You are free to disagree. But my original point was based on this article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555575/ Which just suggests that other factors might be in play with the final rank list.
If you make it to an interview I'd assume your app is good enough to make it somewhere on their rank list, however, imo the interview is only one factor determining where you will end up.
Feel free to disagree, but the facts are the facts. The ROL is multi factorial with the interview usually being the most important factor, but if you think the other factors somehow go out the window when you interview, you are wrong. The nrmp published several surveys of PDs including the most recent from 2 years ago, which had well over half of the PDs responding. Interview is #1, but grades, steps, rec letters dont drop to 0. I sat down with a PD from another specialty and he showed me the exact algorithm they use - based off Mayo's published ortho ROL
http://b83c73bcf0e7ca356c80-e8560f4...ads/2013/08/programresultsbyspecialty2012.pdf
Can't seem to find mayo's ROL algorithm, but it had a certain number points with a certain fraction being alloted to interviews, step 1, research, letters, etc. Rank each subset 1-5, multiply by said fraction, sum them and you have your rank list.
Well thank you guys, now that I feel free I may disagree more often.
I dont place a lot of stock in static articles attempting to measure dynamic situations. IMHO social interaction and interviews are some of the most dynamic encounters humanly available.
Haha, I'm sorry guys this is getting too technical when discussing what a large number of different individuals currently do inside their brains and in closed door meetings. No one (even scientific-esq articles) can really provide the truth of what goes on especially when we are talking about hundreds of very different people. My original point (since this seems to be one of those SDN slippery slope changing points) was that, as evidenced by our own interview threads here and elsewhere) interview invitations share little rhyme or reason with each other. Sure theoretically the 298 step score will garner more invitations but I dont think that necessarily helps at the interview. All things being equal, maybe they choose the guy with the 300 step score ... maybe not. One of the problems we are having may be our comparison of apples to oranges. If I found one of my interview locations used an algorithm, multiplying said fractions by number of smiles and firmness of handshake ... I would quickly remove myself from their applicant pool.
Allow me to introduce myself, I am the last of the romantics. I am an artist and find I agree with Mr Keating's viewpoint on plotting things like human interaction (or poetry, lol). Excrement.
I think there are a couple steps to getting on the ROL. The first is garnering the interview. This is where the scores, and paper trail help you out. However, to be granted an interview, the program believes you are capable of handling their curriculum and being successful. Are they then to spend time plotting levels of success for no real reason? What benefit does that hold for them? Sure having someone ace every exam seems desirable but affects the program minutely if at all. So coupling that with the crapshoot that is interview invitations, I find it hard to believe the number of programs you applied to has much to do with it. Extrapolating number of programs applied to as competitiveness may have some value but probably not much considering the neuroticism I've seen this interview season so far. I know people who have applied to well over 100 programs in multiple specialties with better paper applications than mine. To add to all of that, I dont believe responses on PD surveys at all. Not at all. To be honest I find a huge disconnect between words and actions when it comes to academia and just choose to place my stock elsewhere. To each his/her own though.
That fellas, was my point. Nothing more, nothing less. I dont take many things very seriously (myself included). So I find my way of looking at the world corresponds very poorly to other medical students. If fact I find most medical (academic) individuals have a hard time even grasping my worldview. Thats ok though, I've had some interesting experiences in my short *cough* years of life and thoroughly enjoy who I am.
You guys play the numbers and algorithms and I'll go grab a beer with the PD and we'll both end up at the same place. Seriously, I dont believe for one minute there is only one way through this process. Both our mindsets and points are probably quite valid if we are honest with ourselves.
