AMCAS Using a Match System

[Shawno19]

I am the furthest from being an admissions expert, and this might come off as a dumb question, but as someone going to through the ups and downs of admissions season I have been wondering is there has ever been any discussion of incorporating a match system to the AMCAS like the residency match or TDMSAS?

It seems like having three match periods would be useful.

May – September: Optional early decision for top choices, maybe?

September – December: Majority of applicants interview through fall, then match is done sometime before or after the New Year.

January – March: Second chance for unmatched students to interview with schools who have open seats remaining, either filling in a rolling admissions manner or another match process in March/April.

Some of the possible benefits I can think of:

• Clear out most of that top ~5-10% of applicants that are going to hold 4-10 acceptances for weeks/months in the first match.
• Allow applicants to find out if they will get in to their top choices/reach schools early or at same time as rest of programs so they don’t hold seats waiting to hear back from a school.
• Applicants don’t need to stress about paying multiple deposits
• Programs don’t have to worry about filling every seat 4 or 5 times as accepted students give back acceptances.
• Less uncertainty / waitlist anxiety through the spring waiting to hear back from schools
• Applicants get to visit and interview at each program who offer invitation before choosing best fit
• Programs get a chance to sell their program to more qualified applicants .

I know it wouldn’t be perfect and I can think of a few issues, but just something I thought would be interesting to throw out there for discussion.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jazzcartier]

lol

 

[darkjedi]

The only reason there is a residency match is because there are thousands of residency programs and the vast majority of which have tiny classes. It was too unwieldy for applicants and PDs to coordinate to make sure their classes were filled. The residency process took way too long as it was incredibly inefficient to go through so many rounds of offers/acceptances. The majority of residents dislike the match process, but it's necessary because of the sheer number of programs and applicants and it basically requires a computer to make sure that the least number of people are unhappy.

There are only a 140ish medical schools in the US, and the med schools have zero problem filling up their classes because they are such large pools to select from. The applicants come out on top in this process because they have choice of where to go, unlike the match process.

 

[GinnyWeasley]

I have to say that as someone that will find out if I got into a TX med school via the pre-mach in less than 12 hours, I love it. The fact that we find out on a specific date ,which means we don't have to speculate when the decisions are coming out, and the fact that people cannot hold multiple acceptances after Feb 1st is huge IMO.

 

[Med Ed]

I am the furthest from being an admissions expert, and this might come off as a dumb question, but as someone going to through the ups and downs of admissions season I have been wondering is there has ever been any discussion of incorporating a match system to the AMCAS like the residency match or TDMSAS?

It seems like having three match periods would be useful.

May – September: Optional early decision for top choices, maybe?

September – December: Majority of applicants interview through fall, then match is done sometime before or after the New Year.

January – March: Second chance for unmatched students to interview with schools who have open seats remaining, either filling in a rolling admissions manner or another match process in March/April.

Some of the possible benefits I can think of:

• Clear out most of that top ~5-10% of applicants that are going to hold 4-10 acceptances for weeks/months in the first match.
• Allow applicants to find out if they will get in to their top choices/reach schools early or at same time as rest of programs so they don’t hold seats waiting to hear back from a school.
• Applicants don’t need to stress about paying multiple deposits
• Programs don’t have to worry about filling every seat 4 or 5 times as accepted students give back acceptances.
• Less uncertainty / waitlist anxiety through the spring waiting to hear back from schools
• Applicants get to visit and interview at each program who offer invitation before choosing best fit
• Programs get a chance to sell their program to more qualified applicants .

I know it wouldn’t be perfect and I can think of a few issues, but just something I thought would be interesting to throw out there for discussion.

Con: A national system might end up in a death spiral similar to the one that the residency match now seems locked in.

 

[aprilfools]

Con: A national system might end up in a death spiral similar to the one that the residency match now seems locked in.

Can you elaborate more on this "death spiral"? I'm not doubting you I'm just curious as to what exactly this means as I'm not too familiar with the residency match yet.

