Yale Psych drama and current state of the program

[Merovinge]

If anything, the fact that he wasn't their first choice is itself proof that it wasn't a nepotistic decision.

That I agree with, but I do find this now PD's response to not getting the job in bad taste and I am surprised no one has commented on this. If you want to resign following not getting a promotion, you are obviously welcome to, but his letter following not being selected and then subsequently being selected for the role is certainly something I can see leading to very low % approval.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TexasPhysician]

That I agree with, but I do find this now PD's response to not getting the job in bad taste and I am surprised no one has commented on this. If you want to resign following not getting a promotion, you are obviously welcome to, but his letter following not being selected and then subsequently being selected for the role is certainly something I can see leading to very low % approval.

I didn’t read his letter which is probably a poor decision as well. People should keep their comments to themselves, discuss them with department leaders, or be prepared to be terminated.

If I was assistant PD being groomed to be PD, I’d be pretty upset about being passed over and resign as well. It could be a decade for a chance at a promotion again and likely need a new chair to ever accept me in that role. Wasser may jump to be PD elsewhere when a position becomes available at an acceptable destination. I probably would be looking to leave in 1-2 years to get out of there. It’s also likely easier to get a PD job when you’ve done it before, so taking the position is almost a must from an academic perspective. I doubt that if I leave private practice for academia that anyone lets me walk in and be PD. Wasser likely now sees this as a move that is the best option to help elevate his career in the long-term but may reduce satisfaction in the short-term.

 

[Stagg737]

Amazing to me that one crappy article can spark so much debate. Clearly (most of) the residents aren't happy and there was a (further) breakdown in communication and relationship between the administration and residents. Many non-specific complaints were cited which may or may not be relevant, but don't provide any relevant insight into the situation. If anything, the article kind of throws the residents and admin under the bus by highlighting recent and ongoing problems without giving any pertinent details about WHY statements were made or actions were taken.

Personally, I wish I could have the 5 minutes of my life back that it took me to read the article, and just seems to reaffirm my feelings towards Yale's program having various issues which aren't worth getting involved in.

That I agree with, but I do find this now PD's response to not getting the job in bad taste and I am surprised no one has commented on this. If you want to resign following not getting a promotion, you are obviously welcome to, but his letter following not being selected and then subsequently being selected for the role is certainly something I can see leading to very low % approval.

I actually brought it up earlier and FoMeehl commented on it. If he got passed up, why bother writing the letter unless he was actually resigning or leaving the teaching side? I'd be interested to see the whole letter, as the quote from it given obviously paints it in a specific light which may or may not be reflective of the entire message. Pretty spot-on for the typical modern media wanting an article to convey a message/opinion without giving relevant facts with minimal bias. Regardless, the way it's framed is weird and it would certainly leave me at least feeling unenthusiastic about him if I was a resident, even if I liked him and had a good relationship. I could see VA being correct about him now using it as a stepping stone to another position elsewhere, which would likely only further the problems at Yale's program with a partially dedicated PD and likely ongoing instability.

 

[G Sheb]

That I agree with, but I do find this now PD's response to not getting the job in bad taste and I am surprised no one has commented on this. If you want to resign following not getting a promotion, you are obviously welcome to, but his letter following not being selected and then subsequently being selected for the role is certainly something I can see leading to very low % approval.

Interesting how that escaped the "entitlement" crowd's radar.
But hey, at least this PD is not on the 'woke' side.

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.



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.

ROFL. So this chair recruited a committee and then decided to dismiss it for money issues? What does that say?
Go ahead, provide a mathematical proof for nepotism, but the reality is that the way the appointment happened - even if it's by the books legal - certainly poses a few question marks. And I think that's what the resident is saying. Single handedly making the decision (and chosing the insider who was initially ruled out) after dismissing a committee that you put in place is not a good look. MAYBE it was his only option and he had justifications to do this. I don't know. We have competing narratives with not a lot of insider information to make conclusions.
Which is why any further speculation on this only reflects on you.
But residents should be able to opine about residency structure. I'm sure they went out to Yale media because they felt they were not being heard and the leadrship was not responsive.

The reality is that there are no winners here.
But I do believe resident involvement is on the right side of history.
People are not going to put up with authority figures with enormous power imposed on them with no input.
The fact that some call this "entitlement" is hilarious and totally out of touch with the younger generation. Keep going.

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

Are you going to keep posting these incredibly lame hyperboles?
You certainly sound like someone with a chip on their shoulder.

 

[whopper]

It may have been the intention of the writer to add histrionics and lack of details to entice emotion. While some of this may be bona-fide good intended stirring to create interest for social justice, intellectual debate, whatever, media makes money by clicks.

Dog bites man no one cares. Man bites dog it gets thousands of clicks.

 

[whopper]

This chair recruited a committee and then decided to dismiss it for money issues? What does that say?

It simply means money is not unlimited. Nor is time and effort. A search committee is a lot of effort, time and resources. I can realistically see a search committee saying to themselves they made a bona-fide effort, especially if they spent over 100 hours on this issue (which is often times the case) and spent a significant dent in their budget.

