i'm glad you guys brought up the topic of "the article"
i hate to be argumentative but i though it was mostly crap. it is in jbjs, so chairs and directors are reading it. to me the take home was that the system of choosing residents is far from perfect and people are poor judge of character. i'd compare it to heisman winners. they rarely live up to expectations in the real game.
some points from the article
1)1 in 6 resident selections was later thought inappropriate (they wish they could throw the fish back) . 1 in 12 thought to be a serious mistake.
2)ranked most important was rotation at hte institution. who can't fake it for a month (me)
and only half rotated where they matched so how could that be No. 1
3)class rank, AOA , and deans letter are all in top 10. they're really one in the same
4)politeness and personal appearance 4 & 5. that's just stupid and not believable
5)ethical question 6th? i was never asked one
6)medical school rep 9th. i guess that means they didn't go to the interviewers school. which are the bad ones?
7) 54% matched were AOA
56% rotated where they matched
9)only 22%said interviewees were on equal footing once selected for interview. basically 80%know who they want and the rest are there for show or in case they go down they're list
10)there were 1116 applicants for 554 spots.3 years ago. i don't think directors had any clue it was this competitive.11)lastly the authors recommend testing moral reasoning. so i guess we all should have been ethics majors in college. i don't get it but maybe this is just me being a cynical @#$%^&*. is it just me )