Better to rank "more competitive" program higher?

[ej37]

Yes, I know this has been discussed on the forum many times before: and the answer of "rank them in the order you would like to go there" I'm sure is the best advice out there, I don't doubt that.

But say, for example, I have 3 programs that I would be equally happy to end up at, and am having trouble deciding the order of them. Since I am applying for a very competitive field, the "top" programs in ENT don't go nearly as far down on their rank list as the others. Say, for example the top programs go to spot 7 on their rank list (for 4 spots total), where the less competitive programs go to spot 12 or so for the same 4 spots.

My program director today reasoned with me that if I want any shot at ending up at a "top" program I have to rank it #1, because everyone else will. Hypothetically, then the best chance of matching in my top tier, he said, was to rank them in order of competitiveness, i.e. rank them in the order I think other applicants will. Because otherwise, if I get passed over for my 1st or 2nd choice, then there is even less of a chance I get my #3 if it is one of the top programs in the country that goes to spot 7 on their rank list for 4 spots total, because the match algorithm would have already paired someone else their who had them at number 1.

I'm not sure if I am explaining this well enough or not, but since the algorithim "favors the applicant" this logic made a lot of sense. I realize most of the people on here are doing less-competitive things medicine, peds, gen surg, etc, where a program of 4 will routinely go down to spot 40 or so on their rank list, but hopefully you can give me some perspective on this

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pedsrocks]

nope. just rank them as you like them. if this were to happen you would knock out anyone who had ranked your #3 as their #1, provided the program ranked you higher than them.

 

[Stellar Clouds]

You need to re-read the match algorithm.

Let me give you an example:
You are ranked #2 by program A which has 2 spots. You rank program A #3. Let's also say that program A ranked Bob #3. Bob ranked program A #1. Bob gets temporarily matched to program A, but let's say that you do not match to your top 2 programs. The computer then goes to your third choice. You are ranked higher at program A than Bob is, so he is no longer matched to A, but instead you are. Bob now has to go to his second spot on his list.

The computer program gets you to the highest spot on your list that has a spot available. It doesn't matter who the computer starts with. Your program director is not correct. Do not rank programs based on how you think others will rank it. Rank them only based on what YOU think.

 

[fizzle]

My program director today reasoned with me that if I want any shot at ending up at a "top" program I have to rank it #1, because everyone else will. Hypothetically, then the best chance of matching in my top tier, he said, was to rank them in order of competitiveness, i.e. rank them in the order I think other applicants will. Because otherwise, if I get passed over for my 1st or 2nd choice, then there is even less of a chance I get my #3 if it is one of the top programs in the country that goes to spot 7 on their rank list for 4 spots total, because the match algorithm would have already paired someone else their who had them at number 1.

The only way another applicant will get a spot over you is if the program had that other applicant on its list in a higher position than you. In other words, the only way you'll go unmatched is if every program on your list has filled with applicants that it ranked higher than you. In that scenario, you would have gone unmatched no matter what your rank list was.

This is the layman summary of understanding the match algorithm:
1. Your list matters in determining which program you match at.
2. The program's lists matter in whether you get matched at all.

This means that as long as you're high enough on the programs' list to match into at least one of the programs on your own list, you'll definitely match no matter what your own list's order. Your list's order will only determine which program you go to in the case that more than one program has put you high enough on their list for you to match. This is what is meant by the notion that the applicant's list is given preference over the program's preference. If an applicant is ranked to match at multiple programs, then the applicant's list will determine where he/she matches, not where the programs put the applicant on their own lists.

Trust everyone when they say that you should rank programs in the order that YOU want to go to them. Anyone who says otherwise has a limited understanding of how the algorithm works.

 

[st2205]

It seems like there are a decent amount of PDs that don't quite understand the algorithm, which I find absolutely astounding.

 

[septoplasty]

I realize most of the people on here are doing less-competitive things medicine, peds, gen surg, etc, where a program of 4 will routinely go down to spot 40 or so on their rank list, but hopefully you can give me some perspective on this

According to the NRMP, a program goes down as far as 7 spots for 1 spot (on average). Just thought I'd try and mitigate some tension.

 

[kindasorta]

If you rank a program above another program, you stand less of a chance of going to the lower ranked program. It's pretty straight-forward.

