- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
- Messages
- 3,542
- Reaction score
- 14,686
Oh, man.Post-Wallner era ABR update:
ABR
Questions About Clinical Relevance of Exam Content Remain the Same By Michael Yunes, MD, ABR Associate Executive Director for Radiation Oncology 2023;16(5):7 In 2003, I studied for my written exams in radiobiology, physics, and clinical radiation oncology, and I recall with great clarity...www.theabr.org
...and just like that, the bottom-of-the-barrel SOAPers will have the same (or perhaps higher!) board pass rate as compared to the hotshots of the 2010s era.
I hope they accomplish this "reprioritization" effectively (rather than just making promises they don't keep).
Objectively, 2023 has been the year of SDN WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING.
I made this ESE account in 2019. I did so because:
- I believed it was irresponsible and detrimental to engage in rapid, massive residency expansion
- I believed it was doubly irresponsible to do so when the entire focus of the field was on hypofrac/omission work
- I believed we had virtually no functional PR/optics reaching a large audience to reduce the stigma around radiation
- I believed that this lack of effective advocacy, coupled with our own behavior, contributed greatly to our slashed reimbursement
- I believed our board certification process was a horrendous crucible, devoid of relevancy to real life practice
These were not beliefs I felt like I could safely discuss openly. Whenever it was tried - from "Bloodbath" to "ABR Debacle" - the Legacy RadOnc crowd reacted...unkindly.
Now, all of those things I felt I couldn't say openly are being written on stationary with ABR and ASTRO logos.
If anyone ever needed a clear example of "human behavior only changes when it hurts"...this would be it.
I can't really blame Legacy RO, I guess. Even though the warnings came long ago, the gravy train was still chugging along the tracks...who cares about the future, right?