What if residency match process was applied to med school admissions

[Medwannabe123]

As a current applicant, I'm in favor of a med school match. The process should be modelled off the NRMP (I think @senecca proposal is too complicated and gameable). Students would submit their AMCAS and secondaries by Labor Day (as is currently advised) and do interviews August-January. Applicants and schools would make match lists. Match Day would be in March and there could be a SOAP for unmatched slots.

Rebuttals to common criticisms:

Diversity - Don't see why a match should prevent a school from building a diverse class. Schools could also choose who to interview and rank based on their mission statements.

Financial aid - I think financial aid is the hardest issue to resolve. My solution is for price transparency instead of very high sticker price with varying levels of financial aid. The current system of financial aid / scholarships doesn't seem consistent or fair. Fin aid shouldn't be based on applicants with many A's playing schools against each other while students with 1 A settle for negligible aid. Schools should compete for the lowest sticker price (like NYU and Kaiser) to get higher on an applicant's rank list. Around 70% of med students are taking out loans so I would argue that lower sticker price is better than a system where some get full rides and some pay full price.

Applicant choice- @cj_cregg Applicants under a match system would be able to rank schools based on their preference. Keep in mind that a large majority of applicants get into 0-2 schools. Applicants would no longer be able to brag about having a ton of A's but could at least brag about a ton of IIs.

The real advantage of a med school match is all applicant will know if they got into med school and where they're going by mid-March. Students who formerly got fall A's would be worse off. However, no one would be stuck on the waitlist through June and rejected applicants could start their re-application earlier. Adcoms wouldn't be worrying about their yields and could go on vacation April-July.

Thanks. This was the original thread and thanks for bringing us back. My vote is the same.

I think even financial aid can be a part of the match. Schools say what they offer. Students say what they want in the app.

There is too much engrained feelings about service attitude, mission fit etc etc. which an algo will not be able to.
Residency match has the same fit asks, but seems to work fine. Issue is residency match helps the institutions to find cheap labor so they like it.

Then I also respectfully read the input that one should have their own mission and not try to map to schools mission.
All very good, but believe me 100% of the students have one mission = A. They do not care about the schools mission. Anyone will do, specially those who fund them. So please.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cj_cregg]

As a current applicant, I'm in favor of a med school match. The process should be modelled off the NRMP (I think @senecca proposal is too complicated and gameable). Students would submit their AMCAS and secondaries by Labor Day (as is currently advised) and do interviews August-January. Applicants and schools would make match lists. Match Day would be in March and there could be a SOAP for unmatched slots.

Rebuttals to common criticisms:

Diversity - Don't see why a match should prevent a school from building a diverse class. Schools could also choose who to interview and rank based on their mission statements.

Financial aid - I think financial aid is the hardest issue to resolve. My solution is for price transparency instead of very high sticker price with varying levels of financial aid. The current system of financial aid / scholarships doesn't seem consistent or fair. Fin aid shouldn't be based on applicants with many A's playing schools against each other while students with 1 A settle for negligible aid. Schools should compete for the lowest sticker price (like NYU and Kaiser) to get higher on an applicant's rank list. Around 70% of med students are taking out loans so I would argue that lower sticker price is better than a system where some get full rides and some pay full price.

Applicant choice- @cj_cregg Applicants under a match system would be able to rank schools based on their preference. Keep in mind that a large majority of applicants get into 0-2 schools. Applicants would no longer be able to brag about having a ton of A's but could at least brag about a ton of IIs.

The real advantage of a med school match is all applicant will know if they got into med school and where they're going by mid-March. Students who formerly got fall A's would be worse off. However, no one would be stuck on the waitlist through June and rejected applicants could start their re-application earlier. Adcoms wouldn't be worrying about their yields and could go on vacation April-July.

Exactly - the large majority of applicants get into 0-2 schools. So most applicants will not benefit from a match system anyway in terms of likelihood of getting in somewhere, but the applicants who do have multiple accepts will lose an enormous amount of choice in where they go.

If the issue is purely just that y'all feel the cycle lasts too long, why not just change the dates in the traffic rules so the cycle is a different length? I feel like the current system is not necessarily unfair or anything like that, it's just that you guys don't like that it takes so long and you feel nervous?

 

[throwawayftw]

If the issue is purely just that y'all feel the cycle lasts too long, why not just change the dates in the traffic rules so the cycle is a different length? I feel like the current system is not necessarily unfair or anything like that, it's just that you guys don't like that it takes so long and you feel nervous?

You're right -- this is mostly motivated by how long the cycle takes. I think moving the dates on the traffic rules would be a start. Applicants could narrow down choices to one school by late February instead of late April and the "commit to enroll deadline" could be 90 days before matriculation instead of 21.

