Does it matter if programs don't have a "current residents" page on their website

[Nameless MD]

The nature of the application cycle this year makes it hard to really assess programs. Does it make sense to be weary of programs that don't have a current residents page on their website? I feel like those programs are trying to hide something or make it difficult to contact current residents to make inquiries. Am I being paranoid?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wolfvgang22]

No, it doesn't matter. They don't really need to market their program, anyway. There's more good applicants than seats available.

 

[Nameless MD]

Thank you @wolfvgang22

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

Some of my residents have strong feelings about keeping their internet footprints as small as possible. I may be old fashioned, but relate to not giving up privacy voluntarily. We do provide names and contact information to those we invite to interviews, but we don't let this out to the world.

 

[Nameless MD]

Some of my residents have strong feelings about keeping their internet footprints as small as possible. I may be old fashioned, but relate to not giving up privacy voluntarily. We do provide names and contact information to those we invite to interviews, but we don't let this out to the world.

I didn't think about it from that angle. Thanks!

 

[brazilianpsych]

I'm applying this year and I'm having the opposite feeling. Some programs are organizing zoom calls every week. Why do they want to advertise themselves that much?

 

[Merovinge]

Some of my residents have strong feelings about keeping their internet footprints as small as possible. I may be old fashioned, but relate to not giving up privacy voluntarily. We do provide names and contact information to those we invite to interviews, but we don't let this out to the world.

That's super cool of your program. I have always felt that our privacy is so invaded as doctors with NPI addresses and google locating us at all times that I especially appreciate anyone trying to provide some privacy.

 

[adaptation1]

I'm applying this year and I'm having the opposite feeling. Some programs are organizing zoom calls every week. Why do they want to advertise themselves that much?

Probably over-compensating. But a big part of the interview process is going to the physical location, feeling the vibes, meeting the residents. All of that is not possible with Zoom. So they want to give the applicant as much exposure to the people and program as possible, whether it's representative or not. Smaller programs with less name recognition are at a disadvantage in this process, I guess.

 

[wamc2021psych]

Probably over-compensating. But a big part of the interview process is going to the physical location, feeling the vibes, meeting the residents. All of that is not possible with Zoom. So they want to give the applicant as much exposure to the people and program as possible, whether it's representative or not. Smaller programs with less name recognition are at a disadvantage in this process, I guess.

big name programs are doing it too. they still want the best of the best applicants and are trying to differentiate themselves as number 1 out of the top 5, 10, whatever.

 

[asdf123g]

Not a fan of publicizing resident information, especially if they didn't consent specifically for that.

Where I think many will disagree with me on though for getting rid of it is so applicants can't use a fellow alumni they see there as an unfair advantage over applicants that may not have that connection or provide inside information on the interview process. I think outside influences like that should be minimized to make it more meritocratic.

 

[hallowmann]

I'm applying this year and I'm having the opposite feeling. Some programs are organizing zoom calls every week. Why do they want to advertise themselves that much?

Because some of us have been getting emails for the last two months from prospective applicants wanting to learn more about our program, residents, etc. in the time of virtual interviewing. We aren't doing weekly anything, but we are doing zoom open houses, and most programs are doing the same, if only to tell those people about our program in a controlled setting, and not have to have 30 of the same conversations. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Also, multiple people have explicitly asked us if we are doing open houses, so ultimately we decided to do some. It's become an expectation of most applicants.

 

[Stagg737]

Some of my residents have strong feelings about keeping their internet footprints as small as possible. I may be old fashioned, but relate to not giving up privacy voluntarily. We do provide names and contact information to those we invite to interviews, but we don't let this out to the world.

While I definitely respect maintaining as much privacy for residents as possible, I do think this can be a significant concern in regards to diversity of the classes/willingness to apply. I applied as a DO with relatively poor stats, so for programs that weren't in my region that didn't have more than 1 or 2 DOs, and programs that didn't have residents at least listed on their website, I automatically dropped them from my list. Conversely, I could seen a solid USMD student may not apply if they were worried about it being a program that is potentially weaker (though I'm sure that's less likely).

I'd also say that in general most of the programs that didn't provide any information on residents tended to have terrible websites in general and several of them I had heard poor things about. If I saw that and didn't know anything about the program, there was no way for me to reasonably find out if they were a decent program or if they were malignant. I can certainly see the pros and cons, but it certainly provides no help to the applicants attempting to learn about the programs or classes.

 

[MusicDOc124]

I wouldn't worry about it. I've seen a few great programs that did not have up-to-date lists and were still very desired programs matching within their top 10 ranks of applicants including a handful of academic programs. I've also seen programs completely up-to-date with everything listed and current and be very undesirable based on culture, location, or site/environment.

That said, to re-iterate @MacDonaldTriad , I've known numerous people, notably in psychiatry by nature of some of the patient types worked with, who wanted to be as private as possible. Some didn't even want their name listed on the website let alone a photo, name of school attended, or bio.

 

[Nameless MD]

I wouldn't worry about it. I've seen a few great programs that did not have up-to-date lists and were still very desired programs matching within their top 10 ranks of applicants including a handful of academic programs. I've also seen programs completely up-to-date with everything listed and current and be very undesirable based on culture, location, or site/environment.

That said, to re-iterate @MacDonaldTriad , I've known numerous people, notably in psychiatry by nature of some of the patient types worked with, who wanted to be as private as possible. Some didn't even want their name listed on the website let alone a photo, name of school attended, or bio.

Thanks for the response. It's the nature of the application cycle this year that's getting me all worked up. I understand this may be a rhetorical question at this point, but how then am I supposed to get a feel of what a program is like?

 

[deleted480308]

Thanks for the response. It's the nature of the application cycle this year that's getting me all worked up. I understand this may be a rhetorical question at this point, but how then am I supposed to get a feel of what a program is like?

