(11-16-2020, 05:30 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-16-2020, 03:07 PM)Guest Wrote: For all the PDs/residents on here, is anyone actually watching our research presentations?
I am a resident, west coast. we have had applicants put down >50 publications, which include everything from abstracts, poster presentations, to actual peer reviewed articles in JNS/red journal where the applicant (supposedly) made a meaningful contribution. while at our program it is certainly frowned upon to have less than 5 things under this category, i would encourage applicants to be truthful in terms of how much research contribution you actually had. what I am trying to say is, putting down a whole bunch of fluff doesn't "pad" your application.
we do have people who comb over these in depth, and have turned up disingenuous "publications." suffice to say, your application ain't going to the next round.
Thanks for the reply. I was referencing more so the video SNS presentation
(11-16-2020, 05:30 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-16-2020, 03:07 PM)Guest Wrote: For all the PDs/residents on here, is anyone actually watching our research presentations?
I am a resident, west coast. we have had applicants put down >50 publications, which include everything from abstracts, poster presentations, to actual peer reviewed articles in JNS/red journal where the applicant (supposedly) made a meaningful contribution. while at our program it is certainly frowned upon to have less than 5 things under this category, i would encourage applicants to be truthful in terms of how much research contribution you actually had. what I am trying to say is, putting down a whole bunch of fluff doesn't "pad" your application.
we do have people who comb over these in depth, and have turned up disingenuous "publications." suffice to say, your application ain't going to the next round.
Have you guys already sent out invites?
Also I believe the question is aimed towards the SNS video research presentation applicants submitted this year
(11-16-2020, 05:30 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-16-2020, 03:07 PM)Guest Wrote: For all the PDs/residents on here, is anyone actually watching our research presentations?
I am a resident, west coast. we have had applicants put down >50 publications, which include everything from abstracts, poster presentations, to actual peer reviewed articles in JNS/red journal where the applicant (supposedly) made a meaningful contribution. while at our program it is certainly frowned upon to have less than 5 things under this category, i would encourage applicants to be truthful in terms of how much research contribution you actually had. what I am trying to say is, putting down a whole bunch of fluff doesn't "pad" your application.
we do have people who comb over these in depth, and have turned up disingenuous "publications." suffice to say, your application ain't going to the next round.
Speaking as an applicant, I have heard this criticism before and have always wondered what counts as valid to put down in this category and what does not. For instance, we were told by multiple faculty members sitting on these national calls that it would be OK to put down published abstracts in the publications sections (as in, a poster or talk published in a journal somewhere with a journal #/issue #/page #). This is in addition to published manuscripts, which of course have greater weight. Generally speaking, I ensured that anything in my CV could be retrieved with a quick search on Google, and that nothing was double counted.
Was this incorrect to do, or were you referring to something else? Not sure what other examples of "fluff" you might be referring to, but I would be interested to know about what other applicants are doing.
(11-16-2020, 05:40 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-16-2020, 05:30 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-16-2020, 03:07 PM)Guest Wrote: For all the PDs/residents on here, is anyone actually watching our research presentations?
I am a resident, west coast. we have had applicants put down >50 publications, which include everything from abstracts, poster presentations, to actual peer reviewed articles in JNS/red journal where the applicant (supposedly) made a meaningful contribution. while at our program it is certainly frowned upon to have less than 5 things under this category, i would encourage applicants to be truthful in terms of how much research contribution you actually had. what I am trying to say is, putting down a whole bunch of fluff doesn't "pad" your application.
we do have people who comb over these in depth, and have turned up disingenuous "publications." suffice to say, your application ain't going to the next round.
Speaking as an applicant, I have heard this criticism before and have always wondered what counts as valid to put down in this category and what does not. For instance, we were told by multiple faculty members sitting on these national calls that it would be OK to put down published abstracts in the publications sections (as in, a poster or talk published in a journal somewhere with a journal #/issue #/page #). This is in addition to published manuscripts, which of course have greater weight. Generally speaking, I ensured that anything in my CV could be retrieved with a quick search on Google, and that nothing was double counted.
Was this incorrect to do, or were you referring to something else? Not sure what other examples of "fluff" you might be referring to, but I would be interested to know about what other applicants are doing.
Just another applicant: I found this very confusing as well the way ERAS lays out. For the published section, they have either manuscript/abstract, so technically if your abstracts were published in the journal, you can put it in this section. But I did not do it. I put the manuscript ONLY under the published section. I put all abstracts under the presentation.
(11-16-2020, 06:04 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-16-2020, 05:40 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-16-2020, 05:30 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-16-2020, 03:07 PM)Guest Wrote: For all the PDs/residents on here, is anyone actually watching our research presentations?
I am a resident, west coast. we have had applicants put down >50 publications, which include everything from abstracts, poster presentations, to actual peer reviewed articles in JNS/red journal where the applicant (supposedly) made a meaningful contribution. while at our program it is certainly frowned upon to have less than 5 things under this category, i would encourage applicants to be truthful in terms of how much research contribution you actually had. what I am trying to say is, putting down a whole bunch of fluff doesn't "pad" your application.
we do have people who comb over these in depth, and have turned up disingenuous "publications." suffice to say, your application ain't going to the next round.
