Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums
shematoma

2018 CaRMS Second Iteration Interview Thread

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, hamham said:

CaRMS 2nd iteration is almost always a sh**-show every year. You have hundreds (maybe even thousands) of applicants for less than 10 spots for your supposedly "non-competitive" specialties like psych and FM, and matching in 2nd iteration is like winning a lottery. I think the take-home message is: 1) always back up in 1st iteration, and 2) if you don't match in 1st iteration, you are better off waiting out a year and applying again in 1st iteration the following year.

It's hard to back up in first iteration if you're going for something competitive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, wonka_vision said:

It's hard to back up in first iteration if you're going for something competitive. 

This is a terrible excuse unmatched people often used to justify their failure to back up in 1st iteration. Over the years, I have witnessed countless applicants to competitive specialties like OBS, EM, Derm, Gen Surg matching to their back-ups: IM, psych or FM. All you need to do is to plan ahead, do some electives in these specialties and apply broadly. Of course, don't expect to match to the most competitive IM, psych or FM programs if you are backing up.

If you are going to apply for these specialties in 2nd iteration anyway, you are better off applying to them in 1st iteration. At least your chances of matching is higher in 1st iteration.

Of course, if you cannot see yourself doing these specialties in future, you are better off going unmatched so that you can apply in 1st iteration again next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hamham said:

This is a terrible excuse unmatched people often used to justify their failure to back up in 1st iteration. Over the years, I have witnessed countless applicants to competitive specialties like OBS, EM, Derm, Gen Surg matching to their back-ups: IM, psych or FM. All you need to do is to plan ahead, do some electives in these specialties and apply broadly. If you are going to apply for these specialties in 2nd iteration anyway, you are better off applying to them in 1st iteration. At least your chances of matching is higher in 1st iteration.

Of course, if you cannot see yourself doing these specialties in future, you are better off going unmatched so that you can apply in 1st iteration again next year.

I definitely agree with you that it's possible to parallel plan even with the competitive specialties. That being said, I think OP's original point was that 

a) some specialties do not have much in common with the common back ups (basically just FM/path/psych at this point with IM becoming more competitive). For example, it's pretty hard to go for ortho or plastics and try to find a good link to fam practice. there are overlaps of course since family encompasses everything, but the interviewers will know for sure you're backing up

b ) with the recent increases in unmatched CMGs, leading to spill-over as last years' unmatched apply this year, plus the decreases in residency positions, not to mention every applicant applying to more and more specialties due to fear of not matching... it's becoming harder even to back up with family.

I personally had an okay family application (2 family electives + letters from 2 fam docs plus 1 'general' LOR), not stellar but it was the best I could get while going for my main. After applying broadly, I only received 2 family interviews, it seemed like schools are throwing out most applicants who seem like they are backing up. Ultimately went unmatched despite parallel planning and applying broadly. 

What I'm saying is, a lot of ppl on this site, and also a lot of mentors in life will tell you "apply broadly and back up" and you won't have a problem. But that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. A lot of the unmatched candidates at my school are not only excellent students and peers I would love to have as a doctor, but also did back up with family and still went unmatched. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Starfish31415 said:

Ultimately went unmatched despite parallel planning and applying broadly. 

If you did this and still went unmatched, I think you can walk away from CaRMS this year with your head held high. Ultimately, if you did your best, there is no shame in going unmatched. 

I was referring to those who did not parallel plan and apply broadly. These strategies will boost (but not guarantee) your chances of matching, and if you haven't adopted them, you haven't tried your best to match. Ultimately, CaRMS is a sh**-show, and everyone needs to learn how to deal with it effectively to max. your chances of matching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Starfish31415 said:

I definitely agree with you that it's possible to parallel plan even with the competitive specialties. That being said, I think OP's original point was that 

a) some specialties do not have much in common with the common back ups (basically just FM/path/psych at this point with IM becoming more competitive). For example, it's pretty hard to go for ortho or plastics and try to find a good link to fam practice. there are overlaps of course since family encompasses everything, but the interviewers will know for sure you're backing up

b ) with the recent increases in unmatched CMGs, leading to spill-over as last years' unmatched apply this year, plus the decreases in residency positions, not to mention every applicant applying to more and more specialties due to fear of not matching... it's becoming harder even to back up with family.