The issue is that the waitlist cascade takes a while. School A takes an applicant from School B who takes an applicant from School C who takes an applicant from School D who takes an applicant from School E who finally takes an applicant with no other acceptances. If you're giving each applicant 5 days to decide (2 days within 30 days of matriculation), this can drag on for a while. The advantage of a match is to automate this waitlist cascade.

 

[cj_cregg]

You're right -- this is mostly motivated by how long the cycle takes. I think moving the dates on the traffic rules would be a start. Applicants could narrow down choices to one school by late February instead of late April and the "commit to enroll deadline" could be 90 days before matriculation instead of 21.

The issue is that the waitlist cascade takes a while. School A takes an applicant from School B who takes an applicant from School C who takes an applicant from School D who takes an applicant from School E who finally takes an applicant with no other acceptances. If you're giving each applicant 5 days to decide (2 days within 30 days of matriculation), this can drag on for a while. The advantage of a match is to automate this waitlist cascade.

That's fair, but understand that the admissions process takes a long time because the admissions process takes a long time, not because schools want it to. I review apps for my alma mater, we (dozens of volunteers who are usually full time faculty or practicing physicians) review 5 apps a week from the day applications open until the last week we do interviews. The adcom (again, many of whom are volunteers with other full time jobs) meets weekly to review interviewed candidates and make final decisions/offers, revisit waitlisted candidates, etc. Even low ranked schools have literally thousands upon thousands of applications to go through...it SHOULD take a long time if every applicant is getting a fair and holistic review.

The waitlist cascade probably could be more efficient but I think changing the whole system causes more problems than it solves. And part of the reason that the waitlist cascade is inefficient is because unsurprisingly, it takes students a minute to make a decision that is going to completely change the next 4 years of their life.

 

[throwawayftw]

Very much agree that the admission process should take a while to review all applicants, but I honestly think it could be done a month or two quicker. After all, some large schools do review apps on an expedited timeline.

I don't think we should shorten how long applicants have to respond to a waitlist. I just think a match is a better solution.

 

[Haitch_Peetz]

You're right -- this is mostly motivated by how long the cycle takes. I think moving the dates on the traffic rules would be a start. Applicants could narrow down choices to one school by late February instead of late April and the "commit to enroll deadline" could be 90 days before matriculation instead of 21.

The issue is that the waitlist cascade takes a while. School A takes an applicant from School B who takes an applicant from School C who takes an applicant from School D who takes an applicant from School E who finally takes an applicant with no other acceptances. If you're giving each applicant 5 days to decide (2 days within 30 days of matriculation), this can drag on for a while. The advantage of a match is to automate this waitlist cascade.

I think moving the cycle up would also help. Shout out to everyone who got accepted with a late-cycle app, but the Fall/Winter deadlines for primaries mostly create false hope for applicants who didn't do enough research or preparation. If the influx of primaries and secondaries is 100% cut off by October/November, schools have a more solid idea of their applicant pool. If you open the apps up to start editing sooner, you could potentially even cut off primaries in July and secondaries in August/September.

Then of course you move the traffic deadlines up so it's not just even more extended, and try to have waitlist movement basically done by May.

If you want to start getting crazy, you could have all applicants conduct standardized interview sessions in the Fall that get recorded and sent out with interviewer notes to any school that's interested in that applicant, basically cutting out the interview season.

 

[cj_cregg]

Very much agree that the admission process should take a while to review all applicants, but I honestly think it could be done a month or two quicker. After all, some large schools do review apps on an expedited timeline.

I don't think we should shorten how long applicants have to respond to a waitlist. I just think a match is a better solution.

Not trying to be rude, but do you have any experience with how or how quickly medical schools "do" admissions? If not, how do you know it could be done any quicker? Which schools are reviewing apps on an expedited timeline?

The only realistic ways I see to actually shorten the length of the cycle is if applicants were restricted to applying to a certain number of schools (leading to less applicants per school, presumably) or if an enormous portion of the application review was automated, automatically screening out applicants with lower GPA/MCAT, IAs/legal issues, anybody below X number of hours for certain types of ECs without actually reviewing their app and giving them a real chance.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

The modern extreme focus on EC’s and mission fit is driving mediocrity. Now that is a separate debate. May be one day MCAT will meet the SAT fate. That will be pretty scary

How does the focus on EC's and mission fit drive mediocrity ? I don't agree at all. Choices of EC's, mission fit, MMI interviews, and other experiences are critical to evaluating future success in medical school.

You think some of the most highly qualified candidates are falling through the crack in the current process? I disagree, the current medical school application / acceptance process is more comprehensive and thorough than anything being proposed here. A super short admissions cycle will give less consideration to each applicant and result in more (not less) highly qualified candidates slipping through the cracks.

