2017 Carms Applicants

[amichel]

oh I didn't say force anyone into a specialty they won't like. that would be rather unfortunate I would agree

 

I mean they should start with the usual - if you want something competitive you probably should apply everywhere (those that match often don't despite the warnings - you see it every single year). Apply in first round to anything that you would be reasonable happy doing (for instance if you happen to think you would then apply to family medicine if you don't match in round one, then you should probably already be applying to family medicine in round one. Just rank it at the bottom of your rank list. That way you probably would need up a better location). Rank anything you would rather do than to go unmatched, and rank things in the exact order of your preference.

 

CARMS is and will be messy for sometime to come if not forever. Not everyone is going to get what they want (but most do!). What to do with those that don't match I think is not well managed at the current time. What do you do someone that wants plastic surgery and doesn't get it? Mathematically no matter how often you apply some that really want competitive fields simply won't get it . Where are those people supposed to go? Right now the process is to have them be stuck in limbo until they finally give up, and take something else.

 

We see people that take positions hoping for internal transfers and those don't materialize. Residency is long and hard enough without you being stuck doing a field you don't even like, only to end up licensed in a field you don't like so you can look forward to 30+ years of work doing something you don't like.

 

You can try the US route if it doesn't work here - often not a bad option although you have to rapidly get through the testing of course if you don't already have it. You can see why Canada wouldn't like that as they just dropped 20 years of education in you only to have you vanish just at the pay off point. That doesn't make good economics.

 

ha so much doom and gloom Again most people get what they want - or close to it. This if anything should serve as a warning that you have to take round one seriously and avoid any basic mistakes.

I think I'm just a bit bitter that the school keeps giving us talks about "high risk behaviours". Which just reminds me of talking to patients about IV drug use and unprotected sex, haha. I think we're all adults who can understand and assess what application/ranking choices are less than wise.

 

I'm applying to Peds only. I'll apply to every English speaking program. I've thought about applying to family but a) I don't want to b ) I have 0 electives - our elective time is very limited and I used it up going to places I'd like to do residency - such is the choice I made.

 

Is this a poor choice? Maybe. Time will tell. Peds match rate is about 80%. But there's nothing else I really want to do.

 

Plus there's the problem of people applying to more and more programs they don't want to attend which eventually leads to less interviews for people who do want to attend and people potentially going unmatched.

[ralk]

The push for responsible match strategies isn't a bad one, the approach from many individuals/schools just seems a bit too antagonistic. There are ways to optimize elective and application strategies without pushing people towards outcomes they really would not prefer. Going unmatched is obviously a bad outcome that's worth avoiding, but it does seem like schools are looking out for their stat line on match rates, rather than on good outcomes for students, when they make a regular insistence on backing up to specialties that may be bad fits.

 

I really wish schools started the education process on CaRMS and match strategies far, far earlier with more regular check-ins. Getting a lecture in 3rd year about applying broadly and backing up to Family or whatever else is already too late in many cases. I'm still amazed at how many people at the end of 2nd year, or into 3rd year, or even into 4th year don't knows the basics of CaRMS or why the "apply broadly, back up" is such a recommended strategy. For those who can't or won't take that strategy, there are still ways to maximize chances at matching, but they generally require a more deliberate strategy and some proactivity earlier on in medical school. That requires a more nuanced look at candidates though, beyond the standard approaches and recommendations. Schools could be trying to optimize approaches to CaRMS right from the start, taking into account a student's individual circumstances and priorities. Instead, they push an ideal and because many students reject that ideal (some with good justification, some without), a lot of students end up with a sub-optimal approaches based on their goals, which hurts both students and schools' overall match rates.

[F508]

For those who can't or won't take that strategy, there are still ways to maximize chances at matching, but they generally require a more deliberate strategy and some proactivity earlier on in medical school. That requires a more nuanced look at candidates though, beyond the standard approaches and recommendations. Schools could be trying to optimize approaches to CaRMS right from the start, taking into account a student's individual circumstances and priorities. Instead, they push an ideal and because many students reject that ideal (some with good justification, some without), a lot of students end up with a sub-optimal approaches based on their goals, which hurts both students and schools' overall match rates.

