Applying for Residency

[Ibn Rushd]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've been wondering something about residencies and searching the forums wasn't satisfying, so I thought I'd ask in a thread of my own. When applying for residencies, are applicants limited to one field or can they apply to more than one field? In other words, if someone is interested in applying to an internal medicine program AND a radiology program, are they allowed to do that? I don't know where I heard it, but my understanding is that one can only apply to one type of specialty.

 

[FlowRate]

I'm pretty sure you can apply to more than one specialty. For example, lots of people apply derm, but only 20? 40? % actually get in. I'm sure they apply to "back up" specialties--maybe IM?

 

[Ativanigans]

Well you're more than welcome to apply to as many types of residencies as you want but in the end you can only match into one.

 

[mfrizzo3]

Well you're more than welcome to apply to as many types of residencies as you want but in the end you can only match into one.

what about combined residencies?

 

[Ativanigans]

what about combined residencies?

As far as I know these kind of combined programs like "med/peds" still act as 1 entity. You can't apply to both peds and medicine individually and expect to be both a peds and medicien resident.

 

[Law2Doc]

I'm pretty sure you can apply to more than one specialty. For example, lots of people apply derm, but only 20? 40? % actually get in. I'm sure they apply to "back up" specialties--maybe IM?

Yes you may apply to more than one residency, and when considering some specialties it may help to have a back-up you think you'd also enjoy as a career. IM is the most common because most of the competitive fields require a prelim year in IM or surgery (or transitional) anyhow, so the first year would be the same anyhow. However you aren't going to have unlimited time to interview, and in the more competitive paths you may be trying to do 20+ interviews plus separate interviews for prelim programs, so in most cases it's going to be unrealistic to put enough of an effort toward multiple paths on top of that. The interview process is a poor way to try and decide on a specialty, so if you aren't sold on a particular field by the beginning of fourth year, many med school advisors would advise you to strongly consider spending a research year and delay graduation/ do more electives until you have a better notion. Also, if you are applying to a competitive field that requires a preliminary year in medicine or surgery, you will already be interviewing for those prelim spots, so that, in and of itself will be a one year "back-up" -- You can rank those separately at the end of your rank list so you can end up in one even if you "advanced" specialty choice doesn't pan out.

At the end of the road, you are going to have to submit a rank list based on your desires, so some specialty is going to have to be your first choice, and you are going to have to target your efforts toward a realistic number of programs, while trying to survive away rotations, sub-internships and other fourth year obligations. So really plan on having a single target when you emerge from your core rotations. You can have a back-up plan, but it's a bad idea to have two primary targets.

Yes there are combined residencies, such as IM/Peds, EM/IM. But those spots tend to be pretty limited, so for many people bound for IM, EM, Peds, etc those tend to be the long-shots.

 

[J ROD]

Yes you may apply to more than one residency, and when considering some specialties it may help to have a back-up you think you'd also enjoy as a career. IM is the most common because most of the competitive fields require a prelim year in IM or surgery (or transitional) anyhow, so the first year would be the same anyhow. However you aren't going to have unlimited time to interview, and in the more competitive paths you may be trying to do 20+ interviews plus separate interviews for prelim programs, so in most cases it's going to be unrealistic to put enough of an effort toward multiple paths on top of that. The interview process is a poor way to try and decide on a specialty, so if you aren't sold on a particular field by the beginning of fourth year, many med school advisors would advise you to strongly consider spending a research year and delay graduation/ do more electives until you have a better notion. Also, if you are applying to a competitive field that requires a preliminary year in medicine or surgery, you will already be interviewing for those prelim spots, so that, in and of itself will be a one year "back-up" -- You can rank those separately at the end of your rank list so you can end up in one even if you "advanced" specialty choice doesn't pan out.

At the end of the road, you are going to have to submit a rank list based on your desires, so some specialty is going to have to be your first choice, and you are going to have to target your efforts toward a realistic number of programs, while trying to survive away rotations, sub-internships and other fourth year obligations. So really plan on having a single target when you emerge from your core rotations. You can have a back-up plan, but it's a bad idea to have two primary targets.

Yes there are combined residencies, such as IM/Peds, EM/IM. But those spots tend to be pretty limited, so for many people bound for IM, EM, Peds, etc those tend to be the long-shots.

Great summary! 👍

 

[skeptic29]

So typically how many places does an average medical student interview at? What is the typical number of programs you list on your rank list?

 

[Law2Doc]

So typically how many places does an average medical student interview at? What is the typical number of programs you list on your rank list?

Totally depends on the specialty. For competitive fields you would interview at a lot of places, plus also need to interview at prelims/transitionals on top of that. For a less competitive field if you have good numbers, you can get away with interviewing at fewer places. For the average things, if you have 10 places you interviewed at your odds tend to be pretty good. (bear in mind that you can only rank places you interviewed at). For something competitive you may want as many as twice that. There was a NYT article on a Harvard couple trying to match into derm about a year ago which indicated they interviewed at about 90 places -- this would be the absurd extreme, but gives you an idea of what you might have to do if you were shooting for something uber competitive.

