Step 1 P/F: Decision

[NeuResurgens]

I mean it’s not a matter of opinion that they are protesting in Europe. They just are. If you want to pretend they aren’t that’s fine, but they are protesting the stay at home orders as much as we are in some of those European countries, and in some places even more dramatically.

I’m not sure what your experience has been, but there are just as many stupid and immature people in those countries as there are here. I’ve met plenty of them.

I'm not saying they aren't protesting. I'm saying the *degree* to which some forms of willful ignorance occurs here is more than I've seen abroad. That's just one country though, although I met a significant number of the general population, so who knows.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[efle]

No one here has said that... and as mentioned above, PDs are under no illusions where most of their grads will end up.

So let me get this straight. How do med school adcoms view volunteerism? They like to see it because it demosttranes a trait they want? Or they view it as a game for premeds to try and outcompete each other with?

Then, how to PDs view research? They like to see it because they want people interested in researching throughout their training and career? Or they view it as a game for med students to outcompete each other with?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I'm not saying they aren't protesting. I'm saying the *degree* to which some forms of willful ignorance occurs here is more than I've seen abroad. That's just one country though, although I met a significant number of the general population, so who knows.

Which country are you talking about? In England, France, and Germany there is a pretty comparable amount of willful ignorance I’ve thought.

Edit: I don’t think the 1,000 person protest in Germany led to gunfire though.

 

[7331poas]

So let me get this straight. How do med school adcoms view volunteerism? They like to see it because it demosttranes a trait they want? Or they view it as a game for premeds to try and outcompete each other with?

Then, how to PDs view research? They like to see it because they want people interested in researching throughout their training and career? Or they view it as a game for med students to outcompete each other with?

How the PDs view some is moot. Research as it exists today is simply a number used to advance your career. I was working with a interventionalist on a project a few months ago who admitted that the project we were working on was "mostly BS" but "the people hiring only care about the number of lines on your CV". He publishes probably 7-8x a year.

 

[efle]

How the PDs view some is moot. Research as it exists today is simply a number used to advance your career. I was working with a interventionalist on a project a few months ago who admitted that the project we were working on was "mostly BS" but "the people hiring only care about the number of lines on your CV". He publishes probably 7-8x a year.

And he's a prog director? At a large tertiary center with lots of NIH money?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

And he's a prog director? At a large tertiary center with lots of NIH money?

You don’t think that kind of stuff happens at those places?

 

[slowthai]

So let me get this straight. How do med school adcoms view volunteerism? They like to see it because it demosttranes a trait they want? Or they view it as a game for premeds to try and outcompete each other with?

Then, how to PDs view research? They like to see it because they want people interested in researching throughout their training and career? Or they view it as a game for med students to outcompete each other with?

What you have to understand is that it's not either or.

And he's a prog director? At a large tertiary center with lots of NIH money?

The game continues to be the game at the highest levels.

 

[efle]

You don’t think that kind of stuff happens at those places?

I dont think our surgical departments have a habit of taking people who candidly state they have no interest in research, no.

And as much as it's fun to banter back and forth, I think we all know that when they're sitting across from PDs talking about research, they're going to be saying VERY different things than they are in this thread.

 

[efle]

What you have to understand is that it's not either or.



The game continues to be the game at the highest levels.

I wish you luck in candidly discussing research as a "game" to "win" with PDs. I'm sure theyll be super cool with that.

 

[slowthai]

I wish you luck in candidly discussing research as a "game" to "win" with PDs. I'm sure theyll be super cool with that.

The only people actually openly having that discussion with PDs lack common sense. It's implicitly known that it's a game.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I dont think our surgical departments have a habit of taking people who candidly state they have no interest in research, no.

And as much as it's fun to banter back and forth, I think we all know that when they're sitting across from PDs talking about research, they're going to be saying VERY different things than they are in this thread.

... that wasn’t even what I asked or what the argument was, but okay?

 

[efle]

... that wasn’t even what I asked or what the argument was, but okay?

Sorry I took "that stuff happeneing" to mean "PDs treating research as a competition/game and not an actual expression of interest in research"

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Sorry I took "that stuff happeneing" to mean "PDs treating research as a competition/game and not an actual expression of interest in research"

Yeah I was saying do you really think that bs research to pad CVs doesn’t happen at ivory tower places? It absolutely does.

