- Joined
- Feb 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 6,150
No way. I'd be way more impressed by someones bravery for using reaper as their photo!
I guess that would stand out but only if people knew what it meant.No way. I'd be way more impressed by someones bravery for using reaper as their photo!
We cant sent separate photos to different schools can we?No way. I'd be way more impressed by someones bravery for using reaper as their photo!
Just send a video doing a wicked death blossom and you will be good.We cant sent separate photos to different schools can we?
If not, look out for a supplemental document with a Reaper headshot
Quintuple Kill = automatic interview inviteJust send a video doing a wicked death blossom and you will be good.
Sent from my SM-G386T using SDN mobile
Sir,
What's your take on the SVI which I just found out last week when I registered for MyERAS? Reason I am asking is because I am more of introvert and am horrible at hypothetical scenario questions.
My first reaction was "whats the point". Then I thought about it, and maybe it has potential to help those that score low on boards but are clinically good get some interviews since its another way for programs to filter applicants other than just a board score. In the end, like anything, I think We just need to see what it is, how it will be used, and how its implemented. If its free and helps open up some doors for students then Id welcome it. If its going to lead to a costly process that is not in the students best interest, then Id obviously be against it.
w we are supposed to have at least 3 letters,
I've heard of some people getting an individual letter from a faculty member
What are your thoughts on getting a letter from a faculty member of a different specialty, mainly as a character reference?
I would venture to say most people have at least one letter from the different specialty. Some rotation that they did really well on and they get a letter as a charachter reference. As an example, back when I submitted to ERAS I submitted to sloes, an FP letter, and and IM letter.
Can you go more into a description on doing an EM/IM combined residency and how realistic it is to be an ED doc and an internist? I like the idea of both and am wondering if there's a way to really practice both?
Thank you so much!Well, the rise of hospitalists allow for shift work, so someone that wants to do both jobs could. I just don't get it personally though. I mean, I loved IM. But I see IM patients all day long in the ED, work less shifts than an IM hospitalist, and make more money. I just don't get the draw to want to do both. The one exception I guess would be if there was a big desire to do a critical care fellowship and be boarded in IM/CC and EM. Splitting time between the ED and ICU. I could see that maybe.
Is it just the places I'm rotating or is it hard to honor EM months? I just went HP/HP after working way harder than I did during core clerkships and picking up good evals along the way. Do the grades not really matter for our application? Both told me they would write good SLOEs, for what it's worth. One of them also said they honor 50% and HP 50%, and I'm not really sure what I could've done differently. What a strange process...
Do you rank students without CS scores?
Osteopathic EM programs@gamerEMdoc Sorry another question, I apologize if this has been talked about already. Can you talk about the significant differences and pros/cons in doing a 3 year vs. a 4 year residency?
Not an attending, but as a former applicant the main difference is academics, elective time. Usually more emphasis on fellowship/leadership roles from 4yrs, although possible from both. Often a year of "sub attending"@gamerEMdoc Sorry another question, I apologize if this has been talked about already. Can you talk about the significant differences and pros/cons in doing a 3 year vs. a 4 year residency?
Not an attending, but as a former applicant the main difference is academics, elective time. Usually more emphasis on fellowship/leadership roles from 4yrs, although possible from both. Often a year of "sub attending"
Over here we call it pre-tending. Get it?
Personally, I am a solid opponent of a 4 year program for several reasons. Its an extra year the hospitals get for cheap labor under the guise of "electives". Your interest grows and you lose a years worth of attending salary (atleast 300K). Secondly, they dont enhance your experience in a way you cant do it yourself. Some will argue that it provides you with extra training and that 3 years is not enough to learn EM. Well, my counter even 4 years isnt enough, but you can get extra training for several years outside of residency through just working. If you dont like being the ultimate person accountable or want a safety net, then I can see that argument, but you have to be in that position someday.
On the topic of fellowships, yes it is true that 4 year programs will choose applicants that did a 4 year residency. However, there are several fellowships that do fill with 3 year applicants. The main reasoning for this is that an R4 is not being supervised by a fellow that has the same level of training as him/her, which is a fair point.