I personally had an okay family application (2 family electives + letters from 2 fam docs plus 1 'general' LOR), not stellar but it was the best I could get while going for my main. After applying broadly, I only received 2 family interviews, it seemed like schools are throwing out most applicants who seem like they are backing up. Ultimately went unmatched despite parallel planning and applying broadly. 

What I'm saying is, a lot of ppl on this site, and also a lot of mentors in life will tell you "apply broadly and back up" and you won't have a problem. But that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. A lot of the unmatched candidates at my school are not only excellent students and peers I would love to have as a doctor, but also did back up with family and still went unmatched. 

 

 

I think there needs to be a change in the mentality of some program directors:

I can tell you from experience that some people who did half electives in surg and half in IM, get to the interviews each one felt that the candidate was better suited for the other specialty and ultimately went unmatched

trying to learn from that strategy, others did all/majority of their electives in surgery and still went unmatched....and when applying to other specialties in first iteration they were basically discarded and never truly considered competitive because they didn't have enough electives in that field. 

Program directors of competitive programs need to realize that doing all of your electives in a single specialty is no longer possible and that does not mean that we are "unsure of our choice of specialty" or that we aren't competitive, but rather that this is the reality of the Canadian residency system and lack of available positions for any given specialty and therefore should still be considered equal to those who have done all their electives in a single specialty...but that's obviously not the case. 

There's a huge disconnect between the undergraduate strategies of parallel planning to ascertain that you can apply broadly and to various specialties, compared to the message from the postgraduate directors who believe you must specialize early on to even be considered focused, decided and competitive for a given specialty. The disconnect needs to change and program directors need to start seeing the reality and stop being unrealistic about our elective strategy to better our chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also backed up a competitive specialty with FM. I applied very broadly to all schools for FM and received three interviews, and ultimately did not match despite the FM interviews going well. I think that the applications make it evident what’s a back and thus affect the application and overall scoring. I definitely think FM does not like to see themselves as back up and like to see a mix of electives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to point out that the number of IMG spots offered by some FM programs is quite concerning. At UBC, about half of all available FM spots are reserved for IMGs. In fact, the St Paul's FM program took more IMGs than CMGs last year. Similar numbers were noted for other programs in the lower Mainland. Many of these IMGs are also not family doctors back in their home countries. They were peds, surgeons, or internists who had no choice but to settle for FM residency spots when they come to Canada. Clearly, IMO, they do not make better family doctors than some of my colleagues who gunned for competitive specialties, backed up with FM but ultimately went unmatched.

I have said this so many times (sounding like a broken record now): I have no concerns with IMGs applying to CaRMS, but IMGs should not match at the expense of CMGs. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Starfish31415 said:

I definitely agree with you that it's possible to parallel plan even with the competitive specialties. That being said, I think OP's original point was that 

a) some specialties do not have much in common with the common back ups (basically just FM/path/psych at this point with IM becoming more competitive). For example, it's pretty hard to go for ortho or plastics and try to find a good link to fam practice. there are overlaps of course since family encompasses everything, but the interviewers will know for sure you're backing up

b ) with the recent increases in unmatched CMGs, leading to spill-over as last years' unmatched apply this year, plus the decreases in residency positions, not to mention every applicant applying to more and more specialties due to fear of not matching... it's becoming harder even to back up with family.

I personally had an okay family application (2 family electives + letters from 2 fam docs plus 1 'general' LOR), not stellar but it was the best I could get while going for my main. After applying broadly, I only received 2 family interviews, it seemed like schools are throwing out most applicants who seem like they are backing up. Ultimately went unmatched despite parallel planning and applying broadly. 

What I'm saying is, a lot of ppl on this site, and also a lot of mentors in life will tell you "apply broadly and back up" and you won't have a problem. But that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. A lot of the unmatched candidates at my school are not only excellent students and peers I would love to have as a doctor, but also did back up with family and still went unmatched. 

 

 

I am really sorry to hear this! I think that last year (2017), it was a better year for Family Medicine, for undecided people between two specialties. 