 

[cubssox2000]

Don't try to play games with the match - you will always lose. You can't outsmart this machine.

Rank the programs where you want to go highest.

 

[shan564]

But say, for example, I have 3 programs that I would be equally happy to end up at,

Yes, you should rank the places in order of preference. That's a given. Your PD's logic is not consistent with the math behind the match algorithm.

That said, if you have 3 programs at which you'd be equally happy, I think it's perfectly reasonable to rank them in order of competitiveness (I might be doing that, except with two programs). Here's why:
If I rank the second-most competitive program at #1, I'll probably match there. I'll be happy there, but I'll spend the rest of my life wondering what would have happened if I'd ranked the other place #1 (in terms of research funding, elective opportunities, in-house fellowships, and eventual faculty positions).

If I rank the more competitive program #1, I have about a 50-50 chance of matching at either one. In that case, there's a 50% chance that I match at the more competitive place, I'm still happy, and I still spend the rest of my life wondering. But there's a 50% chance that I match at the less competitive place anyway, so I don't have to wonder what would have happened if I'd ranked them differently.

So considering that all other factors are equal, I might as well use the latter strategy...

 

[medking]

It seems like there are a decent amount of PDs that don't quite understand the algorithm, which I find absolutely astounding.

This. It's embarrassing.

To OP: Your PD is not helping you out here. Rank the programs by prioritizing whatever criteria are important to you (ie: whatever TRULY makes you happy in life). Good luck!

 

[akhim]

i think what the OP is saying that she prefers to match in the MOST competitive programs. so in her case, ranking in order of preference is the same thing as ranking in order of competitiveness

 

[medking]

i think what the OP is saying that she prefers to match in the MOST competitive programs. so in her case, ranking in order of preference is the same thing as ranking in order of competitiveness

If that is the case, then the OP would not need to ask the question.

 

[emboli]

It's easy to tell applicants to rank programs based on their own preference.

What about the programs themselves? Will they rank applicants solely on their own preference? Or do other factors come into play? For instance, a mid-tier program who has a high-caliber applicant w/ great CV and scores... will they rank this applicant differently (thinking that this applicant is applying to said program as a backup).

Hope I was clear with that scenario...

 

[shan564]

It's easy to tell applicants to rank programs based on their own preference.

What about the programs themselves? Will they rank applicants solely on their own preference? Or do other factors come into play? For instance, a mid-tier program who has a high-caliber applicant w/ great CV and scores... will they rank this applicant differently (thinking that this applicant is applying to said program as a backup).

Hope I was clear with that scenario...

Only if the PD doesn't understand how the Match works. Everybody knows that there is no benefit to lowering the rank of a person who might be applying as a backup.

 

[anonperson]

It's easy to tell applicants to rank programs based on their own preference.

What about the programs themselves? Will they rank applicants solely on their own preference? Or do other factors come into play? For instance, a mid-tier program who has a high-caliber applicant w/ great CV and scores... will they rank this applicant differently (thinking that this applicant is applying to said program as a backup).

Hope I was clear with that scenario...

Some programs may rank people differently if they think a superstar candidate is applying to them as a backup . This all goes back to programs also looking at how an applicant "fits" into their program.


Rank in order of preference of matching. Don't try to game the system. It's a waste of time and an applicant will screw themselves out of matching to their top choices because of it.

 

[kjamess]

Only if the PD doesn't understand how the Match works. Everybody knows that there is no benefit to lowering the rank of a person who might be applying as a backup.

I completely disagree. For some reason, programs (especially some top programs in IM) are really concerned about 'yield' and not having to go too far down their ROL. I had one PD go as far as to say that returning for a second look most definitely improves your chances at matching. I've had multiple interviewers engage in misconduct and try to get a potential ROL out of me. This is partially why the 'game' exists, and it sucks. I can only hope that I'm not affected by refusing to participate in the arms race.

 

[medking]

I completely disagree. For some reason, programs (especially some top programs in IM) are really concerned about 'yield' and not having to go too far down their ROL. I had one PD go as far as to say that returning for a second look most definitely improves your chances at matching. I've had multiple interviewers engage in misconduct and try to get a potential ROL out of me. This is partially why the 'game' exists, and it sucks. I can only hope that I'm not affected by refusing to participate in the arms race.

