Applying to all residencies in small specialties?

[ERDOC555]

---

Members don't see this ad.

For very small competitive specialties with say 200-500 spots each year, is it:
1) feasible
2) advantageous
3) cost effective
to apply to every single program out there?

I'm assuming there is a common app of sorts as well as a personal statement, but I don't believe it is like Med Schools where they have long expensive secondaries for each program. This makes me think it's feasible.

If you are a crap candidate I assume it wouldn't be advantageous, however for a below average candidate could this help?

I have no doubt that this is not cost effective. Its certainly doable for several thousand in application fees, but I would assume most reasonable candidates wouldn't need to in order to get an acceptance.

What would be reasons to apply to all programs as well as reasons to not apply to all programs?

 

[FindMeOnTheLinks]

For ENT they make you write a paragraph specifically for each program you apply for, seemingly to decrease the number of programs applicants apply to. Seems like it wouldn't be worth it in that case.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[ERDOC555]

For ENT they make you write a paragraph specifically for each program you apply for, seemingly to decrease the number of programs applicants apply to. Seems like it wouldn't be worth it in that case.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Thanks for the response!

Very interesting, but other than that extra paragraph sending out 1 application is as much work as 100? I'm interested if any other specialties require additional materials!

 

[mimelim]

For very small competitive specialties with say 200-500 spots each year, is it:
1) feasible
2) advantageous
3) cost effective
to apply to every single program out there?

I'm assuming there is a common app of sorts as well as a personal statement, but I don't believe it is like Med Schools where they have long expensive secondaries for each program. This makes me think it's feasible.

If you are a crap candidate I assume it wouldn't be advantageous, however for a below average candidate could this help?

I have no doubt that this is not cost effective. Its certainly doable for several thousand in application fees, but I would assume most reasonable candidates wouldn't need to in order to get an acceptance.

What would be reasons to apply to all programs as well as reasons to not apply to all programs?

It was common when I applied to integrated vascular surgery to apply to all the programs. At that time there were 41 programs. Now there are 50. I'm sure that some people still do apply to most of them. But, at some point it is a waste of time. You aren't going to be going on more than 10-25 interviews. So why apply to more places?

Right or wrong, at the end of the day, one of the most important things that small programs and competitive programs care about is getting someone that wants to be there. It is a disaster when someone leaves in the middle of their residency, especially when you only have 1-2 residents per year. And for those that do stay, it is bad news to have someone that wants out, but won't leave from lack of options.

 

[ERDOC555]

It was common when I applied to integrated vascular surgery to apply to all the programs. At that time there were 41 programs. Now there are 50. I'm sure that some people still do apply to most of them. But, at some point it is a waste of time. You aren't going to be going on more than 10-25 interviews. So why apply to more places?

Right or wrong, at the end of the day, one of the most important things that small programs and competitive programs care about is getting someone that wants to be there. It is a disaster when someone leaves in the middle of their residency, especially when you only have 1-2 residents per year. And for those that do stay, it is bad news to have someone that wants out, but won't leave from lack of options.

I agree that the limiting step would be interviews. From what I've seen, 10-15 seems to be a very safe number in even the competitive specialties. Hopefully by shotgunning your application you can get closer to that magic number, but I have no idea how hard it is to get an interview at program.

Thanks for the info!

 

[username456789]

For very small competitive specialties with say 200-500 spots each year, is it:
1) feasible
2) advantageous
3) cost effective
to apply to every single program out there?

I'm assuming there is a common app of sorts as well as a personal statement, but I don't believe it is like Med Schools where they have long expensive secondaries for each program. This makes me think it's feasible.

If you are a crap candidate I assume it wouldn't be advantageous, however for a below average candidate could this help?

I have no doubt that this is not cost effective. Its certainly doable for several thousand in application fees, but I would assume most reasonable candidates wouldn't need to in order to get an acceptance.

What would be reasons to apply to all programs as well as reasons to not apply to all programs?

Judging by your username, I assume you're applying in dermatology. When I applied, there were about 110 programs, and I applied to nearly 100 of them. I ended up with 16 interviews, which I'm told is better than average.

There isn't much extra work involved in applying to so many programs in that field; however, there are a handful of programs that do require you go to their department website and either fill out an online form or mail in a separate form. Usually nothing very time intensive (except Ohio State), but more of just a way to ensure that you've at least taken the time to check that specific program out.