 

[efle]

Yeah I was saying do you really think that bs research to pad CVs doesn’t happen at ivory tower places? It absolutely does.

Oh yeah 100% people pad. And premeds volunteer to check the box, not to be charitable. That doesn't mean adcoms see it the same way.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Oh yeah 100% people pad. And premeds volunteer to check the box, not to be charitable. That doesn't mean adcoms see it the same way.

Are you saying adcoms and PDs don’t think a lot of applicants are just checking boxes?

 

[efle]

Are you saying adcoms and PDs don’t think a lot of applicants are just checking boxes?

I think they try to suss out the pretenders. Makes a ton of sense to me why research years are becoming more and more the norm for specialties like neurosurg. After all how can the fakers "win" the "game" over the guys who actually love research enough to delay their timeline and conduct it?

We might feel like it's a game, a hoop to be jumped, a box to be checked. They don't. You'd have to be an idiot to say any of the statements that have come out of this thread with a PD within earshot because no, they do not implicitly share this view of academia.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Then, how to PDs view research? They like to see it because they want people interested in researching throughout their training and career? Or they view it as a game for med students to outcompete each other with?

Bro, I've had a PD in my field of interest tell me to my face that he doesn't care about research at all but if all the applications he receives have research and one doesn't then it looks bad so I should have research because it will make me a more competitive applicant. No one is saying that there aren't programs out there that care about research because they are intent on training physician scientists, they absolutely exist, but many PD's like research because it shows that someone wanted the field bad enough that they went out there and went through the grind of getting research. Why do you think having research on your app helps you for pretty much any program in any specialty? It's not because they are all looking to produce a line of physicians that will rake in NIH grants...

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Makes a ton of sense to me why research years are becoming more and more the norm for specialties like neurosurg.

You think the pressure for research years in these ultra competitive specialties is coming from PD's?

 

[efle]

Bro, I've had a PD in my field of interest tell me to my face that he doesn't care about research at all but if all the applications he receives have research and one doesn't then it looks bad so I should have research because it will make me a more competitive applicant. No one is saying that there aren't programs out there that care about research because they are intent on training physician scientists, they absolutely exist, but many PD's like research because it shows that someone wanted the field bad enough that they went out there and went through the grind of getting research. Why do you think having research on your app helps you for pretty much any program in any specialty? It's not because they are all looking to produce a line of physicians that will rake in NIH grants...

You think the pressure for research years in these ultra competitive specialties is coming from PD's?

Roughly how much NIH funding does his hospital get? Because while I'm not saying that there aren't programs out there who have no use for research, most people training in a tiny field like Neurosurg are doing so at the ~100 biggest university hospitals where research really is valued. I think most people taking research years and then going into the field are getting a lot of valuable experience that they really will go on to use, rather than just checking a box.

 

[throwaway1000000]

I won't talk about neurosurgery because they have a 1 yr research requirement during residency, so sure they expect med students to have research.

For other competitive small specialities, the heavy emphasis on research seems comical. Most of these fields are small fields where either lot of the workforce is going to private practice or the ones that do stay in academics don't really get that much money to do big meaningful trials.

If we are talking about fields like cardiology or oncology the emphasis on research can make sense because they receive millions of dollars to put out big trials. But even then most cardiology or oncology programs are not that crazy about research that they expect residents to do an extra year of research to match into the fields.

The fact that small fields like ophthalmology, urology, plastics, ENT are expecting their students to do an extra research year is comical. Really the research year seems to be more of a way to build connections and improve your CV.

Also, a neurosurgery PD when I used to be interested in it, told me it's the number of research pubs that matter than what you learned from it. Which is even funnier. I mean doing a bunch of chart reviews or other mindless work and buffing up your CV is more helpful than actually working on a project from writing the IRB protocol to writing a manuscript. A full project takes anywhere from 6-8 months and the fact that the average pubs are like 15 in these fields means most people are not really working on a complete project from start to finish. But are rather tagging along with their PDs doing BS case reports, helping out with chart reviewing or even simply getting their names on the papers because their home programs want to match students to good places.

 

[Lucca]

sdn was a mistake lol

very depressing, as someone who wants to make research their career, see so many colleagues repeatedly and emphatically insist research is just a game to not only them but in fact everyone.

I know its not *actually* true, but a depressingly common stance among med students in general it seems.

