Yale Psych drama and current state of the program

[When is graduation again?]

Wait, I thought it was clear the residents did have some influence because the top candidate (that had to drop out) was the first choice of the chairman and the prior two PDs were to their liking on their specific agendas?

But for some wild reason, the residents felt they should have absolute veto power over the chairman’s second choice? In fact, felt this strongly enough that they bring their discontent to the media, thus tarnishing Yale’s name so that it’s being discussed by outside randos all over?

Sounds insane on the residents side to me. Like they somehow had a break with reality and confused themselves with the chairman of the department. At least that’s what the story sounds like on the outside. Like I said, it seems to me that it would be totally reasonable/justified to just fire all the residents at this juncture for damaging to program’s reputation and trying to derail someone’s career.

I'm not justifying a single thing they're doing. But from experience, my residency program had a lot of issues between residents and the program over my 4 years there and most of it seemed to stem from lack of clarification of what is and isn't possible. It sounds ridiculous, but for a lot of residents, this is there first job. Throughout our education, we've been told to strive for change. In many cases, people were selected into medical school and residency for those altruistic or mission-driven attributes. They're then told by residency programs that they can institute any change they think is possible if they put the work in to do it. Of course, they'd rebel if they don't get their way. That's likely the type of resident Yale selected for and the "resident-driven" culture they promoted.

I acknowledge that everything I'm saying is speculation (though this whole thread is speculation to an extent). But as a person who interviewed at Yale 5 years ago and who experienced many conflicts like this at my former program, I can safely say that a lot of these issues is a failure to set appropriate expectations and parameters on what residents have the power to change/do. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more issues like this in the coming years tbh.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[doctalaughs]

It sounds ridiculous, but for a lot of residents, this is there first job. Throughout our education, we've been told to strive for change. In many cases, people were selected into medical school and residency for those altruistic or mission-driven attributes. They're then told by residency programs that they can institute any change they think is possible if they put the work in to do it. Of course, they'd rebel if they don't get their way. That's likely the type of resident Yale selected for and the "resident-driven" culture they promoted.

Hmm. Given- I trained over 15 years ago in a different specialty —but my experience was very different. I’ve always found medicine was very hierarchical - almost similar to the military. You didn’t disobey your senior, you’re attending and certainly not the chairman of the department, if you were below (or several levels below) him/her. If you questioned things or gave feedback - it was very deferential and it better be professional. And you didn’t rock the boat unless it was literally a life/death matter.

Maybe things have gone completely 180 in these times. Maybe it is the programs’ fault if they are letting residents pretend they run the show. Can’t imagine the downstream effects (like this) are good for a training program. Sort of like if a military unit let the commander be vetoed on decisions whenever the soldiers didn’t like the decision.

 

[michaelrack]

Hmm. Given- I trained over 15 years ago in a different specialty —but my experience was very different. I’ve always found medicine was very hierarchical - almost similar to the military. You didn’t disobey your senior, you’re attending and certainly not the chairman of the department, if you were below (or several levels below) him/her. If you questioned things or gave feedback - it was very deferential and it better be professional. And you didn’t rock the boat unless it was literally a life/death matter.

Maybe things have gone completely 180 in these times. Maybe it is the programs’ fault if they are letting residents pretend they run the show. Can’t imagine the downstream effects (like this) are good for a training program. Sort of like if a military unit let the commander be vetoed on decisions whenever the soldiers didn’t like the decision.

Sometimes things break down, fortunately there's no fragging in the US military these days. I hear there is some lack of discipline in the Russian army in Ukraine

 

[annoyedpsychiatrist]

I don't understand this article. It points towards interpersonal issues at one point but there is not a single example given of where this controversial PD had significant issues interacting with the residents. Its all just broad terms of why people don't like him that eventually circles back to race. I mean if anything, the article hints multiple times that he isn't like because of his race and that residents need someone who, ironically, can help deter racism.

Either a poorly written article, or strange residents at yale. Or both.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

The first job reference isn't an analogy, it is often a reality. The pendulum is swinging back and forth. We may even be swinging a little wider lately, but so is politics and the gravity has been turned back on so we shall see what the future holds. I like trainee advocacy, but it can get misguided. When well directed, it is a positive counter punch to status quo. When poorly directed, it can accent the KAOS (I looked this up and that is how "Get Smart" spells it) that is endemic to strict academic hierarchy systems.

 

[ObsequiousAplomb]

I agree that residents do not know what is best in terms of a program director. Most of the comments in this thread about what a program director should be that also say residents should have a say describe mentors and instructors, not the administrative bureaucrats who direct programs. Yeah, it's nice to have mentors and supervisors that motivate you to be a good doctor. In some cases it's nice to have a program director who is also a mentor. The director role though does not require that the director also be a cheerleader.

Also, if residents have a large role in determining the program director, does that mean that the program director will need to change every year with every influx and efflux of residents? Or does having the residents from 4 years ago choosing the current director somehow mean something more than the usual process of selecting a program director?

There's also the false equivalence that only residents can determine which potential program director has good interpersonal skills. I mean, is that not why there are interviews in the first place? Wouldn't that be why the backup was the in-house person? We don't know what happened to the second person that was not a white guy. Were they also offered the spot? Had they already accepted a different position, so Yale defaulted to the backup runner-up white guy? How bad could this guy's interpersonal skills be if he had been in consideration for this role in the first place?

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

I would like to think that in general PDs have good interpersonal skill, but it is much more complicated than that and the chair picks who they want. Contrast an AADPRT meeting with an ACP meeting and you will find I am right. Strong chairs can pick people with the right skills. Weak chairs pick people who will not make waves with the Deans. The best PDs know how to do both and not give their bosses any headaches. It is all about protecting trainees from the politics and keeping the noise away from their awareness. There is/are always turbulence/turbulences (if the plural works here), but keeping the ship from tipping too much is the job.

 

[FlowRate]

While I understand the article frames this issue as DEI related, I think the true issue is how residency programs have marketed themselves to residents recently. On the interview trail, all applicants hear about is the amount of authority and power we will have to institute changes and how much leadership cares about our opinions. Because of this, when there is inevitably a situation that occurs that goes against resident wishes, the residents feel unheard and protest. In this case, I think it was amplified by the fact that they included residents in the process in the beginning, but then when the decision was made Yale cut them out completely.

I type this from experience because I was one of the residents suckered into thinking we actually had authority. If residency programs told residents the truth which is "you have say over this program's decision-making within X parameters." And specify the parameters early, it would avoid the protests and feelings of betrayal. Without this clarification, there are a lot of residents who are unequipped to handle the shock of learning their opinions really don't matter (or matter only to a certain extent).

This was something nice to hear when I was on the trail but what I learned as a senior resident and then chief resident who was on good terms with the PD was that listening to the residents in a short-term fashion is often actively unhelpful. Residents are in the system for 4 years (or less) and resident opinion on any given issue may vary wildly between resident classes. It's really only obviously egregious things where you want the PD to be immediately/quickly responsive. I saw first-hand how preference for things like type of call schedule or favor/disfavor of various attendings shifted dramatically between classes.

Just saw McD's post--basically same thing. A good PD steers the ship rather than being capsized by momentary waves of resident sentiment.

