dear class of 2012

[Reductio]

Nah. Boards weigh in heavily.

Even stellar LORs from big names within the hospital/program you're applying doesn't matter as much. Boards and sometimes the school you come from can make quite a bit of difference.

PDs like to say "this is what I want" and name those 3, but that's just interview-day fluff.

Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying - ...

See gutonc's response above.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cowme]

The 20 minute interview is then left to determine if the applicant is a sociopathic d-bag or not (which is point 3).

Lol. The interview is hardly another screening process. Most programs openly say its the most important aspect for matching once granted an interview. Sure, it can definitely kill your chances if you are that bad, but that probably happens to 2% of people. But you are just a decent interview/nice guy that doesn't blow anyone away (most of us probably fall into this category), its no guarantee that you will match at your #1.

 

[Reductio]

Lol. The interview is hardly another screening process. Most programs openly say its the most important aspect for matching once granted an interview. Sure, it can definitely kill your chances if you are that bad, but that probably happens to 2% of people. But you are just a decent interview/nice guy that doesn't blow anyone away (most of us probably fall into this category), its no guarantee that you will match at your #1.

Depends on the program - some just use it to screen out personality problems... others use it as the major determinant in matching after being granted an interview. I found out that one of the places I had interviewed at for residency had made their ROL list prior to the interviews. The interview was really just to un-rank the sociopaths.


One of those NRMP surveys of PDs found that overall, Interviews serve to un-rank ~10% of interviewees.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Lol. The interview is hardly another screening process. Most programs openly say its the most important aspect for matching once granted an interview. Sure, it can definitely kill your chances if you are that bad, but that probably happens to 2% of people. But you are just a decent interview/nice guy that doesn't blow anyone away (most of us probably fall into this category), its no guarantee that you will match at your #1.

From a few programs I'd rotated at, I was told there are enough programs out there that have made up their minds prior to the interview, with the interview being there to screen out the D-bags/clueless/unprepared/shy, etc. peeps.... so, if that's what Gutonc's getting at, I agree with what he says.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Depends on the program - some just use it to screen out personality problems... others use it as the major determinant in matching after being granted an interview. I found out that one of the places I had interviewed at for residency had made their ROL list prior to the interviews. The interview was really just to un-rank the sociopaths.


One of those NRMP surveys of PDs found that overall, Interviews serve to un-rank ~10% of interviewees.

Exactly.

Also, since I'm quoting your post, my bad on the misunderstanding earlier.

 

[bluntdissector]

The stats of the USMLE results are confusing because we tend to look at as something it is not.

There isn't actually a sample which, through inference, can tell us something about the population. And so on. So the usual things don't work well. Furthermore, the test score isn't a raw 220/x for example, but already involves some manipulation such that 200 means more or less the same this year as in 2006, even though the questions are entirely different. Rather, the USMLE is a test which assigns a number to your performance, and that number is a measure of how you performed relative to recent US/Can grads, all of which is corrected in a way that the scores point to a similar level of competence over different testing periods.

As such,the SD just tells us the distribution of the recent group to which you are being compared. It is (largely) irrelevant when comparing two candidates, unless you want to get a rough idea of the percentile their score represents.

As aPD mentioned, the standard arror is important, but this is a bit different from the standard error of a sample of measurements etc etc. As aPD said, this represents the interval around your score for which the USMLE-peeps are 95% confident you belong. If the two intervals of candidates overlap, THEN there is no real difference between their results. If they fall within the same standard deviation from the mean, it does NOT mean that they are not significantly different in their ability to perform on the USMLE!

This old post is helpful: http://mydominanthemisphere.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/usmle-scores-debunking-common-myths/

 

[Reductio]

As such,the SD just tells us the distribution of the recent group to which you are being compared. It is (largely) irrelevant when comparing two candidates, unless you want to get a rough idea of the percentile their score represents.

As aPD mentioned, the standard arror is important, but this is a bit different from the standard error of a sample of measurements etc etc. As aPD said, this represents the interval around your score for which the USMLE-peeps are 95% confident you belong. If the two intervals of candidates overlap, THEN there is no real difference between their results. If they fall within the same standard deviation from the mean, it does NOT mean that they are not significantly different in their ability to perform on the USMLE!

This old post is helpful: http://mydominanthemisphere.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/usmle-scores-debunking-common-myths/

Ah, THAT sounds familiar. I also remember reading somewhere that your percentile rank can be calculated from your three-digit score, but NOT your two-digit score.

 

[gutonc]

I also remember reading somewhere that your percentile rank can be calculated from your three-digit score, but NOT your two-digit score.

That's just basic statistics. Of course this assumes a normal Gaussian distribution of the data (which is a reasonable but not absolutely correct assumption). Also, the data you get on your score report (mean and std dev) are for "recent administrations" not the one you actually took. So you can certainly calculate a percentile rank, just not your actual percentile rank.

 

[Reductio]

That's just basic statistics. Of course this assumes a normal Gaussian distribution of the data (which is a reasonable but not absolutely correct assumption). Also, the data you get on your score report (mean and std dev) are for "recent administrations" not the one you actually took. So you can certainly calculate a percentile rank, just not your actual percentile rank.

Oh right.... my bad..

Mean ~ 220 ~ 50%ile
1σ ~ 240 ~ 84%ile
2σ ~ 260 ~ 97%ile

more or less

 

[cowme]

From a few programs I'd rotated at, I was told there are enough programs out there that have made up their minds prior to the interview, with the interview being there to screen out the D-bags/clueless/unprepared/shy, etc. peeps.... so, if that's what Gutonc's getting at, I agree with what he says.

I'm sure some programs do this. But for the programs that have 6-8 separate interviews in one day (fairly common in rads), I highly doubt they would invest that much time simply to screen out the bottom 5-10% weirdoes. Several programs even directly said that their ROL is based ENTIRELY on interviews.

 

[24IdaFire]

The Match is a year long process where everybody lies to each other.

 

[sanityonleave]

The Match is a year long process where everybody lies to each other.

I've had several relationships that fit this description, so hopefully the match won't be too much of a shock.

 

[Shufflin]

Thank you for posting this. It's all very helpful. Big thanks - will be an exciting application year.