Potential School List for poor performing allopathic student

[darkhope]

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Merovinge]

Despite all the talk of psychiatry getting more competitive, you will still do absolutely fine in the match, so start with a deep breath and then a sigh of relief. Apply broadly to the areas of the country you are interested in living in and provided you don't sell yourself like you did above you should be able to fill a dozen interviews. Now is the time to focus on why you want to do psychiatry and channel that passion into early M4 rotations along with getting good letters. When you get to interview day make sure you come across as someone willing to take the workload of residency and a socially normal person, that's about all folks are looking for.

Lastly, enjoy 4th year of medical school. It should be fantastic and is an appropriate reward for 3 presumably grueling years.

Edit: People might also mention but some California programs might be a bit difficult, but I wouldn't let that stop you from applying everywhere where you are interested in the program and living in that area.

 

[Psychotic]

Start with the end in mind: you want at least 10 interview invitations to end up with at least 8 you attend and rank. Your interview to application yield will likely be no better than 1:3. So roughly estimating you need to apply to, say, 30 programs to yield 10 interview offers (if you get a higher yield, great). You may be able to whittle that app list down if you have one super solid "safety" - anywhere you have nexus (home state programs, home town programs, programs connected to your undergrad institution, and of course your medical school).

Now here is the odd part: you can't always figure out which programs will extend an invitation to you based on the SDN "quality/status" opinions, particularly the so-called low tier programs. I was a statistically average applicant 2 years ago (i.e., a full notch above your stats and profile, but not exactly setting the world on fire), and I applied "broadly" yet I was shocked at some of the "low tier" programs that did not extend me an interview invitation, like USC-Greenville, for instance, yet I received invites from quality programs like Vandy, Duke, UNC, Emory, Wash U...but I got no love from "top tier" Cambridge, Pittsburgh, Northwestern, or any of the Big 4 in NYC.

FWIW, my yield of apps to invites was approx 3:4, but I applied broadly including about 1/4 top tiers and that is where I did not yield more than 1 or 2 interviews, with most of my success in the middle range I am discussing here.

Now the yield made perfect sense to me, but the only head scratchers to me were the low tier programs that turned up their nose at my app. My take on the reality is they know their place in the world, and know their applicant pool, and they know who is most likely to match at their program so they don't waste invitations or interview slots on applicants they don't think will either interview much less ultimately match at their program (i.e., people who view them as a "safety").

Don't waste time or money applying to top tier programs, at least not more than a couple, because you never know. Like in NYC: you don't have a chance at the top 4, but you might get interviews at places like SLR, Beth Israel, etc. Same thing in California: you have no chance at NPI, UCSF, UC Davis, or UCSD, but you probably have a good shot at Kiawah, SFV, etc. In other words, the vast majority of programs you apply to should be in the mid range. Look at UAB, Augusta, Maine, Hawaii, UNM, Dartmouth - these are your bread and butter programs, along with the others I menti0ned before (Vandy, etc).

Concentrate your apps on the broad middle range of programs, especially any programs where you have nexus, and don't waste time or money on more than a couple of the top tier programs, or the "top 20" or so that get bandied about here on SDN.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

Psychotic has this about right. Absolutely reach for some top programs, but don’t only do this. I’m guessing 1:3 is a ball park for interviews to programs applied, but if you shoot too high and neglect the more likely, this could go 1:10. Similarly, you can shoot for 10 interviews, go on and rank 8 and be fine, but if you only shoot high, 8 might be a little risky. If you list is more heterogeneous, 4 or 5 could be fine.

Most applicants are reasonably limited by invitations and budget to the right 8 or so for them. The formula for disaster is having strong grades, but interviewing poorly.

“I applied to 30 places and got invitations to 29! I think I will go to the best 8.” Then on match day,”Ooops”.

If you interview reasonably well and did reasonably well in school, your odds of matching near the top of your list is very high. Programs don’t interview a lot of people they are not interested in.

 

[Psychotic]

Most applicants are reasonably limited by invitations and budget to the right 8 or so for them.

I interviewed at 12 programs, and it was physically and financially tough; I "hit the wall" at 8 interviews, and really could have done without the last 3 or 4 programs I interviewed at.

The interview season is only so long (2 to 2.5 months), and if you are having to fly to interviews (more than half of mine involved flights), it is very hard to be on the top of your game and interview well at more than about 8 programs. Burnout sets in...scheduling more than one interview a week, unless they are in very close geog proxmity involving minimal car travel, is a recipe for burnout and poor interview performance, too.

