Reply to thread

Hi Guest, check out the latest SDN article: Let’s Talk About Your Financial Health

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dasherva13" data-source="post: 14992105" data-attributes="member: 580517">In particular, it'd be good to know:-How many sites you applied to (and how many were APA accredited)20, of which all but one were APA (the other being a consortium aiming to accreditation but not there yet)-How many interviews you received10, with 11 ranks-If you matched or not and to what type of siteYes, to the consortium I mentioned above. My particular track there is combo of outpatient clinic and UCC placements.-What type of sites you were applying to (research-focused, neuro, peds, etc)Mostly AMCs and large hospitals, with some trauma focused pads sites-Other info that you think might be relevant to your outcome(s)I've been thinking about this for a long time. I think a lot of sites eliminated me because I had a lot of child hours, so while I met the minimums, I didn't meet the minimums with adult hours alone, and I was roughly equal in child and adult hours. This appeared to come up a lot, and so I suspect it was a factor. It may also have been connected to the fact that most of my work has been long-term (~1 year+), so while I had a lot of hours, I didn't have a large patient list.</blockquote>

This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
This thread is locked.