(05-01-2020, 10:05 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 08:00 PM)Guest Wrote: Lmao so much for consensus between all programs. What the fuck is this guy thinking? https://twitter.com/maciejlesniakmd/stat...59941?s=20
(05-01-2020, 09:56 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 08:00 PM)Guest Wrote: Lmao so much for consensus between all programs. What the fuck is this guy thinking? https://twitter.com/maciejlesniakmd/stat...59941?s=20
This is a pretty egregious statement made by NU's chair for a number of reasons. Last night, PDs from 5+ reputable institutions (Drs. Chambless, Wolfe, Huang, Selden, Rosseau, likely others I am missing) explicitly told us that the consensus among the programs across the country was that Sub-Is would not be expected from their applicants. Dr. Selden specifically went on to say that in fact doing Sub-Is would *hurt* you in the application process in that you would be acting against the advice that was given to you.
The Twitter post in question suggests that either 1) the PDs lied to us in that this is NOT the consensus expectation (unlikely to be the case), or 2) NU's chair is completely out of the loop from what is going on around him. Hell, one of his own fourth years led the conversation in the call to us last night, and his own PD signed off on the survey we all took last week. Either way, this makes the entire field look bad.
FWIW my home PD wasn't aware of this change until after the meeting on Thursday. Between that and the NW chair's reaction I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't a consensus
Consensus =/= unanimous. Considering the number of PDs who spoke out last night concerning this decision, that the SNS policy released was signed by their executive council+medical student subcommittee, and that no one other than the NW chair has spoken out against this, suggests more that he was left out of the loop.
(05-01-2020, 10:23 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 10:05 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 08:00 PM)Guest Wrote: Lmao so much for consensus between all programs. What the fuck is this guy thinking? https://twitter.com/maciejlesniakmd/stat...59941?s=20
(05-01-2020, 09:56 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 08:00 PM)Guest Wrote: Lmao so much for consensus between all programs. What the fuck is this guy thinking? https://twitter.com/maciejlesniakmd/stat...59941?s=20
This is a pretty egregious statement made by NU's chair for a number of reasons. Last night, PDs from 5+ reputable institutions (Drs. Chambless, Wolfe, Huang, Selden, Rosseau, likely others I am missing) explicitly told us that the consensus among the programs across the country was that Sub-Is would not be expected from their applicants. Dr. Selden specifically went on to say that in fact doing Sub-Is would *hurt* you in the application process in that you would be acting against the advice that was given to you.
The Twitter post in question suggests that either 1) the PDs lied to us in that this is NOT the consensus expectation (unlikely to be the case), or 2) NU's chair is completely out of the loop from what is going on around him. Hell, one of his own fourth years led the conversation in the call to us last night, and his own PD signed off on the survey we all took last week. Either way, this makes the entire field look bad.
FWIW my home PD wasn't aware of this change until after the meeting on Thursday. Between that and the NW chair's reaction I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't a consensus
Consensus =/= unanimous. Considering the number of PDs who spoke out last night concerning this decision, that the SNS policy released was signed by their executive council+medical student subcommittee, and that no one other than the NW chair has spoken out against this, suggests more that he was left out of the loop.
And how do you know that? It's been less than 24 hours and the majority of big name chairmen aren't even on social media to broadcast you their opinion.
(05-01-2020, 10:23 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 10:05 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 08:00 PM)Guest Wrote: Lmao so much for consensus between all programs. What the fuck is this guy thinking? https://twitter.com/maciejlesniakmd/stat...59941?s=20
(05-01-2020, 09:56 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 08:00 PM)Guest Wrote: Lmao so much for consensus between all programs. What the fuck is this guy thinking? https://twitter.com/maciejlesniakmd/stat...59941?s=20
This is a pretty egregious statement made by NU's chair for a number of reasons. Last night, PDs from 5+ reputable institutions (Drs. Chambless, Wolfe, Huang, Selden, Rosseau, likely others I am missing) explicitly told us that the consensus among the programs across the country was that Sub-Is would not be expected from their applicants. Dr. Selden specifically went on to say that in fact doing Sub-Is would *hurt* you in the application process in that you would be acting against the advice that was given to you.
The Twitter post in question suggests that either 1) the PDs lied to us in that this is NOT the consensus expectation (unlikely to be the case), or 2) NU's chair is completely out of the loop from what is going on around him. Hell, one of his own fourth years led the conversation in the call to us last night, and his own PD signed off on the survey we all took last week. Either way, this makes the entire field look bad.
FWIW my home PD wasn't aware of this change until after the meeting on Thursday. Between that and the NW chair's reaction I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't a consensus
Consensus =/= unanimous. Considering the number of PDs who spoke out last night concerning this decision, that the SNS policy released was signed by their executive council+medical student subcommittee, and that no one other than the NW chair has spoken out against this, suggests more that he was left out of the loop.
