- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 6,150
I understand and agree, but I still think it would be good if the SLOE process was somehow more transparent to the students. The student above that I was referring to seems to have been blindsided, since he said he was assured good remarks in his SLOE but it seems the opposite happened. It seems to be a problem since there is a thread here telling people which places to avoid that may blindside and give bad SLOEs. He seems to be a decent guy since his deans letter which reflects third year clinical evals was good. Perhaps he rubbed someone the wrong way in one of his EM rotations, but it would be good if that someone could have brought it up with him instead of potentially writing an awful comment which is now hurting his chances. In one of my rotations it was as simple as doing uworld questions on my phone, and the resident never brought it up with me but wrote in my feedback comments that I was constantly texting.
I understand your concern. I'm sure everyone would love the process to be more transparent. But it can't be as simple as knowing exactly what the SLOE says, otherwise the SLOE doesnt carry the same weight. Basically it allows programs to know what another program is going to rank a student. That is insane level of important info in terms of knowing how good a student is. If its not blinded, people will over-rate students so as not to hurt their feelings, much like grades are now where 90% of people get honors or HP. I do agree though, no program should tell a student they are going to write them a good SLOE, then blindside them with something terrible. That's very unprofessional.