 

[watto]

I miss the days when you could just throw all parties into a Tavistock group for a weekend and see how things shake out.

 

[milan95]

I would like to think that in general PDs have good interpersonal skill, but it is much more complicated than that and the chair picks who they want. Contrast an AADPRT meeting with an ACP meeting and you will find I am right. Strong chairs can pick people with the right skills. Weak chairs pick people who will not make waves with the Deans. The best PDs know how to do both and not give their bosses any headaches. It is all about protecting trainees from the politics and keeping the noise away from their awareness. There is/are always turbulence/turbulences (if the plural works here), but keeping the ship from tipping too much is the job.

This is a great point. Let's see what Yale plans on doing/can do to bring the ship back to balance.

 

[Stagg737]

I don't understand this article. It points towards interpersonal issues at one point but there is not a single example given of where this controversial PD had significant issues interacting with the residents. Its all just broad terms of why people don't like him that eventually circles back to race. I mean if anything, the article hints multiple times that he isn't like because of his race and that residents need someone who, ironically, can help deter racism.

Either a poorly written article, or strange residents at yale. Or both.

This was a miserably written article and based on how it's written idk how anyone can think race wasn't a significant role in the residents' dismay at Wasser being appointed whether they had legitimate concerns about his interpersonal skills or qualifications or not, as the statements surrounding other concerns were vague while race-related concerns were specific. The authors also did a pretty good job of making the residents sound pretty naive and entitled, like the quote that a senior resident told a younger resident that they didn't need to worry about Wasser being PD. Really? I'm sure that wasn't the authors' intent, but they didn't really do the residents any favors.

That being said, there are some odd things that happened, though it could also just be poor writing again. Weird to me that Wasser apparently sent an e-mail out to residents saying that he was stepping back and taking a smaller role after finding out he wasn't a the top candidate and then accepted the position. Also a little odd that administration appeared to take the views, participation, and recommendations of residents so heavily early to the point of having residents interview candidates and then seem to have such a switch in terms of communication lines with multiple decisions being made which were apparently shocking to residents. I don't think it's necessarily unusual, but for a program where the residents clearly value advocacy and which outwardly appears to advertise such, it's not a good look.

Either way, just add this situation and article to the list of ongoing issues with Yale's psychiatry/MH department.

 

[mistafab]

This was a miserably written article and based on how it's written idk how anyone can think race wasn't a significant role in the residents' dismay at Wasser being appointed whether they had legitimate concerns about his interpersonal skills or qualifications or not, as the statements surrounding other concerns were vague while race-related concerns were specific. The authors also did a pretty good job of making the residents sound pretty naive and entitled, like the quote that a senior resident told a younger resident that they didn't need to worry about Wasser being PD. Really? I'm sure that wasn't the authors' intent, but they didn't really do the residents any favors.

That being said, there are some odd things that happened, though it could also just be poor writing again. Weird to me that Wasser apparently sent an e-mail out to residents saying that he was stepping back and taking a smaller role after finding out he wasn't a the top candidate and then accepted the position. Also a little odd that administration appeared to take the views, participation, and recommendations of residents so heavily early to the point of having residents interview candidates and then seem to have such a switch in terms of communication lines with multiple decisions being made which were apparently shocking to residents. I don't think it's necessarily unusual, but for a program where the residents clearly value advocacy and which outwardly appears to advertise such, it's not a good look.

Either way, just add this situation and article to the list of ongoing issues with Yale's psychiatry/MH department.

I've spoken with someone in that program. They are pretty frank about things.

Lets just say that what they lack in PR they do not lack in any clinical training. Yale doesn't pump out weak residents. The poor PR has more to do with radical entitlism and promoting safe spaces than it does with any indication of Yale's training clinically or research wise. I was shocked to see a PGY1 speak openly, criticising their own program. Takes balls, and probably a hefty dose of naivety. For the senior to say that was in poor taste.

Reading between the lines in the article, it seems people selected from the search comittee just plain weren't interested in the position, so Wasser was just offered it internally and accepted it.

 

[milan95]

I've spoken with someone in that program. They are pretty frank about things.

Lets just say that what they lack in PR they do not lack in any clinical training. Yale doesn't pump out weak residents. The poor PR has more to do with radical entitlism and promoting safe spaces than it does with any indication of Yale's training clinically or research wise. I was shocked to see a PGY1 speak openly, criticising their own program. Takes balls, and probably a hefty dose of naivety. For the senior to say that was in poor taste.

Reading between the lines in the article, it seems people selected from the search comittee just plain weren't interested in the position, so Wasser was just offered it internally and accepted it.

Is this radical entitlement a commonly accepted sentiment among residents? Or only among a select few?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

This was a miserably written article and based on how it's written idk how anyone can think race wasn't a significant role in the residents' dismay at Wasser being appointed whether they had legitimate concerns about his interpersonal skills or qualifications or not, as the statements surrounding other concerns were vague while race-related concerns were specific. The authors also did a pretty good job of making the residents sound pretty naive and entitled, like the quote that a senior resident told a younger resident that they didn't need to worry about Wasser being PD. Really? I'm sure that wasn't the authors' intent, but they didn't really do the residents any favors.

That being said, there are some odd things that happened, though it could also just be poor writing again. Weird to me that Wasser apparently sent an e-mail out to residents saying that he was stepping back and taking a smaller role after finding out he wasn't a the top candidate and then accepted the position. Also a little odd that administration appeared to take the views, participation, and recommendations of residents so heavily early to the point of having residents interview candidates and then seem to have such a switch in terms of communication lines with multiple decisions being made which were apparently shocking to residents. I don't think it's necessarily unusual, but for a program where the residents clearly value advocacy and which outwardly appears to advertise such, it's not a good look.

Either way, just add this situation and article to the list of ongoing issues with Yale's psychiatry/MH department.

Frankly, after looking over the CV's of all three applicants (it's easy to Google the names) and considering the fact that Wasser was an alumnus of that residency, was assistant program director, had an impressive publication history, plenty of awards for teaching and other forms of achievement but didn't even make the 'short list' of candidates (and it was indeed a short list...i.e., the other two applicants)...I'd imagine that Wasser said, basically, 'screw it' and pulled back from his involvement in the program out of disgust. And I wouldn't blame him. Somewhat speculative on my part but we're all speculating at this point in the absence of details. Then, when the person selected over him didn't pan out at the last minute, the admins with whom he had a relationship probably tried to court him back into the fold and maybe succeeded? I mean, what's he going to do in that situation? Refuse to help out? Tell them to pound sand? Let the residency program he had been serving as assistant program director for just flounder without anyone taking the reins? Nah...he probably sucked it up and decided to tough it out and be responsible (rather than pitching a hissy fit and throwing his sucker in the dirt). But I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't looking longer-term to move on to some other residency program where his career isn't quite as likely to run smack into an artificial 'ceiling' of advancement due to arbitrary factors.

I mean, based on what information is provided in the article, if YOU were Wasser...would YOU want to keep working there?

 

[doctalaughs]

I've spoken with someone in that program. They are pretty frank about things.

Lets just say that what they lack in PR they do not lack in any clinical training. Yale doesn't pump out weak residents. The poor PR has more to do with radical entitlism and promoting safe spaces than it does with any indication of Yale's training clinically or research wise. I was shocked to see a PGY1 speak openly, criticising their own program. Takes balls, and probably a hefty dose of naivety. For the senior to say that was in poor taste.

