Being interviewed does not necessarily correlate with your overall popularity or interpersonal skills. Find an advisor who's own interpersonal skills are somewhere below House so that they will give you the straight scoop, and honestly determine what your liabilities are. Once you understand these, there are ways to address them and boost your competitivity and find a home.
This year has shown that no one is safe and that the magic number is only helpful if you can get in a time machine and apply in last year's Match. From now on, I intend to recommend ranking at least 15 programs with a couple of less desireable and competitive ones as safety spots. No matter how great an application or how competitive an applicant, ranking <6 programs offends the Gods and is asking for trouble. Finally, I agree that the couples match is tempting the fates. Personally I say distance makes the heart grow fonder, and if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.
This is sound advice, and even though I'm only a lowly future PGY1 and not a PD, I was going to suggest to anyone who may have asked me the same thing. I especially think that ranking all the programs you've interviewed at may begin to become more important since going to a less desirable place almost certainly is better than scrambling. Going to a minimum of 12-15 interviews may be needed even if you are AOA, got a 260 on step 1 and step 2, and went to Africa and found the cure for AIDS. Going to less competitive places as well will only help an applicant like that too. It's all about "fit" for the programs, just like it was all about "fit" when we came up with our own rank order lists. And if a program, I don't care if it's the most competitive program out there or the least, doesn't think you'll "fit" with the program, you might be ranked below that line in which they filled which may have been pretty high and made you very competitive to match in the past.
And I agree with getting a straightforward honest assessment of your liabilities from your mentor or anyone you work with who you know will be honest. My own advisor was a straight-shooter and gave me good honest feedback, so I worked on that and was able to improve any weaknesses before I had for my 2 away rotations. I didn't think I had any weaknesses because I was getting great evaluations and got along with everybody, but that doesn't mean that I was perfect, or even what she perceived as a perfect "fit" for this program. Get honest feedback, and I bet that you'd be surprised by what someone tells you even if you had great evaluations, got honors, and they agreed to write you a strong SLOR. They may be agreeing to do it because they think you'll be a great EP, but that doesn't even mean that they think you'll be a good "fit" with their program. This happened to many this year who got awesome feedback and support from their home program, but didn't match at their home program either. It doesn't mean they didn't like you, because they did spend the time to write a great SLOR and help you do the best through the entire process, it might have meant that when it came time for them to put their ROL together, you were not as good of a "fit" as people they may have ranked higher. You still could have been ranked in a great position to match based on previous years, but this year was more competitive. Now i've seen people here say that this year wasn't more competitive, and argued that it was just the fact that there were probably more applicants trying to get into EM, or just more applicants overall in medicine (DO's crossing over, more IMG's, and just more med students). Doesn't that mean it got more competitive?
Now, I hated the word "fit" because I heard it at the majority of programs I visited, but when it came time to develop my ROL I realized that "fit" was THE deciding factor. And I don't think it's any different for the PD's out there.
