Candidate information for Clinical Pathology Residency at Cornell University
To help us with our selection process, please fill in the following information, along with the
standard letter of reference.
Your name, position and title:
Your institution/place of work:
How long have you known the applicant?
In what capacity have you known the applicant (how close did you work with them)?
Please rank the candidate for the following attributes:
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Knowledge base: Has a firm grasp of discipline-related
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Ability to learn: Adept at or rapidly acquires new
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Intellectual ability: Able to synthesize information
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Intellectual curiosity: Eager to learn, asks probing
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Self-motivation: Drives own education and required
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Multitasking ability: Perceived ability to juggle
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Research potential: Has the ability to generate
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Work ethic: Hard worker, regularly goes above and
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Response to feedback: Responds well to constructive
1
2
3
4
5
NA
or relevant core knowledge and skills, understands
disease processes or pathological mechanisms
knowledge and skills with minimal need for repetition or
supervision, knows limitations
from various sources to come up with a conclusion,
applies acquired knowledge logically and appropriately,
objectively analyzes data, retains information
questions, intrigued by processes, challenges and
questions statements
projects (e.g. manuscripts, research project, lectures),
reads widely and extensively (seeks out primary
literature), meets deadlines, does not need prompting or
much supervision, independent, resourceful
clinical duties, research project, and independent board
study that are expected in a residency program
hypothesis-driven bench research or participate in
clinical pathologic-related research
beyond expectations, maintains a positive attitude even
with adversity or stress, reliable, punctual, trustworthy
feedback, seeks to improve, takes ownership and
responsibility for improvement, maintains positive
attitude and relationships
If you would like to offer more explanation for your rankings above, please do so here:
Please rank the candidate for the following attributes:
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Flexibility: Adaptable, can respond to varying needs
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Team spirit: Works well with others, volunteers for
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Personality traits: Cheerful disposition, positive
1
2
3
4
5
NA
General oral communication: Can communicate
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Group oral communication: Comfortable
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Written communication to clients:
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Written communication (manuscripts/case
reports/lectures/case notes): Well written, easy to
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Teaching attitude: Shows enthusiasm or interest in
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Teaching abilities: Provides good instructions or
1
2
3
4
5
NA
Overall ranking (compared to other similar
candidates you have interacted with/would
serve as a reference for)
Top
1%
Top
5%
Top
10%
Top
20%
Top
50%
NA
tasks, does not feel tasks are beneath them
attitude, handles stress well, inclusive, treats others with
respect and consideration regardless of rank/title
complex medical/scientific concepts to clients/fellow
co-workers or trainees, speaks with clarity, easy to
understand or follow
presenting to groups of people (small or large), speaks
with clarity, easy to understand or follow
Reports/records/discharge instructions are succinct,
easy to read, with good grammar and spelling
read and follow, with good grammar and spelling,
appropriate referencing to literature
teaching, handles themselves well and are comfortable
in small group interactions/laboratory settings/one on
one interactions
information, engages students, indicates when unsure
and asks for help (knows limitations)
If you would like to offer more explanation for your rankings above, please do so here:
Please indicate the approximate number of people in the comparison group (i.e. those that
are equivalent to the candidate that you have trained or interacted with):
If the candidate were applying for a residency in your discipline at your institution, would
you rank them as one of the top one or two applicants?
YES
NO
NA
If no, why not?
What are the major strengths of the candidate?
What are the major weaknesses of the candidate?
Any other comments?