Why would anyone want to ever hire a resident from that program after this though, if what you say is true?

A lack of entitlement and adaptability is far more important (100x) in hiring a new doctor / eventual partner than “super strong clinically.”

Again- I’m in a different specialty but I’ve hired a lot of doctors over the years - and this is universal and obvious to anyone who’s had a leadership role or run a practice. If I was reading this about Yale for my specialty - I’d make a mental note to blacklist all graduates from their program, no questions asked.

 

[G Sheb]

Are people really asking for the dismissal of a first year resident simply because he dared expressing an opinion about the program and leadership issues?

Yikes.

This forum has weird dynamics. I do not think the supposed 'unanimity' here is reflective at all of the real world and I do not think neither Yale residents or MOST attendings would deal with these things this way.

Luckily I think we're moving away from a culture where people are scared to open their mouths for fear of reprisal.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

Are people really asking for the dismissal of a first year resident simply because he dared expressing an opinion about the program and leadership issues?

Yikes.

This forum has weird dynamics. I do not think the supposed 'unanimity' here is reflective at all of the real world and I do not think neither Yale residents or MOST attendings would deal with these things this way.

Luckily I think we're moving away from a culture where people are scared to open their mouths for fear of reprisal.

Uh I think you should bear whatever consequences end up occurring from **** talking your boss openly in a newspaper with your name in it. Just like a real job. Guess this resident should also realize that when anyone hiring in the future googles "Alex Marlow psychiatry" this is on the first page of results and probably will be for some time unless he gets super famous for something else.

Going to media to voice displeasure with your job is a "burn the bridges" type move and you should be aware that bridges will start lighting on fire when this occurs. This can certainly be the right move in some circumstances but not necessarily the right move if you want to keep the job you're complaining about to the news.

 

[doctalaughs]

Are people really asking for the dismissal of a first year resident simply because he dared expressing an opinion about the program and leadership issues?

Yikes.

This forum has weird dynamics. I do not think the supposed 'unanimity' here is reflective at all of the real world and I do not think neither Yale residents or MOST attendings would deal with these things this way.

Luckily I think we're moving away from a culture where people are scared to open their mouths for fear of reprisal.

Expressing an opinion politely and professionally within a workplace is a VERY different thing compared to loudly criticizing the decision coming from someone 3 levels above your pay-grade to the MEDIA.

Yes, am am saying this resident absolutely, unequivocally, 100% should be fired. Whether Yale is too scared over DEI issues to get negative press doing it or not, is another matter.

 

[whopper]

I don't know what's going on but with the drama related to Bandy X Lee something makes me wonder what's going on at that department in general.

If you're not familiar she's the psychiatrist that broke the Goldwater Rule and decided she was able to professionally analyze people based on headlines. This isn't about whether you like Trump or not and while this is not important I'm saying this to be transparent. I think Trump is bad for democracy. But that's not the point.

The point is, if you actually spend 15 minutes reading her material especially her blog she makes personal attacks on several people based on no substantive evidence other than that they disagree with her politics or otherwise had a professional disagreement with her. E.g. She's accused psychiatrists of being White Supremacists simply because they were in the administration of the APA, criticized people in a mudslinging fashion simply for questioning her, pointed to conspiracies on the order of whacko. Seriously she is dipping into the conspiracy well similar to QAnon but from a Left instead of a Right entry.

Just 1 example, she erroneously claimed Jeff Lieberman only went after her for violating the Goldwater Rule, and then used that false claim to connect dots on the order of conspiracy nonsense such as connections to White Supremacists, even Nazis. That's patently not true and would've been easily proved false had she literally spent 30 seconds googling it. Lieberman publicly criticized Keith Ablow, a forensic psychiatrist on Fox News for claiming Biden had dementia.

What It Took for a Fox News Psychiatrist to Finally Lose His License (Published 2019)

Keith Ablow was a popular fixture on the cable channel until 2017, and a high-profile therapist. He left a trail of vulnerable female patients who claim he abused them.

www.nytimes.com

Do White Supremacy and Male Superiority Explain “the Goldwater Rule”?

The Connecticut Society for Psychoanalytic Psychology was one of the first mental health associations to form a “psychoanalysis in… Continue reading on...

www.goodreads.com

The fact that Yale didn't get rid of her for over a year of her doing this type of very serious Cluster A and B behavior is beyond me. I don't fault people for Cluster A, B, or C personality traits. I do fault them, however, if it's violating professional ethics, guidelines, and spreading misinformation, while at the same time claiming that because of her credentials she must be listened to as if she's an expert, when in fact she was simply slinging BS. These comments weren't subtle, hard to detect, or said in sarcasm. They were serious, ongoing, published, and unapologetic.

Unfortunately when this topic was brought up while Trump was in office it devolved into the usual -you're either for Trump or against him- bull$hit, which is a prime example of the very reason why the Goldwater Rule is important.

You criticize Lee, don't be surprised if you're all of a sudden accused of hating Blacks, gays, women, and sleeping with David Duke cause you were in the same room as an APA president. And yet despite this, and despite that I brought up these clear examples, several people here, licensed MDs defended her. Why? Cause they couldn't see past that she didn't like Trump.

As for Lee she left Yale but was picked up by Columbia, but oddly not the medical school, but the teaching college. Yale did eventually and rightfully point out her blatant disregard for professional ethics, but in the predictable manner, especially because of politics several including psychiatric faculty and other non-psych academics accused Yale of simply gagging someone for being against Trump when in fact, and again, simply read her material for a few minutes, you'll see a very extremist conspiracy theorist who character assassinates without evidence.

 

[the5thelement]

I still dont understand why the residents were so against Wasser being the program director. Was it based on his skin color? I would never accept the program director position after being humilated so openly. Guess he likes the Yale name or has a case of the Stockholm syndrome.

 

[Orgone]

Are people really asking for the dismissal of a first year resident simply because he dared expressing an opinion about the program and leadership issues?

Yikes.

This forum has weird dynamics. I do not think the supposed 'unanimity' here is reflective at all of the real world and I do not think neither Yale residents or MOST attendings would deal with these things this way.

Luckily I think we're moving away from a culture where people are scared to open their mouths for fear of reprisal.

After reading the article, hell yes. I think your real word is different than my real world.

This all-knowing intern Alex Marlow, 4 months into training, possesses the hubris to give the following quotes for publishing about his PD:

“I was in utter dismay when I first heard the announcement ... It’s a classic paradigm of wanting to be perceived as diverse and social justice oriented, but not addressing deeply discriminatory roots,” Marlow added. "Dr. Wasser’s appointment, including the search process and his qualifications, feels like it is imbued with nepotism and maintaining the status quo, since he trained at Yale and was mentored by the same people (in power) that appointed him.”

One thing I will agree, is that Yale Psychiatry clearly provides a high quality of life for its residents, given that interns apparently have enough time to puff themselves up so much over their own worthless opinions.

 

[whopper]

"Dr. Wasser’s appointment, including the search process and his qualifications, feels like it is imbued with nepotism and maintaining the status quo, since he trained at Yale and was mentored by the same people (in power) that appointed him.”

