Help...I expected more interviews!

[mickjaggah]

Hi. Just signed up on this site today.

So I applied to 55 programs and got the app in before they were released and I've only received 8 interviews so far. I'm wondering if this is gonna be it or if I should be patient. COMLEX Level 1 - 694, Level 2 - 711, USMLE Step 1 - 238, Step 2 - 249. Zero research. Great clerkship performance and great LoRs (I think, lol.).

Any wisdom? Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sciatica123]

Me too lol

 

[Stagg737]

Hi. Just signed up on this site today.

So I applied to 55 programs and got the app in before they were released and I've only received 8 interviews so far. I'm wondering if this is gonna be it or if I should be patient. COMLEX Level 1 - 694, Level 2 - 711, USMLE Step 1 - 238, Step 2 - 249. Zero research. Great clerkship performance and great LoRs (I think, lol.).

Any wisdom? Thanks!

According the NRMP PD Survey, 38% of interview invites went out after October. So there's still probably a pretty solid chance you've got more coming your way. At this point, I think it would be safe to e-mail PDs if you really want to interview somewhere that hasn't contacted you yet. Keep in mind, as the season goes on and people go through some of their interviews, they may cancel later ones and open up space for others to interview, so I wouldn't give up on getting more yet.

Also, 8 interviews isn't bad. Charting the Outcomes shows that only 6 USMDs that ranked 8 or more programs went unmatched. I realize you're a DO, but with your application I'd say you may as well consider yourself a USMD in terms of the match unless you've got some kind of red flag (I know that's not how it works, but I wouldn't be concerned about matching if I were you unless you bomb all your interviews).

 

[chajjohnson]

what types of programs did you apply to? your step scores are good but if you only applied to big academic centers that could explain it. Also, you sure there are no red flags in your app?

 

[Batman's Underwear]

I am in a similar boat... applied to 60s and only 10 interview invites.

 

[MrChance2]

I would think Either there is additional information about your app or you applied only to the top 55 programs in the country.

 

[Amygdarya]

Come on guys, 8 or 10 interviews is a really good number for psych. Talk to the people who interviewed in psych last year - everyone I talked to said they were *done* done after 7-8 interviews, not to mention it was enough to match for a decent/average applicant.

IMHO applying to 55-60+ programs is ridiculous unless you have some red flags etc. The thing is, there are only so many programs in one's range of competitiveness, (perceived or actual) geographic range etc. that after some number of programs applying to more won't significantly increase the number of the interviews you get. So I'm not at all surprised that you guys got 8-10 interviews out of 55-60+ that you applied to. Chances are, you would get the same number of invites if the applied to half as many *carefully selected* programs.

In any case, I understand people who have less than 5 invites worrying, but 8-10? You guys should really chill out.

 

[Mad Jack]

According the NRMP PD Survey, 38% of interview invites went out after October. So there's still probably a pretty solid chance you've got more coming your way. At this point, I think it would be safe to e-mail PDs if you really want to interview somewhere that hasn't contacted you yet. Keep in mind, as the season goes on and people go through some of their interviews, they may cancel later ones and open up space for others to interview, so I wouldn't give up on getting more yet.

Also, 8 interviews isn't bad. Charting the Outcomes shows that only 6 USMDs that ranked 8 or more programs went unmatched. I realize you're a DO, but with your application I'd say you may as well consider yourself a USMD in terms of the match unless you've got some kind of red flag (I know that's not how it works, but I wouldn't be concerned about matching if I were you unless you bomb all your interviews).

DOs need about 9 programs to match successfully most of the time. They're not quite on the same level as US MDs in psych.

 

[Mad Jack]

Come on guys, 8 or 10 interviews is a really good number for psych. Talk to the people who interviewed in psych last year - everyone I talked to said they were *done* done after 7-8 interviews, not to mention it was enough to match for a decent/average applicant.

IMHO applying to 55-60+ programs is ridiculous unless you have some red flags etc. The thing is, there are only so many programs in one's range of competitiveness, (perceived or actual) geographic range etc. that after some number of programs applying to more won't significantly increase the number of the interviews you get. So I'm not at all surprised that you guys got 8-10 interviews out of 55-60+ that you applied to. Chances are, you would get the same number of invites if the applied to half as many *carefully selected* programs.

In any case, I understand people having less than 5 invites worrying, but 8-10? You guys should really chill out.

