It is easy to say "quit whining," but there are many factors that go into why one might be upset with their match. I'm ultimately fine with where I am at, but I know people whose marriages are all but over because of their match results, individuals who have sick family that they know will pass away without their being present, etc etc. Not being upset with such circumstances and just shrugging them off would be a sign of pathology, if anything. Taking some time to process and cope with events that will have substantial negative impacts on your life is a normal thing to do, after which you can find a way to move forward and make the best of your circumstances.
Hard to keep a marriage going when you're both in residency almost 3,000 miles away from one another for three years minimum. Few relationships would survive such an arrangement. Hell, by the time you were done you'd basically be completely different people that hardly knew one another.
I guess I'm just far more cynical. Keeping any sense of love alive when you have, at max, three weeks per year to see one another if you time your vacations perfectly is pretty challenging. Sex holds a good deal of importance to most people as well. Throw in the stress of both people being in residency... Eh, I'd be shocked if half of such marriages survived, though it would likely be highly culturally specific. South and East Asian cultural values tend to be much more conducive to such arrangements (I knew a woman who lived in an entirely different continent from her husband for almost ten years), but in those with less strong cultural or religious upbringings, I'd bet things are pretty rocky.
Not surprising to hear given what I've seen on the pre-med/med student forums here...
And that DO bias among students perpetuates this to the GME level even amongst the most open minded. If the good students shy away from programs that let "those people in", it becomes real grounded or not. I think things are slowly becoming more even, but we have a ways to go
I made some posts on this topic about a month ago, including application # (you can get applicant data from ERAS and match data from NRMP). Maybe in this thread but I'm too lazy to search for it right now.
Psychiatry in the recent past went through a phase where programs outside of the ~top 10 probably didn’t see even a single applicant with a step score above 240. It’s just human nature to get lost in the hype when your specialty, which was recently so uncompetitive, becomes less so.
What I find even more interesting is the number of people who apply from each category and the number of people who actually submit rank lists. It's something like 90% US MD, 70% US DO, and 50% or less IMG. That means people with 1. no interviews or 2. didn't end up ranking psych (likely less common)
I mean, the empirical evidence points to it starting to move toward being mid-tier and also that, although the objective scores are not quite up to that level, the actual number of applicants per spot and unmatched students whose first choice specialty was psychiatry is rising significantly.
Honestly that's the norm, coming from someone who interviews for a top-10 program. Heck, I didn't think I wanted to do psych until late in 3rd year, myself.
Yes, I think the importance of having a long interest in psychiatry is a little overblown in the sense that it probably matters more for less competitive applicants (so that they can prove they're applying to psychiatry because they're actually interested in it, nor because they can't match into anything else), but less so for academically more competitive ones (good grades and scores, relatively high school rank, brand name medical school). It may seem somewhat unfair but, as they say, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and good medical students make good residents. In the big scheme of things it doesn't really matter how long you'very been interested in psychiatry, as long as you can apply your intelligence, strong work ethics and good study habits in residency.
Strongly disagree. The kinds of skills and aptitudes that are meaningful in education versus those that are meaningful in training are disparate. I personally would prefer not to train at a program that conflates the two, though many--if by no means all--do.
Just be able to talk about why you're interested in psych. Helps to have some semblance of career plans, an understanding of the field/the work, and at least one sub-I or non-core-rotation experience.
That was intentional. It was one of the 2 new programs that didn't interview for the match.
Sounds like you had a bad experience and I don't actually disagree about the part where some people might choose not to couples match. I would say that it doesn't inherently hurt or help overall. It also depends on whether you're matching same-specialty or different specialties.
I mean, you are, but it's not wrong to feel like you were denied something you had a very reasonable chance of attaining. You pointed out exactly what I was alluding to regarding mismatched couples applying in the same specialty. I would personally never recommend outing yourselves as coupled, in that case and pretty much for the reasons you pointed out.
You are conflating the process of couples matching with disclosing that you are couples matching. Couples matching always brings the stronger applicant down. The fact that your other half failed CS etc was what killed you, not the fact that you disclosed couples matching. Now it is true, like the example that you gave that a PD could be biased against your couples matching and rank you lower if they don't think you are going to end up there. There are some PDs who rank like this, but at most of the better programs they don't factor this in. In general, it is probably better to disclose couples matching than not to do so. Because of how the match works, you almost certainly still would not have matched if you had concealed couples matching since it was the fact that you were couples matching (inherently risky) that killed you, not the fact you disclosed it. In terms of couples matching into the same specialty, if both applicants are stellar parts of a power couples then it definitely makes sense to let people know about the couples matching since it's a win for the program to get a BOGO deal. if there is a wide difference between the two then it could go either way; on the one hand, the only way the weaker applicant may get an interview at better programs is because they are couples matching. on the other hand if you have no hope in hell of matching at the same program it may be reasonable not to disclose.
The one thing I'd nitpick is that OP is right that he would have matched with said programs assuming it's true that 1. they actually would have ranked him highly if he hadn't disclosed that he was couples matching with a weak partner and 2. his partner went unmatched. (Assuming they filled in his solo match list at the end of their coupled match list.)
I agree that high standardized exam scores don’t necessarily translate into being a good resident, but wouldn’t being hard-working, persistent, organized and responsible be desirable qualities both for students and workers in pretty much any field? I mean, I think I understand what you’re saying, and I’m sure doing well in residency takes more than acing multiple choice tests and being a smooth schmoozer with your evaluating attendings (which is apparently the leading factor in clinical grading at my school), but I believe there is also a substantial overlap in personal qualities between a good resident and a good student.
The couples match shouldn't hurt you if you build your list appropriately and rank every combination
There is no guarantee this was due to you disclosing a couples match. I know plenty of people with similar feedback that went unmatched this year. Psych was, forgive me for using the term, crazy.
