Ask the Program Coordinator!

[camedstudent23]

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[THF55222]

So, in your opinion, what is the best way to proceed? Leave it out of ERAS completely, match, then include it in licensing documents? Or put it in your ERAS and risk not matching?

I am also curious about this. Will an old, expunged charge really prevent someone from matching if they have had a clean record since and otherwise competitive credentials? I hear a lot of stories about people getting DUIs and the like while in medical school, which I personally think is much worse than having an expunged offense that occurred BEFORE medical school.

 

[camedstudent23]

.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

IMHO, this is terrible advice. Disclose it on ERAS. One of the questions on ERAS is whether there is anything in your past that could cause problems with licensing. So, best to disclose. Arguments over what "expunged" means are pointless -- the law is written state-to-state.

Will it matter? Probably not. Some fields are very sensitive to drug issues -- esp Anesthesia.

 

[gutonc]

The only thing I'll add to what aPD said (with which I agree completely) is that medicine is an area where "it's better to ask forgiveness than to seek permission" absolutely does not apply.

If you disclose up front, you're going to have to answer questions about it (which you're going to have to do every time you apply for a license or hospital privileges, so you might as well get used to it early), and once you explain it, nobody will care. If you don't disclose, and somebody finds out, you're going to find yourself out of not just a residency program, but likely a career as you'll be labelled a liar and a fraud and no program will touch you with a 10 foot stethoscope.

Is there a guarantee that your PD would find out that you lied on your application (by not disclosing this)? No. Do you want that hanging over your head during residency? You've got enough to worry about without making things harder on yourself.

 

[THF55222]

Alright, thank you for your responses, @aProgDirector @gutonc . I am absolutely going to disclose, partially because of the potential consequences, but mostly because of the anxiety it would cause me. Do you think it would be better for me to disclose this expunged offense on the "Is there anything in your past history that would limit your ability to be licensed or would limit your ability to receive hospital privileges?" question or the "Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor in the United States?" question on ERAS? Or will it not matter to a PD? I guess I'm asking if it will look like less of a red flag than a misdemeanor if I put it in the licensing question because it isn't technically a conviction.

 

[gutonc]

Alright, thank you for your responses, @aProgDirector @gutonc . I am absolutely going to disclose, partially because of the potential consequences, but mostly because of the anxiety it would cause me. Do you think it would be better for me to disclose this expunged offense on the "Is there anything in your past history that would limit your ability to be licensed or would limit your ability to receive hospital privileges?" question or the "Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor in the United States?" question on ERAS? Or will it not matter to a PD? I guess I'm asking if it will look like less of a red flag than a misdemeanor if I put it in the licensing question because it isn't technically a conviction.

Put it in the licensing question because that's the real issue.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Put it in the licensing question because that's the real issue.

I'm going to suggest the opposite. "Expunged" means nothing in the medical world, so you should basically ignore it. You were convicted of a misdemeanor, report it as such, and be done with it. I wouldn't list it as something likely to cause a problem with licensing because if it's old enough, and just a misdemeanor, it won't have any effect. As long as it's anywhere disclosed on your app, you're fine.

 

[Anduin]

Curious if many (if any) residencies have hiring benchmarks for military veterans.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Curious if many (if any) residencies have hiring benchmarks for military veterans.

Because of the way the match works, there isn't really any way to control this. We have had great success with military vets so far, so in my book it's a positive.

And, if you have served, thank you for your service keeping us all safe!

 

[Anduin]

Since residencies are funded primary by the federal government, it seems odd they aren't forced like other employers to take affirmative action to recruit and hire veterans.

 

[MLT2MT2DO]

Since residencies are funded primary by the federal government, it seems odd they aren't forced like other employers to take affirmative action to recruit and hire veterans.

While this would benefit me, like apd mentioned....how would this work with the way the match works?

 

[gutonc]

While this would benefit me, like apd mentioned....how would this work with the way the match works?

It wouldn't, which is why it doesn't happen.

 

[Wolverines83]

Curious if many (if any) residencies have hiring benchmarks for military veterans.

