- Joined
- Feb 9, 2020
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 172
I wonder if the date was coincidental.
We were once drinking Dom Perignon and Macallan 18 now we hittin up Naty Lite and RC cola at our after parties LOL.This friday is matchday. Many programs patting themselves in match that they “filled” and avoided soap. Bring out the bottles of André, Franzia “chillable red” and plastic red cups. Yay!
I know the folks at my department are strutting around like peacocks about the fact that we don't need to SOAP.This friday is matchday. Many programs patting themselves in match that they “filled” and avoided soap. Bring out the bottles of André, Franzia “chillable red” and plastic red cups. Yay!
Some are still going to play Russian roulette regardless of the situationFrom those 2020 stats, every US MD Rad Onc was an allstar. It was just easier for them to match into what they wanted to, which is good.
OF COURSE they did.16 of 24 programs that did not fill in the match filled spots in the SOAP yesterday.
Same...also criminal record guy (college party incident) matchedI know the folks at my department are strutting around like peacocks about the fact that we don't need to SOAP.
I'm just sitting there like...of course you didn't need to SOAP, you basically interviewed and ranked >50% of this year's applicants...
Echoing DT, he admitted at interview, “yeah I grabbed them by the P”. But ya it was only a college thing, a boo boo you know.Same...also criminal record guy (college party incident) matched
100% of spots will fill eventually. Even those that “stay strong” and don’t SOAP are going to try to fill N+1 next year in the match. Rule 34 of GME, if a spot exists, it will be filled.16 of 24 programs that did not fill in the match filled spots in the SOAP yesterday.
100% of spots will fill eventually. Even those that “stay strong” and don’t SOAP are going to try to fill N+1 next year in the match. Rule 34 of GME, if a spot exists, it will be filled.
On a particularly auspicious note, that post is 1 month shy of its 5-year anniversary. The incubation period for the RadOnc Pipeline.So we’re saying Anthony Zietman was totally full of $HIT. Neat. Got it.
Canaries in a Coal Mine
I recently attended the Annual UCSF Rad Onc course. One of the featured speakers was Anthony Zietman. Dr. Zietman has always been a highly engaging speaker and his topic was particularly timely - "the future of RO as a specialty." Many, many interesting points came out of this talk: 1. He...forums.studentdoctor.net
So we’re saying Anthony Zietman was totally full of $HIT. Neat. Got it.
Canaries in a Coal Mine
I recently attended the Annual UCSF Rad Onc course. One of the featured speakers was Anthony Zietman. Dr. Zietman has always been a highly engaging speaker and his topic was particularly timely - "the future of RO as a specialty." Many, many interesting points came out of this talk: 1. He...forums.studentdoctor.net
memories... light the corner of my mind... misty water-color memories... of the way we wereOn a particularly auspicious note, that post is 1 month shy of its 5-year anniversary. The incubation period for the RadOnc Pipeline.
Coincidence or clairvoyance? You decide.
How will we hear about such people. They won't self-report. There were some small single digit no-info gaps in even the most recent ARRO survey. I wondered if the ones we didn't know about were maybe unemployed. We know programs themselves (either attendings or co-residents) won't be rushing to report "Hey my program seems to have produced an unemployed fresh grad." But the year after residency is a small part of a career. I know personally of 3 mid-career rad oncs right now that want to be employed but aren't; 2 were let go recently and are having zero luck in job searching within a few hundred miles of where they live. That's sad folks!I just think that we will continue to fill most positions until there are people going without jobs anywhere at any salary.
So we’re saying Anthony Zietman was totally full of $HIT. Neat. Got it.
Canaries in a Coal Mine
I recently attended the Annual UCSF Rad Onc course. One of the featured speakers was Anthony Zietman. Dr. Zietman has always been a highly engaging speaker and his topic was particularly timely - "the future of RO as a specialty." Many, many interesting points came out of this talk: 1. He...forums.studentdoctor.net
This would be interesting to fold it back into radiology but I am not sure how feasible it would be or if anyone would commit to that for various reasons.Ya this whole exercise is really pointless at the end of the day except for the light that it shines on the specialty and the profound and fundamental issues that it has. These 8 remaining spots will be offered in next year's match, off cycle or whatever. Greedy academic departments are not going to leave money/cheap labor on the table. The data so far shows that the aggregate numbers of trainees will not decrease. And since the RRC will never raise standards in a substantive way the only path forward is to fold the specialty back into radiology as a fellowship, which will allow for a truer labor market to exist. However, in my estimation, we are probably 10 years away from any real steps like that being taken.
The specialty is going the way of nuclear medicine.
View attachment 332802
This would be interesting to fold it back into radiology but I am not sure how feasible it would be or if anyone would commit to that for various reasons.
How long do you think the fellowship would need to be? Radiology is already 5 years without a fellowship.
The issue with clinical faculty/resident ratio is must specify that it is at main site that way hellpit places cannot include adjunct faculty or like satallite people to prop up their “faculty” complements. some of these hellpit programs that are spread around around multiple sites Operate this way. In reality, they have like 2-4 people at main siteThe only way to fix this issue is for there to be fewer number of programs. How that happens is heavily debated. Leaders state anti-trust laws as the reason why they cannot contract spots. Another option would be to increase case requirements but that isn't going to change anything unless there is a huge change which I doubt. Another option would be to implement a faculty:resident ratio where programs with <1.1 ratio be shut down because of questionable education.
