Screening/Class action lawsuit

[humabot]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I was talking to a lawyer buddy of mine who mentioned that it is wrong that schools institute filters for usmle exams, but don't document this on their website for employment of a first year resident. Also, he mentioned that the usmle exams are for licensing purposes and are discouraged by the administrators of these exams to be used in comparing applicants.

I wonder if anybody has tried to do something about this in the past?

 

[Samoa]

I was talking to a lawyer buddy of mine who mentioned that it is wrong that schools institute filters for usmle exams, but don't document this on their website for employment of a first year resident. Also, he mentioned that the usmle exams are for licensing purposes and are discouraged by the administrators of these exams to be used in comparing applicants.

I wonder if anybody has tried to do something about this in the past?

A company may screen job applicants based on any criteria it chooses, and does not have to make the criteria public, as long as it does not discriminate (either explicitly or effectively) on the basis of race, religion, age, sex or disability.

However, if it does choose to state any qualifying criteria, it may only hire applicants who meet the specified criteria. If none do, only then can it hire someone who doesn't.

 

[gutonc]

I was talking to a lawyer buddy of mine who mentioned that it is wrong that schools institute filters for usmle exams, but don't document this on their website for employment of a first year resident. Also, he mentioned that the usmle exams are for licensing purposes and are discouraged by the administrators of these exams to be used in comparing applicants.

I wonder if anybody has tried to do something about this in the past?

Go nuts with that. Let us know how it works out for you.

As long as they do not violate state or federal anti-discrimination laws, employers may use any selection criteria they wish when choosing whom to interview or employ. For instance, an employer may require that you take a Myers-Briggs personality test as part of your interview (lots do), but don't have to post on their website that they do so, nor do they have to post that they only hire (e.g.) INFPs. So your "lawyer buddy" might be kind of an idiot.

He is correct about the last part though, at least prima facie.* But NBME tacitly acknowledges that the USMLE is used for this purpose and does not explicitly forbid it.

(* - Note how I threw a little lawyernatin' back at your "lawyer buddy"?)

 

[newsubstancep]

This seems like way too elaborate a cop-out for having step scores that dont make the cut-off. I'll be the first to admit that I was prob filtered out of most of my applications, but good luck getting into that residency after you sue them for your score being lower than what they grant interviews at.

 

[Roofie]

I think that it is unethical to use an absolute cut-off filter without informing applicants. Students pay not only ERAS fees but may also pay application fees to the interested program.

If the program spends time to look at the application and makes a reasoned choice to select a candidate with better board scores, then that's fine. A program could also use a rank formula whereby it ranks candidates based on class standing and board scores. The most promising get interviews. At least with the rank formula, the program made an effort to compare the candidates. A student without the criteria for Harvard who applys anyway deserves to lose his money.

But to have an administrator filter the applications by just a numerical cut-off while collecting fees preys unnecessarily on the aspirations of vulnerable future members of the profession. If a program decides to collect fees, then it should spend some effort to earn those fees.

In litigation, a program can prove its sincerity if it has a history of choosing candidates with lower board scores than the statistical cut-off.

There are a lot of unethical things done in this profession. Those things will continue until programs get sued, win or lose, to make such practices no longer viable.

 

[humabot]

I think that it is unethical to use an absolute cut-off filter without informing applicants. Students pay not only ERAS fees but may also pay application fees to the interested program.

If the program spends time to look at the application and makes a reasoned choice to select a candidate with better board scores, then that's fine. A program could also use a rank formula whereby it ranks candidates based on class standing and board scores. The most promising get interviews. At least with the rank formula, the program made an effort to compare the candidates. A student without the criteria for Harvard who applys anyway deserves to lose his money.

But to have an administrator filter the applications by just a numerical cut-off while collecting fees preys unnecessarily on the aspirations of vulnerable future members of the profession. If a program decides to collect fees, then it should spend some effort to earn those fees.

In litigation, a program can prove its sincerity if it has a history of choosing candidates with lower board scores than the statistical cut-off.

There are a lot of unethical things done in this profession. Those things will continue until programs get sued, win or lose, to make such practices no longer viable.

double post..wooops!

 

[humabot]

I think that it is unethical to use an absolute cut-off filter without informing applicants. Students pay not only ERAS fees but may also pay application fees to the interested program.

If the program spends time to look at the application and makes a reasoned choice to select a candidate with better board scores, then that's fine. A program could also use a rank formula whereby it ranks candidates based on class standing and board scores. The most promising get interviews. At least with the rank formula, the program made an effort to compare the candidates. A student without the criteria for Harvard who applys anyway deserves to lose his money.

But to have an administrator filter the applications by just a numerical cut-off while collecting fees preys unnecessarily on the aspirations of vulnerable future members of the profession. If a program decides to collect fees, then it should spend some effort to earn those fees.

In litigation, a program can prove its sincerity if it has a history of choosing candidates with lower board scores than the statistical cut-off.

