• Practice your interview with the new SDN AI Interview Coach. Choose a school, answer by voice or typing, and receive a personalized feedback report. Available now to all SDN members. Try the AI Interview Coach.

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.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
NotAProgDirector said:
I'm late to the party, like usual.




Sorry for the double tap here. I'm still not convinced there was any interview hoarding. I think what's likely to have happened is that 1) programs interviewed more people, either by interviewing more people per day or adding more days; 2) Applicants went on same/slightly more interviews, either because there were more slots and because they cancelled less. The net result will be overall the same. If the difference was big we'd probably see a change -- imagine that programs and applicants both doubled their interviews. Everyone's rank list would be twice as long. All the spots would fill the same way, in fact we'd expect a smaller unfill rate overall. The net result would be that people would match, measured as a percentage, in the same part of their list. Measured as an absolute value, it would be lower. But it's really the same result (but will feel worse, if we use "matched at #1" as a metric). Since I think the difference was probably only 10-15%, I don't think it will make a big enough difference to show. We will see when we see the data -- I may eat my hat.

Pointing out that if your friend matched and saw a program they ranked in SOAP, then that means they probably matched above this program (unless the program didn't rank them). If your friend didn't match, then the program didn't rank them.

This will be the most interesting thing to come out of this COVID mess. I don't think the AAMC can force anything to happen -- residency programs are separate businesses whom can recruit any way they want. Unless the ACGME decides to intervene and somehow make it a program requirement (which I expect would be very unpopular) it will likely be program choice. In a world where everyone is virtual, it's no problem. When "top" programs go back to in person, everyone's going to want to keep up with the Joneses...


Actually, it's not "nonsense" per se. If I knew you're going to rank me #20 on your list, I wouldn't bother inviting you. Sure, you like to have the interview and one more rank because it marginally increases your chance of matching. But it's mostly a waste of our resources. Of course, there's often no way for us to know. That's how some programs end up using (perhaps) meaningless metrics -- like any connection to geographic area, etc.

The data so far highly suggests there's no "slide up" effect. For that to happen, there would need to be extreme interview hoarding. Top applicants would need to get most of the interviews, mid-tier applicants would get a decent number, and a good slice of applicants would need to get few/none. Then, top programs would fill with the top applicants as they always do. Higher / mid tier programs would have also interviewed these superstars, get none of them, and fall lower on their lists -- and those mid tier applicants would slide up relative to prior years. And then a whole bunch of low tier programs would be unfilled, along with the unmatched low tier applicants. The SOAP stats don't support this at all.

It still might be possible -- if the distribution of filled slots is different. If because of virtual inteviewing programs that usually consider IMG candidates decided to more strongly consider DO candidates, then it's possible that DO candidates would "match better" and IMG would "match worse". I have no idea if that's the case -- this is not based on any real data. But I doubt it.

I guess it's actually possible that the match results will be better this year -- that on average candidates will match higher on their lists. As people go on more interviews, they get exposed to more programs. It's possible that you might fall in love with a program that you otherwise might not have considered. If that happens to enough people, everyone might do better.

I think there's too many unknowns, and no matter what the data ultimately show, you can probably spin it to tell whatever story you want. The only story that is certainly not true is that the match this year was a disaster. It seems to have turned out similarly to prior years. Although I certainly recognize that if you have not matched, it certainly seems like a disaster.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this obsession with where the applicant will rank the program. There is no way of knowing if the applicant even has 20 interviews, and the whole purpose of the algorithm is rank according to preference. So if you have me as your number 1 preference, rank me as such, and if I have you as my 20th preference , there is still a significant chance that I will match there, because maybe other programs hated me or know me better to rank me lower.

