Do you think programs increased # of interviews this year?

[abcdior]

---

Members don't see this ad.

so with the increase in # of applicants, do you feel like programs have increased the # of interview given?

more importantly, if this is the case, does it make sense to conclude that it'll be "harder" to match [esp your top choice] after the interview stage vs previous year?

some of the lower tier programs (St. eliz/ lubbock...etc are interviewing 100-120 for only 4ish spots). even some mid tier programs (rush/CCF..etc) are interviewing 120-160 for 7/8 spots. Doesn't that seem extraordinarily high compared to other specialties where its usually 10:1?

thoughts?

 

[deleted314290]

No most programs have a set number of interview slots, they are just more selective now who they invite to interview. Usually you want ~10 interviews per spot, more interviews if you are a less competitive program which would make sense with what you posted above about those other programs.

 

[SourceOfDenial]

I know that for our program we actually interviewed less people. But yes, the 10:1 average works well. Psychiatry residency interview days aren't the cattle call they are in certain other specialties.

 

[Candidate2017]

Multiple coordinators and residents told me 10-11 interviews per spot. I wouldn't want to interview at programs that invite more than necessary because that's telling me they don't care enough to screen applications or they don't think they can fill with quality applicants.

 

[Seroquel]

Definitely not the case at programs I interviewed. If anything I was told by residents and program directors that they were more selective than usual due to the increased number of applications.

 

[J ROD]

I know we are talking about scores now. So, things are definitely more competitive. Also, what impression you make the residents that meet you is crucial. Now on the other side, I truly had no clue just how much say we actually have at least at my program.

 

[hobbit345]

*I'm a resident at a smaller-sized Midwest program (4 spots/year)

We did not increase or modify the amount of interviews given out or spots per day. We had an increase of ~200 applications this year from last year. As was previously mentioned, our filters mostly got rid of non-serious contenders. Had a more extensive reviewal process as well when shelling out interview offers.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

The number of applications has definitely climbed, but so have the applications per applicant. The number of applicants is going up, but not that much. I think programs would be wise to interview more applicants. If they don’t, they may be in a position of needing to invite some weaker applicants just to be safe. If every program just invited the strongest 100 applicants, a little more than 100 applicants would get offers from every program and there would be the largest SOAP in history.

I have to admit to some interview fatigue. It is tempting to go “all out”. I think I could find enough well qualified people to take an early offer.

 

[sazerac]

The number of applications has definitely climbed, but so have the applications per applicant. The number of applicants is going up, but not that much. I think programs would be wise to interview more applicants. If they don’t, they may be in a position of needing to invite some weaker applicants just to be safe. If every program just invited the strongest 100 applicants, a little more than 100 applicants would get offers from every program and there would be the largest SOAP in history.

I have to admit to some interview fatigue. It is tempting to go “all out”. I think I could find enough well qualified people to take an early offer.

Applicants are always told to apply to Reaches, Probably's, and Safeties. With the symmetry of the match process, it only makes sense that the programs would have to follow the same strategy to make their match process a success.

 

[postbacpremed87]

The number of applications has definitely climbed, but so have the applications per applicant. The number of applicants is going up, but not that much. I think programs would be wise to interview more applicants. If they don’t, they may be in a position of needing to invite some weaker applicants just to be safe. If every program just invited the strongest 100 applicants, a little more than 100 applicants would get offers from every program and there would be the largest SOAP in history.

I have to admit to some interview fatigue. It is tempting to go “all out”. I think I could find enough well qualified people to take an early offer.

Okay. I am willing to pre-match for next cycle.

 

[Merovinge]

Applicants are always told to apply to Reaches, Probably's, and Safeties. With the symmetry of the match process, it only makes sense that the programs would have to follow the same strategy to make their match process a success.

Heh, it's a lot easier for an applicant to realize what tier of applicant they are based on their USMLE's and class rank. I wonder how accurately PDs stratify how good they think their own program is; I would guess 80% think they are above average

 

[psychhopefull2016]

Heh, it's a lot easier for an applicant to realize what tier of applicant they are based on their USMLE's and class rank. I wonder how accurately PDs stratify how good they think their own program is; I would guess 80% think they are above average

"We have the biggest psych ER in the country/state/county/1 mile radius!"

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

Of course this is a lake Wobegon world of psych programs. Everyone is above average. Universities in general ooze undeserved pretension. Somehow everyone manages to believe they are better than everyone else within the same department. It isn't surprising there would be a parallel process at an institutional level. 😉