Again let's adopt Dr. Marlow's standards. Standards by which you G Sheb are defending. I put the following in bold and add the disclaimer that I think these same standards are unfair.
G Sheb is obviously "imbued" with a lack of knowledge of how the search committee process works and is ignorant and prejudiced in making these comments. Therefore G Sheb must then lack an understanding of how things are funded and ultimately then doesn't know how a department much less a residency operates. This only further demonstrates that G Sheb must be suffering from Histrionic personality traits.

I'm on the right side of history pointing this out about G Sheb as all people need to have their say. People should opine about how they are feeling. I'm sure G Sheb is venting out in frustration because something is upsetting him/her and using this Yale issue to vent out his/her own frustration.

 

[G Sheb]

I didn’t read his letter which is probably a poor decision as well. People should keep their comments to themselves, discuss them with department leaders, or be prepared to be terminated.

If I was assistant PD being groomed to be PD, I’d be pretty upset about being passed over and resign as well. It could be a decade for a chance at a promotion again and likely need a new chair to ever accept me in that role. Wasser may jump to be PD elsewhere when a position becomes available at an acceptable destination. I probably would be looking to leave in 1-2 years to get out of there. It’s also likely easier to get a PD job when you’ve done it before, so taking the position is almost a must from an academic perspective. I doubt that if I leave private practice for academia that anyone lets me walk in and be PD. Wasser likely now sees this as a move that is the best option to help elevate his career in the long-term but may reduce satisfaction in the short-term.

Right. But then 'grooming' people to leadership positions reeks slightly of corruption and nepotism. Wouldn't you say so?

 

[whopper]

I wasn't aware teaching people to become future leaders and teachers in the field reeks of corruption and nepotism.

 

[erg923]

Right. But then 'grooming' people to leadership positions reeks slightly of corruption and nepotism. Wouldn't you say so?

lol. What? Is this a joke?

 

[G Sheb]

lol. What? Is this a joke?

You don't think picking someone because you 'groomed' them as opposed to picking the best candidate in a fair process is a problem?
Why should someone feel entitled to a position because they were 'groomed' for it? That's what Texas Physician was saying in his post.

Great. Dr. X's criticism of academic culture is ringing truer by the second. Keep going.

 

[WisNeuro]

How dare we train people to be able to perform the tasks of a very specific position?!? The audacity!

 

[whopper]

12 years of being in an assistant position, trained for to become the next upward rung-the PD, at a name-brand institution is something objectively and squarely valid as a credential.

You don't think picking someone because you 'groomed' them as opposed to picking the best candidate in a fair process is a problem?

This was already addressed in the very poorly written article.

The committee did it's thing. They tried to hire someone new. That person fell through not because of anything the committee or Dr. Wasser did wrong.

 

[comp1]

It's kind of horrifying that all of this was done publicly. I'm not sure how anyone involved can work together now.

 

[TheRightMedication]

Regarding residents competence to make administrative contributions:

In my first two years of training, I led an effort to protect one of our peers from disciplinary action. I did so out if group cohesion, an us-vs-them mentality with administration, and my own foolishness and pride.

I was in the wrong, without a doubt! I watched my error unfold over the years. When I took on some administrative duties myself, I learned more about the need to ensure trainee quality and order in the program. I arrived at a deep respect of those leaders I once opposed.

For those of us who come to residency with no real leadership experience, I think it is absurd to offer them any real power.

 

[G Sheb]

It's kind of horrifying that all of this was done publicly. I'm not sure how anyone involved can work together now.

These things are bound to occur as the process of 'democratization' of leadership unfolds.
As I mentioned earlier, almost the same thing occurred at another top institution, though it did not go out in public. But there was plenty of anger and high emotions.
This will eventually lead to a codification of recruitment/leadership selection, where there is a clear process and people can be part of the system and feel they are heard. That other institution btw is trying to do it right the second time.
So I don't think this reflects as badly on Yale as it looks.
Putting it slightly differently, everyone is learning in uncharted territory.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Right. But then 'grooming' people to leadership positions reeks slightly of corruption and nepotism. Wouldn't you say so?

No. I wouldn't.

Grooming them for the position means you're mentoring and training them to ultimately be promoted into a position that they earned, were well-trained in, and are most suitable for.

 

[whopper]

I've written the above several times to be fair. I don't know what happened. Nepotism could be going on. Just that I also wrote that the accusation can't be publicly made without proof. People's lives can be ruined over this type of accusation. You can't throw it around based on what someone "feels."

In situations like this you're not supposed to go public unless it's a last resort. There's several internal processes. E.g. you can talk to the department chair, other attendings. If you don't feel they've been fair to your case you then go to the GME. If the GME you feel isn't fair you go to the ACGME. If none of the above satisfied the issue you can even then go the head of the university.

And this is pure speculation. It could be certain people went public because they had nothing of substance to support their claim. The court of public opinion is a dice roll while the court of checks and balances specific for an institution is often times a controlled and better precision mechanism.

Further several things aren't supposed to be a democracy. Enlisted people don't get to vote on who is their drill sergeant, and for obvious reasons. As was said in Master and Commander and I don't have the exact quote, "our job isn't to practice democracy but to protect it."