Unofficially I think it's a big help. I've had nothing but nice comments from interviewers. I would certainly make it a point to make it obvious that you were in the military in your application. Maybe in the beginning of the personal statement or something. It'll make your application stand out. At the very least they'll be neutral and if they're against military people, I'm fairly certain you don't want to go there anyway!

BTW, I'll let you know in three weeks if those nice comments materialize into anything.

 

[gutonc]

Look...if nothing else, military folks know how to follow instructions and do what they're told. It's a PD's wet dream to have a class full of people who will do that.

 

[Anduin]

While this would benefit me, like apd mentioned....how would this work with the way the match works?

Other employers that are subject to such laws establish a formal affirmative action program to hire a specific percent (which is currently 8 percent) of veterans for each job group in their workforce. It seems programs could easily just rank qualified veterans highly, in the same way other desired applicants are recruited, in an effort to meet this benchmark.

 

[gutonc]

Other employers that are subject to such laws establish a formal affirmative action program to hire a specific percent (which is currently 8 percent) of veterans for each job group in their workforce. It seems programs could easily just rank qualified veterans highly, in the same way other desired applicants are recruited, in an effort to meet this benchmark.

Ranking != Employing. That's the thing. In the current system there's no way to ensure that 8% of your matched class is veterans. And the system isn't changing.

I suppose they could require programs to hold 8% (or whatever) of their spots outside of the Match and offer some sort of way for vets to get those. But for some programs, that's going to mean 1 spot every 4-6 years held for a veteran. Even in the largest IM programs, you're looking at a max of 4 spots a yearm more likely 1-2. And even then, what if no veterans apply to your program? Do you have to leave 8% of your spots empty? And (this is a serious question), how many people are we talking about here each year and how many military veterans who apply to the Match go unmatched each year?

 

[Anduin]

Ranking != Employing. That's the thing. In the current system there's no way to ensure that 8% of your matched class is veterans. And the system isn't changing.

I suppose they could require programs to hold 8% (or whatever) of their spots outside of the Match and offer some sort of way for vets to get those. But for some programs, that's going to mean 1 spot every 4-6 years held for a veteran. Even in the largest IM programs, you're looking at a max of 4 spots a yearm more likely 1-2. And even then, what if no veterans apply to your program? Do you have to leave 8% of your spots empty? And (this is a serious question), how many people are we talking about here each year and how many military veterans who apply to the Match go unmatched each year?

Of course there is no way to ensure 8%, and I'm not saying to hold spots outside the match, but affirmative action programs could be enacted to recruit eligible veteran applicants in a similar fashion that many universities have formal programs for recruiting and retaining underrepresented minorities.

Regarding veterans unmatched, I'm not sure of the number nationally, but 3 of the 4 veterans in my graduating class did not match. One of them did find a spot in a less desired specialty. The other two are participating in the match again this year.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

It wouldn't, which is why it doesn't happen.

Just like how Texas surgery residencies don't have quotas for instate residents...

 

[StuckinReality]

Are IMGs always ranked after AMGs? How much does being an IMG hurt an applicant?

 

[MLT2MT2DO]

Other employers that are subject to such laws establish a formal affirmative action program to hire a specific percent (which is currently 8 percent) of veterans for each job group in their workforce. It seems programs could easily just rank qualified veterans highly, in the same way other desired applicants are recruited, in an effort to meet this benchmark.

So if one is a vet a program should rate this as a positive? Pretty sure this already exists.

 

[j4pac]

Veterans shouldn't be accepted into residency programs because affirmative action...they should get residency spots because they offer something on top of the typical applicant. But programs shouldn't be forced to accept veterans if they fail to realize their benefit.