Nonetheless, you will read on SDN reports of people interviewing at 20+ programs. That is just plain nutty to me, but what do I know? The match stats show that a high percentage of people (80+ percent IIRC) match at one of their top 3 ranked programs, so interviewing at and ranking more than about 8 programs seems like overkill for most applicants.

 

[wolfvgang22]

I was one of those nuts that interviewed at 20 programs. In retrospect, I didn't have too, I just enjoyed it and it got me out of most of my gastroenterology elective (seen 100 colonoscopies, seen 'em all...pass the KY, please....).
I got to meet a lot of great psychiatrists around the country, and it did help me later on having seen many places when I was looking at fellowship and then employment post-residency, so I don't regret it. It was a little expensive flying/driving around, but I like traveling around and meeting new people.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Now here is the odd part: you can't always figure out which programs will extend an invitation to you based on the SDN "quality/status" opinions, particularly the so-called low tier programs. I was a statistically average applicant 2 years ago (i.e., a full notch above your stats and profile, but not exactly setting the world on fire), and I applied "broadly" yet I was shocked at some of the "low tier" programs that did not extend me an interview invitation, like USC-Greenville, for instance, yet I received invites from quality programs like Vandy, Duke, UNC, Emory, Wash U...but I got no love from "top tier" Cambridge, Pittsburgh, Northwestern, or any of the Big 4 in NYC.

Maybe the really low tier programs are looking more for IMGs. Historically I think those programs often filled outside the match, even though that's less of an option (right?).

But yeah, an AMG who hasn't repeated any years or steps can go to a pretty OK program. OP, what about your home program as well? If that's almost a guarantee, that gives you more flexibility in looking at other places.

 

[splik]

the "lower tier" programs tend to be very small programs and so they interview far fewer people. as such they are more likely to interview people who they believe are likely to want to be there and rank them high enough to match there so they don't have to interview a ton of people.

 

[Psychotic]

Maybe the really low tier programs are looking more for IMGs. Historically I think those programs often filled outside the match, even though that's less of an option (right?).

I interviewed at Augusta, and I liked the program a lot, or I should say it exceeded my very low expectations; the city leaves a lot to be desired, but for someone with kids, it would be a great place to live (low cost of housing).

It is a program that often doesn't fill, and thus people assume something is "wrong" with it. To Splik's point above, the weird thing is that they only interview about 60 people (that was true 2 years ago, don't know if it is still the case). I didn't understand it, but it seems like they are pretty comfortable filling out the class with SOAPers - again, for most of the SDN crowd, that is a big negative. But the program is solid, certainly solidly in the broad middle of programs in my mind.

I ranked all 12 programs I interviewed at, and Augusta ended up in the dead middle and higher on my rank list than big name places like Duke and WashU...you never know until you interview at these programs and then rank them how you really feel about them. For me, Augusta was the most refreshing surprise on the trail.

My point: I would tell any weak to average applicant looking for an acceptable "safety" they would actually rank to apply to Augusta and give it a look. If you are a superstar applicant, they probably won't offer you an interview, though, and you aren't interested in it anyway. If you get the interview, and the place is at least acceptable, you have a very solid safety. Not sure if they still do it, but they paid for the hotel the night before, too, so it is a less expensive interview.

Augusta was one of my first interviews, and I felt so good about the place that it empowered me for the interviews that followed, gave me a ton of confidence. I still wish I had punted the last 3 or 4 interviews I attended, though, in January (miserable time of year to travel). With Augusta in my hip pocket, it turns out I only needed about 5 other interviews (per the way my rank list ended up).

 

[splik]

it sounds like it leaves a lot to be desired from what i have heard. very poor supervision, very poor therapy training, they do not even train residents psychodynamic psychotherapy and who wants to live in augusta, it's grim

 

[Psychotic]

it sounds like it leaves a lot to be desired from what i have heard. very poor supervision, very poor therapy training, they do not even train residents psychodynamic psychotherapy and who wants to live in augusta, it's grim

I don't think it is quite as bad as that. I talked to residents there and didn't get that grim picture of the program. The city itself is another matter...

And keep in mind I posted this in a thread for a self described "poor performing allo" applicant, looking for suggestions of where to apply. Augusta could be his "ace in the hole" safety program that allows him to aim higher for other apps. For above average and superstar applicants, they don't need Augusta and wouldn't waste their time with it.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

It is a program that often doesn't fill, and thus people assume something is "wrong" with it. To Splik's point above, the weird thing is that they only interview about 60 people (that was true 2 years ago, don't know if it is still the case). I didn't understand it, but it seems like they are pretty comfortable filling out the class with SOAPers - again, for most of the SDN crowd, that is a big negative. But the program is solid, certainly solidly in the broad middle of programs in my mind.

There's some sense there. SOAP supposedly has a few really strong candidates, so maybe a lower ranked program could get better people by SOAP than by the traditional interview method.

 

[Psychotic]

There's some sense there. SOAP supposedly has a few really strong candidates, so maybe a lower ranked program could get better people by SOAP than by the traditional interview method.

I met a resident who SOAPed into Augusta the year before me, a very sharp woman who attended NYU medical school. I didn't have the heart to ask "why" she had to SOAP, but you know, things go wrong for some folks in the Match, and not all of them are substandard candidates.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

Some SOAP applicants are people who didn't get into ortho. I believe they can change specialties, but I'm not sure.

 

[splik]

Some SOAP applicants are people who didn't get into ortho. I believe they can change specialties, but I'm not sure.

you can SOAP in any specialty not necessarily (and often isn't) the initial specialty one failed to match into. also some applicants register for the NRMP without a match list specifically to participate in the SOAP (typically IMGs who didn't interview anywhere or applied too late) and will just take whatever specialty they can get.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

That explains why some very fine applicants end up in SOAP. There are probably quite a few accidental psychiatrists out there.

 

[michiganpsych08]

I have a question and this is probably a very dumb question, but i'm just a lowly first year. Why is it so important to go to a TOP psychiatry program? or a top program in any speciality for that matter? I'm interested in psychiatry and I'm looking at programs in Florida and Texas so its only about 18 total between the 2 states that I can apply to and idk if some are top or not and so i don't know if that is a big deal or not...

 

[Psychotic]

I have a question and this is probably a very dumb question, but i'm just a lowly first year. Why is it so important to go to a TOP psychiatry program? or a top program in any speciality for that matter? I'm interested in psychiatry and I'm looking at programs in Florida and Texas so its only about 18 total between the 2 states that I can apply to and idk if some are top or not and so i don't know if that is a big deal or not...

There is a bias on this forum towards top name programs, academic psych, etc. Take it all with a grain of salt.

Since your focus is 2 states, you should extensively research each and every program. SDN is a pretty good resource, but again, there is a big city / coastal bias effect here - lots of discussion of northeast and west coast programs, and most of the country gets fairly short shrift. My program is almost never mentioned here, fwiw.

 

[michiganpsych08]

There is a bias on this forum towards top name programs, academic psych, etc. Take it all with a grain of salt.

Since your focus is 2 states, you should extensively research each and every program. SDN is a pretty good resource, but again, there is a big city / coastal bias effect here - lots of discussion of northeast and west coast programs, and most of the country gets fairly short shrift. My program is almost never mentioned here, fwiw.

thanks for responding, i guess SDN has me jaded. I understand from reading on here that some programs work you harder than most or bad hours, that makes sense. But I don't get why say NYU is any better than a community program if the goal is to be a psychiatrist. I guess it even makes sense if you want to do a fellowship, but if not what difference does it make!?

 

[GUH]

thanks for responding, i guess SDN has me jaded. I understand from reading on here that some programs work you harder than most or bad hours, that makes sense. But I don't get why say NYU is any better than a community program if the goal is to be a psychiatrist. I guess it even makes sense if you want to do a fellowship, but if not what difference does it make!?

IANAPsychiatrist, but from what I've heard, some training programs expose their residents to a broader range of pathology, some have better call schedules and working hours, and some have more extensive training in therapy and other modalities such as ECT.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

I think some programs put out better psychiatrists than others, but that isn’t always correlated to reputation. You are probably more right than wrong given the current job market; it almost doesn’t matter where you come from. Shooting for the best program you can is more of an internally driven need to be good at what you do. Looking for the best call schedule or lightest hours isn’t congruous with high quality training. In converse, high work volume doesn’t always mean quality learning environment. The flame under the pressure cooker needs to be carbureted with the right amount of teaching.