How does NRMP know?

[diagonal]

---

Members don't see this ad.

How do they know which programs I interviewed at when it comes to ranking time?

 

[Aphtalyfe]

How do they know which programs I interviewed at when it comes to ranking time?

Pretty sure they don't?

 

[diagonal]

So in theory, a program could forget to include your name. I guess that's akin to not ranking you, and if they wanted you, they wouldn't forget. But still.

Nice! Another thing to worry about!

 

[dude1344]

So what I gather is come ranking time all the programs you interviewed at will pop up on the ranking software? Is that how this whole thing works?

 

[Hassler]

So what I gather is come ranking time all the programs you interviewed at will pop up on the ranking software? Is that how this whole thing works?

No, you enter each one by one. NRMP does not know where you interview at.

 

[Winged Scapula]

So what I gather is come ranking time all the programs you interviewed at will pop up on the ranking software? Is that how this whole thing works?

No, the NRMP does not "know". As noted above, you have to enter them individually.

This is why you could conceivably enter a program you never interviewed at and match there (provided they made the same mistake and ranked you as well - which wouldn't happen, but its theoretically possible).

 

[st2205]

No, the NRMP does not "know". As noted above, you have to enter them individually.

This is why you could conceivably enter a program you never interviewed at and match there (provided they made the same mistake and ranked you as well - which wouldn't happen, but its theoretically possible).

I had wondered about this, like someone who perhaps had no chances to land a residency of they applied to every single program and them ranked all of them surely somewhere of thousands of programs would have made a mistake.

 

[Raryn]

I had wondered about this, like someone who perhaps had no chances to land a residency of they applied to every single program and them ranked all of them surely somewhere of thousands of programs would have made a mistake.

You could, theoretically, rank all 4000 programs in your NRMP list. Hell, you could couples match and rank 16,000,000 permutations just for !@#$s and giggles. Of course, no program would rank you unless you interviewed there, so that would be a complete waste of your time.

(Unless the RRR system does have a cap somewhere below 16m... which it likely does. Whatever the real cap is though, it's far higher than any reasonably number of ranks)

 

[Hassler]

You could, theoretically, rank all 4000 programs in your NRMP list. Hell, you could couples match and rank 16,000,000 permutations just for !@#$s and giggles. Of course, no program would rank you unless you interviewed there, so that would be a complete waste of your time.

(Unless the RRR system does have a cap somewhere below 16m... which it likely does. Whatever the real cap is though, it's far higher than any reasonably number of ranks)

You pay $30/program (I believe) for each additional program you rank beyond rank 20, so I'm pretty sure you don't want to rank all 4000 programs

 

[NotAProgDirector]

... and NRMP data shows essentially no benefit to a rank list >20.

The the poster above asking about applicants being "lost" in the ranking process, it really doesn't happen. My ERAS software tells me exactly how many applicants I've interviewed, and I check that against my rank list length (minus the interviewees not ranked). Any discrepancy is addressed.

You can actually put your ranking data into ERAS, and it will generate a file you can upload into NRMP directly. But I expect most programs do what I do -- I download the ERAS data from each interview day into a spreadsheet and take notes. Then, I can organize my rank list on the spreadsheet. Last, I can upload the AAMC numbers into ERAS, and my rank list is done.

 

[DrAwsome]

... and NRMP data shows essentially no benefit to a rank list >20.

The the poster above asking about applicants being "lost" in the ranking process, it really doesn't happen. My ERAS software tells me exactly how many applicants I've interviewed, and I check that against my rank list length (minus the interviewees not ranked). Any discrepancy is addressed.

You can actually put your ranking data into ERAS, and it will generate a file you can upload into NRMP directly. But I expect most programs do what I do -- I download the ERAS data from each interview day into a spreadsheet and take notes. Then, I can organize my rank list on the spreadsheet. Last, I can upload the AAMC numbers into ERAS, and my rank list is done.

I've wondered about this point that you've mentioned-why do some programs not rank certain candidates? I mean candidates do take the trouble of spending a ton of money to interview and what not. So do these people who are not even ranked because they are awful, because they did something really bad at the interview, or what exactly?

Really curious.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Sometimes they have done something awful at the interview. From my case files (none this year):

1. One candidate got in a fight with security. We give very clear instructions where to park. They decided to park elsewhere, because they were late and wanted something more convenient. Security told them to move. They ignored them and came to the interview. About an hour later, security found us to find out what the story was. We sent him home.

2. One candidate brought his spouse to the interview. We welcome SO's at our dinner the night beforehand. We don't think we need to tell anyone that spouses aren't actually supposed to come to the interview day itself. She was incredibly annoying. I should have sent both of them home (but let them stay until the end of the day)

3. Sexually inappropriate statements at the dinner the night beforehand are not recommended. Being drunk is not an acceptable excuse.

You get the point.

Some people simply don't impress us. I have to work with you for 3 years. If you look good on paper but in person don't live up to our expectations, we might not rank you.