People when worked hard have a bias to pick the person who'll make their lives easier, not the person who'll make them better physicians.

 

[FlowRate]

Single handedly making the decision (and chosing the insider who was initially ruled out) after dismissing a committee that you put in place is not a good look.

It's typical for an executive search committee to rank candidates and go down the line if the top choice declines, assuming the other candidates were judged to also be good fits for the job. The Chair doesn't need to spend thousands of dollars of employee time to re-convene a committee that already vetted and assessed the candidates just to confirm that they're offering the job to #2.

 

[G Sheb]

It's typical for an executive search committee to rank candidates and go down the line if the top choice declines, assuming the other candidates were judged to also be good fits for the job. The Chair doesn't need to spend thousands of dollars of employee time to re-convene a committee that already vetted and assessed the candidates just to confirm that they're offering the job to #2.

From the little we have in the article, he did not offer the job to #2 or #3.
The current PD was not on the shortlist.

See:
"Based on the results of the search, the search committee recommended Vestal and Thomas to Krystal as finalists for the position in the spring of 2022. Krystal ultimately selected Vestal to be the next program director of the psychiatry residency program.

After the announcement that Wasser had not been shortlisted for the position, however, residents received an email from Wasser indicating his intention to resign from his post as the associate program director of the residency program. "

This article also suggests that the work of the committee was not compensated.

 

[Stagg737]

These things are bound to occur as the process of 'democratization' of leadership unfolds.
As I mentioned earlier, almost the same thing occurred at another top institution, though it did not go out in public. But there was plenty of anger and high emotions.
This will eventually lead to a codification of recruitment/leadership selection, where there is a clear process and people can be part of the system and feel they are heard. That other institution btw is trying to do it right the second time.
So I don't think this reflects as badly on Yale as it looks.
Putting it slightly differently, everyone is learning in uncharted territory.

There are bound to be road bumps and battles and those may be necessary. Public shaming, personal attacks, and dramatization of events through the media are not, which seems to be at least a tone of the article and stated outright in several quotes.

And uncharted territory? You serious? More than one program I interviewed at 5+ years ago said residents interviewed potential PDs and had a say and 2 of those programs ended up hiring the one recommended by the residents. This is not some groundbreaking event and calling this "uncharted territory" is laughable. Based on several of your posts in multiple threads it sounds like you had a pretty bad experience with the administration in residency, but I can assure you that is certainly NOT true in many places.

From the little we have in the article, he did not offer the job to #2 or #3.
The current PD was not on the shortlist and even resigned from the APD position afterwards.

See:
"Based on the results of the search, the search committee recommended Vestal and Thomas to Krystal as finalists for the position in the spring of 2022. Krystal ultimately selected Vestal to be the next program director of the psychiatry residency program.

After the announcement that Wasser had not been shortlisted for the position, however, residents received an email from Wasser indicating his intention to resign from his post as the associate program director of the residency program. "

Yes he was. He was one of the 3 candidates that were interviewed by the committee, and the article said at least 5 Yale grads were considered, so that's at least 6 candidates if you take into account that Wasser and Vestal are both Yale grads. The committee just recommended the other 2 ahead of him as "finalists". It was offered to at least one of them who turned it down. It's not clear if the position was offered to Dr. Thomas and she turned it down or if they just asked Wasser after Vestal turned it down. Either way, the position was first offered to a "finalist" and when turned down was offered and accepted by the 3rd choice as opposed to conducting another national search that would undoubtedly further delay the hiring of a PD.

The language in the article reads as trying to emphasize that Wasser wasn't wanted by the residents and minimize his qualifications. Again, it's a garbage article so not surprised about the obvious lean/agenda. I already stated that it was odd that he sent the e-mail to residents then accepted the PD position, but he never resigned from APD, only sent an e-mail saying he intended to. Stop twisting facts, it's shady and kills your credibility. It's also particularly dumb when what the quote you're commenting on is explicitly inconsistent with your statement.

 

[G Sheb]

There are bound to be road bumps and battles and those may be necessary. Public shaming, personal attacks, and dramatization of events through the media are not, which seems to be at least a tone of the article and stated outright in several quotes.

And uncharted territory? You serious? More than one program I interviewed at 5+ years ago said residents interviewed potential PDs and had a say and 2 of those programs ended up hiring the one recommended by the residents. This is not some groundbreaking event and calling this "uncharted territory" is laughable. Based on several of your posts in multiple threads it sounds like you had a pretty bad experience with the administration in residency, but I can assure you that is certainly NOT true in many places.


Yes he was. He was one of the 3 candidates that were interviewed by the committee, and the article said at least 5 Yale grads were considered, so that's at least 6 candidates if you take into account that Wasser and Vestal are both Yale grads. The committee just recommended the other 2 ahead of him as "finalists". It was offered to at least one of them who turned it down. It's not clear if the position was offered to Dr. Thomas and she turned it down or if they just asked Wasser after Vestal turned it down. Either way, the position was first offered to a "finalist" and when turned down was offered and accepted by the 3rd choice as opposed to conducting another national search that would undoubtedly further delay the hiring of a PD.

The language in the article reads as trying to emphasize that Wasser wasn't wanted by the residents and minimize his qualifications. Again, it's a garbage article so not surprised about the obvious lean/agenda. I already stated that it was odd that he sent the e-mail to residents then accepted the PD position, but he never resigned from APD, only sent an e-mail saying he intended to. Stop twisting facts, it's shady and kills your credibility. It's also particularly dumb when what the quote you're commenting on is explicitly inconsistent with your statement.

I mean, it's right in the quote. He was not on the shortlist provided by the committee.
I'm only relaying the message. Feel free to read again. Slowly.

 

[WisNeuro]

"The nationwide search yielded three final candidates for the position: Heather Vestal MED’10, the current program director of the Duke University School of Medicine’s psychiatry residency, Lia Thomas, a psychiatrist from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and Tobias Wasser, an associate program director of the Yale psychiatric residency program and a 2014 graduate of the residency."

Sounds like he was in the top 3

 

[Stagg737]

I mean, it's right in the quote. He was not on the shortlist provided by the committee.
I'm only relaying the message. Feel free to read again slowly.

Those are the committee recommendations, not the shortlist of the ones actually doing the hiring which is the department chair. Again, manipulating the article to fit your argument, shady. Still curious if your statement about him resigning as APD was just you misreading or you trying to further twist the article for your argument.

 

[G Sheb]

"The nationwide search yielded three final candidates for the position: Heather Vestal MED’10, the current program director of the Duke University School of Medicine’s psychiatry residency, Lia Thomas, a psychiatrist from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and Tobias Wasser, an associate program director of the Yale psychiatric residency program and a 2014 graduate of the residency."

Sounds like he was in the top 3

Those three went through vetting by the committee.
The committee recommended two.
The PD was not on the shortlist provided by the committee.

Like, it cannot be written in clearer words.

Here we go, again:

"Based on the results of the search, the search committee recommended Vestal and Thomas to Krystal as finalists for the position in the spring of 2022. Krystal ultimately selected Vestal to be the next program director of the psychiatry residency program.
After the announcement that Wasser had not been shortlisted for the position, however, residents received an email from Wasser indicating his intention to resign from his post as the associate program director of the residency program. "

Nuts.

 

[WisNeuro]

Those three went through vetting by the committee.
The committee recommended two.
The PD was not on the shortlist provided by the committee.

I really feel some of you are either deranged or something.
Like, it cannot be written in clearer words.

Here we go, again:

"Based on the results of the search, the search committee recommended Vestal and Thomas to Krystal as finalists for the position in the spring of 2022. Krystal ultimately selected Vestal to be the next program director of the psychiatry residency program.
After the announcement that Wasser had not been shortlisted for the position, however, residents received an email from Wasser indicating his intention to resign from his post as the associate program director of the residency program. "

Nuts.

Nope, we all read that. We just understand that these committees usually operate in an advisory capacity and are not making the final decisions. In the search, he was identified as a top 3 candidate. This search committee, composed of a good portion of naive residents made a recommendation, the adults in the room took that into consideration, offered the top pick, and then went with the alternative when that did not pan out. Nuts indeed, and pretty clear for people who have actually done these things.

 

[G Sheb]

Nope, we all read that. We just understand that these committees usually operate in an advisory capacity and are not making the final decisions. In the search, he was identified as a top 3 candidate. This search committee, composed of a good portion of naive residents made a recommendation, the adults in the room took that into consideration, offered the top pick, and then went with the alternative when that did not pan out. Nuts indeed, and pretty clear for people who have actually done these things.

Yes, the chair decided not to follow the committee's recommendations.
The poster above said he did, though just went through the ranking they provided. This is just not true. The PD was not on the committee's shortlist.
It is apparently in his power certainly not to follow their recs and make his own pick.
Good for you for being such an adult and understanding the basics.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, the chair decided not to follow the committee's recommendations.
The poster above said he did, though just went through the ranking they provided. This is just not true. The PD was not on the committee's shortlist.
It is apparently in his power certainly to ignore their recs and make his own pick.
Good for you for being such an adult and understanding the basics.

Yes, because this person actually knows wtf he's doing as opposed to the people that have been there for a few months. He's the adult in the room. And, he did go with the top recommendation, and when that did not go through, he went with what he felt was teh next best option from the three people originally identified in the national search.

 

[FlowRate]

Yes, the chair decided not to follow the committee's recommendations.
The poster above said he did, though just went through the ranking they provided. This is just not true. The PD was not on the committee's shortlist.
It is apparently in his power certainly not to follow their recs and make his own pick.
Good for you for being such an adult and understanding the basics.

You're right, I didn't read or comb through the article so I didn't catch that detail. The point I was really making was what the other people in this thread followed-up to clarify: that there is nothing unusual or shady about not convening a new committee or not going strictly by their recommendation. The only reason a new search committee would have been needed would have been if Wasser was felt to be unfit for the job and they needed to do a whole new search.

I have a family member who was the #1 recommendation of a committee in an executive search and one of the other candidates was chosen by the president of the university. It's just how these things work.