 

[throwaway1000000]

sdn was a mistake lol

very depressing, as someone who wants to make research their career, see so many colleagues repeatedly and emphatically insist research is just a game to not only them but in fact everyone.

I know its not *actually* true, but a depressingly common stance among med students in general it seems.

You are misinterpreting the posts. There are people like you that might be passionate about research and for sure go ahead and make research your career.

But for majority of the workforce especially in a field like optho, research is not going to be something they are going to be pursuing heavily, so emphasizing research to the point where applicants are having to take an extra research year to buff up their CV is pretty much a game that applicants and PDs are playing.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

very depressing, as someone who wants to make research their career, see so many colleagues repeatedly and emphatically insist research is just a game to not only them but in fact everyone.

That's not what is being said at all....

Getting into residency is a game.

 

[efle]

I won't talk about neurosurgery because they have a 1 yr research requirement during residency, so sure they expect med students to have research.

For other competitive small specialities, the heavy emphasis on research seems comical. Most of these fields are small fields where either lot of the workforce is going to private practice or the ones that do stay in academics don't really get that much money to do big meaningful trials.

If we are talking about fields like cardiology or oncology the emphasis on research can make sense because they receive millions of dollars to put out big trials. But even then most cardiology or oncology programs are not that crazy about research that they expect residents to do an extra year of research to match into the fields.

The fact that small fields like ophthalmology, urology, plastics, ENT are expecting their students to do an extra research year is comical. Really the research year seems to be more of a way to build connections and improve your CV.

Also, a neurosurgery PD when I used to be interested in it, told me it's the number of research pubs that matter than what you learned from it. Which is even funnier. I mean doing a bunch of chart reviews or other mindless work and buffing up your CV is more helpful than actually working on a project from writing the IRB protocol to writing a manuscript. A full project takes anywhere from 6-8 months and the fact that the average pubs are like 15 in these fields means most people are not really working on a complete project from start to finish. But are rather tagging along with their PDs doing BS case reports, helping out with chart reviewing or even simply getting their names on the papers because their home programs want to match students to good places.

I was recently involved with a bibliometrics project where we quantified exactly how many authorships the people matching into a surgical subspecialty had.

The numbers are shockingly low relative to the insane CV padding on ERAS. The avg numbers of "posters, papers and abstracts" is listed as more than a dozen, yet the IQR for real authorships was (0-1).

It's disgusting, but clearly them's the rules of this stupid game. Having a bunch of very small projects that you present multiple times at any conference you can is becoming the winning strategy. And I can see why it works, when PDs are this inundated with apps there's no way they have time to look us up on Scopus or Pubmed and dig into what we've really helped add to the peer-reviewed literature.

Gotta wonder if changing step P/F is gonna throw gasoline onto this dumpster fire. Probs yes.

 

[throwaway1000000]

I was recently involved with a bibliometrics project where we quantified exactly how many authorships the people matching into a surgical subspecialty had.

The numbers are shockingly low relative to the insane CV padding on ERAS. The avg numbers of "posters, papers and abstracts" is listed as more than a dozen, yet the IQR for real authorships was (0-1).

It's disgusting, but clearly them's the rules of this stupid game. Having a bunch of very small projects that you present multiple times at any conference you can is becoming the winning strategy. And I can see why it works, when PDs are this inundated with apps there's no way they have time to look us up on Scopus or Pubmed and dig into what we've really helped add to the peer-reviewed literature.

Gotta wonder if changing step P/F is gonna throw gasoline onto this dumpster fire. Probs yes.

Yes 15 meaningful pubs is practically impossible unless you are an MD/PHD, have lot of prior research years or are publishing case reports (useless imo if you trying to judge someone's research capabilities) or are really productive and working with 4-5 different professors from day 1 of med school.

Each meaningful publication takes at least 6-8 months to complete from writing to the IRB to publishing the manuscript. Heck just the IRB and manuscript review process takes a few months.

If PDs really want research to play a meaningful role, there should be a 1 project requirement where you actually did the entire work on the project from writing the IRB to writing the manuscript. Heck, it doesn't even need to get published but it just needs an approval letter from your PI that you did the entire project from formulating a research question to writing the manuscript with their help. Attach it to your ERAS and there you go, your PD knows you know how do a research project. But that is not how research is being looked at, it is being judged by the number of lines your CV regardless of whether you did any meaningful work on those projects.