Point, counterpoint: with the caveat that I had/have no strong opinion about the universal superiority of 3 vs 4 (it's a personal decision)...
If the bolded above is true, then I agree, not worth the extra time. There were programs that I looked at where I felt that an extra year of training would be low yield because it was another year of "more of the same". The ones I chose to interview at packed added value into the four years, whether that was the way you could utilize your elective time, unique opportunities in critical care, or more time with access to resources that would enable me to launch an academic career.
Agreed, not all 4 year programs are created equal. There are also some programs that treat the 4 years as 1+3, with a first year full of floor months more in line with the traditional intern year.
Point, counterpoint: with the caveat that I had/have no strong opinion about the universal superiority of 3 vs 4 (it's a personal decision)...
If the bolded above is true, then I agree, not worth the extra time. There were programs that I looked at where I felt that an extra year of training would be low yield because it was another year of "more of the same". The ones I chose to interview at packed added value into the four years, whether that was the way you could utilize your elective time, unique opportunities in critical care, or more time with access to resources that would enable me to launch an academic career.
So.. would not having a CS score at the time of ROL submission affect your ranking of the applicant?Usually by the time we send in our rank list, most students had passed the CS exam.
So.. would not having a CS score at the time of ROL submission affect your ranking of the applicant?
In general, EM grades are far more important than other rotation grades. And no, a "pass" on an EM rotation is not a "red flag". Plenty of places are strict graders and 50-70% of the folks rotating get a "pass". Red flags are things like taking a year off because you got dumped while in med school, failing boards multiple times, having an evaluation point out some unprofessional behavior, etc. Getting a "pass" on a rotation is most certainly not a red flag.
You mentioned that taking a year off is a red flag.
No, I said taking a year off because you got dumped (or insert other social stressor). You can take time off for legitimate reasons in medical school. After all, tragedies happen.
Haha gotcha, I hope my reason won't be frowned on upon too much. Would you recommend I address this in my personal statement or should I only explain it if asked about it?
@gamerEMdoc thanks for answering questions.
I am a DO student with low 240s Step 1/660s COMLEX. Any idea what my odds are of getting a UC or staying west coast? Also, do you think I'd be safe completely avoiding AOA programs with my scores?
Also, how big of an issue would it be if I get mostly HP during rotations?
Just curious why you feel so strongly that an evaluation will lose objectivity if it is not blinded to the student. None of my M3/M4 evals are blinded.First, they are only blinded if you waive your right to see the letter. This is the same as any other letter for ERAS. If you choose not to waive the right, its noted on the SLOE. Personally, I wouldn't write one for a student that didn't waive the right to see the letter. I get this is anxiety provoking for the students, but the reason the SLOE is so important is that it is an honest evaluation and assessment of a student. As soon as you know that the student is going to see the evaluation, that objectivity goes away, and the SLOE becomes worth WAY LESS to the application.
Personally, I like a system where EM performance (via blinded SLOE) is weighted much more highly than something like board scores. But if you take away the importance of a blinded objective evaluation, then all of a sudden we are back to ranking students based on boards and class rank, which is not, in my opinion, the way to find good ED docs.
Is the system more anxiety provoking for students. Yes. However, its in the students best interests in the end, because the most fair system is one where the people with the best chance of matching are the people that perform the best in the ED, and there is no more fair system than that.
Just curious why you feel so strongly that an evaluation will lose objectivity if it is not blinded to the student. None of my M3/M4 evals are blinded.
How can I judge my competitiveness in order to come up with a list of target programs? My grades/Steps/ECs are strong, but I am worried about applying top-heavy especially if I've got a hidden SLOE bomb.Non-blinded evals lead to grade inflation. Yes, none of your M3/4 grades are blinded, but if you look at the grade distribution at many schools its very very skewed at the top end. People will not be open and honest about a candidates weaknesses if students can see their sloes. Plus, they can pick which ones to submit, which further skews it. You could do five rotations, get five sloe's, and then just send out the two best ones to programs when you submit. Which means the sloe's become less meaningful and less trustworthy at best, and worthless at worst.
I get the anxiety over this, but this system is one that works very well as is and has for years.