I was initially gunning for IM & psychiatry during clerkship, split my electives between IM (did all non-CTU electives, was thinking of becoming a sub-specialist) + psychiatry (addictions+ child). I didn't do any Family Medicine electives, but I had 3 solid LORS from family physicians when I was doing my rural FM clerkship 

I guess that I had luck with CaRMS interviews last year, I eventually ended up with a good solid numbers of FM interviews everywhere I applied (7-9), had to even decline some to accommodate IM+ psych interviews.; with total 21 interviews that I actually attended (6-9 for each specialty) 

I guess that 2017 was the last year that FM was a solid back-up, IM and psychiatry program directors didn't mind you being undecided between 2 specialties.

I ultimately picked family medicine for flexibility + great job market+ ability to work anywhere I want. If I had applied this year, it would have been a total different scenario.

To OP, if you still want your initial specialty, I would advise you to apply next year, and ask your school if they could offer your extra year of <<clerkship>>, i.e not graduating and do a lot of electives. Also you should definitely talk to your home school family medicine program director, could they not create one extra residency spot for you? There are so many of family physicians, they usually take every transfer resident from any program with no elective every year. 

I don't want you to end up being an unhappy FM resident, it would be much difficult to transfer from FM to competitive specialty; You will regret less if you apply broadly next year with better application ! Best of luck and feel free to PM me or any member on this forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hamham said:

If you did this and still went unmatched, I think you can walk away from CaRMS this year with your head held high. Ultimately, if you did your best, there is no shame in going unmatched. 

I was referring to those who did not parallel plan and apply broadly. These strategies will boost (but not guarantee) your chances of matching, and if you haven't adopted them, you haven't tried your best to match. Ultimately, CaRMS is a sh**-show, and everyone needs to learn how to deal with it effectively to max. your chances of matching.

I've barely seen anyone who didn't attempt backing up. Many people go straight to this when they find out someone went unmatched, it can be frustrating. Family medicine programs are now looking for family med gunners. There is no more wiggle room.

Also, if you haven't gone unmatched you can't say walk away with your head held high. It's confusing as a good applicant who was backing up to come away with nothing after working for this for 8+ years. There is certainly no shame but the reality is that those who go unmatched will feel it. 

You can have the best strategy in the world, even if you are ranked by programs, and still wind up disappointed. There is a bit of luck involved in this when it comes to gaining electives and being ranked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, silvantes said:

I've barely seen anyone who didn't attempt backing up. Many people go straight to this when they find out someone went unmatched, it can be frustrating. Family medicine programs are now looking for family med gunners. There is no more wiggle room.

Maybe MUN is a small program. At my school, I know at least 10 classmates who didn't back up. If Fm programs are now looking for FM gunners, can you explain why some programs like UBC continue to take in lots of IMGs w/ little FM electives or experiences?

17 minutes ago, silvantes said:

Also, if you haven't gone unmatched you can't say walk away with your head held high. It's confusing as a good applicant who was backing up to come away with nothing after working for this for 8+ years. There is certainly no shame but the reality is that those who go unmatched will feel it. 

I think if you have tried your best, you should have no regrets. For me, if I have no regrets, I shall keep my head held up high. I'm not the one who wallows in sorrow when faced with a set-back. And trust me, I have enough life experiences that are worse than going unmatched.

17 minutes ago, silvantes said:

You can have the best strategy in the world, even if you are ranked by programs, and still wind up disappointed. There is a bit of luck involved in this when it comes to gaining electives and being ranked.

Not a bit of luck, but a hell lot. That's why CaRMS is a sh**-show to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hamham said:

I would also like to point out that the number of IMG spots offered by some FM programs is quite concerning. At UBC, about half of all available FM spots are reserved for IMGs. In fact, the St Paul's FM program took more IMGs than CMGs last year. Similar numbers were noted for other programs in the lower Mainland. Many of these IMGs are also not family doctors back in their home countries. They were peds, surgeons, or internists who had no choice but to settle for FM residency spots when they come to Canada. Clearly, IMO, they do not make better family doctors than some of my colleagues who gunned for competitive specialties, backed up with FM but ultimately went unmatched.

I have said this so many times (sounding like a broken record now): I have no concerns with IMGs applying to CaRMS, but IMGs should not match at the expense of CMGs. Period.

