Re: JACMP Editorial: The meaning of the MS Degree in Medical Physics, Part 4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: We read with interest the editorial in Volume 16, issue number 2 of the JACMP and agree it raises some very important issues in relation to the over-supply of MS medical physics graduate students attempting to gain entry to clinical medical physics residencies. We concur this is a problem and acknowledge the plight of graduating MS students who find themselves in this position. In the editorial, candidate #1 suggests graduate programs should be accountable to CAMPEP for their rates of enrolment being similar to the rates at which their graduates are successful at being placed into residency programs. This would imply there are no other viable opportunities for MS graduates other than entry into clinical residency programs. We believe, however, that placement into other forms of nonclinical medical physics employment or starting a PhD degree program are also valid outcomes following MS graduation. Whilst we certainly agree that individual graduate program directors should pay attention to such rates and be transparent with all applicants to MS degree programs by providing them with available data (e.g., annual surveys of graduate and residency programs by CAMPEP) and candid advice, we do not believe that CAMPEP is the appropriate authority to enforce limits on enrolment, except for very specific reasons related to the quality of education and training. The mission statement from the CAMPEP website reads as follows: “To promote consistent quality education of medical physicists by evaluating and accrediting Graduate, Residency, and Continuing Education programs that meet high standards established by CAMPEP in collaboration with its sponsoring organizations.” It is clear from this that CAMPEP's mandate is limited to assessment of the quality of education that programs provide, and does not extend to having influence over numbers of students in any given program. The exception would be if a program has too many students or residents for the number of faculty available to adequately support them. CAMPEP recently introduced its own standards to be met by all accredited programs. For graduate programs, standard 2.11(1) states:1 “A program must publicly describe the program and the achievements of its graduates and students, preferably through a publicly accessible Web site. This information must be updated no less often than annually and must include, for each degree program (MS and/or PhD), the number of: applicants to the program, students offered admission, students matriculated, and graduates. Where possible, information on the destinations of graduates must also be provided, i.e., residencies, industry positions, etc.” We encourage students considering entering any MS degree program to look for this information and suggest they only consider applying to programs where it is clear from the publicly disclosed information there is reasonable chance of successful placement into a residency, further degree, or other employment opportunity. If the program does not post the destination information of its graduates on their Web site, then directly ask the Program Director about it. This advice, unfortunately, may not benefit the current crop of enrolled MS degree students, but hopefully (given this oversupply situation) prospective students will take advantage of it as they research programs to which they apply and ultimately matriculate for pursuit of a terminal MS degree. Students would be well advised to avoid programs that do not exhibit a favorable success rate of its graduates finding desired postgraduation destinations (residency program, higher degree program, or other medical physics employment). The statements made above are those of the authors. Whilst the authors believe the above information also reflects the opinions of others on the CAMPEP Board based on prior discussions, this letter should not be interpreted as an official CAMPEP position on this matter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".