gospel truth in all things internal medicine. Yes I suppose people still had time to post things here over the weekend, but is that still any excuse to derail the subject at hand? Especially when this thread is supposed to be around for posterity? Make a new thread or something if you want a soapbox. For this you can't even bother to apologize or acknowledge in any way for the vague, barely tenuous association your post had with the thread. It sounded like you just wanted to throw in a monkey wrench into the stream and watch to see what would happen. It is clear by virtue of having over 10k posts that this ain't your first rodeo, but I am hard pressed to find any civility or acknowledgment of any other viewpoints in the posts you have made. I can't believe you would talk about humility when you reflexively lampoon others who disagree with you. For example, in the IM ranking thread, you made some sweeping generalizations and opinions of places without even backing them up. My main issue with your post in THIS thread was disagreeing with your value of lab tech experience, and you didn't try to refute that at all.

As for everything else you said or assumed about me, fortunately people in the right places have recognized my value and the CV, evaluations, grades, etc., that I have worked immensely hard to build up and maintain. On the wards, I treat nearly every patient as though they were my own parent, completely respect/stick up for/get along well with my colleagues, and fully respect my higher-ups. I don't need to be served humble pie, since it's my breakfast, lunch, and dinner; I know what my place is (still at the bottom of the food chain), and every day I painfully realize there are still miles to go. Your schadenfreude is fortunately irrelevant, as I have always and will continue to live with integrity.
 
Hrm...what was the original topic of this thread????

Tangentline.png
 
move it along folks....
 
:laugh::love::thumbup:
love it.
I think part of your issue lies in the fact that I am better than you, at the very least because I don't use an infantilizing, sexist, abusive, and pejorative tone, such as calling people "honey", "sweetheart", posting irrelevant pictures, and not cogently attacking the substance of what someone is saying. And superstars "yucking" things up? Statistics being high doesn't amount to "yucking", and if anything is par for the course for SDN. You were the first person in here to derail the topic of this conversation in a major way. You were the one that took this topic from a majority "List 5 attributes" and attempted to interject your egocentric "I'm skeptical, the skepticism kicks in hard" blah blah that presupposes you carry the gospel truth in all things internal medicine. Yes I suppose people still had time to post things here over the weekend, but is that still any excuse to derail the subject at hand? Especially when this thread is supposed to be around for posterity? Make a new thread or something if you want a soapbox. For this you can't even bother to apologize or acknowledge in any way for the vague, barely tenuous association your post had with the thread. It sounded like you just wanted to throw in a monkey wrench into the stream and watch to see what would happen. It is clear by virtue of having over 10k posts that this ain't your first rodeo, but I am hard pressed to find any civility or acknowledgment of any other viewpoints in the posts you have made. I can't believe you would talk about humility when you reflexively lampoon others who disagree with you. For example, in the IM ranking thread, you made some sweeping generalizations and opinions of places without even backing them up. My main issue with your post in THIS thread was disagreeing with your value of lab tech experience, and you didn't try to refute that at all.

As for everything else you said or assumed about me, fortunately people in the right places have recognized my value and the CV, evaluations, grades, etc., that I have worked immensely hard to build up and maintain. On the wards, I treat nearly every patient as though they were my own parent, completely respect/stick up for/get along well with my colleagues, and fully respect my higher-ups. I don't need to be served humble pie, since it's my breakfast, lunch, and dinner; I know what my place is (still at the bottom of the food chain), and every day I painfully realize there are still miles to go. Your schadenfreude is fortunately irrelevant, as I have always and will continue to live with integrity.
 
After reading some of Speculatrix's posts on other threads as well, I have been wanting to say this since a long time. Thanks for saying it out loud.

Having said that, jdh, can we use another thread for the authorship and publications discussions? Let's keep this thread for people who may want to post their matches on this one...even if later. I know one of the other posters shifted all the comments concerning a particular discussion to a new thread altogether...I wonder if the mods can help with this.

My friend, I do need to answer the baseless accusations.
 
I think part of your issue lies in the fact that I am better than you,

My issue is not that you are better than me, because you are obviously not, but that you seem to think you are. That kind of elitist nonsense is what I've been talking about since post one against you. You fail to compute, and I find that confusing in someone who claims they are so great. Can someone say strong axis II influence here?

at the very least because I don't use an infantilizing, sexist, abusive, and pejorative tone, such as calling people "honey", "sweetheart", posting irrelevant pictures, and not cogently attacking the substance of what someone is saying.

Yes. The "I don't like your posting style" tactic. The irony is that while not attacking anything of substance (my style), you go onto accuse me of the same. I've told you already why I condescend to you, because I think you deserve the scorn. We've covered the pictures - they are all relevant, and I'll again task you with the mission, if you choose to accept it of finding a picture I've posted that lacks relevance per the discussion in here. I always address the substance, I again task you with finding where I have not addressed the substance.

You are clearly clueless per this discussion. Your baseless accusations only further emphasize that you've become way to emotionally involved here and probably just need to walk away.