 

[G Sheb]

You're right, I didn't read or comb through the article so I didn't catch that detail. The point I was really making was what the other people in this thread followed-up to clarify: that there is nothing unusual or shady about not convening a new committee or not going strictly by their recommendation. The only reason a new search committee would have been needed would have been if Wasser was felt to be unfit for the job and they needed to do a whole new search.

I have a family member who was the #1 recommendation of a committee in an executive search and one of the other candidates was chosen by the president of the university. It's just how these things work.

Yes I agree. In this case, he decided not to follow their recs and pick someone who was not shortlisted. We don't know the details. He may have had an excellent reason to do so. The point I was making is that this will inevitably lead to tension and ill feelings on the part of those who felt they were not heard when he made his pick. That's also part of the process.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes I agree. In this case, he decided not to follow their recs and pick someone who was not shortlisted. We don't know the details. He may have had an excellent reason to do so. The point I was making is that this will inevitably lead to tension and ill feelings on the part of those who felt they were not heard when he made his pick. That's also part of the process.

But he did follow their advice when making the offer to the #1 pick, so it's hard to say he did not follow their advice. He just didn't follow their advice 100%.

 

[G Sheb]

But he did follow their advice when making the offer to the #1 pick, so it's hard to say he did not follow their advice. He just didn't follow their advice 100%.

I think if you ultimately pick someone who went through the selection process and was not on the shortlist provided by the committee, it's hard to say he followed their advice.
But this is splitting hairs at this point.

 

[ObsequiousAplomb]

As for saying that the committee was uncompensated, there's really only two ways that's possible:
1. The committee was required to work overtime for the entire process that was uncompensated.
2. If it occurred during business hours, members of the committee were uncompensated for the hours, meaning that they voluntarily took a pay-cut for the process.

Even if either of those occurred, neither are acceptable to repeat after the first recommendation fell through.
There would have been absolutely nothing shady about the chair selecting #3 (who wasn't on the two-person shortlist but was clearly on the 3-person, 4-person, 5-person, 6-person, or n-person shortlist) in spite of the recommendation of the committee. Being a chair means that you're supposed to make decisions, whether or not the committee's decision is the one you go with. They're just advising the chair to make a decision.

If the committee were fully in charge of the process, then it would be something that occurs outside of the chain of command of the chair. Since it isn't, there's nothing wrong with the chair having ignored the committee entirely. Instead the chair did follow the advice of the committee. The advice ended up not being possible to follow through on. There's nothing wrong with that process at all. The system worked as it's intended to. The residents still got a say that was taken into consideration.

Instead of using this as a learning experience for how selection processes work within a department, it seems that those who went to the media decided that because they didn't get what they wanted they had a right to publicly shame their boss (with what at face value seems to be slander). In a normal, healthy system, this type of behavior on the part of the residents is not responded to with kindness but with formal action through the professionalism disciplinary processes.

 

[doctalaughs]

Lol this thread is ridiculous.

The only people in the universe who think going to the newspaper was a good decision are the residents who did it and g sheb.

Going to the newspaper against your institution is what you do when you find out there is sexual abuse happening that is being hidden, or Medicare fraud or something like that - when the proper investigative channels aren’t working. Not when you have some weak subjective gripe about interpersonal skills, likability or weird diversity concerns about your chairman’s pick of your boss.

Again, that’s the crux of the issue. Not disagreeing with those higher up or expressing an opinion. It’s going to the MEDIA when you disagree with a final decision that is clearly THEIRS to make.

 

[G Sheb]

Lol this thread is ridiculous.

The only people in the universe who think going to the newspaper was a good decision are the residents who did it and g sheb.

Going to the newspaper against your institution is what you do when you find out there is sexual abuse happening that is being hidden, or Medicare fraud or something like that - when the proper investigative channels aren’t working. Not when you have some weak subjective gripe about interpersonal skills, likability or weird diversity concerns about your chairman’s pick of your boss.

Again, that’s the crux of the issue. Not disagreeing with those higher up or expressing an opinion. It’s going to the MEDIA when you disagree with a final decision that is clearly THEIRS to make.

Lol I will agree with you that this thread is hilarious but from my perspective only because quite a few felt they could vent their frustration about “wokism” while actually having no clue about what went on (while trying to cover that up in a million way).
Basically this was caricatured as a bunch of leftist and “entitled” , “woke” residents who “oppressed” a poor APD because of his race. The agenda was set right from the first few posts and was imbued with irrationality and unjustified presumptions.
It’s there as clear as day for anyone to go through.

As for going to the media I frankly have no opinion about that. The MEDIA being here a freakin yale undergraduate newspaper. Given the level of opposition of residents I imagine this reverberated on campus and a bunch of undergrad students felt they need to write a report about that. I don’t think the comments were particularly egregious to the point that these residents needed to be hung in public. Your reactions frankly are more telling.

 

[doctalaughs]

Lol I will agree with you that this thread is hilarious but from my perspective only because so many felt they could vent their frustration about “wokism” while actually having no clue about what went on (while trying to cover that up in a million way).
Basically this was caricatured as a bunch of leftist and “entitled” , “woke” residents who “oppressed” a poor APD because of his race. OK.