I disagree that IMGs shouldnt match at the expense of CMGs. They only account for 3% of CaRMS position. I think that taking 3% of the best IMG's is an acceptable compromise to taking 3% of the worse CMG or a questionable candidate that might not want FM and try to switch out. Limited research doesn't show IMGs being worse or better than CMGs either during residency. I think what needs to change is people's mentality. Going to medical school shouldn't guarantee a job, like most professions don't. The real problem is ultimately funding and the current climate. We need more generalists and why are we increasing medical school admissions but not raising the number of residency spots? Its also disturbing how they can't differentiate between someone who is backing up and someone who is genuinely interested in both specialties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PetiteAgour said:

I disagree that IMGs shouldnt match at the expense of CMGs. They only account for 3% of CaRMS position. I think that taking 3% of the best IMG's is an acceptable compromise to taking 3% of the worse CMG or a questionable candidate that might not want FM and try to switch out. Limited research doesn't show IMGs being worse or better than CMGs either during residency. I think what needs to change is people's mentality. Going to medical school shouldn't guarantee a job, like most professions don't. The real problem is ultimately funding and the current climate. We need more generalists and why are we increasing medical school admissions but not raising the number of residency spots? Its also disturbing how they can't differentiate between someone who is backing up and someone who is genuinely interested in both specialties. 

IMGs account for over 12% of positions... they got 411 last year out of 3241 positions. If IMGs couldn't match at all, then there'd be plenty of space to match the entire backlog of unmatched CMGs.

Furthermore the idea that medical school shouldn't guarantee a job is oversimplifying the issue. A medical degree is uniquely useless compared to most other degrees and it has a long practicum period built in that prepares you to be a resident and pretty much nothing else. It's also subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of maybe $50,000 a year per student, so it really makes no sense to train CMGs if a predictably high number are going to go unmatched every year. If we're going to match lots of IMGs then it's in the government and taxpayers best interests to cut CMG spaces so we can benefit from the unsubsidized training of IMGs, many of whom paid the full sticker price of their education from their own pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to introduce a different prospective to the whole CMG vs IMG thing. Stats from 2017 show that the total number of spots in all disciplines offered to CMGs were 2973. CMG applicants who applied for 1st iteration that year were 2955; that is including spill overs from all previous years. That is basically 1 spot for every CMG. I think you know where I am going with this. If not, my point is that CMGs are competing against each other. Even the "all so bad" system is accounting for the ones who went unmatched from previous years. You should consider the possibility that some unmatched CMGs might have been red flagged because of their CV or interview...maybe didn't back up properly.....mismatch.... I will leave you to complete the list of reasons why that might have happened. 

Now come and look at the IMG stats. 1811 applying vs 338 spots. That is a different kind of competition and mediocrity is not an option. The LMCC exams an IMG has to take before applying, provincial residency requirements that they have to fulfill, MMIs they have to take to be able to apply in certain provinces, research (even for FM/IM spots), electives......all that should be done without going out of practice. And hey, they are not doing that for free, you have the return of service requirements. Ontario for instance has a 5 year contract for a return of service and they have the right to send IMGs anywhere in that province after residency. So you are picking FM because you can practice wherever you want, guess what, IMGs have to wait 5 more years to be able to do that. 

Bottom line, CMGs are given spots for their exact number and if you think why should there be any competition from the first place, then you are probably living in a fool's paradise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, medicinist said:

 

Now come and look at the IMG stats. 1811 applying vs 338 spots. That is a different kind of competition and mediocrity is not an option. The LMCC exams an IMG has to take before applying, provincial residency requirements that they have to fulfill, MMIs they have to take to be able to apply in certain provinces, research (even for FM/IM spots), electives......all that should be done without going out of practice. And hey, they are not doing that for free, you have the return of service requirements. Ontario for instance has a 5 year contract for a return of service and they have the right to send IMGs anywhere in that province after residency. So you are picking FM because you can practice wherever you want, guess what, IMGs have to wait 5 more years to be able to do that. 