I did not receive a lot of love from mid tiers, even though my application would probably put me above IQRs in terms of competitiveness on every metric that is measured and probably those that are not measured for my specialty. Yet my application was geared towards mid-tiers because of geography and cost of living. Its so odd to me that programs would yield protect a good applicant because they ASSUME the applicant wont rank them highly. That is non-sensical. the algorithm of the match already assumes that you are displaying true preference in your rank, not " true preference based on what i think the applicant will be displaying"

It is quite possible that if programs started interviewing according to true preference and ranking as such that they may end up with better applicants matching there even with programs falling lower on their rank lists, compared to playing these what if mind games.

This whole concept of " we matched top of our list" is asinine and probably not optimizing programs for the best applicants.
 
Neopolymath said:
Who would have thought that taking largely the same number of programs and largely same number of applicants as the year before and making them do the same dance they do every year would result in roughly similar outcomes???

I think there probably are some nuanced differences and some of them might even be specialty specific but I think it just makes good old fashioned sense that a huge effect wouldn't be noticed.
Click to expand...
My only guess is that programs fell lower on their rank lists and/or applicants matched higher on their list this year. At least for general surgery, most, if not all of my programs kept the same number of interviews days/spots as to previous years.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
libertyyne said:
I don't understand this obsession with where the applicant will rank the program. There is no way of knowing if the applicant even has 20 interviews, and the whole purpose of the algorithm is rank according to preference. So if you have me as your number 1 preference, rank me as such, and if I have you as my 20th preference , there is still a significant chance that I will match there, because maybe other programs hated me or know me better to rank me lower.

I did not receive a lot of love from mid tiers, even though my application would probably put me above IQRs in terms of competitiveness on every metric that is measured and probably those that are not measured for my specialty. Yet my application was geared towards mid-tiers because of geography and cost of living. Its so odd to me that programs would yield protect a good applicant because they ASSUME the applicant wont rank them highly. That is non-sensical. the algorithm of the match already assumes that you are displaying true preference in your rank, not " true preference based on what i think the applicant will be displaying"

It is quite possible that if programs started interviewing according to true preference and ranking as such that they may end up with better applicants matching there even with programs falling lower on their rank lists, compared to playing these what if mind games.

This whole concept of " we matched top of our list" is asinine and probably not optimizing programs for the best applicants.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

I agree there's no way for me to know where you will rank me. But, if statistically over time there is a certain school / geography / application profile in which the match rate is very low to my program, it's only natural that I would tend not to invite those people. I only have so many interview spots, I can't invite everyone. So, we tend to invite those whom we think have a realistic chance of being with us. It's imperfect, for sure. I would disagree that the chances of you matching with us if you ranked us #20 is "significant". It's got to be <1%.

That said, we read every US application we get in detail. if your application falls into our "unlikely to match with us" pile based upon overall characterstics but then there's something in the PS / work history / etc that makes us think you're different from the rest, then we consider inviting you.

A good example: there's a community hospital in Cali that's in one of the big cities with very competitive programs. I knew the PD well there. They routinely received applications from top flight candidates, and never matched any of them. Basically, they received invites from the top program, were coming out to Cali to interview, and figured why not spend another few days and interview at this other program also? In the end, they decided it was a complete waste of time to interview them at all.

I do agree that some programs may be making these decisions in a vacuum. A New England program reviews your application which shows only educational experiences in the deep south. You've never lived in snow territory before. They decide you're unlikely to come, and decline to interview you despite having the USMLE scores / grades / LOR / whatever that they are looking for. But perhaps you really want to come up to New England for some reason? Maybe your family has moved here now so you have a real draw? Hopefully you put that in your PS, and hopefully the program actually gets that far in your application.

That's the main argument for app caps -- with less apps, I'd be able to spend more time on each.

I agree that any metric of success based upon how high on my rank list I fill is unacceptable. My chair suggested it in a faculty meeting 6 months ago and I was not subtle about how destructive that is. I can put my rank list in upside down and probably fill quickly, but that's not a measure of quality.
 
