That’s because I posted the wrong article

. Here is it from the real article now in the OP:
“
During our marathon rank-list making sessions, our first draft rank list is based on our post-interview debriefing scoring. Then, we move applicants around based on other “conditions” such as couples matching (Did ENT also like his or her spouse?) and geography (Do you think he or she will really move away from Oregon, when he or she has never lived to another state?), to name two examples.
Then, we review the post-interview communications. Was it personal? Did it seem sincere? What did he mean by “happy to train in Rochester?” How high is “rank highly on my list?” Is that code for they ranked us 5th out of 10 programs? Where is the love? Are we good enough?
“We have SIX commitment emails as of today,” exclaimed our associate program director. Do we rank those applicants in our top 16? If so, we might be able to report that we filled 6/16 in our top 16! We have heard that medical students like to know this information when evaluating programs.
Alternatively, do we confidently rank these SIX applicants somewhere in our top third, hoping that indeed they are being truthful, and that based on 25 years of history in our program, they will indeed match with us. Then, we can save higher spots for other “more coveted” candidates – like from Harvard or Yale (we have heard that medical students like to see that we matched Ivy League schooled applicants, although some of our strongest residents have trained at Caribbean medical schools and other traditionally “lower tiered” schools).”