 

[Anduin]

Spoke with the Department of Labor office responsible for enforcing this. In brief, according to their legal team, pretty much all universities are considered federal contractors due to federal $ they receive. Programs should aim to fill 1 in every 12 spots in each residency program with veterans. They should be showing they're making headway toward this or justifying why they aren't. Why this isn't being enforced is likely either because of ignorance or purposeful ignorance. The person at my program seemed to think there was some ambiguity in regards to resident status of student vs employee. This is no longer true, as the supreme court already ruled a few years ago that residents are employees. All big universities have federal contractor guidelines on all of their websites. This is not really a novel thing. Why they are still not applying the same guidelines to residents is because no one has told them to stop doing what they're doing yet. It's a process. Maybe others have uncovered this in the past but weren't motivated enough to get it moving. I am. So multiple universities are now under investigation regarding VEVRAA compliance in residency, and veteran groups are involved. This is just the beginning. I'm sure some people have seen this coming, and I'm sure some have been hoping it doesn't. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

This is a very interesting question/idea.

As I've mentioned before, we tend to give Vets precedence on our ROL already, without any legal prodding. Our experience is that they excel in teamwork and grit.

Although the law states that we should have a target of 8%, it seems more fair to measure the % of residency applicants who are veterans and use that as a guide. But I don't know what the law says, and trying to read about it online is only confusing me further.

If I understand the law correctly, this is basically Affirmative Action for vets. I should attempt to encourage vets to apply for residency. I should not (and don't) hold their service against them in any way. But I'm not required to hire a resident just because they are a veteran over someone who is more qualified. Quotas are not allowed. If my % vets is lower than my target, I need to have a plan to try to improve it -- but as long as I make a good faith effort I'm OK. The new law updates in 2013 require all sorts of new reporting that wasn't required before.

How do you expect it to play out? Will I have to put veterans at the top of my list regardless of their performance? Or should they get "preference points" of -10 on the rank list? Or simply as a tie breaker for otherwise similar applicants?

 

[Anduin]

How do they recruit African American students to your medical school now? I know I met some back on the med school interview trail with incredibly low stats. Aren't these people being brought in under the same affirmative action system over others who are "more qualified"? I assume it would be similar for veterans. How do you expect it to play out? What could be the repercussions for non compliance?

 

[Frederica]

To clarify, there is a potential that programs would have to take a mediocre to poor candidate just to tick a box for the DOL. Is that correct?

 

[gutonc]

How do they recruit African American students to your medical school now? I know I met some back on the med school interview trail with incredibly low stats. Aren't these people being brought in under the same affirmative action system over others who are "more qualified"? I assume it would be similar for veterans. How do you expect it to play out? What could be the repercussions for non compliance?

Do you understand the way the Match works? From your posts in this thread, I'm not convinced that you do.

 

[Raryn]

How do they recruit African American students to your medical school now? I know I met some back on the med school interview trail with incredibly low stats. Aren't these people being brought in under the same affirmative action system over others who are "more qualified"? I assume it would be similar for veterans. How do you expect it to play out? What could be the repercussions for non compliance?

There is no way to set up anything like this for any federally protected group, be it race, gender, veteran status whatever within the vagaries of the match. I suppose programs could simply rank vets (or minorities. or women. or whomever) higher, but even that won't necessarily make it so they match there.

The only way to ensure a strict proportionality in the bigger programs would be to have a separate X group only track that only they would apply for, and that's ten types of illegal.

 

[Anduin]

It seems like aProgDirector may have an issue with hiring veterans with lower scores over "someone who is more qualified". Just pointing out the same thing is happening already with minorities at every level. Applicants with below average scores are getting interviews and 2nd looks primarily due to their race, at least at some places. And I'm sure they get some sort of boost when it comes to ranking. No reason this couldn't be extended to veterans. aProgDirector already mentioned a couple ways to implement this (moving them to the top, bumping them up the list by a specific amount). It's not too difficult to imagine steps a program could take to potentially increase the # of veteran matches.

 

[IMPD]

It seems like aProgDirector may have an issue with hiring veterans with lower scores over "someone who is more qualified". Just pointing out the same thing is happening already with minorities at every level. Applicants with below average scores are getting interviews and 2nd looks primarily due to their race, at least at some places. And I'm sure they get some sort of boost when it comes to ranking. No reason this couldn't be extended to veterans. aProgDirector already mentioned a couple ways to implement this (moving them to the top, bumping them up the list by a specific amount). It's not too difficult to imagine steps a program could take to potentially increase the # of veteran matches.

We had a lovely talk from a diversity expert this year. She presented her work from Chicago and how they work to improve recruitment and retention of diversity. They also measure it across each residency and define diversity accordingly. This led to one slide where they pointed out that they asked ObGyn to come up with a plan to recruit more men.

I found the speaker to be eloquent and thoughtful and some of her ideas could be implemented anywhere (measuring). In terms of recruitment, creating a unified "Our University encourages applications from blah blah blah" was discussed. Beyond that, there were many other recommendations that all involved spending money bringing targeted applicants back for second looks and hosting alumni events throughout the country where local networks could be engaged to recruit. My personal experience is that all programs have preferences that bump people up or down a list that are unfair (geographic orgin being the most common), and that these sorts of efforts with other classes of applicants are highly dependent on the local Uni culture and desire of the Dean's office to make a priority in the world of task saturation that we all live in.

 

[gutonc]

It seems like aProgDirector may have an issue with hiring veterans with lower scores over "someone who is more qualified". Just pointing out the same thing is happening already with minorities at every level. Applicants with below average scores are getting interviews and 2nd looks primarily due to their race, at least at some places. And I'm sure they get some sort of boost when it comes to ranking. No reason this couldn't be extended to veterans. aProgDirector already mentioned a couple ways to implement this (moving them to the top, bumping them up the list by a specific amount). It's not too difficult to imagine steps a program could take to potentially increase the # of veteran matches.

I think you're missing the point. It's simple to come up with ideas for how any particular program could increase the likelihood of matching a veteran. But that's not what you're asking for. You're asking for a federal mandate that veterans must make up X% of each residency program (at least, that's what you started this thread asking for). And that's impossible to do with the way the Match works.

 

[MLT2MT2DO]

Spoke with the Department of Labor office responsible for enforcing this. In brief, according to their legal team, pretty much all universities are considered federal contractors due to federal $ they receive. Programs should aim to fill 1 in every 12 spots in each residency program with veterans. They should be showing they're making headway toward this or justifying why they aren't. Why this isn't being enforced is likely either because of ignorance or purposeful ignorance. The person at my program seemed to think there was some ambiguity in regards to resident status of student vs employee. This is no longer true, as the supreme court already ruled a few years ago that residents are employees. All big universities have federal contractor guidelines on all of their websites. This is not really a novel thing. Why they are still not applying the same guidelines to residents is because no one has told them to stop doing what they're doing yet. It's a process. Maybe others have uncovered this in the past but weren't motivated enough to get it moving. I am. So multiple universities are now under investigation regarding VEVRAA compliance in residency, and veteran groups are involved. This is just the beginning. I'm sure some people have seen this coming, and I'm sure some have been hoping it doesn't. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Coming from a Vet....if this is true it's f'n asinine. I would guess there are far fewer Vets that meet the requirements for residency than 1 in 12.
So if someone is a vet with an associates in general studies should we just waive the medical school requirement? I mean they served our country, that's more important than any medical training, right?

I have to assume whomever you spoke to was talking out their butt.

Here's an idea, kick butt in medical school and stop acting like you're owed everything.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

It seems like aProgDirector may have an issue with hiring veterans with lower scores over "someone who is more qualified". Just pointing out the same thing is happening already with minorities at every level. Applicants with below average scores are getting interviews and 2nd looks primarily due to their race, at least at some places. And I'm sure they get some sort of boost when it comes to ranking. No reason this couldn't be extended to veterans. aProgDirector already mentioned a couple ways to implement this (moving them to the top, bumping them up the list by a specific amount). It's not too difficult to imagine steps a program could take to potentially increase the # of veteran matches.

I don't have an "issue" with this. I simply asked my question to engender discussion. Which appears to have worked. I am very supportive of having the most diverse resident workforce possible.

I've had more time to review the legal issues. The law is clear that employers don't have to have a quota of a certain % veterans -- rather, they need to set a goal, measure whether they are meeting that goal, and if not develop plans to reach that goal. I doubt that the DoL will hold residency programs to 8% veterans. The law states that you should set a goal of 8%, or use a 5 point complicated system to determine a different goal. A very reasonable goal would be the % veterans of the eligible MS4 applicants.

