Program ranking decisions

[misoprostol]

So it sounds like applicants should be ranking programs based on where they would like to see themselves, regardless of how the interview went.

However, I'm a little in the dark on how programs decide to rank applicants. There has been a lot of mention of the best "fit." Do you think programs will rank applicants based on how they think you will rank them? I am asking about this in specific circumstances i.e. applicants that are considered neck-to-neck in other regards.

And more generally, what do you think influences a program's decision to rank versus not rank an interviewee? Do programs have a predetermined set number of applicants they decide to rank before interviews?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[projektreverb]

The biggest piece of advice I have for you when ranking is this: if you have the slightest doubt of being able to make it a year at a site, DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT rank them.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

There are several posts on here about how the match works in the applicant's favor.

Do not rank your less desired program higher because you "feel'" you interviewed well- you have no idea what you are graded on nor how others interviewed relative to you.

Also echo the above- don't rank a program you can't see yourself at >40 hours/week for a year.

 

[Papichulooo_92]

As a current resident.

My advice is to rank things the way YOU want THEM. Do not anticipate the way they will rank you as you may have heard or read a million times.

Second advice, which I agree with Rockinacoustic - only put it down if you see yourself there >40hrs per week.

The third piece of advice is VERY controversial but a real topic many people want to not talk about and come to terms with. Its answer is dependent upon your inner gut feeling and personal situation - which i understand would not be the same answer for everyone. You need to ask yourself "how bad do you want it (to be a resident)?". Some may be faced with the decision of would you rather be a resident at a 'not your top choice' or to not be a resident at all? . Would your ambition/drive be enough to pull you through a year of a tough position? (i.e. program with a harsher staffing requirement, the structure is not favorable, location issue far away from your home city). The anticipated rebuttle's are "then why do it if its really not a good program? or; is it really worth it at this point?. Again, the answer to all that is a personal one. Personally, like everyone always says "programs are what you make them" and the end result is graduating the program with the certificate of completion. The deciding factor is you and your drive to get you from A to B. My food for thought.

 

[misoprostol]

Thank you all. I understand that one should be ranking programs based on their preferences. My question had more to do with how programs decide to rank candidates, purely for curiosity's sake.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

We rank as many people as we feel would be a great resident.

"Fit" works both objectively and subjectively. You could be the nicest person in the world, but if you are weak clinically you won't be a good "fit" at our program. Alternatively you could be the smartest person in the interview but if you have a boring personality you won't "fit" either.

 

[misoprostol]

How would you define 'weak clinically?' It sounds like many/most programs value 'personality' over clinical knowledge displayed during the interview, as clinical knowledge can be taught. Where is/do you think this line drawn between a teachable candidate versus a clinically weak one?

 

[Lebanesepharmacist]

We rank as many people as we feel would be a great resident.

"Fit" works both objectively and subjectively. You could be the nicest person in the world, but if you are weak clinically you won't be a good "fit" at our program. Alternatively you could be the smartest person in the interview but if you have a boring personality you won't "fit" either.

You can’t know how much a candidate has ‘clinical knowledge’ based on ONE case. A person could be the most knowledgeable but not about the case they got. I think personality carries more weight than knowledge. They’re not equal.

 

[rx25295]

You can’t know how much a candidate has ‘clinical knowledge’ based on ONE case. A person could be the most knowledgeable but not about the case they got. I think personality carries more weight than knowledge. They’re not equal.

They didn't say they were equal, but to assume it's not a part of the rank is stupid - why would we bother to give you a case if to just ignore it? Even if you don't know the answers, you can give your thinking process, or indicate how you would go about finding the answer.

 

[KidPharmD]

The cases we give students are less about "knowledge" and more about clinical thinking skills. You may not have all the answers, but you can show that you know how to think about a patient.

"Fit" or personality and clinical skills both play a role. Regardless, don't worry about how programs rank you or why they made that choice. You can't change it and it will just stress you. It also doesn't matter when it comes to how you fill out your rank form.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

You can’t know how much a candidate has ‘clinical knowledge’ based on ONE case. A person could be the most knowledgeable but not about the case they got. I think personality carries more weight than knowledge. They’re not equal.

We don't base clinical acumen on one question, and we don't base personality or "soft skills" on one question.

 

[njac]

How would you define 'weak clinically?' It sounds like many/most programs value 'personality' over clinical knowledge displayed during the interview, as clinical knowledge can be taught. Where is/do you think this line drawn between a teachable candidate versus a clinically weak one?

Those clinical questions/cases in your interview? We care. We don’t have time to teach you what covers MRSA and pseudomonas.

The questions usually cover what we can reasonably expect a pharmacy student to know. But if one hasn’t absorbed those things, 12 months isn’t long enough to teach everything else, and likely indicates a lack of intellectual curiosity that we need in a successful resident.

 

[californiabear_102]

For the program I had planned on ranking #1, the entire interview went very well with exception of the clinical panels (which was 50% of the interview). I know we are supposed to rank based on our preference, but it seems like a waste ranking your top program highly if you know you did not perform well clinically, especially when it was 50% of the interview score.

There are other programs that I performed well in all areas/connected with interviewers better/and also liked the program a lot...but I was planning on ranking these #2 or #3 since the #1 program has always been my dream program despite the interview not going well I'm just wondering if its even worthwhile still ranking by my preference in this situation.

 

[dextroam11]

For the program I had planned on ranking #1, the entire interview went very well with exception of the clinical panels (which was 50% of the interview). I know we are supposed to rank based on our preference, but it seems like a waste ranking your top program highly if you know you did not perform well clinically, especially when it was 50% of the interview score.

There are other programs that I performed well in all areas/connected with interviewers better/and also liked the program a lot...but I was planning on ranking these #2 or #3 since the #1 program has always been my dream program despite the interview not going well I'm just wondering if its even worthwhile still ranking by my preference in this situation.

Whether u did well or not on the interview, still rank ur fav program #1. Even if ur #1 program hated you and did not rank you, you have nothing to lose. In this case, ur #2 program automatically becomes ur #1 (as if you have never ranked ur fav program)... since the matching works on your favor.

 

[rx25295]

For the program I had planned on ranking #1, the entire interview went very well with exception of the clinical panels (which was 50% of the interview). I know we are supposed to rank based on our preference, but it seems like a waste ranking your top program highly if you know you did not perform well clinically, especially when it was 50% of the interview score.

There are other programs that I performed well in all areas/connected with interviewers better/and also liked the program a lot...but I was planning on ranking these #2 or #3 since the #1 program has always been my dream program despite the interview not going well I'm just wondering if its even worthwhile still ranking by my preference in this situation.

That’s not how the match works, I’d recommend researching it. Rank based on where you feel you fit best, period.


Is there an echo in here ?