Why not make lists public after rank day?

[HumbleMD]

So I tend to be a pro-transparency, pro-information person. Waiting neurotically for the past week, I've been wondering why the NRMP doesn't make everyone's lists public, or at least, make where I ranked programs available to them (given they ranked me), and vice-versa. Conceivably, if I ranked a program my #1, and they ranked me to match, I'd know where I was headed, without the match algorithm or the 3 weeks of QC that are required. I understand not everyone would gain much information, but some could learn where they were going (or absolutely not going), and others could at least use it as feedback for their interview performance. At very worst, it would make people a little more honest in this process.

Am I missing something huge as to why this couldn't or wouldn't be done? They always say sunlight is the best disinfectant...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jcu]

That's an interesting thought. But if the NRMP released your number 1 program's ROL to you and vice versa, that information alone may or may not help with the neuroticism. Though many applicants who are RTM would surely sigh a breathe of relief, those who aren't wouldn't be able to infer their match status without seeing every other applicant's ROL. And making that globally available defeats the purpose of anonymity for most applicants. I certainly wouldn't want anyone else other than myself knowing (or extrapolating) that I matched at my no. 10. Though I absolutely agree it would make the process more honest, it might create unnecessary chaos and panic for many.

 

[rad0nc]

So I tend to be a pro-transparency, pro-information person. Waiting neurotically for the past week, I've been wondering why the NRMP doesn't make everyone's lists public, or at least, make where I ranked programs available to them (given they ranked me), and vice-versa. Conceivably, if I ranked a program my #1, and they ranked me to match, I'd know where I was headed, without the match algorithm or the 3 weeks of QC that are required. I understand not everyone would gain much information, but some could learn where they were going (or absolutely not going), and others could at least use it as feedback for their interview performance. At very worst, it would make people a little more honest in this process.

Am I missing something huge as to why this couldn't or wouldn't be done? They always say sunlight is the best disinfectant...

Or they could just release the match results right away, as my smart pfone could certainly run the algorithm in under a minute.

 

[atethesun]

Agreed about the time it takes for them to release the results. Why does it take a month to do it when the computational power we have today can probably do it in mere hours if not days.

 

[Mortal_Lessons]

Yeah - this waiting is so obnoxious - especially for those of us without guarantees about ranked-to-match. I'm unable to get any work done...

 

[HumbleMD]

Agreed about the time it takes for them to release the results. Why does it take a month to do it when the computational power we have today can probably do it in mere hours if not days.

I can't remember if the algorithm is run in a couple of hours, or a couple of days. Regardless, the remainder of the time is spent in countless computer and hand quality checks, to ensure everything is accurate.

 

[gman33]

You'd be surprised by how many things that go wrong when you try to run any large amount of data thru a computer. I used to do this for a living and things usually took a lot longer than you would guess otherwise.

You need time to QC the results.

I'm sure they could release the results without doing this, but do you want to be the guy who doesn't match because there was some irregularity in the data in your rank list?

 

[gutonc]

You'd be surprised by how many things that go wrong when you try to run any large amount of data thru a computer. I used to do this for a living and things usually took a lot longer than you would guess otherwise.

You need time to QC the results.

I'm sure they could release the results without doing this, but do you want to be the guy who doesn't match because there was some irregularity in the data in your rank list?

^This^ is why it takes 3 weeks.

I say this every year, but in 2005, the AUA (urology) match got completely fu><><0re3d when they apparently did this (i.e. didn't appropriately hand check or QC the results) which resulted in HMS grads with 260+, AOA and PhDs not matching while FMGs with 190s on all 3 steps were matching at Hopkins etc. Turns out, somebody entered the program ROLs backwards which would have been easily discovered if they'd pulled 10 program ROLs and checked them against what the programs actually entered.

Trust me...you don't want it to be run the other way.

 

[gasblaster]

^This^ is why it takes 3 weeks.

