Medical Students Faking Publications?

[thatonekid]

This is true. But everybody needs at least one backup!

 

 

But you would be more unhappy being unmatched. Ans I've heard that CaRMS is a one shot thing so chances don't get better if you're a repeat applicant im guessing.

 

It really depends. Like someone else mentioned, if you want radiology, why would you back up with something you'd be unhappy with? In some cases, it is better to enter the second round. Also, carms is not a one-shot deal. Sure, you can't re-enter the first round, but depending on what you're interested in, taking an extra year can make you more competitive, consider going to the US, etc.

[amichel]

My understanding is never? They have their own separate 1st round positions. Only if a first round CMG position goes unfilled is it then opened up in 2nd round.

I think the point is that many think they shouldn't have their own spots in areas where lots of CMGs go unmatched.

[JohnGrisham]

I think the point is that many think they shouldn't have their own spots in areas where lots of CMGs go unmatched.

Ah gotcha. The have's and the have nots haha. It's all about expectations, not everyone can be a radiologist and all that jazz.  Just like not everyone can be a doctor, not everyone can be an x y z specialist. The forecasting and allocation of seats in various disciplines is FAR from ideal - but they do what they can do to ensure they can strive towards whatever metrics they want to reach. 

 

I mean, most of the IMG dedicated spots in round 1, are in primary care related specialties. Most places also require ROS, as a means to address (to an extent) that bag of mix worms called "distribution".

 

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Table_14_Dedicated_Quota_offered_to_IMG_Applicants_by_Discipline_English.pdf

 

Looking at those numbers, i can hardly see the reason to cry about the IMGs compared to CMGs:

 

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Table_12_Quota_offered_to_CMG_Applicants_by_Discipline_English.pdf

 

The 9 aneasthesiology spots for IMGs, vs 104 for CMGs?

 

The 2 derm spots for IMGs vs 27 for CMGs?

 

The 1 optho spot for IMGs vs 39 for CMGs?

 

The 5 ortho spots for IMGs vs 56 for CMGs?

 

The trend goes on.

 

The way it is now, seems more than fair to address 1) protection of CMGs getting matched and 2) Ensuring we can get diversity and the "best" in our medical system.  Add to the fact that those same IMG round 1 spots, can and have gone onto 2nd round to be picked up by a CMG - if the original applicants weren't satisfactory. 

 

 

[amichel]

Ah gotcha. The have's and the have nots haha. It's all about expectations, not everyone can be a radiologist and all that jazz.  Just like not everyone can be a doctor, not everyone can be an x y z specialist. The forecasting and allocation of seats in various disciplines is FAR from ideal - but they do what they can do to ensure they can strive towards whatever metrics they want to reach. 

 

I mean, most of the IMG dedicated spots in round 1, are in primary care related specialties. Most places also require ROS, as a means to address (to an extent) that bag of mix worms called "distribution".

 

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Table_14_Dedicated_Quota_offered_to_IMG_Applicants_by_Discipline_English.pdf

 

Looking at those numbers, i can hardly see the reason to cry about the IMGs compared to CMGs:

 

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Table_12_Quota_offered_to_CMG_Applicants_by_Discipline_English.pdf

 

The 9 aneasthesiology spots for IMGs, vs 104 for CMGs?

 

The 2 derm spots for IMGs vs 27 for CMGs?

 

The 1 optho spot for IMGs vs 39 for CMGs?

 

The 5 ortho spots for IMGs vs 56 for CMGs?

 

The trend goes on.

 

The way it is now, seems more than fair to address 1) protection of CMGs getting matched and 2) Ensuring we can get diversity and the "best" in our medical system.  Add to the fact that those same IMG round 1 spots, can and have gone onto 2nd round to be picked up by a CMG - if the original applicants weren't satisfactory. 

 

 

 

But plenty of CMGs go unmatched in primary care specialities as well.  You're right, not everyone can get the specialty they want.  We can't just up the specialty spots with zero regard to societal need.  The issue (not necessarily how I feel, just laying out all the arguments) is IMGs getting spots Canadians can't even compete for.  (yes, they can in the second round, but still) 

[JohnGrisham]

But plenty of CMGs go unmatched in primary care specialities as well.  You're right, not everyone can get the specialty they want.  We can't just up the specialty spots with zero regard to societal need.  The issue (not necessarily how I feel, just laying out all the arguments) is IMGs getting spots Canadians can't even compete for.  (yes, they can in the second round, but still) 

Fair fair. But at the same time, many of those spots IMGs have ROS attached to it, that i don't think the majority of CMGs would want to be tied to. 

