O.k., to the best of my understanding of the Match algorithm, the following points are true:
[list=1]
You should rank according to desirability of a program (i.e. how bad you wanna be there), not how you perceive they'll rank you
Even if you think a program won't rank you at all, if you still would like to be at that program the most, it does not hurt you to rank it #1
Regardless of what a program tells you about where they'll rank you, you should still rank them objectively
[/list=1]

The above all apply to PDs and their ranking of applicants as well.

I've read through the Match algorithm site and the examples given there a few times, and it seems to me that the aforementioned are true.

Why then, do I repeatedly hear things to the contrary... from fellow applicants, and even from PDs?

Examples:
1) At an interview not too long ago, a PD told me that he'd been "burned" in recent years by applicants who promised that they'd rank his program high. He claimed that he believed them, so he in turn ranked them very high, only to later find out that his program did not fill. He said "We ranked them high, and they ranked us low, and that's not good for us you understand?" to which I nodded and smiled. But I didn't understand.

2) On another discussion board, the topic of one particular thread is how a popular TY will be cutting it's # of positions by 1/2 in January sometime. Someone advised that he should "check with the program before ranking." Why should the # of positions, whether that changes or not, matter to this fellow when he makes his ROL?

I thought I understood the Match algorithm but I'm not so sure any more. Anybody wanna shed some light on this? Input appreciated...

Couple thoughts on this:
It's very possible that this PD and the people on that board do not understand
how the match works, but you seem to have it figured out.

OR (probably more likely), that particular PD thought he would have a bunch
of people ranking his program high, so he didn't ROL wasn't long enough. All the
people he ranked ending up matching at other spots, and he was left not filling.
As for the TY program you mention, maybe people were implying that halving
the number of spots would increase the workload, and so you should make sure
you know what you're getting into before you rank a program, and they turn out to have less residents (and consequently more work for each resident).

Those are the only explanations that make sense to me. Anyone else?

-M

Great insight mhdousa... makes sense... I didn't consider that cutting the # of positions at that TY might impact the workload...

If you're right about that PD not having made his ROL long enough, that too strikes me as somewhat imprudent. IMHO, PDs and applicants have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by making their ROLs as long as possible... right?

You are absolutely right on your rules for match.

Some programs like to be able to say they matched their top 10 from their list.

They also may tell you this to try to judge how interested you really are, even though it should not matter to them. They should follow the same rules.

Dr. Cuts --
You would think that programs and applicants would make their lists long
enough, but both can be guilty of hubris -- if a PD hears enough people
telling him how great his program is and how they will rank the program
highly, then he may not rank enough people (this may be especially true
in radiology, which if I recall correctly, you're entering, and other highly
competitive fields). On the flip side, a few of the people that I've seen who
have had to scramble were those who were most confident of their chance
of matching, and maybe didn't rank enough programs.

-M

My ex-lab partner was a few places off AOA. When she applied, Anesthesiology was hot. She didn't want to waste money and had kids at home. So she applied to three programs only and ranked only two. She matched into her first choice; but I was very worried for her.

I have heard (altho I have no idea if it is really true) that how far the program goes down on its rank list is reported to some governing body that uses that information for deciding how many residents a program can have as well as other things, I imagine.

If thats really true, it does seem to screw things up a little and create an incentive for programs to take people that they think are interested in their program ( and an incentive for us to let the programs know that we are interested.) It seems like it would improve the process if they didn't have to report this information to anyone.


Does anyone know if this is true?

Dr. Cuts,

The PD you speak of doesn't (or didn't) understand the match process. Ranking high the students who told him they'll put his program at the top would not cause his program to go unfilled; not ranking enough candidates will.

What probably happened was the students ranked his program between 1-5 ("at the top" doesn't necessarily mean no.1). They got accepted at higher ranked programs, and our good PD, who didn't rank enough people, got screwed.



Originally posted by AnnK73
I have heard (altho I have no idea if it is really true) that how far the program goes down on its rank list is reported to some governing body that uses that information for deciding how many residents a program can have as well as other things, I imagine.

If thats really true, it does seem to screw things up a little and create an incentive for programs to take people that they think are interested in their program ( and an incentive for us to let the programs know that we are interested.) It seems like it would improve the process if they didn't have to report this information to anyone.