I say this every year, but in 2005, the AUA (urology) match got completely fu><><0re3d when they apparently did this (i.e. didn't appropriately hand check or QC the results) which resulted in HMS grads with 260+, AOA and PhDs not matching while FMGs with 190s on all 3 steps were matching at Hopkins etc. Turns out, somebody entered the program ROLs backwards which would have been easily discovered if they'd pulled 10 program ROLs and checked them against what the programs actually entered.

Trust me...you don't want it to be run the other way.

Just curious. But what did the AUA end up doing? Nothing?

 

[Green Grass]

The match algorithm takes ~10 minutes to run. I read it in a newspaper article recently. I will look for the link.

 

[atethesun]

^This^ is why it takes 3 weeks.

I say this every year, but in 2005, the AUA (urology) match got completely fu><><0re3d when they apparently did this (i.e. didn't appropriately hand check or QC the results) which resulted in HMS grads with 260+, AOA and PhDs not matching while FMGs with 190s on all 3 steps were matching at Hopkins etc. Turns out, somebody entered the program ROLs backwards which would have been easily discovered if they'd pulled 10 program ROLs and checked them against what the programs actually entered.

Trust me...you don't want it to be run the other way.

that must be horrifying

 

[Cathyran]

Just curious. But what did the AUA end up doing? Nothing?

I would also be interested to hear the answer to this.

 

[jcu]

Turns out, somebody entered the program ROLs backwards which would have been easily discovered if they'd pulled 10 program ROLs and checked them against what the programs actually entered.

Wait, what? How can a ranked list from say 1-10 be entered backwards? Doesn't the algorithm do the work after the applicants and respective programs enter their ROLs? Was it the algorithm that mucked up or an actual person?

 

[Green Grass]

They basically re-ran the match algorithm after the results had been delivered to the applicants. Some people who matched the first go-round did not the second time. That's rough!

 

[gutonc]

Just curious. But what did the AUA end up doing? Nothing?

They recalled the results, ran it again, hand checked the new results and sent them out 2 or 3 days later.

 

[gutonc]

Wait, what? How can a ranked list from say 1-10 be entered backwards? Doesn't the algorithm do the work after the applicants and respective programs enter their ROLs? Was it the algorithm that mucked up or an actual person?

The AUA match is much smaller and, at the time at least, relied much more on human intermediaries to translate lists from one system to another.

But don't think that just because the almighty computer is doing it that it will all magically be sunshine and puppies.

 

[rad0nc]

The match algorithm takes ~10 minutes to run. I read it in a newspaper article recently. I will look for the link.

I find it really hard to believe that such a simple algorith takes 10 minutes, of course it could be run on a UNIVAC.

 

[drizzt3117]

My brother's then-chief was allegedly one of the people who helped set the investigation in motion. She was called by her #1 program (where she eventually ended up) and called and told she was ranked to match, and apparently had built up a great rapport with the PD and other faculty. After the initial match she ended up matching at her #2. Supposedly she wrote a kind of sad email to the then PD saying "I really wanted to be at your program, I thought you guys really liked me, but i guess I'll ne happy at program B" and received a very short, brusque email from the PD saying "yeah, bye" or something (I guess they'd ranked her #1 and was pissed when she matched, thinking she lied and didn't rank them #1 when she said she would). She thought the whole thing was weird and emailed the PD back saying "I might be totally off-base, but I ranked you #1 and not program b; is there any way it's a mistake?" and received, "After getting your email we just emailed the AUA, they're looking into it.".

From what he said, it wasn't like reversed or messed up such that people matched at programs not on their list, but only like 30% of people had their match affected and only 5% had match/not match affected so it might not even been noticed they not investigated, I think the majority of people had acceptable (if not correct) results. Makes you wonder if it's ever happened in the past in the nrmp or other matches

 

[gman33]

The match algorithm takes ~10 minutes to run. I read it in a newspaper article recently. I will look for the link.

Even if that is the case, which it might be, the results need to be verified.
That's what takes time.