[JohnGrisham]

Also, looking at FM and IM, there are still a lot of spots left that more than account for those that go unmatched. But those numbers may actually be misleading, if they are in french speaking programs. Sometimes the numbers are a bit muddled that its harder to see the whole picture clearly.

[3change]

...

[amichel]

I thought any CMG can match primary care. Unless they're picking best locations or have huge red flags?

Becoming less true as more people pick family!

[GrouchoMarx]

I thought any CMG can match primary care. Unless they're picking best locations or have huge red flags?

 

This is still true if CMGs are willing to rank bad locations and bad programs in the first round. There are bad programs out there.

 

Lots of CMGs feel that the time and money invested in medical education deserves a bigger payoff than matching to a bad program in a bad location. I am unsure if they are justified in this opinion or not.

 

Some family medicine programs will leave their spots unfilled in the second round than take unmatched CMGs, further strengthening the opinion that going unmatched is a very big black mark on your credibility that is often unremovable. I would suggest ranking some path programs and then transferring rather than going unmatched - we'll take anyone.

 

family is getting more competitive because of the increase in female medical students, older medical students, and medical student numbers swelling in general without a matching increase in residency spots, not to mention spots reserved for IMGs that CMGs cannot access.

[GrouchoMarx]

Also, looking at FM and IM, there are still a lot of spots left that more than account for those that go unmatched. But those numbers may actually be misleading, if they are in french speaking programs. Sometimes the numbers are a bit muddled that its harder to see the whole picture clearly.

 

I take issue with the statistics muddling English and French programs together. Most of the English applicants could never apply to the French programs. I do not know if vice versa is also true, but I suspect in some cases it is. For instance, the four imaging spots left over this year were all French. That doesn't help any of the English applicants who wanted to apply to radiology, but the stats make it look as if imaging has a good balance of applicants to spots (otherwise why would programs go unfilled).

[JohnGrisham]

I take issue with the statistics muddling English and French programs together. Most of the English applicants could never apply to the French programs. I do not know if vice versa is also true, but I suspect in some cases it is. For instance, the four imaging spots left over this year were all French. That doesn't help any of the English applicants who wanted to apply to radiology, but the stats make it look as if imaging has a good balance of applicants to spots (otherwise why would programs go unfilled).

Yes exactly my point, It is possible to look at the individual programs and to see how the numbers truly line up - but I venture it will only be done if I have a particularly slow day at work. 

 

Also, the fact that Quebec is competitive stream from the get go, not distinguishing IMG or CMG messes up some numbers as well.

[JohnGrisham]

@cain:

First iteration left overs:

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Table_48_Summary_of_Vacancies_by_Discipline_School_of_Residency_English.pdf

Second iteration left overs:

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Table_55_Summary_of_Vacancies_by_Discipline_School_of_Residency_English.pdf


Darn, I didn't think that the discrepancy of english speaking vs french speaking would have been that large. Safe to say, for Montreal, Laval, and sherbrooke - french speaking? Whereas McGill would have a decent mixture of english speaking(or are they all english? Regardless, very few leftovers anyways). 

Talk about muddled statistics. 

Lets talk FM:

After 1st iteration, there were 27 CMGs who had FM as their first choice discipline, go unmatched. With that said, there were  about 40 FM spots after 1st iteration leftover for english speaking(this accounts people who backed up with FM), and then 1 spot after 2nd iteration(where IMGs also are mixed into the competition for leftover 1st iteration spots).   So what does that mean? If we we are to assume that those 27 CMGs were all english speaking(unlikely, but lets use it as an extreme), that AT LEAST some of them had red flags, geographical restrictions etc, otherwise there wouldn't be 40 leftover english speaking spots.... Also, it could just be that the applicants who backed up into FM(as a second choice preference), after failing to match their 1st choice were simply still just better applicants/interviewees, than these 27 unmatched 1st iteration CMGs with FM first choice. BUT here is the kicker:

While it is clear there are 40 English FM spots left after 1st iteration - it doesn't indicate, how many of those were IMG ONLY 1st iteration spots.  Maybe, the ratio of CMGs who want FM/backup into FM to the amount of available spots (in the english realm)- is truly actually so close, or even surpassed(i.e. not enough).  Though in a sense, one could argue that wouldn't matter if some of those 40 spots are IMG only spots in 1st iteration, as any left over spots would become free-for-all in round 2 anyways for CMGs to snap up.


So many interesting angles and nuances to the data...anyone interested in doing some excel sleuthing?


