D
deleted1111261
Hi - I have the slides. I have communicated with @Dan Spratt - and he thinks that without context of the presentation, the slides alone don't tell the whole story. I don't disagree, so out of respect to him - we should let him give his 2 cents at some point. There is one slide I really take issue with and I strongly doubt the presentation would change anything.
Here is my review of it and I posted a few slides that I think are informative.
Slide 6 - 25% of graduates DID NOT get a job in preferred region. Not city. REGION. We knew this. Glad he brought this up.
Slide 7 - 2015 - 2025 - demand of RT was projected to increase by 19%. Based on 2016 reference. There is so much out there that shows far lower increase, or decrease when you look at it per capita. This to me is where Dan is not looking at all the data. He has his reasons with not having faith in Todd's analysis, but there are others. I think this slide is faulty and should include a much larger range. This is where you could have reached out to many of us.
Slide 16 - Expansion of programs has not occurred in the areas of need. DUHHHH. Do you know we have 10 first year positions in metro Detroit + Ann Arbor? I love my Mitten people, but is this necessary?
Several slides are informative about poor quality of residencies. Many don't have GK, protons, prostate brachy, gyn brachy, IORT, Adaptive, etc). Many programs have double/triple coverage - heavy on service, not education
This next slide I cut and paste I really take issue with. False dichotomy. Who is this "Fringe" that says Radiation Oncology is not amazing as a specialty? I think we have 100% agreement that we love what we do day to day. Also, how did the Fringe contribute to the problem? Seriously? Neither are to blame? I don't think the Fringe expanded. Contributing to solution? Chirag, me, Todd, Mudit, Beckta, McFarlane, Rahul T, Jimmy Bates, Johnnie Verma, so many of us doing everything we can to raise awareness. (I have only named men, because I don't see any women talking about the issue currently, but Chelain and Shauna did in the past, so I'm not ignoring their contributions. We are writing papers. We are finding the data. We are risking our necks. This is an unfair slide and I bet this essentially leads the chairs to say we are the problem.
This is a money slide here - I think he did a very good job of defining the problem. Great job, Dan!! This is perfect.
This is conclusion. He says ACTION IS REQUIRED. What is this action? This is the key part, I think. He said via communication that the recommendation to contract has anti-trust implications. I think that is terrible argument. I want to see who would have standing, I want to see who is harmed, I want to see precedent showing that contraction is legally risky. I call BS.
I would have loved to hear how this was actually presented, because it depends on how you synthesize it to the crowd.
I would bet that this doesn't move the needle one bit, it could have been far stronger.
Here is my review of it and I posted a few slides that I think are informative.
Slide 6 - 25% of graduates DID NOT get a job in preferred region. Not city. REGION. We knew this. Glad he brought this up.
Slide 7 - 2015 - 2025 - demand of RT was projected to increase by 19%. Based on 2016 reference. There is so much out there that shows far lower increase, or decrease when you look at it per capita. This to me is where Dan is not looking at all the data. He has his reasons with not having faith in Todd's analysis, but there are others. I think this slide is faulty and should include a much larger range. This is where you could have reached out to many of us.
Slide 16 - Expansion of programs has not occurred in the areas of need. DUHHHH. Do you know we have 10 first year positions in metro Detroit + Ann Arbor? I love my Mitten people, but is this necessary?
Several slides are informative about poor quality of residencies. Many don't have GK, protons, prostate brachy, gyn brachy, IORT, Adaptive, etc). Many programs have double/triple coverage - heavy on service, not education
This next slide I cut and paste I really take issue with. False dichotomy. Who is this "Fringe" that says Radiation Oncology is not amazing as a specialty? I think we have 100% agreement that we love what we do day to day. Also, how did the Fringe contribute to the problem? Seriously? Neither are to blame? I don't think the Fringe expanded. Contributing to solution? Chirag, me, Todd, Mudit, Beckta, McFarlane, Rahul T, Jimmy Bates, Johnnie Verma, so many of us doing everything we can to raise awareness. (I have only named men, because I don't see any women talking about the issue currently, but Chelain and Shauna did in the past, so I'm not ignoring their contributions. We are writing papers. We are finding the data. We are risking our necks. This is an unfair slide and I bet this essentially leads the chairs to say we are the problem.
This is a money slide here - I think he did a very good job of defining the problem. Great job, Dan!! This is perfect.
This is conclusion. He says ACTION IS REQUIRED. What is this action? This is the key part, I think. He said via communication that the recommendation to contract has anti-trust implications. I think that is terrible argument. I want to see who would have standing, I want to see who is harmed, I want to see precedent showing that contraction is legally risky. I call BS.
I would have loved to hear how this was actually presented, because it depends on how you synthesize it to the crowd.
I would bet that this doesn't move the needle one bit, it could have been far stronger.