As IMPD mentions above, there are some neutral ways to encourage veterans -- using advertising to stimulate interest, adjusting the interview experience to fit their needs, actively recruiting them with funded second visits, etc. Whether any of these actually changes applicant behavior is unknown, but these are all fine options. For example, we have the chief of our VA interview anyone with a military past -- he enjoys / requests it, and feedback from our applicants has been positive. Using military experience as a ranking criteria if such activity demonstrates leadership and/or independence is also completely reasonable. Some of our veteran residents have been outstanding because of this.

Using veteran status to bump someone up the rank list solely because they are a veteran is certain to cause controversy. On one hand, some will argue that residency selection should be purely merit based and should depend upon your performance in medical school. On the other, some will argue that veterans deserve special consideration -- due to their sacrifices which can never be fully repaid, and (perhaps) because their service might limit their ability to fill their CV in other ways (i.e. they may have less research experience due to time spent in the service). This same debate happens anywhere Affirmative Action is active. The "right" answer depends upon your own interpretation of the discussion.

The only thing I am certain of is that, if the DoL decides to focus on this issue, there will be a tremendous amount of new paperwork and reporting I will need to deal with. Sounds fantastic!

 

[Anduin]

You're asking for a federal mandate that veterans must make up X% of each residency program (at least, that's what you started this thread asking for). And that's impossible to do with the way the Match works.

You must have misunderstood what I said. My original questions were 1. Do you have a affirmative action program to recruit veterans? and 2. Why not? I never asked for a separate match, to hold a number of slots for veterans, or any of the other things you've said in this thread. And I'm not asking for a mandate that veterans make up a certain percent of each residency program. There is already a regulation that requires these employers to take affirmative action to recruit and hire veterans with a target of filling to a specific percent. Like I said in one of my initial posts, obviously there is no way to ensure a match, but there are plenty of ways to increase the likelihood.

 

[Anduin]

As IMPD mentions above, there are some neutral ways to encourage veterans -- using advertising to stimulate interest, adjusting the interview experience to fit their needs, actively recruiting them with funded second visits, etc. Whether any of these actually changes applicant behavior is unknown, but these are all fine options.

Our program already spends money doing these things now for minorities. It sounds completely reasonable to extend this to veterans.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

While it is "employment" residency is also unique in that the only people who can enter it are medical school graduates. So applying a labor regulation that exists for the workforce as a whole to this select population would have a disproportionate effect, unless you can verify that the proportion of veterans in medical school mirrors the proportion in the workforce at large (which it doesn't)

In other words, there simply aren't enough veterans in medical school for every residency to meet this quota.

The law states that the goal should be 8%, or a different target calculated based on various factors. One of those factors is "any other factors, including but not limited to the nature of the contractor’ job openings and/or its location, which would tend to affect the availability of qualified protected veterans." Hence, I doubt residencies would be held to an 8% target and instead would be held to match the actual percentage of covered veterans graduating from medical school.

That said, after extensive reading of online material on the DOL site and others, I'm not certain this is a major issue for residency programs.

First, the law doesn't mandate hiring any percent of veterans. It requires that federal contractors set a benchmark, measure whether they are meeting that benchmark, define an Affirmative Action Plan (AAP), and refine that plan if not meeting benchmark. There is no punishment for not meeting the benchmark, you can only run afoul of the law by not having the AAP and reporting the data annually. Presumably if you are below benchmark, you would be expected to "enhance" your AAP.

Second, the DOL site is very clear about how hiring decisions are made:

5. Under the new regulations, must a contractor hire an individual with a disability who is not the best qualified but who meets the minimum requirements of the job for the purposes of affirmative action?

No. The Section 503 regulations do not require contractors to hire an individual who is not qualified for the position being sought. Nor do they require contractors to hire a less qualified candidate instead of the best qualified candidate for the purposes of affirmative action. However, it would not violate Section 503 for a contractor to select a person with a disability over a candidate without a disability who was equally or better qualified, so long as that selection was not based on a prohibited factor such as race, gender or ethnicity.

