Perspective on ERAS

[UnlimitedTraction]

Any PD or attending here that can provide some insight or perspective on what they look at when examining ERAS applications for folks to interview? I am curious in particular about the absolutely disgusting BLOAT of the application, especially with regard to hundreds of applicants applying for as few as 1-2 spots per program.

I mean we have the ERAS experience section, each with a description up to 1000 characters. And your personal statement and CV plus MSPE, plus 3+ LORs, plus transcripts+scores, which altogether already seems like a lot to sift through for one applicant. But now we have this supplemental ERAS hot garbage? 5 most meaningful experiences with descriptions? Wtf is that? Do people really read this ****? MSPE 3 noteworthy characteristics? Hobbies and interests? I mean aren’t we just rehashing the same nonsense over and over? This is getting to be ridiculous. Not a chance in **** programs read through all this nonsense. I mean who designed this? Why does a job application require multiple months of work and coordination of 10+ documents with multiple essays? This is absurd. Not to mention I’m still on rotation not getting paid for my work from 5am-6pm q daily. And yeah I’m 29+ years old and still getting treated like a child. All the while 200k in debt (but no interest yet yippee)

Bottom line is, system is broken, who’s gonna fix it?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SooConfused]

Bottom line is, system is broken, who’s gonna fix it?

No one, so long as there are a lot more highly qualified people willing to play than there are available spots. I suggest you just keep your eye on the prize, which is what motivates everyone else to grin and bear it.

 

[operaman]

No nobody reads all of it but people do tend to skim through for key things. Every program is different but most tend to divvy up the work among the faculty as well as using screens.

The review tends to be a bit different depending on the phase. First pass may be looking at step scores, grades, research, and letters. You look carefully at transcripts and histograms and class rank or whatever code word that school uses. We used to have 2 people review each one and then any where the two reviewers said opposite things, there would be a tie breaker reviewer. Too many apps to review to go too crazy in depth, but you can usually get a good idea by looking at key things and skimming the rest.

This usually leaves a “short” list. These were usually reviewed by our PD and associate PDs to decide which would get interviews. This is where people may look more at personal statements and research and other things that may suggest which applicants would be more likely to rank us.

Finally there would be the review prior to and during interviews. These often ignore many elements and focus on whatever that faculty member or resident cares about. They definitely look at hobbies and interesting experiences because it makes good conversation. They usually review letters because we usually know some of your letter writers.

So while yes it sucks and yes is very redundant, much of it probably does get looked at and carefully considered. There’s also a benefit to sheer visual appeal. Even if it’s a lot of fluff - and yes we all know what’s fluff - it does have a certain visual impact. Don’t worry if it’s repetitive - just check the boxes.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Regarding the experiences on the supp app, I expect that everyone will duplicate things on their full app. What I would recommend is assume that programs that decide to use the Supp App will likely only review those 5 things and ignore the rest of your experiences on your app. So pick (up to) 5 things that you think are most important.