The thing is, at 7 invites you've still got around a 15-20% chance of not matching as a DO (it's hard to know exactly how much since Charting Outcomes is two cycles old). US MDs are settled in a bit earlier, but DOs that matched had an average of 8.4 programs ranked, versus 6.5 for unmatched, so those extra programs make a difference.

 

[Amygdarya]

The thing is, at 7 invites you've still got around a 15-20% chance of not matching as a DO (it's hard to know exactly how much since Charting Outcomes is two cycles old). US MDs are settled in a bit earlier, but DOs that matched had an average of 8.4 programs ranked, versus 6.5 for unmatched, so those extra programs make a difference.

It's fine, make it 9 for DO students. But this still doesn't warrant a "help! I got only 8 or 10 interviews" kind of reaction. First of all, chill out, you're in a good place. Second, think how people who have 1-3 or no interviews at this point would feel after reading this thread.

And don't get me started on the unnecessary inflated number of programs applied.

 

[Celexa]

The thing is, at 7 invites you've still got around a 15-20% chance of not matching as a DO (it's hard to know exactly how much since Charting Outcomes is two cycles old). US MDs are settled in a bit earlier, but DOs that matched had an average of 8.4 programs ranked, versus 6.5 for unmatched, so those extra programs make a difference.

But the number of ranked programs doesn't tell you where people matched on those lists--presumably the people with more interviews matched higher than #8 or 9, with their higher number of interviews reflecting their overall strength as a candidate. They probably would have been fine with a shorter rank list. And similarly, we don't know if the unmatched would have still been unmatched if they had ranked more due to some other factor in their application or interview.

I'm just another M4, but it seems the OP should be satisfied with 8 now but as others have said it is also likely more interviews will be forthcoming.

 

[Mad Jack]

It's fine, make it 9 for DO students. But this still doesn't warrant a "help! I got only 8 or 10 interviews" kind of reaction. First of all, chill out, you're in a good place. Second, think how people who have 1-3 or no interviews at this point would feel after reading this thread.

And don't get me started on the unnecessary inflated number of programs applied.

Hey, if you need 9 to match and you've got 8 after applying to 55 programs, you applied correctly. I applied to 56, but in a competitive region, and I've got less interviews than OP and at a real chance of not matching. Gotta play the odds based in your stats and region.

 

[Amygdarya]

Hey, if you need 9 to match and you've got 8 after applying to 55 programs, you applied correctly.

As I explained above, after some minimal number there is no positive linear correlation between the number of program states applied to and the number of invites received. One could have received the same 8 invites if he/she applied to 25-30 more carefully selected programs. If you don't have a good reason to apply to a program and instead applied there just to crank up the numbers and enjoy the (false) impression of increasing your odds, why should that program have a reason to offer you a precious interview spot? People don't realize that applying to more and more programs only makes things worse. Just think about it, as programs get more and more applications, they're forced to use more rigid cutoffs for the applications to review to make it more manageable. These cutoffs, as previously posted by PDs on this forum, include not only Step scores (especially in psych) but also geography, medical school the applicant is coming from etc. So again, think about this: if you contributed to the ever increased number of applications by applying to a program you have no reasonable connection to (geography, away rotation, graduates from your school matching to that program etc), what are the odds that you would be filtered *in* for an interview?

 

[Mad Jack]

As I explained above, after some minimal number there is no positive linear correlation between the number of program states applied to and the number of invites received. One could have received the same 8 invites if he/she applied to 25-30 more carefully selected programs. If you don't have a good reason to apply to a program and instead applied there just to crank up the numbers and enjoy the (false) impression of increasing your odds, why should that program have a reason to offer you a precious interview spot? People don't realize that applying to more and more programs only makes things worse. Just think about it, as programs get more and more applications, they're forced to use more rigid cutoffs for the applications to review to make it more manageable. These cutoffs, as previously posted by PDs on this forum, include not only Step scores (especially in psych) but also geography, medical school the applicant is coming from etc. So again, think about this: if you contributed to the ever increased number of applications by applying to a program you have no reasonable connection to (geography, away rotation, graduates from your school matching to that program etc), what are the odds that you would be filtered *in* for an interview?

A few of my interviews were surprises, places I'd never have thought would interview me. Half my interviews, in fact. If I followed your advice, I would likely not match, as I'd only have 3 interviews.

 

[Stagg737]

DOs need about 9 programs to match successfully most of the time. They're not quite on the same level as US MDs in psych.

The thing is, at 7 invites you've still got around a 15-20% chance of not matching as a DO (it's hard to know exactly how much since Charting Outcomes is two cycles old). US MDs are settled in a bit earlier, but DOs that matched had an average of 8.4 programs ranked, versus 6.5 for unmatched, so those extra programs make a difference.

I get that OP is a DO, but s/he's got pretty strong stats for psych and assuming there aren't any red flags, it seems like a pretty solid app. I get that the DO bias is still there, but OP seems like they're in a good position. The other thing is that the "independent" applicant stats in Charting the Outcomes also includes IMGs and FMGs, which skew those stats pretty significantly. Unless you've seen some charts/data that I haven't specifically for DOs, I'm not convinced that a DO (especially one with a really strong app) would be all that handicapped to a USMD outside of the few programs that still won't consider a DO applicant. There are other confounding factors as well, like not have Step scores, so I'm a little more liberal with my interpretation of the CtO data for DOs than you're being.

As I explained above, after some minimal number there is no positive linear correlation between the number of program states applied to and the number of invites received. One could have received the same 8 invites if he/she applied to 25-30 more carefully selected programs. If you don't have a good reason to apply to a program and instead applied there just to crank up the numbers and enjoy the (false) impression of increasing your odds, why should that program have a reason to offer you a precious interview spot? People don't realize that applying to more and more programs only makes things worse. Just think about it, as programs get more and more applications, they're forced to use more rigid cutoffs for the applications to review to make it more manageable. These cutoffs, as previously posted by PDs on this forum, include not only Step scores (especially in psych) but also geography, medical school the applicant is coming from etc. So again, think about this: if you contributed to the ever increased number of applications by applying to a program you have no reasonable connection to (geography, away rotation, graduates from your school matching to that program etc), what are the odds that you would be filtered *in* for an interview?

I agree with your general sentiment that over-applying gradually leads to a shift in application mentality and makes things worse through the years. However, I agree with @Mad Jack that there are some significant benefits for those questioning their application for whatever reason. I applied to around 70 ACGME programs because I felt I was a weak applicant. I currently have 9 interviews and of those 9 only 3 were "expected" interviews (ie, 1 I knew I'd get an interview at and the other 2 I thought I had a great shot because of region/weaker program/school connections). Of the other 6: 2 are newer community programs I probably would have applied to anyway, 1 is a weaker academic program I probably would have applied to, 2 are mid-tier academic programs I would not have applied to (outside my region), and 1 is a program I applied to because "what the hell, I already dropped $1,500 on apps, might as well shoot for the sky" (I'm still in shock I got that interview and am still half expecting to get an e-mail saying they made a mistake). Originally I was going to apply to 40ish programs, but was then advised I should apply to 60-65 because I'm not a strong applicant. Had I only applied to 40, I'd likely have 3-4 interviews right now instead of 9, which would be a pretty huge difference when it comes time to submit a rank list.

So while I get what you're saying, I know I was personally filtered *in* at several places because I decided to apply more broadly than was initially recommended. Also, even if there are stricter cutoffs and more interviews granted to "better" applicants, as long as the top applicants aren't going on 20 interviews and are still cancelling some, most people will still get plenty of interviews and match just fine. It'll just be a bigger, more expensive pain in the butt than it was previously.

 

[Mad Jack]

I get that OP is a DO, but s/he's got pretty strong stats for psych and assuming there aren't any red flags, it seems like a pretty solid app. I get that the DO bias is still there, but OP seems like they're in a good position. The other thing is that the "independent" applicant stats in Charting the Outcomes also includes IMGs and FMGs, which skew those stats pretty significantly. Unless you've seen some charts/data that I haven't specifically for DOs, I'm not convinced that a DO (especially one with a really strong app) would be all that handicapped to a USMD outside of the few programs that still won't consider a DO applicant. There are other confounding factors as well, like not have Step scores, so I'm a little more liberal with my interpretation of the CtO data for DOs than you're being.



I agree with your general sentiment that over-applying gradually leads to a shift in application mentality and makes things worse through the years. However, I agree with @Mad Jack that there are some significant benefits for those questioning their application for whatever reason. I applied to around 70 ACGME programs because I felt I was a weak applicant. I currently have 9 interviews and of those 9 only 3 were "expected" interviews (ie, 1 I knew I'd get an interview at and the other 2 I thought I had a great shot because of region/weaker program/school connections). Of the other 6: 2 are newer community programs I probably would have applied to anyway, 1 is a weaker academic program I probably would have applied to, 2 are mid-tier academic programs I would not have applied to (outside my region), and 1 is a program I applied to because "what the hell, I already dropped $1,500 on apps, might as well shoot for the sky" (I'm still in shock I got that interview and am still half expecting to get an e-mail saying they made a mistake). Originally I was going to apply to 40ish programs, but was then advised I should apply to 60-65 because I'm not a strong applicant. Had I only applied to 40, I'd likely have 3-4 interviews right now instead of 9, which would be a pretty huge difference when it comes time to submit a rank list.

So while I get what you're saying, I know I was personally filtered *in* at several places because I decided to apply more broadly than was initially recommended. Also, even if there are stricter cutoffs and more interviews granted to "better" applicants, as long as the top applicants aren't going on 20 interviews and cancelling some, most people will still get plenty of interviews and match just fine. It'll just be a bigger, more expensive pain in the butt than it was previously.

The NRMP released a Charting Outcomes for Osteopathic Medical Graduates in 2016. It's what most DOs are using to gauge their competitiveness these days.

 

[Stagg737]

The NRMP released a Charting Outcomes for Osteopathic Medical Graduates in 2016. It's what most DOs are using to gauge their competitiveness these days.

I didn't even know that existed and considering my advisors are using the comprehensive Charting the Outcomes, I'm assuming they don't either. Thanks for making me aware of it though, wish I knew about it a year ago...

 

[DisorderedDoc417]

DOs need about 9 programs to match successfully most of the time. They're not quite on the same level as US MDs in psych.

They just need one place to like them.....

 

[Mad Jack]

They just need one place to like them.....

... more than 100-something other interviewees...

 

[DisorderedDoc417]

... more than 100-something other interviewees...

Be smiley-er, friendlier, and the math will work itself out.

 

[Mad Jack]

Be smiley-er, friendlier, and the math will work itself out.

Oh I hope, think, perhaps dream that I'm fine. But one should always try to make the odds in their favor, because perception is perception and math is reality.

 

[DisorderedDoc417]

Oh I hope, think, perhaps dream that I'm fine. But one should always try to make the odds in their favor, because perception is perception and math is reality.

Only rooting for you here my friend. The math is that you need one place to rank you highly enough to match. You shoot for 20 complete reaches and you might not match.... you shoot for 3 shoe-ins and you’ve probably done too much. Also... there is truth to be found outside of math, thankfully. If your perception is correct, it is reality (;

Cheers to all candidates.

 

[psychattending]

The situation is similar to the prisoner's dilemma. For any one single person applying to more schools tends to result in more interviews if nobody else applies to more schools. However, when everybody does it, then it becomes (in general) a waste of time/money (i.e. to everyone's detriment) as the number of interview slots does not increase. My impression of what is happening, paradoxically, is that with more applications people get the same number of interviews but not necessarily at the programs that they wanted (i.e. it is a worse outcome). Because the Match looks only at how people do on their ranklist, this poorer outcome will not be measured.

There is also a potential risk that if the "strong" people get most of the interviews, then the "weaker" ones will get less. This is the opposite of what needs to be happening as it is the weaker ones that need to be getting the most interview slots as they need a longer rank list so that they get the slots that are going to be left open after the stronger people are assigned to their programs. If we see the number of slots offered in SOAP going up, this will be what is likely going on.

The situation we find ourselves in is not entirely the "fault" of the students as the deans (and others) are telling them to apply to more and more schools. Already this year I had a situation where an AOA student was told by his/her dean to apply to something like 30-40 schools. The person's psych supervisor is now telling the person that this is silly (as the person will likely get their #1 or #2 place) and the person is trying to cancel a lot of the excessive interviews that are going to end up being lower down on that person's list. Now I have to scramble to quickly fill that opening so that somebody else who is more interested in us can have a chance to Match here.

 

[J ROD]

I applied to 20 programs with not great stats. And at the end of it got interviews at 12/20. US MD but Step scores were all well below average. I got half my interviews after October. I was proactive and called programs and got some interviews at the end of the cycle when the "superstars" cancelled interviews. So, hang in there. I was nervous too when I only had 5-6 interviews at end of October.

 

[3lefts]

Did you match at one of the programs that gave you an interview at the end of the season or after a phone call?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Amygdarya]

Exactly. Twenty. I applied to 25 mostly highly competitive but carefully selected programs, have a comfortable number of invites now (8) and believe I may get a couple more though I don't think it's critical at all (haven't done any calling/emailing and not sure if I will at this point). Even then I believe I overapplied by about 5 programs, largely because my advisors insisted I applied to 35 - so I was, like, mmm ok, I'll apply to 25 then I would have gotten exactly the same 8 invites if I applied to 20 because these 8 were on my original list of 20, and I don't expect to hear from the other 5 because I didn't really have good reasons to apply there in the first place (thus also contributing to the ever increasing app numbers... but not by a lot)

 

[J ROD]

Did you match at one of the programs that gave you an interview at the end of the season or after a phone call?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

yep. They said they would love to offer me an interview. Just had not gotten to my application yet since they had so many applications. I believe it shows programs you are really interested if you inquire about status of your application and express how much you were interested in going there and was hoping for an interview. Program coordinators are the key to get an interview and in.

 

[Geraltofrivia]

What is the consensus on calling programs? What do you say? What about e-mailing? I am also a Do student. Applied 100 programs, didn't get as many interviews as I expected either. 225/239. Super worried tbh.

 

[Moose A Moose]

Take a chill pill, OP.

















Hehe

 

[J ROD]

What is the consensus on calling programs? What do you say? What about e-mailing? I am also a Do student. Applied 100 programs, didn't get as many interviews as I expected either. 225/239. Super worried tbh.

Personally, I think a phone call is more personal. I just asked for my status and would make idle chat and how I really hoped to hear from them and expressed interest. Some I was able to have more conversation with and one was where I matched. I would only call if you can remain calm and have a good rapport over the phone. Worst thing you can do is be a nervous nelly over the phone and look and sound like a douche.

 

[mickjaggah]

Thanks for the perspective, guys. I will indeed take a chill pill. Oh and what would be considered "red flags" on an application?

 

[Celexa]

Thanks for the perspective, guys. I will indeed take a chill pill. Oh and what would be considered "red flags" on an application?

Step failures, clerkship failures, preclinical course failures (although less important than the prior 2), professionalism complaints, unexplained leave of absence, etc.

 

[mickjaggah]

Step failures, clerkship failures, preclinical course failures (although less important than the prior 2), professionalism complaints, unexplained leave of absence, etc.

None of those, thank god.

 

[box8psych]

yep. They said they would love to offer me an interview. Just had not gotten to my application yet since they had so many applications. I believe it shows programs you are really interested if you inquire about status of your application and express how much you were interested in going there and was hoping for an interview. Program coordinators are the key to get an interview and in.

Hi jrod, glad to hear calling can actually yield some results. Just two quick questions, were these calls to the program coordinator, PD, or both? And do you recommend any particular timing? Thanks in advance!

 

[J ROD]

Hi jrod, glad to hear calling can actually yield some results. Just two quick questions, were these calls to the program coordinator, PD, or both? And do you recommend any particular timing? Thanks in advance!

Program coordinators. I think I waited until right before Thanksgiving to check in with most I was interested in. Then called the others about end Nov/first Dec

 

[Stagg737]

Only rooting for you here my friend. The math is that you need one place to rank you highly enough to match. You shoot for 20 complete reaches and you might not match.... you shoot for 3 shoe-ins and you’ve probably done too much. Also... there is truth to be found outside of math, thankfully. If your perception is correct, it is reality (;

Cheers to all candidates.

This just begs the question of "How do you know you're a shoe-in?" though. Aside from a home program really loving you or killing an audition rotation where they love you, if you're a below average applicant how could you possibly know with any confidence that you're not under-applying?

 

[mickjaggah]

*shoo-in

 

[DisorderedDoc417]

*shoo-in

My cell phone auto corrected on that one and I was too lazy to change it. Thanks! There are no certainties in this process, although it doesn’t hurt to have rapport with the PD, several of the residents, and maybe most importantly, the program coordinators (usually the back-bone life-saver for the program). Perhaps I was a unique case but I can think of a few programs I would have matched at had they been my number one decision. Can I say that with 100% certainty? Nope. But does that mean I’m wrong? Nope! As has been noted though I wasn’t below average. Guess it depends on what you consider to be below average. Like in much of psychiatry, context and intuition must be used because there is lots of gray. The OP also doesn’t sound below average, FWIW.

 

[mickjaggah]

Another question...do some programs rank people they haven't interviewed?