 

Can you expand on this: "For those who can't or won't take that strategy, there are still ways to maximize chances at matching"?

[ralk]

Can you expand on this: "For those who can't or won't take that strategy, there are still ways to maximize chances at matching"?

 

Should say optimize more than maximize, but yeah, matching to residency isn't entirely about applying broadly or backing up. Some people take that approach and still fail to match, while others apply very narrowly and still match. Starting the discussion about overall CaRMS strategy earlier in training means students might be able to tailor their approach to whatever constraints they have, even self-imposed constraints.

 

Let's say someone knows that they'd only ever be happy at U of T in Dermatology and only wants to apply to that one program. This is arguably the most competitive program in the country and every single school in Canada would advise strongly against that match strategy, but I've heard of equally crazy approaches being successful. The emphasis on extra-curricular work becomes a bit more important - doing research in Dermatology, doing observerships or summer electives in Dermatology, joining Dermatology groups and going to conferences, taking on leadership or advocacy roles to show some breadth, etc. Likewise, electives can be set up differently for someone who isn't applying as broadly or backing up - doing a 4-week rotation at U of T in Derm rather than something shorter, doing Derm electives nearby or at sites where the program director at U of T is familiar with the staff, perhaps doing some extra rotations at U of T with relevance to Derm that may have the student interacting with Dermatologists.

 

Basically, applying broadly and backing up is about taking as many shots as possible in the hopes one of them hits the target. But if you only have one shot, or a limited number of shots, there are ways to make those the best shots possible. It becomes about quality instead of quantity.

 

Now, this still isn't an ideal strategy, as there are strong diminishing returns on application quality, at least in terms of things that can be planned for. Most people have a reasonably high-quality application, especially to their preferred programs, even when applying broadly. Having one extra publication, or one extra week of elective exposure isn't going to make much of a difference compared to clinical ability or personality fits with programs. Still, I don't hear many schools seriously presenting alternatives to the "apply broadly, back up" mantra.

[LittleDaisy]

For the strategies that you just listed Ralk, I think that the majority of med students who aim for competitive specialty already did that.

Personally I know a few people who were aiming for dermatology and plastics surgery. Had a perfect academic record, great electives experience, published in good journals. Good LORS, still went unmatched and applying for CaRMS for the second time.

The problem is that the number of spots is so limited, and so many good candidates. Even though you did everything you could to stand out, someone out there might still be a better fit.

The only thing that med school didn't teach us is to be realistic and pragmatic. If you really want something competitive, then you have to stand the consequence of not matching and taking a year off to apply again. 

Should say optimize more than maximize, but yeah, matching to residency isn't entirely about applying broadly or backing up. Some people take that approach and still fail to match, while others apply very narrowly and still match. Starting the discussion about overall CaRMS strategy earlier in training means students might be able to tailor their approach to whatever constraints they have, even self-imposed constraints.

 

Let's say someone knows that they'd only ever be happy at U of T in Dermatology and only wants to apply to that one program. This is arguably the most competitive program in the country and every single school in Canada would advise strongly against that match strategy, but I've heard of equally crazy approaches being successful. The emphasis on extra-curricular work becomes a bit more important - doing research in Dermatology, doing observerships or summer electives in Dermatology, joining Dermatology groups and going to conferences, taking on leadership or advocacy roles to show some breadth, etc. Likewise, electives can be set up differently for someone who isn't applying as broadly or backing up - doing a 4-week rotation at U of T in Derm rather than something shorter, doing Derm electives nearby or at sites where the program director at U of T is familiar with the staff, perhaps doing some extra rotations at U of T with relevance to Derm that may have the student interacting with Dermatologists.

 

Basically, applying broadly and backing up is about taking as many shots as possible in the hopes one of them hits the target. But if you only have one shot, or a limited number of shots, there are ways to make those the best shots possible. It becomes about quality instead of quantity.

 

Now, this still isn't an ideal strategy, as there are strong diminishing returns on application quality, at least in terms of things that can be planned for. Most people have a reasonably high-quality application, especially to their preferred programs, even when applying broadly. Having one extra publication, or one extra week of elective exposure isn't going to make much of a difference compared to clinical ability or personality fits with programs. Still, I don't hear many schools seriously presenting alternatives to the "apply broadly, back up" mantra.