So this doctor is guilty cause he trained at Yale? That's a non-substance argument.

Is there nepotism? Perhaps but to cast off someone as guilty based on the argument above is the same bull$hit conspiracy nonsense I criticized in my above post.

Again there could be nepotism. I'm not there, but you can't cast people as guilty cause of stuff like where they graduated. Cough, cough, there's a reason why you can't use circumstantial evidence against a person in a court of law. If you devolve to that level you're going to the order of looking the wrong way, being at the wrong place at the wrong time as being enough to destroy someone.

If anything I would highly criticize this Alex Marlow for resorting to this level of literally 1950s level anti-communism nonsense. No communism isn't on the table for debate but destroying someone based on suspicion is which was going on with the anti-communism movement. Again I don't know what's going on at Yale but I can say this quote is not enough to indict anyone.

A more reasonable criticism could be "We'd prefer someone who was trained not at Yale but elsewhere. This it not to criticize Dr. Wasser, or Yale, but to invite intellectual and philosophical diversity into the program. This is the very reason why some though not all academic institutions require that graduates work elsewhere for at least a few years before they can come back as faculty."

I get that you want someone with fresh perspective but there's a difference between that and pointing the finger and causing professional harm based on circumstantial points.

 

[Stagg737]

I've spoken with someone in that program. They are pretty frank about things.

Lets just say that what they lack in PR they do not lack in any clinical training. Yale doesn't pump out weak residents. The poor PR has more to do with radical entitlism and promoting safe spaces than it does with any indication of Yale's training clinically or research wise. I was shocked to see a PGY1 speak openly, criticising their own program. Takes balls, and probably a hefty dose of naivety. For the senior to say that was in poor taste.

Reading between the lines in the article, it seems people selected from the search comittee just plain weren't interested in the position, so Wasser was just offered it internally and accepted it.

I don't doubt the clinical acumen and book smarts of these residents, but some of the smartest people I've met would never survive outside of an academic setting because their street-smarts or understanding of administrative/business aspects was non-existent. Kind of seems to be the case at Yale where I'm sure all of their residents are very intelligent individuals but at least some of them seem to be oblivious to the concept of tact. Imo this appears to be a problem with the larger institution (at least the MH areas) as a whole and not just some residents given the invitation of the previous speaker openly stating fantasies of murdering people and hx of dealings with Bandy Lee.

Frankly, after looking over the CV's of all three applicants (it's easy to Google the names) and considering the fact that Wasser was an alumnus of that residency, was assistant program director, had an impressive publication history, plenty of awards for teaching and other forms of achievement but didn't even make the 'short list' of candidates (and it was indeed a short list...i.e., the other two applicants)...I'd imagine that Wasser said, basically, 'screw it' and pulled back from his involvement in the program out of disgust. And I wouldn't blame him. Somewhat speculative on my part but we're all speculating at this point in the absence of details. Then, when the person selected over him didn't pan out at the last minute, the admins with whom he had a relationship probably tried to court him back into the fold and maybe succeeded? I mean, what's he going to do in that situation? Refuse to help out? Tell them to pound sand? Let the residency program he had been serving as assistant program director for just flounder without anyone taking the reins? Nah...he probably sucked it up and decided to tough it out and be responsible (rather than pitching a hissy fit and throwing his sucker in the dirt). But I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't looking longer-term to move on to some other residency program where his career isn't quite as likely to run smack into an artificial 'ceiling' of advancement due to arbitrary factors.

I mean, based on what information is provided in the article, if YOU were Wasser...would YOU want to keep working there?

It's still weird that he would send that e-mail and then accept the position the way the article presents it. I can see why he would to it to attempt to keep some stability in the program, but I don't think he would have been in the wrong at all to refuse to help given the way the residents perceive him (or at least how that's presented in the article). Maybe he's thinking that it's just this cohort that feel this way about him and that he'll have a better relationship with future residents

If it were me I'd either be looking at moving away from working with residents or if I wanted to stay in academia be looking for a new job. If I were in this situation, I'd ask to be the "interim program director" until a permanent hire could be made and continue searching for work elsewhere.

Are people really asking for the dismissal of a first year resident simply because he dared expressing an opinion about the program and leadership issues?

Yikes.

This forum has weird dynamics. I do not think the supposed 'unanimity' here is reflective at all of the real world and I do not think neither Yale residents or MOST attendings would deal with these things this way.

Luckily I think we're moving away from a culture where people are scared to open their mouths for fear of reprisal.

I don't think he should be dismissed for his statements, but the idea that someone can say whatever opinion they want without consequence is ridiculous, yet seems to be a pervasive mindset at Yale as evidenced by several quotes in this article as well as previous statements by multiple alumni. People should be able to speak up but that doesn't mean that there won't be any redress, especially when those statements are directly attacking one's character and professional competence.

Expressing an opinion politely and professionally within a workplace is a VERY different thing compared to loudly criticizing the decision coming from someone 3 levels above your pay-grade to the MEDIA.

Yes, am am saying this resident absolutely, unequivocally, 100% should be fired. Whether Yale is too scared over DEI issues to get negative press doing it or not, is another matter.

I disagree that he should be fired. If he was going lone wolf and directly attacking an individual without warning then I would agree with you. However, his statements seem to be consistent with the feelings of a large portion of their residents and those making statements appear to be representative of the residents as a whole after other means for residents to feel heard failed in their perspective. It also appears that his statements are less directed at Wasser and more directed toward the process through which he was selected. The statements of the other two named residents (Wen and Godley) were more inflammatory, though these also seem to be consistent with the feelings of residents as a whole. This was also an article in Yale's school paper, it's not like they went to the NYT or anything like that.

If we take the article at face value, it's pretty clear that there's bigger problems going on between the residents and administration than the residents talking to the school paper. Shooting the messenger here seems like it would just cause more problems and wouldn't really solve anything.

 

[Stagg737]

So this doctor is guilty cause he trained at Yale? That's a non-substance argument.

Is there nepotism? Perhaps but to cast off someone as guilty based on the argument above is the same bull$hit conspiracy nonsense I criticized in my above post.

Again there could be nepotism. I'm not there, but you can't cast people as guilty cause of stuff like where they graduated.

The irony is that their first choice (Dr. Vestal) is actually a Yale grad herself. Though she did residency at MGH, she went to Yale for med school, so it's not like there wouldn't have been any nepotism there either...

 

[annoyedpsychiatrist]

I don't think Alex should be fired, but I do think he should voluntarily withdrawl and give his spot to a more diverse candidate. Him being at that program furthers unconscious bias which he has made very apparent that he is strongly against. I think him acting as a marauder will really be such an inspirational act. Then he can have the inner sense of accomplishment he secretly longs for knowing that he is a savior to the underserved.

Or he can just do what every young overly political white guy does in his situation- post highly opinionated things on various social media accounts to make himself feel better knowing that hes educating everyone else about "right" and "wrong".

 

[SmallBird]

It seems way too intense to say a resident should be fired by there do need to be consequences for the 'classic paradigm' of capitalizing on the renewed vigor behind DEI by simply staking an extreme position and then calling for the heads of everyone to your right without actually doing anything to advance the aims of DEI yourself. It is a morally bankrupt practice and is worse than doing nothing, it should be called out and there should be consequences. Hard working people who have been making things better for lots of people are finding themselves the targets of young people who have done nothing but simply are aware of newer language in this space and use it liberally.