 

[ExcitatorySynapse]

That's not what is being said at all....

Getting into residency is a game.

Of course it is a game for students, but its depressing to see people make something that you genuinely adore and want to commit your life to a meaningless activity just done for an unrelated end. From this thread, no one has any real passion or interest in it. I don’t blame medical students, but it’s sad. At least broke basic scientists will be super hype about some random deletion in a mitochondrial gene lol.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

most people training in a tiny field like Neurosurg are doing so at the ~100 biggest university hospitals where research really is valued. I think most people taking research years and then going into the field are getting a lot of valuable experience that they really will go on to use, rather than just checking a box.

How many neurosurgery residents go on to do research in their practice vs. how many go to community clinical practice?

 

[efle]

Of course it is a game for students, but its depressing to see people make something that you genuinely adore and want to commit your life to a meaningless activity just done for an unrelated end. From this thread, no one has any real passion or interest in it. I don’t blame medical students, but it’s sad. At least broke basic scientists will be super hype about some random deletion in a mitochondrial gene lol.

writing case reports or helping out PDs with chart reviewing.

It's the chart review. The mind-numbing, soul-crushing, endless chart reviewing. I love the designing and analysis parts, but god that grunt work in the middle sucks.

When being the data extraction monkey is synonymous with "research" for many students, it's no wonder it's viewed this way. We have to give people a better experience where they get ownership and can try their hand at the fun parts (like the stats!) like throwaway is talking about. Love his concept there and think it would be a good education initiative at a med school, tbh.

 

[efle]

How many neurosurgery residents go on to do research in their practice vs. how many go to community clinical practice?

Never been able to find any good numbers on % academic by specialty. But, the real question is how many from your cohort will go on to do research while selecting for legit future researchers? Versus how many while treating research as a game to see who can list the most posters on ERAS? Regardless of whether it's 50% or 5%, it's definitely higher under the former than it would be under the latter.

But, at least based on those NRMP surveys, at least 25% of PDs are like the one you spoke with who dgaf anyways! If one dreams of community practice and doesn't want to take a year off, that's at least a couple dozen programs who should still welcome with open arms

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

I was recently involved with a bibliometrics project where we quantified exactly how many authorships the people matching into a surgical subspecialty had.

The numbers are shockingly low relative to the insane CV padding on ERAS. The avg numbers of "posters, papers and abstracts" is listed as more than a dozen, yet the IQR for real authorships was (0-1).

It's disgusting, but clearly them's the rules of this stupid game. Having a bunch of very small projects that you present multiple times at any conference you can is becoming the winning strategy. And I can see why it works, when PDs are this inundated with apps there's no way they have time to look us up on Scopus or Pubmed and dig into what we've really helped add to the peer-reviewed literature.

Gotta wonder if changing step P/F is gonna throw gasoline onto this dumpster fire. Probs yes.

I agree with all of this.

I know it might surprise you but I actually like research and am one of the few with peer reviewed publications.

Of course it is a game for students, but its depressing to see people make something that you genuinely adore and want to commit your life to a meaningless activity just done for an unrelated end. From this thread, no one has any real passion or interest in it. I don’t blame medical students, but it’s sad. At least broke basic scientists will be super hype about some random deletion in a mitochondrial gene lol.

It's the game we have to play unfortunately

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I think they try to suss out the pretenders. Makes a ton of sense to me why research years are becoming more and more the norm for specialties like neurosurg. After all how can the fakers "win" the "game" over the guys who actually love research enough to delay their timeline and conduct it?

We might feel like it's a game, a hoop to be jumped, a box to be checked. They don't. You'd have to be an idiot to say any of the statements that have come out of this thread with a PD within earshot because no, they do not implicitly share this view of academia.

Because someone who gets on 11 publications to check boxes will look better on paper than someone who gets a couple pubs from a project they thoroughly enjoyed.

 

[slowthai]

I was recently involved with a bibliometrics project where we quantified exactly how many authorships the people matching into a surgical subspecialty had.

The numbers are shockingly low relative to the insane CV padding on ERAS. The avg numbers of "posters, papers and abstracts" is listed as more than a dozen, yet the IQR for real authorships was (0-1).