As far as using the match process as an alternative, heck, it's a long grueling process in its own right. Just because one state (TX in this case) does something doesn't make it right or best.

 

[Just D.O. it]

Residency match is okay by them bcos it’s a monopolistic process to ensure minimum wages. Not just non-grief !

No.... it's not. Residents being paid minimum wage is a function of market power. It has nothing to do with match or no match. The programs have a monopoly in that they gate access to a medical license and board eligibility. And due to the fact that there are plenty of people willing to take residency spots under the current conditions, residents have little bargaining power. Neither of these things are related to the match at all.

In fact, I would argue the match process is beneficial for all but the very cream of the crop medical students. The rules and restrictions prevent a lot of programs from extending offers to the highest quality applicants and then jerking around mid tier and low tier applicants for months until they are sure they need a back up for the slots they couldn't fill with their first choices. Its efficient and its a lot nicer to the applicant side of the market than the "regular" process likely would be.

 

[Just D.O. it]

1. Get rid of AMCAS. Every school goes back to a unique application.

You mean like secondaries.

I don't have any idea how its perceived on the adcom end, but for most of us students every school pretty much did have a unique application. Secondaries have their own portal, unique layouts, unique formats. In the undergraduate application world, this is what schools that don't use the "commonApp" use as an alternative. Medical schools use it as an "in addition to".

Many of them are much longer and more draining than the primary. Hell some even require you to relist most of the info from the primary presented to them in their preferred format.

At this point the AMCAS app is just to nicely arrange your options. If it went away I'm sure some of the more philanthropic posters here could put together a comprehensive and navigable list with links to the respective application portals, and I bet they might not even charge a $100 per school applied to for their trouble.

I do agree with the rest of your points, though. It's nice having access to those statistics.

 

[Medwannabe123]

No.... it's not. Residents being paid minimum wage is a function of market power. It has nothing to do with match or no match. The programs have a monopoly in that they gate access to a medical license and board eligibility. And due to the fact that there are plenty of people willing to take residency spots under the current conditions, residents have little bargaining power. Neither of these things are related to the match at all.

In fact, I would argue the match process is beneficial for all but the very cream of the crop medical students. The rules and restrictions prevent a lot of programs from extending offers to the highest quality applicants and then jerking around mid tier and low tier applicants for months until they are sure they need a back up for the slots they couldn't fill with their first choices. Its efficient and its a lot nicer to the applicant side of the market than the "regular" process likely would be.

Imagine if this is how every computer science major was matched. They will all get minimum wages too.

When you say residents have little bargaining power. It’s the same as what we are saying.

Why is it okay to yank around students and not residents?

 

[Medwannabe123]

How does the focus on EC's and mission fit drive mediocrity ? I don't agree at all. Choices of EC's, mission fit, MMI interviews, and other experiences are critical to evaluating future success in medical school.

You think some of the most highly qualified candidates are falling through the crack in the current process? I disagree, the current medical school application / acceptance process is more comprehensive and thorough than anything being proposed here. A super short admissions cycle will give less consideration to each applicant and result in more (not less) highly qualified candidates slipping through the cracks.

As far as using the match process as an alternative, heck, it's a long grueling process in its own right. Just because one state (TX in this case) does something doesn't make it right or best.

Just to make the discussion So you will be fine eventually mcat scores are dropped too. What we mean is that EC’s are fine, but that is what elongates the process. We need limits on subjective stuff.

I am sure you saw Elon’s tweet on SAT’s getting dropped.

 

[Medwannabe123]

You mean like secondaries.

I don't have any idea how its perceived on the adcom end, but for most of us students every school pretty much did have a unique application. Secondaries have their own portal, unique layouts, unique formats. In the undergraduate application world, this is what schools that don't use the "commonApp" use as an alternative. Medical schools use it as an "in addition to".

Many of them are much longer and more draining than the primary. Hell some even require you to relist most of the info from the primary presented to them in their preferred format.

At this point the AMCAS app is just to nicely arrange your options. If it went away I'm sure some of the more philanthropic posters here could put together a comprehensive and navigable list with links to the respective application portals, and I bet they might not even charge a $100 per school applied to for their trouble.

I do agree with the rest of your points, though. It's nice having access to those statistics.

Agreed.
How many times can one write the same stuff differently to fit 30 missions of the 30 colleges.

 

[Medwannabe123]

How does the focus on EC's and mission fit drive mediocrity ? I don't agree at all. Choices of EC's, mission fit, MMI interviews, and other experiences are critical to evaluating future success in medical school.

You think some of the most highly qualified candidates are falling through the crack in the current process? I disagree, the current medical school application / acceptance process is more comprehensive and thorough than anything being proposed here. A super short admissions cycle will give less consideration to each applicant and result in more (not less) highly qualified candidates slipping through the cracks.

