Cool Paper on Post-Interview Communication / "Matched to Rank" Calls

[RainerMaria]

---

Members don't see this ad.

This is a cool paper that came out this year on matched to rank communications that happen in the match. They surveyed over five hundred residents and found that more than a third were told they would be ranked to match, but that one fifth of the total group found that they didn't end up matching to their #1 despite being told they were ranked to match. That is to say, promises of ranking to match mean very little. Authors say one should try and ignore these communications when making match lists.

Ironically, the lead author is an MGH alum.
The Prevalence and Nature of Postinterview Communications Between Residency Programs and Applicants During the Match.

Jena AB, Arora VM, Hauer KE, Durning S, Borges N, Oriol N, Elnicki DM, ***an MJ, Harrell HE, Torre D, Prochaska M, Meltzer DO, Reddy S.
Abstract

PURPOSE:

To examine the frequency and nature of postinterview communications between programs and applicants during the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Main Residency Match.
METHOD:

The authors surveyed senior medical students at seven U.S. medical schools about postinterview communications with residency programs during the 2010 Match and analyzed the data.
RESULTS:

The response rate was 68.2% (564/827). Among respondents, 86.4% reported communicating with residency programs. Most (59.9%) reported telling more than one program they would rank it highly; 1.1% reported telling more than one they would rank it first. Students reported that programs told them they would be "ranked to match" (34.6%), be "ranked highly" (52.8%), or "fit well" (76.2%). Almost one-fifth (18.6 %) reported feeling assured by a program that they would match there but did not despite ranking that program first; 23.4% reported altering their rank order list based on communications with programs. In multivariate analysis, applicants to more competitive specialties were less likely to report being told they would be "ranked to match" (relative risk [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.99). Applicants were more likely to report being told that they would be "ranked to match" if they received honors in the specialty clerkship (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.77) or were members of Alpha Omega Alpha (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.37-2.17).
CONCLUSIONS:

Reports of nonbinding communications with programs were frequent. Students should be advised to interpret any comments made by programs cautiously. Reported violations of the NRMP's Match Participation Agreement were uncommon.


Acad Med. 2012 Oct;87(10):1434-1442.

 

[Aphtalyfe]

Good find!

 

[Winged Scapula]

Well there's a newsflash. /sarcasm

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I'm too lazy to read the whole article, but from the summary, it sounds like these residents who felt sure they would match received communication that said things like "fit well" and "ranked highly" rather than "ranked to match," which is a whole different type of communication. As we've discussed a million times here, ranked highly, "you're a good fit" and so on mean very little. I'd be curious to know how many programs actually lie to applicants by saying you're "ranked to match" when you're not. That would be pretty sleazy.

Now, on the other hand, please, please don't adjust your rank list based on communication from a program. The system works best when both sides make a rank list based entirely of their preferences.

 

[twright]

I'm too lazy to read the whole article, but from the summary, it sounds like these residents who felt sure they would match received communication that said things like "fit well" and "ranked highly" rather than "ranked to match," which is a whole different type of communication. As we've discussed a million times here, ranked highly, "you're a good fit" and so on mean very little. I'd be curious to know how many programs actually lie to applicants by saying you're "ranked to match" when you're not. That would be pretty sleazy.

Now, on the other hand, please, please don't adjust your rank list based on communication from a program. The system works best when both sides make a rank list based entirely of their preferences.

Agree. A program director can communicate any number of things to an applicant, and they will hear what they want to hear (or, in the case of this article, they will feel what they want to feel). The abstract is written such that it could have been the case, for example, that a PD told an applicant "you fit really well here" and the applicant walked away "feeling assured by the program that she would match there".

 

[RainerMaria]

I'm too lazy to read the whole article, but from the summary, it sounds like these residents who felt sure they would match received communication that said things like "fit well" and "ranked highly" rather than "ranked to match," which is a whole different type of communication. As we've discussed a million times here, ranked highly, "you're a good fit" and so on mean very little. I'd be curious to know how many programs actually lie to applicants by saying you're "ranked to match" when you're not. That would be pretty sleazy.

Now, on the other hand, please, please don't adjust your rank list based on communication from a program. The system works best when both sides make a rank list based entirely of their preferences.

It seems like they made a difference in this article between "fit well" and "ranked to match." See below:

Students reported that programs told them they would be "ranked to match" (34.6%), be "ranked highly" (52.8%), or "fit well" (76.2%). Almost one-fifth (18.6 %) reported feeling assured by a program that they would match there but did not despite ranking that program first;

It is possible that residents may have exaggerated or mis-remembered what programs said, but a fifth?

 

[Doctor Bagel]

It seems like they made a difference in this article between "fit well" and "ranked to match." See below:

Students reported that programs told them they would be "ranked to match" (34.6%), be "ranked highly" (52.8%), or "fit well" (76.2%). Almost one-fifth (18.6 %) reported feeling assured by a program that they would match there but did not despite ranking that program first;

It is possible that residents may have exaggerated or mis-remembered what programs said, but a fifth?

It sounds like almost one fifth of applicants from all 3 categories felt "assured" that they would match when really only the people in the first group should have felt "assured." Lumping those 3 groups together is the real flaw in their report because those 3 statements are quite different and should be interpreted differently by applicants.