I'm assuming your group defined real authorships as first author? If that's the case, I'm kind of surprised, but not really. It's far easier to just hop onto an almost finished project, like this:

 

[slowthai]

Because someone who gets on 11 publications to check boxes will look better on paper than someone who gets a couple pubs from a project they thoroughly enjoyed.

Exactly. An ortho resident told me that it's far better to jump on 5 ongoing projects and bring them to completion than to start one big year-long prospective study. Guess which one takes more effort? Lol.

 

[Lucca]

To bring the discussion back to Step 1 P/F for a bit, people may be interested in this perspective in academic medicine.

Sparking Change: How a Shift to Step 1 to Pass/Fail Scoring ... : Academic Medicine

score reporting presents an opportunity to advance the meaningful assessment of medical students and improve the transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME). The authors explore the potential risks and consequences associated with a narrow...

journals.lww.com

Tl;dr:

authors recommend schools:

move from static to dynamic evaluation; I.e from scores and discipline specific snapshots to learning trajectories based on competencies, milestones, and areas of mastery.

improve MSPE quality and consider implementing SLOEs more broadly.

...recommend residencies:

better define what competencies and skills they expect of future interns and residents in their field.

become comfortable taking in students that have areas of improvement such that schools are not penalized for accurately reporting evaluations.

Whether or not folks agree with this perspective or believe it to be achievable for whatever reason, it’s important to pay attention to the med Ed literature because that’s actually where change in med Ed comes from.

 

[throwaway1000000]

I am in the minority but might be one of the few people who doesn't think the application process is that unfair or screwed up.
Fairly better than lot of other aspects in medical school which get completely overlooked for example, the cost of med school or the outdated med school curriculum or the glorified shadowing in some rotations.
Med Ed SDN and twitter is either talking about step 1 or the match process often times something to the effect of step 1 and interviews

 

[7331poas]

And he's a prog director? At a large tertiary center with lots of NIH money?

He was not a PD. And yes he was at a large, name-brand tertiary center.

 

[Mass Effect]

Med Ed SDN and twitter is either talking about step 1 or the match process often times something to the effect of step 1 and interviews

Where is Med Ed SDN?

 

[NeuResurgens]

I was recently involved with a bibliometrics project where we quantified exactly how many authorships the people matching into a surgical subspecialty had.

The numbers are shockingly low relative to the insane CV padding on ERAS. The avg numbers of "posters, papers and abstracts" is listed as more than a dozen, yet the IQR for real authorships was (0-1).

It's disgusting, but clearly them's the rules of this stupid game. Having a bunch of very small projects that you present multiple times at any conference you can is becoming the winning strategy. And I can see why it works, when PDs are this inundated with apps there's no way they have time to look us up on Scopus or Pubmed and dig into what we've really helped add to the peer-reviewed literature.

Gotta wonder if changing step P/F is gonna throw gasoline onto this dumpster fire. Probs yes.

Yeah it's really crazy to me the disparity between these two numbers. The ERAS average total is like 16, but every neurosurgery resident and attending I've talked to has said that getting just 5-6 peer-reviewed publications as an author, with maybe 1-2 first author, and you're ahead of the pack. What goes into all the rest of those numbers? Even abstracts are a slightly bigger thing that applicants likely aren't churning out 12 apiece of.

 

[Lawpy]

I was recently involved with a bibliometrics project where we quantified exactly how many authorships the people matching into a surgical subspecialty had.

The numbers are shockingly low relative to the insane CV padding on ERAS. The avg numbers of "posters, papers and abstracts" is listed as more than a dozen, yet the IQR for real authorships was (0-1).

It's disgusting, but clearly them's the rules of this stupid game. Having a bunch of very small projects that you present multiple times at any conference you can is becoming the winning strategy. And I can see why it works, when PDs are this inundated with apps there's no way they have time to look us up on Scopus or Pubmed and dig into what we've really helped add to the peer-reviewed literature.

Gotta wonder if changing step P/F is gonna throw gasoline onto this dumpster fire. Probs yes.

Yes 15 meaningful pubs is practically impossible unless you are an MD/PHD, have lot of prior research years or are publishing case reports (useless imo if you trying to judge someone's research capabilities) or are really productive and working with 4-5 different professors from day 1 of med school.

Each meaningful publication takes at least 6-8 months to complete from writing to the IRB to publishing the manuscript. Heck just the IRB and manuscript review process takes a few months.