I think this is also not seeing the whole picture.  1811 applying for 338 spots--but have you ever done an IMG file review?  (I don't know what stage you are at).  I helped with one in residency.  It is a fucking train wreck.  Many of those 1811 have applied for many years in a row.  While its hard to find a red flag on CMG apps, you can literally throw out immediately over half the IMG apps.  Terrible English.  Basic lack of understanding of what the specialty does.  I threw out a few neurology apps because they literally handed in Psychiatry apps without changing the word Psychiatry to Neurology in their personal statement.

Anyway, mediocrity IS often an option.  Generally the IMGs we ranked would be ranked below every CMG we ranked.  I haven't even discussed how comparatively poorly they perform in interviews. Unless you have experience with the actual applications you have no idea.  Trust me, its not like those 1811 are all CSAs who just missed the med school cutoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, medicinist said:

I would like to introduce a different prospective to the whole CMG vs IMG thing. Stats from 2017 show that the total number of spots in all disciplines offered to CMGs were 2973. CMG applicants who applied for 1st iteration that year were 2955; that is including spill overs from all previous years. That is basically 1 spot for every CMG. I think you know where I am going with this. If not, my point is that CMGs are competing against each other. Even the "all so bad" system is accounting for the ones who went unmatched from previous years. You should consider the possibility that some unmatched CMGs might have been red flagged because of their CV or interview...maybe didn't back up properly.....mismatch.... I will leave you to complete the list of reasons why that might have happened. 

Now come and look at the IMG stats. 1811 applying vs 338 spots. That is a different kind of competition and mediocrity is not an option. The LMCC exams an IMG has to take before applying, provincial residency requirements that they have to fulfill, MMIs they have to take to be able to apply in certain provinces, research (even for FM/IM spots), electives......all that should be done without going out of practice. And hey, they are not doing that for free, you have the return of service requirements. Ontario for instance has a 5 year contract for a return of service and they have the right to send IMGs anywhere in that province after residency. So you are picking FM because you can practice wherever you want, guess what, IMGs have to wait 5 more years to be able to do that. 

Bottom line, CMGs are given spots for their exact number and if you think why should there be any competition from the first place, then you are probably living in a fool's paradise.  

To clarify, this is not true. The ROS in Ontario is anywhere the resident chooses and the need exists, except for Toronto and Ottawa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, heydere said:

To clarify, this is not true. The ROS in Ontario is anywhere the resident chooses and the need exists, except for Toronto and Ottawa. 

"All IMGs will be required to sign an IMG Training Agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care that requires the IMG to return service for a period of five years upon completion of their training in their area of specialty (including Family Medicine). This ROS commitment can be fulfilled anywhere in Ontario with the exception of the following communities: The City of Ottawa, The Greater Toronto Area including the City of Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Markham and Pickering."

http://www.carms.ca/en/residency/r-1/eligibility-criteria/provincial-criteria/ontario/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, applepieisgood said:

"All IMGs will be required to sign an IMG Training Agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care that requires the IMG to return service for a period of five years upon completion of their training in their area of specialty (including Family Medicine). This ROS commitment can be fulfilled anywhere in Ontario with the exception of the following communities: The City of Ottawa, The Greater Toronto Area including the City of Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Markham and Pickering."

http://www.carms.ca/en/residency/r-1/eligibility-criteria/provincial-criteria/ontario/

Yes thats exactly what I was referring to! By toronto, I meant GTA. 

This doesnt include many good city cities (Hamilton, London, Kingston, etc). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goleafsgochris said:

I think this is also not seeing the whole picture.  1811 applying for 338 spots--but have you ever done an IMG file review?  (I don't know what stage you are at).  I helped with one in residency.  It is a fucking train wreck.  Many of those 1811 have applied for many years in a row.  While its hard to find a red flag on CMG apps, you can literally throw out immediately over half the IMG apps.  Terrible English.  Basic lack of understanding of what the specialty does.  I threw out a few neurology apps because they literally handed in Psychiatry apps without changing the word Psychiatry to Neurology in their personal statement.

Anyway, mediocrity IS often an option.  Generally the IMGs we ranked would be ranked below every CMG we ranked.  I haven't even discussed how comparatively poorly they perform in interviews. Unless you have experience with the actual applications you have no idea.  Trust me, its not like those 1811 are all CSAs who just missed the med school cutoffs.

