Parallel planning

[dooogs]

I’m wondering how feasible it is to parallel plan two surgical specialities that are fairly small. My qualm is both want to see that you committed to the speciality. I feel awkward being open about parallel planning with staff or residents since they might think I’m not fully committed. People that parallel planned did you mention that you were interested in both specialities when asked about your interests ?

 

 

[user123456]

Very very unlikely this ever works in your favour - better to commit to one

[dooogs]

2 hours ago, user123456 said:

Very very unlikely this ever works in your favour - better to commit to one

Because of the reasons I mentioned ?

[Edict]

I wouldn't mention that you are interested in both specialties. People want to see commitment to one, because when people have limited time, they don't want to really invest in someone who won't pursue that specialty. 

[ChemPetE]

Viewpoints differ. It is quite common based on CaRMS data to dual apply in my specialty. I personally won’t begrudge any medical student that considers it. Medical students are somewhat forced to play the game, and it’s more of the ‘don’t hate the players, hate the game’ sort of mentality from my point of view.

That being said, I know others in my dept question people’s commitment to the specialty. It’s not unheard of (though still uncommon) for people to switch out, and there is opportunity cost (and a huge impact to the call schedule) if even a single individual switches out. I know great medical students this year (I was not part of the selection this year due to vacation) that had research in our specialty that were not offered an interview, because they were seen as more likely to apply to a different specialty based on other electives etc. I don’t think that is quite fair, but it is a part of reality and how some people can view it.

So there always is a risk, and your mileage may vary. 

[dooogs]

Thank you. I also thought two was too risky.. unless one is not competitive 

[garceyues]

On 3/26/2023 at 12:11 PM, Edict said:

I wouldn't mention that you are interested in both specialties. People want to see commitment to one, because when people have limited time, they don't want to really invest in someone who won't pursue that specialty. 

So it is fair to parallel plan, just do not be super vocal about it right? With how competitive things can be and the risk of going unmatched, it seems unfair to penalize a student just for backing up.

[unmatched2022]

I personally don't know if this is truly an issue. I'd say that things that are less competitive (IM + FM) can be parallel planned safely with hyper competitive fields (ophtho, plastics, derm). But it's the middle of the pack where things become difficult (competitive + mid-competitive). That said, I think it ultimately depends on the program(s) you're applying to - each school really has their own criteria at the end of the day. You have to match one school's ideal criteria as there is no universal criteria to match to a specialty. PDs do not get together and decide the criteria for the entire specialty, instead each school has their own opinion. Maybe the PD at your school's program thinks parallel planning is smart, while another PD sees it as a negative. You'll never know. CaRMS is not just a black box - it is different black boxes across all the schools and programs you're applying to.

[Edict]

12 hours ago, garceyues said:

So it is fair to parallel plan, just do not be super vocal about it right? With how competitive things can be and the risk of going unmatched, it seems unfair to penalize a student just for backing up.

Yeah, I wouldn't be super vocal. I don't think anyone truly has anything against people backing up, but people are more worried that they would invest in someone who won't stick around.