 

[thesauce]

I'm pretty sure you can apply to more than one specialty. For example, lots of people apply derm, but only 20? 40? % actually get in. I'm sure they apply to "back up" specialties--maybe IM?

70% of US seniors that apply will match in derm (http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf)

 

[thesauce]

Totally depends on the specialty. For competitive fields you would interview at a lot of places

Not sure about this. From the link above:
Median ranks for IM: 9
Derm: 8
Plastics: 9
Peds: 8
Psyche: 7

Some of the other specialties are higher, but nowhere near "20+."

 

[FlowRate]

70% of US seniors that apply will match in derm (http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf)

Thanks for the correction.

 

[b-real]

70% of US seniors that apply will match in derm (http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf)

The caveat here is that the people who apply to derm (and other very competitive programs) tend to be self-selecting. For the most part, only those who believe they have a shot apply (i.e. there aren't many people throwing a hail Mary and applying when they know they have weak numbers).

 

[thesauce]

The caveat here is that the people who apply to derm (and other very competitive programs) tend to be self-selecting. For the most part, only those who believe they have a shot apply (i.e. there aren't many people throwing a hail Mary and applying when they know they have weak numbers).

Everyone knows that. The point was that of those who apply, 70% will match, which is what was being discussed.

 

[Law2Doc]

70% of US seniors that apply will match in derm (http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf)

It's an extremely self selecting group that meets with a lot of heavy handed advising to keep the longshots down. Also you can only match if you get interviews, and the percentage of folks who apply for derm and actually get interviews is likely much smaller than that 70%. So this kind of statistic is hugely misleading to premeds.

 

[Law2Doc]

Everyone knows that. The point was that of those who apply, 70% will match, which is what was being discussed.

Um no. Not that "apply". That actually get interviews. Meaning maybe 40% of those who want derm get interviews, and of that group, only 70% get a match. That's a lot worse than 70% in the abstract.

 

[Law2Doc]

Not sure about this. From the link above:
Median ranks for IM: 9
Derm: 8
Plastics: 9
Peds: 8
Psyche: 7

Some of the other specialties are higher, but nowhere near "20+."

Most of the people I know who ended up in competitive specialties interviewed at much greater than the number of interviews you listed. Obviously the NONCOMPETITIVE things like peds and psych would require less, and so don't need to be listed with things like derm. I know quite a few folks who sought ortho, derm, rads, and felt the need to meet with 20 programs. If the median for derm is 8, it probably means that a lot of people aren't getting a lot of interviews, not that they didn't want to meet with many more. (Which in turn probably translates to the 30% who don't match.

 

[thesauce]

Um no. Not that "apply". That actually get interviews. Meaning maybe 40% of those who want derm get interviews, and of that group, only 70% get a match. That's a lot worse than 70% in the abstract.

Correction noted, but you need 1 interview to be listed in that statistic (not multiple). I seriously doubt you'll find enough people that don't get a single derm interview to even slightly alter the 70% quoted. Almost every medical school has a derm program and you'll definitely get your home program's interview so your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[thesauce]

Most of the people I know who ended up in competitive specialties interviewed at much greater than the number of interviews you listed. Obviously the NONCOMPETITIVE things like peds and psych would require less, and so don't need to be listed with things like derm. I know quite a few folks who sought ortho, derm, rads, and felt the need to meet with 20 programs. If the median for derm is 8, it probably means that a lot of people aren't getting a lot of interviews, not that they didn't want to meet with many more. (Which in turn probably translates to the 30% who don't match.

Peds, psych, and IM were listed for comparison with the competitive stuff (derm or plastics). Maybe I should've labeled them as NONCOMPETITIVE, but I thought it was pretty obvious. The conclusion that can be drawn from what I listed is that there is only a slight difference between how many interviews people attend for the competitive (derm and plastics) vs. the non-competitive (IM, peds, psych) specialties. The latter part of your post is almost certainly the reason, but doesn't address the issue (i.e. "20+" interviews you mentioned).

 

[Whoops12]

If the median for derm is 8, it probably means that a lot of people aren't getting a lot of interviews, not that they didn't want to meet with many more. (Which in turn probably translates to the 30% who don't match.

Law2doc - (I think you can take this cause you are always dishing it out)
WRONG. Seriously, I can't understand how you can constantly be correcting people on this forum when you are so often uniformed. You should tone it down...

For U.S. seniors who matched the median # of contiguous ranks is 8.5. Thus, the people who didn't match are not in this statistic.

Just read the report

 

[Whoops12]

If the median for derm is 8, it probably means that a lot of people aren't getting a lot of interviews, not that they didn't want to meet with many more. (Which in turn probably translates to the 30% who don't match.

