Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

chateau22

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chateau22

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

374 profile views
  1. It will be 5 hard years in Internal vs. 2 years in FM (not to say FM residency / studying is rosy and easy), but many people say Royal College is something that takes about a year to prepare for and your life is almost on pause at that point In addition, FM has an excellent lifestyle, you're out sooner Also, you'll have to consider if you don't match to endo, rheum, geri, etc. (probably unlikely but it happens) and if you'd be happy with GIM. Because if you're not happy with GIM, then internal would be a risk imo.
  2. I don't like that they keep saying they realize the flaws of their form, but no where did they actually "apologize"...
  3. Agreed. It just will be easier to back up with FM when they realize they just need a checklist filled vs. A reference letter
  4. Really? According to Twitter, they're trying to make an updated version and as of now, it's still being used for 2021 graduating class EDIT: Saw the update of being postponed to the 2022 year - great advocacy by FMs, hopefully they take advantage to tweak the form
  5. Credits to @ana_safavifor bringing light to this issue So it appears this year, FM programs will evaluate applicants on rubrics instead of traditional LORs. It was widely criticized on MedTwitter and begs the question, who are making these decisions at the higher level? CCFP & CARMS distanced themselves from it, but we know all 17 FM Program Directors were involved. Now they've agreed to revise it, but I have many quesitons: 1. How did 17 program directors get it so wrong, yet so many regular FMs were able to pick up on the flaws of this form right away? Some controversial q
  6. They definitely need to scrap it for this year - it's clear they need more time fixing this, and hopefully they realize liaison with 17 program directors is not enough and get a wider net with more family physicians (who clearly picked up the flaws right away) But they probably won't do that. They'll just shove it down our throats, throw their hands up in the air and say "Too bad". Clearly they didnt want to invest more than a few weeks into this. Embarassing for family medicine - do better.
  7. Also where is the text in this form? Are they really reducing family medicine to text boxes and checklists when every other discipline is still using reference letters which can show more about an applicant? A major change like this should've had more time invested (and those massive flaws may have been avoided) and given applicants more of a heads up because there were definitely people who asked for letters and now will have to go back to their referees and ask them to fill out this form instead
  8. It's embarrassing that they claimed to have involved many stakeholders in this including all 17 program directors. How did they get it so wrong then? I respect them trying to fix this, but they also havent directly apologized either for the massive flaws in this form. Perhaps they should've spent more than a few months before springing something completely unknown to applicants.
  9. Is this assuming you get a job afterwards though from the 3 year NGEP? Because if you don't, wouldn't that be wasted effort
  10. What about if you said palliative care? Does it get treated the same as saying you want to do a +1 in EM?
  11. i.e. following algorithms is a major part of your discipline
  12. Ex: a note about atrial fibrillation - do you use particular colors for treatment/management, diagnosis/workup, H&P? Or if you don't highlight, how do you organize your notes?
  13. How will this work for NOSM if away electives are taken away? I don't think they offer electives in every specialty?
  14. Great ideas! Can you recommend any good pair of noise cancelling headphones?
×
×
  • Create New...