When does fellowship interview season begin?

[greencreek]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Dear all:
Can anyone tell when the interview season for fellowship begin each year? I am applying for hemepath fellowship for 2012. Did people in the same boat get many interviews already? or the season just did not start yet.

So far I only got one interview at Sloan and I am sure the position is not mine when finishing the interview.

I am a little concerned and thinking about applying for surg path fellowship as a back up.

Any kind input on this? Much appreciated.
🙁

 

[malchik]

Why are you sure they will not offer you the position?

I think the interview season is starting about now. Don't despair. It may be a good idea to apply for some backup options though just in case.

 

[greencreek]

There is a much stronger candidate on the same day interview. BTW, did you get many interviews already? I am just curious. Some programs say they will start reviewing applications in Dec. Some programs start early. Some don't even reply at all.
😱

 

[icpshootyz]

The whole fellowship application system is broken and somewhat arbitrary. Some places interview early, some late, some in-between. Some places promise spots years in advance, some interview even though they have an internal candidate, and some prefer outside applicants. As a dermpath applicant this year, there's been interviews offered since August for 2012, and there were probably some behind-the-scenes ones before that. Other places have said they'll review applications in January for March interviews. So, really you have to talk to the programs you are applying to. I think right now we are getting into the meat of the interview season. I know my program said that next week is the last week to apply for our internal spots for Surg Path, GI path, and Breast path. If it was up to me the ACGME would crack down and force a Match program on fellowships. This willy-nilly system is extremely frustrating as an applicant.

 

[KCShaw]

Yeah, unfortunately.. you have to get over the idea that there is such a thing as an "interview season" for pathology fellowships. Just don't exist. Some movements are under way to try to address this, but meanwhile it's open season all the time. Every program is different in terms of timeframes, promises, etc., potentially even fellowships at the same institution being administered by different people.

Personally, as long as you start the process around 2 years ahead of time, give or take, you have a reasonable chance that a reasonable number of competitive places won't already be spoken for. A few may fill 3 years out. A few may be, or suddenly become, available 6 months out. But from there you have the pleasure of floundering around contacting programs and hopefully taking good notes as to when they'll "let you" apply, when they may interview, and when you may get a final decision made on your app/interview.

And, FYI...over the years, "strong applicants" have an occasional propensity to abruptly take private attending jobs rather than go through with fellowship, or elect a fellowship you -didn't- want, leaving the one you did want delightfully available. Or they turn out to be useless hacks who fake it well for a few hours at a stretch, which becomes evident when their PD is contacted. One or the other. (I certainly wouldn't assume a spot ain't yours just because -you- think somebody else might be more suited to it than you.)

 

[sleeping beauty]

i applied in mid-dec last year for heme and interviewed in 2nd half of january.

 

[2121115]

Unfortunately, it begins the day you start residency.

 

[pathstudent]

At least you get a year in pathology to figure out what organ you want to specialize in.

In I.M. they have to know basically before they start as they need to apply in year two and if you want to do one of the ultracompetitive fellowships in cards or GI you better be doing research doing your ultrabusy brutal intern year.

 

[KCShaw]

At least the IM folks get -some- kind of steady exposure to what IM is, and what the IM specialties entail, during medical school.

 

[greencreek]

Thanks for all the input. I feel a little better now as more interviews are coming.

 

[zao275]

The whole fellowship application system is broken and somewhat arbitrary. Some places interview early, some late, some in-between. Some places promise spots years in advance, some interview even though they have an internal candidate, and some prefer outside applicants. As a dermpath applicant this year, there's been interviews offered since August for 2012, and there were probably some behind-the-scenes ones before that. Other places have said they'll review applications in January for March interviews. So, really you have to talk to the programs you are applying to. I think right now we are getting into the meat of the interview season. I know my program said that next week is the last week to apply for our internal spots for Surg Path, GI path, and Breast path. If it was up to me the ACGME would crack down and force a Match program on fellowships. This willy-nilly system is extremely frustrating as an applicant.

This insanity is exactly why I am in support of a Match. I know, I know, the Match is evil and will consume us all. I understand it has it's cons and is not perfect, but this variability is madness and a real waste of time and energy for everyone. Just my opinion.

 

[malchik]

Completely agree. The only people that benefit from the current state of things are internal, early-applying candidates. However, even for them, the only downside I can think of is they would need to add a few interviews for backup. This is a low cost for the larger benefit that a match would bring IMO.

 

[2121115]

Completely agree. The only people that benefit from the current state of things are internal, early-applying candidates. However, even for them, the only downside I can think of is they would need to add a few interviews for backup. This is a low cost for the larger benefit that a match would bring IMO.