[rmorelan]

For the strategies that you just listed Ralk, I think that the majority of med students who aim for competitive specialty already did that.

Personally I know a few people who were aiming for dermatology and plastics surgery. Had a perfect academic record, great electives experience, published in good journals. Good LORS, still went unmatched and applying for CaRMS for the second time.

The problem is that the number of spots is so limited, and so many good candidates. Even though you did everything you could to stand out, someone out there might still be a better fit.

The only thing that med school didn't teach us is to be realistic and pragmatic. If you really want something competitive, then you have to stand the consequence of not matching and taking a year off to apply again. 

 

if we were realistic and pragmatic we wouldn't of likely gotten into medical school, ha  

 

that is part of the problem - the average medical school is a type A personality, and very used to succeeding regardless. The sort of person that doesn't look at odds the same way a "pragmatic" person would. 

 

Another issue is a lot of the strategies that work assume you know really early what you want to do. The studies that came out of my school and others say that is only true for about 1/3 of all medical students - most figure it out in 3rd year when they are actually doing the job (or closer to it). Not much room at that point to create a custom strategy etc. Still you may just discover you really, really love field X.

[LittleDaisy]

For the CaRMS platform, is it important to fill out the interests section?

I have several interests, but  I don't know if it is pertinent to fill them all out?

For academic awards, should I add them in the reversed chronological order? i.e: by adding the most recent award last?

Thanks guys

[ralk]

For the strategies that you just listed Ralk, I think that the majority of med students who aim for competitive specialty already did that.

Personally I know a few people who were aiming for dermatology and plastics surgery. Had a perfect academic record, great electives experience, published in good journals. Good LORS, still went unmatched and applying for CaRMS for the second time.

The problem is that the number of spots is so limited, and so many good candidates. Even though you did everything you could to stand out, someone out there might still be a better fit.

The only thing that med school didn't teach us is to be realistic and pragmatic. If you really want something competitive, then you have to stand the consequence of not matching and taking a year off to apply again. 

 

I totally agree, which is why the "apply broadly, back up" approach is still the best option, by far. However, when schools don't look beyond that and have students who can't or refuse to follow this approach, they're left with rather little guidance on what to do. More importantly, they often learn that their preferred approach is unfeasible late in the game, when it's difficult to do the legwork that might have given them an edge with a more narrow application strategy. I agree, these edges are small, but they can matter in the margins.

 

I know people who have aimed for Derm or Plastics, applied narrowly, and matched. It can work, even if it is risky. With that risk, as you say, students then have to accept the consequences if things don't go their way.

 

I guess what I'd like to see is schools teaching realism and pragmatism by demonstrating it themselves in their own approach to helping students match. "Apply broadly, back up" works great when students do it, but many don't. That means either students don't understand why this is such a beneficial approach, or they are rejecting that strategy in spite of its advantages. I'm pretty sure it's a combination of both. Either way, there's a failure to communicate along this pathway, and a failure for schools to understand their students' career guidance needs.

[A-Stark]

There really is absolutely no reason not to apply broadly and try backing up with something. We do not have a situation where the second iteration is anyone's friend, and it's just a matter of a few more personal letters and document assignments (and $25-30 for each program). Some people apply exclusively to something like plastics or five-year emerg and end up with far fewer interviews than expected. There isn't always an obvious reason for this, but there was absolutely no harm in applying to some FM programs (or whatever). 

 

Humans being what they are, none of us think the worst case scenario will necessarily apply to us until it happens. 

 

Always, always apply broadly, go to as many interviews as possible, and then - finally - if you feel strongly that you can tolerate certain programs, rank only those in the end. In short, the only advisable "match strategy" is to maximize your interviews and defer any final narrowing to the ranking. You don't generally ever get to go through this again, and no one should ever, ever, ever rely on the second iteration for anything. 

