Is there a way to determine the "quality" of a match list?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Do you look at the places where people matched or the number of people who matched into competitive specialties? How are match lists supposed to be "useful?" I've seen people state, "so and so school has a match list that looks like it belongs in top 10." What exactly does that mean?

Originally Posted by monkeyMD

Do you look at the places where people matched or the number of people who matched into competitive specialties? How are match lists supposed to be "useful?" I've seen people state, "so and so school has a match list that looks like it belongs in top 10." What exactly does that mean?

Most match lists are useless. Some of the smartest (highest scoring) girls in my class went into peds cause they wanted work-life balance/liked kids. The guys who went into ortho had lower scores than them. As long as you go to a good or avg MD school, what residency you will get into will depend more on your scores than your school's reputation. BTW, most schools almost have an equal % of people going into each specialty.

Originally Posted by monkeyMD

Do you look at the places where people matched or the number of people who matched into competitive specialties? How are match lists supposed to be "useful?" I've seen people state, "so and so school has a match list that looks like it belongs in top 10." What exactly does that mean?

Generally, when people talk about match lists looking like they belong in the top 10, they're referring to the fact that most of the people match into top academic programs of the specialty (usually MGH, Penn, UCSF, Stanford, etc) and have a decent amount of people going into the more competitive fields.

As for how a match list can be useful for an individual, I feel a lot of it comes down to location and specialty. If you want to be in a certain region of the country for residency, then it's helpful if there are people who have matched there previously (especially true for California programs). Same goes with specialties, if you know you want to go into a specific field, especially a more competitive/smaller one like rad/onc, neurosurg, etc, then it's good to see that people have matched into those specialties.

For the most part, being at a top med school usually gives people the extra edge on getting into the top academic programs. However almost any residency program is achievable if you get great scores, have great research/extracurriculars and get solid LOR regardless of which med school you went to.

Originally Posted by Rutgers06

Generally, when people talk about match lists looking like they belong in the top 10, they're referring to the fact that most of the people match into top academic programs of the specialty (usually MGH, Penn, UCSF, Stanford, etc) and have a decent amount of people going into the more competitive fields.

As for how a match list can be useful for an individual, I feel a lot of it comes down to location and specialty. If you want to be in a certain region of the country for residency, then it's helpful if there are people who have matched there previously (especially true for California programs). Same goes with specialties, if you know you want to go into a specific field, especially a more competitive/smaller one like rad/onc, neurosurg, etc, then it's good to see that people have matched into those specialties.

For the most part, being at a top med school usually gives people the extra edge on getting into the top academic programs. However almost any residency program is achievable if you get great scores, have great research/extracurriculars and get solid LOR regardless of which med school you went to.

Disagree with the last statement. I would say getting into any specialty is achievable, but specific programs may be tough; some are VERY focused on pedigree.

Not a very scientific method, but if 1/4 of the class matches in of Derm, Rad Onc, Urology, ENT, Rads, Ortho (at legitimate programs), you can assume it is a very competitive match list

Originally Posted by Oxer45

Some of the smartest (highest scoring) girls in my class went into peds cause they wanted work-life balance/liked kids. The guys who went into ortho had lower scores than them.

+1. The majority of our AOA seniors went into internal medicine or peds, and >half of them chose to stay at our home programs, which are solid but not elite. So you can pretty easily be misled into believing a list is "weak."

But on the flip side, none of the ortho/neurosurg/plastics matches were AOA and were generally boarder-line competitive for their specialties but still matched. The ones I spoke to felt our school's reputation and phone calls from well-known faculty played a big part in their success. So I'd argue reputation is definitely important, but it's difficult to gauge your school's actual non-USNWR-reputation from their match list.

Originally Posted by KinasePro

+1. The majority of our AOA seniors went into internal medicine or peds, and >half of them chose to stay at our home programs, which are solid but not elite. So you can pretty easily be misled into believing a list is "weak."

But on the flip side, none of the ortho/neurosurg/plastics matches were AOA and were generally boarder-line competitive for their specialties but still matched. The ones I spoke to felt our school's reputation and phone calls from well-known faculty played a big part in their success. So I'd argue reputation is definitely important, but it's difficult to gauge your school's actual non-USNWR-reputation from their match list.

This.

The other portion that's impossible to know from a rank list, but actually what 4th years really care about is how likely are they to match at their top choice. The uber-competitive person who matched into Internal Medicine at Wash U in St. Louis may stand out to you as an outsider, but how do you think that person feels if WUSTL was their 9th choice after Penn, Mass Gen, Hopkins, Duke, Northwestern, UCSF, Mayo, and UW in Seattle? What about the person who wanted to match derm but instead fell into a great Anesthesia program? A match list conveys nothing about context and is largely why it's so worthless.

Further, exceedingly few pre-meds are aware of which programs are actually top tier in their specialty. I guarantee that most wouldn't consider a peds match to Cincinnati Children's a very strong choice (I mean you can almost hear them roll their eyes "really, the University of Cincinnati?") and yet that's a top 5 peds program - better than the Duke's/Emory's/Stanford's of the world, at least when it comes to taking care of children (you could also argue that there are many other programs, at least in peds, better at producing generalists than CHOP, Boston Children's, Texas Children's, et al, which tend to draw/produce overwhelming numbers of those going on to fellowships. This is probably true in all specialties where if your goal is be a great clinician but not a subspecialist, going to a "top" program may be counterproductive). So that naivete about what programs are actually good across multiple specialties also contributes to the worthlessness of match lists.

