Annals of surgical oncology · 2025
In-Person and Virtual Interviews for Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship: An Applicant's Perspective.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dineen Sean P, Berman Russell, Blazer Dan, Fahy Bridget, Grignol Valerie, Foshag Leland, Lai Lily, Ongchin Melanie, Reddy Sanjay, Saied Abdul, Scally Christopher, Russell Maria
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic forced a rapid adoption of electronic education platforms, including a virtual approach for the Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) interviews from 2020 to 2023. In 2024, the SSO recommended a return to in-person interviews when possible. The aim of this study was to survey the applicant perspectives of this approach to the 2024 CGSO Interviews.
METHODS: Following the 2024 Match, a survey was circulated to matched applicants, which included 31 questions. The survey was voluntary, anonymous and no compensation was offered.
RESULTS: 55 applicants responded, representing a response rate of 75.3%. Applicants applied to a median of 30 programs and interviewed at 13. Regarding preference of approach, 80% of applicants indicated that they preferred in-person interviews over virtual (44/55). 74.5% of applicants indicating that they thought the cost of in-person interviews was "worth it". When asked if they felt they could "adequately represent themselves in an in-person interview", 95% affirmed they could; compared to 67% when asked the same question for the virtual approach. Most applicants, 70.1%, felt that programs interviewing virtually were at a disadvantage. The interview affected an applicants' rank list to either "a great extent" or "to some extent" 96% of the time.
CONCLUSION: The responses to our survey indicate a preference for in-person interviews despite the cost. The benefits of identifying the culture of a program were felt to warrant the financial expense and time away from training. There are limitations to the study, but these results support the adoption of in-person interviews.
METHODS: Following the 2024 Match, a survey was circulated to matched applicants, which included 31 questions. The survey was voluntary, anonymous and no compensation was offered.
RESULTS: 55 applicants responded, representing a response rate of 75.3%. Applicants applied to a median of 30 programs and interviewed at 13. Regarding preference of approach, 80% of applicants indicated that they preferred in-person interviews over virtual (44/55). 74.5% of applicants indicating that they thought the cost of in-person interviews was "worth it". When asked if they felt they could "adequately represent themselves in an in-person interview", 95% affirmed they could; compared to 67% when asked the same question for the virtual approach. Most applicants, 70.1%, felt that programs interviewing virtually were at a disadvantage. The interview affected an applicants' rank list to either "a great extent" or "to some extent" 96% of the time.
CONCLUSION: The responses to our survey indicate a preference for in-person interviews despite the cost. The benefits of identifying the culture of a program were felt to warrant the financial expense and time away from training. There are limitations to the study, but these results support the adoption of in-person interviews.