 

[whopper]

Let's put Dr. Marlow on the same standard as he's putting on others.

I don't know his race, but if he's an ethnic minority we can then accuse him of getting in simply because he's a minority. If he's Caucasian we can then say he's guilty of using White privilege.

If he's straight we can again use White privilege. If he's LGBTQ we can then argue that he got in based on demographic check boxing.

If he came from humble beginnings we can say he got in cause someone felt sorry for him and it was Affirmative Action. If he came from wealthy beginnings we can say he got in based on nepotism.

We can then connect the dots ala Bandy X. Lee and then further claim he's a Nazi, Antifa, alien from another planet whatever.

This is why you cannot accuse simply based on what something "feels" like. If something is wrong with the "search process" you must state what that problem is. You cannot attack people based on very strong accusations of things such as "nepotism" without substantive proof. If someone "feels" that something is wrong that's not good enough. You have to do the homework and then find and present proof.

Dr. Wasser’s appointment, including the search process and his qualifications, feels like it is imbued with nepotism and maintaining the status quo, since he trained at Yale and was mentored by the same people (in power) that appointed him.”

The science of psychology shows prejudice is based on people judging based on circumstantial boxes being checked and then jumping the gun going from Point A to D without establishing B and C and everything else in between. The guy's willing to say corruption is afoot at Yale without doing the homework and presenting the case. This is at least highly problematic, unprofessional and unethical. At best there could be nepotism as the accuser states but the accusation was very poorly done and creates as much problem as the accuser claims is going on.

 

[G Sheb]

The article makes it very clear that the search committee was not consulted when the department chair made his final choice.
As in, not only the residents, but the whole search committee.
The whole point of the search committee was to help get a PD.

Maybe that's in the right of the chair to do so, but it would inevitably rise up some ill feelings. Perhaps the chair should have made his choice without consulting anyone from the start.
That first year resident questioned that choice. Also questioned the culture at his program. I actually think, at least on face value, this is a valid criticism since no one else was consulted.
Should we punish residents for opining about the system they are embedded in?

I do find it absolutely hilarious how so many posters are so liberal with their assumptions when they know so little. Like, assuming the residents objected merely because the guy is white. The article makes it clear that Wasser was interviewed and asked about his policies for minority residents. Maybe he is qualified (I don't know), but the residents did not think so. Does it mean they did not approve of him because of his race?

A lot of these responses and unjustified assumptions are coming up from a place of a lot of pent up, maybe political anger.

But the display on this last page is absolutely atrocious. Like, to openly target an intern like this.
At least we know the intern's name, but you, on the other hand, cover up behind anonymity.
Yikes.

 

[WisNeuro]

Remember folks, if you disagree, the only reason is because you have a certain political leaning, are angry, or are (insert random pejorative here). There is absolutely no way to have an intellectually honest discussion if you disagree in any way with the established narrative, so why try?

 

[G Sheb]

Remember folks, if you disagree, the only reason is because you have a certain political leaning, are angry, or are (insert random pejorative here). There is absolutely no way to have an intellectually honest discussion if you disagree in any way with the established narrative, so why try?

Weak.
When people give themselves the liberty to make so many unjustifed assumptions based on few data points (or even directly contradicted by the article in question), it means they are not acting from a rational place.

 

[WisNeuro]

Weak.
When people give themselves the liberty to make so many unjustifed assumptions based on few data points (or even directly contradicted by the article in question), it means they are not acting from a rational point of view.

I agree, taking the tact of "if you're not 100% with me, you are 100% against" is indeed a weak position. But, it is currently the hallmark of the far right and left wherein there can be no disagreement or discussion from any but the established point of view. If anything, it just hampers the cause of the contending parties as they effectively close off any but the fringe viewpoints that are already within their tent.

 

[Alemo]

“it is imbued with nepotism and maintaining the status quo, since he trained at Yale and was mentored by the same people (in power) that appointed him.”

Yeah! That never happens anywhere else! Nowhere! Yeah…

As a former PGY1, no one knows less about running workplaces and organizations (hiring firing managing promoting) than interns.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

The article makes it very clear that the search committee was not consulted when the department chair made his final choice.
As in, not only the residents, but the whole search committee.
The whole point of the search committee was to help get a PD.

Maybe that's in the right of the chair to do so, but it would inevitably rise up some ill feelings. Perhaps the chair should have made his choice without consulting anyone from the start.
That first year resident questioned that choice. Also questioned the culture at his program. I actually think, at least on face value, this is a valid criticism since no one else was consulted.
Should we punish residents for opining about the system they are embedded in?

I do find it absolutely hilarious how so many posters are so liberal with their assumptions when they know so little. Like, assuming the residents objected merely because the guy is white. The article makes it clear that Wasser was interviewed and asked about his policies for minority residents. Maybe he is qualified (I don't know), but the residents did not think so. Does it mean they did not approve of him because of his race?

A lot of these responses and unjustified assumptions are coming up from a place of a lot of pent up, maybe political anger.

But the display on this last page is absolutely atrocious. Like, to openly target an intern like this.
At least we know the intern's name, but you, on the other hand, cover up behind anonymity.
Yikes.

You're complaining about people being anonymous on an anonymous forum? I'm not even sure what your argument is anymore.

If someone wants to go roast their program in a newspaper go ahead but be prepared to be roasted back.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Let's put Dr. Marlow on the same standard as he's putting on others.

I don't know his race, but if he's an ethnic minority we can then accuse him of getting in simply because he's a minority. If he's Caucasian we can then say he's guilty of using White privilege.

If he's straight we can again use White privilege. If he's LGBTQ we can then argue that he got in based on demographic check boxing.

If he came from humble beginnings we can say he got in cause someone felt sorry for him and it was Affirmative Action. If he came from wealthy beginnings we can say he got in based on nepotism.

We can then connect the dots ala Bandy X. Lee and then further claim he's a Nazi, Antifa, alien from another planet whatever.

This is why you cannot accuse simply based on what something "feels" like. If something is wrong with the "search process" you must state what that problem is. You cannot attack people based on very strong accusations of things such as "nepotism" without substantive proof. If someone "feels" that something is wrong that's not good enough. You have to do the homework and then find and present proof.



The science of psychology shows prejudice is based on people judging based on circumstantial boxes being checked and then jumping the gun going from Point A to D without establishing B and C and everything else in between. The guy's willing to say corruption is afoot at Yale without doing the homework and presenting the case. This is at least highly problematic, unprofessional and unethical. At best there could be nepotism as the accuser states but the accusation was very poorly done and creates as much problem as the accuser claims is going on.

You touch the issue perfectly and with the point of a needle.