I totally agree. And to miss changing the name of the program on the personal statement is just plain stupid. Even accounting for those "stupids", you still end up with an at least 2:1 ratio. I have heard program directors say that after filtering all candidates by all the filters they could possibly put a candidate through, they still end up with 2-3 very strong candidates per spot with nothing to differentiate them from each other. Next step: flip a coin.

Anyway, my point was not to prove how hard it is for IMGs or compare them to CMGs (comparison wouldn't even be fair). My point was that IMGs are not "stealing" CMG spots. Even if you look at stats from 2013, the ratio is almost the same for CMGs.... slightly dropped but that is because of the spill over effect.  On the other hand, spots offered to IMGs dropped by 10 spots from 2013. Again, IMGs are not stealing CMG spots. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, heydere said:

Yes thats exactly what I was referring to! By toronto, I meant GTA. 

This doesnt include many good city cities (Hamilton, London, Kingston, etc). 

or Oshawa lol the ROS is not very strict, a few IMGs do end up practising in academic hospitals with good letters of support skipping ROS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, medicinist said:

I would like to introduce a different prospective to the whole CMG vs IMG thing. Stats from 2017 show that the total number of spots in all disciplines offered to CMGs were 2973. CMG applicants who applied for 1st iteration that year were 2955; that is including spill overs from all previous years. 

Not for english speaking CMGs. There is tons of Quebec spots that English students just can't apply. Which means there is less English residency spots compared to English med students. This is ridiculous. Yes, no job is guaranteed in any career, but residency is not a job, its part of practicum that we NEED to have in order to actually apply for a job as an attending physician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MedMatch said:

having spoken to the program, this spot isn't actually an open spot. They are keeping it open for a transfer they want to accept. Therefore they didn't think they would hold any interviews when I last spoke to them. 

I have not applied to this program, but this is a CLEAR VIOLATION of the CaRMS contract on the program side.  Anyone who applied should file a grievance with CaRMS to punish those assholes.  You in the very least deserve your money back for applying to that spot.  I suspect Ottawa family med was the same....I could never figure out how they could assess 200+ applications in 24 hours.  I know when I sent my ITERs from my previous residency there were at least 200 pages, I'm guessing they didn't even read my essay or CV.  This game is rigged folks....it's time to protest.  Loud.

This is worth a read.....

https://www.carms.ca/en/policies/violation-review/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay....this one takes the cake.  I just spoke with Kim Rozon, the program co-ordinator at the University of Ottawa family medicine program.  I asked how many applications their program received for the second round, her answer: in excess of 1000.  Considering applications were due March 8th at noon, and Ottawa FM offered interviews by March 9th at 4pm, does anyone think they could look at all those applications in any type of rigorous manner in 28 hours?  

Assuming they didn't sleep at all, which they likely did, 28 hours is 1680 minutes.  Assuming 1000 applicants to make the math easy....that is 1 minute and 40.8 seconds per file. You couldn't possibly read an entire file, let alone a 1000 word essay in this timeframe.  I guarantee they didn't even look at the majority of files, and likely had candidates already in mind.  What bullshit this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angry+Bitter+Unmatched said:

I have not applied to this program, but this is a CLEAR VIOLATION of the CaRMS contract on the program side.  Anyone who applied should file a grievance with CaRMS to punish those assholes.  You in the very least deserve your money back for applying to that spot.  I suspect Ottawa family med was the same....I could never figure out how they could assess 200+ applications in 24 hours.  I know when I sent my ITERs from my previous residency there were at least 200 pages, I'm guessing they didn't even read my essay or CV.  This game is rigged folks....it's time to protest.  Loud.

This is worth a read.....

https://www.carms.ca/en/policies/violation-review/

It would be very hard, if not impossible to prove this sort of case against a program. They could easily say they reviewed the files but only a very select few passed muster for an interview, which may happen to include the applicants they already had in mind for the spot. I don't think CaRMS is going to be raising much of a stink either as they collect $30.50 for each and every application submitted and why would they want to stop the gravy train? I'm totally with you on this and it angers me too but fighting it would be a 90 degree uphill battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could easily state that they had a prescreen criteria that eliminate the majority of applicants. From there, they had multiple faculty reviewers who assessed the remainder of applicants. Would be hard to prove anything without someone on the inside raising concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×