NotAProgDirector said:
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

I agree there's no way for me to know where you will rank me. But, if statistically over time there is a certain school / geography / application profile in which the match rate is very low to my program, it's only natural that I would tend not to invite those people. I only have so many interview spots, I can't invite everyone. So, we tend to invite those whom we think have a realistic chance of being with us. It's imperfect, for sure. I would disagree that the chances of you matching with us if you ranked us #20 is "significant". It's got to be <1%.

That said, we read every US application we get in detail. if your application falls into our "unlikely to match with us" pile based upon overall characterstics but then there's something in the PS / work history / etc that makes us think you're different from the rest, then we consider inviting you.

A good example: there's a community hospital in Cali that's in one of the big cities with very competitive programs. I knew the PD well there. They routinely received applications from top flight candidates, and never matched any of them. Basically, they received invites from the top program, were coming out to Cali to interview, and figured why not spend another few days and interview at this other program also? In the end, they decided it was a complete waste of time to interview them at all.

I do agree that some programs may be making these decisions in a vacuum. A New England program reviews your application which shows only educational experiences in the deep south. You've never lived in snow territory before. They decide you're unlikely to come, and decline to interview you despite having the USMLE scores / grades / LOR / whatever that they are looking for. But perhaps you really want to come up to New England for some reason? Maybe your family has moved here now so you have a real draw? Hopefully you put that in your PS, and hopefully the program actually gets that far in your application.

That's the main argument for app caps -- with less apps, I'd be able to spend more time on each.

I agree that any metric of success based upon how high on my rank list I fill is unacceptable. My chair suggested it in a faculty meeting 6 months ago and I was not subtle about how destructive that is. I can put my rank list in upside down and probably fill quickly, but that's not a measure of quality.
Click to expand...
Kind of a random question, but do you think if there were some sort of caps on applications or a tiered application system, would programs be more willing to post better criteria/cut offs, and overall, I guess details online? I'm kind of in favor of some sort of application cap to allow for better reviews of our applications, but I can't imagine having a cap on how many apps I can send out without having much more detailed information about the programs I'm applying to, and exactly the type of applicant they are looking for. It almost seems like programs are intentionally ambiguous online with this stuff. And frieda is completely hit or miss
 
NotAProgDirector said:
That's the main argument for app caps -- with less apps, I'd be able to spend more time on each.
Click to expand...
This is the part that gets me. When people claim they "can't punch up" with app caps.... it's actually the opposite. They'll be able to "punch up" with much more success, given that a PD is actually reading their app in great detail.
 
Jack Donaghy said:
This is the part that gets me. When people claim they "can't punch up" with app caps.... it's actually the opposite. They'll be able to "punch up" with much more success, given that a PD is actually reading their app in great detail.
Click to expand...
It would also change what/how people punch up. I think a big appeal of the status quo (i.e., everyone overapplying) is that it forces PDs to rely heavily on Step exams, and there are well established ways for a hard working student to grind out success by that metric. I dont think its coincidence that the same arguments made against application caps were made against pass/fail Step 1 - it's much scarier to have to bank on nebulous "holistic review" or "fit" to overcome the IMG/DO/regional/whatever other biases.
 
efle said:
It would also change what/how people punch up. I think a big appeal of the status quo (i.e., everyone overapplying) is that it forces PDs to rely heavily on Step exams, and there are well established ways for a hard working student to grind out success by that metric. I dont think its coincidence that the same arguments made against application caps were made against pass/fail Step 1 - it's much scarier to have to bank on nebulous "holistic review" or "fit" to overcome the IMG/DO/regional/whatever other biases.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point
 
I feel like instead of application caps, interview caps with multiple rounds of coordinated release would be better. With an overall limit of 15 interviews total. Inform everyone and give applicants a few days to select interview dates. Once they have, programs will know how many they have booked and can send the next round of interviews.


The problem is getting everybody coordinated - that would be key.
 
