I just want them to be nice

I don't know, I've met a plenty of nice people who I'd rather not work with for one reason or another.

Is it because they can be passive aggressive?

YES, niceness and pass-agg seems to come in hand-to-hand for some bizarre reason. Saw plenty of that in FM and Peds

huh ok. I'll change my criterion to "genuinely nice" then. b/c I've met residents who are nice w/o being passive aggressive. Mostly in surgery/derm. oh also neuro << some of the applicant's attitudes and responses here make me think that they're actually OB/Surgery because of their uptight malignancy

I'd prefer surgery's outward malignancy, because at least they are forthright and they will tell you if they don't like you or if you are incompetent.

you know what this is so true, im with you on that passive aggressiveness then! // more attractive than me or smarter than me but not both at the same time// LOL

<< same here because that's me! i think i get along better with people who are really honest and work hard, having a great sense of humor is a cherry on top - meme > I feel like the admissions committee at my school selected against people with a sense of humor; so hard to come across. But lots of people who are honest and hard working

Did your school have grades or P/HP/H for preclinicals? I feel that schools with a more emphasis for grades end up with more serious students. I don't know whether that's associative or causative.

nah we're P/F. maybe we're just boring

< don't get me started on the bullshit that is grading. my school has restricted honors for the top ten percent of the clerkship overall, while other schools have a set number you have to score above. talking to other students on away rotations really opened my eyes to how much each school is different and how little programs care besides seeing the "H" next to the subject.

I went to a school with unrestricted honors. After getting some of my feedbacks, such as ([Name] was one of X students getting honors for this rotation), I realized that in the end, only 15-20% of students ended up getting honors anyway. They set the goalpost (specificed ahead of time) knowing that anyone could meet that standard, but very few people would actually make it. Ultimately, I think this was the right approach because people could still work hard for themselves, regardless of whether or not they met the challenge. << yep this is a great attitude to take to it if the goalposts are properly set! someone's schools had to get 90% on evals, 80% on shelf, unrestricted number. i was like....lol what.

Thoughts on UCSF testing straight P/F grading for clinical clerkships?

In general, I don't think UCSF has an amazing match list compared to Harvard, Penn, and Stanford if we remove the in-home matches. I do think that it will make things harder for the PDs << it might also skew towards the name. P from Harvard? Who even cares, it's Harvard. No H from MidTierStateU? LOL what a pleb. So i dont think UCSF policy will really change anything in the MSPE. << also would reduce the stress level for clinical clerkships. << P/F curriculums may have shifted pressure onto Step 1, could P/F clerkships put more pressure on Step 2?

possibly. Or more pressure on the LORs

Maybe they will move us over to EM's standardized letters of evaluation. I know that some admins in dermatology wanted to do that this year but they were not able to do so. >> 2 cells over in E

I understand that most derm PD's or people reading apps have a sense of individual schools and what the typical grade distributions are << it was made better this year by including graphs in the MSPE

really? I hate those graphs. fucks over half the people in the class << i mean im the OP in the cell to the left. it clearly shows <20 people in my class getting honors directly next to the text for my evaluations so IF, and big IF, the person actually reads why i didn't get honors, they can see that it was only a select few who did. idk, from the underachiever pov, it looks good. << Point taken

i think it'll start depending more on school prestige and LOR maybe like you said, and of course step scores. good school prestige begets good LOR so it's a trickle-down system all the way to the interviews haha. holy shit i forgot about SLOE, imagine that in Derm! hell no, fuck SLOEs. Hate being reduced to a single number/grade as if I were a cow << lol look at the charting outcomes and step score distribution, or like filters that exist already. i hate it too but sometimes its gotta be done

I'd rather be evaluated on the quality of my LORs than another hoop to jump through. Step 1 (and to a lesser extent, Step 2) is enough of an objective measure.

But still, you'd be surprised. In the state of California, Stanford and UCSF had middling average Step I scores compared to places UCLA and UCSD, probably because the students knew that Step I wouldn't matter as much for them in the perspective of other program directors would be happy to have some Stanford/UCSF students as part of the program.

do we have official numbers on these? I don't doubt that it exists, but it'd be nice to know the extent of the disparity of avg Step 1 scores of accepted derm applicants from top vs mid schools

I don't know, I go to a top 3 school. I got a slightly above average score for derm, and my Dean and PD told me that I should be "competitive anywhere" although they did warn me that the places that I'd get interviews may seem random and that I may not get all the interviews that I wanted (and I didn't)

Also at a top 3 with derm average step and don't have many interviews (but others here do). maybe trickles will come

<< prestige man, prestige. its exactly what you said, they'd love to have a person from x program on their resident and potentially staff roster. for us mid-low tier schools, we gotta kick ass on step 1 and etc to have a shadow of your position, potentially with not as good LORs << do we need more hoops to jump through, though? I don't think the answer to leveling the playing field for students not from the top tier schools is to create yet another metric. We have to do so much already, from getting a good Step 1 score, to kicking ass on clerkships, doing research, etc << true man. someone down the sheet suggested having a set number of programs to apply to, like 20 or so, i think that might really be playing with fire and lead to a LOT of people unmatched or SOAPing, both applicants and programs << for sure. we'd need a transition period or something. couldn't ERAS spend a fraction of their $$$ to hire a data scientist to study the optimal number of programs to apply to? << they did that, for derm it was high 30s. let me see if i can find link

https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-residency/filteredresult/apply-smart-data-consider-when-applying-residency/ i think that is what we are discussing - meme