MD & DO co'21 Residency Panic thread

Started by kraskadva
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
SOAP spots look about the same as last year. Fears that all programs were interviewing the top candidates and people were hoarding spots seem unfounded, at least as far as the match data goes. The number of open spots in Derm + ortho + Vasc + plastics + thoracic = 1. IM and FM look very similar to last year.
rads and gas look extremely different from prior years
 
I haven’t seen it. How so? I think I remember seeing somewhere that anesthesia had almost twice as many applicants as spots this year.
There are only 2 anesthesia and 1 DR program this year, something like 13 anesthesia and 25 DR last year if I'm reading all this correctly. I have multiple friends here who didn't match surgical specialties and when we went to look at the gas and rads options there literally aren't any
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
There are only 2 anesthesia and 1 DR program this year, something like 13 anesthesia and 25 DR last year if I'm reading all this correctly. I have multiple friends here who didn't match surgical specialties and when we went to look at the gas and rads options there literally aren't any
Hmmm I'm looking at the Regional Stats by Specialty report - I've heard several people mentioned that when they go into ERAS to find programs to SOAP, there are fewer positions that what is listed under the "unfilled positions" column in the report. I am seeing 3 unfilled in gas and 11 in DR though? Am I not reading that correctly? But again, some of those positions are probably not SOAP-able (programs not participating, research tracks they're choosing not to fill, etc.)
 
Hmmm I'm looking at the Regional Stats by Specialty report - I've heard several people mentioned that when they go into ERAS to find programs to SOAP, there are fewer positions that what is listed under the "unfilled positions" column in the report. I am seeing 3 unfilled in gas and 11 in DR though? Am I not reading that correctly? But again, some of those positions are probably not SOAP-able (programs not participating, research tracks they're choosing not to fill, etc.)
This is via the NRMP page for SOAP spots that you can only access if you're a candidate for SOAP, and I mean 1-2 programs not 1-2 positions
 
Interestingly enough, fewer SOAP spots this year seems to imply that perhaps all these years, programs might have been the ones who have been suboptimally interviewing and/or ranking candidates? It's unclear until we get final reports but anecdotally at least, it sounds like many applicants erred on the side of caution and applied more broadly and to a greater number of programs than in the past (saving $$$ on travel definitely contributed). Programs theoretically have also compensated by increasing slots and/or expanding their rank lists.

Taking into consideration the unofficial agreement there has also been a maldistribution of invites among applicants this year despite the increase in apps but that the Match seems to have still done okay, I feel like the pressure of this unpredictable cycle affected the behaviors of programs more so than applicants? Most people I know interviewed at more places than they normally would, but surprisingly not egregiously so (maybe like 3-5 more programs on avg). I can't help but wonder if fewer SOAP spots in many specialties this year is reflecting a change in the programs' expanded pool of candidates and rank lists, esp since so many had predicted that there would be a whole lot of SOAP this year.

Lots of conjectures... can't wait for more data
 
Interestingly enough, fewer SOAP spots this year seems to imply that perhaps all these years, programs might have been the ones who have been suboptimally interviewing and/or ranking candidates? It's unclear until we get final reports but anecdotally at least, it sounds like many applicants erred on the side of caution and applied more broadly and to a greater number of programs than in the past (saving $$$ on travel definitely contributed). Programs theoretically have also compensated by increasing slots and/or expanding their rank lists.

Taking into consideration the unofficial agreement there has also been a maldistribution of invites among applicants this year despite the increase in apps but that the Match seems to have still done okay, I feel like the pressure of this unpredictable cycle affected the behaviors of programs more so than applicants? Most people I know interviewed at more places than they normally would, but surprisingly not egregiously so (maybe like 3-5 more programs on avg). I can't help but wonder if fewer SOAP spots in many specialties this year is reflecting a change in the programs' expanded pool of candidates and rank lists, esp since so many had predicted that there would be a whole lot of SOAP this year.

Lots of conjectures... can't wait for more data
The data at the end of the entire process will look similar in terms of percentage matched.

The real damage is going to be people falling much further down their ranklist, or falling off their preferred specialty into their backups (my guess this is why gas and rads filled up).

We're never going to see any of those numbers.
 
The data at the end of the entire process will look similar in terms of percentage matched.

The real damage is going to be people falling much further down their ranklist, or falling off their preferred specialty into their backups (my guess this is why gas and rads filled up).

We're never going to see any of those numbers.

The bolded is my big worry as a gas applicant.

I only have one program I'll be sad if I matched at, I considered not ranking them so I wouldn't spend this week worried about falling to them. The first thing I said to my wife after I got the email was "I shouldn't have ranked [programX]."
 
The data at the end of the entire process will look similar in terms of percentage matched.

The real damage is going to be people falling much further down their ranklist, or falling off their preferred specialty into their backups (my guess this is why gas and rads filled up).

We're never going to see any of those numbers.
Not to mention a lot of solid, but not top tier applicants didn’t get invites they would have gotten in a normal year.
 
The data at the end of the entire process will look similar in terms of percentage matched.

The real damage is going to be people falling much further down their ranklist, or falling off their preferred specialty into their backups (my guess this is why gas and rads filled up).

We're never going to see any of those numbers.
People keep ignoring this and it's really irritating me in the discussions.
 
I now know of at least 6 people unmatched this year just in Ortho/Plastics/Ophtho, I'm sure there are several more I haven't heard yet in other fields. Faculty are calling my friends saying they looked at their applications again and cannot find any reason they failed to match. One friend even received a rank-to-match email and then didn't match it. Meanwhile the SOAP options look awful compared to prior years, at least in the specialties they would have considered, and ERAS is barely functioning. Complete dumpster fire
 
I now know of at least 6 people unmatched this year just in Ortho/Plastics/Ophtho, I'm sure there are several more I haven't heard yet in other fields. Faculty are calling my friends saying they looked at their applications again and cannot find any reason they failed to match. One friend even received a rank-to-match email and then didn't match it. Meanwhile the SOAP options look awful compared to prior years, at least in the specialties they would have considered, and ERAS is barely functioning. Complete dumpster fire

Can we ban rank to match emails already
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I now know of at least 6 people unmatched this year just in Ortho/Plastics/Ophtho, I'm sure there are several more I haven't heard yet in other fields. Faculty are calling my friends saying they looked at their applications again and cannot find any reason they failed to match. One friend even received a rank-to-match email and then didn't match it. Meanwhile the SOAP options look awful compared to prior years, at least in the specialties they would have considered, and ERAS is barely functioning. Complete dumpster fire
At least at your school they could do a research year instead of going into a prelim or FM/IM (if they didn't want to). Hope it works out for them couldn't imagine.
 
Last edited:
At least at your school they could do a research year instead of going into a prelim or FM/I'm (if they didn't want to). Hope it works out for them couldn't imagine.
Turns out, some of the folks who failed to match last year and did a "research year" were unfunded. They were just paying their own $$ towards rent/food while being free labor for someone until they could reapply.
 
Can someone with SOAP access tell me what the options look like for primary care (IM/FM/peds)? I’m curious to know if those options are looking different like some of the surgical specialties are, compared to last year.
 
So...what I think everyone wants to know now is with this overapplying thing...Seems like NAPD is skeptical of hoarding (better word is interview saturation). Is there still a possibility of it having occurred? Not gonna lie, after interviews were done, I was hoping we would find out it existed so that everyone could end up with a high option. (In my head, if there was interview saturation, the top programs would get the same people but everyone after that would hopefully get high choices as a product of top applicants not ranking midtiers highly) since many solid applicants seemed to have already paid the price in the front end (limited initial interviews).
 
Last edited:
Interestingly enough, fewer SOAP spots this year seems to imply that perhaps all these years, programs might have been the ones who have been suboptimally interviewing and/or ranking candidates? It's unclear until we get final reports but anecdotally at least, it sounds like many applicants erred on the side of caution and applied more broadly and to a greater number of programs than in the past (saving $$$ on travel definitely contributed). Programs theoretically have also compensated by increasing slots and/or expanding their rank lists.

Taking into consideration the unofficial agreement there has also been a maldistribution of invites among applicants this year despite the increase in apps but that the Match seems to have still done okay, I feel like the pressure of this unpredictable cycle affected the behaviors of programs more so than applicants? Most people I know interviewed at more places than they normally would, but surprisingly not egregiously so (maybe like 3-5 more programs on avg). I can't help but wonder if fewer SOAP spots in many specialties this year is reflecting a change in the programs' expanded pool of candidates and rank lists, esp since so many had predicted that there would be a whole lot of SOAP this year.

Lots of conjectures... can't wait for more data

I’d bet that this year programs hedged their bets and ranked almost everyone they interviewed. I don’t know if anyone has the numbers but I’m sure ina typical year 10-20% of those who interview at a program don’t even make the rank list because of their personality tendencies; It’s harder to tell if someone is the type of person to let a door close in someone’s face or stare at their phone while a PC introduces themselves because they aren’t a physician and “not affecting their interview” over Zoom.
 
So...what I think everyone wants to know now is with this overapplying thing...Seems like NAPD is skeptical of hoarding. Is there still a possibility of it having occurred? Not gonna lie, after interviews were done, I was hoping we would find hoarding existed so that everyone could end up with a high option. (In my head, if there was hoarding, the top programs would get the same but everyone after that would hopefully get high choices as a product of top applicants not ranking midtiers highly).
We won’t be able to tell til Friday on the Reddit “I’m glad I matched but hate where I matched” thread.
 
We won’t be able to tell til Friday on the Reddit “I’m glad I matched but hate where I matched” thread.

But that's just anecdotal evidence. Is there any additional data released?
Congratulations BTW!

The rumors I'm hearing so far are that: "there is only X IM categorical spot open in NYC", there are tons of FM programs open (not surprising), anesthesia/rads are not super available in SOAP, EM has 14ish spots open, IM spots in SOAP aren't appealing.
 
So...what I think everyone wants to know now is with this overapplying thing...Seems like NAPD is skeptical of hoarding. Is there still a possibility of it having occurred? Not gonna lie, after interviews were done, I was hoping we would find hoarding existed so that everyone could end up with a high option. (In my head, if there was hoarding, the top programs would get the same but everyone after that would hopefully get high choices as a product of top applicants not ranking midtiers highly).

Wouldn't top applicants still be ahead of you in the program's rank list? What if a program ranks 50 people normally, but you're #51 since they ranked a bunch of top applicants that didn't bother to rank them highly at all.
 
Wouldn't top applicants still be ahead of you in the program's rank list? What if a program ranks 50 people normally, but you're #51 since they ranked a bunch of top applicants that didn't bother to rank them highly at all.
The "top" applicants would be ahead of us but they wouldn't "therorically" match at my lowly #1 since they probably used it as one of their back up options. Also, places probably don't have rank caps and wouldn't DNR anyone just because went above an arbitrary number since there's no rank cap. Wouldn't be in their best interest to do that since they already used the interview slot. The only case I would imagine a DNR is if they interviewed someone and realized they really don't want them for XYZ reason. It's similar to how we DNR a place... the program would really have to prefer to be one spot closer on their list to being unfilled.

@popopopop are you M3/4? Not asking to pull rank. Just to see if I have to clarify the algorithm/system.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The "top" applicants would be ahead of us but they wouldn't "therorically" match at my lowly #1 since they probably used it as one of their back up options. Also, places probably don't have rank caps and DNR anyone else. Wouldn't be in their best interest to do that since they already used the slot.

Yeah, I get the ranking part from our ROL side, but the program can still rank the top applicants higher and knock you out of even getting ranked at all is what I'm trying to say. Do correct me if I'm completely wrong about this though.
 
Yeah, I get the ranking part from our ROL side, but the program can still rank the top applicants higher and knock you out of even getting ranked at all is what I'm trying to say. Do correct me if I'm completely wrong about this though.
You have to do something really aggregious to not be ranked at all in most cases. There is no limit to a programs rank list and if if they rank top tier applicants above you, they don’t magically get those people unless those people drop down to that program on their own list.
 
The "top" applicants would be ahead of us but they wouldn't "therorically" match at my lowly #1 since they probably used it as one of their back up options. Also, places probably don't have rank caps and wouldn't DNR anyone just because went above an arbitrary number since there's no rank cap. Wouldn't be in their best interest to do that since they already used the interview slot. The only case I would imagine a DNR is if they interviewed someone and realized they really don't want them for XYZ reason. It's similar to how we DNR a place... the program would really have to prefer to be one spot closer on their list to being unfilled.

@popopopop are you M3/4? Not asking to pull rank. Just to see if I have to clarify the algorithm/system.

M4, but I'm pretty sure I had this convo with a friend and I had this same logic that spawn a long convo. I did watch the algorithm thing a few times. Oh well, we'll wait and see where everyone falls.
 
Yeah, I get the ranking part from our ROL side, but the program can still rank the top applicants higher and knock you out of even getting ranked at all is what I'm trying to say. Do correct me if I'm completely wrong about this though.

I think the bolded is incorrect.

Let's say Program X interviews 1000 applicants and ranks 1000 (everyone interviewed well and no suprises came up). The program has 50 slots. You are ranked 300th...doesn't sound good...but if 250 of those ranked above you "get ranked/matched" elsewhere (based on their top choices), you get that 50th spot. Just because a program ranks applicants "better" than you doesn't mean the programs magically get to pull those to their program. That's what it means when ppl say the match is in our favor.
 
Last edited: