anesthete Posted March 7, 2019 Report Share Posted March 7, 2019 I have heard that the incoming 4th year classes (across the country I believe?) are moving towards an 8 week elective cap in every first-entry discipline. I've already selected my electives for the coming academic year (which was not subjected to the 8 week cap) I am wondering if having 12 weeks or so in a single specific field would now be looked at as a disadvantage by programs? Thanks for any insight. JD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlkhhylyiluh6 Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 8 weeks or 8 blocks (=16 weeks)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMislove Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 41 minutes ago, beeboop said: 8 weeks or 8 blocks (=16 weeks)? 8 weeks will be what 2021s, onward Will have to work with for any direct entry residency. Idk about subspecialties of internal, someone else can clarify that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfly_ Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 Confused about this as well. Is palliative care considered a family med elective? Family care of the elderly, is that geriatrics or family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MedP111 Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 From one of McGill's emails on the matter: "We would like to issue a correction regarding the message about the National Electives Policy published in the February 8 edition of e-Digest. It stated that the maximum of eight weeks in any entry-level discipline “corresponds to the list of R1 programs that you can apply to through CaRMS”, but we should have stated it also corresponds to the list of R3 programs that you can apply to through Internal Medicine and Pediatrics." Really weird decision, since IM gunners will still be able to gun. But now of course the amount of applicants to IM (and to any specialty) will increase drastically, so it seems that people wanting IM get a really crappy deal: they won't be able to parallel plan, but now they have that much more people to compete against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edict Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 33 minutes ago, MedP111 said: From one of McGill's emails on the matter: "We would like to issue a correction regarding the message about the National Electives Policy published in the February 8 edition of e-Digest. It stated that the maximum of eight weeks in any entry-level discipline “corresponds to the list of R1 programs that you can apply to through CaRMS”, but we should have stated it also corresponds to the list of R3 programs that you can apply to through Internal Medicine and Pediatrics." Really weird decision, since IM gunners will still be able to gun. But now of course the amount of applicants to IM (and to any specialty) will increase drastically, so it seems that people wanting IM get a really crappy deal: they won't be able to parallel plan, but now they have that much more people to compete against. But they can still demonstrate they are gunners, since theres no real cap for IM. Overall the change is probably for the better once people settle in and get used to it. No question that being the guinea pig year will be frustrating especially for students from schools that have more elective time than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ace of Spades Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 On 3/8/2019 at 4:09 PM, sWOMEN said: Why are fellowships in IM or Peds judged differently than any other fellowship? Why can someone do 8 weeks of Cardio and 8 weeks of HemOnc but they cannot do 8 weeks of anterior segment Ophtho and 8 weeks of Viteroretinal Ophtho Probably because cardiology and hematology/oncology are vastly different when compared to some eye thing vs some other eye thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLengr Posted March 19, 2019 Report Share Posted March 19, 2019 What's the logic behind this? Has anyone heard it officially? Is it a case of trying to increase the match rate (since the match is getting tighter)? Is it to try to diversify education (which is a very stupid way to do it imo)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted March 19, 2019 Report Share Posted March 19, 2019 On 3/13/2019 at 3:12 PM, The Ace of Spades said: Probably because cardiology and hematology/oncology are vastly different when compared to some eye thing vs some other eye thing. and also there is a legitimate decision there - you may want to do electives in two branches of internal medicine to decide if you want to go into internal medicine at all. After all for the most part with internal you are deferring your specialty choice until the R3 match (not perfectly but with the second highest match rate you mostly deciding not if you want internal but if you want a particular branch of internal ultimately). Internal med that way is pretty unique - the first match is just a stepping stone. For ophtho and most other things it is end game time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted March 19, 2019 Report Share Posted March 19, 2019 47 minutes ago, NLengr said: What's the logic behind this? Has anyone heard it officially? Is it a case of trying to increase the match rate (since the match is getting tighter)? Is it to try to diversify education (which is a very stupid way to do it imo)? I hear it is mostly diversification - which going at it backwards would allow you to be better suited to apply for backup positions. If done everywhere it would more likely standardize the elective process (some schools already allow less electives in an area than others). I will be interested if it makes it easier or harder to get electives in a particular area with just a chance - people may not be able to individually take so much in an area but the same number of elective spots in the end have to be covered - same number of students after all needing the same number of weeks. Hopefully that won't log jam some fields (not to pick on rads as I often seem to do but that is my field - it is often an easier elective so people would take it for a break - that was great but if your desire for a mini vacation blocks my desire for an elective that may decide my entire career pathway then I think people can understand why that would be annoying). If you can only do 8 weeks of electives you are really, really going to want those to be at your target schools. Also as a side note ha - some of the nice things right now with many 4th year elective students is that they are often they are applying to the speciality (which usually means they have a high chance of success) and thus if you focus on educating them for 2 weeks you know that is knowledge they will need, and you are actively evaluating them for your program. That creates a special type of dynamic (even grumpy staff will put in effort more for a likely future colleague than someone taking something for "interest"). Plus the average elective student may know more because they will potentially have more electives already in that area - I had I think 14 weeks of radiology so by the last rotation I was operating at a higher level than I would have with just 8 weeks). Basically I am saying I hope this doesn't weaken any mentoring going on - staff like students often question the entire diversification focus in the final year of things. It sounds like the sort of good on paper idea that immediately hits problems in the real world where we are not diversified at all (in fact we are getting more and more focused all the time it seems). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLengr Posted March 19, 2019 Report Share Posted March 19, 2019 6 hours ago, rmorelan said: It sounds like the sort of good on paper idea that immediately hits problems in the real world where we are not diversified at all (in fact we are getting more and more focused all the time it seems). That would be my worry too. If they brought back a rotating internship and a GP license, this plan would make a lot more sense. Plus fix a ton of issues with CaRMS. But, alas, it will never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiphoid Posted March 20, 2019 Report Share Posted March 20, 2019 13 hours ago, NLengr said: What's the logic behind this? Has anyone heard it officially? Is it a case of trying to increase the match rate (since the match is getting tighter)? Is it to try to diversify education (which is a very stupid way to do it imo)? The way it was explained to us is that it'll even out the playing field a little bit since you can still be a "competitive" applicant for a specialty even if you decide later on during medical school and didn't already plan for multiple electives in that specialty, as well as increase your competitiveness for a backup specialty in CaRMS. Essentially the hope by admin at my school is to increase the total match rate, even if matching rate to top 1-3 choices decreases (because let's be honest, that's what UGME really cares about at the end of the day it seems). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hero147 Posted March 20, 2019 Report Share Posted March 20, 2019 I think its to make it easier for med students to back up/parallel plan without negatively decreasing their chances at matching to their preferred specialty since everyone else is on the same playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edict Posted March 20, 2019 Report Share Posted March 20, 2019 19 hours ago, xiphoid said: The way it was explained to us is that it'll even out the playing field a little bit since you can still be a "competitive" applicant for a specialty even if you decide later on during medical school and didn't already plan for multiple electives in that specialty, as well as increase your competitiveness for a backup specialty in CaRMS. Essentially the hope by admin at my school is to increase the total match rate, even if matching rate to top 1-3 choices decreases (because let's be honest, that's what UGME really cares about at the end of the day it seems). I personally think its a great idea. It levels out the playing field between schools and it allows people to make decisions later. Sure, people at some schools that currently have the unfair advantage are going to complain, but that is the nature of a zero sum game like CaRMS, any change will upset someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.