April 6th, 2010
It’s springtime….that must mean it’s time for that speed dating game we call the fellowship match
James De Lemos, MD
Every year around this time I spend hours thinking about what qualities go into making a good fellow and, equally important, how to figure out if an applicant has these qualities. When we review applications, we have only a few pieces of objective information such as academic pedigree, board scores, and publications; the rest is highly subjective half-truths from the personal statements and letters of recommendation. At the interview, we try to weed out the folks we think we’d have trouble working with and do the best we can to identify “research potential,” which we all know is a highly imperfect science!
As the years roll by, I’ve developed more humility when attempting to identify research potential … my mistakes have been in both overestimating and underestimating applicants. At the same time, I’ve realized that by the time someone applies for a fellowship position, their character, intelligence, and clinical skills are fully formed — we’ve never gone wrong recruiting based on these factors. If I can verify these qualities from someone I trust at another institution, their word goes much farther than letters of recommendation. In the end, we’re recruiting colleagues to work with for at least 3 years, and for much longer for those who end up joining our faculty.
The applicant has a much harder job … you have to sell yourself, without overselling, and at the same time figure out if the program meets your needs and goals. Although we faculty members feel like our information is limited, you are working from an even more limited database.
We’d love to hear your thoughts on this dating game. How did you decide which programs would be best for you? Should fellows (and programs) go for the best or the best fit? Finally, momentum is building to move the fellowship match to later in residency…what do you think about this idea?
3 Responses to “It’s springtime….that must mean it’s time for that speed dating game we call the fellowship match”
NEJM Journal Watch — Recent Cardiology Articles- Anticoagulation in Patients with Cancer-Associated Pulmonary Embolism: How Long is Long Enough?
- Spironolactone Use After Percutaneous Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction
- CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing for Transthyretin Cardiomyopathy
- Does Colchicine Reduce Cardiac Events After Myocardial Infarction?
- First-Line Therapy for Ventricular Tachycardia After MI: What's the Best Approach?
Defining “best”
How does one define ‘best’? For me, it depends on the philosophy and mission of the fellowship program. Each program has a vision for its fellows and for its future; whether it be excelling in clinical care, housestaff education, or participating in ground-breaking laboratory-based or clinical research. No one institution is the “best” at every single one of these paradigms. And even if it is, maybe the geographical location makes it unappealing. Since each individual applicant (as well as fellowship program) has its own set of priorities, there is no one “best” applicant/ program, but there usually are a number of “best fits.”
“by the time someone applies for a fellowship position, their character, intelligence, and clinical skills are fully formed — we’ve never gone wrong recruiting based on these factors. If I can verify these qualities from someone I trust at another institution, their word goes much farther than letters of recommendation.”
Well-said!
go for best fit
I completely agree with the idea of going for the best fit, though knowing what that best fit may look like can be very difficult even for the most diligent. I can’t help but think that some of the best advice I ever heard as a candidate on the interview trail was to talk to the 3rd year fellow (at the program in question) who has similar interests…