 

[Shawno19]

Can you elaborate more on this "death spiral"? I'm not doubting you I'm just curious as to what exactly this means as I'm not too familiar with the residency match yet.

Yes, please elaborate. I'm also curious. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Gurby]

I interviewed at my top choice in September, will probably get WL'd and still be kind of in limbo until August... This sounds appealing... Though it hurts schools' ability to create a specific class profile/composition, which is something they seem to care a great deal about.

 

[Skittsie13]

One reason this works in TX is that all the schools are very cheap, so people aren't too concerned about waiting for the financial aid package to decide. That's not the case for AMCAS.

 

[Shawno19]

Though it hurts schools' ability to create a specific class profile/composition, which is something they seem to care a great deal about.

I hear you, but they only rank people they want/fit their vision, so theoretically they could still control this. But like applicants, the more sought after you are the more selective you can be.



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Shawno19]

T
There are only a 140ish medical schools in the US, and the med schools have zero problem filling up their classes because they are such large pools to select from. The applicants come out on top in this process because they have choice of where to go, unlike the match process.

I didn't realize the residency match was so looked down on, thanks for the insight.

I understand what your saying about the applicant coming out on top because they get to choose their school, but say I interview at 5 schools and my 5th and 4th favorite schools offer me seats early-ish, but I don't hear back from other three for months. Yeah, technically I get to choose between the two schools. But personally I would like to be able to rank the 5 schools I interviewed at and see which was the highest one that wanted me.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Shawno19]

The other more important reason is the Texas schools that are part of the match have their medical school programs funded in full or in part by state of Texas. Unlike other states, Texas exerts a very strong control over its state education system by the legislature with laws and the Texas Education Commission and regulations, down to GPA.

If you ever want to understand the development of the modern conservative movement in this country, it has as much to do with the political local school boards, the Texas State College system and the Texas Board of Education as it does with Ronald Reagan. The simplified explanation is the college "radicalism" of the 1960s and the thought that Texas was becoming liberal (LBJ was the last great liberal activist president was from Texas) was so shocking to the Texas political establishment, the legislature was damn well not gonna let it happen here so they took tight control over the education system in the state. This conservative leaning was then projected nationally as Texas was the largest buyer of textbooks in the nation and all those books had to be approved by the Texas Board of Education. Publishers then catered their books to Texas desires. Local conservative groups started running for school boards to influence those purchases. This model was followed by several other states (Kansas, Oklahoma) and the original moral majority came out of it.

So dont look at the Texas match as a logical, rational progression based on financial implication as much as the state keeping tight control over its institutions for political purposes and power

That's interesting, I have heard most of this, but I hadn't considered connecting TMDSAS to this.

I always thought of the match as being a compromise where the applicant and programs each have input, then an algorithm does the match for convenience and expedience; rather then a form of control by the establishment.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[EEtoPre-Med]

The other more important reason is the Texas schools that are part of the match have their medical school programs funded in full or in part by state of Texas. Unlike other states, Texas exerts a very strong control over its state education system by the legislature with laws and the Texas Education Commission and regulations, down to GPA.

If you ever want to understand the development of the modern conservative movement in this country, it has as much to do with the political local school boards, the Texas State College system and the Texas Board of Education as it does with Ronald Reagan. The simplified explanation is the college "radicalism" of the 1960s and the thought that Texas was becoming liberal (LBJ was the last great liberal activist president was from Texas) was so shocking to the Texas political establishment, the legislature was damn well not gonna let it happen here so they took tight control over the education system in the state. This conservative leaning was then projected nationally as Texas was the largest buyer of textbooks in the nation and all those books had to be approved by the Texas Board of Education. Publishers then catered their books to Texas desires. Local conservative groups started running for school boards to influence those purchases. This model was followed by several other states (Kansas, Oklahoma) and the original moral majority came out of it.

