Toronto internal medicine CaRMS selection commitee

[Panaphonics]

I applied to internal medicine in Toronto and just got an interview.

 

Does anyone know who is on the selection committee for Toronto internal med? I asked the program secretary and she said she wasn't able to tell me. Are they the same people who interview candidates?

[Panaphonics]

I have no idea why they keep this list so secretive. After asking around the past few days I found the names of everyone. I also found out a lot about the hidden secrets of the application process from one of the chief residents.

 

So I present to you the massive selection committee for Toronto internal medicine:

 

Program Director:

Dr. Heather McDonald-Blumer, Rheumatology, Mount Sinai Hospital

 

Mount Sinai Hospital:

Dr. Meyer Balter, Pulmonology

Dr. Sheetal Gandhi, Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Dr. Kenneth Locke, General Internal Medicine *

 

St. Michael's Hospital:

Dr. Samir Grover, Gastroenterology *

Dr. Una Lee, General Internal Medicine

Dr. Robert Sergeant, General Internal Medicine

 

Sunnybrook Hospital:

Dr. Mark Cheung, General Internal Medicine

Dr. Steve Shadowitz, General Internal Medicine *

Dr. Steven Shumak, General Internal Medicine

 

Toronto General Hospital:

Dr. Wayne Gold, Infectious Diseases *

Dr. Cheryl Jagobin, Neurology

Dr. Katerina Tzanetos, General Internal Medicine

 

Toronto Western Hospital:

Dr. Rodrigo Cavalcanti, General Internal Medicine

Dr. Carolyn Chessex, General Internal Medicine

Dr. Dan Panisko, General Internal Medicine *

 

I found out a lot about the application process also. The decision for interviews is almost completely arbitrary. Three secretaries go through all of the applications with a bunch of check-boxes for mandatory requirements. If you meet all of the requirements you get an interview. There are about 350 applicants and half get interviews. It is almost like the med school application process because the admin people basically decide if you get an interview. So if you didn't get an interview, then call the program director's office because things are often overlooked.

 

The lead person at each hospital is marked with an asterisk. They get to veto anyone off the list. These five people (Gold, Grover, Locke, Panisko, Shadowitz) are the most powerful on the committee and what they say apparently goes. These are the power players to suck up to and to do electives with. Wish I would have known that before. I only worked with Dr. Gold.

 

Interviews are 30 minutes and they ask you basic questions and questions meant to bring out red flags. Some interviewers (Cheung, Sergeant and Shumak for example) are brutally tough. They also have some interviewers from Women's College Hospital who are the nicest. Don't know their names though.

 

You get a mark for your application (from one of the five people above) which is worth 50% and a mark for your interview which is worth 50%. The marks are then sent to admin secretaries who make the final list and send it back to the same five people who review it and make note of discrepancies.

 

The entire committee meets for about an hour in mid-February to review the rank list. Contrary to the rumors, they do not review everyone's application in a big long magical meeting. The meeting is short and they just discuss the applicants with discrepancies above and decide whether or not to put them on the rank list.

 

TL;DR:

1. Committee members are listed

2. If you didn't get an interview it is not fatal because the admin secretaries really run the application process and something could have slipped through the cracks. Call the program director

3. The people with the power are Gold, Grover, Locke, Panisko, and Shadowitz.

[kalia]

You're awesome.

Thank you.

[Panaphonics]

You're awesome.

Thank you.

 

Women's College reps:

 

Dr. Debaroti Borschel, General Internal Medicine

Dr. Siobhan Ryan, Dermatology

 

Special thanks to Mark Bonta and David Frost for all the information.

[Laika]

I have no idea why they keep this list so secretive.

 

I can think of a couple of reasons why they wouldn't want it broadcast.

 

Special thanks to Mark Bonta and David Frost for all the information.

 

Do you think they'd appreciate you thanking them on a public internet forum like this?

[medordie]

Do you think they'd appreciate you thanking them on a public internet forum like this?

 

LOL... Any idea why a dermatologist would be on the selection committee for internal???

[Ollie]

LOL... Any idea why a dermatologist would be on the selection committee for internal???

 

Derm used to be a subspecialty of internal medicine, so a lot of dermatologists are also internists.

[Panaphonics]

I can think of a couple of reasons why they wouldn't want it broadcast.

 

You sure love sticking up for the man.

 

Do you think they'd appreciate you thanking them on a public internet forum like this?

 

They were there when I typed it.

 

Are we done with the third degree, or are you actually going to contribute something useful to this thread?

[lostintime]

Thanks for the info!! What kind of things do the secretaries look for when deciding who to give an interview? Is research really important?

[TOInternalMed1]

Thanks for the info!

 

1) Does anyone know what types of questions are asked at the interview? That is, are questions designed to get to know you or to assess your clinical skills?

2) How many people have been invited for an interview this year?

3) How far down the rank list does UofT tend to go each year?

 

Thanks again!

[failingtothrive]

This is ridiculous. Why does Toronto always have to be like this?

[Internist]

I guarantee you that some of the info in this thread is utter BS.

 

My credentials? I sit on the U of T CarMS selection committee. How did I find out about this site? Frankly, I was searching Google for my name and it linked to this thread.

 

For starters, I assure you that the decision to grant interviews is NOT made by the "administration". Just like all parts of the process for U of T applicants, an applicant's file is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers (from the Committee) who each give it a numerical score. In addition, it is guaranteed that other committee members will review the file if there was any significant difference between the two reviewers' scores. A pre-established threshold is used to determine who gets an interview (i.e. those at or above the pre-established threshold score). Moreover, an applicant denied an interview can appeal that decision, and such an appeal is usually granted.

 

Want more? Show me that you're here and reading.

[Internist]

I have no idea why they keep this list so secretive.

It's not at all. Did you try asking?

 

The decision for interviews is almost completely arbitrary. Three secretaries go through all of the applications with a bunch of check-boxes for mandatory requirements. If you meet all of the requirements you get an interview. There are about 350 applicants and half get interviews. It is almost like the med school application process because the admin people basically decide if you get an interview. So if you didn't get an interview, then call the program director's office because things are often overlooked.

Complete and total bull$hit. Is the person who posted this pulling your legs?

 

The lead person at each hospital is marked with an asterisk. They get to veto anyone off the list. These five people (Gold, Grover, Locke, Panisko, Shadowitz)

are actually the various hospital education directors

 

are the most powerful on the committee and what they say apparently goes.

Hah!

 

Interviews are 30 minutes and they ask you basic questions and questions meant to bring out red flags. Some interviewers (Cheung, Sergeant and Shumak for example) are brutally tough.

Are you serious? Shumak? Tough? Hah!

 

You get a mark for your application (from one of the five people above) which is worth 50% and a mark for your interview which is worth 50%. The marks are then sent to admin secretaries who make the final list and send it back to the same five people who review it and make note of discrepancies.

This thread is better than The Onion! Does anyone really believe this crap?

 

The entire committee meets for about an hour in mid-February to review the rank list. Contrary to the rumors, they do not review everyone's application in a big long magical meeting. The meeting is short and they just discuss the applicants with discrepancies above and decide whether or not to put them on the rank list.

Not only is this 100% wrong, it's horribly insulting. The Committee members each put in a minimum of 30 hours each year working on the CaRMS selection (unpaid, on top of everything else they do, i.e. at nights and w/e's). The "big" meeting in February has never lasted LESS THAN six hours. I really can't believe what has been asserted here.

 

The people with the power are Gold, Grover, Locke, Panisko, and Shadowitz.

Again, NO!!

 

For god sakes, you aren't stupid people. You've all done a HUGE amount to get where you are. Yet you lap this fecal matter up like it's gospel.

 

In any case, ask me what you want. Barring confidential stuff, I'll do my best to answer honestly.

[hawkeye1]

Internist -

 

I am not applying to internal medicine but have applied to multiple specialties. I agree that some of the information posted here may seem incredulous and it is reasonable to wonder why we might believe it ... but, I think it is safe to say that CaRMS is a confusing and non-transparent process. It is difficult, nay impossible, to gather more than cursory information regarding the application review process and interview outcomes from the committee (at least in the programs to which I have applied). As a result, large-scale speculation runs rampant. My sense is that this a defense mechanism in a situation with many unknowns.

 

My career, my partner's career, the timing of future children, my proximity to a support network and my financial stability will greatly be decided based on the match. I think it is safe to say that given the secrecy surrounding CaRMS, it is not unreasonable to latch onto any information may that provide a way of understanding and organizing the CaRMS chaos (regardless of how unreasonable it may seem to those in any position other than that of the applicant). Perhaps this gives you a little insight into one applicant's thought process ...

 

Hawkeye

 

 

It's not at all. Did you try asking?

 

Complete and total bull$hit. Is the person who posted this pulling your legs?

 

are actually the various hospital education directors

 

Hah!

 

Are you serious? Shumak? Tough? Hah!

 

This thread is better than The Onion! Does anyone really believe this crap?

 

Not only is this 100% wrong, it's horribly insulting. The Committee members each put in a minimum of 30 hours each year working on the CaRMS selection (unpaid, on top of everything else they do, i.e. at nights and w/e's). The "big" meeting in February has never lasted LESS THAN six hours. I really can't believe what has been asserted here.