As for going to the media I frankly have no opinion about that. The MEDIA being here a freakin yale undergraduate newspaper. Given the level of opposition of residents I imagine this reverberated on campus and a bunch of undergrad students felt they need to write a report about that. I don’t think the comments were particularly egregious to the point that these residents needed to be hung in public. Your reactions frankly are more telling. As well as the quasi bullying of an intern under your anonymous

You are entitled to your opinion- even if everyone else who happened upon the thread disagrees.

You at are right that we are speculating (which is typically what happens on Internet forums) - but keep in mind that the article was one-sided — written from the resident “victim” perspective, and still it reeks of whining about nothing except thinly veiled, strange “DEI” and “nepotism” insinuations with no actual facts. I would think if they had something of substance to report against Wasser or the chair, it would have been put forth.

On the other hand, we have no information about the other side (the chair and PD’s side of the story).

 

[G Sheb]

You are entitled to your opinion- even if everyone else who happened upon the thread disagrees.

hardly surprising. As I said there’s a very specific microculture going on here. Part of it is because forums aren’t really all that attractive these days and the other is the dynamic that attracts (and pulls away) others. But don’t think that a belief that residents should have a respected voice in their leadership is somehow an isolated opinion. Lol.

You at are right that we are speculating (which is typically what happens on Internet forums) - but keep in mind that the article was one-sided — written from the resident “victim” perspective, and still it reeks of whining about nothing except thinly veiled, strange “DEI” and “nepotism” insinuations with no actual facts. I would think if they had something of substance to report against Wasser or the chair, it would have been put forth.

On the other hand, we have no information about the other side (the chair and PD’s side of the story).

Fair enough. Though I’d say dismissing issues with empathy, relatedness and responsiveness because it’s “subjective” is very, very misguided.
My point from the start is that one shouldn’t drag neither the program nor the residents without getting more juice on this. As someone who is actually familiar with the program, I do not think for a second that the resident almost unanimous opposition is merely because of race. There’s more to this.
The question is then why are people holding residents to standards they don’t wanna hold (like you know running their mouths without knowing more).
We do disagree but I think you argue in good faith (unlike many here).

 

[TexasPhysician]

hardly surprising. As I said there’s a very specific microculture going on here. Part of it is because forums aren’t really all that attractive these days and the other is the dynamic that attracts (and pulls away) others. But don’t think that a belief that residents should have a respected voice in their leadership is somehow an isolated opinion. Lol.




Fair enough. Though I’d say dismissing issues with empathy, relatedness and responsiveness because it’s “subjective” is very, very misguided.
My point from the start is that one shouldn’t drag neither the program nor the residents without getting more juice on this. As someone who is actually familiar with the program, I do not think for a second that the resident almost unanimous opposition is merely because of race. There’s more to this.
The question is then why are people holding residents to standards they don’t wanna hold (like you know running their mouths without knowing more).
We do disagree but I think you argue in good faith (unlike many here).

I bet most posters here don’t 100% support the actions of their residency program. Additionally most here wouldn’t consider their PD a friend or someone that backs them fully. Venting about program decisions to a spouse or colleague is commonplace. Most do it.

Every other poster has rationalized that putting your name behind public criticism isn’t an appropriate action without evidence of something so egregious that you are protected (nothing of such was reported).

It is easy in residency to have your contract non-renewed. To know you have a 1 year contract in a 4 year program and be willing to run your mouth publicly demonstrates a high level of disgust with your institution. The resident is willing to destroy their career years in the making over a chair choosing someone else as PD. This degree of frustration is toxic. The longer this resident is kept without punishment the more likely the Yale name is dragged through the mud. This thread is an example of how the reputation of Yale is damaged. This can reduce finances long-term and reduce the quality of future applicants. Yale has suffered long-term damage. This gives Yale the ammo it needs to non-renew a contract or terminate a resident.

I’ve been involved in a similar case. The employee was terminated instantly. A lawsuit was filed and the institution easily won.

There is case law supporting Yale with what we know so far. This is why most contracts and bylaws include how to deal with reporting concerns.

I doubt anyone here believes Wasser is perfect. There are probably many reasons to want a different PD. So far, there is 0 reasons worthy of damaging a well-regarded institution or leader publicly, and there is sufficient reasons to let a resident go.

As residents need the blessing of their PD to get another position, this resident has potentially lost the ability to practice medicine forever.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

hardly surprising. As I said there’s a very specific microculture going on here. Part of it is because forums aren’t really all that attractive these days and the other is the dynamic that attracts (and pulls away) others. But don’t think that a belief that residents should have a respected voice in their leadership is somehow an isolated opinion. Lol.




Fair enough. Though I’d say dismissing issues with empathy, relatedness and responsiveness because it’s “subjective” is very, very misguided.
My point from the start is that one shouldn’t drag neither the program nor the residents without getting more juice on this. As someone who is actually familiar with the program, I do not think for a second that the resident almost unanimous opposition is merely because of race. There’s more to this.
The question is then why are people holding residents to standards they don’t wanna hold (like you know running their mouths without knowing more).
We do disagree but I think you argue in good faith (unlike many here).