So dont look at the Texas match as a logical, rational progression based on financial implication as much as the state keeping tight control over its institutions for political purposes and power

Maybe I missed the point here but if your point is that because Texas is decidedly conservative the rest of the country wouldn't want to imitate their policies, I don't agree. Also, education policy has always been political. It sounds like, in this case, you are just not a fan of the political bend that the state took and that they were successful about it. If this is not what you were saying, correct me. It seems to me, that if it meant enough to a particular state to buy their own textbooks that they would pay for such a cost.

 

[Med Ed]

Can you elaborate more on this "death spiral"? I'm not doubting you I'm just curious as to what exactly this means as I'm not too familiar with the residency match yet.

This has been a big topic at AAMC for several years now. In 2006 the average residency applicant (encompassing US MD's, US DO's, IMG's and FMG's) applied to 47 programs. In 2015 that number was 81, an increase of 72%. This has inundated residency programs with applications, which in turn has led programs to increase their emphasis on metrics in screening. It has also forced programs to interview more applicants, which is costly for everyone in what is essentially a zero sum game.

Back in my day you applied to a program and, if offered an interview, you accepted or declined. Simple. Now it is commonplace for programs to release interview offers in batches, with more offers than seats and a first come, first served approach. You could step off a plane, check your email, and find that your top target program wants to interview you, but you missed the window and will be waitlisted for a slot. Some specialities are taking action on their own. If you want to match in ENT nowadays you will have to write a program-specific PS for each place you apply.

In short, the residency match has become an increasingly chaotic mess, and it gets worse every year.

 

[aprilfools]

This has been a big topic at AAMC for several years now. In 2006 the average residency applicant (encompassing US MD's, US DO's, IMG's and FMG's) applied to 47 programs. In 2015 that number was 81, an increase of 72%. This has inundated residency programs with applications, which in turn has led programs to increase their emphasis on metrics in screening. It has also forced programs to interview more applicants, which is costly for everyone in what is essentially a zero sum game.

Back in my day you applied to a program and, if offered an interview, you accepted or declined. Simple. Now it is commonplace for programs to release interview offers in batches, with more offers than seats and a first come, first served approach. You could step off a plane, check your email, and find that your top target program wants to interview you, but you missed the window and will be waitlisted for a slot. Some specialities are taking action on their own. If you want to match in ENT nowadays you will have to write a program-specific PS for each place you apply.

In short, the residency match has become an increasingly chaotic mess, and it gets worse every year.

Jesus, as a hopeful 2017 matriculant this sounds horrible.

 

[EEtoPre-Med]

My point was just giving background to the thread here who are trying to understand this in logical/rational way without having any grounding in the political nature of how these developed. It was the social/political dynamic I was trying to explain. I make no judgment about whether good or bad just understand why. Most premeds dont know this background or the concept of "agendas"

Okay, I see. I think that understanding there is an agenda behind this match system in Texas is definitely helpful. As there is often a political agenda behind many things in the realm of education. Thank you for the clarification!

 

[xffan624]

Jesus, as a hopeful 2017 matriculant this sounds horrible.

The waitlist thing happened to me at a place I was definitely interested in. I responded in 90 minutes or so after the email due to a long time in with a patient and all the spots were gone. It's not on my rank list now because I didn't get an interview. I'm not applying to a competitive residency.

 

[aprilfools]

The waitlist thing happened to me at a place I was definitely interested in. I responded in 90 minutes or so after the email due to a long time in with a patient and all the spots were gone. It's not on my rank list now because I didn't get an interview. I'm not applying to a competitive residency.

So residents are essentially being selected with "who is glued to their phone the most" as a major factor. That's ****ing ludicrous.

 

[xffan624]

So residents are essentially being selected with "who is glued to their phone the most" as a major factor. That's ****ing ludicrous.

I'm not sure if every program operates like that (I doubt I was completely quick on the draw for every place) but it's certainly something to be aware of.