 

If you've taken the time and effort to prepare an exceptionally competitive application, this won't matter much, but it doesn't mean your strategy should be different. If there's geographic restriction, applying broadly is arguably even more important. No decisions are final until the ranking and then and only then should any final narrowing of options be entertained. 

 

I don't think it should be this way, but it is. We should not make CC4s rely on a handful of rushed electives at the beginning of their last year to primarily determine their future career, but that's how it's set up. For the time being, anyway, everyone has to live and work within this CaRMS system and the only "good" strategy is the conservative one. (And no one should ever think of themselves as "competitive enough" because that's just not how this works.)

[rmorelan]

I totally agree, which is why the "apply broadly, back up" approach is still the best option, by far. However, when schools don't look beyond that and have students who can't or refuse to follow this approach, they're left with rather little guidance on what to do. More importantly, they often learn that their preferred approach is unfeasible late in the game, when it's difficult to do the legwork that might have given them an edge with a more narrow application strategy. I agree, these edges are small, but they can matter in the margins.

 

I know people who have aimed for Derm or Plastics, applied narrowly, and matched. It can work, even if it is risky. With that risk, as you say, students then have to accept the consequences if things don't go their way.

 

I guess what I'd like to see is schools teaching realism and pragmatism by demonstrating it themselves in their own approach to helping students match. "Apply broadly, back up" works great when students do it, but many don't. That means either students don't understand why this is such a beneficial approach, or they are rejecting that strategy in spite of its advantages. I'm pretty sure it's a combination of both. Either way, there's a failure to communicate along this pathway, and a failure for schools to understand their students' career guidance needs.

 

part of that is if you aren't applying broadly and backing up there isn't much guidance you can get. I mean the schools already are trying to give you as much advice as they can about how to match to a program - there isn't any extra to give with respect to that if you are applying to only one thing or doing some other restricting thing You have good letters? Worked and studied hard? Err ok, good luck.........

 

it is compounded by the fact that various schools in our system don't have any real standardization in what they are looking for (ask 12 programs what they want and you probably will be some common ground but the differences will surprise you - some what you do to focused electives in their area, some what you to apply more broadly. You cannot actually optimize for each school in many cases). Schools don't even really know what every different program is looking for.

[LittleDaisy]

Hello , anybody knows if CaRMS revises and verfiy the accuracy of documents that we upload ourselves on the platform?

For example, we could upload our C.V, additional clerkship evaluations and citizenship certificate on the platform. Would CaRMS check my uploaded documents before the submission deadline or during the program selection process, to let me know if I made some errors or typos, or assign the wrong document?

For example, an employee from CaRMS came to my school and told us how she noticed some people submitted the wrong documents to certain programs. I was wondering if CaRMS verify the accuracy of documents uploaded by the candidates and let them know if something is inaccurate?

 

In the CaRMS contract and the fee paid, it is specified that CaRMS has the right to verify the credentials and supporting documentation of all applicants. I am just wondering if they do help us if they notice that we made mistakes or uploaded inaccurate documents on the platform?

 

Thank you so much

[Sarvish]

There really is absolutely no reason not to apply broadly and try backing up with something. We do not have a situation where the second iteration is anyone's friend, and it's just a matter of a few more personal letters and document assignments (and $25-30 for each program). Some people apply exclusively to something like plastics or five-year emerg and end up with far fewer interviews than expected. There isn't always an obvious reason for this, but there was absolutely no harm in applying to some FM programs (or whatever). 

 

Humans being what they are, none of us think the worst case scenario will necessarily apply to us until it happens. 

 

Always, always apply broadly, go to as many interviews as possible, and then - finally - if you feel strongly that you can tolerate certain programs, rank only those in the end. In short, the only advisable "match strategy" is to maximize your interviews and defer any final narrowing to the ranking. You don't generally ever get to go through this again, and no one should ever, ever, ever rely on the second iteration for anything. 

 

If you've taken the time and effort to prepare an exceptionally competitive application, this won't matter much, but it doesn't mean your strategy should be different. If there's geographic restriction, applying broadly is arguably even more important. No decisions are final until the ranking and then and only then should any final narrowing of options be entertained. 

 

I don't think it should be this way, but it is. We should not make CC4s rely on a handful of rushed electives at the beginning of their last year to primarily determine their future career, but that's how it's set up. For the time being, anyway, everyone has to live and work within this CaRMS system and the only "good" strategy is the conservative one. (And no one should ever think of themselves as "competitive enough" because that's just not how this works.)

 

I've been thinking a lot about backing up with family. Ultimately, I decided if I ended up applying to it as a backup, I'd end up throwing it on my rank list at the last minute out of fear of going unmatched and I would be absolutely miserable in family compared to my top choice specialty.

 

I'm going to apply to all 14 schools that I can and hopefully it works out but if it doesn't, I know people who have taken the year off and matched the year after and I figure that's a better option for me in the long term.

[ralk]

There really is absolutely no reason not to apply broadly and try backing up with something. We do not have a situation where the second iteration is anyone's friend, and it's just a matter of a few more personal letters and document assignments (and $25-30 for each program). Some people apply exclusively to something like plastics or five-year emerg and end up with far fewer interviews than expected. There isn't always an obvious reason for this, but there was absolutely no harm in applying to some FM programs (or whatever). 

 

Humans being what they are, none of us think the worst case scenario will necessarily apply to us until it happens. 

 

Always, always apply broadly, go to as many interviews as possible, and then - finally - if you feel strongly that you can tolerate certain programs, rank only those in the end. In short, the only advisable "match strategy" is to maximize your interviews and defer any final narrowing to the ranking. You don't generally ever get to go through this again, and no one should ever, ever, ever rely on the second iteration for anything. 

 

If you've taken the time and effort to prepare an exceptionally competitive application, this won't matter much, but it doesn't mean your strategy should be different. If there's geographic restriction, applying broadly is arguably even more important. No decisions are final until the ranking and then and only then should any final narrowing of options be entertained. 

 

I don't think it should be this way, but it is. We should not make CC4s rely on a handful of rushed electives at the beginning of their last year to primarily determine their future career, but that's how it's set up. For the time being, anyway, everyone has to live and work within this CaRMS system and the only "good" strategy is the conservative one. (And no one should ever think of themselves as "competitive enough" because that's just not how this works.)

 

I fully agree, and yet, a lot of people fail to follow this approach. While the ultimate responsibility for the consequences of this poor decision-making falls on students themselves, schools aren't off the hook for this either and face their own consequences for routinely poor match strategies from their graduating class. If schools want to see better match rates - which of course they do - they need to change their mindset to preparing students for the CaRMS match.

 

The parallel I draw is in counselling for poor health habits. In terms of preventing lung cancer, there isn't much useful guidance beyond "quit smoking". Yes, everyone should quit smoking to prevent lung cancer. But just saying "quit smoking" once to a patient has a very, very low chance of actually working. It's not wrong to do it, and patients should follow that advice, but that's not a sufficient intervention either. And, if a person ultimately does not quit, it shouldn't preclude any harm-reduction strategies from being put in place.

 

With CaRMS, the education on match strategies should begin early and, as much as possible, be personalized to the student as they go through school. I found getting decent-quality, impartial, personalized career advice to be about as easy as pulling teeth, especially in pre-clerkship, and I sought it out! Students should understand why applying broadly and backing up is still the recommended strategy from their perspective, not just from a generic point of view. Many don't, and it's hard to accept a recommendation when it doesn't seem to apply to your individual circumstances. When students won't take the recommended strategy, their application should be optimized as much as possible. It's true that there's not a lot that can be done, but there's not nothing either, especially if students are proactive from the start. Most applications do fall into the grey zone of merely good, but there are some stellar applicants and some weak applicants.

 

Bottom line is that even though the "apply broadly, back-up" mantra is correct, the one size fits all presentation of that mantra isn't working, and some students are taking unnecessary risks or even getting left behind as a result. 

[amichel]

 

I've been thinking a lot about backing up with family. Ultimately, I decided if I ended up applying to it as a backup, I'd end up throwing it on my rank list at the last minute out of fear of going unmatched and I would be absolutely miserable in family compared to my top choice specialty.

 

I'm going to apply to all 14 schools that I can and hopefully it works out but if it doesn't, I know people who have taken the year off and matched the year after and I figure that's a better option for me in the long term.

This is literally me. Except today I had a mini existential crisis and decided to send a few emails and switch a few things around and maybe apply to a few family programs.

 

But I'm the same in that I'm afraid I'll rank it out of fear and end up unhappy. In the end, I think I'm going to do it because switching one elective to family is not going to detract from my peds application, and I'm only going to apply to family programs near my hometown. And, if I change my mind, no harm, no foul. I don't have to interview or rank. I probably won't rank the family programs if I get over a certain number of Peds interviews. (10?)

 

But yah, it's a struggle.

[Sarvish]

This is literally me. Except today I had a mini existential crisis and decided to send a few emails and switch a few things around and maybe apply to a few family programs.

 

But I'm the same in that I'm afraid I'll rank it out of fear and end up unhappy. In the end, I think I'm going to do it because switching one elective to family is not going to detract from my peds application, and I'm only going to apply to family programs near my hometown. And, if I change my mind, no harm, no foul. I don't have to interview or rank. I probably won't rank the family programs if I get over a certain number of Peds interviews. (10?)

 

But yah, it's a struggle.

That's a fair strategy. And you should have pretty good luck with peds! I'm applying straight anesthesia which I may regret because it's 14 schools and I'm hoping at least 5 or 6 will interview me. I have 1 family elective at my home campus and if I were to apply to family, I would only apply here.

 

I knew I'd struggle with this decision but I'm hoping in the end it doesn't even matter

[osteogeek]

Hello , anybody knows if CaRMS revises and verfiy the accuracy of documents that we upload ourselves on the platform?

For example, we could upload our C.V, additional clerkship evaluations and citizenship certificate on the platform. Would CaRMS check my uploaded documents before the submission deadline or during the program selection process, to let me know if I made some errors or typos, or assign the wrong document?

For example, an employee from CaRMS came to my school and told us how she noticed some people submitted the wrong documents to certain programs. I was wondering if CaRMS verify the accuracy of documents uploaded by the candidates and let them know if something is inaccurate?

 

In the CaRMS contract and the fee paid, it is specified that CaRMS has the right to verify the credentials and supporting documentation of all applicants. I am just wondering if they do help us if they notice that we made mistakes or uploaded inaccurate documents on the platform?

 

Thank you so much

 As far as I know they don't do any checking of the applications, which is why it's so important to make sure that you're submitting accurate documents and assigning the correct documents to the correct programs. That's also why there are horror stories of people assigning personal statements to the wrong school. Make sure you have your documents in and assigned a few days early so you can go back once or twice and make sure everything is correctly assigned.

[A-Stark]

I've been thinking a lot about backing up with family. Ultimately, I decided if I ended up applying to it as a backup, I'd end up throwing it on my rank list at the last minute out of fear of going unmatched and I would be absolutely miserable in family compared to my top choice specialty.

 

I'm going to apply to all 14 schools that I can and hopefully it works out but if it doesn't, I know people who have taken the year off and matched the year after and I figure that's a better option for me in the long term.

 

 

Other than (maybe) ophtho that is not really a viable strategy at all. And the point of applying now is to have that choice to rank FM (or anything) later. Let's see you get 3 out of 14 interviews for your preferred discipline. Your interest in going to that FM interview (and ranking the program) might be very different than if you get 10 of 14 interviews if not all of them. 

 

Going unmatched = more miserable than anything else

[LittleDaisy]

Thank you so much for your information, it is greatly appreciated

I just noticed in the CaRMS contract, that CaRMS has the right to verify all my credentials and supporting documents. I guess that they don't necessarily do that in real life.

So for my additional clerkship evaluations past MSPR, I guess that it is my responsibility to upload the original and translated ones on the platform? Would CaRMS check if the rotation evaluations are accurate or the quality of translation? Sorry for this question, I am just a stressed applicant who wonders if CaRMS does do some verification process for applicants

 As far as I know they don't do any checking of the applications, which is why it's so important to make sure that you're submitting accurate documents and assigning the correct documents to the correct programs. That's also why there are horror stories of people assigning personal statements to the wrong school. Make sure you have your documents in and assigned a few days early so you can go back once or twice and make sure everything is correctly assigned.

