Unmatched Programs 2022

[divalprohex]

1 hour ago, McMasterMD said:

Hey my dude/dudette, yes, it’s 100% possible. I’ve heard of many surgical residents who switched to fam and never looked back

Thanks for sharing the hope! I look to the horizon and dream of a better future. Fingers are crossed!

[canada747]

On 4/12/2022 at 2:04 PM, Findanus said:

That begs the question though, why not have high standards? 

If I was a PD I'd rather my program go unfilled than end up with applicants that are undesirable.

You need residents for the program to survive, and for the work to be done! This is not preferable to a passable candidate who can learn on the job.

[GH0ST]

57 minutes ago, canada747 said:

You need residents for the program to survive, and for the work to be done! This is not preferable to a passable candidate who can learn on the job.

respectfully disagree

residents that don't want to be there can cause more problems both during residency and for patients once they become staff

If I were a PD I can't in good conscience choose someone who I wouldn't want to work with and doesn't want to be there. 

- G

[hero147]

16 hours ago, GH0ST said:

respectfully disagree

residents that don't want to be there can cause more problems both during residency and for patients once they become staff

If I were a PD I can't in good conscience choose someone who I wouldn't want to work with and doesn't want to be there. 

- G

I would also imagine your program would lose funding. What is stopping universities from giving your program funding for 10 spots if you only fill 2 of them every year? 

[GH0ST]

5 hours ago, hero147 said:

I would also imagine your program would lose funding. What is stopping universities from giving your program funding for 10 spots if you only fill 2 of them every year? 

But we don't have enough info to infer that having more unmatched spots would lead to less funding. 

Is more funding worth having a resident you don't want in your program? 

Maybe we should address the issue of being unmatched and finding a better fit, rather than penalize a PD and selection committee's decision to find the best candidates. You know... actually get down to the bottom of the issue. 

- G 

[hero147]

1 hour ago, GH0ST said:

But we don't have enough info to infer that having more unmatched spots would lead to less funding. 

Is more funding worth having a resident you don't want in your program? 

Maybe we should address the issue of being unmatched and finding a better fit, rather than penalize a PD and selection committee's decision to find the best candidates. You know... actually get down to the bottom of the issue. 

- G 

No, but imagine you're allocating funding for different programs at your universities. Everyone is fighting for more residents and you're the only program who persistently has a number of spots that never fill. Ultimately, your program will be cut by the excess.

If the committee and PD think a candidate is passable and would make a passable physician and resident, then they should be accepted over an unmatched spot. If there are any red flags, sure don't rank an applicant but a candidate shouldn't be rejected just because they're not interested in a specialty or aren't the right "fit" if the alternative is an unmatched student and an unmatched spot. 

[Findanus]

4 hours ago, hero147 said:

No, but imagine you're allocating funding for different programs at your universities. Everyone is fighting for more residents and you're the only program who persistently has a number of spots that never fill. Ultimately, your program will be cut by the excess.

If the committee and PD think a candidate is passable and would make a passable physician and resident, then they should be accepted over an unmatched spot. If there are any red flags, sure don't rank an applicant but a candidate shouldn't be rejected just because they're not interested in a specialty or aren't the right "fit" if the alternative is an unmatched student and an unmatched spot. 

Honestly I don't see any problem with having funding cut if a program can't recruit worthwhile residents. We have all seen certain programs take on unqualified applicants to have call coverage and to keep the funding pipeline open. Certain pathology programs have demonstrated this pattern but as call in pathology is not as urgent, residents are largely unnecessary for it, which makes funding the prime reason.

[Edict]

On 5/9/2022 at 12:48 AM, Findanus said:

Honestly I don't see any problem with having funding cut if a program can't recruit worthwhile residents. We have all seen certain programs take on unqualified applicants to have call coverage and to keep the funding pipeline open. Certain pathology programs have demonstrated this pattern but as call in pathology is not as urgent, residents are largely unnecessary for it, which makes funding the prime reason.

Its really hard to determine whos a "worthwhile resident". Any metric you come up with probably has a way to be gamed, which would lead to downstream side effects.