The ideology is infinitely malleable/flexible to be wielded to attack ANYONE who has the misfortune of being the target of the ideological attack. There's always someone 'more vulnerable,' 'less privileged' or 'more of a minority.' EVERYONE (every specific individual) has certain dimensions that would get them categorized into the class of 'the privileged' vs. 'the downtrodden.' Some are high IQ (but black and straight). Some are impoverished/ disabled (but white and male). Same thing for 'oppressor's' and 'victims.' The line separating good and evil runs down the heart of every individual human being (as someone once famously wrote). There are infinite continua along which we can categorize people. It's simply a matter of casually picking the specific colors out of the palette of oppressionology to paint your portrait of the other person any way you want to. We should judge people as individuals and for their individual actions, not as representatives of groups or tribes. Especially in psychiatry/psychology where the subject matter IS (primarily) the study of the individual. All this 'my group' vs. 'your group' crap needs to be toned down a bit.

 

[doctalaughs]

A lot of these responses and unjustified assumptions are coming up from a place of a lot of pent up, maybe political anger.

But the display on this last page is absolutely atrocious. Like, to openly target an intern like this.
At least we know the intern's name, but you, on the other hand, cover up behind anonymity.
Yikes.

My friend- when you decide to go to the newspaper and allow them to quote you, that is purposely giving up your anonymity.

You also are spitting in the face of your own institution and people’s careers that will be there likely many decades beyond your few years of training. It’s certainly not the type of feedback you give without expecting repercussions.

At the best - it shows extremely poor judgement to go to the newspaper.

To me it sounds like these residents are the most entitled, prima-donna, high maintenance whiners I can imagine. Sounds like they would be a nightmare to be working with and a liability to any real-world institution outside the most woke of woke ivory halls.

 

[G Sheb]

My friend- when you decide to go to the newspaper and allow them to quote you, that is purposely giving up your anonymity.

You also are spitting in the face of your own institution and people’s careers that will be there likely many decades beyond your few years of training. It’s certainly not the type of feedback you give without expecting repercussions.

At the best - it shows extremely poor judgement to go to the newspaper.

To me it sounds like these residents are the most entitled, prima-donna, high maintenance whiners I can imagine. Sounds like they would be a nightmare to be working with and a liability to any real-world institution outside the most woke of woke ivory halls.

Meh.
60 residents criculated a letter protesting the appointment. 7% of residents have trust in the chariman's leadership. 4% think the current PD is qualified.
I'd bet that a handful of them will become future leaders in the field, like every Yale class.
Maybe in your own world it was terrible judgement (or if they go to you for a job), but this intern is not on his own, to say the least; whether you agree with them or not.
I know the knives are out here, but all it is, is a reflection on you.

 

[erg923]

Meh.
60 residents criculated a letter protesting the appointment. 7% of residents have trust in the chariman's leadership. 4% think the current PD is qualified.
I'd bet that a handful of them will become future leaders in the field, like every Yale class.
Maybe in your own world it was terrible judgement (or if they go to you for a job), but this intern is not on his own, to say the least; whether you agree with them or not.
I know the knives are out here, but all it is, is a reflection on you.

So... What is the "evidence" here?

I was formerly in a leadership position in the VA that was almost as administrative and bureaucratic as a medical residency PD....and the weight that trainees "liked me" or not or "felt" I was qualified would mean almost nill. This is simply NOT their decision. What is the evidence against this person's leadership other than they don't like it/him? What is so damn important about all this? The world is filled with people you may not like (or share world/humanistic opinions with) but that you may have to ultimately be lead by in some remote fashion....at least for a time. Pick your battles... and geez, just man-up and get over it sometimes!

 

[whopper]

7% of residents have trust in the chariman's leadership. 4% think the current PD is qualified.
I'd bet that a handful of them will become future leaders in the field, like every Yale class.

But the more coherent and important of this is why? The article doesn't answer this. Unless residents could bring up very topical examples such as the PD violated resident protection rules, has a poor track record of teaching, has a proven record of treating residents poorly, their own argument is not advanced.

So let's be fair. Of course residents will want the best PD they can get. So the standard can be higher than the PD isn't the worst person in the world. We aren't told why Wasser was not a good candidate and why he wouldn't be a good PD, so the residents' argument is not advanced. Nothing objective or coherent was presented against Wasser other than that residents didn't want him but there's no mention as why. There's suggestions but they're not concrete and only suggestions such as he's not of an ethnic minority and the other candidates were of an ethnic minority

Repeating what I mentioned above, simply stating what a person "feels" is not good enough to start pointing fingers with accusations of nepotism. If someone points fingers with an accusation they need proof, substance.

Residents IMHO are very poor arbitrators of who would be a good department chair. It'd be like asking fresh cadets do they "trust" their commandant (head of the academy). So this 7% blurb IMHO is not important and if anything makes me wonder why the eff this is even brought up. 4% think the PD is qualified? Why? I don't see any substance being presented here. A better question is to ask why they feel this is only 7% with answers better than cause 1 guy "feels" this way.

Residents were interviewed in the article but nothing being mentioned is of any real substance. Things to the effect of -this is not what we expected?- Useless.

And adding more confusion to all of the above, very few articles I've ever seen ever presented a story very well. I've worked on dozens of forensic cases that were front page news headlines. Very rarely did I feel the article was well done. E.g. I had a patient who was in jail for allegedly burning his son. After only a few days in jail he was found to not be guilty, charges were dropped, and all the evidence out there strongly suggested he was a very good father and that the burn accusation was fabricated by the mother of the child who was trying to extort the father for money.

But guess what? The newspapers only mentioned the guy's arrest, the accusations but didn't follow the story to the completion which is that he was eventually released with all charges dropped. This guy for the rest of his life could be screwed if anyone googles his name.

 

[G Sheb]

But the more coherent and important of this is why? The article doesn't answer this. Unless residents could bring up very topical examples such as the PD violated resident protection rules, has a poor track record of teaching, has a proven record of treating residents poorly, their own argument is not advanced.

So let's be fair. Of course residents will want the best PD they can get. So the standard can be higher than the PD isn't the worst person in the world. We aren't told why Wasser is not a good candidate and why he wouldn't be a good PD. Again we're not told why so the resident's argument is not advanced. Nothing objective or coherent was presented against Wasser other than that residents didn't want him but there's no mention as why.

Repeating what I mentioned above, simply stating what a person "feels" is not good enough to start pointing fingers with accusations of nepotism. If someone points fingers with an accusation they need proof, substance.

Residents IMHO are very poor arbitrators of who would be a good department chair. It'd be like asking cadets who would be a good admiral.

And adding more confusion to all of the above, very few articles I've ever seen ever presented a story very well. I've worked on dozens of forensic cases that were front page news headlines. Very rarely did I feel the article was well done. E.g. I had a patient who was in jail for allegedly burning his son. After only a few days in jail he was found to not be guilty, charges were dropped, and all the evidence out there strongly suggested he was a very good father and that the burn accusation was fabricated by the mother of the child who was trying to extort the father for money.

But guess what? The newspapers only mentioned the guy's arrest, the accusations but didn't follow the story to the completion which is that he was eventually released with all charges dropped. This guy for the rest of his life could be screwed if anyone googles his name.

You're either intentionally parroting same irrelevant stuff without reading or what?

The "accusation" of nepotism came from the selection process. Residents were involved and there was a search committee, then all of that was dismissed and the chairman made the final choice without consultation with the committee (not just the residents) and chose the insider. That's the story we have from the article. You can call that "good judgement" if you want, but it will clearly lead to a very bad taste for all who thought they were given a voice in the process.
After all, that's how Yale sold itself to incoming residents.