 

[Bitterman]

^This^ is why it takes 3 weeks.

I say this every year, but in 2005, the AUA (urology) match got completely fu><><0re3d when they apparently did this (i.e. didn't appropriately hand check or QC the results) which resulted in HMS grads with 260+, AOA and PhDs not matching while FMGs with 190s on all 3 steps were matching at Hopkins etc. Turns out, somebody entered the program ROLs backwards which would have been easily discovered if they'd pulled 10 program ROLs and checked them against what the programs actually entered.

Trust me...you don't want it to be run the other way.

That doesn't make sense. Why would programs even interview those FMGs, let alone rank them.

Maybe you're being sarcastic and used "FMGs with 190s" to imply less competitive AMGs. In that case i fail at at sarcasm.

 

[K31]

As long as there is appropriate QC done, I don't see the point of releasing rank lists. It's not going to change the outcome but will result in lots of hurt feelings.

That doesn't make sense. Why would programs even interview those FMGs, let alone rank them.

Maybe you're being sarcastic and used "FMGs with 190s" to imply less competitive AMGs. In that case i fail at at sarcasm.

It's called hyperbole, dude.

 

[gutonc]

That doesn't make sense. Why would programs even interview those FMGs, let alone rank them.

Maybe you're being sarcastic and used "FMGs with 190s" to imply less competitive AMGs. In that case i fail at at sarcasm.

You fail at sarcasm AND hyperbole.

 

[gutonc]

As long as there is appropriate QC done, I don't see the point of releasing rank lists. It's not going to change the outcome but will result in lots of hurt feelings.

And that, right there, is why it will never happen. Most med students wet themselves and go off crying in a corner when they get a simple constructive comment on rounds. If you want to see a bunch of M4s jump off bridges simultaneously (and let's be honest, it might be fun), go ahead and release all the rank lists.

 

[Chakrabs]

And that, right there, is why it will never happen. Most med students wet themselves and go off crying in a corner when they get a simple constructive comment on rounds. If you want to see a bunch of M4s jump off bridges simultaneously (and let's be honest, it might be fun), go ahead and release all the rank lists.

With your seemingly dim view towards medical students, perhaps the criticism you've been giving out has been less than constructive.

 

[deleted109597]

I wonder how they could get around an FOIA request, since many residencies are part of government schools.

 

[digitlnoize]

I wonder how they could get around an FOIA request, since many residencies are part of government schools.

Interesting solution...hmmm...

 

[Chakrabs]

Possibly, but its hard to see how it wouldn't be denied under this exemption in the FOIA law:

"Personnel, medical and similar files, disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)"

 

[IDBasco]

I don't really think I want to know what number I am on a program's list, nor do I want them to know where I ranked them.

Would any of you really be happy to know you were the lowest ranked match somewhere or for your program to know you ranked them, say 7th (or 10th, etc) on your list? Really, would you go in the first day of residency and smile and shake the PDs hand and say "Hey, good to see you, this was my 10th choice?" Talk about awkward.

 

[mcl]

I don't really think I want to know what number I am on a program's list, nor do I want them to know where I ranked them.

Would any of you really be happy to know you were the lowest ranked match somewhere or for your program to know you ranked them, say 7th (or 10th, etc) on your list? Really, would you go in the first day of residency and smile and shake the PDs hand and say "Hey, good to see you, this was my 10th choice?" Talk about awkward.

Exactly. It's only been in the last few years I've told the general faculty where our new interns were ranked (they never remember from the rank meeting). Once they match they become our top picks, even if they were last on our ROL. I don't want faculty having a preconceived notion that an incoming intern won't perform well because they were lower on our list. One of our all-time best residents matched from our B group, and I would have been mortified if she'd ever found out that piece of information.

 

[HumbleMD]

I don't really think I want to know what number I am on a program's list, nor do I want them to know where I ranked them.

