Hello everyone, please let us know what is on your mind, post questions here!

Please address in person vs. virtual interviews. This is especially important for fellowship programs where there are 2 positions for every applicant and only ~50% of slots are filled.

Does this allow IM and Peds residents to couples match into fellowship?

Do we know what day we will be able to access ERAS applications?

Thanks Judith, I sympathize obviously, we will provide some info on this

7/21

Nicole, you’re my hero.

Is that earlier than previously?

7/20/2022

2 weeks between submission and being able to open apps

Previously was always the 15th of July other than last year when they granted a delay

July 21 is a Thursday?

It's the 20th in 2022 - ERAS still has 2021 dates up

Maggie- sorry I was wrong, it is 7/20

Thanks all!

Just checked - it is the 20th of July

For how long will you still be enrolling programs in the stud?

We are still enrolling!

when are their apps due (aka when are all of my LOR due??!)

Can you send the link to enroll in the study please?

Wednesday, July 6 - Fellowship ERAS apps due/LOR due

If your core program is participating and you want your program to be included as well, the best entry is to email LEARN@appd.org

if your residency is not yet enrolled, they can also email to join!!! Please do

I'm concerned about how equitable the interview process will be if there is a mix of virtual, in-person, hybrid interview options, especially in light of the large amount of money it costs applicants to travel around the country.

I agree that finding equity with a hybrid approach is going to be a challenge but I also worry that a remote only approach puts smaller programs at a disadvantage. I think "big name" programs will always be able to draw top applicants but missing out on the intangibles of an in person visit means that the draws of the smaller programs are harder to highlight.

Agree with Ashley. Virtual does not help smaller programs

Shorter interview days/times allowed us to encourage use of structured questions which had benefits for addressing equity and decreasing implicit bias - less time for small talk.

Another aspect of what Ashley mentions is that even some big name programs are at a disadvantage depending on their geographic location. We are in TX and our post match survey of those who did not choose us always mentions location as a reason. So we worry that applicants who have never been to Texas are very unlikely to choose our program without visiting. It is hard to imagine the city of Houston or the medical center without seeing it. We do videos, but it is not the same and our survey supports this.

What subspecialties were represented in the fellows that participated in the focus groups

did anyone look at days away from training programs for both models?

that seems really compressed for fellowships

how many more programs did applicants apply to?

Have we considered allowing second looks in person but having an "honor" agreement that applicants should go to no more than three programs (or some pre-set limit)?

Cards, PICU

We had hoped that our fellows could give a tour of the hospital and clinics without meeting any faculty or the PD, and we would not know which applicants came to visit and which didn't so it would not be biased, but this was prior to Omicron so it never happened.

PEM, PHM also

I think this would allow people who enjoyed programs that were initially "lower" on their list for whatever reason (smaller, location) to visit places that surpassed their expectations during the virtual interview

our residents definitely applied to more programs than previously

I agree that hybrid in the sense of offering either option as equivalent is unlikely to promote equity- those candidates from historically marginalized backgrounds may be most likely to feel obligated to come in person and least financially able to do so

If require rank list submission for programs in advance of applicants (?2-3 weeks), applicants could then be permitted to visit after the program rank list deadline, without concern that not doing so would jeopardize their ranking.

Were they more likely to go to local programs or larger name programs?

@Elizabeth, we agree -- that is what we have heard from the fellows -- anything "optional" felt required

The hybrid approach also puts a burden on those applicants who come from programs that don't have fellowships and gives even more of an advantage to those residents with "home programs"

Are you also collecting data on geographic breakdown? For example, East coast based residents applying to more West coast programs than before?

@Su-Ting, I was wondering the same thing

We are trying to collect info on geography, the applicants told us they did reach more geographically for the virtual group but not the in-person group

Previously, second looks were "optional" - do we have data on how many second looks occurred?

@Mark, we are aiming to do that for residencies this coming year....programs put in rank beg of Feb, applicants put in rank beg of March

I agree with Marks position, thought it will be tighter for fellowship. I think it is still doable for us to interview in only sept and oct

To provide another perspective and this is for my categorical program (not fellowships), but in the past two years we have matched candidates from more geographically diverse areas. For my program in a less known and smaller city, virtual could have helped us. I think Gainesville is wonderful, but the younger folks may not think because it is smaller.

yes Winston we are trying to collevct that data

Thank you. Also, are you collecting info if programs use social media apps to provide info on their city/institution?

We also need to think about how the interview decision impacts subspecialties that easily fill vs those that don't. I'm sure you are doing this :)

winston we are trying to see in our survey study whether applicants used social media apps

Did those leaders in "small" programs on this session see a drop in applicants, did you have issues with matching that felt different?

Ashley in our survey we are asking about whether they did second looks

We are interested in the differences between under and over subscribed subspecialties.

Of these that I have done in the past, the phone calls are the best and feels less informal while still being helpful

Are there additional things we should be focusing on that would improve the process?

Calls or virtual meeting would be really helpful for handoff

@Arwa, thank you! Wonder if signals might be helpful in that case so you know who is committed to interview.

What do people feel about best way of involving the resident to fellow candidate in the warm handoff?

I agree the incoming fellow perspective would help so we can determine their degree of insight into the areas for improvement.

@Becky: it would really be great to know that because it’s really a lot of effort!

I love the idea of the incoming fellow leading the discussion - much parent-teacher conference that is "run" by my 6th grader - where he highlights his own strengths and weaknesses.

What about having the idea of having the resident leading the conversation based on a list of criteria: Residency experience , strengths, areas of challenge.

Since they should also know that we share milestones from residency to fellowship, we could always use this framework for the discussion as well

Yes, he has to make a powerpoint in advance that answers specific questions (6th grade conference). Sorry i don't have webcam that works on this computer!

Any thoughts about timing of fellowship interviews?

Late May feels really tight

Sorry that was in regards to a recommendation re virtual

Thanks! Sounding like moving up the decision timepoint for this coming year would be helpful

I think the resident's advisor in the specialty they are going into could be a part of the warm handoff potentially in place of the PD

I think programs can pivot reasonably fast but the candidates may need more lead time (ex may need to take out more loans sadly)

Thank you all for your work on these important issues!

So appreciative for all of you! And please keep giving us feedback! Becky - rblanke@stanford.edu

this is great work. thank you!!

Melissa BAles - melbales@iu.edu

Thank you very much

Kathy Mason: katherine_mason1@Brown.edu

Thank You!

thank you!

Thank you!

I think we also need to see how the fellows who have been recruited virtually 'do' or 'succeed' during their fellowship

thank you!