 

[operaman]

This is fairly common actually, so feasible, yes, absolutely.

Cost effective? Eh, could be. The cost of adding an additional program on ERAS is negligible compared to the overall cost of interviewing and especially compared to the cost of having to reapply. On the other hand, it would display a remarkable lack of insight to shotgun in such a way. If you're a highly competitive applicant, you don't need all the safety applications; if you're more average and feel the need to apply everywhere, you could probably save yourself the money and hassle of applying to the most elite programs, etc.

Advantageous? Perhaps. I think there is a small cadre of applicants who can benefit from this approach. Off the top of my head:
1) Right down the middle average for matched applicants
2) Strong above average overall application but with one pink/red flag
3) Below average stats but truly mindblowing ECs that make it impossible to predict just how your app would be received.

I know that ENT and Urology have google docs from past years where people have anonymously reported their stats along with number of apps, interviews, aways, pubs, etc. Other fields may have them too. Definitely worth a look for anyone applying to get a sense of what lies ahead. There's a LOT of variation between seemingly similar applicants as things like school, quality of home dept, quality of letters, ECs, etc. aren't captured, but it can still give a general idea of how similar applicants have fared.

 

[ERDOC555]

This is fairly common actually, so feasible, yes, absolutely.

Cost effective? Eh, could be. The cost of adding an additional program on ERAS is negligible compared to the overall cost of interviewing and especially compared to the cost of having to reapply. On the other hand, it would display a remarkable lack of insight to shotgun in such a way. If you're a highly competitive applicant, you don't need all the safety applications; if you're more average and feel the need to apply everywhere, you could probably save yourself the money and hassle of applying to the most elite programs, etc.

Advantageous? Perhaps. I think there is a small cadre of applicants who can benefit from this approach. Off the top of my head:
1) Right down the middle average for matched applicants
2) Strong above average overall application but with one pink/red flag
3) Below average stats but truly mindblowing ECs that make it impossible to predict just how your app would be received.

I know that ENT and Urology have google docs from past years where people have anonymously reported their stats along with number of apps, interviews, aways, pubs, etc. Other fields may have them too. Definitely worth a look for anyone applying to get a sense of what lies ahead. There's a LOT of variation between seemingly similar applicants as things like school, quality of home dept, quality of letters, ECs, etc. aren't captured, but it can still give a general idea of how similar applicants have fared.

Great advice as well! Thanks so much for the insight! I wonder if they have those docs for other specialties as well.

 

[username456789]

This is fairly common actually, so feasible, yes, absolutely.

Cost effective? Eh, could be. The cost of adding an additional program on ERAS is negligible compared to the overall cost of interviewing and especially compared to the cost of having to reapply. On the other hand, it would display a remarkable lack of insight to shotgun in such a way. If you're a highly competitive applicant, you don't need all the safety applications; if you're more average and feel the need to apply everywhere, you could probably save yourself the money and hassle of applying to the most elite programs, etc.

Advantageous? Perhaps. I think there is a small cadre of applicants who can benefit from this approach. Off the top of my head:
1) Right down the middle average for matched applicants
2) Strong above average overall application but with one pink/red flag
3) Below average stats but truly mindblowing ECs that make it impossible to predict just how your app would be received.

I know that ENT and Urology have google docs from past years where people have anonymously reported their stats along with number of apps, interviews, aways, pubs, etc. Other fields may have them too. Definitely worth a look for anyone applying to get a sense of what lies ahead. There's a LOT of variation between seemingly similar applicants as things like school, quality of home dept, quality of letters, ECs, etc. aren't captured, but it can still give a general idea of how similar applicants have fared.

For dermatology and other smaller specialties that are highly competitive, it tends to be the rule rather then the exception. There is no such thing as a safety application.

O Conventional wisdom dictates that I return rate of one interview per application is extremely good in dermatology, and according to the last charting the outcomes data, ~8 interviews is where your chances of matching start to improve significantly. Obviously there are other factors that play, but in general for a specialty like dermatology there is very little downside to apply and so widely. The financial cost, as stated, is minuscule compared to the possibility of losing not only a year of attending salary by having to reapply, but possibly never matching into dermatology in the first place.

 

[DrMidlife]

any program that gets way more apps than they can handle does the personalized paragraph requirement. location is as much a factor as specialty. several family med programs on the west coast have that requirement. and specific questions to address.