Speaking as an applicant, I have heard this criticism before and have always wondered what counts as valid to put down in this category and what does not. For instance, we were told by multiple faculty members sitting on these national calls that it would be OK to put down published abstracts in the publications sections (as in, a poster or talk published in a journal somewhere with a journal #/issue #/page #). This is in addition to published manuscripts, which of course have greater weight. Generally speaking, I ensured that anything in my CV could be retrieved with a quick search on Google, and that nothing was double counted.
Was this incorrect to do, or were you referring to something else? Not sure what other examples of "fluff" you might be referring to, but I would be interested to know about what other applicants are doing.
Just another applicant: I found this very confusing as well the way ERAS lays out. For the published section, they have either manuscript/abstract, so technically if your abstracts were published in the journal, you can put it in this section. But I did not do it. I put the manuscript ONLY under the published section. I put all abstracts under the presentation.
Attendings are aware of how ERAS creates an inflated picture and largely pay attention to pub-med indexed pubs. If you have 40 "items" and more than half are actual pubs then great. If you have 40 items and only 3 legit pubs.. something isn't quite right there.
TLDR: We know, and we largely only focus on the actual pubs which is a simple PubMed search away
Thx for the clarification
Is anyone else feeling increasingly insecure about this year's interview season? I received 10 IIs towards the beginning of the cycle and have experienced complete radio silence for the past 2 weeks. The interviews that I've attended have gone well and the interviewers have been reassuring, which leads me to be increasingly confused why my interview count is less than years past for applicants with similar stats as mine. I'd appreciate any thoughts about this situation.
(11-17-2020, 05:33 PM)Guest Wrote: Is anyone else feeling increasingly insecure about this year's interview season? I received 10 IIs towards the beginning of the cycle and have experienced complete radio silence for the past 2 weeks. The interviews that I've attended have gone well and the interviewers have been reassuring, which leads me to be increasingly confused why my interview count is less than years past for applicants with similar stats as mine. I'd appreciate any thoughts about this situation.
I've got less.. got a feeling a lot of us will likely have to scramble, and I've already set plans for the coming year as I prepare to reapply.
God speed everyone.
For those with ≥ 20 interview invites: what are you holding on for? Genuinely curious. We're all nervous, risk-averse and want to match. And it is well within your right to go on as many interviews as logistically possible.
But look at the statistics. There is very minimal benefit in attending ≥ 20 interviews on your likelihood to match. Sure, this year is different than any other, but will that really affect how programs view your personality? If you interview at ≥20 programs and don't match, it's probably because a) the Match is a cruel mistress and you fell in between the cracks or b) you are a poor and awkward interviewer.
If you know you're not going to highly rank that community-focused or lower-tier program, and you have 20+ other II's, please consider dropping for those (like the previous poster) who are struggling and probably deserve their spot as much as any one of us. I know some have already committed to this (see the spreadsheet this year). This will not only help applicants, but help reduce the risk of programs having to SOAP too. It's good for this year's neurosurgery match, on both sides. Selfishness serves nobody.
(11-17-2020, 06:09 PM)Guest Wrote: For those with ≥ 20 interview invites: what are you holding on for? Genuinely curious. We're all nervous, risk-averse and want to match. And it is well within your right to go on as many interviews as logistically possible.
But look at the statistics. There is very minimal benefit in attending ≥ 20 interviews on your likelihood to match. Sure, this year is different than any other, but will that really affect how programs view your personality? If you interview at ≥20 programs and don't match, it's probably because a) the Match is a cruel mistress and you fell in between the cracks or b) you are a poor and awkward interviewer.
If you know you're not going to highly rank that community-focused or lower-tier program, and you have 20+ other II's, please consider dropping for those (like the previous poster) who are struggling and probably deserve their spot as much as any one of us. I know some have already committed to this (see the spreadsheet this year). This will not only help applicants, but help reduce the risk of programs having to SOAP too. It's good for this year's neurosurgery match, on both sides. Selfishness serves nobody.
As someone with very minimal interviews despite great letters, publications, and board scores, it seems I am one of those "slipping through the cracks." I'm not quite qualified enough for top tier places, yet too qualified for most others.. My mentors are as surprised as I am. I don't necessarily agree that if you have over a set number of invites you should be expected to give them up.. would it be nice? of course, but the responsibility shouldn't be on these applicants.. and it's a shame my future, and potentially a year of my life if I go unmatched and have to reapply, depends on someone else's actions to such a large extent. But this is the system and hand we are dealt.. I've accepted this at this point, but I feel empty, not sure what to do moving forward.
I hope programs moving forward realize this.. please invite only as many applicants as you have spots for, as being placed on all these waitlists is useless imo. Also, maybe a cap on # of programs you can apply to would have prevented this, but I'm not sure. Again, life is not fair. You can do all the right things, but you are entitled to nothing.
|