You know its funny, this is a complaint we hear quite frequently on this forum. But somehow its always the opposite from what the complainer personally believes. We're regularly accused of being too "woke".

 

[annoyedpsychiatrist]

Lets just be blunt for a second. Regardless of anything.

Imagine how priveleged your life is that you have the opportunity to whine about being a psychiatry resident at yale and not feeling "heard" by leadership after only being a part of the program for 3-4 months. I worked a few different jobs before becoming a doctor, and no one asked me "Hey, who do you want to be your manager?". Im sorry but to me, it just gives me a bad overall impression of this person. You just started at the program, you probably know nothing, so why are you one of the loudest ones in the room?

maybe im just grumpy this morning but I find petty complaints annoying. You don't like your boss? Sorry to hear that. Now do what everyone else in America does, focus on the actual job itself.

 

[Ludwig2000]

Alex Marlow was in UTTER DISMAY, and as residents, they were COMPLETELY CAUGHT OFF GUARD.
😢😭🤧😢

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Alex Marlow was in UTTER DISMAY, and as residents, they were COMPLETELY CAUGHT OFF GUARD.
😢😭🤧😢

Not just routine 'dismay,' mind you.

UTTER dismay.

Like thermonuclear, civilization-ending, soul-rending dismay.

Levels of dismay that are only known to the privileged few souls unfortunate and disadvantaged enough to be in post-graduate medical education at Yale University. Sniff. Sniff. Le boo, le boo, le hoo.

The worst part is they have to somehow get it together so that they can show some degree of professional composure when they have to interact with their patients...many of whom are themselves suffering from poverty/homelessness, severe mental illness, disability, etc.

 

[G Sheb]

You know its funny, this is a complaint we hear quite frequently on this forum. But somehow its always the opposite from what the complainer personally believes. We're regularly accused of being too "woke".

I mean, for some there’s always too much woke. That actually does say something.

But it’s hard not to be struck by some of the outright ignorance kf these issues on here.
- like minority representations in leadership positions is not important.
- or that someone who is potentially not well acquainted with DEI and not enough experience with dealing with sexual and ethnic minorities, the issue more is because they are white rather than their experience.


This was outright communicated like that here.

 

[Ludwig2000]

Not just routine 'dismay,' mind you.

UTTER dismay.

Like thermonuclear, civilization-ending, soul-rending dismay.

Levels of dismay that are only known to the privileged few souls unfortunate and disadvantaged enough to be in post-graduate medical education at Yale University. Sniff. Sniff. Le boo, le boo, le hoo.

The worst part is they have to somehow get it together so that they can show some degree of professional composure when they have to interact with their patients...many of whom are themselves suffering from poverty/homelessness, severe mental illness, disability, etc.

Exactly… exactly.
Thing is, I honestly don’t know how much of this is just dramatic language being used for emphasis, or an actual reflection of an internal state. Either seem possible. In the former case, I imagine the associated emotion is righteous indignation, with a kind of bland moral superiority that has long stood in for an actual sense of meaning/purpose in one’s life. If these words are actual reflections of internal state, which again I think is def possible- the feeling is well, UTTER, soul-rending dismay. The total collapse of self via the deflation of this latest self-object (that self that wants/needs a DEI PD). Fear, panic, despair.

But in either case, I’m kinda surprised the decision of appointing Wasser hasn’t been called an Act of Violence yet.

 

[SmallBird]

I mean, for some there’s always too much woke. That actually does say something.

But it’s hard not to be struck by some of the outright ignorance kf these issues on here.
- like minority representations in leadership positions is not important.
- or that someone who is potentially not well acquainted with DEI and not enough experience with dealing with sexual and ethnic minorities, the issue more is because they are white rather than their experience.


This was outright communicated like that here.

Maybe it's because Yale doesn't currently offer 401k's and I believe Wasser was committed to changing that.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I mean, for some there’s always too much woke. That actually does say something.

But it’s hard not to be struck by some of the outright ignorance kf these issues on here.
- like minority representations in leadership positions is not important.
- or that someone who is potentially not well acquainted with DEI and not enough experience with dealing with sexual and ethnic minorities, the issue more is because they are white rather than their experience.


This was outright communicated like that here.

I think this post captures the essence of this conflict well. When you state that other posters are outright ignorant of these issues, that is accusatory and not likely to be heard without quoting a statement that demonstrates this. Also, if someone does not feel minority representation is the most important factor in selecting leadership, that does not mean that they think it is not important.
Another clear point of contention is the second point and that is one that is not going to go anywhere as there is no real evidence provided for whether this guy had "enough" awareness of these issues or not and whether the committee member just thought he was a "privileged mediocre white guy". In the absence of real evidence, personal biases are what people tend to rely on.

 

[doctalaughs]

hardly surprising. As I said there’s a very specific microculture going on here.

The assumption this is a microculture is a big problem (nationally, particularly in liberal circles).

