No interviews!

Don't worry. I did the research--that was a jinx-free statement!

lol twss....so true...who isnt jealous of cnh right now

Hey, I'll trade all my interviews right now for a time machine!

Anyone? Anyone?

I met with my advisory dean and then the dean of students. They looked through my chart and the schools I applied to and could not find any issue whatsoever-nothing. They were both in shock that I did not have any interviews lined up. Something isn't right and I can't seem to find an answer.

man...getting worried....stick in there bro....there is time...no red flags tho>>??

Having just read through 75 applications (resident reviewer), I can tell you guys the process of choosing applicants to interview is very hard. Our program screens out low board scores, so the average board score I looked at was about 240. There were 5 other reviewers, so by a rough estimate we have about 450 applicants with avg 240 board score. Also out of the 75 that I read, I didn't read 1 letter that said negative things about the applicant. Nearly everyone had very good clinical grades as well. Research varied a little more, but most people had some. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think some reviewers (like myself) have to end up using more subjective information, like our overall feel for the applicant. Do I think the applicant would really want to come here? Do you have any ties to the area? While someone from California may come to Michigan, I think it's much more likely that someone from Chicago will. Maybe that's not fair, but I think a lot of people feel that way. Do you sound genuine in your personal statement or are you giving me garbage about loving to play with tinker toys as a child (you would be surprised at how many people have personal statements like this)? Also, limiting descriptions of you activites to a few lines makes your application easier to read, making it more likely that the whole application will be read. Medicine recs are ok, but every one I read was so gushing about the applicant so I started to ignore them. Bottom line, many applications look very similiar, making peripherals more important and some impressive applications just don't read that well. I honestly thought that about 60 of the 75 apps I read were well qualified, but I was only allowed to pick 15 with 15 backups. I felt like I was randomly choosing some of them. Lastly, all of our rotators are automatic interview, so choose away's wisely. Hope this makes things slightly more clear and I'm not freaking people out more.

Great insight thanks for posting.

Thank you for that post, very helpful. When you are looking through applications in regard to Geographic area, do you look at hometown, where they went to college, and medical school. If so, which one is most important to you? Thank you.

Alright all you ortho ballers, I'm going to need some of you to start canceling one or two of your 65 interviews so that I can jump on those openings. Throw a dog a bone!

Anyone else in the "no interviews" club? I some programs to put the HOPE back into ortHOPEdics...

After reading this I realize more and more that selection process is a joke
ERAS was initiated to match the applicants to the program of their choice and vice verse. It was not invented to eliminate people's future. Ortho is just different speciality and not a prise for academic achievements. Out-screening applicants by score/AOA eliminates most of the people who is truly interested in art of restoration...some of them even does not apply because they know if your score is less then say 220 you just can not be an Orthopaedic surgeon. You are not smart enough. It is funny that most of the other speciality residents traditionally think that orthopods are primitive...Indeed that medical school knowledge will atrophy because not used. Therefore at the end of the residency same person who scored on USMLE step 1 say 260 initially now if takes same exam will likely score 216 only. So why do you use Step 1 score as a criteria. Step 1 is not about clinical medicine or orthopaedic surgery. Also you will see it all the time - excellent test taker but has shaky hands and avoids surgeries. Regarding geography of the applicants, did you notice that some places think they will get better residents if they look for them as distant as possible. We say neighbors grass is always looks greener

my situation is completely different and has nothing to do with selection committee screening

Maybe you meant the match process, but ERAS is essentially a job application like any other. It is not meant to ensure that everybody who wants to become an orthopaedic surgeon gets into a residency program. There aren’t enough jobs for everybody who wants one, so there have to be criteria to whittle down the applicant pool to the 70 or so people who interview and then to the fortunate few who actually end up matching at a given program. Unfortunately for some, many competitive specialties have decided that USMLE scores are a good way of quantifying academic achievement and the ability to pass in-training exams and the boards. Maybe these scores are no the best predictor of this, but there’s nothing else that is standardized across all medical schools.

it all about exams, funding....Isn't it?, it is not about profession or art to be a surgeon (old standards) USMLE Step 1 is indicator of how hard you can study but to me has a little significance, Step 2 or 3 is better prediction of physician abilities. Yes, for the interviews there are no other score to compare. I know some excellent people with low Step 1 score and very high Step 2 like 260 applying second and even third time but every time get eliminated by this screening process....

A line needs to be drawn someplace tigran. Unless you can think of a better way of screening the hundreds of seemingly identical applications every program recieves. We've all been there and it sucks, but for the time being this is the best way.

Why exactly is step 2 a better indication of your potential as a physician than step 1? They are both tests, which combine an element of innate inteligence with tedt taking ability.

the reason why step scores are so important is because it's the only gauge thats uniform across the board. clinical grades, etc. can be swayed by the grading scale of the institution..and every institution wants their candidates to look good. Also, most people don't take step II before applying..and lots of places don't even require it to graduate.

people think step 2 is more indicative of physician because it's more clinically relavant. I highly disagree. I don't think any of them are particularly good at predicting anything other than you ability to memorize and think through things (which is predictive, in a sense)

BUT I can say this about step 1.. it's more of a thinking exam. People don't like it because it's not 'medicine' but the truth is.. it is. It's the basic science foundation of it. It's a lot of detail, but you *should* know most of what's on that exam. For the most part, step I is designed to test your thinking process, and throws in details so it tests your knowledge and your thinking. Step 2 is more of a pattern recognition exam where you see clinical scenarios and choose what fits.. and move on.

I didn't do very well in my first two years because it was blunt memorization, which is closer to step 2. I focused during those years on understanding A + B = C, and WHY A is a, and B is B, and if you put them together, = C. So as a result, I did better on step I relative to how I did on the years 1/2 exams. And when I say I did better, I mean like opposite sides of the spectrum. And no, I didn't study that long.. so how do you explain that?

Also.. yes, you have to draw a line somewhere.. How else are they going to tell.. from your application? What about your application screams out that you DESERVE ortho more than any one of us? Nothing.. I'm sure, because if you were able to do it.. we've probably thought of it to, and put it in our application.

The truth is they are just looking to see who fits into their residency personality wise. Each interviewer has their own opinion of it.

And for the most part, interview requests are random, but there is consistancy. People who get 'good interviews' tend to get a good number of them (they're the AOA, top school, 245+, research, good letters).. and then people who aren't the best candidates, get few interviews. People who are anywhere in the middle... get more of a mixed bag.. that's just the way it goes.

Deal people.. this is my second time around
Rendering Error in layout BBCode/Image: Layout 'BBCode/Image:default' Not Found. Please enable debug mode for more information.

You are grossly mistaken. I think step 1 success is important, not because it selects for the "smartest" applicant or the best test taker, but rather the applicant who has the presence of mind to come up with a study plan, follow it, dedicate themselves wholly to kicking that test's ass, and in the end do so because they knew they had to get the job done to land a good residency. That test is about dedication, work ethic, and mental capacity more than test taking skills or pure intelligence, and I believe the aforementioned qualities are at the core of what makes a good resident and physician.

I second the above.. Although, I think it's more of a 'thinking' exam.. but the opinion above is highly valid.