Banco said:
I feel like instead of application caps, interview caps with multiple rounds of coordinated release would be better. With an overall limit of 15 interviews total. Inform everyone and give applicants a few days to select interview dates. Once they have, programs will know how many they have booked and can send the next round of interviews.


The problem is getting everybody coordinated - that would be key.
Click to expand...
Yeah logistics are the problem here. It's only feasible to do something up front with ERAS, either attaching tokens to a handful of apps or limiting the total apps.
 
I wonder if all of these "pre-interview stage" interventions would ultimately hurt the "quality/satisfaction" of the final matches for programs and applicants. Things on paper are often not what they appear; impressions make/break during an interview. The 260+ superstar could turn out to be the biggest arrogant jerk and the "perfect program" on paper could greatly disappoint.

Would be interested to hear - if people had 3 tokens to give out at the start of eras submission, where did those tokens ultimately end up on your final ROL?
 
Jillofalltrades said:
I wonder if all of these "pre-interview stage" interventions would ultimately hurt the "quality/satisfaction" of the final matches for programs and applicants. Things on paper are often not what they appear; impressions make/break during an interview. The 260+ superstar could turn out to be the biggest arrogant jerk and the "perfect program" on paper could greatly disappoint.

Would be interested to hear - if people had 3 tokens to give out at the start of eras submission, where did those tokens ultimately end up on your final ROL?
Click to expand...
I had top choices that didnt interview me while bigger names in cities I cant afford did interview me. If tokens worked well, there would be a couple more places at the top of my list instead of not even on my list.
 
Jillofalltrades said:
I wonder if all of these "pre-interview stage" interventions would ultimately hurt the "quality/satisfaction" of the final matches for programs and applicants. Things on paper are often not what they appear; impressions make/break during an interview. The 260+ superstar could turn out to be the biggest arrogant jerk and the "perfect program" on paper could greatly disappoint.

Would be interested to hear - if people had 3 tokens to give out at the start of eras submission, where did those tokens ultimately end up on your final ROL?
Click to expand...
My absolute ideal program was such a turnoff on interview day I didn’t even want to rank them. The program I reluctantly interviewed at and was not very excited about ended up being my number one. So in this anecdote, tokens would’ve sucked for me.
 
efle said:
I had top choices that didnt interview me while bigger names in cities I cant afford did interview me. If tokens worked well, there would be a couple more places at the top of my list instead of not even on my list.
Click to expand...

How do you envision these tokens working for your average applicant (so not top-tier applicants)? Should they signal "you are my dream program" or does this then become send these tokens to your "safeties" so you can maximize your chances at matching? Because I'm guessing if MGH/BWH/Mayo/Stanford/etc. ends up with 500 tokens - it's not really going to affect their process and they'll still invite who they wanted to in the first place/as if the tokens didn't exist
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Jillofalltrades said:
How do you envision these tokens working for your average applicant (so not top-tier applicants)? Should they signal "you are my dream program" or does this then become send these tokens to your "safeties" so you can maximize your chances at matching? Because I'm guessing if MGH/BWH/Mayo/Stanford/etc. ends up with 500 tokens - it's not really going to affect their process and they'll still invite who they wanted to in the first place/as if the tokens didn't exist
Click to expand...
Up to each individual. If I had 5 I'd spend it on my 5 actual top choices regardless of their "tier." If others want to try and metagame the system by spending it only on reaches, or feel especially secure by spending it only on safeties, that's up to each person. Exact same decision making would happen under interview caps too, this is just even more limited.
 