As far as using the match process as an alternative, heck, it's a long grueling process in its own right. Just because one state (TX in this case) does something doesn't make it right or best.

Thinking differently why can it work for TX and not rest?

Yes 20% of the kids in top right of mcat and gpa don’t get thru. Bcos of yield, building a diverse class, so you will like your classmates who you meet for the first time anyway, some of who are 22-35 years etc etc. The reason they are in top right is bcos they have things in control, they have shown it. Unfair to say most of them are weirdo’s any more than the rest who did get picked. Either way why we need a system which gives 7 A’s to someone and 7 WL’s to another over 9 months of hell. We can do better. Give everyone 1 seat, apply SOAP, any variations and then whoever does not get in can try again. Adcom can still have the same time they need. It does not rule out diversity, finanace nothing. No point rolling admit 2-3 every week.

The resident match Algo won a Nobel prize way back. Todays technology can do 100’s time better than when it was developed. I am sure they update it and can easily adapt. AI engines today are so robust that much of the essay processing can be automated and scored.

Please folks let us keep an open mind. There are doctors all over the world who get admitted easier and stay successful.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Just to make the discussion So you will be fine eventually mcat scores are dropped too. What we mean is that EC’s are fine, but that is what elongates the process. We need limits on subjective stuff.

I am sure you saw Elon’s tweet on SAT’s getting dropped.

I pay little attention to Elon when it comes to things outside his business/technical lane. The world would be a better place if others did the same.

IMO, almost all, if not all, of the parameters / factors used today for medical school admission are relevant and should be retained. And I strongly support the continued use of GPA and MCAT. I would in fact add one thing, if not already considered, and that is the relative rigor of different undergraduate schools / programs. A 3.9 in biochemistry from UC Berkeley (for example) ain't the same as a 3.9 in Biochem from "middle of the road state college."

And, to me, the length of the existing process is fine --- it provides time for schools to thoroughly and comprehensively evaluate candidates. It works for the schools to get the students they feel are best for their program and I believe in a lot of cases it helps ensure accepted students are coming into a program where they are likely to fit well, succeed, and contribute to their class.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Thinking differently why can it work for TX and not rest?

Yes 20% of the kids in top right of mcat and gpa don’t get thru. Bcos of yield, building a diverse class, so you will like your classmates who you meet for the first time anyway, some of who are 22-35 years etc etc. The reason they are in top right is bcos they have things in control, they have shown it. Unfair to say most of them are weirdo’s any more than the rest who did get picked. Either way why we need a system which gives 7 A’s to someone and 7 WL’s to another over 9 months of hell. We can do better. Give everyone 1 seat, apply SOAP, any variations and then whoever does not get in can try again. Adcom can still have the same time they need. It does not rule out diversity, finanace nothing. No point rolling admit 2-3 every week.

The resident match Algo won a Nobel prize way back. Todays technology can do 100’s time better than when it was developed. I am sure they update it and can easily adapt. AI engines today are so robust that much of the essay processing can be automated and scored.

Please folks let us keep an open mind. There are doctors all over the world who get admitted easier and stay successful.

Sorry, I'm not surprised at all that about 20% of applicants in upper right GPA/MCAT corner don't get in. There's so much more to becoming a great doctor than a high GPA and MCAT. To me, that 20% number doesn't seem out of place at all.

A 3.97/521 applicant who can't write well, cannot articulate himself well in an interview, maybe has an LOR that suggests "he's very smart but needs to work on his people skills," and/or maybe has very limited clinical hours ? ----- no thanks.

Medicine is more than a technical / scientific endeavor. It's not like you put the CS guy in the back room to code. It's a people-facing occupation.

 

[chilly_md]

There are doctors all over the world who get admitted easier and stay successful.

Canadian residents would say otherwise. And most other countries are likely only marginally easier and dependent on very strong performance in high school with limited/no options for those who struggled at first in school.

 

[Med Ed]

You mean like secondaries.

I mean like paper that you have to fill in with a typewriter and then put in the mail.

 

[Kameha01]

So true. Yet some people here can't seem to understand the difference between a process that is essentially a job application process, and a process of applying to professional school.

I'm reminded of the people who come here every now and then seeking affirmation if their notions, rather than actual answers from people in the know.

Then I remember that people get dismissed from residency for being unteachable.

**** that's a thing?? People get dismissed from being unteachable? That's terrifying lmfao.

 

[Kameha01]

This is just my 2 cents from being an applicant this past cycle.

The process SUCKS. It's life draining, soul sucking, knowing that your life is in just limbo until a school makes a decision about your future. That agony of not knowing what's next was, for me at least, the most brutal part of the process.