--Talk about a de-rail

[indefatigable]

@cain:

First iteration left overs:

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Table_48_Summary_of_Vacancies_by_Discipline_School_of_Residency_English.pdf

Second iteration left overs:

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Table_55_Summary_of_Vacancies_by_Discipline_School_of_Residency_English.pdf

Darn, I didn't think that the discrepancy of english speaking vs french speaking would have been that large. Safe to say, for Montreal, Laval, and sherbrooke - french speaking? Whereas McGill would have a decent mixture of english speaking(or are they all english? Regardless, very few leftovers anyways).

Talk about muddled statistics.

So FM had about 40 spots after 1st iteration leftover for english speaking(this accounts people who backed up with FM), and then 1 spot after 2nd iteration(where IMGs also are mixed into the competition for leftover 1st iteration spots).

See now the thing about these numbers as well, is the 40 left over spots after 1st iteration - doesn't indicate, how many of those were IMG 1st iteration. Though in a sense, one could argue that wouldn't matter, as any left over spots would become free-for-all in round 2 anyways.

--Talk about a de-rail

Yes udem, laval and sherbrooke are completely french. Mcgill is basically English - but french expected clinically with time leeway from what I understand. I am guessing the overall diff is due to fewer imgs matching 2nd round to french schools and laval has most going for specialties.

[fugacity]

With regards to backing up, I think it may vary from school to school. Here at UBC, there is a strong motivation from program directors to not back up, while the official answer from the school is always "back up".   From what I have heard from residents and some program directors, if you are showing that you are backing up with a program, you eliminate yourself from contention.  For example, if you wanted IM (and has tons of electives for IM) but back up with UBC FM, your file will not even be reviewed.  So why even waste 4 weeks of previous elective time in FM if you know you have zero chances of getting it?  You are better off getting 4 weeks of IM instead.  What is worse, is that for some more competitive programs (not naming them, but you know the drill), showing anything but the maximum number of electives in that specialty is showing that you are "not certain" about the specialty, and you will be ranked at the bottom or not ranked at all.  Therefore, "suicide match" is a real thing. 

 

I personally don't believe that I can only do ONE specialty and that's it.  That said, if I am aiming for a competitive specialty, I don't see backing up as a viable option, unless it is like an unpopular program/unpopular location.  Going into clerkship, I just hope I don't fall in love with ROAD specialties and make my life easier

[JohnGrisham]

With regards to backing up, I think it may vary from school to school. Here at UBC, there is a strong motivation from program directors to not back up, while the official answer from the school is always "back up".   From what I have heard from residents and some program directors, if you are showing that you are backing up with a program, you eliminate yourself from contention.  For example, if you wanted IM (and has tons of electives for IM) but back up with UBC FM, your file will not even be reviewed.  So why even waste 4 weeks of previous elective time in FM if you know you have zero chances of getting it?  You are better off getting 4 weeks of IM instead.  What is worse, is that for some more competitive programs (not naming them, but you know the drill), showing anything but the maximum number of electives in that specialty is showing that you are "not certain" about the specialty, and you will be ranked at the bottom or not ranked at all.  Therefore, "suicide match" is a real thing. 

 

I personally don't believe that I can only do ONE specialty and that's it.  That said, if I am aiming for a competitive specialty, I don't see backing up as a viable option, unless it is like an unpopular program/unpopular location.  Going into clerkship, I just hope I don't fall in love with ROAD specialties and make my life easier

Which is the sad part, as what if the demand for a given specialty outweighs supply? Do they expect all those people to simply go unmatched and apply again the next year? Sure in some cases, people only can see themselves doing one specialty, but many are flexible and can see them doing the "2nd choice" if it means that or going unmatched. Kind of assanine logic on the part of some programs to not even consider someone who is backing up, but would just as well be a great asset.

 

Not to mention people with geographical limitations - would rather do a 2nd or 3rd choice specialty in their specific region, than 1st or 2nd choice on the other side of the country or in the middle of nowhere.

 

 

[3change]

...

[amichel]

With regards to backing up, I think it may vary from school to school. Here at UBC, there is a strong motivation from program directors to not back up, while the official answer from the school is always "back up". From what I have heard from residents and some program directors, if you are showing that you are backing up with a program, you eliminate yourself from contention. For example, if you wanted IM (and has tons of electives for IM) but back up with UBC FM, your file will not even be reviewed. So why even waste 4 weeks of previous elective time in FM if you know you have zero chances of getting it? You are better off getting 4 weeks of IM instead. What is worse, is that for some more competitive programs (not naming them, but you know the drill), showing anything but the maximum number of electives in that specialty is showing that you are "not certain" about the specialty, and you will be ranked at the bottom or not ranked at all. Therefore, "suicide match" is a real thing.