We sometimes interview people who don't meet our academic criteria in some way (i.e. a board score is lower than we ususally consider, etc), but have something special in their application that interests us. In that case, the interview helps us decide whether we will rank this person.

Sometimes we interview people who are rotating at our program (i.e. doing an away rotation). Usually, we set up the interview before they even start, but the decision to rank them will depend upon their performance.

We rank the vast majority of candidates we interview,but not all.

 

[gutonc]

I've wondered about this point that you've mentioned-why do some programs not rank certain candidates? I mean candidates do take the trouble of spending a ton of money to interview and what not. So do these people who are not even ranked because they are awful, because they did something really bad at the interview, or what exactly?

Really curious.

This year there were only a couple of candidates that we didn't rank. One of them was well known to one of our current fellows who was curious why we offered an interview given X, Y and Z problems on that person's record. We checked into it (with the current PD) and discovered that a failure to disclose significant information (like being on probation with his current program). The second was great on paper and IRL (was Top 10 in our prelim rank list) but again, a current fellow who knows the resident brought up performance issues which were confirmed by current PD.

Moral of the story...don't lie. You may think you can get away with it, but you probably won't.

 

[dannyboy1]

This year there were only a couple of candidates that we didn't rank. One of them was well known to one of our current fellows who was curious why we offered an interview given X, Y and Z problems on that person's record. We checked into it (with the current PD) and discovered that a failure to disclose significant information (like being on probation with his current program). The second was great on paper and IRL (was Top 10 in our prelim rank list) but again, a current fellow who knows the resident brought up performance issues which were confirmed by current PD.

Moral of the story...don't lie. You may think you can get away with it, but you probably won't.

Not really sure what the candidate lost by lying. Had he disclosed it he would also have not been ranked. He was just unlucky that one of your current fellows knew about him.

 

[diagonal]

Not really sure what the candidate lost by lying. Had he disclosed it he would also have not been ranked. He was just unlucky that one of your current fellows knew about him.

 

[HoldTheCoffee]

Not really sure what the candidate lost by lying. Had he disclosed it he would also have not been ranked. He was just unlucky that one of your current fellows knew about him.

Not sure if you are trolling but whether or not he/she was caught has nothing to do with how ethical his/her choice of actions were.

 

[Law2Doc]

I've wondered about this point that you've mentioned-why do some programs not rank certain candidates? I mean candidates do take the trouble of spending a ton of money to interview and what not. So do these people who are not even ranked because they are awful, because they did something really bad at the interview, or what exactly?

Really curious.

If the residents don't like someone for any articulable reason, they often won't be ranked. This is very much a team sport, and so if you aren't going to be welcomed into the fold, PD is going to side with keeping a happy residency corps. I've seen people who were academically gifted and interviewed adequately but simply wouldn't fit in, based on the pre- interview dinner or an away rotation get passed over.

 

[DrAwsome]

If the residents don't like someone for any articulable reason, they often won't be ranked. This is very much a team sport, and so if you aren't going to be welcomed into the fold, PD is going to side with keeping a happy residency corps. I've seen people who were academically gifted and interviewed adequately but simply wouldn't fit in, based on the pre- interview dinner or an away rotation get passed over.

Yes, that I agree with. I think in particular away rotations can be killers. 🙁

 

[gutonc]

If the residents don't like someone for any articulable reason, they often won't be ranked. This is very much a team sport, and so if you aren't going to be welcomed into the fold, PD is going to side with keeping a happy residency corps. I've seen people who were academically gifted and interviewed adequately but simply wouldn't fit in, based on the pre- interview dinner or an away rotation get passed over.

We didn't "not rank" anybody based on general fellow gestalt but it did bump a few folks from the top 1/3 to the bottom 1/3.

 

[armscrubs]

While all of what you said is possible and reasonable reason for not ranking someone yet the numbers don;t match up for some programs. For example I have interviewed at places where they interview 400 people for 14 positions. SO I wonder how many get into a fight with the security or waste themselves at the dinner?

 

[armscrubs]

While all of what you said is possible and reasonable reason for not ranking someone yet the numbers don;t match up for some programs. For example I have interviewed at places where they interview 400 people for 14 positions. SO I wonder how many get into a fight with the security or waste themselves at the dinner?

Sorry I had to do this twice. I am new to the forum and didn't know how to quote

 

[NotAProgDirector]

While all of what you said is possible and reasonable reason for not ranking someone yet the numbers don;t match up for some programs. For example I have interviewed at places where they interview 400 people for 14 positions. SO I wonder how many get into a fight with the security or waste themselves at the dinner?

Sorry I had to do this twice. I am new to the forum and didn't know how to quote

I'm not sure what's not "matching up". Nothing stops me from ranking 400 people for 14 spots. Maybe they rank all 400. Maybe they rank only 200. No way to know.

 

[diagonal]

I'm not sure what's not "matching up". Nothing stops me from ranking 400 people for 14 spots. Maybe they rank all 400. Maybe they rank only 200. No way to know.

Can you comment on the notion of equal footing once at the interview stage. Or do they have a pre-emptive rank list in mind, and your interview is typically neutral, with some exceptional movement up and down the rank list.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

You are not on equal footing at the interview, in general. We have a prelim sense of where you will be on the rank list, and the interview tends to bump you up or down (or not at all).

It's possible in very competitive specialties with a very small number of slots, the interview is weighted much more heavily and could move you all the way to the top (or bottom) of the list.

 

[diagonal]

You are not on equal footing at the interview, in general. We have a prelim sense of where you will be on the rank list, and the interview tends to bump you up or down (or not at all).

It's possible in very competitive specialties with a very small number of slots, the interview is weighted much more heavily and could move you all the way to the top (or bottom) of the list.

So it really is all about the numbers. Strange that personality and affability has such little weight. Interesting career choice I made.

 

[armscrubs]

Thanks aPD for the input. I assume that programs know from experience how many people they need on their rank list to fill the spots, right? So what is the rationale behind spending money on dinner, accommodation and etc. to interview 10 times the number of spots you need? This seems especially redundant when you add the fact that programs already have a sense of you and that the interview is going to change it slightly. Or maybe I just don't see how this works clearly.

 

[Live4Life]

Thanks aPD for the input. I assume that programs know from experience how many people they need on their rank list to fill the spots, right? So what is the rationale behind spending money on dinner, accommodation and etc. to interview 10 times the number of spots you need? This seems especially redundant when you add the fact that programs already have a sense of you and that the interview is going to change it slightly. Or maybe I just don't see how this works clearly.

At least in regards to interviewing 10 candidates for each spot, according to nrmp data, IM programs have to go down 6.4 ranks for each spot. Hence 10 is probably a safe margin of error.

http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2012.pdf

Page 39 for that data

 

[foley12]

So it really is all about the numbers. Strange that personality and affability has such little weight. Interesting career choice I made.

The vast majority of candidates I have met on the interview trail are both personable and affable. Even if they are not they are usually able to fake it for an interview day. It makes much more sense to rely on proven performance throughout the 3+ years in medical school

 

[twright]

You are not on equal footing at the interview, in general. We have a prelim sense of where you will be on the rank list, and the interview tends to bump you up or down (or not at all).

It's possible in very competitive specialties with a very small number of slots, the interview is weighted much more heavily and could move you all the way to the top (or bottom) of the list.

Agree with this. Wish it could be a sticky because it seems to come up again and again. At our program, we have a preliminary sense for where you would be ranked and the function of the interview is (a) to see if you could move up a few notches, or (b) to screen out troublemakers, weird people, etc.

This may be institution dependent, but in my experience and in my conversations with colleagues at other top programs, that doesn't seem to be the case, i.e., the interview can help you a little but it can hurt you a lot.

At the Brigham and Women's medicine program, for example, interviewers are instructed to 'score' an applicant based on XYZ 'objective' criteria. A good interview is only permitted to nudge you up a little. It is explicitly stated that, while a positive interview can exert a positive influence on the interviewer's evaluation, it should not exert an undue positive influence. When it comes to committee deliberations about ranks, they flash your picture up on the screen, and then people go to town on you. Anything weird, anything petty, etc. and you lose substantive ground in the preliminary ranks. Anything red-flaggy and you are pretty much done (i.e., you are moved down to the end).

So it really is all about the numbers. Strange that personality and affability has such little weight. Interesting career choice I made.

We tend to ding martyrs, too.

 

[armscrubs]

At least in regards to interviewing 10 candidates for each spot, according to nrmp data, IM programs have to go down 6.4 ranks for each spot. Hence 10 is probably a safe margin of error.

http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2012.pdf

Page 39 for that data

That is a very convincing answer, thank you. I love numbers

 

[NotAProgDirector]

So it really is all about the numbers. Strange that personality and affability has such little weight. Interesting career choice I made.

Going to agree with those above. If "all about the numbers" means USMLE scores, then no. But your sum total performance of 3.5 years of medical school is going to outweigh the 3.5 hours I get to spend with you at your interview day.

And if you think this would be different in some other field, I think you've got rose colored glasses on. What happens to you after you graduate with a JD or MBA is totally dependent upon the name on the degree (and I'm not talking about your name). Post medical school, it's much more egalitarian.

 

[diagonal]

Going to agree with those above. If "all about the numbers" means USMLE scores, then no. But your sum total performance of 3.5 years of medical school is going to outweigh the 3.5 hours I get to spend with you at your interview day.

And if you think this would be different in some other field, I think you've got rose colored glasses on. What happens to you after you graduate with a JD or MBA is totally dependent upon the name on the degree (and I'm not talking about your name). Post medical school, it's much more egalitarian.

Fair enough.

 

[dozitgetchahi]

Oddly enough, I actually have heard of people matching at programs at which they never interviewed - but these are mostly IMGs matching at community programs. As far as I can tell, it's very rare, but it has apparently happened.