Matching At A Reach Program

[neolandrover]

I am curious about people who have matched at a program they thought were reaches for them; especially those who had certain parts of their application that may have been weaker (low USMLE scores, mediocre grades, red flags etc).

Were these parts of your application discussed during interviews? What do you think ended up being the deciding factor in making a program rank you high? Once you started training, did you find that these weaker parts of your application actually made a difference when comparing yourself to fellow residents?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[shan564]

If you look back at my old posts from before the application cycle, you'll see that I thought that WashU (where I eventually matched) was a reach for me because I was an IMG. In retrospect, I was being a bit hypercritical of my own application... I also had less of a "reach" feeling after I received invites from other programs with similar levels of competitiveness, which helped reassure me that I had better chances. The main shortcoming in my application was the fact that my CS score came in late - I emailed them to explain that, and I received an interview soon afterwards. PDs are human, so they'll understand when you have a reasonable explanation for something.

Your next few questions are actually quite insightful, so I'll answer them one at a time:

1. My application was discussed as a whole, but they focused more on my positive features than my negative features. That said, I didn't have any overt "red flags." Overall, I feel like they were more interested in asking me about my strengths than my weaknesses.

2. I didn't fully realize this at the time (I might have had a partial understanding of it), but I was a perfect fit for this program. My general outlook on things (life, medicine, psychiatry, science, academia, education, etc.) was very much in line with the program's overall philosophy. I learned this more and more as time went on, and every day, I feel like I ended up at the perfect place. People often assume that I came here because of the location (I grew up in St. Louis), but that was only a minor factor in my decision, and is also a minor factor in my opinion that I came to the right place.

3. I don't want to say anything about how I compare to fellow residents, since they're all great doctors and I wouldn't want to compare myself to them, but I don't think that I'm below average.

 

[notdeadyet]

I am curious about people who have matched at a program they thought were reaches for them; especially those who had certain parts of their application that may have been weaker (low USMLE scores, mediocre grades, red flags etc).

Were these parts of your application discussed during interviews? What do you think ended up being the deciding factor in making a program rank you high? Once you started training, did you find that these weaker parts of your application actually made a difference when comparing yourself to fellow residents?

The weak spot of my application was my Step 1. It was over 200, but well below national average for psychiatry applicants. My Step 2 wasn't much better.* The rest of my application was strong. I applied very broadly because of my Step 1, and to competitive programs (mostly west coast, a couple of which most folks would consider "top programs").

I was screened out at a couple of big name programs (I presume because of my Step 1, though frankly, they just may have not liked the looks of me), but invited to interviews at the rest. I did 10 interviews.

My Step 1 did not get mentioned at any of my interviews and I did not bring it up. I ended up at my #1 ranked program, which was a very competitive one that kindly overlooked my Step 1. My poor standardized test taking abilities did not seem to make a difference in residency. My program doesn't care about the PRITE (I did below the average on these for my programs, but around average nationally). I passed my Step 3 early without issues.

I sat on the residency selection committee in medical school and would offer this advice: your interview is your time to emphasize your strengths, not highlight your weaknesses (the advice isn't unique to residency interviews, by the way). If there is any ambiguity as to why you have a deficit, by all means address it, but don't draw attention to a weak spot unless you have an illuminating explanation. If you did poorly on your Steps, didn't honor psych, didn't have a great class rank, had poor pre-clinical grades, etc., there's not a whole lot you can say that will affect anything. On the other hand, if you have an unexplained year off, morality/ethics violation, etc., you should probably talk about these, because otherwise people may fear the worst. You have a short time to talk with people during your interview day: emphasize what an excellent psychiatrist you'll be and how you are excited about this program and look forward to contribute. Saying "I don't take test very well" would not have been helpful to me on my interview days.

* Pet peeve: when people ask What Are My Chances with a poor Step 1 and people give the advice to "Rock the Step 2." Aside from being fairly obvious advice, most people that do not do great on their Step 1 will not do great on the Step 2, barring unusual circumstances on their Step 1 day (the flu, dead dad, etc.). "Rock the Step 2" is the equivalent of telling your depressed patient to "cheer up." </soapbox>

 

[Monocles]

Would it be fair to say that once you've been invited to the interview, you're pretty much on equal footing with the other applicants? Or are there still "top-tier" applicants and "low-tier" applicants at the interview?

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

Bit of both, mostly the former unless you are very exceptional.

 

[notdeadyet]

Would it be fair to say that once you've been invited to the interview, you're pretty much on equal footing with the other applicants? Or are there still "top-tier" applicants and "low-tier" applicants at the interview?

There are definitely stronger and weaker folks invited to interview. An interview is only one piece used when determining ranking applicants by programs.

But the important take away is that if you are invited to interview a program thinks you would likely make a good resident there.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

...
* Pet peeve: when people ask What Are My Chances with a poor Step 1 and people give the advice to "Rock the Step 2." Aside from being fairly obvious advice, most people that do not do great on their Step 1 will not do great on the Step 2, barring unusual circumstances on their Step 1 day (the flu, dead dad, etc.). "Rock the Step 2" is the equivalent of telling your depressed patient to "cheer up." </soapbox>

Which is precisely why we tend to filter out those Step 1=198 applications that get submitted without a Step 2 score!
(I guess you could say that one of MY pet peeves is medical school deans that tell students to "wait" to either take or release their Step 2.)

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Which is precisely why we tend to filter out those Step 1=198 applications that get submitted without a Step 2 score!
(I guess you could say that one of MY pet peeves is medical school deans that tell students to "wait" to either take or release their Step 2.)

I thought the advice was only to wait if your step 1 score was high, and you could hurt yourself by having a lower step 2 score? Otherwise, that's just stupid. Not that that advice came from my school, which I think encouraged us to take step 2 early, but that's why you come to SDN -- the advice here is always better.

Although the grammar might not be -- I swear I know the difference between your and you're.