How many to Interview at?

[fever106]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I am a fourth year from a respected, but non-top tier medical school on the east coast. Our match lists tend to be fairly strong, with many people making it to Cali. I finished in the top 20% of my class, narrowly missing AOA (my dean's letter states this). I have very strong LORs from important people at my program, a 247 on step 1 and a 246 on step 2. I want to come back to Southern California for IM (I know, not terribly unique). I got interviews at almost all the programs I applied to, but I don't have the energy to go to 20+ interviews. I am trying to shave off some of the less desirable programs. My question is, how many places do I really need to rank to be totally safe? Thanks.

 

[jiy76]

I am a fourth year from a respected, but non-top tier medical school on the east coast. Our match lists tend to be fairly strong, with many people making it to Cali. I finished in the top 20% of my class, narrowly missing AOA (my dean's letter states this). I have very strong LORs from important people at my program, a 247 on step 1 and a 246 on step 2. I want to come back to Southern California for IM (I know, not terribly unique). I got interviews at almost all the programs I applied to, but I don't have the energy to go to 20+ interviews. I am trying to shave off some of the less desirable programs. My question is, how many places do I really need to rank to be totally safe? Thanks.

The statistics show if you rank 10+ you stand a high chance to match.In your case (an outstanding u.s med grad) if you rank 10 you are almost 100% sure to match.

 

[howelljolly]

I was looking at the NRMP stats, and it seems that nearly everyone who matches gets into one of their top 4. So Im thinking, if most people get in their top 4, why did they (same group - matched) have to rank 10 or 11?

Also, the stats dont show this, and Im wondering if it's specialty specific. Can you get away with ranking less than that for something not terribly unique like IM?

Edit: the scenario/issue I'm imagining - You either match in your top4, or not at all.

I'm quite fond of my top 6

 

[howelljolly]

turns out, it is specialty specific

 

[gap4annie]

I was looking at the NRMP stats, and it seems that nearly everyone who matches gets into one of their top 4. So Im thinking, if most people get in their top 4, why did they (same group - matched) have to rank 10 or 11?

Also, the stats dont show this, and Im wondering if it's specialty specific. Can you get away with ranking less than that for something not terribly unique like IM?

Edit: the scenario/issue I'm imagining - You either match in your top4, or not at all.

I'm quite fond of my top 6

Yea something like 87% of all AMGs matched somewhere at their first four choices last year 👍 Wish there were specialty-specific stats out there though.

If anyone happens to know what OB-GYN applicants match stats are, would love to hear it.

 

[howelljolly]

Yea something like 87% of all AMGs matched somewhere at their first four choices last year 👍 Wish there were specialty-specific stats out there though.

If anyone happens to know what OB-GYN applicants match stats are, would love to hear it.

Mean contiguous ranks for AMGs who matched was 9.7 last year.

 

[gap4annie]

Mean contiguous ranks for AMGs who matched was 9.7 last year.

Not sure what "mean contiguous rank" of 9.7 means. Can you explain? Thanks!

 

[howelljolly]

Not sure what "mean contiguous rank" of 9.7 means. Can you explain? Thanks!

Average number of programs of the same specialty which are on the Rank Order List consecutively.

Contiguous rank list of 5 with OB prefered:
OB
OB
OB
OB
OB
Peds

Contiguous ROL of 3 with OB prefered:
OB
OB
OB
Peds
Peds
Peds
Peds
Peds
Peds

Note that the ROL of 3 with OB prefered is actually longer. You could have a ROL of one, if you alternate between OB and Peds... but go on for 20 slots.

 

[RxnMan]

Yea something like 87% of all AMGs matched somewhere at their first four choices last year 👍 Wish there were specialty-specific stats out there though.

If anyone happens to know what OB-GYN applicants match stats are, would love to hear it.

Step 1: Google NRMP Charting Outcomes in the Match 2009

Step 2: Decide your personal level of risk of not matching - are you comfortable with a 90% certainty of matching? Or 95%? 97.5?

Step 3: Look at your specialty's section of the NRMP (OB/Gyn).

Step 4: Find the graph describing the #of ranks vs % likelihood of matching.

Step 5: The number of interviews required to meet your level of certainty of matching / lower your risk of not matching = # of interviews you need.

 

[gap4annie]

Step 1: Google NRMP Charting Outcomes in the Match 2009

Step 2: Decide your personal level of risk of not matching - are you comfortable with a 90% certainty of matching? Or 95%? 97.5?

Step 3: Look at your specialty's section of the NRMP (OB/Gyn).

Step 4: Find the graph describing the #of ranks vs % likelihood of matching.

Step 5: The number of interviews required to meet your level of certainty of matching / lower your risk of not matching = # of interviews you need.

Thanks, I'm not actually worried about matching/not matching since I'll be ranking more than enough programs, but just curious how likely it is that I'll match at my top 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. Hence my question about matching stats for OB/Gyn (compared to total AMG applicant matching stats) for the top few ranked programs.

 

[RxnMan]

Thanks, I'm not actually worried about matching/not matching since I'll be ranking more than enough programs, but just curious how likely it is that I'll match at my top 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. Hence my question about matching stats for OB/Gyn (compared to total AMG applicant matching stats) for the top few ranked programs.

I don't think you're going to find stats for the top programs. But you can find nat'l average AMG/FMG stats for those who match and those who don't. Also, using the numbers in the NRMP paper will give you, of those who matched, what % matched in their top 3, their top 4, etc.

Or if you're looking for the stats of those who matched in their top 3, etc., I don't know how to find those. I would be they are not significantly different than those who matched at their 4th, 5th, and so on.

 

[peppy]

While competitive applicants generally do well in the match, you also have to consider how competitive the programs you're applying to are. Top students tend to try for the top programs, and not even someone with an amazing application can just take it for granted that a program like Harvard is going to be a slam dunk.
While the typical student who interviews mostly at community programs can probably safely assume they will get one of their top 3 choices, if your first 3 choices are Stanford, UCLA, and UCSF, you're probably going to be compared to a lot of other people with stats similar to yours and may end up going further down the list.

 

[gap4annie]

While competitive applicants generally do well in the match, you also have to consider how competitive the programs you're applying to are. Top students tend to try for the top programs, and not even someone with an amazing application can just take it for granted that a program like Harvard is going to be a slam dunk.
While the typical student who interviews mostly at community programs can probably safely assume they will get one of their top 3 choices, if your first 3 choices are Stanford, UCLA, and UCSF, you're probably going to be compared to a lot of other people with stats similar to yours and may end up going further down the list.

That's a great point, and something that the stats don't reflect necessarily. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[howelljolly]

While competitive applicants generally do well in the match, you also have to consider how competitive the programs you're applying to are. Top students tend to try for the top programs, and not even someone with an amazing application can just take it for granted that a program like Harvard is going to be a slam dunk.
While the typical student who interviews mostly at community programs can probably safely assume they will get one of their top 3 choices, if your first 3 choices are Stanford, UCLA, and UCSF, you're probably going to be compared to a lot of other people with stats similar to yours and may end up going further down the list.

To make matters worse, it seems like a some programs interview 20 applicants for each slot, where many interview 10 to one slot. That'll probably make it harder, and require a longer ROL to match.

 

[VPDcurt]

At my first few interviews, actually matching seemed somewhat impossible given how many applicants are interviewed and how many spots are available. Then I started to run into the same people at the next bunch of interviews...and matching once again seemed rather feasible.

 

[Law2Doc]

While statistically most people match into the first handful of places they rank, anyone who has been through the process knows somebody who went on a lot of interviews, ranked a lot of places and somehow still fell through the cracks, either going surprisingly deep down their rank list, or worse, having to scramble. My personal advice is to ignore the statistical likelihood that you are safe with a small amount of programs and go on as many interviews as feasible in terms of time and money. Better to be safe than sorry, and you probably will make better more informed decisions if you've seen more places. Just my two cents.

 

[Rogue Synapse]

Sage advice as always from Law2Doc. My current dilemma is money vs. likelihood of ranking (and I'm couples matching). We started out scheduling about 12 interviews each, but now we're dirt broke and may not be able to make the last 2 or 3. Fortunately, we've already interviewed at the places we're really excited about and feel good about our chances of matching there. Still, I can't help but think that for each interview I cancel, I open the door wider for the specter of the scramble.

 

[howelljolly]

While statistically most people match into the first handful of places they rank, anyone who has been through the process knows somebody who went on a lot of interviews, ranked a lot of places and somehow still fell through the cracks, either going surprisingly deep down their rank list, or worse, having to scramble. My personal advice is to ignore the statistical likelihood that you are safe with a small amount of programs and go on as many interviews as feasible in terms of time and money. Better to be safe than sorry, and you probably will make better more informed decisions if you've seen more places. Just my two cents.

In your opinion, do you think the stats for this year will be similar to last year? Given the huge increase in applications this year, one might assume that it will be much more difficult to Match. But I'm thinking that the number of invitations to interview have not (likely) changed, and invitations are not evenly distributed - so the huge increase in apps will not translate to a proportional increase in NRMP participants. A larger portion of the applicants will have few/no interviews, and the number of NRMP participants will be about the same as last year.

Is that logical?

Yes, Im neurotic.

 

[cgk]

In your opinion, do you think the stats for this year will be similar to last year? Given the huge increase in applications this year, one might assume that it will be much more difficult to Match. But I'm thinking that the number of invitations to interview have not (likely) changed, and invitations are not evenly distributed - so the huge increase in apps will not translate to a proportional increase in NRMP participants. A larger portion of the applicants will have few/no interviews, and the number of NRMP participants will be about the same as last year.

Is that logical?

Yes, Im neurotic.

What specialties are you folks referring to? Doesn't it vary greatly from specialty to specialty?

 

[howelljolly]

What specialties are you folks referring to? Doesn't it vary greatly from specialty to specialty?

Which 'it' varies from specialty to specialty? Applicants? We're talking about the National Residency Matching Program - so all specialties.

Unless there's a sudden shift in the mindset of the applicants (e.g. suddenly everyone is interested in Primary Care), the increase in applications should be about the same across all specialties.

 

[RxnMan]

...Top students tend to try for the top programs, and not even someone with an amazing application can just take it for granted that a program like Harvard is going to be a slam dunk.
While the typical student who interviews mostly at community programs can probably safely assume they will get one of their top 3 choices, if your first 3 choices are Stanford, UCLA, and UCSF, you're probably going to be compared to a lot of other people with stats similar to yours and may end up going further down the list.

This effect - self selection of applicants to programs - is why the stats of students who match to their 1st choice are not statistically different from those who match to their 2nd, 3rd, etc. On the whole, everyone matches to the most competitive program they can.

I've done a residency applicant survey for two years, and there's been participants who were very competitive, but surprisingly failed to match on a long ROL, and those with poor stats who matched to their #1 on a very short list. While both make interesting stories, neither was representative of the majority.

...My current dilemma is money vs. likelihood of ranking (and I'm couples matching)...

From what I've heard, couples matching is it's own version of hell, and requires many more interviews than the usual applicant. For you guys, doing as many as possible is probably the best strategy.

For most other students, it's likely not required. The latest NRMP is usually a good source of info on the number of interviews required to match (see my prev post).

...Given the huge increase in applications this year, one might assume that it will be much more difficult to Match...

Where did you get your data? If there truly is an increase in apps, then a proportional increase in interviews might be warranted, regardless of a change in the number of participants. I'd need to think on the math.

 

[howelljolly]

Where did you get your data? If there truly is an increase in apps, then a proportional increase in interviews might be warranted, regardless of a change in the number of participants. I'd need to think on the math.

In 2005 they lifted the moratorium on US med school seats, jacked up class sizes by 10%, and opened 4 new med schools (the numbers are off the top of my head, but its about that)

The 2009 NRMP match had a record number of applicants, and a very short Scramble list (only 11 psych programs, for e.g.)

This year, every residency interview I'm going on is saying that there's an huge increase in the number of applications this year. A couple of small community programs with about 10 spots got about 2500 applications. One PD said that across the board, preliminary data shows an increase in Internal Med applications by 20% this year, compared to last.

There's no increase in the number of seats, so an increase in the number of interviews just complicates things for the program. I don't think many programs are doing so this year. The ones that specifically addressed this issue said that they had not increased interview slots.

 

[RxnMan]

...There's no increase in the number of seats, so an increase in the number of interviews just complicates things for the program. I don't think many programs are doing so this year. The ones that specifically addressed this issue said that they had not increased interview slots.

Ah. With respect to my previous post, I meant as a strategy for applicants, they should increase the # of apps they send out, not programs increase the interviews they offer (I wasn't clear in my prev post).

As you pointed out, programs aren't increasing their interview slots, so that's where the choke-point is. For residency applicants to overcome this, you'd need to send out more apps.