 

I personally don't believe that I can only do ONE specialty and that's it. That said, if I am aiming for a competitive specialty, I don't see backing up as a viable option, unless it is like an unpopular program/unpopular location. Going into clerkship, I just hope I don't fall in love with ROAD specialties and make my life easier

That is so screwed up on the part of the program directors. Wouldn't want to work under someone like that anyways.

[indefatigable]

Go big or go home.

 

Yeah I would trust the program director more than the school. The school wants to have good match stats so obviously they're going to tell you to back up. However, I still think backing up has its advantages. Canadian residency seems to be getting more competitive.

 

Do you guys think Canadian schools will use class rankings and standardized exams for residency in the future? At least that way, applicants can see how competitive they are with solid numbers.

A standardized exam wouldn't probably work due to english + french. In french Quebec, grades are given during preclinical which allows gpa calculations. I'm not sure if any other med school goes beyond pass fail.

[rogerroger]

Caution here. PG's are not blind to the risk involved in the match process. A program would lose a lot of great potential residents applying this strategy globally. I would even go as far as saying that such a methodology would increase the chances of matching some unsavoury characters. As far as I'm aware my program, which is competitive, does not use such silly tactics in evaluating applicants.

 

My advice, if you are going for a speciality that is even somewhat competitive back up, just but be smart about how you do it. Going unmatched won't help you match the following year. Avoid going unmatched, you don't want such a status following you. You would be surprised how many folks transfer during residency... At least leave this as an option even if you don't get your first choice...

 

 

 

With regards to backing up, I think it may vary from school to school. Here at UBC, there is a strong motivation from program directors to not back up, while the official answer from the school is always "back up". From what I have heard from residents and some program directors, if you are showing that you are backing up with a program, you eliminate yourself from contention. For example, if you wanted IM (and has tons of electives for IM) but back up with UBC FM, your file will not even be reviewed. So why even waste 4 weeks of previous elective time in FM if you know you have zero chances of getting it? You are better off getting 4 weeks of IM instead. What is worse, is that for some more competitive programs (not naming them, but you know the drill), showing anything but the maximum number of electives in that specialty is showing that you are "not certain" about the specialty, and you will be ranked at the bottom or not ranked at all. Therefore, "suicide match" is a real thing.

 

I personally don't believe that I can only do ONE specialty and that's it. That said, if I am aiming for a competitive specialty, I don't see backing up as a viable option, unless it is like an unpopular program/unpopular location. Going into clerkship, I just hope I don't fall in love with ROAD specialties and make my life easier

[NLengr]

That is so screwed up on the part of the program directors. Wouldn't want to work under someone like that anyways.

Surprisingly for a profession that is supposed to be about caring for people, many academic physicians don't really give two sh*ts about what happens to the people under them. They'll take advantage of trainees whenever it will give them benefit to do so.

 

Ironically in my experience, community physicians (who don't really have a mandate to educate residents and med students like the academic ones do) are much more willing to teach you and help you out than the academic docs.

[oshaku]

Surprisingly for a profession that is supposed to be about caring for people, many academic physicians don't really give two sh*ts about what happens to the people under them. They'll take advantage of trainees whenever it will give them benefit to do so.

 

Ironically in my experience, community physicians (who don't really have a mandate to educate residents and med students like the academic ones do) are much more willing to teach you and help you out than the academic docs.

 

I used to work on a project studying the harmful effects of circadian clock disruption (cognitive impairment, weaken immune system, higher risk of cardiovascular diseases,  carcinogenic etc) and we're required to take samples round the clock for 24-48 hours.  Circadian disruptions were super harmful to everybody except the grad students.

[Fresh fry]

I don't have the balls to lie on CaRMS, I wouldn't sleep till March

[fugacity]

Caution here. PG's are not blind to the risk involved in the match process. A program would lose a lot of great potential residents applying this strategy globally. I would even go as far as saying that such a methodology would increase the chances of matching some unsavoury characters. As far as I'm aware my program, which is competitive, does not use such silly tactics in evaluating applicants.

 

My advice, if you are going for a speciality that is even somewhat competitive back up, just but be smart about how you do it. Going unmatched won't help you match the following year. Avoid going unmatched, you don't want such a status following you. You would be surprised how many folks transfer during residency... At least leave this as an option even if you don't get your first choice...

 

 

I would absolutely agree with this, as it is the most logical approach.  From a resident's point of view, can you please tell us more about backing up?  What is a smart way to back up for a competitive program (such as EM)