If PDs really want research to play a meaningful role, there should be a 1 project requirement where you actually did the entire work on the project from writing the IRB to writing the manuscript. Heck, it doesn't even need to get published but it just needs an approval letter from your PI that you did the entire project from formulating a research question to writing the manuscript with their help. Attach it to your ERAS and there you go, your PD knows you know how do a research project. But that is not how research is being looked at, it is being judged by the number of lines your CV regardless of whether you did any meaningful work on those projects.

i'm just curious why ERAS didn't define publications simply as peer reviewed journal articles and presentations as national/international meetings. this could help cut down the fluff by a lot.

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

i'm just curious why ERAS didn't define publications simply as peer reviewed journal articles and presentations as national/international meetings. this could help cut down the fluff by a lot.

I thought that is what they did. I’m looking at someone’s past ERAS app right now and it’s broken up into “Peer-Reviewed Pubs/Abstracts,” “Poster Presentations,” and “Oral presentations.”

AAMC ResidencyExplorer also has specific data on the number of actual publications. Looking at Ortho, about a third of the programs actually have 0 pubs as the mode. The rest have at least 1-2 actual pubs, and are bimodal with some students having 10+ actual pubs. Some of them are legit in terms of significant work on each publication, but I’m sure there are a ton where they were the research coordinator, or statistician, or asked their friends to add them on for minimal work. Being a research coordinator specifically will get you a ton of pubs if you do a research year. Someone in my class had 50+ pubs from being the research coordinator for 3 years in a lab that does a ton of retrospective reviews

 

[efle]

I thought that is what they did. I’m looking at someone’s past ERAS app right now and it’s broken up into “Peer-Reviewed Pubs/Abstracts,” “Poster Presentations,” and “Oral presentations.”

AAMC ResidencyExplorer also has specific data on the number of actual publications. Looking at Ortho, about a third of the programs actually have 0 pubs as the mode. The rest have at least 1-2 actual pubs, and are bimodal with some students having 10+ actual pubs. Some of them are legit in terms of significant work on each publication, but I’m sure there are a ton where they were the research coordinator, or statistician, or asked their friends to add them on for minimal work. Being a research coordinator specifically will get you a ton of pubs if you do a research year. Someone in my class had 50+ pubs from being the research coordinator for 3 years in a lab that does a ton of retrospective reviews

Yep, same pattern I saw in the specialty I ran the stats on. Mode of 0, upper quartile at 1, but then a long right tail

 

[deleted393595]

Heck just the IRB and manuscript review process takes a few months.

My record from starting to write up the IRB to getting the IRB to approve it is 24 hours

Fight me

My manuscript writing timeline is uhm.............................. Yeah.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

My record from starting to write up the IRB to getting the IRB to approve it is 24 hours

Fight me

My manuscript writing timeline is uhm.............................. Yeah.

Did you submit like right before they met or something? Ours only meets twice a month.

 

[deleted393595]

Did you submit like right before they met or something? Ours only meets twice a month.

Yeah. Ours meets weekly and I used boilerplate text from another IRB I had successfully submitted that would preclude any questions the IRB may have had.

Wrote it up in an hour by copy-pasting. Submitted it around 8am and got it approved the next morning.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

My IRB approvals take ~ 1 month. Thanks bureaucracy

Hey I’m just happy they’re still meeting.

 

[kkl2018]

With CS being suspended, and step exams being delayed, what is the likelihood that they push back the pass fail decision?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

With CS being suspended, and step exams being delayed, what is the likelihood that they push back the pass fail decision?

This is asked literally every other day. No one can possibly know this. But the earliest it was going to happen was 2022. That’s a long time from now, so I wouldn’t bet on it.

 

[Lucca]

This is asked literally every other day. No one can possibly know this. But the earliest it was going to happen was 2022. That’s a long time from now, so I wouldn’t bet on it.

maybe we should start a betting pool for USMLE decisions.

 

[Lawpy]

This is asked literally every other day. No one can possibly know this. But the earliest it was going to happen was 2022. That’s a long time from now, so I wouldn’t bet on it.

maybe we should start a betting pool for USMLE decisions.

if i make a bet and lose, does that mean i need to change my profile pic

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

if i make a bet and lose, does that mean i need to change my profile pic

Only if that’s the bet.