rmorelan

Super Moderators
  • Content count

    16,955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    62

rmorelan last won the day on November 26

rmorelan had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About rmorelan

  • Rank
    Super Moderator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Occupation
    Was a computer programmer/project manager. Now a resident.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,797 profile views
  1. oh yeah absolutely - in perfect world they would still agree to a common date but that date would be prior to christmas. That would be more stressful though of course for the programs, and there is very little pushing them to actually do it.
  2. yeah never ever trust anything they say in that regard. Also it simply doesn't matter - and this is key - to best do the carms algorithm rank things in your exact order of preference completely independently to how the schools rank you. That is how it works. Anything else and you make things less potentially less optimal.
  3. yeah that is common - the advantage of a common date is predictability for the applicants - you know exactly when you will know all things and that guarantees a point where you can plan. The drawback is any such system take effectively the slowest school's time and adds a safety factor on top of it - meaning the date is going to comparatively really late in the game. Like January........
  4. yeah I think it is the same thing I think at least in part. Bottom line is if you would then pick family medicine in the second round as an option there is no logical reason not to pick it and rank it after your first choice specialty in the first round (or basically rank it last ). You have to make that decision up front - would I rather go unmatched than do X. That question can swing both ways and that is fine, but it does focus the issue at hand Also the idea of not matching is so stressful people don't even want to think about it. That doesn't encourage rational thought about it ha.
  5. Gezz sorry to hear about the results - seems like a lot of good people still have an off day for that test resulting in just not quite reaching the target. You would think with a relatively subjective test they would have some respect for scores that are "close".
  6. trouble is I have seen some picky competitive programs do it. Usually not a problem, but sometimes programs cannot make the change.
  7. definitely is - I know people outside of Ontario that have moonlighted in small ICUs etc during residency once they have done enough of their training. anyway quite rare - and as much as money is useful, I think it can be dangerous in terms of risk of burnout. You are already working crazy hours, and now there is even more
  8. some do - there are centre and provincial rules about that. It is relatively rare of course.
  9. don't get me started
  10. ...you got lunch?
  11. and yet a ton of people don't back up in our current system with family medicine - which by following your not unreasonable logic would simply be a "no brainer". If getting family medicine is so much better than going unmatched then they should take every opportunity to ensure avoid it (they may not get accepted into their backup but that isn't really the point - you have some chance vs no chance if you don't ) but they don't back up with it - acting in part on the believe it is better to go unmatched than to do something you don't want to do. Part of that I think is just medical students are used to succeeding by this point - overcoming long odds is what got them there in the first place so I have to think that logic aside often on some level they don't think they will go unmatched regardless of the odds.
  12. I worry about a few things about it - would it skew the selection process in somehow (now we have to make sure they are 100% going to be happy with FM because we have to potentially take them), and would people then be forced to do FM if they go unmatched (maybe not officially but will other resources be forth coming if they don't take it - I want more resources for the unmatched not less )
  13. ha - don't tempt them There are program directors that would want to do exactly that (remove all CMG vs IMG classifications and go for it). From there perspective why not - they just want to maximize the caliber of people in their program to make the next 2-5 years as easy as possible on themselves etc. There are some good arguments for reducing spots right now - we have major hiring backlogs in many fields and just too many people coming out to make it work. That is part of the problem I completely understand what you are saying about economic inefficiencies . It feels wrong not to use someone you have training, and trained at a high cost no less. There are technicalities with the terms we are throwing around my economics professor would get mad at me for doing (unless you enjoy pain I don't recommend doing an economics degree, ha, I am glad I have one but their way of thinking at times is a bit warped)
  14. We track everything about it - we know their rematch rate later on, and what programs they end up in (if and when they do). Part of the problem though is there are still relatively few of them so there is always going to be a bit of individual circumstance into the mix that the statistics cannot easily show (mostly why exactly didn't they match - dumb luck, red flagged, geographically stuck, really gunning for something competitive to the exclusion of all else....) It is around if I recall 70% first round match the follow year for unmatched people(?). If the unmatched numbers are rising we are going to have to see what impact that has on things.
  15. Sure I agree with all of that Kind of is the point - economics are less important than quality (particularly as you are always just trading spots from a CMG to someone that had their education paid for with no cost to you). We already have a huge accessibility problem. In 2007, a decade ago, the average income of the family of a Western medical student was 140K (median not mean so not skewed by high earners as much). Since then tuition has already jumped by about 100%. My point is they aren't paying too much attention to inaccessibility overall - or at least not doing anything about it. In fact it is getting I suspect worse. What they are looking at is cost containment. They are like a broken record with that. Some IMGs do definitely struggle on language - but of course not all and many are CSAs as well so not really a problem there. Ha, they often come with objective grades to show their abilities - USMLE scores usually so it is kind of hard to argue sometimes with their skills in that regard. One issue at the policy level it is hard for us to "prove" we are better than anyone else since we don't really standardize things in a way that would help with that. Our most powerful argument for CMG will always be quality over cost I suspect, and we do have to continuously attempt to become better. Though you do through all of the competitive forces, and the shear fact that Canada is small relative to the world market of potential IMGs, that it might ultimately end up that there isn't much difference between IMGs and CMGs (IMGs may overall be worse but the 0.1% of them probably are academically more gift just by shear numbers).