As for the "evidence", I'm sure if anything specific is mentioned, you and others will be the first to jump on the residents.
Even then, the article cites a letter that mentioned issues with empathy, interpersonal skills and other things. Plus, residents thought because of his background and prior DEI experience, he was not fit for the role.
What "evidence" do you want them to mention?
3 out of 75 residents approve of the selection. Make of that what you will, but I presume that ithe ntern whom you so love to mention his name has quite a bit of backing. Many of these people WILL end up leading programs some day.
Again, I'm not privy to the details. And neither are you. This is like a family argument. You will not know who's really in the right or who's in the wrong until you get dirty with the details.

But I DO know that the idea that residents should have no say in their program director and leadership in general smacks of abuse of authority, is archaic and frankly not at all where we are heading. I can tell you that.
I can also tell you that dragging a intern online while hiding anonymously for expressing an opinion about the system he's in is incredibly in poor taste.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

But the more coherent and important of this is why? The article doesn't answer this. Unless residents could bring up very topical examples such as the PD violated resident protection rules, has a poor track record of teaching, has a proven record of treating residents poorly, their own argument is not advanced.

So let's be fair. Of course residents will want the best PD they can get. So the standard can be higher than the PD isn't the worst person in the world. We aren't told why Wasser was not a good candidate and why he wouldn't be a good PD, so the residents' argument is not advanced. Nothing objective or coherent was presented against Wasser other than that residents didn't want him but there's no mention as why. There's suggestions but they're not concrete and only suggestions such as he's not of an ethnic minority and the other candidates were of an ethnic minority

Repeating what I mentioned above, simply stating what a person "feels" is not good enough to start pointing fingers with accusations of nepotism. If someone points fingers with an accusation they need proof, substance.

Residents IMHO are very poor arbitrators of who would be a good department chair. It'd be like asking fresh cadets do they "trust" their commandant (head of the academy). So this 7% blurb IMHO is not important and if anything makes me wonder why the eff this is even brought up. 4% think the PD is qualified? Why? I don't see any substance being presented here. A better question is to ask why they feel this is only 7% with answers better than cause 1 guy "feels" this way.

Residents were interviewed in the article but nothing being mentioned is of any real substance. Things to the effect of -this is not what we expected?- Useless.

And adding more confusion to all of the above, very few articles I've ever seen ever presented a story very well. I've worked on dozens of forensic cases that were front page news headlines. Very rarely did I feel the article was well done. E.g. I had a patient who was in jail for allegedly burning his son. After only a few days in jail he was found to not be guilty, charges were dropped, and all the evidence out there strongly suggested he was a very good father and that the burn accusation was fabricated by the mother of the child who was trying to extort the father for money.

But guess what? The newspapers only mentioned the guy's arrest, the accusations but didn't follow the story to the completion which is that he was eventually released with all charges dropped. This guy for the rest of his life could be screwed if anyone googles his name.

"7% of residents have trust in the chairman's leadership. 4% think the current PD is qualified."

I know a 'floor effect' / skew when I see one.

There's something extremely odd going on with these numbers, especially given no attendant specific allegations of wrongdoing.

These numbers make me think that the people doing the ratings aren't going to be satisfied with anyone.

I thought this was a 'prestigious' institution. You mean to tell me that we're supposed to think that these 7% and 4% approval ratings are valid? Maybe these residents would give Aaron T. Beck or Irvin D. Yalom low double-digits (12%? 15%?) but anyone short of Yahweh ain't breaking 25%.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

You're either intentionally parroting same irrelevant stuff without reading or what?

The "accusation" of nepotism came from the selection process. Residents were involved and there was a search committee, then all of that was dismissed and the chairman made the final choice without consultation with the committee (not just the residents). That's the story we have from the article. You can call that "good judgement" if you want, but it will clearly lead to a very bad taste for all who thought they were given a voice in the process.
After all, that's how Yale sold itself to incoming residents.

As for the "evidence", I'm sure if anything specific is mentioned, you and others will be the first to jump on the residents.
Even then, the article cites a letter that mentioned issues with empathy, interpersonal skills and other things. Plus, residents thought because of his background and prior DEI experience, he was not fit for the role.
What "evidence" do you want them to mention?
3 out of 75 residents approve of the selection. Make of that what you will, but I presume that ithe ntern whom you so love to mention his name has quite a bit of backing. Many of these people WILL end up leading programs some day.
Again, I'm not privy to the details. And neither are you. This is like a family argument. You will not know who's really in the right or who's in the wrong until you get dirty with the details.

But I DO know that the idea that residents should have no say in their program director and leadership in general smacks of abuse of authority, is archaic and frankly not at all where we are heading. I can tell you that.
I can also tell you that dragging a intern online while hiding anonymously for expressing an opinion about the system he's in is incredibly in poor taste.

"Nepotism" is an interpretation of a situation. So is "grooming" (for a position or promotion). So is training in-house.

"Nepotism" is an accusation. Not facts/logic. No argument is being made in the article to make a case that "nepotism" actually occurred. It's simply thrown out there as an accusation with no facts backing it up.

The 'argument' that Wasser attended school and residency there and was being considered for the position means 'nepotism' was occurring is absurd on its face.

 

[doctalaughs]

Meh.
60 residents criculated a letter protesting the appointment. 7% of residents have trust in the chariman's leadership. 4% think the current PD is qualified.
I'd bet that a handful of them will become future leaders in the field, like every Yale class.
Maybe in your own world it was terrible judgement (or if they go to you for a job), but this intern is not on his own, to say the least; whether you agree with them or not.
I know the knives are out here, but all it is, is a reflection on you.

Maybe if 7% of the faculty had trust in the chair’s leadership it would mean something. Maybe- assuming this was a real survey and not coaxed/pushed by certain residents with others opting out.

But these are not faculty- they are residents and only passing through. So it doesn’t mean much. If you read between the lines, obviously the chairman was caught between a choice of making 2 parties happy - a valued longtime faculty member who had proven past contributions vs a group of residents.

He clearly cared to give the residents a voice — given all those town halls and that he initially went with their first choice. Many chairmen don’t even talk or interact with residents. Clearly, he made an error doing that and it backfired on him - he probably should not have given them any voice to start with and things would have gone smoother.

I can guarantee one thing, having been involved in academic leadership in the past. When it comes time for job seeking there will be some quiet calls made - maybe not about all the residents but certainly the most vocal/ media-going or loudest ringleaders here.

Poor judgement.

 

[G Sheb]

Maybe if 7% of the faculty had trust in the chair’s leadership it would mean something. Maybe- assuming this was a real survey and not coaxed/pushed by certain residents with others opting out.

But these are not faculty- they are residents and only passing through. So it doesn’t mean much. If you read between the lines, obviously the chairman was caught between a choice of making 2 parties happy - a valued longtime faculty member who had proven past contributions vs a group of residents.

He clearly cared to give the residents a voice — given all those town halls and that he initially went with their first choice. Many chairmen don’t even talk or interact with residents. Clearly, he made an error doing that and it backfired on him - he probably should not have given them any voice to start with and things would have gone smoother.

