As someone who has already completed residency and has no incentive to either defend or torch a program, I want to push back on the idea that the prior post can be dismissed as “one disgruntled resident.”
The narrative that this individual’s experience was entirely due to laziness, dishonesty, or skipped rotations is a convenient oversimplification. I personally never had that experience with him. He was generally well-liked by peers, clinically functional, and not remotely the character being described. What was very clear to many of us was that he was targeted by a single attending, placed under constant scrutiny, and made an example of. In a program with minimal real protection once an attending decides you’re a problem, that alone can derail someone regardless of baseline performance.
Also, and this part is consistently omitted, he actively tried to leave. He wanted to transition out professionally and quietly and was not supported in doing so. He was not kicked out. He ultimately left on his own after being boxed in repeatedly with no viable off-ramp. There is also an ongoing lawsuit, which should give people pause before casually rewriting the narrative as simple incompetence or misconduct.
Third, his time was made worse by an ex-partner who actively turned other staff and residents against him. We all felt bad for them both given how awful the situation was. That interpersonal dynamic mattered far more than people want to admit and absolutely influenced how he was perceived and treated. Ignoring that context is disingenuous.
Fourth, the claim that “experience is good” needs context. Yes, cases happen, but operative exposure and autonomy are highly variable and often depend more on personalities than competence. Many residents spend disproportionate time on scut and documentation not because it’s educational, but because it’s expected. That discrepancy is real and well known internally.
Fifth, there was a serious OR incident just weeks ago involving the oral oncology director in which an instrument was thrown and an assistant was injured, followed by blame being directed downward rather than any real accountability. This was not an isolated occurrence. It fits a broader pattern many of us have witnessed: intimidation, deflection, and lack of ownership when lines are crossed. That culture matters when you’re deciding where to train. No accountability at a higher level either considering he was returned to clinical activities after only a week long suspension.
Sixth, support around leave and life events is frankly hostile. A prior resident attempted to take FMLA for the birth of his child and was completely burned for it by both co-residents and attendings. That sends a very clear message about how “supportive” the program really is when real life happens. They may be better now because one person had to suffer while paving the way.
Seventh, medical students were not gently filtered out or failed out. Several were effectively forced out, and there was essentially no safety net. If you struggled, you were labeled. If you asked for help, it followed you. That mentality translates directly into residency.
Eighth, this is not limited to one person. A cancer fellow recently left as well, again in connection with issues involving that same ex-partner of the resident. There were widespread internal discussions about unprofessional behavior, including concerns raised about drinking on the job for them both. Regardless of how those situations were addressed, the common denominator is a dysfunctional environment where personal conflicts metastasize and careers get damaged.
Ninth, for applicants counting on “perks,” be very careful. The chair is stepping down soon, and there is active internal jockeying for that role. One attending vying for the position (the same oncology director as mentioned above) has openly stated intentions to eliminate moonlighting. I heard this directly from him multiple times. If you are factoring moonlighting into your decision, understand that it is not a stable or guaranteed perk and could disappear quickly with leadership change.
Finally, attrition here is not coincidence. I personally know residents from this program who ended up in rehab, and another who stated without exaggeration that his time in residency caused worse PTSD than his time in the armed forces, where he saw active combat. When multiple people independently describe that level of harm, it deserves serious attention.
Yes, anesthesia training is solid. Yes, the med school portion may be short or subsidized. None of that compensates for a system that repeatedly breaks people and then retroactively justifies it by rewriting their character.
To anyone considering this program: strong caution advised about post-matching here as per OU post. Talk to graduates who are no longer dependent on the institution. Ask uncomfortable questions. Patterns matter more than some sales pitch.
This isn’t about one resident. It’s about a culture, and pretending otherwise is exactly how it continues. Let them suffer the consequences and hopefully become better because of it.