Ho0v-man said:
My absolute ideal program was such a turnoff on interview day I didn’t even want to rank them. The program I reluctantly interviewed at and was not very excited about ended up being my number one. So in this anecdote, tokens would’ve sucked for me.
Click to expand...
+1... and this is exactly the things programs need to be aware of. Applicants don't always come in with pre-ranks. Interviews are a 2-way street. The programs that turned me off the most were the ones who didn't try at all/acted like they were too good for anyone. There were hidden gems for sure that were low on my radar that overperformed on IV day.

efle said:
Up to each individual. If I had 5 I'd spend it on my 5 actual top choices regardless of their "tier." If others want to try and metagame the system by spending it only on reaches, or feel especially secure by spending it only on safeties, that's up to each person. Exact same decision making would happen under interview caps too, this is just even more limited.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why this system would also fail. We are simply adding more variables that have no clear meaning and therefore cannot be interpreted.
The program has no idea if they're looking at an applicant who is signaling A) you are my dream program B) you are my safety and I'd 150% love to match w/ you if it means avoiding SOAP C) trying to metagame the system/who knows what they're thinking or D) misunderstood the tokens completely.
 
Jillofalltrades said:
This is exactly why this system would also fail. We are simply adding more variables that have no clear meaning and therefore cannot be interpreted.
The program has no idea if they're looking at an applicant who is signaling A) you are my dream program B) you are my safety and I'd 150% love to match w/ you if it means avoiding SOAP C) trying to metagame the system/who knows what they're thinking or D) misunderstood the tokens completely.
Click to expand...
Eh. I disagree with this. I think with all of those options you list here, the overall result is the same... the program sees that applicant x is expressing interest that other programs did not receive from this applicant. Instead of thousands of applications, it turns out to be thousands of applications with a few hundred or so that are showing extra extra interest. It helps allow the programs to slim through the plethora of apps but it allows the applicants to actually have a say in it.
 
Jillofalltrades said:
+1... and this is exactly the things programs need to be aware of. Applicants don't always come in with pre-ranks. Interviews are a 2-way street. The programs that turned me off the most were the ones who didn't try at all/acted like they were too good for anyone. There were hidden gems for sure that were low on my radar that overperformed on IV day.


This is exactly why this system would also fail. We are simply adding more variables that have no clear meaning and therefore cannot be interpreted.
The program has no idea if they're looking at an applicant who is signaling A) you are my dream program B) you are my safety and I'd 150% love to match w/ you if it means avoiding SOAP C) trying to metagame the system/who knows what they're thinking or D) misunderstood the tokens completely.
Click to expand...
Adding the ability to express preference would not break the system. It would enhance it. You're supposed to rank by preference, not knowing or caring whether you're each other's dream or each other's backup. If anything is a problem in this scenario, it's PDs refusing to operate on that principle, to the detriment of their match (though perhaps sparing their ego). In a world where everyone spends their tokens on their top preferences and PDs view a token as an expression of top preference, things should go more smoothly/higher yield for all parties. You won't have to play these stupid games anymore where your rank depends on whether they believe you'd come there.
 
Espressso said:
Eh. I disagree with this. I think with all of those options you list here, the overall result is the same... the program sees that applicant x is expressing interest that other programs did not receive from this applicant. Instead of thousands of applications, it turns out to be thousands of applications with a few hundred or so that are showing extra extra interest. It helps allow the programs to slim through the plethora of apps but it allows the applicants to actually have a say in it.
Click to expand...
Unless we also ban letters of interests seeking interviews, there is nothing stopping applicants from using 5 tokens then sending out several more LOIs. There are always going to be couples or applicants with red flags that depend on these LOIs to improve their yield.
 
Jillofalltrades said:
Unless we also ban letters of interests seeking interviews, there is nothing stopping applicants from using 5 tokens then sending out several more LOIs. There are always going to be couples or applicants with red flags that depend on these LOIs to improve their yield.
Click to expand...
good point. I agree those should be banned regardless. All forms of post interview communication and even pre interview LOIs should be banned. It should be virtually contactless
 
Jillofalltrades said:
Would be interested to hear - if people had 3 tokens to give out at the start of eras submission, where did those tokens ultimately end up on your final ROL?
Click to expand...
Would have wound up my #1, #3, and #5. But I was pretty conservative in only applying to a smallish number of programs that fortunately worked out. What ended up my #2 was a surprise to me, because I thought they were out of my league but then were actually super welcoming on interview day. Call schedule is still brutal at this program, and why they aren't #1. #4 is more like a mid-tier program compared to the others, but very good vibe for me, I think I'd fit in well with the people, and they have a phenomenal parental leave policy. My #5 was my original #2, but their parental leave policy seems awful/nonexistant and that suddenly became very important to me.
 