Similarly, lots of people who could go to top academic places don't because that's simply not what they want to do. They may want to stay put because they have spouses and/or kids who they don't want to uproot. You don't know what the politics and competition to stay at a home program might have been that year (the biggest drama on my Match Day at my med school was which of the 14 women going into OB/GYN were going to get to stay - all 14 had significant reasons on why the home program was the best choice for them, but the program director had never filled more than 2 of his 4 spots with homegrown candidates...and yet to the outsider, those that got to stay likely would have been the least impressive matches even though they were the best candidates). There are simply way too many factors that go into a rank list for an applicant that you don't know when you only look at the end result in a very isolated setting.

For the purpose of evaluating how students match, IMO, preference isn't important, only outcomes. For example, I ranked MIR/Wash U in the bottom half of my list, even though it's arguably the best rads program. I might not have been ectastic if I matched there, but I'd get fantastic training. In any case, on a macro level, you can't know where people "might have matched" if they ranked the highest ranked programs on their list, only where they all matched. If they matched at top programs, they matched at top programs, regardless of where it was on their final list.

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

This.

The other portion that's impossible to know from a rank list, but actually what 4th years really care about is how likely are they to match at their top choice. The uber-competitive person who matched into Internal Medicine at Wash U in St. Louis may stand out to you as an outsider, but how do you think that person feels if WUSTL was their 9th choice after Penn, Mass Gen, Hopkins, Duke, Northwestern, UCSF, Mayo, and UW in Seattle? What about the person who wanted to match derm but instead fell into a great Anesthesia program? A match list conveys nothing about context and is largely why it's so worthless.

Further, exceedingly few pre-meds are aware of which programs are actually top tier in their specialty. I guarantee that most wouldn't consider a peds match to Cincinnati Children's a very strong choice (I mean you can almost hear them roll their eyes "really, the University of Cincinnati?") and yet that's a top 5 peds program - better than the Duke's/Emory's/Stanford's of the world, at least when it comes to taking care of children (you could also argue that there are many other programs, at least in peds, better at producing generalists than CHOP, Boston Children's, Texas Children's, et al, which tend to draw/produce overwhelming numbers of those going on to fellowships. This is probably true in all specialties where if your goal is be a great clinician but not a subspecialist, going to a "top" program may be counterproductive). So that naivete about what programs are actually good across multiple specialties also contributes to the worthlessness of match lists.

Similarly, lots of people who could go to top academic places don't because that's simply not what they want to do. They may want to stay put because they have spouses and/or kids who they don't want to uproot. You don't know what the politics and competition to stay at a home program might have been that year (the biggest drama on my Match Day at my med school was which of the 14 women going into OB/GYN were going to get to stay - all 14 had significant reasons on why the home program was the best choice for them, but the program director had never filled more than 2 of his 4 spots with homegrown candidates...and yet to the outsider, those that got to stay likely would have been the least impressive matches even though they were the best candidates). There are simply way too many factors that go into a rank list for an applicant that you don't know when you only look at the end result in a very isolated setting.

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

For the purpose of evaluating how students match, IMO, preference isn't important, only outcomes. For example, I ranked MIR/Wash U in the bottom half of my list, even though it's arguably the best rads program. I might not have been ectastic if I matched there, but I'd get fantastic training. In any case, on a macro level, you can't know where people "might have matched" if they ranked the highest ranked programs on their list, only where they all matched. If they matched at top programs, they matched at top programs, regardless of where it was on their final list.

Yea, imagine complaining to your peers along the lines of "Our match list is awful. For instance, I only matched to MIR/Wash U."

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

Further, exceedingly few pre-meds are aware of which programs are actually top tier in their specialty. I guarantee that most wouldn't consider a peds match to Cincinnati Children's a very strong choice (I mean you can almost hear them roll their eyes "really, the University of Cincinnati?") and yet that's a top 5 peds program - better than the Duke's/Emory's/Stanford's of the world, at least when it comes to taking care of children (you could also argue that there are many other programs, at least in peds, better at producing generalists than CHOP, Boston Children's, Texas Children's, et al, which tend to draw/produce overwhelming numbers of those going on to fellowships. This is probably true in all specialties where if your goal is be a great clinician but not a subspecialist, going to a "top" program may be counterproductive). So that naivete about what programs are actually good across multiple specialties also contributes to the worthlessness of match lists.

Ignorant M0 here, but how does one come to know that Cincinnati Children's is a top 5 program? Do you just kind of passively pick that kind of info up in med school, or do you rely on lists similar to US News lists (ie, the top hospitals list?)? Or do you just have to ask people in the field what they're opinions are, and aggregate what you learn from them?

Originally Posted by TenderRender

Ignorant M0 here, but how does one come to know that Cincinnati Children's is a top 5 program? Do you just kind of passively pick that kind of info up in med school, or do you rely on lists similar to US News lists (ie, the top hospitals list?)? Or do you just have to ask people in the field what they're opinions are, and aggregate what you learn from them?

The latter.

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

The latter.

So if I can push it, how do attendings and such end up learning what are the strongest programs in the nation?

Originally Posted by TenderRender

So if I can push it, how do attendings and such end up learning what are the strongest programs in the nation?

I imagine that at some point it just comes down to past or present work experiences.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)