 

Again, NO!!

 

For god sakes, you aren't stupid people. You've all done a HUGE amount to get where you are. Yet you lap this fecal matter up like it's gospel.

 

In any case, ask me what you want. Barring confidential stuff, I'll do my best to answer honestly.

[Scholastica]

I'm very suspicious of this thread as well. I managed to get an interview with UofT IM program despite having NOT worked with the physicians named here although I did an eleective at St. Michael's.

 

My interview with the program director was actually very intellectual. We talked about some socioeconomic issues and medical issues amongst other things. The PD was an extremely gracious person, and I can't imagine after having met her that she would leave the CaRMS admission process mainly up to the secretaries.

[itimebomb2]

For god sakes, you aren't stupid people. You've all done a HUGE amount to get where you are. Yet you lap this fecal matter up like it's gospel.

 

In any case, ask me what you want. Barring confidential stuff, I'll do my best to answer honestly.

 

Wow - I'm just going into 1st year med here but I sure hope that all the people I meet along the way aren't quite as "helpful" as you are... Do you always start chastising total stangers? Or is this just your internet-tough-guy persona?

 

Why don't you give us a name to work with so we can know whether or not you're just another one of those people spewing out completely unverifiable "fecal matter" to unwitting listeners.

 

edit: i apologize in advance for resurrecting a totally dead thread ;p but it had to be said.

[cheech10]

No, it didn't need to be said.

 

Internist, although a bit gruff, was quite truthful in shooting down the falsehoods presented earlier in the thread (secretaries deciding on interviews, rank list being determined in <1 hour, the 5 education directors having a "veto", Shumak and Sargeant being brutal interviewers, etc.), and provided helpful info on how the committee actually works. I'm a recent grad of the program, and worked with enough of the committee members to tell you much of the original info was wrong (apart from the actual list of committee members). Also, given that Internist is ON the committee (and given the tone of postings, pretty easy to identify if you know the staff well), comments about the lack of deliberation involved in the selection process would quite rightly feel like personal insults. Their response is not surprising at all.

[itimebomb2]

No, it didn't need to be said.

 

Internist, although a bit gruff, was quite truthful in shooting down the falsehoods presented earlier in the thread (secretaries deciding on interviews, rank list being determined in <1 hour, the 5 education directors having a "veto", Shumak and Sargeant being brutal interviewers, etc.), and provided helpful info on how the committee actually works. I'm a recent grad of the program, and worked with enough of the committee members to tell you much of the original info was wrong (apart from the actual list of committee members). Also, given that Internist is ON the committee (and given the tone of postings, pretty easy to identify if you know the staff well), comments about the lack of deliberation involved in the selection process would quite rightly feel like personal insults. Their response is not surprising at all.

 

Forgive me for giving Internist the benefit of the doubt for being a level headed physician, unfettered by petty, unintentioned remarks by what was obviously an innocently misled student. Internet conduct (especially in a professional forum like this) should represent real-life conduct. I should hope that he doesn't resort to name-calling and the use of foul language in the workplace when mildly and indirectly affronted. One can only imagine how disfunctional a team led by such an individual might be.

 

But like you said - if such a tone can be so easily surmised by a few short blocks of text, than no doubt Internest has already reaped the reward of a poor reputation by his attitude.

[estairella]

Forgive me for giving Internist the benefit of the doubt for being a level headed physician, unfettered by petty, unintentioned remarks by what was obviously an innocently misled student. Internet conduct (especially in a professional forum like this) should represent real-life conduct. I should hope that he doesn't resort to name-calling and the use of foul language in the workplace when mildly and indirectly affronted. One can only imagine how disfunctional a team led by such an individual might be.

 

But like you said - if such a tone can be so easily surmised by a few short blocks of text, than no doubt Internest has already reaped the reward of a poor reputation by his attitude.

 

1) This is not a professional forum, this is as far from a professional forum as you can get

2) Why should internet conduct reflect real life conduct?

3) Why do you assume how a person behaves professionally and how they behave personally are in any way related? I swear up a storm with my friends, but the worst I've ever uttered in front of a patient is "damn" and I think it was an adolescent where I said "damn, that sucks"

I'm also horrible at keeping my own place clean, so should I not wash my hands when in the wards?

 

Actually, if he is who I think he is, then yes he does have a foul mouth in real life (in an amusing way), but how does a few swears here and there create a dysfunctional team...?? (If he is who I think he is, everyone I know who's done an elective with him or had ASCM with him thinks he's a great preceptor and his foul language just adds to his character).

[cheech10]

I should hope that he doesn't resort to name-calling and the use of foul language in the workplace when mildly and indirectly affronted. One can only imagine how disfunctional a team led by such an individual might be.

 

But like you said - if such a tone can be so easily surmised by a few short blocks of text, than no doubt Internest has already reaped the reward of a poor reputation by his attitude.

 

Wow, you're way off. Belittling someone's work (there's no way secretaries decide who gets into the program!), which was being done for free, is not a mild affront. A bit of foul language, away from patients, is not a big deal, and in some cases improves comraderie. Nevermind that it was incredibly mild compared to the tongue-lashing some staff surgeons routinely give out in the OR. And this individual definitely DOES NOT have a poor reputation, in fact is one of the friendliest staff people in their institution; being on their team is actually desired by most students and housestaff.

 

It's unfortunate that Internist got such a hostile response on the 3 threads they posted too. They would have been an incredibly valuable resource on here for many of the applicants. I think most of us that have been through this process would agree that Internist was "telling it like it is", not being mean-spirited.

[itimebomb2]

1)

Actually, if he is who I think he is, then yes he does have a foul mouth in real life (in an amusing way), but how does a few swears here and there create a dysfunctional team...??

 

When it is directed against somebody.

 

Wow, you're way off. Belittling someone's work (there's no way secretaries decide who gets into the program!), which was being done for free, is not a mild affront. A bit of foul language, away from patients, is not a big deal, and in some cases improves comraderie. Nevermind that it was incredibly mild compared to the tongue-lashing some staff surgeons routinely give out in the OR. And this individual definitely DOES NOT have a poor reputation, in fact is one of the friendliest staff people in their institution; being on their team is actually desired by most students and housestaff.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the only people coming to Internist's defense here are people who know him quite well in person. Now, I don't doubt what you say about his reputation, but clearly the way he comes off to strangers is less than admirable, and overshadows any expertise he might have been able to offer.

 

It is a shame indeed that he couldn't be more helpful, as he is obviously an invaluable resource.

[cheech10]

But Internist was being helpful with most of their posts, IMO. They offered to answer any questions, and the "Ask the CaRMS Selection Committee member" thread was full of very good discussion. It was only in this thread that the discussion went off the rails, and they only posted twice here.

 

I'm not referring to you specifically, but in general I find the super-polite, sanctimonious, walking on eggshells tone that many of the posters on these boards use is a bit nauseating, and so unrealistic. It just seems like many of the posters here are too worried about saying something wrong, and expecting everyone to always be on their best behaviour. I think we should all lighten up. We had an opportunity to have a very valuable resource answer questions and lost it. I mean,a residency selection committee member! How often does one get to ask questions freely and anonymously of someone in that position? Compare this to the great info that aProgDirector gives out on SDN - we should have a similar resource here. Instead, we get conjecture and wild speculation from prospective applicants (or even pre-meds) about a selection process that they know very little about, and when someone comes on to try and correct misconceptions and answer questions, we get all upset about their tone.

[thebouque]

Forgive me for giving Internist the benefit of the doubt for being a level headed physician, unfettered by petty, unintentioned remarks by what was obviously an innocently misled student. Internet conduct (especially in a professional forum like this) should represent real-life conduct. I should hope that he doesn't resort to name-calling and the use of foul language in the workplace when mildly and indirectly affronted. One can only imagine how disfunctional a team led by such an individual might be.

 

But like you said - if such a tone can be so easily surmised by a few short blocks of text, than no doubt Internest has already reaped the reward of a poor reputation by his attitude.

 

If internet conduct represents real-life conduct, I truely hope that it doesn't apply to you.

[Recycledepot]

Forgive me for giving Internist the benefit of the doubt for being a level headed physician, unfettered by petty, unintentioned remarks by what was obviously an innocently misled student. Internet conduct (especially in a professional forum like this) should represent real-life conduct. I should hope that he doesn't resort to name-calling and the use of foul language in the workplace when mildly and indirectly affronted. One can only imagine how disfunctional a team led by such an individual might be.

 

But like you said - if such a tone can be so easily surmised by a few short blocks of text, than no doubt Internest has already reaped the reward of a poor reputation by his attitude.

 

You my dear friend, are a f*cking idiot. This is a forum, get over yourself. Like someone already pointed out, thanks for doing us all a favor and scaring off a CaRMS Selection Committee member (The best part? you're not even in med school yet). Next time, if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, please don't post. Have some common sense to keep your mouth shut, d*ckhead.

[naspec]

Did Internist actually get scared off? I just assumed that (s)he had other things to do in real life and didn't have time to post on these forums.