Jillofalltrades said:
I wonder if all of these "pre-interview stage" interventions would ultimately hurt the "quality/satisfaction" of the final matches for programs and applicants. Things on paper are often not what they appear; impressions make/break during an interview. The 260+ superstar could turn out to be the biggest arrogant jerk and the "perfect program" on paper could greatly disappoint.

Would be interested to hear - if people had 3 tokens to give out at the start of eras submission, where did those tokens ultimately end up on your final ROL?
Click to expand...
Would’ve been my number 1 and 4 and the other one didn’t interview me lol
 
efle said:
It would also change what/how people punch up. I think a big appeal of the status quo (i.e., everyone overapplying) is that it forces PDs to rely heavily on Step exams, and there are well established ways for a hard working student to grind out success by that metric. I dont think its coincidence that the same arguments made against application caps were made against pass/fail Step 1 - it's much scarier to have to bank on nebulous "holistic review" or "fit" to overcome the IMG/DO/regional/whatever other biases.
Click to expand...
There is a trend that the people, at least in the DO world, who didn't match competitive specialties had nothing but high scores. You have to have a well rounded app. I think this idea that your ticket to neurosurgery was to bang out a 260 is a myth that gets exaggerated to argue against scored Step scores and now against unlimited residency apps.

I just don't get how you and others can be so dismissive of lived experience. My number 1 program is a program I never would have applied to, or even sent a signal to, in an app capped world. I had no idea I would click so much with everything they had until I did the interview. The program I would have sent a signal to and was my pre-app number 1 ultimately ended up 10th on my list.... Hell, my top 3 would not have gotten an app from me with a tight cap, for numerous reasons.

With such a restrictive cap like 20 you had better damned well hope that those 20 programs you love so much before you interview are still all peachy and perfect after you interview and actually get to know the program. In my experience that was far from the case, and I'm glad I got to apply to a lot of places and see exactly where I fit in best. I learned a lot about myself and about what my career goals actually were in doing those interviews.

Now, did I need to apply to 120 places? No. I ended up cancelling a number of interviews to back up programs. So I won't completely disregard some form of a cap, but this idea that 20 apps is sufficient and people like me will still "punch up" and not have drastically altered outcomes is pretty idealistic and ignores a whole host of factors.
 
Ho0v-man said:
My absolute ideal program was such a turnoff on interview day I didn’t even want to rank them. The program I reluctantly interviewed at and was not very excited about ended up being my number one. So in this anecdote, tokens would’ve sucked for me.
Click to expand...
This. Turns out when you turn over some rocks things aren't necessarily so ideal.
 
AnatomyGrey12 said:
I just don't get how you and others can be so dismissive of lived experience. My number 1 program is a program I never would have applied to, or even sent a signal to, in an app capped world. I had no idea I would click so much with everything they had until I did the interview. The program I would have sent a signal to and was my pre-app number 1 ultimately ended up 10th on my list.... Hell, my top 3 would not have gotten an app from me with a tight cap, for numerous reasons.
Click to expand...
You're too smart to not understand this. Your ability to get interviews would be so much better with a cap that you CAN afford to apply to them. It's a catch 22. You cant cap your apps because theres too many apps to afford capping.