Regardless of how it's done, there need to be fewer spots/programs. Otherwise, we will continue to be pumping out 170-190 rad onc residents each year. Even if half the programs don't SOAP, we will still have 175-180 residents which is excessive. I doubt our leaders will make any changes because many only care about themselves/their programs. The ASTRO president who is at WVU is a great example. WVU is a horrid program.
If they had something like IR with early specialization into rad onc to make it 6 years instead of 7 then it could be feasible IF jobs were guaranteed and paid 500k plus. It would be similar to breast radiology I imagine.prob like 6-7 yrs total including 4-5 yr rads then therapeutic rads fellowship. It would be a long time. I am more interested in a systemic therapy pathway as i don’t really care to read films.
On a particularly auspicious note, that post is 1 month shy of its 5-year anniversary. The incubation period for the RadOnc Pipeline.
Coincidence or clairvoyance? You decide.
In fact if you look at workforce analyses (ACR Bluebook e.g.) from the 1990s, hyperfractionation (which tried very hard to become a common thing in HNSCC) was always mentioned as a reason we'd need more docs (and linacs). But when hypofractionation became common? New math who dis.Leaders failed to lead. Hid behind phantom legal concerns* (show me the case law...it doesn't exist), used ridiculous reasoning/rationale for expansion (the old Ben Smith article with nary a mention of hypofrac or use of mid levels in their calculations), then inaction when the clear math was showing major over supply.
Additionally, a chairman openly stating in an international journal that more residency spots were needed to drive down salaries.The leaders in the field are not dumb. In fact, they're incredibly smart.
Everyone that does not benefit from over supply (ie all of us except those of us running hospitals), could see from a mile away that even if the "canaries" of US med grads didn't want to be rad oncs, these spots would fill via SOAP or another mechanism. There was/is no real appetite for actually contracting.
Leaders failed to lead. Hid behind phantom legal concerns* (show me the case law...it doesn't exist), used ridiculous reasoning/rationale for expansion (the old Ben Smith article with nary a mention of hypofrac or use of mid levels in their calculations), then inaction when the clear math was showing major over supply.
The people that have shown the most clarity with regard to thoughts/plans and bravery should be in charge. We need a coup and put Shah, Tendulkar, Simul, Mudit, Fields et al in charge. I bet with them in charge all the phantom "concerns" about how to contract magically disappear.
* Regarding legal concerns....I'd be more worried about a a PGY-1 that graduates in a few years and has no job offers suing someone than a phantom person suing bc spots were contracted. What if you had an email from a chair or PD saying "Job market is just fine" in 2020 and then in 2025 you graduate jobless with debt? The discovery on that case could get wild....as there are some pretty interesting graphs on SDN that would make really nice figures in a courtroom.
Additionally, a chairman openly stating in an international journal that more residency spots were needed to drive down salaries.
Still unbelievable to me.
Someone could probably look into how nuclear medicine contracted and has like 3 residency programs now. None of them could be employed on graduation and someone got them all shut down instead of trying to SOAP innocent people.
That would at least be useful to publicize. Compare and contrast nuclear medicine to rad Onc and what they ended up doing as a field.
So what would happen if someone comes on here and explains why their program would SOAP? Pitchforks and torches? Are there any 'good' reasons a program should SOAP this year?
5) Oy, the Dean's not going to like this.Common ways to justify matching any warm body:
1) we NEED residents (i.e programs falls apart)
2) anybody can be taught
3) these notes ain’t gonna write themselves
4) who will see all inpatients?!!!
How will we hear about such people. They won't self-report. There were some small single digit no-info gaps in even the most recent ARRO survey. I wondered if the ones we didn't know about were maybe unemployed. We know programs themselves (either attendings or co-residents) won't be rushing to report "Hey my program seems to have produced an unemployed fresh grad." But the year after residency is a small part of a career. I know personally of 3 mid-career rad oncs right now that want to be employed but aren't; 2 were let go recently and are having zero luck in job searching within a few hundred miles of where they live. That's sad folks!
Standing within the institution.5) Oy, the Dean's not going to like this.
Radonc is still attracting some very strong candidates but it is a shrinking number. One of the real concerns is that if the field continues to lose its standing, not address the current issues and start soaping anyone just to fill a spot, it will become less desirable to these strong candidates who will abandon it in the future.From those 2020 stats, every US MD Rad Onc was an allstar. It was just easier for them to match into what they wanted to, which is good.
7) We found the 1 US Senior who actually applied to Rad Onc and somehow did not match and will be offering that person our spot.Common ways to justify matching any warm body:
1) we NEED residents (i.e programs falls apart)
2) anybody can be taught
3) these notes ain’t gonna write themselves
4) who will see all inpatients?!!!
This is true. People who end up in that situation won't speak up about it.How will we hear about such people. They won't self-report. There were some small single digit no-info gaps in even the most recent ARRO survey. I wondered if the ones we didn't know about were maybe unemployed. We know programs themselves (either attendings or co-residents) won't be rushing to report "Hey my program seems to have produced an unemployed fresh grad." But the year after residency is a small part of a career. I know personally of 3 mid-career rad oncs right now that want to be employed but aren't; 2 were let go recently and are having zero luck in job searching within a few hundred miles of where they live. That's sad folks!
A veritable unicorn in 2021 assuming no criminal background check issues7) We found the 1 US Senior who actually applied to Rad Onc and somehow did not match and will be offering that person our spot.
In post-bubble RadOnc, a "POC" now means "person of criminal record".A veritable unicorn in 2021 assuming no criminal background check issues