So this is 100% clear that there is no mandate to move veterans up or down the ROL simply because of their status. But we can use their veteran status to "break ties" in their favor.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, it appears that the benchmark is for the entire institution, not individually for each subgroup in the institution. This is complicated, because there are separate rules for individuals with disabilities and the goal there is to have them represented in all groups equally. But for veterans, the whole institution needs to report only on their entire workforce. So as long as the institution is attempting to hire veterans and especially if the institution meets its benchmark in other areas, it's not clear that individual residency programs would need to alter their activity.

All that said, I'm not a lawyer, nor an expert in this, and the rules are all new and will be argued about and further clarified as time progresses. We shall see what happens.

Plus, my apologies to the Program Admins who started this thread. Its gotten way off target. If we want to continue discussing this, let's start a new thread. Or a smarter Mod than me can split off this piece of the thread into a new thread.

 

[Malyck]

Quick question, after the ROL deadline has passed is it bad form to ask the PC if you have a high likelihood of matching into that program? I ask only because my current lease expires this month where I'm doing rotations, and I'm trying to look for housing for my family and I. It would give me a better idea of which cities to start looking in if I had some sort of idea if I would match there or not. Or is there any way before the 20th to find out the city you matched to? Someone told me this was possible with couples matching at least...

 

[Malyck]

Maybe I misunderstand, but if both parties submitted their list and nobody can modify them isn't the whole point about not soliciting this info because it could make an applicant change the rank order? If the rank order can't be modified how does this apply?

 

[Malyck]

"One of the purposes of the Main Residency Match is to allow both applicants and programs to make selection decisions on a uniform schedule and without coercion or undue or unwarranted pressure. Both applicants and programs may express their interest in each other; however, they shall not solicit verbal or written statements implying a commitment."

This is why I asked, because I can't be coerced to change my order and I'm not soliciting a commitment, just an idea if I was ranked high enough to have a likelihood of matching (not even asking for position).

 

[Raryn]

Quick question, after the ROL deadline has passed is it bad form to ask the PC if you have a high likelihood of matching into that program? I ask only because my current lease expires this month where I'm doing rotations, and I'm trying to look for housing for my family and I. It would give me a better idea of which cities to start looking in if I had some sort of idea if I would match there or not. Or is there any way before the 20th to find out the city you matched to? Someone told me this was possible with couples matching at least...

If you are partially matched, either because you are 1/2 of a couple that matched or because you matched prelim but not advanced (or vice versa), you can contact the NRMP on the 16th to find out the city where your/your partner's program is. Your dean may also have the information at that time that they can share with you. Barring the NRMP screwing up their website again this year, that is the only circumstance in which you can get any information early.

 

[Malyck]

Thank you Raryn

 

[Anduin]

The law states that the goal should be 8%, or a different target calculated based on various factors. One of those factors is "any other factors, including but not limited to the nature of the contractor’ job openings and/or its location, which would tend to affect the availability of qualified protected veterans." Hence, I doubt residencies would be held to an 8% target and instead would be held to match the actual percentage of covered veterans graduating from medical school.

That said, after extensive reading of online material on the DOL site and others, I'm not certain this is a major issue for residency programs.

First, the law doesn't mandate hiring any percent of veterans. It requires that federal contractors set a benchmark, measure whether they are meeting that benchmark, define an Affirmative Action Plan (AAP), and refine that plan if not meeting benchmark. There is no punishment for not meeting the benchmark, you can only run afoul of the law by not having the AAP and reporting the data annually. Presumably if you are below benchmark, you would be expected to "enhance" your AAP.

Second, the DOL site is very clear about how hiring decisions are made:


So this is 100% clear that there is no mandate to move veterans up or down the ROL simply because of their status. But we can use their veteran status to "break ties" in their favor.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, it appears that the benchmark is for the entire institution, not individually for each subgroup in the institution. This is complicated, because there are separate rules for individuals with disabilities and the goal there is to have them represented in all groups equally. But for veterans, the whole institution needs to report only on their entire workforce. So as long as the institution is attempting to hire veterans and especially if the institution meets its benchmark in other areas, it's not clear that individual residency programs would need to alter their activity.