Would any of you really be happy to know you were the lowest ranked match somewhere or for your program to know you ranked them, say 7th (or 10th, etc) on your list? Really, would you go in the first day of residency and smile and shake the PDs hand and say "Hey, good to see you, this was my 10th choice?" Talk about awkward.

I'd like to know. I'd imagine a system where I know where I was ranked on a program's list, and the program knows where I put them. Having attendings know where applicants are put is under the PDs discretion now, and there is no reason it couldn't be if they told applicants where they are. I just don't get this system where we show up on day 1 and lie to ourselves and eachother pretending that they were our #1 pick and we were theirs.

The major reasons I'd like to know are 1) it could conceivably inform where I'll be matching 2) add some transparency and honesty to this process and 3) and most importantly to me, provide some feedback as to how interviews went. I can't even count the number of times I walked out of an interview I thought was horrible, and perhaps wasn't, and vice-versa.

 

[drizzt3117]

I'd like to know. I'd imagine a system where I know where I was ranked on a program's list, and the program knows where I put them. Having attendings know where applicants are put is under the PDs discretion now, and there is no reason it couldn't be if they told applicants where they are. I just don't get this system where we show up on day 1 and lie to ourselves and eachother pretending that they were our #1 pick and we were theirs.

The major reasons I'd like to know are 1) it could conceivably inform where I'll be matching 2) add some transparency and honesty to this process and 3) and most importantly to me, provide some feedback as to how interviews went. I can't even count the number of times I walked out of an interview I thought was horrible, and perhaps wasn't, and vice-versa.

never gonna happen. Programs (and many applicants) don't want transparency in the process. That information will be of no use if you don't know what your pre-interview rank was and there's no way in hell programs will ever release that info. Why would you spend money to attend the interview if you knew you realistically had 0 chance to match?

 

[IDBasco]

I'd like to know. I'd imagine a system where I know where I was ranked on a program's list, and the program knows where I put them. Having attendings know where applicants are put is under the PDs discretion now, and there is no reason it couldn't be if they told applicants where they are. I just don't get this system where we show up on day 1 and lie to ourselves and eachother pretending that they were our #1 pick and we were theirs.

The major reasons I'd like to know are 1) it could conceivably inform where I'll be matching 2) add some transparency and honesty to this process and 3) and most importantly to me, provide some feedback as to how interviews went. I can't even count the number of times I walked out of an interview I thought was horrible, and perhaps wasn't, and vice-versa.

Rankings will not give you any kind of interview feedback that is any use. You know nothing about those ahead or behind you. You know nothing of the criteria for any programs list. You know nothing of the weight of the interview. I assume you wouldn't get any other applicants names/rankings as otherwise would be a serious confidentiality problem, IMO.

No, if anything a rank might tell you if you had a decent chance of matching. But even that is speculation unless you're ranked to match. Plus, if you were mid-low on all the lists it would only increase the level of stress.

By the way, I won't be pretending after match day. If I match, I have a chance to enter a residency in my specialty of choice. The program liked me enough to rank me high enough to match. That's all that matters, and I don't care to find out what number I was.

 

[PSurg530]

I'm not sure if I would like this scenario.

I think it could be helpful if a program that doesn't rank you at all sends you a rejection. It wouldn't change your rank list at all obviously, but at least you can be a little more realistic. The most stressful part of this process compared to med school apps is that you don't have any idea which programs liked you and which didn't. So your #1-4 may not have ranked you at all, and if you knew this, you would be more realistic come match day and be happy about matching at your #5 because you've already come to terms with not matching at the others above it. Like I said, doesn't actually change anything except your expectations on match day.

 

[digitlnoize]

I think it could be a good OPTION to have. I have a family, and a little bit of an idea of where we MIGHT be going would really help allay some of our fears about where we might wind up (or not). This whole process, especially the unknown variable of our future location, has really been stressful on all of us, especially our daughter.

You're right that the rankings might not really tell me anything, but then again, they might. It'd be nice to be able to "opt in" to that system or something. I don't think it should affect things one way or the other as far as the end result.