My stats were the most mediocre of mediocre stats, but I had a specific theme and mission about my application, and that's how I prioritized the schools I'm applying to and why I think I got interviews at the specific schools I did. Thing is, there's only so much you can do with info you find online; the majority of what made me excited to each of the schools I interviewed at was the info sessions during the interview. Each of them spoke to me in a different way, and I could see how I could fit some part of their mission with my own.

Yes, a lot of their missions sound like the same fluff, but the thing is all of them have the same goal: To produce the outstanding physicians of tomorrow, so it makes sense that a lot of them are similar (Except for California Northstate )

The process was painful, and for many it will be just as/more painful, but it's worth the wait because I know that the place I'm going to has everything I'm looking for in an education

 

[Nontrad_FL_LGBT]

**** that's a thing?? People get dismissed from being unteachable? That's terrifying lmfao.

Being unteachable in any serious career means you're not going to get far. I'm a lead software engineer/instructor currently applying; by far the greatest indicator of success for young engineers is a willingness to be taught and coached, then continue self-teaching and learning as they progress.

Raw intellect doesn't matter at all if you're happy to stew in mediocrity because of low self-esteem about being corrected, arrogance, etc. We had to fire one kid who totally aced the interview process which was mainly technical in nature because he never listened to a single thing wiser and more experienced people told him and made little forward progress with improving his skills. He started out the best of the batch, but was soon surpassed by less naturally gifted people who put in the work and accepted the feedback.

 

[Kameha01]

Being unteachable in any serious career means you're not going to get far. I'm a lead software engineer/instructor currently applying; by far the greatest indicator of success for young engineers is a willingness to be taught and coached, then continue self-teaching and learning as they progress.

Raw intellect doesn't matter at all if you're happy to stew in mediocrity because of low self-esteem about being corrected, arrogance, etc. We had to fire one kid who totally aced the interview process which was mainly technical in nature because he never listened to a single thing wiser and more experienced people told him and made little forward progress with improving his skills. He started out the best of the batch, but was soon surpassed by less naturally gifted people who put in the work and accepted the feedback.

oh i sort of interpreted it as like being unteachable meant you had a hard time improving/being better regardless of effort. i didn't know it meant not willing to learn, sorry

 

[Fluidity of Movement]

Then I also respectfully read the input that one should have their own mission and not try to map to schools mission.
All very good, but believe me 100% of the students have one mission = A. They do not care about the schools mission. Anyone will do, specially those who fund them. So please.

It's more about students actually finding their own mission and then being able to cogently apply it to other schools'. It's not to imply that you should turn down a school because they care about research and you care about primary care, if you have only 1 acceptance.

This is kind of missing the point in that students don't think about their own mission and so they complain about "Mission Fit" because they just have some nebulous goal of "being a doctor" and here are the xyz experiences I've had that prove I'm ready for it.

 

[Fluidity of Movement]

Why is it okay to yank around students and not residents?

Pre-meds have no rights and are asking medical schools for the privilege of an advanced medical education.

If you were to invite someone into your house to live with you for 4 years wouldn't you want to exert as much control over screening who comes in?

This isn't a matter of fair--it's a matter of the schools are the ones who are making the decisions because it's THEIR school, and they have to do what THEY think is best to the prolonged success of the school and the future of the country since it's THEIR responsibility for training MOST of our doctors!

I think the gravity of their situation is just lost on so many people.


To specifically answer your question, residency is an entirely different ballgame. You are now (hopefully) dealing with professionals, doctors who are ready to work. The government funds residency and demands doctors. And the number of applicants isn't at a crazy high rate like in med school. And you don't have an entire admissions committee at residencies, it's what, the PD? They don't have thousands of applicants for literally every position. And every doctor NEEDS to match if at all possible.

 

[Fluidity of Movement]

I mean like paper that you have to fill in with a typewriter and then put in the mail.

 

[Medwannabe123]

Sorry, I'm not surprised at all that about 20% of applicants in upper right GPA/MCAT corner don't get in. There's so much more to becoming a great doctor than a high GPA and MCAT. To me, that 20% number doesn't seem out of place at all.

A 3.97/521 applicant who can't write well, cannot articulate himself well in an interview, maybe has an LOR that suggests "he's very smart but needs to work on his people skills," and/or maybe has very limited clinical hours ? ----- no thanks.

Medicine is more than a technical / scientific endeavor. It's not like you put the CS guy in the back room to code. It's a people-facing occupation.

Unsure if we can reach that conclusion. I would like to think they are in top right bcos they were actually fine. Certainly no worse that anyone else of us.

Wouldn’t use that reason.

I do appreciate your views.

