Thoughts from the USC panel the other day: is it just me or did it feel like the PDs were giving very diplomatic answers? Like I genuinely believe that they are not a fan of the shift towards research years and churning publications, but how else would they distinguish between applicants? They say research isn't that important but if you look at the data, it really is. Tough spot to be in but would appreciate more transparency
<<<<Data shows that a RY corresponds with an addition 2 interviews...now this sounds small but if you think about someone who does not have a home program, gets interested in derm late, it's actually a no brainer to take one. The difference between 3 and 5 interviews, 4 and 6 etc. is non-neglibiel.
source?>> it will be published soon
maybe they start filtering out ppl who took research yrs just for a connection to advocate for them but had no real productive output. That or they just go harder off of step 2 who knows
Almost everyone USC matched this year took an RY