Do you think that a match will really reduce the fake interviews for spots already promised? If anything it will make it worse because everyone will have to do interviews. The spots will still be promised as they are now, but you'll be forced to doing interview because of the match.

 

[pathstudent]

Do you think that a match will really reduce the fake interviews for spots already promised? If anything it will make it worse because everyone will have to do interviews. The spots will still be promised as they are now, but you'll be forced to doing interview because of the match.

Even without a match, there has to be an interview at any legitimate institution. Even without a match there are still fake interviews.

A match process is great and it will work fine, just like it does for the residency positions. It is no damn different.

 

[2121115]

Even without a match, there has to be an interview at any legitimate institution.

Not in my experience.

Even without a match there are still fake interviews.

But not as many as there will be with a match.

 

[pathstudent]

Not in my experience.




But not as many as there will be with a match.

I was promised my fellowship by the end of my first year and I still had to interview in the beginning of my third year and they interviewed other people. A fellowship is a job and every university I know is required to interview for jobs and just can't give them out.

 

[2121115]

I was promised my fellowship by the end of my first year and I still had to interview in the beginning of my third year and they interviewed other people. A fellowship is a job and every university I know is required to interview for jobs and just can't give them out.

I never interviewed for mine. Just spoke with the director and it was done. No outside interviews at all. In fact, of the people in my residency class, we all did fellowships at our same institution and no outside interviews were conducted for any of the spots. In fact the fellowship that I did is filled through 2014 now already.

In a match scenario, we would have all had to do unnecessary outside interviews ($$$ and time) and residents from other programs would have had to come to our institution to interview ($$$ and time) under the guise that there was an open spot.

If programs want a match, they should foot the bill for interviewees (hotel, flight, food, etc).

 

[icpshootyz]

I am split two ways on this, especially since I'm traveling the country interviewing for fellowship right now. I think with a match there would be a better "match" between programs and applicants. Look at the dermpath fellowship system - right now some places interview in July-Aug for spots two years out, others don't interview until the following March. A lot of good applicants will be locked into programs long before that, and some programs even say they interview early simply to cheat the system and get applicants to commit early, often before they've even had a chance to see other programs.

Buuuuttttt - those applicants that choose early save a FORTUNE in travel costs and time lost by signing on for a spot early. Some may go on one interview, like the program enough, get accepted, and they're done. If we go to a match that would not happen, and presumably applicants would all have to do far more travel and far more interviews in advance of the "match" day.

So I'm torn. I think a match is much more fair, but I think it would add significant expense for residents. Programs aren't going to start footing the bill for all applicants, that's just prohibitive. And residents don't often have the money (or the time off of service!) to travel to every prospective program in the country. I don't know what the right answer is. My gut tells me the current system is broken and we need a match, but I am wary of increasing resident expenses and causing unnecessary interviews at programs that will just take internal candidates.

I think letting programs opt out of the match for internal candidates only would be a good idea - that could prevent unnecessary interviewing. Maybe have an early internal deadline and then spots can open to the match if there aren't internal candidates. But these are all things that would need to be worked out if it happens.

 

[pathstudent]

I never interviewed for mine. Just spoke with the director and it was done. No outside interviews at all. In fact, of the people in my residency class, we all did fellowships at our same institution and no outside interviews were conducted for any of the spots. In fact the fellowship that I did is filled through 2014 now already.

In a match scenario, we would have all had to do unnecessary outside interviews ($$$ and time) and residents from other programs would have had to come to our institution to interview ($$$ and time) under the guise that there was an open spot.

If programs want a match, they should foot the bill for interviewees (hotel, flight, food, etc).

Well your fellowships aren't striving to be the best by only filling with internal candidates.

Should residency programs foot the bill for medical students to interview?

A match program would be fairer for the applicants and it would be better for the fellowships.

And again every other non-pathology fellowship in other specialities (cards, renal, gi, gyn-onc, etc...) interview for their fellows, but I forgot that we live in the mutant world of pathology.

 

[2121115]

Well your fellowships aren't striving to be the best by only filling with internal candidates.

Not really. Most of the outstanding candidates from other programs fill internal fellowships at their institutions. Also, we have really good residents and an outside candidate is unlikely to be a better one (also because of the reason stated in the previous sentence).

Should residency programs foot the bill for medical students to interview?

Yes. They did for me, for the most part.

A match program would be fairer for the applicants and it would be better for the fellowships.

Maybe and maybe not. These points are really at the heart of the issue and both are debatable.