 

[Medwannabe123]

This is just my 2 cents from being an applicant this past cycle.

The process SUCKS. It's life draining, soul sucking, knowing that your life is in just limbo until a school makes a decision about your future. That agony of not knowing what's next was, for me at least, the most brutal part of the process.

My stats were the most mediocre of mediocre stats, but I had a specific theme and mission about my application, and that's how I prioritized the schools I'm applying to and why I think I got interviews at the specific schools I did. Thing is, there's only so much you can do with info you find online; the majority of what made me excited to each of the schools I interviewed at was the info sessions during the interview. Each of them spoke to me in a different way, and I could see how I could fit some part of their mission with my own.

Yes, a lot of their missions sound like the same fluff, but the thing is all of them have the same goal: To produce the outstanding physicians of tomorrow, so it makes sense that a lot of them are similar (Except for California Northstate )

The process was painful, and for many it will be just as/more painful, but it's worth the wait because I know that the place I'm going to has everything I'm looking for in an education

So TRUE. No one who is already in the inside seems to be want to appreciate this feeling.

Hang in there. Persist. Play their game. Ace it.

 

[Medwannabe123]

Pre-meds have no rights and are asking medical schools for the privilege of an advanced medical education.

If you were to invite someone into your house to live with you for 4 years wouldn't you want to exert as much control over screening who comes in?

This isn't a matter of fair--it's a matter of the schools are the ones who are making the decisions because it's THEIR school, and they have to do what THEY think is best to the prolonged success of the school and the future of the country since it's THEIR responsibility for training MOST of our doctors!

I think the gravity of their situation is just lost on so many people.


To specifically answer your question, residency is an entirely different ballgame. You are now (hopefully) dealing with professionals, doctors who are ready to work. The government funds residency and demands doctors. And the number of applicants isn't at a crazy high rate like in med school. And you don't have an entire admissions committee at residencies, it's what, the PD? They don't have thousands of applicants for literally every position. And every doctor NEEDS to match if at all possible.

Your views are nice. I appreciate them.
BUT many many many of these schools are state funded by our tax dollars. It is NOT theirs. Most of the private ones run on endowments and donations by one of us who became way successful. So they can be a bit nicer to the students who make them famous.

 

[Medwannabe123]

Your views are nice. I appreciate them.
BUT many many many of these schools are state funded by our tax dollars. It is NOT theirs. Most of the private ones run on endowments and donations by one of us who became way successful. So they can be a bit nicer to the students who make them famous.

Talking of residency. First these establishments eat up from GME and make them work 80 hrs so they can again get thru more hoops during residency. Where is the money they make charging patients from the working residents go.

Please see the entire cycle of the end result on a patient. Utterly expensive services even after insurances. It is all about commerce and monopoly not about service, students, residents or doctors. We are all just cogs and doing what we need to move to the next step.

This thread was about reducing the complexity of the process.

 

[senecca]

Your views are nice. I appreciate them.
BUT many many many of these schools are state funded by our tax dollars. It is NOT theirs. Most of the private ones run on endowments and donations by one of us who became way successful. So they can be a bit nicer to the students who make them famous.

Very well said !! Not only that, the universities exist in the United States of America, not on independent planet. Their life depends on the country and its citizens. Education is about serving that community and not the other way , it is not a business endeavor. We as a country has a lot to learn from the rest of the world especially when it comes to education, healthcare etc.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Very well said !! Not only that, the universities exist in the United States of America, not on independent planet. Their life depends on the country and its citizens. Education is about serving that community and not the other way , it is not a business endeavor. We as a country has a lot to learn from the rest of the world especially when it comes to education, healthcare etc.

Medical schools certainly do serve the community. And to some extent it is indeed a business endeavor. If the schools and affiliated hospitals are not successful enough financially, including whatever government support they receive, they close. That's how things work in this country.

 

[Fluidity of Movement]

Your views are nice. I appreciate them.
BUT many many many of these schools are state funded by our tax dollars. It is NOT theirs. Most of the private ones run on endowments and donations by one of us who became way successful. So they can be a bit nicer to the students who make them famous.

I'm still getting the whole entitled student vibe so I don't really have anything else to add to this conversation at this point.

Public versus private is irrelevant. Pre meds are not treated not-nice. It's just an arduous process. Nothing in life worth doing is easy.

 

[Medwannabe123]

I agree. It is just two points of view between folks on the thread.

About the entitled part, the discussion is not about admission but about the administrative part of the process.

 

[theoceanman]

where is the vote ban button ughhhhh

how much longer are you going to keep trolling us. that's what the reddit is for.

It appears to be a typical 4Chan forum raider there.

I spent only three minutes and came up with this holistic + concise review of your system which could be over in 10-11 points:

1. Possible reduction in school choice: Limiting the number of schools that applicants can apply to in the first two rounds could limit their options and potentially force them to choose between schools they may not be as interested in attending.
2. Increased stress for applicants: The proctored essay writing and interview process could add to the stress and pressure of an already competitive application process, potentially disadvantaging applicants who perform well academically but struggle with standardized tests or public speaking / writing. (The writing portion of the MCAT was removed in 2015)
3. Reduced diversity: There is a risk that the proposed system could unintentionally disadvantage applicants from underrepresented groups who may not perform as well on standardized tests or interviews, leading to a less diverse applicant pool and student body.
4. Increased workload for admissions committees: With multiple rounds of applications and evaluations, the workload for admissions committees could increase significantly, potentially leading to longer wait times for applicants to hear back about their application status.
5. Lack of consideration for extracurricular activities: The proposed system does not explicitly consider an applicant's extracurricular activities, which can be an important factor in evaluating a candidate's potential for success in medical school.
6. Potential for gaming the system: Applicants may strategize to maximize their chances of being assigned to their top-choice schools in the final round, potentially leading to a less fair and equitable admissions process.
7. Need for infrastructure and resources: The proposed system would require significant infrastructure and resources to be put in place to manage the multiple rounds of evaluations, potentially leading to higher costs for both applicants and medical schools.
8. Limited opportunities for re-evaluation: With the proposed system, applicants may not have the opportunity to re-evaluate and improve their application materials between the first and second rounds of applications, potentially disadvantaging those who receive rejections in the first round.
9. Possible reduction in competitiveness: The system may lead to a reduction in competitiveness among applicants, as they may feel that their chances of being admitted to their preferred schools are higher with the multi-round system, leading to a potential decrease in the quality of applicants.
10. Delayed admissions process: The proposed system may lead to a longer admissions process overall, with multiple rounds of evaluations and waiting periods for applicants to hear back from schools, potentially delaying the start of medical school for successful applicants.
11. Limited impact on diversity: While the proposed system may aim to reduce bias and increase diversity, there is no guarantee that it will be successful in achieving these goals, particularly if the system still relies heavily on standardized test scores and interviews.

I ran out of witty things to say at the end here after my extensive copy and pasting of chatGPT

100% the best summary of everything.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

It's an interesting debate. And the bottom line is that there is no perfect system -- if there was, we'd probably use it. A match would fix some things. It would break others.

The match basically says this: if you got into every single program you applied to, what order would you want to go to them? And then it places you in your top ranked spot. One of the benefits of the match is that you will know, exactly to the minute, when you'll know where you are going. And it makes all of that waitlist shuffle go away.

Is that better? Maybe. Some people really like the idea of knowing exactly when you find out your results. But for others, it creates new problems. A match takes all of the emotion of an application cycle and concentrates it into a 5 minute period. Applicants develop what I call "lottery syndrome". I rarely buy a Powerball ticket -- usually when the jackpot is something enormous. When I buy the ticket, I know for certain that I am going to lose. The odds are 1:300 million or something like that. But then as the drawing gets close, I think "my numbers are just as good as anyone else's". I start dreaming of what I'd do with all that cash. I make plans. I think big. The drawing arrives - and I lose, and it's not even close. The same thing happens in the match. People become enamored with their #1 and #2 ranks. They see themselves there. They start looking for apartments online. And then the match happens, and not infrequently, their heart is broken.

As already mentioned, the biggest problem with a match is scholarships. This is partially fixable with a match -- let's say there were only 3 types of scholarships -- 100% support, 50% support, and 0% support. Applicants could then make a rank list of each school they interviewed at, with each of the three levels. One person might rank all schools with 100% support first deciding that scholarship was the most important thing. Someone else might rank Harvard at 0% #1, deciding that getting into HMS was most important and they were willing to pay for it. Schools could then rank applicants with one of the scholarship levels, and the match would assign you based on whether you agreed to that scholarship or better. It makes the whole process more complicated -- and even moreso if we have more than the three scholarship levels. But this ignores the problem that schools have some fixed pot of money to spend on scholarships. If they match too many people with high scholarships, then they won't be able to afford it. This type of system would skew towards schools ranking people without scholarships higher, likely.

Way up on the thread was the idea that everyone could be converted into a number using GPA, MCAT, and some standardized interview by the AAMC. The idea that your entire future in medicine would be decided by a single interview day seems like a very terrifying option. Some other countries do exactly that - perhaps without the interview. people with high GPA's and final exam scores basically pick where they want to go. This type of system generates exactly the types of problems you might expect -- kids from wealthier families tend to get better education and support and score higher. Also in many of these other countries medical school is free/subsidized, so cost isn't an issue.

