- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 0
-----------------------------
Last edited:
Creating Rank Lists
- Thread starter member11223344
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,228
- Reaction score
- 56
Why do you care how the programs figure out what their rank lists are? Too many students are so worried about that... At this point in the game, do what everyone has told you to do... Create a list from 1 to whatever with 1 being the program you would be most happy at and the last being a program you are fine with going to but would rather not. If you were fortunate to have boat loads of interviews and feel like some places you dont want to be at and would rather scramble into something else, then dont rank those...
To directly answer your question, there is probably 100 different something ways (i.e. number of programs) to go about making the programs rank list. Differences based on traditions and how the PDs wish to do their ranking. Typically, if offered an interview, you tend to be on a relatively level playing field with everyone and its dependent on your interactions and interview day.
Good luck.. dont try to beat the match or figure it out.
As a piggy back, am I correct that for EM we just need a primary rank list? Our school sent out an email with a ppt showing supplemental screens (for people with prelims). Just being paranoid and wanting to make sure I did this correctly!
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2001
- Messages
- 954
- Reaction score
- 36
That is correct, unless you applied to one of the few PGY-2 programs out there.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 181
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm on a residency selection committee. What we spend the *most* time talking about is the stories of the wacky things people have on their ERAS apps or in their essays, or the ridiculous things they say during interviews sometimes. 
We've already considered all the numbers and obscure details when they originally came to interview with the program - by the time of making the rank list we can just look at the list and say things like "oh, Jane Smith was way better than Joe Schmoe - let's move her up the list." And sometimes other people disagree and say things like "What about that letter we got from Dr. X, he called her 'stubborn' - we don't want difficult people, let's not move her up." And we talk about it until there's a consensus about the ranking. That's just the program I'm at, though, others surely have different strategies.
We've already considered all the numbers and obscure details when they originally came to interview with the program - by the time of making the rank list we can just look at the list and say things like "oh, Jane Smith was way better than Joe Schmoe - let's move her up the list." And sometimes other people disagree and say things like "What about that letter we got from Dr. X, he called her 'stubborn' - we don't want difficult people, let's not move her up." And we talk about it until there's a consensus about the ranking. That's just the program I'm at, though, others surely have different strategies.- Joined
- Jul 26, 2011
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 1
I only handled a ranking list once (and it was a long time ago).
Basically everybody made their own lists and then we got together to compare notes.
No surprise, there was virtually no disagreement between all the lists for the top slots. Oh, maybe my #5 was somebody else's #6, but the lists were essentially equal.
The same could be said for the bottom. "No way in hell" on my list was "no way in hell" on the others.
Looking back, there were only 3 applicants were on the "no way" list. Big, stupid disparaging issues, including a fondling incident with somebody's teenage daughter in an elevator.
In between was difficult. At times emotionally draining as we passionately discussed why an applicant should be ranked higher/lower than another.
The primary discussion? A very simple question.... why would Applicant A want to train with us?
The program wasn't a big name, so most of the discussion centered on geographic, family and career goals becauses the grades, recommendations and test scores got the applicant the interview, our decision was made from the interviews.
Did it once. Fortunately I will never have to do it again.
Basically everybody made their own lists and then we got together to compare notes.
No surprise, there was virtually no disagreement between all the lists for the top slots. Oh, maybe my #5 was somebody else's #6, but the lists were essentially equal.
The same could be said for the bottom. "No way in hell" on my list was "no way in hell" on the others.
Looking back, there were only 3 applicants were on the "no way" list. Big, stupid disparaging issues, including a fondling incident with somebody's teenage daughter in an elevator.
In between was difficult. At times emotionally draining as we passionately discussed why an applicant should be ranked higher/lower than another.
The primary discussion? A very simple question.... why would Applicant A want to train with us?
The program wasn't a big name, so most of the discussion centered on geographic, family and career goals becauses the grades, recommendations and test scores got the applicant the interview, our decision was made from the interviews.
Did it once. Fortunately I will never have to do it again.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 0
--------------------
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2003
- Messages
- 3,355
- Reaction score
- 2,833
Keep in mind Rebuilder's points. The only way you "win" the application process is ranking where you want to go in order of your preference. Anything else is stupid and shortchanging yourself. If you think you have no chance of matching at your #1 program, STILL RANK THEM #1.