And again every other non-pathology fellowship in other specialities (cards, renal, gi, gyn-onc, etc...) interview for their fellows, but I forgot that we live in the mutant world of pathology.

And their residents do A LOT of interviews for spots that are already promised. Not to mention, these fellowships are 3-4 years each which is longer than an internal medicine residency itself. Pathology fellowships are one year. A match and numerous interviews are a huge waste of time for a 1 year commitment, IMO.




I respect your opinion and I see where you are coming from, but we just disagree on this issue.

 

[malchik]

What? The residency programs you interviewed at paid for your travel and lodging? No way. You must have been a superstar candidate or something. I couldn't even get parking validated.

I don't follow the argument about a match = numerous superfluous interviews. If you are promised a spot, then don't do additional interviews or if you're paranoid do at most one. If you are a program and you like your internal candidate and they like you, promise them the spot, rank them first, and be done with it.

Even if it does mean multiple interviews, I don't think it is a waste for even a one year fellowship. Fellowship is more important than residency.

 

[KCShaw]

If a program hasn't reviewed someone's application and/or interviewed them, they really can't estimate whether they are better or worse than their known candidates. It's one thing to knowingly put on blinders and accept the downsides, as I think most programs do, and another to assume that despite wearing blinders you know what else is out there that you aren't bothering to try to look at.

It seems to me that in the current situation programs trade the possibility of landing a "better" applicant for the safety of early decisions, convenience of fewer interviews, and possibly the familiarity of internal/local/rotator candidates. The risk of a match is that while they might find a better-fit applicant, they may also dip into the less desirable pool after going through the increased hassle of a match and separate interview season, and perhaps have to change their strategies for drawing fellow applicants in the future -- but I think this would be because their program isn't as competitive, rather than previously filling solely because they're attached to a large resident program.

I do think a match likely means more interviews (and thus cost, in time and money) for...well, everyone. I almost certainly would have done a few more. It also means more uncertainty about positions until much later in the process for a lot of people. But, I do think the competition for places becomes "more" fair, and everyone can plan and schedule along a standardized timeframe. No doubt it's a trade, but at this point it still seems like a better option than the current no-system.

 

[2121115]

What? The residency programs you interviewed at paid for your travel and lodging? No way. You must have been a superstar candidate or something. I couldn't even get parking validated.

I don't know if I was a superstar candidate or not. I interviewed at most of the "name" programs on the east coast and matched at my #1. All of the programs picked up at least the hotel for all of the applicants that I met along the interview trail. Travel was sometimes included and sometimes not, depending on the program. Food was more or less included due to the pre-interview dinners and breakfast/lunch on the day of interview. Parking was taken care of by the program coordinators.

I would hope that fellowship interviews would at least do the same. If they are recruiting a potential fellow and colleague I would hope they would at least pick up a night in a hotel convenient to the hospital at a minimum. We are talking about recruiting board certified (or will be when they get there) pathologists to a position with your program.

I don't follow the argument about a match = numerous superfluous interviews. If you are promised a spot, then don't do additional interviews or if you're paranoid do at most one. If you are a program and you like your internal candidate and they like you, promise them the spot, rank them first, and be done with it.

That would seem to work, but there are no guarantees when there is a match involved. No one is going to suicide match, that would be crazy even if you were offered a spot. BTW, I know at least a couple of internal medicine residents who were promised a fellowship spot, suicide matched and got left out in the cold. No one is going to risk that, from the program side or the applicant side.

Even if it does mean multiple interviews, I don't think it is a waste for even a one year fellowship. Fellowship is more important than residency.

Again, I think this is debatable. Strong residency training over 4 years is very, very important and I am not convinced that 1 year at a strong fellowship can make up for weak residency training.


As I have said earlier, I respect your opinion but I think we will just have to agree to disagree here.

 

[icpshootyz]

Really? I feel like I don't know anyone that got their hotel or transportation or anything comped when they were interviewing for residency. But then again I could drive to every interview I did for residency within an hour, so I didn't bother asking. As for fellowship interviews, so far I had hotel comped at one, not comped at another. No transportation costs, etc covered.

Anyways, I think there would need to be a way for programs to still select internal candidate prior to the "match". Say an early deadline like Sept. 30th or something by which any internal spots would have to be filled or not. After that, it's all up to the match. It would require programs to get their acts in gear early, and if spots were still open after that you would know which programs to apply to and which not to bother with. Really I think this is going to be most important for Derm, Heme, and GI. Probably less-so for Surg path, cyto, and other less-competitive subspecialties. But I do support the match, even though it'll cause hell for service coverage while all 3rd year residents are out flying around the country for interviews!