Most people here need to differentiate pre-rank list communication from the actual rank list. For the applicants rank list, just rank programs as you desire. People have different criteria, but the above statement holds true. You will end up at your highest rank that has a spot for you. Competitiveness doesn't affect anything in terms of match algorithm, but if competitiveness is important to you, it will be reflected in how you rank your programs.

 

[kjamess]

Most people here need to differentiate pre-rank list communication from the actual rank list. For the applicants rank list, just rank programs as you desire. People have different criteria, but the above statement holds true. You will end up at your highest rank that has a spot for you. Competitiveness doesn't affect anything in terms of match algorithm, but if competitiveness is important to you, it will be reflected in how you rank your programs.

what does any of this have to do with what i said

 

[medking]

what does any of this have to do with what i said

it doesn't, haha. I was on my phone and didnt know how to make a generic post, so I just clicked on yours.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I completely disagree. For some reason, programs (especially some top programs in IM) are really concerned about 'yield' and not having to go too far down their ROL. I had one PD go as far as to say that returning for a second look most definitely improves your chances at matching. I've had multiple interviewers engage in misconduct and try to get a potential ROL out of me. This is partially why the 'game' exists, and it sucks. I can only hope that I'm not affected by refusing to participate in the arms race.

This is really disheartening.

 

[C5toC9]

Implying that a second look for the applicant changes a program's ROL is an NRMP violation.

 

[kjamess]

Implying that a second look for the applicant changes a program's ROL is an NRMP violation.

lol well it is what it is. The asymmetric power dynamic puts applicants in a tough spot.

 

[aa1984]

It's easy to tell applicants to rank programs based on their own preference.

What about the programs themselves? Will they rank applicants solely on their own preference? Or do other factors come into play? For instance, a mid-tier program who has a high-caliber applicant w/ great CV and scores... will they rank this applicant differently (thinking that this applicant is applying to said program as a backup).

Hope I was clear with that scenario...

I thought of that too, and the whole bit just got even more complicated. I'm sticking with ranking according to where I want to go. But I'd like to see this addressed as well.

 

[KnuxNole]

I understand the "rank where you want to go" mantra...but lets say that I have a feeling one of the programs I want to rank may not rank me that highly. I like the program(would say in the middle of the pack), but don't think I would be high on their picks. Knowing it's a longshot, I was just gonna rank them last. Is it worth it to rank this program in the middle of my list, or just save that spot for another place?

 

[shan564]

I understand the "rank where you want to go" mantra...but lets say that I have a feeling one of the programs I want to rank may not rank me that highly. I like the program(would say in the middle of the pack), but don't think I would be high on their picks. Knowing it's a longshot, I was just gonna rank them last. Is it worth it to rank this program in the middle of my list, or just save that spot for another place?

For the 1000th time, it doesn't hurt you to rank a long-shot at #1. Whether or not you think they'll rank you high, it's in your interest to rank the best programs #1, regardless of where they will rank you. If they rank you last and match higher on their list, then your #2 becomes your #1 for all practical purposes. If you're contemplating putting your favorite place last, then you need to re-read the match algorithm.

 

[medking]

I understand the "rank where you want to go" mantra...but lets say that I have a feeling one of the programs I want to rank may not rank me that highly. I like the program(would say in the middle of the pack), but don't think I would be high on their picks. Knowing it's a longshot, I was just gonna rank them last. Is it worth it to rank this program in the middle of my list, or just save that spot for another place?

If it's less than 20 or whatever the number, then it will cost you nothing to rank programs. If it's over the number, then you will have to pay extra. It's up to you to determine if that cost is worth the "long shot". In terms of matching itself, throwing in "long shots" higher on your list won't hurt your chances at the programs lower on your match list.

 

[Raryn]

I understand the "rank where you want to go" mantra...but lets say that I have a feeling one of the programs I want to rank may not rank me that highly. I like the program(would say in the middle of the pack), but don't think I would be high on their picks. Knowing it's a longshot, I was just gonna rank them last. Is it worth it to rank this program in the middle of my list, or just save that spot for another place?

You could rank 10 programs you didn't even apply to as #s 1-10 and your chance of matching to your #11 would be EXACTLY the same as if you had ranked it #1 to start with.

 

[Slade]

I understand the "rank where you want to go" mantra...but lets say that I have a feeling one of the programs I want to rank may not rank me that highly. I like the program(would say in the middle of the pack), but don't think I would be high on their picks. Knowing it's a longshot, I was just gonna rank them last. Is it worth it to rank this program in the middle of my list, or just save that spot for another place?

People say they get it but post questions that show that they actually have no idea how it works... kind of discouraging.

 

[gutonc]

I understand the "rank where you want to go" mantra...but lets say that I have a feeling one of the programs I want to rank may not rank me that highly. I like the program(would say in the middle of the pack), but don't think I would be high on their picks. Knowing it's a longshot, I was just gonna rank them last. Is it worth it to rank this program in the middle of my list, or just save that spot for another place?

People say they get it but post questions that show that they actually have no idea how it works... kind of discouraging.

The bigger (and more depressing) issue is that Knux (and, if SDN is a representative sample...thousands of other M4s) seems to be conflating a "mantra" with, you know...a mathematical algorithm that ... sorta won the Nobel Prize in Economics last year.

It's math folks, it's not a religion. You don't have to believe it. It is.

 

[Slade]

Even worse, I think SDN is NOT a representative sample. When talking to people at school, it definitely feels like SDNers are much more knowledgeable about all things medical-school-related (STEPs, residency application, NMRP, Match, etc). Can you imagine the rampant ignorance about how the Match works in non-SDNers if you look at the rate at which these questions pop up on SDN?!

 

[akhim]

i'm ranking my programs from most competitive to least competitive. mainly because i know i have a shot at getting into the ones at the bottom of my list. not so sure about the ones at the top of my list. so I'd rather try to get into those programs at the top before falling back on the almost sure shots.

also it happens that the order from most competitive to least competitive follows the same order as most preferred to least preferred.
I guess that's generally true for everyone since the programs people prefer the most will be the ones everyone makes their number 1, making them the most competitive.
unless people have a lot of programs on their ROL that are really not that different from each other and they are all of the same caliber. then the competitive rule doesn't follow here, and then it's just a matter of preference.

 

[KeyzerSoze]

i'm ranking my programs from most competitive to least competitive. mainly because i know i have a shot at getting into the ones at the bottom of my list. not so sure about the ones at the top of my list. so I'd rather try to get into those programs at the top before falling back on the almost sure shots.

 

[Slade]

i'm ranking my programs from most competitive to least competitive. mainly because i know i have a shot at getting into the ones at the bottom of my list. not so sure about the ones at the top of my list. so I'd rather try to get into those programs at the top before falling back on the almost sure shots.

also it happens that the order from most competitive to least competitive follows the same order as most preferred to least preferred.
I guess that's generally true for everyone since the programs people prefer the most will be the ones everyone makes their number 1, making them the most competitive.
unless people have a lot of programs on their ROL that are really not that different from each other and they are all of the same caliber. then the competitive rule doesn't follow here, and then it's just a matter of preference.

So the end result is the same but your thought process is wrong and misleading to people who still don't get how the Match works.
You should have said the opposite instead: "I've ranked my programs in my order of preference. Also it happens that they are ranked from most competitive to least competitive, isn't that weird/awesome/irrelevant!?"

 

[akhim]

So the end result is the same but your thought process is wrong and misleading to people who still don't get how the Match works.
You should have said the opposite instead: "I've ranked my programs in my order of preference. Also it happens that they are ranked from most competitive to least competitive, isn't that weird/awesome/irrelevant!?"

instead of reading one line and trying to understand the whole post, why dont you actually read the whole post first and then quote me.

would you say your top 3 choices are more competitive than your bottom 3? if you say no, then maybe you don't want to get into the most competitive spots, and you'll settle for mediocrity. if you say yes, then stfu.

and also ask yourself what makes a program competitive? they're selective with limited number of spots, and everyone wants to go there, thus everyone makes it their number one

 

[akhim]

maybe if i added i'd be grateful and happy to get in anywhere, you wouldnt post your lesch-nyhan emoticon. i guess you didnt take the elective on humility and gratitude youre 4th year.