I can guarantee one thing, having been involved in academic leadership in the past. When it comes time for job seeking there will be some quiet calls made - maybe not about all the residents but certainly the most vocal/ media-going or loudest ringleaders here.

Poor judgement.

Perhaps that intern has a different value system; one where his top priority isn't for the PD to get him a job in PGY-IV.
My guess is that's how he ended up at Yale.

 

[erg923]

But I DO know that the idea that residents should have no say in their program director and leadership in general smacks of abuse of authority, is archaic and frankly not at all where we are heading. I can tell you that.
I can also tell you that dragging a intern online while hiding anonymously for expressing an opinion about the system he's in is incredibly in poor taste.

So, you come across as what we call an "agitator."

 

[doctalaughs]

Perhaps that intern has a different value system; one where his top priority isn't for the PD to get him a job in PGY-IV.
My guess is that's how he ended up at Yale.

Who knows? Maybe the intern doesn’t care about job prospects after training. Sounds like it - based on cluelessness about the basics of how most employment situations work. I certainly can’t understand the behavior.

 

[annoyedpsychiatrist]

I do find it absolutely hilarious how so many posters are so liberal with their assumptions when they know so little. Like, assuming the residents objected merely because the guy is white. The article makes it clear that Wasser was interviewed and asked about his policies for minority residents. Maybe he is qualified (I don't know), but the residents did not think so. Does it mean they did not approve of him because of his race?

Probably. If not all then perhaps at least some. Is that really so hard to believe given that they openly admit wanting someone more diverse? I mean the article is pretty clear about it. It gives general nonspecific examples of other things as well. What policies did he enact that didn't promote a diverse enviroment? Am I shocked that they all voted the same? Not really. If anything, makes sense given that yale probably has a very large number of left leaning people. I mean how can a pgy 1 honestly determine that the person isnt qualified? Youve been in the program a few months, realistically how much would you have even interacted/worked with the PD as a pgy 1? You barely know where the cafeteria is in the hospital at that point in your training, but to have such a strong opinion after a few months points to the rather obvious conclusion.

You're blaming viewpoints expressed here on politics but im probably one of the most moderate people on SDN- I have never voted for president in my entire life (im sure ill get a little shade for this comment), and im not particularly fond of biden or trump. From a standpoint of purely logic rather than emotion the conclusions that the average reader would draw from the article seem kind of obvious.

No one drug the intern online. He made statements to a news source that he knew likely would be posted publicly online. He put himself online.

I really encourage you to try and put emotion aside and look at it from a purely logical/neutral standpoint. Heck, in regular jobs, do they ask all the workers "Ok guys, raise your hand if you want Mr. Smith to be CEO, or if you want Mr. Jones to be CEO". I think that kind of thinking in itself is entitlement thinking, thinking that because we work there we get to decide how its run. But as a resident, you are not hired as a boss or manager. You are there for your training, not to understand how to navigate the nuances of residency which is probably more complex than most people realize.

 

[WisNeuro]

Probably. If not all then perhaps at least some. Is that really so hard to believe given that they openly admit wanting someone more diverse? I mean the article is pretty clear about it. It gives general nonspecific examples of other things as well. What policies did he enact that didn't promote a diverse enviroment? Am I shocked that they all voted the same? Not really. If anything, makes sense given that yale probably has a very large number of left leaning people. I mean how can a pgy 1 honestly determine that the person isnt qualified? Youve been in the program a few months, realistically how much would you have even interacted/worked with the PD as a pgy 1? You barely know where the cafeteria is in the hospital at that point in your training, but to have such a strong opinion after a few months points to the rather obvious conclusion.

You're blaming viewpoints expressed here on politics but im probably one of the most moderate people on SDN- I have never voted for president in my entire life (im sure ill get a little shade for this comment), and im not particularly fond of biden or trump. From a standpoint of purely logic rather than emotion the conclusions that the average reader would draw from the article seem kind of obvious.

No one drug the intern online. He made statements to a news source that he knew likely would be posted publicly online. He put himself online.

I really encourage you to try and put emotion aside and look at it from a purely logical/neutral standpoint. Heck, in regular jobs, do they ask all the workers "Ok guys, raise your hand if you want Mr. Smith to be CEO, or if you want Mr. Jones to be CEO". I think that kind of thinking in itself is entitlement thinking, thinking that because we work there we get to decide how its run. But as a resident, you are not hired as a boss or manager. You are there for your training, not to understand how to navigate the nuances of residency which is probably more complex than most people realize.

You're obviously in denial about your raging MAGAism, it's the only explanation as to why you'd have this viewpoint.
/s

 

[whopper]

The "accusation" of nepotism came from the selection process

The selection process itself doesn't prove nepotism. Simply taking someone from their own place doesn't prove it. Most programs in fact often times take at least a few of their own graduates. Nepotism would be proved if the guy wasn't qualified and still taken due to factors akin to nepotism. Lots of places take their own graduates and aren't practicing nepotism.

Based on the article and what we've presented we're hearing complaints with accusations without evidence. Again this is dangerous and unprofessional.

Let's hold you G-Sheb to Dr. Marlowe's standards.

Your comments are imbued with bias. This is not what I was expecting. The majority of posts don't agree with you. Therefore you are wrong.

 

[whopper]

Oh and by the way I've been involved in search committees while in academia, and my wife is the former head of a department whose also headed search committees.

The "accusation" of nepotism came from the selection process. Residents were involved and there was a search committee, then all of that was dismissed and the chairman made the final choice without consultation with the committee (not just the residents) and chose the insider. That's the story we have from the article. You can call that "good judgement" if you want, but it will clearly lead to a very bad taste for all who thought they were given a voice in the process.

I can see several reasonable scenarios why they didn't go with one. The Occam's Razor response is committees take months and the process itself costs the department literally several tens of thousands of dollars in time, money, effort and they likely needed a PD on the spot and had a bona fide effort with their first attempt that fell through.

The money thing is serious. You're going to pull an attending doctor to spend several dozens of hours orchestrating this thing. You're going to pay a candidate to fly in, hotel room, and food. You're going to have several physicians take time off to interview this person. Again realistically this thing can go into the 6 figures.

Did the Occam's Razor situation happen? I don't know. Neither do you. You can't back up the accusations of nepotism unless there's proof. Otherwise you're literally adding fuel to a rumor.

 

[FlowRate]

Uh I think you should bear whatever consequences end up occurring from **** talking your boss openly in a newspaper with your name in it. Just like a real job. Guess this resident should also realize that when anyone hiring in the future googles "Alex Marlow psychiatry" this is on the first page of results and probably will be for some time unless he gets super famous for something else.

Going to media to voice displeasure with your job is a "burn the bridges" type move and you should be aware that bridges will start lighting on fire when this occurs. This can certainly be the right move in some circumstances but not necessarily the right move if you want to keep the job you're complaining about to the news.

Reasonable odds there's some sort of media communications policy that might have been violated.

nepotism

Gen Zish SJW types often use this word recklessly/incorrectly online so I'm not surprised it's getting used here. It might surprise them that not all white people (even all white people in leadership positions in an institution!) are friends or related the same way not all people of any other demographic are friends/related. Even if they are friends/related, that doesn't prove that an unfair advantage was given. If anything, the fact that he wasn't their first choice is itself proof that it wasn't a nepotistic decision.