Does anyone know if this is true?

I have not heard of this, but it is almost DEFINITELY untrue. There is NO WAY that academia will allow it to happen for precisely the reason you state: they are giving themselves a disadvantage in the match process. These people hold the power in medicine today, and they are not stupid.

BTW, Cuts, hope everything went well for you on the interview trail. Did you get the calls you wanted? Best of luck.

Cuts - Are you referring to the Masonic TY? They cut the whole program, I hope you know by now.

Originally posted by GenMed
Dr. Cuts,

The PD you speak of doesn't (or didn't) understand the match process. Ranking high the students who told him they'll put his program at the top would not cause his program to go unfilled; not ranking enough candidates will.

What probably happened was the students ranked his program between 1-5 ("at the top" doesn't necessarily mean no.1). They got accepted at higher ranked programs, and our good PD, who didn't rank enough people, got screwed.

BTW, Cuts, hope everything went well for you on the interview trail. Did you get the calls you wanted? Best of luck.

I think you're right on about that PD. The more I thought about what he'd said to me and his explanation for why his program didn't fill, the more I thought it was faulty logic. I think he and the other interviewers at that program spend a lot of time and effort trying to analyze & assess how an applicant's gonna rank them, when IMHO they should instead be trying to "sell" their program to the applicants. Seems to me like just about any program will fill, so long as they make it at least somewhat desirable, interview enough "realistic" candidates (i.e. people they have a shot at getting), and make their ROLs as long as they can.

Thanks for the well wishes... I got 6 invites for Rads in all... not the best number, but enough to give me a fighting chance anyway. Expecting the worst and hoping for the best now... :)

Originally posted by Ratty
Cuts - Are you referring to the Masonic TY? They cut the whole program, I hope you know by now.

Yup... I was referring to Illinois Masonic's TY... found out from a post off of Auntminnie. Doesn't make much of a difference to me though since I was rejected by them a while back :rolleyes:! I did however interview there last week for their ONE Prelim spot... there's like 40 top-notch candidates (excluding myself the interloper ;)) interviewing for ONE spot! We were all joking that that is THE most competitive spot in the entire country :laugh: !

From the NRMP, for a program with 7 places, they need to list about 52 people to almost guarantee a fill. That means that rads places, with one or 2, are really going to overkill with 100 interviews, or EM or IM, with 100 to 150 interviews for 12-18, are cutting it close (or, an alternate view is a bunch of courtesy interviews for rads, and few or none for EM...my interview at Mt. Sinai - where they will have definitely 12, and possibly 15, and are interviewing 100 - and trying for 18 - means that every interview counts).

And, with your numbers, that's a bummer...a friend of mine with average + numbers got 3 interviews, is an FMG, and is going to Tulane next year. There is no rhyme or reason.

I interviewed recently at a fairly competetive anesthesia program and they told me flat out they will rank everyone that interviews.. for a total of 165 people on their ROL. The only thing that sucks about programs like this is that they institute at 'scoring system' giving you X number of points on 10 or so criteria, the total score will be used to determine your place on the rank list. When I interviewed in a similar program, EVERY BLONDE WITH BIG BREASTS received a PERFECT score on their interview evals.. while the rest of us were made to feel like schmucks. During lunch with the other applicants (25 of us on that day) we discovered 20 of us were told to 'rank the program #1' because they loved us so much. This is a LARGE program in a university hospital in the northeast and quite frankly I will be leaving the off my rank list. More than once in this process I have walked away feeling like someone was trying to sell me a 72 pinto driven only on sundays by a little old lady.

Originally posted by soon2bdoc2003
When I interviewed in a similar program, EVERY BLONDE WITH BIG BREASTS received a PERFECT score on their interview evals.. while the rest of us were made to feel like schmucks.

I personally would like a clarification of this statement.

Mindy

Originally posted by soon2bdoc2003
When I interviewed in a similar program, EVERY BLONDE WITH BIG BREASTS received a PERFECT score on their interview evals.. while the rest of us were made to feel like schmucks.

Or you could attach an image... that might be helpful too :D...

I just want everyone to picture the image of "every strapping buck with big muscles and large genitalia received a perfect score on their interview evals" in lew of what soon2be wrote. Maybe there's more to your poor interview scores than you think...

Mindy