Does an M.Sc. matter in carms matches?

[tooty]

Hey everyone,

 

I realize that your LORs and clinical experience are very important when it comes to matching to your specialty choices.

 

How does an M.Sc. (or PhD) play into your matches? Does it matter much if at all?

[Lactic Folly]

It's going to depend on what you're applying to and where. For research-intensive specialties or programs, I imagine it would be a definite bonus to have that background, especially if you state an interest in continuing such work; for programs that don't care about research, it won't matter much, and stating a strong interest in research would likely be a detriment if it's something they can't fully support.

[Valentine]

Carms is random.

 

We've all seen superstars go unmatched, and questionable entries land hot competitive spots.

 

It's not about what's on the application, but who likes you for whatever reason, and who you know - this takes precedence over all else.

[tooty]

It's not about what's on the application, but who likes you for whatever reason, and who you know - this takes precedence over all else.

 

That's kind of bad, but kind of good too

[Yamuh]

iii) Being able to answer questions. What anatomic landmarks define Hesselbach's triangle

 

inferior epigastric artery

rectus abdominis

inguinal ligament

 

[Fade2Black]

inferior epigastric artery

rectus abdominis

inguinal ligament

 

 

...Wikipedia

[Yamuh]

...Wikipedia

 

Not at all...

I studied that last week end...

[Calgarymed]

Its true though. You can be the keener, you can get there early, you can know your stuff, you can get along with the residents and staff and nurses and whoever else, and you can have research, and you can have good feedback from preceptors and you can go unmatched. I agree with Valentine. Its good to have all those things, but in the end its going to come down to so and so liked you or didnt for some really obscure reason/knows you/knows someone important that knows you(maybe your parents or whoever)...and a lot of that you really have no control over....

[noncestvrai]

Carms is random.

 

We've all seen superstars go unmatched, and questionable entries land hot competitive spots.

 

It's not about what's on the application, but who likes you for whatever reason, and who you know - this takes precedence over all else.

 

True that, weird things happen during CaRMS...BUT people tend to like you if you're a hard worker and you're easy to get along with.

 

noncestvrai

[Valentine]

True that, weird things happen during CaRMS...BUT people tend to like you if you're a hard worker and you're easy to get along with.

 

noncestvrai

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter what you do during electives and clerkship. Actually, if you're not connected then it is extremely important to be keen. Keep in mind there is a fine line between being diligent and kissing a$$.

 

But anecdotally, someone from my graduating class was definitely a complainer and a whiner during clerkship. Got in some issues with some of the faculty on a few of the rotations.

 

This person matched to a VERY competitive spot.

 

I wonder who they knew...?

[Nephets]

Keep in mind we don't see everything a person does and we don't see what's in their CaRMS file. Add in personal contacts and chance to that and it's difficult to explain why some match and some don't. Just do your best...that's all you can do.

N.

[lostintime]

That goes for everything in life, right? People always have connections, and there's usually nothing much you can do about it but worry about how you can improve yourself. Of course, if the system gets too corrupt, you can organize some sort of uprising and social movement, but most of the time, it's fair enough that you just overlook those minor incidents because you are too tired/lack of force/power to deal with such discreptancies.

[LFTs]

Come on, CaRMS has got to be one of the fairest job applications around.

 

Of course, there will always be exceptions. Of course there will be some connections. And of course there are anecdotes every year of people not matching ('Man, I thought they were a sure thing').

 

But most get what they want, the stats speak for themselves. Check out the website and look at previous years matches. There is no argument really, it works.

 

If you are applying, put yourself in the best position possible to be a good candidate. There is some good advice in this thread and elsewhere. Above all, be a team player.

[Valentine]

Come on, CaRMS has got to be one of the fairest job applications around.

 

Of course, there will always be exceptions. Of course there will be some connections. And of course there are anecdotes every year of people not matching ('Man, I thought they were a sure thing').

 

But most get what they want, the stats speak for themselves. Check out the website and look at previous years matches. There is no argument really, it works.

 

If you are applying, put yourself in the best position possible to be a good candidate. There is some good advice in this thread and elsewhere. Above all, be a team player.

 

You're speaking of the ideal. This works if there are a lot of spots for the residency you want, since there's more room for people.

 

However, the less spots there are, the more personal connections comes into play.

 

As I have said before, I completely endorse medical students going above and beyond in clerkship. However, there are things like other people's connections that are entirely out of your control, and that will have a substantial effect on your results in the match.

 

Ideally, if one wanted to match to a program, there would be a standardized test pertinent to what residents of that particular field should know. Those who do the best in it get residency positions that year. That would be a completely objective assessment of one's ability in a particular field.

[noncestvrai]

That would have helped some candidates I know...

 

This guy I know wanted a very competitive specialty, I'm not kidding this guy was a superstar, he would level most people in the country, and even I thought he had connections and a SHOE IN...but no, did not work, to the surprise of many, including myself. In fact, that was the second greatest shock of the day, the greatest was the person who matched in "his place"...

 

Anyways, I think that people applying to very competitive specialties should be happy of matching, regardless where, and I think most people actually do match to their first choice discipline (including more competitive ones).

 

noncestvrai

[LFTs]

Look, I will not argue with you that connections play a role. This is a reality not only in medicine but in all professions/industries.

 

The point I am making is that, the vast vast vast majority of people work hard and get what they want, period. This is the message that we should be sending. 85% of applicants get one of their 3 spots.

 

The point of competitive residencies was brought up, and some say that connections play a larger role here. Those who do not match could blame connections.

 

But I would also look at these so called 'ideal' candidates and see what other weaknesses they have in their application in terms of why they went unmatched. Here are some of them:

 

1) Did not apply widely / did not perform electives across the country, therefore, they did not indicate that they are willing to move, in turn disadvantaging them in up to half of all programs across the country

 

2) Did 5 electives in, for e.g. plastic surgery, did research, went to rounds weekly, but when you speak to the residents they actually felt this person was not a team player or someone they would enjoy working with for 5 years

 

3) Are applying for a specialty where there are twice as many applicants. For example, in 2007, there were 47 first choice plastics applicants for 24 spots. Every one of these people I'm sure thought they were pretty good (and likely were), but the reality is that we don't need 50 new plastic surgeons every year (according to CaRMS). Just because you were keen since Day 1 of med school doesn't mean you deserve the spot.

 

4) The interview? You could blow this one and it really doesn't matter what you did in the previous 4 years of med school.

 

Lastly, I completely disagree about an objective exam at the end of med school to determine your competency. At least in Canada, we are all trained well, and if we have knowledge deficits going into residency, we can learn and be taught. Also, if we are talking about very competitive specialities, the variability in knowledge between candidates is likely to be insignificant.

 

I would say that a strong candidate has both knowledge AND teamwork/social/likeability. As I said above, BE A TEAM PLAYER. If the program director scores you 50/50 on knowledge but 10/50 in terms of 'can I see myself working with this person for the next 5 years', you will not match to that spot.

 

So don't be so quick to blame connections if someone goes unmatched. There are lots and lots of reasons. Connections may be just one factor, and only a major factor in the decision tree for a very small percentage of candidates.

[Valentine]

Look, I will not argue with you that connections play a role. This is a reality not only in medicine but in all professions/industries.

 

The point I am making is that, the vast vast vast majority of people work hard and get what they want, period. This is the message that we should be sending. 85% of applicants get one of their 3 spots.

 

The point of competitive residencies was brought up, and some say that connections play a larger role here. Those who do not match could blame connections.

 

But I would also look at these so called 'ideal' candidates and see what other weaknesses they have in their application in terms of why they went unmatched. Here are some of them:

 

1) Did not apply widely / did not perform electives across the country, therefore, they did not indicate that they are willing to move, in turn disadvantaging them in up to half of all programs across the country

 

2) Did 5 electives in, for e.g. plastic surgery, did research, went to rounds weekly, but when you speak to the residents they actually felt this person was not a team player or someone they would enjoy working with for 5 years

 

3) Are applying for a specialty where there are twice as many applicants. For example, in 2007, there were 47 first choice plastics applicants for 24 spots. Every one of these people I'm sure thought they were pretty good (and likely were), but the reality is that we don't need 50 new plastic surgeons every year (according to CaRMS). Just because you were keen since Day 1 of med school doesn't mean you deserve the spot.

 

4) The interview? You could blow this one and it really doesn't matter what you did in the previous 4 years of med school.

 

Lastly, I completely disagree about an objective exam at the end of med school to determine your competency. At least in Canada, we are all trained well, and if we have knowledge deficits going into residency, we can learn and be taught. Also, if we are talking about very competitive specialities, the variability in knowledge between candidates is likely to be insignificant.

 

I would say that a strong candidate has both knowledge AND teamwork/social/likeability. As I said above, BE A TEAM PLAYER. If the program director scores you 50/50 on knowledge but 10/50 in terms of 'can I see myself working with this person for the next 5 years', you will not match to that spot.

 

So don't be so quick to blame connections if someone goes unmatched. There are lots and lots of reasons. Connections may be just one factor, and only a major factor in the decision tree for a very small percentage of candidates.

 

You make some very good points here. However, there are obvious rebuttals.

 

1. Some fields have very limited electives spots. Thus, one may be unable to perform electives across the country in these particular fields. This holds extremely true for the student who realized at the end of clerkship, on his last rotation, that he loved plastics.

 

However, I do agree that if one is gunning for a spot, they should cast their net WIDE in the match. Being too selective in location will only work against these people.

 

2. Being a team player is important. EXTREMELY important. However, I fail to see any objective measurement of what being a team player is. It is very true that some residents, as sick as this may sound, respect a clerk who stands up for him or herself by refusing to get coffee, whereas others would see this as a complete insult. There is no standard.

 

3. Too many applicants is exactly why a standardized exam would be a useful way of determining who should get spots. And although medcal education is fairly uniform across Canada, some students are better than others. Thus, a standardized exam would be able to determine which students have the best fund of knowledge in a particular field. Otherwise, selection is based on far too many confounding variables.

 

4. Blowing an interview is possibly the worst way to lose a CaRMS spot. The interview seems more like a formality than a way of determining whether the applicant in question would perform well in patient care. There is no way that one can determine the suitability, or even overall likeability, of an applicant from 30 minutes of blabbery.

 

 

And although I do agree that being an agreeable, hard working student is extremely important when it comes to electives and clerkship, I also do say that having strong connections in a particular field trumps all of this. Being related to the program director will give you more of an in than being the top student of your class, in my opinion. And although this may only ring true for a minority of candidates, it is these candidates that will have the best chances in the match, regardless of ability as a physician.

[coastalslacker]

You make some very good points here. However, there are obvious rebuttals.

 

1. Some fields have very limited electives spots. Thus, one may be unable to perform electives across the country in these particular fields. This holds extremely true for the student who realized at the end of clerkship, on his last rotation, that he loved plastics.

 

However, I do agree that if one is gunning for a spot, they should cast their net WIDE in the match. Being too selective in location will only work against these people.

 

2. Being a team player is important. EXTREMELY important. However, I fail to see any objective measurement of what being a team player is. It is very true that some residents, as sick as this may sound, respect a clerk who stands up for him or herself by refusing to get coffee, whereas others would see this as a complete insult. There is no standard.

 

3. Too many applicants is exactly why a standardized exam would be a useful way of determining who should get spots. And although medcal education is fairly uniform across Canada, some students are better than others. Thus, a standardized exam would be able to determine which students have the best fund of knowledge in a particular field. Otherwise, selection is based on far too many confounding variables.

 

4. Blowing an interview is possibly the worst way to lose a CaRMS spot. The interview seems more like a formality than a way of determining whether the applicant in question would perform well in patient care. There is no way that one can determine the suitability, or even overall likeability, of an applicant from 30 minutes of blabbery.

 

 

And although I do agree that being an agreeable, hard working student is extremely important when it comes to electives and clerkship, I also do say that having strong connections in a particular field trumps all of this. Being related to the program director will give you more of an in than being the top student of your class, in my opinion. And although this may only ring true for a minority of candidates, it is these candidates that will have the best chances in the match, regardless of ability as a physician.

 

 

I agree with pretty much everything LFT says. CaRMS works well for the vast majority of people. Hard work pays off for most people and I would include "making connections" under the rubric of hard work. You get to know who you need to know.

 

Rebutting the rebuttals then:

 

1. If you realize in your last rotation that you like something completely different that sucks. But, it doesn't happen very often. CaRMS applications begin after most students have had a full year of clerkship. Anecdotally, of the people I know of who changed to something moderately competitive quite late, it worked out for most of them.

 

2. Obviously being a "team player" is important. However, more important for residency programs is whether you fit with the team they already have. There's "no standard" because people aren't standardized. Come on man, in this business you see people all the time, you should be learning to get a read on them. When I found what I loved it was because I felt I clicked with the guys doing the job, there weren't misinterpretations of "coffee getting duties". As an aside, what do you mean "stand up for yourself" when someone asks you to get coffee? Dude, that's five minutes to chill out, take that time whenever you can get it!

 

3. "some students are better than others" an exam would "determine who has the best fund of knowledge in a particular field". I guess, but so what? For my CaRMS interviews they wanted to see that you had more knowledge than the average med student, but that was about it. When I talk to residents about getting ready for July 1, their uniform response is "you have five years to learn orthopaedics", which I take to mean go golfing. I think this holds for everything. You're smart, you do a job day in and day out for several years, you learn it, plain and simple. A bit more knowledge than the next joe in med school is probably a poor predictor of how good you are at the end of residency.

 

Besides, everyone in medical school is smart enough to do any speciality, you know that. In fact, many of the most competitive fields have nothing to do with conceptual difficulty, it's all about the cash and lifestyle (ie eye dentistry, ear nose and wallet, plastics (but not all plastics, I know), dermatology etc.)

 

You're right though, a test would make it less subjective and less susceptible to "confounding variables" like fitting in and demonstrating that you're a hard worker. Less subjective, but also less logical.

 

4. From talking to staff, the interview is primarily a screening tool to rule out people who are grossly incompetent in terms of social skills, total jerks, or anything else really bad. Any one of us could have a bad day (or even two) on the interview trail and screw the proverbial pooch. However, if you're a decent candidate in a field, you have a couple more kicks at the can. If you screw up every interview, well, see the first sentence. A friend overheard one staff guy on the tour this year say that he wished someone would come in a say something ridiculously dumb so he could actually cross a name off and make their job easier. I doubt many people vault up the ranking rungs very significantly based in the interviews.

[Blake]

Well said, coastalslacker.

[tooty]

sick discussion boys and girls.

[LFTs]

Coastalslacker: obviously, well said.

 

I'll re-iterate that being a 'team player' doesn't just mean just getting coffee and kissing a$$. It really means: are you reliable, friendly, do patients/nurses like you/get along with you, do you know your limitations and when to ask for help / can you admit that you were wrong, will you share 'cool' duties with other clerks (scrubbing in, doing blood gasses/chest tubes etc.) and overall, do you have a good attitude.

 

Seem common sense, right? For the majority, not a problem. But for some, it is.

 

And yes, to drive the point home, the ones who do not understand this are usually the ones who don't match. I cannot overstate this enough.

[boodog]

This is somewhat along the lines of this thread...

 

How are unrelated master's viewed? For example, does an MSc in microbiology have any potential to strengthen an application to Gen Surg or Radiology?