The common theme I see from ppl who have gotten tons of invites is (stellar letters) x (who the letter-writers know).
Only way to screen out psychopaths without aways is by listening to colleagues you trust.
(11-18-2020, 02:10 PM)brazithenut Wrote: The common theme I see from ppl who have gotten tons of invites is (stellar letters) x (who the letter-writers know).
Only way to screen out psychopaths without aways is by listening to colleagues you trust.
I don't think this is true as much for this cycle. All letters are from home so most are glowing. This year, much more than most, the prestige of med school seems to be playing a bigger role. This is coupled with an increased emphasis on Step score/grades.
Feel really bad for applicants who are from smaller schools who would normally have away letters to help mitigate the school name bias.
(11-17-2020, 09:19 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-17-2020, 06:25 PM)Guest Wrote: (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.
What do you consider a great board score out of curiosity? It really seems like those with > 260 are getting the fairest shake at most places based on the interview stats spreadsheet
I've got a 260+, great letters, good (but not crazy) number of papers, and am at a pretty good school and have still been passed over by a surprising number of upper-mid to high tier programs, so it's hard for me to identify what specifically is being looked at. Think region may play a role too.
(11-18-2020, 09:06 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-17-2020, 09:19 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-17-2020, 06:25 PM)Guest Wrote: (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.
What do you consider a great board score out of curiosity? It really seems like those with > 260 are getting the fairest shake at most places based on the interview stats spreadsheet
I've got a 260+, great letters, good (but not crazy) number of papers, and am at a pretty good school and have still been passed over by a surprising number of upper-mid to high tier programs, so it's hard for me to identify what specifically is being looked at. Think region may play a role too.
Define your titers lol
(11-18-2020, 11:16 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-18-2020, 09:06 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-17-2020, 09:19 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-17-2020, 06:25 PM)Guest Wrote: (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.
What do you consider a great board score out of curiosity? It really seems like those with > 260 are getting the fairest shake at most places based on the interview stats spreadsheet
I've got a 260+, great letters, good (but not crazy) number of papers, and am at a pretty good school and have still been passed over by a surprising number of upper-mid to high tier programs, so it's hard for me to identify what specifically is being looked at. Think region may play a role too.
Define your titers lol
This is a rabbit hole that has been explored multiple times on this thread. It doesn't matter what tiers someone defines. All in all, this is a messed up cycle and hopefully programs understand the problems this year and we'll all get through it together.
(11-14-2020, 09:06 AM)a program director Wrote: There are a couple of thoughts on here about cancelling interviews: General rules:
Cancel as soon as you know as that only provides the institution an opportunity to give an interview position to someone on the waitlist
-interview slots are limited and the interviewers are giving up clinic/OR time to interview= money lost
-and people on the waitlist are anxious and have to plan, and would typically love your spot
note on trading- this is not allowed typically- you cancel, the institution then reaches out to the next in line. If you trade an interview date at the same place with someone confirmed to interview that is fine and the EPCs probably appreciate that.
RECOMMENDED:
do not cancel an interview less than 7 days prior to it.
Some of us program directors will send a email or note to the program director at your institution if this occurs as most believe this is not very professional.
of course if you have a family emergency, get sick, etc that is different and I would explain as much as you can to the program when you cancel probably within 14 days of the interview. I think if you are less than 7 days and cancel and simply say you are not interested in the program to the program that would probably avoid the communication back to your primary institution. Of course everyplace is different and different views on this but this is the general sense I get on these things.
Good luck to you all this year, there are a lot of amazing applicants this year.
I would take this advice even further and wish that programs would enforce a stricter 30 day cancellation policy or something like that. It is clear from the interview exchange tab just how many applicants are doubling up and committing to interview offers that they know they can't keep in the short term, but are holding out in hopes that someone will switch with them down the road. Barrow/NU/UPMC seems to be a common culprit given their overlapping interview days, and it is painfully obvious which applicants are doing what based on the phone numbers indicated. Hopefully they aren't dumb enough to cancel with less than a week's notice, which would still give others on the waitlist a shot at an interview.
(11-19-2020, 01:26 AM)Guest Wrote: (11-14-2020, 09:06 AM)a program director Wrote: There are a couple of thoughts on here about cancelling interviews: General rules:
Cancel as soon as you know as that only provides the institution an opportunity to give an interview position to someone on the waitlist
-interview slots are limited and the interviewers are giving up clinic/OR time to interview= money lost
-and people on the waitlist are anxious and have to plan, and would typically love your spot
note on trading- this is not allowed typically- you cancel, the institution then reaches out to the next in line. If you trade an interview date at the same place with someone confirmed to interview that is fine and the EPCs probably appreciate that.
RECOMMENDED:
do not cancel an interview less than 7 days prior to it.
Some of us program directors will send a email or note to the program director at your institution if this occurs as most believe this is not very professional.
of course if you have a family emergency, get sick, etc that is different and I would explain as much as you can to the program when you cancel probably within 14 days of the interview. I think if you are less than 7 days and cancel and simply say you are not interested in the program to the program that would probably avoid the communication back to your primary institution. Of course everyplace is different and different views on this but this is the general sense I get on these things.
Good luck to you all this year, there are a lot of amazing applicants this year.
I would take this advice even further and wish that programs would enforce a stricter 30 day cancellation policy or something like that. It is clear from the interview exchange tab just how many applicants are doubling up and committing to interview offers that they know they can't keep in the short term, but are holding out in hopes that someone will switch with them down the road. Barrow/NU/UPMC seems to be a common culprit given their overlapping interview days, and it is painfully obvious which applicants are doing what based on the phone numbers indicated. Hopefully they aren't dumb enough to cancel with less than a week's notice, which would still give others on the waitlist a shot at an interview.
Well Idk...some people texted the group tried to switch interviews the week of interview day...
I understand people wanting to attend as many interviews as possible. They should do that within reason.
What I don’t understand is people double or triple booking conflicting dates. You gotta make hard choices as a neurosurgeon. This is only the beginning. An inability to plan well and choose what you want does not bode well for your future career.
(11-19-2020, 12:41 PM)Guest Wrote: I understand people wanting to attend as many interviews as possible. They should do that within reason.
What I don’t understand is people double or triple booking conflicting dates. You gotta make hard choices as a neurosurgeon. This is only the beginning. An inability to plan well and choose what you want does not bode well for your future career.
And they try to switch with the excuse: I "accidentally" double-booked...you sure did...I don't know if I will trust someone to be my colleague or doctor if he/she can check the schedule before booking an interview...If you want to go to many interviews as possible...just say so...we are not stupid...
here's to an overwhelming sense of existential dread ?
|