Applicants should rank where they want to go. Programs should rank the applicants they most prefer. Nothing else. Neither side should pay attention to who likes them when making a rank list, but afterward, it might be helpful information to see.

More transparency in the process can only be a good thing.

 

[b-real]

I think it could be a good OPTION to have. I have a family, and a little bit of an idea of where we MIGHT be going would really help allay some of our fears about where we might wind up (or not). This whole process, especially the unknown variable of our future location, has really been stressful on all of us, especially our daughter.

You're right that the rankings might not really tell me anything, but then again, they might. It'd be nice to be able to "opt in" to that system or something. I don't think it should affect things one way or the other as far as the end result.

Applicants should rank where they want to go. Programs should rank the applicants they most prefer. Nothing else. Neither side should pay attention to who likes them when making a rank list, but afterward, it might be helpful information to see.

More transparency in the process can only be a good thing.

Even in an "opt-in" system, do you believe any program would actually opt-in? You would need both parties to consent, and that would not happen.

 

[Dirt]

It doesn't matter what the date is, the delay between ranking and matching, or where you are on whoever's list.

No matter what, the feelings of apprehension and anxiety aren't going to be eliminated from the match. Just have a drink or two or three and try to enjoy yourself.

 

[digitlnoize]

Even in an "opt-in" system, do you believe any program would actually opt-in? You would need both parties to consent, and that would not happen.

Well, that's not quite how it would work.

Applicants could check a box in the NRMP that says, "Access Rank Order Lists of Your Programs." If the box is checked, then you can see where you fall on the rank list of the programs you're ranking, after rank deadline.

Programs could check a similar box on their end, where they see which applicants have ranked them, and where.

It's opt-in only, no option to opt out.

It wouldn't change anything, but it MIGHT allow you to make an educated guess about where you might wind up. For example, if you're #1 ranked you 99/100, and your #2 ranked you #3/100, then you can be relatively sure you'll be going to your #2.

It would also increase accountability by the NRMP, allow for some checking, and decrease the "surprise you're going to your 10th choice" factor for some people.

Most importantly, those of us with more "adult" concerns (mortgages, kids, jobs, etc), might have some inkling of what's going on a month or more sooner, which could help in the housing/job search, etc. If my daughter knew right now that my #1 also ranked me highly, she'd feel so much better (if it's not our #1, she has to leave her school and her friends)...that would really help.

I have yet to hear a good reason NOT to do it.

How about NRMP gives us a "tentative match" the day after rank list due day...then a "confirmed match" a month later?

 

[umz]

Well, that's not quite how it would work.

Applicants could check a box in the NRMP that says, "Access Rank Order Lists of Your Programs." If the box is checked, then you can see where you fall on the rank list of the programs you're ranking, after rank deadline.

Programs could check a similar box on their end, where they see which applicants have ranked them, and where.

It's opt-in only, no option to opt out.

It wouldn't change anything, but it MIGHT allow you to make an educated guess about where you might wind up. For example, if you're #1 ranked you 99/100, and your #2 ranked you #3/100, then you can be relatively sure you'll be going to your #2.

It would also increase accountability by the NRMP, allow for some checking, and decrease the "surprise you're going to your 10th choice" factor for some people.

Most importantly, those of us with more "adult" concerns (mortgages, kids, jobs, etc), might have some inkling of what's going on a month or more sooner, which could help in the housing/job search, etc. If my daughter knew right now that my #1 also ranked me highly, she'd feel so much better (if it's not our #1, she has to leave her school and her friends)...that would really help.

I have yet to hear a good reason NOT to do it.

How about NRMP gives us a "tentative match" the day after rank list due day...then a "confirmed match" a month later?

Just because you have a kid does not make you more "adult," as you keep saying. And it certainly doesn't make you some how more deserving of this information.

 

[digitlnoize]

Hey, wasn't trying to offend. I'm just saying that I have a reason for wanting to know, other than impatience. I know that if I were a traditional, young, single med student, I would be a lot less anxious about where I wind up.