Law2doc - (I think you can take this cause you are always dishing it out)
WRONG. Seriously, I can't understand how you can constantly be correcting people on this forum when you are so often uniformed. You should tone it down...

For U.S. seniors who matched the median # of contiguous ranks is 8.5. Thus, the people who didn't match are not in this statistic.

Just read the report

 

[Law2Doc]

Law2doc - (I think you can take this cause you are always dishing it out)
WRONG. Seriously, I can't understand how you can constantly be correcting people on this forum when you are so often uniformed. You should tone it down...

For U.S. seniors who matched the median # of contiguous ranks is 8.5. Thus, the people who didn't match are not in this statistic.

Just read the report

Dude, I think you misunderstood my post (but very trollish of you to attack me in one of your initial posts). I'm saying the average number of interviews in things like derm is going to be low because people aren't getting as many interviews as they would have wanted, and to the extent they would have gotten more, they would have wanted to go on more. So putting it up against peds, where people interview at 8 places by choice, vs derm, where they interview at 8 places by default (because that's all they got), is somewhat misleading. So the average number of interviews in derm to those who matched is 8, and those who didn't match are not counted but perhaps didn't even get that much. I don't see where this goes wrong, and dude you need to cool it with the attacks as a supposedly "new" poster. I also would note that as someone who has already been through the match I don't really consider myself all that "uninformed" on this topic. You are the one who needs to "tone it down" here, rather than use your initial posts on this board to call out others.

 

[thesauce]

Dude, I think you misunderstood my post (but very trollish of you to attack me in one of your initial posts). I'm saying the average number of interviews in things like derm is going to be low because people aren't getting as many interviews as they would have wanted, and to the extent they would have gotten more, they would have wanted to go on more. So putting it up against peds, where people interview at 8 places by choice, vs derm, where they interview at 8 places by default (because that's all they got), is somewhat misleading. So the average number of interviews in derm to those who matched is 8, and those who didn't match are not counted but perhaps didn't even get that much. I don't see where this goes wrong, and dude you need to cool it with the attacks as a supposedly "new" poster. I also would note that as someone who has already been through the match I don't really consider myself all that "uninformed" on this topic. You are the one who needs to "tone it down" here, rather than use your initial posts on this board to call out others.

I agree that the other poster needs to simmer down. What he was saying is that the 30% that don't match aren't included in this statistic. The average # of inteviews for unmatched applicants is 4 (also in the report).

The reason that the derm applicants are going on the same number of interviews as the peds applicants is absolutely irrelevant to our discussion. You've tried to morph the discussion into something else. Your original post mentioned that competitive residency applicants attend more interviews. Now in this post, you're essentially admitting that they don't. That was my point.

 

[Law2Doc]

...Your original post mentioned that competitive residency applicants attend more interviews. Now in this post, you're essentially admitting that they don't. That was my point.

I get your point, but I don't think I'm changing my argument. They do attend more interviews if they can. That the average you found is so low simply demonstrates that a lot can't, but I would suggest this is not by choice. But if you are a competitive applicant, you will go on more than the average you listed if that is an option. Certainly many people I know in last year's process did -- with quite a few hitting as many as 20. Using an entire vacation month for interviews is not uncommon for the competitive specialties. And if you google that NYT article from about a year ago you will read about a Harvard couple who opted to do about 90 derm interviews (which is the extreme, particularly if you are coming from Harvard, IMHO). You would be crazy to go on only 8 interviews for a highly competitive path unless that is your only option. And it should be noted that you will also be interviewing for prelim/transitional year programs on top of this (albeit not nearly as many). Which goes back to my initial point that in most cases you won't have time to interview for a second, back-up specialty and still manage to fulfill your fourth year obligations. I hope this clarifies. Makes sense to me in my head but I'm not sure from the responses that I conveyed it that well the first time.

 

[thesauce]

I get your point, but I don't think I'm changing my argument. They do attend more interviews if they can. That the average you found is so low simply demonstrates that a lot can't, but I would suggest this is not by choice. But if you are a competitive applicant, you will go on more than the average you listed if that is an option. Certainly many people I know in last year's process did -- with quite a few hitting as many as 20. Using an entire vacation month for interviews is not uncommon for the competitive specialties. And if you google that NYT article from about a year ago you will read about a Harvard couple who opted to do about 90 derm interviews (which is the extreme, particularly if you are coming from Harvard, IMHO). You would be crazy to go on only 8 interviews for a highly competitive path unless that is your only option. And it should be noted that you will also be interviewing for prelim/transitional year programs on top of this (albeit not nearly as many). Which goes back to my initial point that in most cases you won't have time to interview for a second, back-up specialty and still manage to fulfill your fourth year obligations. I hope this clarifies. Makes sense to me in my head but I'm not sure from the responses that I conveyed it that well the first time.

Makes sense. Happy Thanksgiving.