 

[KeyzerSoze]

maybe if i added i'd be grateful and happy to get in anywhere, you wouldnt post your lesch-nyhan emoticon. i guess you didnt take the elective on humility and gratitude youre 4th year.

The emoticons convey frustration at yours being the 10th post on this thread which showed a disturbing lack of understanding of the match process. I'm not sure what humility and gratitude have to do with anything. I have absolutely no problem with people ranking their programs in order of (perceived) competitiveness if that is the single most important factor for them.

The point is, your statement "i know i have a shot at getting into the ones at the bottom of my list. not so sure about the ones at the top of my list. so I'd rather try to get into those programs at the top before falling back on the almost sure shots" does not make any sense.

Please read http://www.nrmp.org/res_match/about_res/algorithms.html for more information.

 

[KnuxNole]

I'll humbly admit that I never even looked at that page whatsoever until just now.

Guess I have something to read tomorrow

 

[akhim]

The emoticons convey frustration at yours being the 10th post on this thread which showed a disturbing lack of understanding of the match process. I'm not sure what humility and gratitude have to do with anything. I have absolutely no problem with people ranking their programs in order of (perceived) competitiveness if that is the single most important factor for them.

The point is, your statement "i know i have a shot at getting into the ones at the bottom of my list. not so sure about the ones at the top of my list. so I'd rather try to get into those programs at the top before falling back on the almost sure shots" does not make any sense.

Please read http://www.nrmp.org/res_match/about_res/algorithms.html for more information.

yes please do review the match algorithm.

it means if program#1onMyROL with 5 slots, ranks me at #25 on their ROL, and the first 4 positions are taken by people in numbers 1-24, then me being at number 25 will get the 5th spot thus completing their Match.

if program#9onMyROL (less competitive, meaning I will most likely get in) with 15 slots, ranks me at #15 on their ROL, then it doesn't matter anymore cause I already matched at program#1onMyROL.

now if I didnt match at my First Choice, then the subsequent ranks on my list come into play. if i didnt match at any programs #2-7. then i'll match at program#9 for sure.

so the top programs are more competitive (harder to get in), the bottom programs are less competitive (easier to get in). if you want to get in a competitive program, rank those high, if you dont get in, at least you'll have the less competitive programs as a safety net (i feel like this statement is redundant, its only here for you).

maybe you might understand how the algorithm works, but you don't understand how to apply the algorithm or perceive it from another perspective.

 

[KeyzerSoze]

yes please do review the match algorithm.

it means if program#1onMyROL with 5 slots, ranks me at #25 on their ROL, and the first 4 positions are taken by people in numbers 1-24, then me being at number 25 will get the 5th spot thus completing their Match.

if program#9onMyROL (less competitive, meaning I will most likely get in) with 15 slots, ranks me at #15 on their ROL, then it doesn't matter anymore cause I already matched at program#1onMyROL.

now if I didnt match at my First Choice, then the subsequent ranks on my list come into play. if i didnt match at any programs #2-7. then i'll match at program#9 for sure.

so the top programs are more competitive (harder to get in), the bottom programs are less competitive (easier to get in). if you want to get in a competitive program, rank those high, if you dont get in, at least you'll have the less competitive programs as a safety net (i feel like this statement is redundant, its only here for you).

maybe you might understand how the algorithm works, but you don't understand how to apply the algorithm or perceive it from another perspective.

Your example only works because you (implicitly) are saying that you would prefer to match at the "more competitive program".

Let me put it this way. There is a program on my list, Man's Best Hospital, which is a fairly competitive program. I happen to prefer quite a few less competitive programs to it, so I ranked it #5. Ranking it #5 makes it less likely for me to match there. But the only reason I am less likely to rank there is because I am likely to end up somewhere at 1-4, which is what I want. If for whatever reason I am not ranked to match at those 4 less competitive programs, the algorithm gets to #5, and my chances of matching there are now EXACTLY the same as if I had ranked them #1.

In other words, there is no such thing as a "safety net". It doesn't make sense.

 

[kjamess]

there is no other perspective. what you described is what everyone has been saying all along in this thread. there is no strategy involved, just rank them how you like them (for the very reasons that you described)

 

[akhim]

Your example only works because you (implicitly) are saying that you would prefer to match at the "more competitive program".