The reason people point to step 1 is because of the data. Not anecdotal experience. Population level data. Nothing even comes close to impacting your chances in competative fields like an average vs 250+ swing in board scores does.
 
efle said:
You're too smart to not understand this. Your ability to get interviews would be so much better with a cap that you CAN afford to apply to them. It's a catch 22. You cant cap your apps because theres too many apps to afford capping.
Click to expand...
So you straight up just ignored the fact I told you my number 1,2 and 3 on my rank list are programs that I would not have applied to in a 20 app capped world. Not because they are reaches, but because I didn't know I would be so interested. And trust me, it's not for lack of personal research on programs. I've spent hours upon hours looking at literally hundreds of web pages/SDN reviews/Reddit comments/etc over and over again the last 4 years. Guess what? Even after all of that research I was wrong when it came to picking which programs I would fit in best at.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
AnatomyGrey12 said:
So you straight up just ignored the fact I told you my number 1,2 and 3 on my rank list are programs that I would not have applied to in a 20 app capped world. Not because they are reaches, but because I didn't know I would be so interested. And trust me, it's not for lack of personal research on programs. I've spent hours upon hours looking at literally hundreds of web pages/SDN reviews/Reddit comments/etc over and over again the last 4 years. Guess what? Even after all of that research I was wrong when it came to picking which programs I would fit in best at.
Click to expand...
I'll match your N=1 with my N=1. My top 3 pre-interview ended as..... #1, #2 and #3 on my rank list.
 
AnatomyGrey12 said:
So you straight up just ignored the fact I told you my number 1,2 and 3 on my rank list are programs that I would not have applied to in a 20 app capped world. Not because they are reaches, but because I didn't know I would be so interested. And trust me, it's not for lack of personal research on programs. I've spent hours upon hours looking at literally hundreds of web pages/SDN reviews/Reddit comments/etc over and over again the last 4 years. Guess what? Even after all of that research I was wrong when it came to picking which programs I would fit in best at.
Click to expand...
Same experience. I KNEW I would kill to go to that program and didn’t even want to finish the interview. I would have never applied to my number 1 in an app capped world. But I would’ve applied to a bunch of low tier programs that didn’t give me the time of day lol. Now they probably would’ve in an app capped system, but that goes back to limiting my ability to “punch up” you’ve mentioned. I think posters who get the majority of interviews they want at excellent programs don’t quite get dealing with the unknowns of people never hearing of your med school.
 
I was aiming for my #1 since 3rd year pre-interview. It's number 1 because it's the best for my future, despite a grueling curriculum. My #2 I think I might be happier at during residency, but I would ultimately move back home where #1 is.
 
cjcarter said:
How’s everyone holding up? Every time I think about Friday my stomach drops. 2 more agonizing days!!!
Click to expand...
More worried about where I match intern year than my advanced program. The difference between my likely destinations for intern year are hundreds of hours and days off different from each other. It would really suck.

Best of luck to you.
 
Not to be a bummer but having friends at other medical schools back home tell me about having to SOAP just bums me out. It’s such a terrible process. Legitimately nightmare-inducing. I really do wonder what the match stats will tell us. I’ve been hearing ObGyn was particularly a disaster.

anyone else hear of other particularly fickle match-rate specialties?
 
LutGholein said:
Not to be a bummer but having friends at other medical schools back home tell me about having to SOAP just bums me out. It’s such a terrible process. Legitimately nightmare-inducing. I really do wonder what the match stats will tell us. I’ve been hearing ObGyn was particularly a disaster.

anyone else hear of other particularly fickle match-rate specialties?
Click to expand...
The match rate couldn’t have been much better. Outside of FM, IM, and surgery there were a handful here and there. It couldn’t have gone much better.
 