[Lactic Folly]

Given the sheer volume of documents and the time it would take, I wouldn't assume any checking at all on the part of CaRMS.

[LittleDaisy]

Thanks, really appreciate your advice!

I will double-check or triple-check all my assigned documents to each program. I am applying broadly to 3 disciplines, that's why I am afraid of assigning the wrong documents.

I heard about horror stories of assigning the wrong specialty personal letters all the time, and assigning unprofessional photos.

Given the sheer volume of documents and the time it would take, I wouldn't assume any checking at all on the part of CaRMS.

[mononoke]

That's a fair strategy. And you should have pretty good luck with peds! I'm applying straight anesthesia which I may regret because it's 14 schools and I'm hoping at least 5 or 6 will interview me. I have 1 family elective at my home campus and if I were to apply to family, I would only apply here.

 

I knew I'd struggle with this decision but I'm hoping in the end it doesn't even matter

I do know of a few people at my school who did this and matched since anesthesia has a decent match rate at 70%. However, even through family, you can do a +1 anesthesia so if you're open to that idea, FM isn't too bad if you matched to it.

[LittleDaisy]

For MSPR, does your medical faculty usually incorporate general clerkship evaluation comments? or just submit the clerkship evaluation forms as they are?

Would you guys suggest that I upload elective clerkship evaluations on the CaRMS platform (pertinent to the specialty that I am applying to).

I am in a dilemma, since some programs specify that: applicants are advised to only provide the documents requested by the program. No other documents submitted will be reviewed.

 

My clerkship elective evaluations are not included in my MSPR...would you guys suggest I should upload the electives evaluations on the platform and submit to the programs anyways? 

The reason that I am hesitating is, I had good elective evaluations, I think that it would help to support my application...but at the same time, the programs specified that they won't review extra documents. Would it be a killer if I submit an extra document?

[chromeboker]

For MSPR, does your medical faculty usually incorporate general clerkship evaluation comments? or just submit the clerkship evaluation forms as they are?

Would you guys suggest that I upload elective clerkship evaluations on the CaRMS platform (pertinent to the specialty that I am applying to).

I am in a dilemma, since some programs specify that: applicants are advised to only provide the documents requested by the program. No other documents submitted will be reviewed.

 

My clerkship elective evaluations are not included in my MSPR...would you guys suggest I should upload the electives evaluations on the platform and submit to the programs anyways? 

The reason that I am hesitating is, I had good elective evaluations, I think that it would help to support my application...but at the same time, the programs specified that they won't review extra documents. Would it be a killer if I submit an extra document?

 

Unsure how your school does this, but I would very surprised if they did not include comments from elective evaluations? Obviously there will be a cut-off at some point where the MSPR is uploaded and everything after that will not be submitted to CaRMS. 

[LittleDaisy]

Yeah I am referring to the cut-off elective evaluations right after the MSPR submission date (around end of October)

Unsure how your school does this, but I would very surprised if they did not include comments from elective evaluations? Obviously there will be a cut-off at some point where the MSPR is uploaded and everything after that will not be submitted to CaRMS. 

[Sarvish]

Other than (maybe) ophtho that is not really a viable strategy at all. And the point of applying now is to have that choice to rank FM (or anything) later. Let's see you get 3 out of 14 interviews for your preferred discipline. Your interest in going to that FM interview (and ranking the program) might be very different than if you get 10 of 14 interviews if not all of them. 

 

Going unmatched = more miserable than anything else

Yeah, I understand the thinking but I feel like for me personally, if I did rank family, I would not be happy in it at all. I've definitely talked to at least 5 or 6 people who went unmatched and matched the year after and they said that while going unmatched sucks, it ended up being the best decision for them long-term.

 

I do know of a few people at my school who did this and matched since anesthesia has a decent match rate at 70%. However, even through family, you can do a +1 anesthesia so if you're open to that idea, FM isn't too bad if you matched to it.

 

I've definitely thought about the +1 in it but it's very restrictive in terms of location and would mean missing out on a lot of what I really love about anesthesia.