There are a lot of unethical things done in this profession. Those things will continue until programs get sued, win or lose, to make such practices no longer viable.

I think this is what he was getting at... excellent post.

 

[newsubstancep]

I would imagine the reason a program doesnt post explicit cut-off scores despite getting inundated with emails asking about it every year, is because they prob initially filter with a certain cut-off, but then gradually lower the cut-off bar as they select more rounded applicants from the pile. And they never know how far down they will have to go on their applicant list, so they do not want all those people with 210s to no longer apply at all.

 

[Samoa]

I think that it is unethical...

I think it's funny that someone who calls himself "roofie" is concerned about ethics. 😛

However, I agree with your point. If you are truly not going to look at anyone with a score lower than X, or who lacks some other qualification, no matter what their other credentials, the ethical thing to do is to make those criteria public.

There are a lot of unethical things done in this profession. Those things will continue until programs get sued, win or lose, to make such practices no longer viable.

You can't sue over something that's just unethical. It must also be illegal.

What I HAVE seen is for chairmen across the nation to discourage their students from applying at a particular place because it refuses to rank a certain (non-constitutionally-protected) category of applicant. Over time, they saw the quality of their applicant pool decrease substantially, until they finally realized their practice was going to destroy the program if they kept it up.

 

[jackieMD2007]

USMLE score is not a protected class.

Also--seriously--If you didn't score well on the USMLE it is time to quit crying about it.
Its over and done and we are all moving on--that ship has sailed.

 

[notdeadyet]

You can't sue over something that's just unethical. It must also be illegal.

You can sue someone for not liking their taste in music. Not illegal, just won't hold water.

USMLE score is not a protected class.

Thanks for mentioning this. It's worth pointing out that for all this pseudo-discrimination, there's plenty of the real stuff going on.

Hope you hear good things, jackieMD. I remember a lot of your posts from the pre-allo days. It doesn't seem like that long ago, but maybe that's just a reflection of aging.

 

[Samoa]

You can sue someone for not liking their taste in music. Not illegal, just won't hold water.

Point taken. I should have clarified: you can't sue someone successfully unless it's actually illegal.

 

[jackieMD2007]

You can sue someone for not liking their taste in music. Not illegal, just won't hold water.

Thanks for mentioning this. It's worth pointing out that for all this pseudo-discrimination, there's plenty of the real stuff going on.

Hope you hear good things, jackieMD. I remember a lot of your posts from the pre-allo days. It doesn't seem like that long ago, but maybe that's just a reflection of aging.

Hey!! No problem! I remember you as well! Already hearing good things!!

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I think that it is unethical to use an absolute cut-off filter without informing applicants. Students pay not only ERAS fees but may also pay application fees to the interested program.
...
If a program decides to collect fees, then it should spend some effort to earn those fees.

Just wanted to point out that residency programs do not get ANY of the ERAS fees you pay to apply. Are there really programs out there that have secondary applications with additional fees? I have not heard of any.

I would imagine the reason a program doesnt post explicit cut-off scores despite getting inundated with emails asking about it every year, is because they prob initially filter with a certain cut-off, but then gradually lower the cut-off bar as they select more rounded applicants from the pile. And they never know how far down they will have to go on their applicant list, so they do not want all those people with 210s to no longer apply at all.

This right here is issue. I never know what my "cut off" will be. I do have a number posted on my program's website, below which I know there is no chance of an interview. But just because you're above that, doesn't mean that you're sure to get one.

 

[braluk]

Just a question. Yes, some websites do not disclose screens if they do it but have you also explicitly pursued an answer to the question by contacting the program? You can't really argue that it is unfair that programs screen unknowing applicants if you haven't also gone ahead and researched thoroughly every program you apply to by calling/emailing the listed contacts. Not every residency program will disclose all their selection practices on their websites- some just do not update their websites or have a well developed tech department to address it. No one should have to spend their money on something blindly. If a program does a poor job of responding to your inquiries, or consistently dodges your questions then I wouldn't apply to it on the tenet that it may also reflect on how they respond to you as a resident there. Just a thought.

 

[snowbank]

For aPD - thanks for all your posts and contributions to this forum. It seems I run into your posts more often that not in areas of my interest 😉

I always wondered what specialty you were in. I got the impression of surgery from somewhere (tried looking at your old posts) but there were simply so many to go thru each and every one!

Dont know about secondary apps/fees for internal medicine (dont think so at least from applying for prelims) or surgery (ZERO experience so cant even comment) but what I CAN tell you is that there are at least 6 or 7 ophth. programs I can think of right off the top of my head that REQUIRE additional materials (over and above with the CAS appl. of SF Match) before they consider your file complete. And Im not referring to eye exams (which may or not be ethical, there's lots of threads on that in the ophtho forum) I'm talking honest to God supplemental application forms, checks for money, additional paragraphs stating your interest and why you applied to THAT particular program, extra documents, etc....
And then there are others that say on the website they dont require or need add'l material per se, but you're welcome to send some if you like and they'll review it....