And superstars "yucking" things up? Statistics being high doesn't amount to "yucking", and if anything is par for the course for SDN. You were the first person in here to derail the topic of this conversation in a major way. You were the one that took this topic from a majority "List 5 attributes" and attempted to interject your egocentric "I'm skeptical, the skepticism kicks in hard" blah blah that presupposes you carry the gospel truth in all things internal medicine.

Yes. I did change the course of this thread mostly because it was rather dead, and I had some musings on authorship. I am a little skeptical, and as someone who fashions herself a PhD, skepticism should be an comfortable and industrial tool for you. Personal, I think that perhaps you protest too much? Hm? Finally, I've never presupposed I carry the gospel message. I try to help out around here and I do. I have strong opinions and if I think something is bull**** I say so. You don't like my style - noted. You don't have to keep responding.

Yes I suppose people still had time to post things here over the weekend, but is that still any excuse to derail the subject at hand? Especially when this thread is supposed to be around for posterity? Make a new thread or something if you want a soapbox. For this you can't even bother to apologize or acknowledge in any way for the vague, barely tenuous association your post had with the thread. It sounded like you just wanted to throw in a monkey wrench into the stream and watch to see what would happen.

Well, I don't think I did anything wrong. Your outrage is particularly noted. I think if I would have known it would have blown up in this particular direction and fashion, then I would have started a new thread. Tactical error, if error at all. No one will give a **** about the posterity of anything in this thread years from now, so please save that little bit of sanctimony for someone who believes that nonsense.

It is clear by virtue of having over 10k posts that this ain't your first rodeo, but I am hard pressed to find any civility or acknowledgment of any other viewpoints in the posts you have made. I can't believe you would talk about humility when you reflexively lampoon others who disagree with you.

I'm more often civil than I am not. The question you need to ask yourself, if you care to do so, is: "Why am I not particularly civil to you?" Civility has nothing to do with agreement nor disagreement per se, but rather with the tones and attitudes that drip from your statements on here. You want a more civil tone, don't post like a douchebag.

For example, in the IM ranking thread,

Which one? :laugh:

you made some sweeping generalizations and opinions of places without even backing them up.

Show me some examples.

My main issue with your post in THIS thread was disagreeing with your value of lab tech experience, and you didn't try to refute that at all.

Can you ****ing read? Let me direct you back to post #60. In my 5th response to you in that post I further delineated what I meant by "experience". But when given the choice between someone with a couple of case reports and someone with two years lab tech experience. I like the techy for reasons associated with being able to do the work I'm interested in having them do.

As for everything else you said or assumed about me, fortunately people in the right places have recognized my value and the CV, evaluations, grades, etc., that I have worked immensely hard to build up and maintain. On the wards, I treat nearly every patient as though they were my own parent, completely respect/stick up for/get along well with my colleagues, and fully respect my higher-ups. I don't need to be served humble pie, since it's my breakfast, lunch, and dinner; I know what my place is (still at the bottom of the food chain), and every day I painfully realize there are still miles to go. Your schadenfreude is fortunately irrelevant, as I have always and will continue to live with integrity.

You know all the most horrible people I ever knew SWORE they were the greatest people on earth - steal your TV and then help you look for it afterwards. The problem here is the incongruities with how you say, and seem to think you are, with the elitist, snobbish garbage you post here. In the face of an apparent logical contradiction, which cannot exist, it's time to reevaluate the premises. Good luck reconciling that.
 

Thank you; it is difficult to deal with abusive, immature postings, esp from peers who are supposed to be older and wiser. For signs of such, just look above: "someone ran to mommy :rolleyes:", clearly and overtly intending to infantilize me. I can easily picture a schoolyard bully saying the same thing, effetely trying to punch someone in the face, then antagonizing or insulting anyone and everyone who comes to support the victim (as he did when talking about your brain).
 
hey I liked when this thread was somewhat useful. thanks.
 
If it's at all helpful for future applicants:

1) Hopkins (#1)
2) Top tier school in southeast, but applied 4 years after graduation
3) 99/99; honors in all clerkships but OB/GYN; AOA
4) 2 publications, 1 poster
5) Be yourself
 
If it's at all helpful for future applicants:

1) Hopkins (#1)
2) Top tier school in southeast, but applied 4 years after graduation
3) 99/99; honors in all clerkships but OB/GYN; AOA
4) 2 publications, 1 poster
5) Be yourself

wow. and here i thought that you pretty much shoot yourself in the foot for competitive places once you've deferred residency for more than 1 year
 
1) Mayo-Rochester (#1)
2) Mid-tier (?) allopathic school in SW
3) Step 1 249, Step 2 259; all honors; jr AOA; #1 class rank
4) No pubs, some research, couple of state and nat'l presentations/posters
5) Enjoy 4th year and go where you feel comfortable living and working, not just somewhere with a big name.
 
This was some of better work outside of the unmoderated forums.

Me and Spec's get along now though, so no more flame thrower
 
Top