I only used the word "adult" in reference to things like mortgage, children, and spouses. I didn't mean to imply that anyone without those things is not an adult, only that those are responsibilities a typical graduating med student doesn't have.

 

[Phyozo]

Hey, wasn't trying to offend. I'm just saying that I have a reason for wanting to know, other than impatience. I know that if I were a traditional, young, single med student, I would be a lot less anxious about where I wind up.

I only used the word "adult" in reference to things like mortgage, children, and spouses. I didn't mean to imply that anyone without those things is not an adult, only that those are responsibilities a typical graduating med student doesn't have.

I feel you and agree. I would argue there IS a greater need to know these things when you have things like mortgages/children/spouses because honestly if you're single, you're more flexible on where you can move (as a generalization, of course) and less people are immediately affected than if you had the aforementioned. I'm married so my spouse and I would definitely like to have an inkling as she has to find a new job and can't start the job hunt until match day. If we had kids, I'd have to look for schools, etc... It's just more complicated.

I think you have a good idea, but implementation is the issue. If you knew of a practical way to get this onto NRMP, more power to you. Who cares what other people on the forum thinks.

 

[digitlnoize]

I feel you and agree. I would argue there IS a greater need to know these things when you have things like mortgages/children/spouses because honestly if you're single, you're more flexible on where you can move (as a generalization, of course) and less people are immediately affected than if you had the aforementioned. I'm married so my spouse and I would definitely like to have an inkling as she has to find a new job and can't start the job hunt until match day. If we had kids, I'd have to look for schools, etc... It's just more complicated.

I think you have a good idea, but implementation is the issue. If you knew of a practical way to get this onto NRMP, more power to you. Who cares what other people on the forum thinks.

Well, it'll never happen.

Programs would have to agree to release the ranking of each applicant (but only that applicant gets to see it).

More importantly, the NRMP would have to agree to do it, which they never will because it puts more scrutiny on their process and they lose a tiny bit of their power over us.

Lack of transparency in the process is what keeps the NRMP and the Programs in power. We're lucky we got the Rank Program changed to start with Applicants' Choices instead of Programs'.

 

[alwaysaangel]

Well, it'll never happen.

Programs would have to agree to release the ranking of each applicant (but only that applicant gets to see it).

More importantly, the NRMP would have to agree to do it, which they never will because it puts more scrutiny on their process and they lose a tiny bit of their power over us.

Lack of transparency in the process is what keeps the NRMP and the Programs in power. We're lucky we got the Rank Program changed to start with Applicants' Choices instead of Programs'.

...the match never started with the programs choice...ever. Historically it was started to give the power back to the applicants - and it did. It used to be just a job offer process which is why the programs used to have all the power.

Would knowing a month ahead really help? Maybe, then maybe the solution is to shorten the whole process and turn lists in sooner. I don't think knowing a month sooner would really help - if you and your wife and daughter weren't stressing about where you would end up this month you would have been stressing about it next month.

Seeing where you are on a rank would just make things worse in my opinion. Because unless you're 1-6 at a program with 6 spots you really don't KNOW where you're going to end up - you can guess. But you can guess now. It would help you guess SLIGHTLY more accurately.

Same with "tentative" matches. How frustrating would it be to get your "tentative" match and end up being one of the errors and finding out later it was wrong. I think that would be much more frustrating if your wife started looking for a job in x location in February because of a 'tentative' match - but then it turned out she should have been looking in y location.

I think the process is about as reasonable and transparent as it can be without causing issues with privacy and disappointment.

 

[digitlnoize]

...the match never started with the programs choice...ever. Historically it was started to give the power back to the applicants - and it did. It used to be just a job offer process which is why the programs used to have all the power.

False. Prior to the mid-late 90's the NRMP System began with the Programs' top choice, then tried to find matching applicants.

The system was changed, after much discussion and study, to the current one, which takes the Applicants' top choice first.

The two systems actually were found to have ALMOST identical results, but the new one does have certain advantages for applicants in certain cases.

Here is a copt of the report comparing the two systems, which does a good job of detailing things for you:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6963.pdf

 

[NotAProgDirector]

It's an interesting concept, but I disagree that making lists viewable is a good idea.

First of all, my rank list is my private information. I don't see that you have any right to demand that you see where you're ranked on my list. I don't think you can "opt-in" to see my list. I guess I could imagine a world where you "opt-in" so that programs can see your rank list, and programs could do the same. But, as mentioned above, I doubt many programs would do this.

I do understand that those with certain social obligations may have less flexibility, or that moving may be more complicated. Still, unless you rank a program #1 and you're "ranked to match", you can't really know how the match will work out. I could imagine the above example you gave (that program #1 ranked you 99/100 and program #2 ranked you high), and you could do lots of work to find a job for your spouse at program #2, only to find out that you matched at #1. Plus, most people won't find rankings like this, Most people will be in the middle of the list, or at the bottom end of all lists, and the info won't help, only make them feel worse, etc.

Note that, if your #1 wanted to tell you, nothing is stopping them from telling you exactly where you are ranked. That happened on my list this year -- I have someone applying whose SO is here for a number of years. Being here was really important to him. He's a great candidate. I was incredibly clear that I'd be ranking him #1, and I told him this way back in November. I told him not to bother interviewing at any programs that would be ranked lower than us. I also told him that if he didn't match with us (because he ranked another program higher), no hard feelings. The key is that it was my choice to disclose that information.

I'm not certain exactly what you mean when you say that this would put "scrutiny on the NRMP process" and a "lack of transparency". Exactly what nefarious issue are you referring to? Do you think the NRMP somehow "games the system" -- that they reorder lists, or somehow change matches to suit their secret purposes? It seems to me that the NRMP process is quite open and clear, and seems unlikely that there's anything strange going on. I don't see any less transparency in the system by which people are admitted to college, medical school, get a job, etc.

And, a match is a much better process than no-match -- imagine that your #2 program offers you a spot, and demands an answer before your #1 program is willing to commit. What exactly would you do then? Take the #2 spot and be guaranteed a spot? Pass the #2 spot and hope for the #1, perhaps get something worse? Or take the #2, and then if offered the #1, give up the #2. That doesn't work -- since if everyone does that, you'll never know when you'll have your final spot. You could accept at your #2, start the process of moving there, and then get a last minute offer from your #1. That would be complete mayhem.

Last, the "we're lucky that we got the rank program changed to start with applicant's choices rather than programs" is misleading. Whether you start with applicants or with programs, you get essentially the same match list in the end. Less than 1% of matches are changed. Sure, if you're one of the 1% it matters, but it's not like the earlier version of the match was horrifically flawed or totally biased to programs.

(Some of this is redundant, several people posted while I was typing this)

 

[alwaysaangel]

False. Prior to the mid-late 90's the NRMP System began with the Programs' top choice, then tried to find matching applicants.

The system was changed, after much discussion and study, to the current one, which takes the Applicants' top choice first.

The two systems actually were found to have ALMOST identical results, but the new one does have certain advantages for applicants in certain cases.

Here is a copt of the report comparing the two systems, which does a good job of detailing things for you:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6963.pdf

The matches were almost identical because the third phase to finalize the list in the former match used applicant-based preferences. As long as the final stability of the list was being checked with applicant-based preferences then it was still an applicant-based system.

But in all fairness your original statement was about 'starting with program preferences' and I see your point - it did to that, but I think your statement overall was misleading making it sound like it was an unfair match system.

 

[digitlnoize]

The matches were almost identical because the third phase to finalize the list in the former match used applicant-based preferences. As long as the final stability of the list was being checked with applicant-based preferences then it was still an applicant-based system.

But in all fairness your original statement was about 'starting with program preferences' and I see your point - it did to that, but I think your statement overall was misleading making it sound like it was an unfair match system.

I'm very sorry, I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I was just stating the facts. It started with program preferences.

I'm definitely not saying that anyone is rigging the system or anything...I just think transparency > not.

And I agree with aPD that for most people, you won't be able to figure out where you stand, as you'll likely be in the middle of everything. But, I'm still not sure that I see the harm in telling me that I'm #42 on your list. I can live with that.

I definitely don't think that programs should give everyone their complete list. I don't need to see where Joe Bob was ranked at Program X.

Again, this is all just a thought experiment. I actually like the match process, as aPD as said, it's better than the alternative, for all the reasons listed.

 

[peppy]

Even though it would be interesting to find out this info, I definitely think that the problem of what would happen when programs and applicants wind up matching with their last choices will keep it from ever becoming reality.

Nobody wants to know that they were ranked 99th out of 100 or 100th out of 100 at the place they wind up matching at. It likely does happen, considering that some residency programs fail to fill. Surely there are some that just barely manage to fill with their least-preferred choices.

Every Match Day that I've seen on this board, there are always a few people on here who become insane with rage and grief because they matched low on their list even if the place they wound up at is an excellent, prestigious program by objective standards. I can only imagine how much worse it would be for people who experience this disappointment AND also find out that the place they wound up at didn't even really want them all that badly either.
Nobody really wants to know that they were 99/100.

 

[Law2Doc]

Even though it would be interesting to find out this info, I definitely think that the problem of what would happen when programs and applicants wind up matching with their last choices will keep it from ever becoming reality.

Nobody wants to know that they were ranked 99th out of 100 or 100th out of 100 at the place they wind up matching at. It likely does happen, considering that some residency programs fail to fill. Surely there are some that just barely manage to fill with their least-preferred choices.

Every Match Day that I've seen on this board, there are always a few people on here who become insane with rage and grief because they matched low on their list even if the place they wound up at is an excellent, prestigious program by objective standards. I can only imagine how much worse it would be for people who experience this disappointment AND also find out that the place they wound up at didn't even really want them all that badly either.
Nobody really wants to know that they were 99/100.

Agree. While there are some virtues of a system being transparent, it could be quite humiliating for individuals and for programs at the low end of the spectrum. This probably outweighs the several relatively minimal benefits described in this thread.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Agree. While there are some virtues of a system being transparent, it could be quite humiliating for individuals and for programs at the low end of the spectrum. This probably outweighs the several relatively minimal benefits described in this thread.

To be fair to the OP, the system he/she is suggesting would be optional. You could choose to know, or not. Hence, for people who really feel it would help them, they could find out. The point is that each person could weigh their own benefits and risks, and make an informed decision.

That being said, I expect many people would request the information, and then be unhappy because of it. Whether we should be in the business of protecting people from their poor decisions is debatable.

If we were to do it, here's what I'd suggest: Applicants can request that they find out where they are ranked by programs, but if they do, then programs find out where you ranked them also.

Still, I think it's a bad idea overall. I can only imagine the posts here on SDN -- "I'm ranked #57 at BWH, what are my chances of matching there?" A whole new level of insanity.

 

[Law2Doc]

To be fair to the OP, the system he/she is suggesting would be optional. You could choose to know, or not. Hence, for people who really feel it would help them, they could find out. The point is that each person could weigh their own benefits and risks, and make an informed decision.

That being said, I expect many people would request the information, and then be unhappy because of it. Whether we should be in the business of protecting people from their poor decisions is debatable.

If we were to do it, here's what I'd suggest: Applicants can request that they find out where they are ranked by programs, but if they do, then programs find out where you ranked them also.

Still, I think it's a bad idea overall. I can only imagine the posts here on SDN -- "I'm ranked #57 at BWH, what are my chances of matching there?" A whole new level of insanity.

I guess we understood OPs suggestion differently. He said at one point he was for making "everyone's lists public". I agree with you that either way it's a bad idea.