What makes a good evaluation (clerkship)?

[nephrolithiasis]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm a year 3 med student just finishing up my first rotation. My question is - what impresses program directors when they are going over evaluations of a student's performance in a core clerkship rotation (mainly the comments section)? From my experience, it seems that most PDs want to know if a student has a good attitude and is hard-working. Is that all? What makes an evaluation really stand out?

 

I know my question is very general because each PD is looking for different things depending on the program. I am not gunning for anything really competitive (maybe internal medicine).

 

Thanks in advance

[A-Stark]

Any positive comments that don't seem entirely generic are probably good, though I don't really know - certainly one of my evals which said that I was at the "top of my group" will not hurt at all.

[Lactic Folly]

As with reference letters, any detailed comments that are specific to your strengths and demonstrate personal knowledge of you are more convincing. Any evaluations that place you clearly above your peers (e.g. functions at the level of a junior resident) are also helpful, as are positive comments from people known to the reader.

 

But don't panic if you don't have superlatives. People understand that these things are subjective, that some evaluators are naturally more supportive and some more reticent, and that (unlike with reference letters) you can't choose your supervisors, and some people just can't be bothered to write more than a few generic words (pleasant student, no concerns). However, a theme does tend to emerge over the course of clerkship, and you want to be proactive and avoid red flags if at all possible.

[Lactic Folly]

Agree in the sense that good evaluations come from people who like you and respect your potential as a future physician. They need not be personal in the sense of joking, chatting about hobbies/family/interests.

 

Also agree that adaptability, but not sure that charisma/extreme confidence (whatever that means) is necessary. A general likeability / pleasantness should suffice. One person's charismatic and confident is another's overbearing and too forward. It really depends on the personality of the evaluator and their specialty.

[Lactic Folly]

My question is, how much weight is given to an evaluation from a community preceptor vs one from an academic setting? Does that matter much?

 

1. Strength of the letter.

2. Letter writer known to committee.

 

These are the most important criteria regardless of who writes the letter. For #1, academic could have an edge if they are able to compare to a larger pool of students, but I'm not sure how much difference this routinely makes. For #2, as your letters are being read by other academic physicians for the most part, the probability that an academic preceptor is known outside their school is greater. This may not always hold, though - you never know who trained where or who they used to work with, way back when...

[medaholic]

Good letters might say something like this

 

"Outstanding student, pleasure to have on the team, excellent knowledge, presentation skills, operating at a resident level. Interacts with patients well, self-learner,"

 

Most people have a good attitude and are decently hardworking. It's the things that separate you from your peers that will really make you stand out!

 

I know it's hard to figure out having only done one rotation. But as you finish more, if you're consistently above average, it will show in your later evaluations.