 

[2121115]

Really? I feel like I don't know anyone that got their hotel or transportation or anything comped when they were interviewing for residency.

I thought hotel was standard??? Oh well, maybe things have changed in the past several years.

 

[malchik]

Not my experience 3 years ago. Penn put me up in their nice hotel, and I think Wash U also. But no travel costs. Other than that, nothing, and I also interviewed at all the name brands. I think MGH paid for parking, but BWH didn't even do that.

Sorry for the aside. As for being left in the cold, that is not unique to a match system. It happens with some regularity in the current state of things that programs open up with "unexpected openings," because a fellow takes another offer after agreeing to the first. Although to be fair I have never heard of a program dropping someone after agreeing to take them.

My impression that fellowship trumps residency in importance is based on job advertisements that ask for specific fellowships. It seems that almost every ad specifies a fellowship they want their new hires to have completed, but they never say "highly desirable that candidates have gone to X place for residency." For those who have gotten jobs, is this impression accurate?

 

[icpshootyz]

Maybe it's because I only interviewed in the Northeast and didn't inquire about hotels, who knows. And maybe it helps if the hospital has an affiliated hotel (like Geisinger in Danville, PA). Oh well. It would be the nice thing to do, but I just assumed it didn't happen.

 

[2121115]

My impression that fellowship trumps residency in importance is based on job advertisements that ask for specific fellowships. It seems that almost every ad specifies a fellowship they want their new hires to have completed, but they never say "highly desirable that candidates have gone to X place for residency." For those who have gotten jobs, is this impression accurate?

Apples and oranges, really. Job ads often specify a type of fellowship (i.e. hemepath, cytopath, etc) rather than the place you did it. However, residency training at a strong program carries a lot of weight. Many good jobs just want someone well trained rather than a specific type fellowship anyway. Job ads would really never specify a particular institution because that type of thing is so subjective. Also, if they wanted someone from specific places they would just call those places rather than posting an ad (which is in fact what most do).


All in all, I'm not trying to get in an e-spat over this. Things are really variable and there is no one right answer. I think that the match may benefit some and not others. I could go either way on that really, but it is NOT true that a match would obviously be beneficial for everyone.

 

[green mantis]

Unfortunately, it begins the day you start residency.

Everyone knows that if you want to do DP, you need to apply before you start residency. 😛


----- Antony

 

[KCShaw]

I think a good point was made that having gone to a good big-name residency program can, to an extent, "trump" (for lack of a better term) fellowship in the job market. There's certainly a component of name recognition and reputation influence in the job market. So while it's great to end on a high note at a top fellowship, it's not the only thing to focus on in life and your career isn't over just because you either don't do fellowship or do one at a smaller place. Particularly if you have a good foundation at a plus residency program.

I have definitely overheard conversations among employers looking at applicants who keep repeating "..but so-and-so did residency at X!" while not making much noise about their midrange fellowship, and at other times "..yeah, they did fellowship with/at Y!" while not making much noise about their midrange residency program. It happens. But, personally, I still tell people to go to the best available residency program they think they can enjoy spending time with the people, then aim for the hottest fellowship they can and tell themselves they can survive anything for a year (sometimes two).

 

[2121115]

There's certainly a component of name recognition and reputation influence in the job market. So while it's great to end on a high note at a top fellowship, it's not the only thing to focus on in life and your career isn't over just because you either don't do fellowship or do one at a smaller place. Particularly if you have a good foundation at a plus residency program.

Agree. This has been my experience.

 

[deleted314957]

I think a good point was made that having gone to a good big-name residency program can, to an extent, "trump" (for lack of a better term) fellowship in the job market. There's certainly a component of name recognition and reputation influence in the job market. So while it's great to end on a high note at a top fellowship, it's not the only thing to focus on in life and your career isn't over just because you either don't do fellowship or do one at a smaller place. Particularly if you have a good foundation at a plus residency program.

I have definitely overheard conversations among employers looking at applicants who keep repeating "..but so-and-so did residency at X!" while not making much noise about their midrange fellowship, and at other times "..yeah, they did fellowship with/at Y!" while not making much noise about their midrange residency program. It happens. But, personally, I still tell people to go to the best available residency program they think they can enjoy spending time with the people, then aim for the hottest fellowship they can and tell themselves they can survive anything for a year (sometimes two).

I think your first paragraph is quite pertinent and pretty much on-spot. When i was in the position to interview and hire people we really were not very concerned where someone did their residency and/or fellowship.
Professional ability/smarts was kind of presumed and if you did not have it you were quickly gone. We looked at people more to gauge affability, demeanor and communication skills.