Are programs penalized for ranking "reach" applicants?

[Sea_Bass]

Everyone says the opposite isn't true, but if a program really really likes a candidate that they know will probably rank a better program higher, will that influence their ranking of the candidate?

The way I see it, programs can rank "reach" applicants highly without negative consequences. If they match with the most desirable candidates, then great. If not, it just goes down the list.

Or am I looking at this wrong? Just curious (and yes, I've read over the "How the Match Works" sticky...)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[epsilonprodigy]

It doesn't "hurt" them in theory, because worst case scenario, they rank the applicant highly and end up not getting them, thus falling another rung on their preferred ROL.

With that said, I think a "reach" applicant can help or hinder themselves at such a program by being able to demonstrate real ties/ interest to the program. People like to be liked, and if it's clear that a program is a backup for you, then the faculty will naturally like you a little less. Obviously your interest must play a role, because I've been questioned out the wazoo about being "overqualified, so why would you want to come to OUR program when you could be at MBH...etc."

 

[mvenus929]

There is a theoretical ego with reach applicants. If a program falls to #50 one year when they normally fall to #30, it can be a bit of a blow.

I think the real concern and struggle that many programs have comes way before the rank list is formulated, when trying to figure out who to invite. If you interview 50 reach candidates out of 100 slots, how confident should you be that you will fill the program that year. This is the issue programs have been having with more students applying to more programs... The number of individual applicants that a program is seeing is going up much faster than the size of the whole applicant pool because more people are worried that they aren't going to match without applying and interviewing at x programs.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Because programs like to not fall prohibitively down their ROL, for Ego reasons. If a program that takes 6 people drops to 30-40 on it's rank list, it may have shot for people that were overqualified, or (alternatively) turned candidates off from their program due to program set-up, resident discussion, changes in leadership, etc. who ended up just going else where. It's hard to tell the difference, so PDs generally try to minimize how far down their ROL they go.

 

[Law2Doc]

Partly it's ego, partly it's practical. Programs only want to interview X number of people. It's time consuming and expensive. They also don't want to end up in SOAP, so they need a certain sized buffer in their rank list to ensure they avoid that. So if you are going to interview X people and want Y number of people to serve as a buffer, there's only so many reaches you want in that X-Y group.

 

[mcl]

I think most of our "reach" applicants end up weeding themselves out by cancelling their interview. They applied broadly, just in case, and accepted/scheduled interviews as the offers came in--but in the end can only visit so many programs. Of the people we interviewed and ranked there are some I'd be surprised to see on our match list, but I don't think that any of them are reaches.

 

[Law2Doc]

I think most of our "reach" applicants end up weeding themselves out by cancelling their interview. They applied broadly, just in case, and accepted/scheduled interviews as the offers came in--but in the end can only visit so many programs. Of the people we interviewed and ranked there are some I'd be surprised to see on our match list, but I don't think that any of them are reaches.

By "reach" I think we aren't necessarily talking about people for whom your program would necessarily be a safety, but also good applicants that may have locations that would seem to be more geographically desirable for them.