All that said, I'm not a lawyer, nor an expert in this, and the rules are all new and will be argued about and further clarified as time progresses. We shall see what happens.

Plus, my apologies to the Program Admins who started this thread. Its gotten way off target. If we want to continue discussing this, let's start a new thread. Or a smarter Mod than me can split off this piece of the thread into a new thread.

I know you're super busy, so thanks for taking the time to review this and for your opinion.

 

[j4pac]

I'm curious about partially matched. I only applied to advanced programs and didn't apply to a prelim year (I have already completed internship). If I match to an advanced program will I be listed as matched or partially matched?

 

[gutonc]

I'm curious about partially matched. I only applied to advanced programs and didn't apply to a prelim year (I have already completed internship). If I match to an advanced program will I be listed as matched or partially matched?

Partially matched. And you'll be fine (but unemployed for a year).

 

[Xbocker]

Excellent thread. Learned a lot. I have a question. What is one of the first filter you use to narrow the applicant pool base? Is it number of attempts? Step 1 score? Step 2 score?

 

[Frederica]

We don't use filters. My program director told me he has been doing this for so long he looks at an application and can tell if he wants to interview a candidate, not interview them, or is on the fence about interviewing them.

That being said, perhaps some of the other administrators or program directors can add their input as we all do things differently.

 

[LATigers]

Excellent thread. Learned a lot. I have a question. What is one of the first filter you use to narrow the applicant pool base? Is it number of attempts? Step 1 score? Step 2 score?

I believe this is completely program dependent. If you ask 20 different programs the same question, you will likely get 20 different answers. Our first filter is region, then Step 2 ck score.

 

[littleredwagon]

Hi! Thank you everyone for your responses. Not sure if this thread is still active or not, but I had a couple of questions about how programs create their ROLs.

It seems like it would be in a program's best interest to rank applicants by how much they want those applicants, regardless of how highly the applicants may rank them. However, I have also heard that PDs are under pressure to make sure that they do not have to go too far down their rank list come match day. That is, if they have 20 spots, and get their top 20 picks, everyone is happy. But if they start matching applicants at their #50th rank and below, this would reflect poorly on the PD (I am randomly pulling out these numbers out of nowhere just to help illustrate the situation - apologies if I'm way off base with the numbers!). Thus, even if an applicant is wonderful, the program might not rank him or her highly if they didn't think the applicant would rank them highly because they then might be going further down on their list.

I guess my question is, are PDs under significant pressure to pull matches from the top of their ROLs? Obviously, you may only be able to speak about your own programs, but I was curious as to how pervasive this may be. It seems like an arrangement that is bad for both applicant and PDs, and I imagine could easily cause just as much stress to PDs come ROL-creation time as it does to applicants.

A semi-related question: does the NRMP provide programs with information as to how many applicants ranked them #1 or ranked them at all? Are there other metrics that PDs are judged by their institutions by?

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I am not judged by how far down my list I go. Therefore, I rank people in the order I want them. You are correct that if I was judged on this, I might rank people differently. Whether other programs are evaluated like this, or if PD's take it personally, I don't know.

We do not get any info from the NRMP regarding how applicants ranked us.

Ooops. Sorry Frederica. This is your thread to answer!

 

[semperparatus]

Freaking out a little here. At the end of second year I needed to take a short (<1 month) medical leave of absence before Step 1 because I had mono. Recovered fine, no long-term sequelae, no issues. Did fine third year, and I did not have to extend med school or take courses late since I just used that time as elective time in my third year instead of fourth year. My dean told me that because of this, I did not have to list it on ERAS as "interruption or extension of medical studies." But I just found out that my MSPE letter lists it as "medical LOA" and doesn't say anything else. Now I am viewing other threads and seeing that others in similar situations reported it. Nobody talks about what to do if you have already submitted - I already submitted yesterday before finding this out. I am extremely worried this will be viewed as a discrepancy in my application. What do I do? Will this be looked at unfavorably by residencies? Aghh...