Question about scutwork.com

[kinetic]

Here's my new question for everyone:

I have visited scutwork.com a LOT. I have read a LOT of reviews from ALL specialties. What I have noted is this: most reviews are fairly bland or 'good' (4s and 5s). Every now and again, someone posts something bad about a residency program. This is immediately followed by six posts with 5 stars talking about the fact that the program is excellent and has no problems and people love it and are orgasmic about coming into work each day. Or at worst people will say "it's tough, but that's what you expect".

1) Do you guys think that the reviews accurately reflect the pluses and minuses of the programs?

2) Do you think that people feel uncomfortable writing badly about their programs? Or do you think that most programs really are pretty good? (If that's the case, why does everyone ask what are the strengths and weaknesses of the program at interview time?)

3) I have met many residents who say that "honestly, there is nothing wrong with my program ...I can't think of a single thing ...well, maybe they could deodorize the call room, but that's it". I tend to not believe someone who says there is NOTHING wrong with their program ...am I a doofus?

 

[southerndoc]

Don't look at the stars. Read the comments. ANYTHING negative that is mentioned is worth investigating further.

 

[dry dre]

Originally posted by kinetic
Every now and again, someone posts something bad about a residency program. This is immediately followed by six posts with 5 stars talking about the fact that the program is excellent and has no problems and people love it and are orgasmic about coming into work each day.

It does appear that some programs make lame attempts at damage control when a bad review is listed about their program (reference LSU Shreveport's gas program). At other times, applicants who have rotated at an individual program use the forum to rave about how wonderful it is, basically indentifying themselves in the process (in hopes that the program will notice).

I agree with Geek.....use scutwork to look for dirt on the program you are interested in and avoid the BS submitted by residents who probably get a free lunch for a good review.

 

[MariaG]

On the same hand, some people use scutwork to vent when they have had a bad rotation. LSU shreveport gas is actually a pretty good program now, with a great pain fellowship experience. There will always be people everywhere that someone is not going to "click" with. Take those reviews with a grain of salt. If you really wanna know what a program is about, do a rotation there.

 

[butts-n-guts]

I'm in agreement with Geek Medic. The star rating system is worthless on scutwork.com because it's completely non-objective.

The negative comments are often worth checking out, and if some of the same comments seem to show up consistently, I would want to have some type of explanation before pursuing a further relationship (residency) with that institution. Be sure to watch for common positive comments, too.

Bottom Line:
Scutwork.com, as with most other internet "ratings" sites, is filled with subjective comments which should not be taken as fact.

 

[Kalel]

I agree with the previous posters. It's important to remember that there is a selection biasness in who posts reviews on scutwork.com. If you love your program, or if you hate your program, you are more likely to go on some anonymous website and review it. So even in cases where there are 1-2 poor reviews, I would investigate those complaints, but I wouldn't base my rank list upon it because it could just be a couple of disgruntled residents who would be disgruntled irrespective of where they were or it could just be personal vendettas against administrative staff. Those that are neutral about their program are probably most likely just to not bother posting anything at all. Since most programs only have 2-5 reviews, it's obviously not a representative sample size. I still like the website though, the residents and med students still post a lot of useful info about programs there. I liked reading reviews about programs right before going on interviews, and this way, if there were issues posted about the programs, I would just ask the interns and residents about those issues during lunch or something.

 

[ryanbeckworth]

and I don't do them with any intention of giving the reader the truth, as I experienced it, of course. Nobody intelligent will assume it will always be that way, but you do at least go to an interview armed with questions to ask and red flags (or green ones) to look out for during your time there.

Scutwork is interesting in that a great battle raged for a while about Columbia, where the more recent posters said the workload was not excessive, etc. From what I have heard from friends who are there, that is true. You can see how people's views changed over the years, and perhaps get a sense for the trajectory of the program.

As always, you never know who's writing what you're reading, so keep that in mind when you hear someone say something there (or here), especially if it's grossly out of line with what others have said.

 

[kinetic]

Posted by ryanbeckworth
I've written a number of reviews on Scutwork, and I don't do them with any intention of giving the reader the truth ...

Huh? Why write the review, then? That's my point! I think the concept of a Scutwork.com site, a place where - in theory - people are able to learn about a program without the administration sitting next to you a la Stalin, is terrific. But it's instead degenerated into a bland, fairly uninformative site. Part of that is inevitable - I know there are people who want to undermine a program and I know there are people who want to prop up a program - but it's a shame.

I myself wanted to write a harsh (but, in my opinion, fair) review of a program, but have not done so. Why?

1) I've found that, in general, when people read bad reviews of a program, they say "oh, here was a disgruntled loser" or "this guy has an agenda". Sometimes I even see personal attacks on the site on later posts, like, "the guy who wrote so-and-so was a ****** who just couldn't cut it". (Of course, that, in and of itself, sort of tells you something about the program.)

2) I highly suspect that PDs also use the site and pose as residents or medical students. Some PDs are also up front and declare themselves as such. But it definitely defeats the purpose of the site. Often, people in a program can tell who is writing the review about their program, so people tend to write unrevealing, bland reviews to avoid repercussions.

All I'm saying is that it is a shame that such a great tool is sort of rendered useless. It's just a gripe and vent session - I'm not expecting any change. Anyway, thanks for listening, everyone.

 

[ryanbeckworth]

LOL.

Meant to say I attempt to impress upon the reader that it is the truth only based upon MY experience with the interview and the other people I met there. Additionally, I will incorporate other's views that I pick up along the way, but I'm always careful to note that it was not something that I went through as the situation demands.

Sorry for the confusion.