Let me put it this way. There is a program on my list, Man's Best Hospital, which is a fairly competitive program. I happen to prefer quite a few less competitive programs to it, so I ranked it #5. Ranking it #5 makes it less likely for me to match there. But the only reason I am less likely to rank there is because I am likely to end up somewhere at 1-4, which is what I want. If for whatever reason I am not ranked to match at those 4 less competitive programs, the algorithm gets to #5, and my chances of matching there are now EXACTLY the same as if I had ranked them #1.

In other words, there is no such thing as a "safety net". It doesn't make sense.

now refer back to my original post. i said GENERALLY speaking, i think most people go from most competitive to least competitive. but maybe i'm wrong about that.

a safety net is some place where youre guranteed to get in but keep at the bottom of the list in case you dont get in the ones at the top. in your case there is no safety net because there is nothing to catch since you are already ranking your least competitive programs first, thus you'll most likely match before you get to a more competitive program on your list. like i said before, you may understand the algorithm, but you think very 1-dimensionally

 

[KeyzerSoze]

now refer back to my original post. i said GENERALLY speaking, i think most people go from most competitive to least competitive. but maybe i'm wrong about that.

in your case there is no safety net because there is nothing to catch since you are already ranking your least competitive programs first, thus you'll most likely match before you get to a more competitive program on your list. like i said before, you may understand the algorithm, but you think very 1-dimensionally

The only "safety net" is ranking as many programs as possible. The order you rank them in does not create any kind of safety net.

 

[45408]

instead of reading one line and trying to understand the whole post, why dont you actually read the whole post first and then quote me.

would you say your top 3 choices are more competitive than your bottom 3? if you say no, then maybe you don't want to get into the most competitive spots, and you'll settle for mediocrity. if you say yes, then stfu.

and also ask yourself what makes a program competitive? they're selective with limited number of spots, and everyone wants to go there, thus everyone makes it their number one

Wow. Just all sorts of wrong here.

yes please do review the match algorithm.

it means if program#1onMyROL with 5 slots, ranks me at #25 on their ROL, and the first 4 positions are taken by people in numbers 1-24, then me being at number 25 will get the 5th spot thus completing their Match.

if program#9onMyROL (less competitive, meaning I will most likely get in) with 15 slots, ranks me at #15 on their ROL, then it doesn't matter anymore cause I already matched at program#1onMyROL.

now if I didnt match at my First Choice, then the subsequent ranks on my list come into play. if i didnt match at any programs #2-7. then i'll match at program#9 for sure.

so the top programs are more competitive (harder to get in), the bottom programs are less competitive (easier to get in). if you want to get in a competitive program, rank those high, if you dont get in, at least you'll have the less competitive programs as a safety net (i feel like this statement is redundant, its only here for you).

maybe you might understand how the algorithm works, but you don't understand how to apply the algorithm or perceive it from another perspective.

Rank them in the order you want to go to them. Period. If that's from most competitive to least competitive because that's the only factor that matters to you rolleyes, then fine.

It's also a bit odd that you're fixated on the most competitive programs, but you don't even know which ones they are, based on this thread - http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=978903

now refer back to my original post. i said GENERALLY speaking, i think most people go from most competitive to least competitive. but maybe i'm wrong about that.

a safety net is some place where youre guranteed to get in but keep at the bottom of the list in case you dont get in the ones at the top. in your case there is no safety net because there is nothing to catch since you are already ranking your least competitive programs first, thus you'll most likely match before you get to a more competitive program on your list. like i said before, you may understand the algorithm, but you think very 1-dimensionally

Hmmm.

 

[Sheldor]

i think most people go from most competitive to least competitive. but maybe i'm wrong about that.

You're wrong about this. Certainly some do, like you, but by this point many people weigh their happiness into the equation, many factor it over "competitiveness."

 

[emboli]

On a somewhat related note...

What's better--

(1) Adding programs that you really can't imagine ending up at after interviewing on your ROL and matching there.

OR

(2) Leaving those programs off, thereby making your ROL shorter..increasing the chance of not matching. Then having an unsuccessful SOAP with the consequence of re-entering the match the following year.

 

[gutonc]

On a somewhat related note...

What's better--

(1) Adding programs that you really can't imagine ending up at after interviewing on your ROL and matching there.

OR

(2) Leaving those programs off, thereby making your ROL shorter..increasing the chance of not matching. Then having an unsuccessful SOAP with the consequence of re-entering the match the following year.

That's going to be different for everyone. I only didn't rank 2 programs that I interviewed at (still had a ROL with 14 programs on it) but you can be damn sure that, had I only interviewed at 10 or fewer I would have ranked every last one of them. Residency is only 3 years...you can do pretty much anything for that period of time (although it may suck mightily).

I personally think the question shouldn't be "would I rather match at this program than have to SOAP or re-apply next year?" but "would I rather match at this program than not be a practicing physician?" Not that it will be all that dire, but that's sure the worst case scenario. And I have no doubt that there are programs for which the answer to that question would be "No...I'd rather work at Starbuck's...forever."

 

[emboli]

That's going to be different for everyone. I only didn't rank 2 programs that I interviewed at (still had a ROL with 14 programs on it) but you can be damn sure that, had I only interviewed at 10 or fewer I would have ranked every last one of them. Residency is only 3 years...you can do pretty much anything for that period of time (although it may suck mightily).

I personally think the question shouldn't be "would I rather match at this program than have to SOAP or re-apply next year?" but "would I rather match at this program than not be a practicing physician?" Not that it will be all that dire, but that's sure the worst case scenario. And I have no doubt that there are programs for which the answer to that question would be "No...I'd rather work at Starbuck's...forever."

So are you saying its better to match on your first shot, even if it means going to a place you have zero desires to as oppose to re-entering the match the follow year?

Assume this applicant has zero red flags, didn't bomb the interviews, etc... For whatever reason, this person just didn't make the cut to programs he actually wanted to go to. I only ask because my ROL is 14 programs long. And don't wanna screw myself over by going with 14 instead of 16. Based on historical trends/statistics, odds are on my side, but god forbid...

 

[gutonc]

So are you saying its better to match on your first shot, even if it means going to a place you have zero desires to as oppose to re-entering the match the follow year?

Assume this applicant has zero red flags, didn't bomb the interviews, etc... For whatever reason, this person just didn't make the cut to programs he actually wanted to go to. I only ask because my ROL is 14 programs long. And don't wanna screw myself over by going with 14 instead of 16. Based on historical trends/statistics, odds are on my side, but god forbid...

Every re-applicant has at least 1 (possibly 2) red flags, even if they had none before. So...yes, matching on the first try is better than the 2nd.

But if you'd read my post more closely, you would see that your situation is identical to mine (interviewed 16, ranked 14) and I admit that I definitely overdid it. Your chance of not matching with 14 ranks is a non-zero value, but it's close enough to zero to be nearly irrelevant. And I doubt that increasing the denominator to 16 will get you a statistically meaningful change in that number.

 

[winkleweizen]

So are you saying its better to match on your first shot, even if it means going to a place you have zero desires to as oppose to re-entering the match the follow year?

Assume this applicant has zero red flags, didn't bomb the interviews, etc... For whatever reason, this person just didn't make the cut to programs he actually wanted to go to. I only ask because my ROL is 14 programs long. And don't wanna screw myself over by going with 14 instead of 16. Based on historical trends/statistics, odds are on my side, but god forbid...

Just throwing this out there...multiple Urology ppl with 15+ interviews went unmatched this year.

 

[KeyzerSoze]

Just throwing this out there...multiple Urology ppl with 15+ interviews went unmatched this year.

Multiple people with 15+ interviews in many specialties go unmatched every year. After reading your post, I looked at the data from the 2011 match. In IM, for example, not only were there a handful of people with 12-15 ranks who didn't match, but the match rate was a surprisingly low 90% for those with 16 or more interviews. GS was pretty similar. Other specialties like EM and anesthesiology had close to 0 unmatched applicants with 15 or more interviews. I suspect that people who don't match with 15+ interviews are bad interviewees and ranking 5 more programs probably wouldn't help them.

If the dip in the match rate in IM and GS with very high numbers of interviews is real, it's probably because those people are a self selecting population.