10 work photos won’t give you a feel

 

[Nameless MD]

10 work photos won’t give you a feel

True that. I guess I really am just freaking out over nothing

 

[MusicDOc124]

Thanks for the response. It's the nature of the application cycle this year that's getting me all worked up. I understand this may be a rhetorical question at this point, but how then am I supposed to get a feel of what a program is like?

Echoing the above. Even being in person doesn't always give the greatest feel. The only way you're really going to get a feel is to do a rotation somewhere. Obviously it's an issue right now, but that's really the only way.

 

[whopper]

I'd recommend programs not show any current residents on their webpage. You're just upping the odds that someone with a bad agenda is going to track someone's name and pic. Also, having taught several residents, the odds of having a problem resident aren't unlikely to the degree where it almost never happens. It actually happens with at least one resident every few years. Not good having a resident on the webpage for year 1 then all of a sudden-BAM their face is removed from the roster. I get it if the program wants to give pics of the residents to applicants, but that IMHO isn't so value-effective.

My forensic fellowship used to have a list of graduates with updates on what they were doing. I didn't have a problem with that, but residents in training yes. Especially when some of them were in trouble and on the verge of being given the boot.

 

[Dalemane]

Thanks for the response. It's the nature of the application cycle this year that's getting me all worked up. I understand this may be a rhetorical question at this point, but how then am I supposed to get a feel of what a program is like?

and now that i'm helping my program interview, we are wondering how we are supposed to get a feel for how an applicant is.

 

[whopper]

I mentioned this a few times.

The science, studied within the field of Industrial Psychology (AKA Consult-Liason Psychology or Business Psychology) shows that interviews have pretty much no correlation with the future performance of an applicant.

You sometimes can catch people in interviews doing things worthy of nixing them. E.g. they show up smelling bad, or wearing very odd clothing, or doing something way out there, but this is not likely.

If anything that should take some pressure off in trying to "get a feel" for an applicant. I'd also argue that if people think they're getting a feel it's likely more in their imagination, possibly subconsciously linking something about the applicant to a someone else they knew with a similar behavior that has no substantive real correlation to this applicant. E.g. test subjects tend to like more physically attractive people or Caucasian people (vs Black people) whether or not that test subject is consciously aware of their prejudice, even when the people were given a script and told to say the same exact content to the test subjects.

I've also seen some applicants show some interesting traits that made them seem like they'd be better residents only to later see that trait having no real predictive value or worse. E.g. a cluster B resident I knew was histrionic enough to be a great interviewer. She smiled a lot, looked directly into your eyes and knew how to flirt with people to a degree where it wasn't inappropriate making the interviewer like her very quickly. Well guess what? As a resident she was histrionic enough to make people like her within a moment but hate her once you spent a week with her, and she was involved in a lot of idiot drama such as backstabbing, talking about someone behind their back etc.

Applicants (and residents and attendings) are going to put on an overly enthusiastic game-face. So the behavior during an interview is for the most part BS as to who they really are.

I'm sure there is some type of Mike Erhmantraut method to get a better method of evaluating an applicant from the limited time you get to see them. What I've noticed is if applicants can talk about psychiatry or medicine showing they've put a lot more emotional investment into it vs other applicants, there's something good going on. E.g. research showing they actually know what they're taking about, something that really shows they give a damn about psychiatry, (or the behavioral sciences in general), or have some impressive life accomplishments I was more attuned to thinking this person could be a good resident.

Some people may ask "what is emotional investment?" Too broad but if you're bright and care about psychiatry you can tell someone knows or cares more about it than others.

Giving a non-psych example, (and remember I'm a comic book fan), you got Captain American fan with a Cap T-shirt and he only talks about how much he loved the movies. Then you got a guy who's talking about how much he liked the movies but it's a shame that Marvel pretty much screwed Cap's creators Jack Kirby and Joe Simon by not paying them any royalties.

WHAT? They know Cap's creators? They know Stan Lee didn't create Captain America? They know Marvel screwed them? This shows the guy must've really gotten into the character for real. Fandom happens in layers. You enjoy the material, see the more popular stuff 100x, then you start searching for the more esoteric stuff, then you start getting interested in the history of the behind the scenes. So in the pyramid you know this latter guy is a real fan with a lot more "investment."

 

[Laradd]

I think it is better and important to have such information.

 

[whopper]

I think it is better and important to have such information.

IMHO interviews only help in putting a face/voice to an applicant, unless something rare happens. From my own experience of interviewing several people they were all out to butt-kiss me and didn't offer much.

Another example of someone who showed they had "emotional investment." A friend of mine applied into ophthalmology and had average scores, and was a DO. He got a few interviews. The interviewer asked him "prove to me you care about ophthalmology." My friend told him that he has a very strong passion for it and pulled out the first ever printed book on ophthalmology that was hundreds of years old that if it were in perfect condition would've been worth several thousands of dollars. Of course his copy wasn't in perfect condition, but even in it's bad condition it was worth a lot of money, and was kept in a protective casing. The interviewer, he told me, was in disbelief (in a good way) and was shocked that he even knew what this book was and it left a strong emotional impression on him. My friend opened up the book and showed the interviewer his favorite parts and there was handwriting in the book that my friend pointed out may have been from a famous historical physician but he couldn't prove it, he also told the interview it his life's dream to get into the field. The guy got in despite that on paper he was not a strong applicant.

This is a prime example of someone who can significantly show they really care about this field and isn't just some guy picking up this choice of field based on a lifestyle, pay, or other factor that could suggest mediocrity.

As a guy who's interviewed more people than I cared to interview this is an example of an interview that stood out. Almost every interview the person is buttkissing me and asking the same exact stuff everyone else asked.