I would argue it’s actually a large, somewhat silent majority. The “woke” circles are actually the microculture- they are just loud and they hear what they want, but don’t realize that most disagree.

 

[G Sheb]

The assumption this is a microculture is a big problem (nationally, particularly in liberal circles).

I would argue it’s actually a large, somewhat silent majority. The “woke” circles are actually the microculture- they are just loud and they hear what they want, but don’t realize that most disagree.

No I meant microculture on here, as it is literally a dozen or so posters which you can call a clique if you want.
As for woke culture wars etc, both are sizable. But I think medical culture or culture in psychiatry is perhaps more relevant here.

 

[G Sheb]

I think this post captures the essence of this conflict well. When you state that other posters are outright ignorant of these issues, that is accusatory and not likely to be heard without quoting a statement that demonstrates this. Also, if someone does not feel minority representation is the most important factor in selecting leadership, that does not mean that they think it is not important.
Another clear point of contention is the second point and that is one that is not going to go anywhere as there is no real evidence provided for whether this guy had "enough" awareness of these issues or not and whether the committee member just thought he was a "privileged mediocre white guy". In the absence of real evidence, personal biases are what people tend to rely on.

I’m totally agreeing that we don’t have enough information to make any judgement on the PD.
But that doesn’t mean the issues raised by the residents are not extremely important. And no one said it’s the most important factor. Nothing in the article even suggested it is and I absolutely do not think that residents were vehemently opposed to the appointment because this guy is white (suggested without evidence numerous times by different posters).
Call it what you want, but people can read the thread and figure out for themselves if it’s ignorant or not.

 

[Mad Jack]

So...let me get this straight. The residents are outraged because:

1) in a survey circulated in the program, Wasser only mustered a 4 percent approval rating from residents (but we aren't given any additional information about why)
2) In Wasser’s interview with residents, according to Godley, Wasser fielded questions about how he planned to support residents of color in the program, especially because, unlike the other two candidates — both Black women — Wasser was a white man with limited DEI experience. [but the author/article provides ZERO specifics about his answers to these questions and--I suppose--we are supposed to presume that they were offensive or unacceptable in some way?]
3) Based on the results of the search (and, I presume, the residents' expressed preferences via the survey) SOMEONE ELSE was initially offered the position but ultimately couldn't accept it
4) Ultimately, the faculty determined that Wasser was an acceptable candidate (at the last minute?) based on his actual record of performance over the years to serve in the position and offered him the position
5) Basically the residents (at least some vocal ones) are outraged that Wasser is a white man and not a black woman

I didn't see anywhere in the article where residents were even claiming (let alone providing specifics) that Wasser wasn't qualified for the position (based on merit, experience, scholarship, clinical experience--or lack thereof) or that he had said or done things (specific things) that were being pointed to as evidence of some sort of '-ism' that would otherwise disqualify him.

I mean, off-the-record, he may have done such things but are we just to assume that he did because we just want to assume that he did? It's either bad reporting or the story doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Edit: okay, combing over the article again we get: "concerns over Wasser’s “interpersonal leadership skills” and a “lack of empathy, relatability and responsiveness.”"

So, this was their opinion on a survey. Graduate education sure has changed a lot since I was in school...I didn't realize that faculty positions were elected positions based on 'votes' from the student body. Things like 'concerns over interpersonal leadership skills, lack of empathy, relatability, and responsiveness' strike me as pretty non-specific, subject to interpretation, and would need to be examined more closely to see if any 'offense' was actually committed or any breach of ethics.

Reading between the lines it sounds like he may have just been a pain of an attending and they were far more excited about other candidates being considered. My bet is that yes, diversity is a part of their concerns, but that they are hanging their argument on that because they just can't outright say we don't like the guy, his vibes are off and we think he'll make us miserable

 

[smalltownpsych]

I’m totally agreeing that we don’t have enough information to make any judgement on the PD.
But that doesn’t mean the issues raised by the residents are not extremely important. And no one said it’s the most important factor. Nothing in the article even suggested it is and I absolutely do not think that residents were vehemently opposed to the appointment because this guy is white.
Call it what you want, but people can read the thread and figure out for themselves if it’s ignorant or not.

Minority representation in leadership being most important, extremely important, moderately Important, not really that important, not relevant. I think that valid arguments can be made for any perspective along this continuum. The problem I have with many of these types of arguments is when one takes a stance along this spectrum of belief and then attacks those who have a different stance as being in the extreme.

When I have been involved in DEI exercises at institutions, I learned pretty quickly to not ask any questions and just go along with the more extreme views even though I had more moderate views. One example is the whole pronoun thing. I think that it is kind of stupid for everyone to have to state their pronouns to avoid misgendering some people because I dont think it really helps anyone regardless of their gender identity, but I wouldn’t dare say that publicly for fear of retribution as being a transphobic privileged white male. I personally don’t care what someone’s genitals are unless I am personally having sex with them. Maybe our language will change and maybe that will be good and maybe people will stop trying to identify what biological sex someone is but I actually doubt it as it is a salient attribute for some purposes. I am actually much more confused how trying to act as though biological sex isn’t a real thing is even rational.