But if there was a "consensus" then everyone would at least be aware of the policy. The fact that multiple people talk about PD/Chair's being unfamiliar with this makes it seem that not everyone was in the loop or knowledgeable about the policy
(Original poster of the response to the Twitter post) Well, I take back what I said then. I am a medical student from one of the aforementioned programs represented in that call, so I was inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Clearly I am new to the politics of academia.
This does nothing but sow more discord into a process that is impossibly difficult to navigate during a normal year. Crossing my fingers that the SNS will lax their guidelines and accommodate the desires of more programs (like NU) less they feel the need to splinter off and force applicants to make even more difficult decisions.
(05-01-2020, 10:29 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 10:23 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 10:05 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 08:00 PM)Guest Wrote: Lmao so much for consensus between all programs. What the fuck is this guy thinking? https://twitter.com/maciejlesniakmd/stat...59941?s=20
(05-01-2020, 09:56 PM)Guest Wrote: (05-01-2020, 08:00 PM)Guest Wrote: Lmao so much for consensus between all programs. What the fuck is this guy thinking? https://twitter.com/maciejlesniakmd/stat...59941?s=20
This is a pretty egregious statement made by NU's chair for a number of reasons. Last night, PDs from 5+ reputable institutions (Drs. Chambless, Wolfe, Huang, Selden, Rosseau, likely others I am missing) explicitly told us that the consensus among the programs across the country was that Sub-Is would not be expected from their applicants. Dr. Selden specifically went on to say that in fact doing Sub-Is would *hurt* you in the application process in that you would be acting against the advice that was given to you.
The Twitter post in question suggests that either 1) the PDs lied to us in that this is NOT the consensus expectation (unlikely to be the case), or 2) NU's chair is completely out of the loop from what is going on around him. Hell, one of his own fourth years led the conversation in the call to us last night, and his own PD signed off on the survey we all took last week. Either way, this makes the entire field look bad.
FWIW my home PD wasn't aware of this change until after the meeting on Thursday. Between that and the NW chair's reaction I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't a consensus
Consensus =/= unanimous. Considering the number of PDs who spoke out last night concerning this decision, that the SNS policy released was signed by their executive council+medical student subcommittee, and that no one other than the NW chair has spoken out against this, suggests more that he was left out of the loop.
But if there was a "consensus" then everyone would at least be aware of the policy. The fact that multiple people talk about PD/Chair's being unfamiliar with this makes it seem that not everyone was in the loop or knowledgeable about the policy
This is a great example of the SNS struggling to feign authority and broad consensus where it does not, in fact, exist. They are using this moment (never let a good crisis go to waste) in their struggle to stay relevant as they become increasingly irrelevant. I predict that this while blow up in their face as it becomes increasingly clear how little authority, consensus, and relevance that they actually hold over a nation of PDs and Chairs who are, fortunately, capable of independent thought and more creative solutions to this issue.
NW is a boss! Lesniak for president 2020
Please everyone remember there are over 100 neurosurgery programs and we have heard thoughts from just a couple people so far.
Please reach out to your PD/Chair and see if they intend to follow the SNS recommendations and enter below.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing
(05-02-2020, 12:12 AM)Guest Wrote: This is a great example of the SNS struggling to feign authority and broad consensus where it does not, in fact, exist. They are using this moment (never let a good crisis go to waste) in their struggle to stay relevant as they become increasingly irrelevant. I predict that this while blow up in their face as it becomes increasingly clear how little authority, consensus, and relevance that they actually hold over a nation of PDs and Chairs who are, fortunately, capable of independent thought and more creative solutions to this issue.
This is a time when we need everyone to work together and we don't need 112 different solutions to this problem.
Lesniak is honestly just a pure gangster. Have you met him in person? Guy looks and sounds like he will use some of that Agencja Wywiadu assassination training on whoever disagrees with him.
Love it. Lesniak for democratic nominee.
My program is not related to the SNS ed committee in any way and only found out about the policies this week. As of earlier this week, they were planning to abide by them completely
Resident at a program with 20+ sub-i's regularly here...
We spoke about this with our PD and chair after the announcement. The SNS provides guidelines and suggestions, they are not the end all be all and it's odd for them to try make such an authoritative statement. We're still going over the exact policy but we will likely be (like Lesniak said at NW) considering each month's applicants case by case based on how things progress with COVID and re-opening for elective cases.
We're almost certain to have Sub-i's, it will just depend on whether we allow them to start in July, August, or September, June is probably not going to be possible. Our program coordinator is planning on sending out exact plans to applicants soon. Keep in mind these rotations aren't just for you guys, they're one of our central factors and planning our rank list, we don't want to go into interview season blind either. What's likely going to happen is reputable programs will start announcing they're allowing sub-i's 1 by 1 and a domino effect will occur.
Selden, Chambless and the rest of the faculty group in that meeting are all highly reputable in the field for sure, but they (like the SNS) by no means speak for everyone. It's a pretty harsh statement to make saying that it will be looked down upon to do a sub-i. What's equally ridiculous is expecting a general surgery letter. Most faculty barely pay attention to letters that aren't from PDs or Chairs, let alone some random colorectal surgeon.
|