Despite the system working very well, the problem of over-application has really ramped up in the last couple years, with the average applications per student sitting at over 44 for the most recent season. I've spoken with a PD who's part of a task force (or, for Brooklyn 99 fans, a Do Group) to combat this problem. This is a big expense for students, and the PD states that it has impacted programs by forcing them to review more applications and hold more interviews. I know we've discussed this in the past, and if I remember correctly, you said that programs don't increase the number of people they interview or review just because they receive more applications... However, if you look at the PD survey put out by the NRMP each year, you'll see that more interviews are being conducted for roughly the same number of spots compared to a few years ago.Non-blinded evals lead to grade inflation. Yes, none of your M3/4 grades are blinded, but if you look at the grade distribution at many schools its very very skewed at the top end. People will not be open and honest about a candidates weaknesses if students can see their sloes. Plus, they can pick which ones to submit, which further skews it. You could do five rotations, get five sloe's, and then just send out the two best ones to programs when you submit. Which means the sloe's become less meaningful and less trustworthy at best, and worthless at worst.
I get the anxiety over this, but this system is one that works very well as is and has for years.
Despite the system working very well, the problem of over-application has really ramped up in the last couple years, with the average applications per student sitting at over 44 for the most recent season. I've spoken with a PD who's part of a task force (or, for Brooklyn 99 fans, a Do Group) to combat this problem. This is a big expense for students, and the PD states that it has impacted programs by forcing them to review more applications and hold more interviews. I know we've discussed this in the past, and if I remember correctly, you said that programs don't increase the number of people they interview or review just because they receive more applications... However, if you look at the PD survey put out by the NRMP each year, you'll see that more interviews are being conducted for roughly the same number of spots compared to a few years ago.
My proposed solution:
1. Require programs use eSLOEs, which automatically record and report the number of students who receive Top 10%, Top 1/3rd, Middle 1/3rd, and Bottom 1/3rd, as well as the number of students falling into each of the other standardized question ranks.
2. Make these rankings visible to students.
3. Require students to register for a Rotation ID from CORD for each EM rotation they complete, which is searchable by AAMC applicant number on CORD and needs to be listed on each eSLOE, and require students to sign an agreement that they will submit an eSLOE from each EM rotation.
By cross-referencing these IDs, PDs can enforce the requirement that no eSLOEs be withheld from programs. Plus, since students will know they have absolutely no opportunity to hide a bad SLOE, it may even cut down on people doing "too many aways," which would cut down on the yearly VSAS circus. The narrative portion of the eSLOE can continue to be hidden from students, since this seems to be something PDs feel strongly about.
These steps should sufficiently combat grade inflation, while giving applicants a more transparent assessment of their competitiveness and therefore driving down the problem of rampant over-application.
It's apparently very important for programs to receive lots of standardized, non-biased information about their applicants to help them select their best fit. Applicants should be able to see the same type of standardized, non-biased information about programs and away rotations, to help us select our best fit.
I agree, the more objective data the better. I get people dont like anonymous evals, but every year on SDN when it comes time for students to describe their rank lists and provide feedback on the places they interview, they do so anonymously. Why is that anonymous? Because its the only way to make sure it is honest and objective.
Sir,
Just few quick questions which I know its probably silly for you but for me given that I never did ER rotation during medical school and when I did my rotation at my IM program which doesn't have ER residency... I am not sure what's considered gold standard..
What study material is considered as gold standard for EM while during residency and later preparing for board? For IM, its MKSAP and MedStudy
What about question bank? What's considered gold standard and what are other options out there? IM: MKSAP is gold standard but UWorld its highly recommended by all as well
Just wanted to get a head study after I am done with my ABIM exam... that's all. Thanks. =)
Thanks for answering our questions, gamerEMdoc. I have a specific one regarding my letters. I'm in the fortunate position that I'll have 2 SLOEs (Most likely H/H, maybe H/HP) by the 15th, plus a strong letter from an EM attending I worked with. Only issue is that neither of these SLOEs are really 'aways'. My school is affiliated with 2 EM residencies, one competitive one, one pretty good one. I couldn't get my desired away (on the west coast) until Oct. How limiting is not have a real away SLOE in my first batch? I'll of course add the new one in Nov, but that's a little late it seems.