How far down THEIR rank list

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
caprisun

caprisun

Membership Revoked
Removed
Verified Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
156
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Just curious...

How far do you think elite programs (Hopkins/Penn/Columbia/UCSF/Stanford/etc.) on average go down on their rank list?

I've been to some interview dinners where residents that help with some of the admin/recruiting seemed to know. Any thoughts?
 
I would love to know the answer to this as well. I actually wouldn't imagine it being all that different, seeing as they lose applicants to each other.
 
I'm also interested in the answer to this ?... anyone from these current programs have any insight?
 
Cathyran said:
I would love to know the answer to this as well. I actually wouldn't imagine it being all that different, seeing as they lose applicants to each other.
Click to expand...

That's what I think/am hoping for given the variety of applicant preferences.
 
My impression is that applicants have been applying to more programs than usual over the last couple years. Top tier applicants tend to interview at all the same top tier programs, particularly within a given region (i.e. Northeast). So we do lose a large number of applicants to each other. If I truly cared how far down the list we went, I would simply invert the list, put my lower ranked applicants at the top, and fill quickly. But that wouldn't make much sense, would it?
 
The only program I know that gave us any stats was UW. They give 250 interviews, and their rank list goes 5.7 spots for every fill...for a total of 160 spots down its ROL.
 
Nooblet said:
The only program I know that gave us any stats was UW. They give 250 interviews, and their rank list goes 5.7 spots for every fill...for a total of 160 spots down its ROL.
Click to expand...

Those are pretty decent odds. 2/3 chance that you'll match there if you interviewed (probably higher if you don't have a serial killer personality during interview). I heard anecdotally at elite programs, it was 60-80 spots down their ROL for a mid/large sized program (~20 residents/class). Does this sound about right?
 
but then I hear things like Pitt only going to rank 24....who knows? I was also surprised by how far UW went down their rank list, and I was curious why the chairwoman decided to even tell us that.
 
Oh for goodness sake....just rank where you want to go, in order of preference, certify your list, and call it a day.
 
but then we'd have nothing to agonize over for the next month and a half! haha
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
pgy13 said:
Oh for goodness sake....just rank where you want to go, in order of preference, certify your list, and call it a day.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The match process is designed to favor the applicant, so rank programs in YOUR order of preference. It costs you nothing to highly rank a place that may fill "early," assuming that you like the program. Even if you don't match there, it doesn't negatively affect the likelihood of matching at the next place on your list.
 
lushmd said:
Exactly. The match process is designed to favor the applicant, so rank programs in YOUR order of preference. It costs you nothing to highly rank a place that may fill "early," assuming that you like the program. Even if you don't match there, it doesn't negatively affect the likelihood of matching at the next place on your list.
Click to expand...

I think this is already understood. It's just fun to discuss when you're bored to death on your medicine sub-i in February of your match year. Just play along.. 😎
 
lushmd said:
Exactly. The match process is designed to favor the applicant, so rank programs in YOUR order of preference. It costs you nothing to highly rank a place that may fill "early," assuming that you like the program. Even if you don't match there, it doesn't negatively affect the likelihood of matching at the next place on your list.
Click to expand...

It is designed to favor neither applicant nor program. You could substitute "applicant" for "place/program" in the above, as in: It costs the program nothing to highly rank an applicant that may match elsewhere, assuming that you like the applicant. Even if you don't match that applicant, it doesn't negatively affect the likelihood of matching the next applicant on your list.[/QUOTE]
 
The chair at UCSF told us that most good programs match within 3x the number of spots they have available. He also said that stat pretty much applies to all the residencies across the board at UCSF.
 
NRMP data for the past 3 matches:

2009
25th %ile = 7.8 ranks to fill
50th %ile = 5.5 ranks to fill
75th %ile = 3.9 ranks to fill
2.6 was >90th %ile

2010
25th %ile = 9.3 ranks to fill
50th %ile = 6.7 ranks to fill
75th %ile = 4.4 ranks to fill
2.8 was >90th %ile

2011
25th %ile = 10.3 ranks to fill
50th %ile = 7.4 ranks to fill
75th %ile = 5.4 ranks to fill
4.9 was somewhere around 90th %ile

This is data provided to the programs
 
Coastmd said:
The chair at UCSF told us that most good programs match within 3x the number of spots they have available. He also said that stat pretty much applies to all the residencies across the board at UCSF.
Click to expand...

This seems unlikely given the number of programs each applicant is interviewing at. I would imagine that any given "top tier" applicant is interviewing at 8+ "top tier programs." With this in mind, it makes sense that it would actually be at least 5-6 a position even at the best programs.
 
Wow! The number of interviews attended per applicant must really be increasing a lot over the last few years based on that data.
 
what is this percentile referring to? (sorry if this is a stupid question)

Gern Blansten said:
NRMP data for the past 3 matches:

2009
25th %ile = 7.8 ranks to fill
50th %ile = 5.5 ranks to fill
75th %ile = 3.9 ranks to fill
2.6 was >90th %ile

2010
25th %ile = 9.3 ranks to fill
50th %ile = 6.7 ranks to fill
75th %ile = 4.4 ranks to fill
2.8 was >90th %ile

2011
25th %ile = 10.3 ranks to fill
50th %ile = 7.4 ranks to fill
75th %ile = 5.4 ranks to fill
4.9 was somewhere around 90th %ile

This is data provided to the programs
Click to expand...
 
rach4214 said:
what is this percentile referring to? (sorry if this is a stupid question)
Click to expand...

You take every single anesthesia program and line up their applicants ranked per spots filled and you have a bell curve. The avg program needed 7.4 ranks to fill a spot. The more selective ones did not have to go as far down to fill a spot.
 
weve gone anywhere from 40 to 80 over the past few years, it seems like. extremely variable. the year i matched, hopkins' list was allegedly 85+ long and they didnt fill
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Last year, out of 16 applicants that ranked only 1 place, 9 matched and 7 did not. Now I know that statistics don't work this way and there are a ton of confounding variables at play here, but I like to think that this means that you have a better chance of matching your top choice than not.

Looking at Gern Blanstein's numbers, if the trend continues, than the average program will need to rank 85 people to fill 10 spots. If programs are as paranoid as their applicants, then they will likely err on the side of caution and use the 25th%ile number and rank 114 people, resulting in all their interviewees being ranked. (I've noticed that the average program interviews a strict 10:1 for available spots. Interestingly, unless programs have adjusted for this rising trend in number needed to fill, the bottom quartile of programs are going to go unfilled this year.) Anyways, lets say your program of choice is average, and you as an applicant are average. If they rank 85 people and interview 100, then all you have to do is rank them as first and be better than 15% of the interviewees. This is wildly different than in 2009 where you would have had to been better than 45% of the interviewees.

Also, its important to keep in mind that the process is called a 'match', not a 'selection'. Many PD's could easily go down their lists by just a few more than needed to fill if they exclusively rank people expressing that the program is their top choice.
The process is designed to make the applicant and PD as happy as possible and I have a lot of faith in it.
 
Last edited:
Apollyon said:
Yikes - 56% match --> that's why they call it "suicide matching"!
Click to expand...

Yes, but the point is that even with this insane tactic more people matched than didn't.
As evidence-minded people, we all like to minimize chance. But I would take those odds in a casino any day.
 
If they only ranked one place, it is likely the only place where they interviewed.
 
ArMed said:
Yes, but the point is that even with this insane tactic more people matched than didn't.
As evidence-minded people, we all like to minimize chance. But I would take those odds in a casino any day.
Click to expand...

How about if those were chances of getting pregnant or not? (And putting you in the "hoping not for pregnancy" camp.)

Or dancing with a train?
 
Coastmd said:
The chair at UCSF told us that most good programs match within 3x the number of spots they have available. He also said that stat pretty much applies to all the residencies across the board at UCSF.
Click to expand...

Hm. Well then, I wonder why they interview 5-10 applicants per spot.
 
Freak said:
The chair said to us that UCSF only used to rank 2:1 and now it was 3:1.
Click to expand...

They only rank enough for 3:1? So, what you are saying is that if they are not in the 90th plus percentile for that particular stat, they would prefer to go unfilled?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Gern Blansten said:
They only rank enough for 3:1? So, what you are saying is that if they are not in the 90th plus percentile for that particular stat, they would prefer to go unfilled?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy this either. It seems possible because UCSF is one of only a few truly "big name" programs on the West Coast, but I think they must come across more than 50 candidates in a given year that they consider "good enough."
 
Ok, so a few years ago they went unfilled.

I think what they meant by that was that to fill their spots, they only had to go to rank 64 (ie. 3:1 with the current 23 spots). They probably had people ranked below that point.
 
Libertas said:
but then I hear things like Pitt only going to rank 24....who knows?
Click to expand...

I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case. According to FREIDA they interview 160 candidates per year. Do they really find 85% of the applicants so unacceptable they'd rather take their chances in the scramble than have those people end up there?
 
Yes, I think a miscommunication is most likely the case here. There are programs that don't go very far down their lists, but I don't think they bank on it so much that they only interview enough to fill out a 3:1 ratio on their rank list.
Most likely, the intent of the comment was to say they typically go 3 spots on their rank list for each position offered. Although not typical, I know there are at least a couple of programs with similar stats.
 
Gern Blansten said:
Yes, I think a miscommunication is most likely the case here. There are programs that don't go very far down their lists, but I don't think they bank on it so much that they only interview enough to fill out a 3:1 ratio on their rank list.
Most likely, the intent of the comment was to say they typically go 3 spots on their rank list for each position offered. Although not typical, I know there are at least a couple of programs with similar stats.
Click to expand...

You've made the most sense in explaining the intent of the 3:1 comment.
 
K31 said:
I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case. According to FREIDA they interview 160 candidates per year. Do they really find 85% of the applicants so unacceptable they'd rather take their chances in the scramble than have those people end up there?
Click to expand...

We certainly rank more than 24 people per year at UPMC. I think that the previous post refers to a rumor that, one year, all of the positions were filled within the first 24 ranks. Frankly, I don't know if this is true or not.
 
lushmd said:
We certainly rank more than 24 people per year at UPMC. I think that the previous post refers to a rumor that, one year, all of the positions were filled within the first 24 ranks. Frankly, I don't know if this is true or not.
Click to expand...

I'm sure any good program can do this by simply taking everyone who writes them "You are my # 1" and ranking them all at the top. Am I right guys? 🙂
 
Nooblet said:
I'm sure any good program can do this by simply taking everyone who writes them "You are my # 1" and ranking them all at the top. Am I right guys? 🙂
Click to expand...

There may programs that cook the books like that, but I don't think it is smart to do. You would certainly miss out on a lot of good candidates just to try and make a number look good. Probably a number many don't even care about or are not aware of. I think this whole thread proves that outside of a select few at the program itself, most have no clue where each program stands in regards to this stat.
 
Last edited:
Posting on an old thread, in part because of the quiet interview invite situation at the moment.

So, I realize it is probably pointless to obsess over this, but it is something I have been thinking about and wondered whether other people have too. It looks like "top" programs don't need to move down their rank list as much to fill, and presumably rank based on a number of factors including interview, Steps, grades, pubs, etc. Though that trend may be changing to some degree.

If you are an applicant getting interviews at top programs, but are likely to be low on the eventual rank lists for these programs because you are merely an "above average" applicant, should you also expect to open the envelope on match day with your 9th rank if you rank all top programs first, for example?

The statistics for the majority of people matching in their top 3 programs is somewhat comforting, but also does not account for the competitiveness of applicant and competitiveness of program. Many programs have a sense of which medical students will be sticking around for residency due to location/partner/etc. reasons, which impacts the estimates for how likely it is for people not in that situation to match at their program of choice.
 
leigh83 said:
Posting on an old thread, in part because of the quiet interview invite situation at the moment.

So, I realize it is probably pointless to obsess over this, but it is something I have been thinking about and wondered whether other people have too. It looks like "top" programs don't need to move down their rank list as much to fill, and presumably rank based on a number of factors including interview, Steps, grades, pubs, etc. Though that trend may be changing to some degree.

If you are an applicant getting interviews at top programs, but are likely to be low on the eventual rank lists for these programs because you are merely an "above average" applicant, should you also expect to open the envelope on match day with your 9th rank if you rank all top programs first, for example?

The statistics for the majority of people matching in their top 3 programs is somewhat comforting, but also does not account for the competitiveness of applicant and competitiveness of program. Many programs have a sense of which medical students will be sticking around for residency due to location/partner/etc. reasons, which impacts the estimates for how likely it is for people not in that situation to match at their program of choice.
Click to expand...
You can never know where you are on their rank list--even if you perceive yourself as being low on a top program's rank list you may have really impressed them with your interview. You may open that envelope and fall down to #9 or you may be pleasantly surprised. Just rank programs based on how you like them--not how you think they are going to rank you. You hit it spot on when you said that it is pointless to obsess over this. It is a very nerve-wracking time, but try to stay calm now as you will only become more nervous the closer it gets to match day.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
All I care about is how many programs (interviews) I need to rank to guarantee matching
 
How did a good program like Penn go unmatched in last year's match? Is it mostly because of location?
 
From one program I know the details on...For a 12-15 person class, they offer around 100-150 interviews and generally go down to 40-50 on their rank list when it is all said and done to fill the class. Sometimes 30, sometimes 60, but generally somewhere near 3:1.
 
Gern Blansten said:
NRMP data for the past 3 matches:

2009
25th %ile = 7.8 ranks to fill
50th %ile = 5.5 ranks to fill
75th %ile = 3.9 ranks to fill
2.6 was >90th %ile

2010
25th %ile = 9.3 ranks to fill
50th %ile = 6.7 ranks to fill
75th %ile = 4.4 ranks to fill
2.8 was >90th %ile

2011
25th %ile = 10.3 ranks to fill
50th %ile = 7.4 ranks to fill
75th %ile = 5.4 ranks to fill
4.9 was somewhere around 90th %ile

This is data provided to the programs
Click to expand...

Hey, renewing this thread haha. What's the data say for recent years 2016? Thanks!
 
Katheudontas parateroumen said:
Hey, renewing this thread haha. What's the data say for recent years 2016? Thanks!
Click to expand...

What are you going to do with the data once you have it?

Always remember to ask yourself this question, because it is a vital part of your medical training, particularly intern year.
 
Katheudontas parateroumen said:
Hey, renewing this thread haha. What's the data say for recent years 2016? Thanks!
Click to expand...

It's concerning that you think this matters because it implies you don't understand how the match works. It is imperative that you rank the programs in the order you wish to attend and NOT factor this sort of data into your thinking. Otherwise you are doing yourself a big disservice. I remember being amazed how many people I met while applying that believed it was possible to "waste" your top ranks.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
rank list help
Replies
3
Views
1K
gasguy
G
G
Residency program rank list
Replies
8
Views
2K
kidthor
kidthor
H
Rank List Advice
Replies
16
Views
4K
Sevo
Sevo
swanandroses
Rank list advice
Replies
6
Views
3K
Katheudontas parateroumen
K
aliensuperstar
(Another!?) Rank Order List Thread (NYC Programs)
Replies
12
Views
5K
NicholasPavona
N
Top Bottom