Pick your poison. Live with the consequences.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Meant to comment on a couple of thoughts:

The resident match Algo won a Nobel prize way back. Todays technology can do 100’s time better than when it was developed. I am sure they update it and can easily adapt.

Not quite sure what you think the match can adapt to, it's an algorithm that "works" and not sure how you think it could be better

AI engines today are so robust that much of the essay processing can be automated and scored.

If that's the case, then AI can just write the essays also - since they will know what will get a good score

And you don't have an entire admissions committee at residencies, it's what, the PD? They don't have thousands of applicants for literally every position.

O really? Many programs receive 2000+ applications. If we spend at least 15 minutes looking at each application, that's 500 hours of time. If a single person tried to do that, 10 hours a day, that's 50 days - which is 10 work weeks of doing nothing but reading applications. If a committee does it, it could still come down to 2 weeks of 100% effort per person -- and all of those people have clinical jobs to do also.

 

[Medwannabe123]

It's an interesting debate. And the bottom line is that there is no perfect system -- if there was, we'd probably use it. A match would fix some things. It would break others.

The match basically says this: if you got into every single program you applied to, what order would you want to go to them? And then it places you in your top ranked spot. One of the benefits of the match is that you will know, exactly to the minute, when you'll know where you are going. And it makes all of that waitlist shuffle go away.

Is that better? Maybe. Some people really like the idea of knowing exactly when you find out your results. But for others, it creates new problems. A match takes all of the emotion of an application cycle and concentrates it into a 5 minute period. Applicants develop what I call "lottery syndrome". I rarely buy a Powerball ticket -- usually when the jackpot is something enormous. When I buy the ticket, I know for certain that I am going to lose. The odds are 1:300 million or something like that. But then as the drawing gets close, I think "my numbers are just as good as anyone else's". I start dreaming of what I'd do with all that cash. I make plans. I think big. The drawing arrives - and I lose, and it's not even close. The same thing happens in the match. People become enamored with their #1 and #2 ranks. They see themselves there. They start looking for apartments online. And then the match happens, and not infrequently, their heart is broken.

As already mentioned, the biggest problem with a match is scholarships. This is partially fixable with a match -- let's say there were only 3 types of scholarships -- 100% support, 50% support, and 0% support. Applicants could then make a rank list of each school they interviewed at, with each of the three levels. One person might rank all schools with 100% support first deciding that scholarship was the most important thing. Someone else might rank Harvard at 0% #1, deciding that getting into HMS was most important and they were willing to pay for it. Schools could then rank applicants with one of the scholarship levels, and the match would assign you based on whether you agreed to that scholarship or better. It makes the whole process more complicated -- and even moreso if we have more than the three scholarship levels. But this ignores the problem that schools have some fixed pot of money to spend on scholarships. If they match too many people with high scholarships, then they won't be able to afford it. This type of system would skew towards schools ranking people without scholarships higher, likely.

Way up on the thread was the idea that everyone could be converted into a number using GPA, MCAT, and some standardized interview by the AAMC. The idea that your entire future in medicine would be decided by a single interview day seems like a very terrifying option. Some other countries do exactly that - perhaps without the interview. people with high GPA's and final exam scores basically pick where they want to go. This type of system generates exactly the types of problems you might expect -- kids from wealthier families tend to get better education and support and score higher. Also in many of these other countries medical school is free/subsidized, so cost isn't an issue.

Pick your poison. Live with the consequences.

Poison it is !

A process which runs for one year, which does not finish even when the next cycle is already starting and gives you a free roller coaster ride for one year is very draining compared to waiting for the lottery day !

I wish everyone the best.

 

[Fluidity of Movement]

O really? Many programs receive 2000+ applications. If we spend at least 15 minutes looking at each application, that's 500 hours of time. If a single person tried to do that, 10 hours a day, that's 50 days - which is 10 work weeks of doing nothing but reading applications. If a committee does it, it could still come down to 2 weeks of 100% effort per person -- and all of those people have clinical jobs to do also.

 

[Medwannabe123]

It seems the issues in our discussion are being felt elsewhere also. This below is for under grad admissions.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/4/19/23689402/college-admissions-lottery-ivy-league


Quote:
“
At the same time, the financial cost and emotional stress of the elite college admissions race is increasingly seen as a significant factor in the adolescent mental health crisis. As Surgeon General Vivek Murthy told the Los Angeles Times recently, college admissions has young people “weighed down by tremendous pressure that is affecting their mental health and well-being.”
“
Unquote

 

[chilly_md]

I stopped reading when they said no spots for student athletes.

That would have meant no Sweet 16 run for Princeton this year!

 

[Fluidity of Movement]

By popular demand, here is the opposite of the other one, this is the PD that spent TOO MUCH time looking at your app: