How many get ranked in reasonably competitive academic program?

[changeofheart77]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I am just wondering for categorical IM, what % of interviewees get ranked...If anybody has privileged information to some specifics, like say school A ranks x out of 500...

 

[orientedtoself]

i may be just perpetuating rumors, but i saw on sdn last year that top programs usually go through four applicants to match one at their program. so then there are four applicants "ranked to match" per spot available.

 

[jennie 21]

I saw on one of the threads in this forum that supposedly MGH and the Brigham rank 2.5-3x as many applicants as the number of spots they need to fill for IM. I don't know if they make it all the way down that rank list, or not. Anyway though those are the very most competitive programs, so I'd say 4:1 for most good programs sounds like a good estimate to me. Most programs (from looking at FRIEDA) appear to interview 7-10x as many applicants as actual spots they need to fill, so if then 4x as many applicants are "ranked to match" as spots needed to fill, then about half the people they interview would be ranked high enough to match at the program.

If anyone has more reliable, less rumor-and-conjecture based info about this, I'd love to hear it.

 

[atsai3]

I am just wondering for categorical IM, what % of interviewees get ranked...If anybody has privileged information to some specifics, like say school A ranks x out of 500...

Not sure why this data would be relevant for the applicant looking at ranking programs. When ranking programs, one should simply rank in order of your preference.

-AT.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

The NRMP reports this data back to programs. Programs that rank 15-20 applicants per slot fill most of the time, those that rank less than 10 per slot often end up in the scramble. Obviously, as previous posters have noted, more competative programs can probably rank less people and do OK -- just as more competative applicants can rank less programs.

That being said, there's no disincentive to ranking more people. Hence, I rank essentially everyone I interview. I put the hard work into choosing whether or not I interview in the first place -- so either 1) I do interview some "marginal" candidates who we decide after interviewing whether to rank or not (but these are relatively few); and 2) every year, someone does something really foolish that takes them off my rank list. Like:

1. Falling asleep in the interview -- I mean, putting your head down on the desk and snoring so we have to wake you up.

2. Getting physically combative with the parking / security guards, or my favorite:

3. Being rude to ANY support staff in my office.

I can't speak for other PD's, but I expect many rank 90+% of everyone they interview.

 

[changeofheart77]

Not sure why this data would be relevant for the applicant looking at ranking programs. When ranking programs, one should simply rank in order of your preference.

-AT.

This has no bearing at all on my ROL. I recieved interviews from really good programs and I just want to have a feel on my chances of getting ranked. I just don't want to hope too much and get disappointed.

 

[orientedtoself]

most people in medicine get either their #1 or #2. rarely #3. but to be safe, rank every program that you would attend.

 

[orientedtoself]

I can't speak for other PD's, but I expect many rank 90+% of everyone they interview.

i think what the op was asking are how many are "ranked to match". . . how deep the program goes into its rank list to fill. i expect that varies from year to year.

 

[changeofheart77]

i think what the op was asking are how many are "ranked to match". . . how deep the program goes into its rank list to fill. i expect that varies from year to year.

Exactly.

 

[Roadrunner]

It seems that the answer to the OP is that there's no rule or even standard for how far programs draw down on their match lists, whether you're speaking of "competitive" programs or otherwise. I think the only way you're going to get an answer is by matching this year and then asking your program director next year how far they drew down. It varies by year, it varies by program, etc.

One of my chiefs told me how far our program drew down for my class and how they were pleased to have not drawn down farther. You may or may not be aware of a notable program two years ago that didn't fill their spots because they were short-sighted and only ranked a small number of candidates. Obviously that program was banking on drawing down as little as they had the previous year and it didn't work out...

 

[jocg27]

i think what the op was asking are how many are "ranked to match". . . how deep the program goes into its rank list to fill. i expect that varies from year to year.

Doesn't "ranked to match" mean you are guaranteed a spot if they are your number one program? ie for a 30 intern program, you are "ranked to match" if you're ranked in their top 30 applicants? Then it isn't related to how far down the list they go, and doesn't vary year to year...

 

[orientedtoself]

Doesn't "ranked to match" mean you are guaranteed a spot if they are your number one program? ie for a 30 intern program, you are "ranked to match" if you're ranked in their top 30 applicants? Then it isn't related to how far down the list they go, and doesn't vary year to year...

well for sure, if you are ranked in the top 30 of a 30 person program, then you are ranked to match. but say you have the top applicants all interviewing at ucsf, brigham, mgh, and hopkins. some will rank ucsf #1, some will rank brigham #1 etc. so brigham won't get all of their top applicants. . . they will be spread out over the four programs. brigham will go deeper than its top thirty, so more than 30 people will be "ranked to match" and could match at the program if they wanted to. or, for example, if a program didn't fill, then all of the applicants who were ranked were "ranked to match". . . see what i'm saying?

 

[stillhere]

The NRMP reports this data back to programs. Programs that rank 15-20 applicants per slot fill most of the time, those that rank less than 10 per slot often end up in the scramble. Obviously, as previous posters have noted, more competative programs can probably rank less people and do OK -- just as more competative applicants can rank less programs.

That being said, there's no disincentive to ranking more people. Hence, I rank essentially everyone I interview. I put the hard work into choosing whether or not I interview in the first place -- so either 1) I do interview some "marginal" candidates who we decide after interviewing whether to rank or not (but these are relatively few); and 2) every year, someone does something really foolish that takes them off my rank list. Like:

1. Falling asleep in the interview -- I mean, putting your head down on the desk and snoring so we have to wake you up.

2. Getting physically combative with the parking / security guards, or my favorite:

3. Being rude to ANY support staff in my office.

I can't speak for other PD's, but I expect many rank 90+% of everyone they interview.

i'm just curious, what program are you from? if you dont want to answer b/c you may lose your anonymity i understand.

 

[orientedtoself]

i'm just curious, what program are you from? if you dont want to answer b/c you may lose your anonymity i understand.

does it matter? it's common sense not to pass out during your interview.

 

[Adcadet]

It would be great to know that I was ranked in the top n spots where n is the number of G1 positions, so that if I ranked them #1 I would definitely match at that program.