LutGholein said:
Not to be a bummer but having friends at other medical schools back home tell me about having to SOAP just bums me out. It’s such a terrible process. Legitimately nightmare-inducing. I really do wonder what the match stats will tell us. I’ve been hearing ObGyn was particularly a disaster.

anyone else hear of other particularly fickle match-rate specialties?
Click to expand...
Ortho had 4 spots (3 of which were a program that skipped the main match). Off the top of my head think there was 800ish spots for 1400ish applicants, so 600 unmatched (or hopefully matched back-ups at least). Thats after a decent amount of people ducked out to do research years when auditions got limited last year
 
AnatomyGrey12 said:
So you straight up just ignored the fact I told you my number 1,2 and 3 on my rank list are programs that I would not have applied to in a 20 app capped world. Not because they are reaches, but because I didn't know I would be so interested. And trust me, it's not for lack of personal research on programs. I've spent hours upon hours looking at literally hundreds of web pages/SDN reviews/Reddit comments/etc over and over again the last 4 years. Guess what? Even after all of that research I was wrong when it came to picking which programs I would fit in best at.
Click to expand...
In a world with 20, you wouldnt have to be defensive with your strategy like that. If everyone was limited, you should apply there because it's your preference, and youd be shockingly competative compared to how it works now. Imagine getting ALL your interviews. All of them. If you were surprised by how competative your top handful were, youd be shocked what youd get if everyone applied to 20 places.

Edit: I see my mistake I thought you were surprised at academic centers you liked. If it was random community programs you loved as #1-3s then no number of apps is smart except applying to every single place. Otherwise you might miss a random shockingly good program you like even better than your current ones.
 
efle said:
Yeah logistics are the problem here. It's only feasible to do something up front with ERAS, either attaching tokens to a handful of apps or limiting the total apps.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t ortho already release all their interviews at once just about? It wouldn’t be that unreasonable to just have every specialty do that so that we could have an interview cap instead of an app cap.
 
efle said:
In a world with 20, you wouldnt have to be defensive with your strategy like that. If everyone was limited, you should apply there because it's your preference, and youd be shockingly competative compared to how it works now. Imagine getting ALL your interviews. All of them. If you were surprised by how competative your top handful were, youd be shocked what youd get if everyone applied to 20 places.

Edit: I see my mistake I thought you were surprised at academic centers you liked. If it was random community programs you loved as #1-3s then no number of apps is smart except applying to every single place. Otherwise you might miss a random shockingly good program you like even better than your current ones.
Click to expand...
And I get that, which is why I said I’m not necessarily staunchly against any cap, but it needs to be much more reasonable than 20.
www.graduatemedicaleducation.org

ACGME Accredited Programs - Graduate Medical Education at Larkin

Larkin Community Hospital South Miami - Campus is a part of Larkin Health System and offers a diverse range of over 21 residency and fellowship programs. It
www.graduatemedicaleducation.org www.graduatemedicaleducation.org
s1defx718 said:
Their "website" has an impressive lack of transparency and actionable information. No schedules. No faculty list. No current resident list. No real webpage.

For derm, one cannot be too picky...but this program seems unusually suspicious. Can anyone confirm that it's a legitimate program? Will it still be accredited in 2022? How many residents do they have? Board pass rates? You know, normal things that should be readily available on an actual website...


Thank you in advance.

P.S. Please stay on topic. I'm looking for time-sensitive info. on this specific program.
Click to expand...
Larkin is well known in the DO world to be a complete dumpster fire across the board. I would avoid it if at all possible.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
sunshinefl said:
Remember when I asked like 10 mins out if I should switch 4 and 5 and then I didn’t?

I still want to 🙁
Click to expand...

In the same boat. 4 offers better training but 5 would be an easier transition (have lived there before). Me 14 days ago - told myself don't give up potentially better training for the comfort of the known. Me this week - nerves are shredded. Would take 5 any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Class of 2025 ERAS Panic Thread
Replies
23
Views
6K
Darrow O'Lykos
Darrow O'Lykos
D
Residency Consultation Services
Replies
1
Views
309
NotAProgDirector
NotAProgDirector
Y
Question about integrated CT residency competitiveness
Replies
1
Views
469
Present-Row-4056
P
P
Extensions/Interruptions Panic
Replies
8
Views
3K
premedpower8484848
P
M
MD Peds residency signal help
Replies
1
Views
341
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo