I swear if residency interviews are virtual this year

[You shall know the Truth]

---

Members don't see this ad.

For me, it's mostly things that reflect poor self-awareness. Talking way too loud, talking way too much, bragging, asking inappropriate questions, not taking hints, drinking too much, etc. Someone acting like that when you would expect for them to be on their best, most professional behavior means that their baseline is so out of control that that's the best they can do, or that they're not even self-aware enough to realize they need to tone it down.

The worst thing for me is when an applicant (or sub-i) acts too familiar with the residents, like we're all friends. You may be great and we may be great friends if you were in our program, but you're not in our program. On a related note, that's the best part about matching—you're finally part of the crew.

The later is interesting, thanks for the insight

 

[Neopolymath]

Damn what are people doing at these dinners that make them absolute no’s?

You are applying anesthesia, right? Don't you remember all the people you met in the OR on surgery, OB, and anesthesia rotations that would say something so proudly and boldly asinine about current events that it appeared as if they could not fathom anyone else in the room having a different opinion than them?

Plenty of medical students are no different IMO and a few drinks apparently makes some people act like *****s spouting sociopolitical opinions, talking **** about others specialties, and trying to be "one of the guys" with a bunch of strangers who will be their direct superiors.

 

[Amba]

Damn what are people doing at these dinners that make them absolute no’s?

Inappropriate conversation, "sociopath" vibes, poor fit with the program. Most people are on their best behavior so it's maybe 5-10% of candidates. To be honest, the threshold is pretty low - if 90% of applicants are normal, why risk it with those 5-10%? But I'm in a program that values the residents' input.

 

[redsox93]

You are applying anesthesia, right? Don't you remember all the people you met in the OR on surgery, OB, and anesthesia rotations that would say something so proudly and boldly asinine about current events that it appeared as if they could not fathom anyone else in the room having a different opinion than them?

Plenty of medical students are no different IMO and a few drinks apparently makes some people act like *****s spouting sociopolitical opinions, talking **** about others specialties, and trying to be "one of the guys" with a bunch of strangers who will be their direct superiors.

Actually yeah that makes a lot of sense. Could definitely see people blowing it now. I just assumed if you’d made it this far you could at least hold a normal conversation during dinner for a few hours

 

[redsox93]

Inappropriate conversation, "sociopath" vibes, poor fit with the program. Most people are on their best behavior so it's maybe 5-10% of candidates. To be honest, the threshold is pretty low - if 90% of applicants are normal, why risk it with those 5-10%? But I'm in a program that values the residents' input.

It’s so funny that before aways all the PDs at our school we’re giving us advice about things not to do. Things like don’t talk down to nurses/cleaning staff. Don’t be too vocal and familiar with the residents, you’re not a part of the team yet. I just found it weird that enough people were doing these things the PDs felt the need to tell us not to do them haha.

 

[mehc012]

Medical schools tend to overcome this problem by practicing yield protection. Historically PDs dont have to do this because the applicants themselves cancel interviews at lower tier places. This problem could have been avoided by limiting interviews per applicant. I am going to go out on a limb and say since programs have not traditionally yield protected they are going to find themselves unfilled.

do you have someone to make calls for your come soap ? They only way to benefit from this being an average applicant would be to have a strong SOAP plan. Alternatively you could try to attend out of reach program interviews and hope they atleast rank you.

I think there's already some measure of yield protection creeping into Match given how many interviews and applications are now the norm. That and the fact that programs seem to use "how far down did you have to go on your ROL" as a weird ego contest (OK, OK, that's not entirely fair...but I have heard that the PDs are sometimes evaluated internally on that metric, which is bonkers to anyone who actually understands Match).

 

[longhaul3]

I think there's already some measure of yield protection creeping into Match given how many interviews and applications are now the norm. That and the fact that programs seem to use "how far down did you have to go on your ROL" as a weird ego contest (OK, OK, that's not entirely fair...but I have heard that the PDs are sometimes evaluated internally on that metric, which is bonkers to anyone who actually understands Match).

There is for sure, and there should be. Interview slots are a precious commodity for programs. It doesn't make sense to invite all the top applicants to satisfy your ego when you know they're not going to end up at your program. It's also the main reason people consider doing aways in different parts of the country to garner more attention from programs in those regions. If you're a great applicant but there's no chance you're going to want to be in that part of the country, there's no reason to waste an interview spot on you.

 

[mehc012]

There is for sure, and there should be. Interview slots are a precious commodity for programs. It doesn't make sense to invite all the top applicants to satisfy your ego when you know they're not going to end up at your program. It's also the main reason people consider doing aways in different parts of the country to garner more attention from programs in those regions. If you're a great applicant but there's no chance you're going to want to be in that part of the country, there's no reason to waste an interview spot on you.

I'm talking about yield protection in creation of the ROL, not on interview invites. Very different issue, with very different impact on the applicants it affects.

 

[longhaul3]

I'm talking about yield protection in creation of the ROL, not on interview invites. Very different issue, with very different impact on the applicants it affects.

Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. It undermines the whole design of the match. A lot of programs basically require you to tell them they're your #1 if you want to match there, and the program isn't going to tell you "oh, thanks for your interest but it's not going to happen for you," so you can't really pivot and tell another program the same thing.

 

[efle]

People are spending too much time thinking about what PDs would do if they were a monolithic group of rational actors. Like Mehc says above, a lot of PDs and department chairs don't even understand the math enough to rank by true preference.

I think a whole lot of programs this year are going to say "oh, interviews now cost us nothing and can be done anytime at faculty convenience? Let's dial the total number waaaaay up, since it's purely beneficial for us"

But, since that thinking will be widespread and superstar applicants will have the ability to attend scores of interviews, we're going to end up with a tragedy of the commons in the form of a nasty SOAP rate.

 

[curbsideconsult]

Damn what are people doing at these dinners that make them absolute no’s?

For me, it's mostly things that reflect poor self-awareness. Talking way too loud, talking way too much, bragging, asking inappropriate questions, not taking hints, drinking too much, etc.

Some of my own personal anecdotes:

• An intern at one dinner gave off extremely bitter vibes. She had the worst case of RBF I'd ever seen and made no efforts to fix it. Her responses to questions were curt and she was pretty rude to one of the applicants. Even though the applicant was a complete tool, he wasn't so bad that a resident should have been so rude.
• At another place, an intern I was talking with said she had to leave because she had an early morning (don't all interns?) and then ten minutes later I see her chatting with other people. She stayed for another hour. If you're going to lie, at least make up a good one.
• A resident at another dinner was so hyper and unbearable that I knew I probably would have run into a burning building just to get away from him if he were my chief. He kept interrupting people left and right and acted like that stereotypically annoying kid in the movies who's always trying to get the attention of the cool kids. I didn't think people like that existed IRL, but there he was.
• Not at a dinner and not a resident, but a program coordinator at one interview was very gossipy about the residents. Some of it was "good" in the sense that she was bragging about how proud she was but most of it was bad and did not reflect well on the program.
• Another program coordinator absolutely hated her job and could not wait for the day to end. Most people hate their jobs, but when the bulk of your job is to help people navigate residency it really says something that you hate what you do and couldn't hold those thoughts in for a day in front of a group of interviewees. The investment PCs have in their residents cannot be underestimated.

I don't think any of the above would have come out in a zoom interview.

 

[libertyyne]

Some of my own personal anecdotes:

• An intern at one dinner gave off extremely bitter vibes. She had the worst case of RBF I'd ever seen and made no efforts to fix it. Her responses to questions were curt and she was pretty rude to one of the applicants. Even though the applicant was a complete tool, he wasn't so bad that a resident should have been so rude.
• At another place, an intern I was talking with said she had to leave because she had an early morning (don't all interns?) and then ten minutes later I see her chatting with other people. She stayed for another hour. If you're going to lie, at least make up a good one.
• A resident at another dinner was so hyper and unbearable that I knew I probably would have run into a burning building just to get away from him if he were my chief. He kept interrupting people left and right and acted like that stereotypically annoying kid in the movies who's always trying to get the attention of the cool kids. I didn't think people like that existed IRL, but there he was.
• Not at a dinner and not a resident, but a program coordinator at one interview was very gossipy about the residents. Some of it was "good" in the sense that she was bragging about how proud she was but most of it was bad and did not reflect well on the program.
• Another program coordinator absolutely hated her job and could not wait for the day to end. Most people hate their jobs, but when the bulk of your job is to help people navigate residency it really says something that you hate what you do and couldn't hold those thoughts in for a day in front of a group of interviewees. The investment PCs have in their residents cannot be underestimated.

I don't think any of the above would have come out in a zoom interview.

This is definately one of downsides to this. The resident interactions with each other is an important part of the culture of these programs, would definitely influence my rank list. Seems like we are going to have fly blind regarding those aspects. I do wonder if this will result in higher attrition or transfer rates for the c/o 21.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

People are spending too much time thinking about what PDs would do if they were a monolithic group of rational actors. Like Mehc says above, a lot of PDs and department chairs don't even understand the math enough to rank by true preference.

I think a whole lot of programs this year are going to say "oh, interviews now cost us nothing and can be done anytime at faculty convenience? Let's dial the total number waaaaay up, since it's purely beneficial for us"

But, since that thinking will be widespread and superstar applicants will have the ability to attend scores of interviews, we're going to end up with a tragedy of the commons in the form of a nasty SOAP rate.

I mostly agree. However I wonder if this will be more of a thing at higher ranking programs. Like I don't really see KU interviewing a bunch of people from elite coastal schools just because they have the ability now. Or community programs suddenly thinking they will land the uninterested superstars if they interview enough of them.

I could see it go both ways, I can see some programs inviting hundreds for an interview, and I can see others really clamping down and only inviting regional and in house candidates and shutting out the people with high stats who don't have an obvious reason to actually want to attend that program.

Alas, this could have all been avoided with a reasonable application cap... even if it just kept the numbers to current levels, but I don't think it's going to happen.

 

[Lawpy]

Alas, this could have all been avoided with a reasonable application cap... even if it just kept the numbers to current levels, but I don't think it's going to happen.

why not?

 

[mehc012]

why not?

$$$$$$$
And also, any big change like that is going to cause an outcry, and they're already rocking the boat in one big way. Better for them to make this one change, see how it blows up, and then use that evidence to support further drastic changes such as a cap. It's just too bad for the class caught in the transition.

 

[slowthai]

People are spending too much time thinking about what PDs would do if they were a monolithic group of rational actors. Like Mehc says above, a lot of PDs and department chairs don't even understand the math enough to rank by true preference.

I think a whole lot of programs this year are going to say "oh, interviews now cost us nothing and can be done anytime at faculty convenience? Let's dial the total number waaaaay up, since it's purely beneficial for us"

But, since that thinking will be widespread and superstar applicants will have the ability to attend scores of interviews, we're going to end up with a tragedy of the commons in the form of a nasty SOAP rate.

I mostly agree. However I wonder if this will be more of a thing at higher ranking programs. Like I don't really see KU interviewing a bunch of people from elite coastal schools just because they have the ability now. Or community programs suddenly thinking they will land the uninterested superstars if they interview enough of them.

I could see it go both ways, I can see some programs inviting hundreds for an interview, and I can see others really clamping down and only inviting regional and in house candidates and shutting out the people with high stats who don't have an obvious reason to actually want to attend that program.

Alas, this could have all been avoided with a reasonable application cap... even if it just kept the numbers to current levels, but I don't think it's going to happen.

So RadiologyPD says that she doesn't see programs interviewing substantially more than usual because even though the interviews are virtual, an interview is still an interview and it takes time away from clinic duties, which is an obvious lo$$ for the program. What do you guys think? @longhaul3 @NotAProgDirector feel free to chime in as well

 

[Amba]

So RadiologyPD says that she doesn't see programs interviewing substantially more than usual because even though the interviews are virtual, an interview is still an interview and it takes time away from clinic duties, which is an obvious lo$$ for the program. What do you guys think? @longhaul3 @NotAProgDirector feel free to chime in as well

As a resident, I agree 100%. People here are only looking at it from one end of the spectrum (the applicant). Newsflash, but residency interviews and the application process are nothing but a small blip on the radar for most faculty, residents, and even many PDs. Not that they aren't important, but we don't spend every second of every day thinking about it like when you are applying. More interviews = more time = lost RVUs. And more people to sift through for the rank list. No thank you.

 

[efle]

There is no way that "choose a time on [day] to speak with [applicant] on zoom" is as difficult to organize as full interview days are. Just that scheduling flexibility alone makes it much easier to load up your interviewers with as much as they'll take.

And PDs would have to be stupid to expect us to behave the same either. You really gonna do the same interviews and rank list as usual, knowing that most of us are probably applying to and interviewing at far more programs? Especially the superstars, your yield on anyone competitive just went WAY down. If I was a PD, conducting business as usual sounds like a great way to tumble way too far down a normal length ranklist (or off it into SOAP territory)

 

[longhaul3]

So RadiologyPD says that she doesn't see programs interviewing substantially more than usual because even though the interviews are virtual, an interview is still an interview and it takes time away from clinic duties, which is an obvious lo$$ for the program. What do you guys think? @longhaul3 @NotAProgDirector feel free to chime in as well

This question is above my pay grade in terms of giving a firm prediction or official answer, but I anticipate Zoom interviews actually being more difficult for programs in my specialty than in-person interviews. We usually have around 10 rooms, each with 1-2 (sometimes 3) faculty, running 15- to 20-minute interviews. Most are just rotating, like speed-dating, so it will be much harder to set up all the Zoom rooms and get everyone in the right "room" on time. Meanwhile some attendings are still running ORs and can come grab an applicant from the waiting room later on if there's a delay (edit: which won't be possible with virtual interviews). Moving all of this online is going to be really challenging for programs, and I highly doubt we will want to offer more interviews than usual.

 

[efle]

This question is above my pay grade in terms of giving a firm prediction or official answer, but I anticipate Zoom interviews actually being more difficult for programs in my specialty than in-person interviews. We usually have around 10 rooms, each with 1-2 (sometimes 3) faculty, running 15- to 20-minute interviews. Most are just rotating, like speed-dating, so it will be much harder to set up all the Zoom rooms and get everyone in the right "room" on time. Meanwhile some attendings are still running ORs and can come grab an applicant from the waiting room later on if there's a delay. Moving all of this online is going to be really challenging for programs, and I highly doubt we will want to offer more interviews than usual.

Lots of surgical apps this year gonna have their "interview" be a 10min facetime call with an attending grabbing coffee between cases. Love it

 

[Amba]

There is no way that "choose a time on [day] to speak with [applicant] on zoom" is as difficult to organize as full interview days are. Just that scheduling flexibility alone makes it much easier to load up your interviewers with as much as they'll take.

And PDs would have to be stupid to expect us to behave the same either. You really gonna do the same interviews and rank list as usual, knowing that most of us are probably applying to and interviewing at far more programs? Especially the superstars, your yield on anyone competitive just went WAY down. If I was a PD, conducting business as usual sounds like a great way to tumble way too far down a normal length ranklist (or off it into SOAP territory)

I would avoid talking so definitively about things you haven't experienced yet.

 

[redsox93]

Looks like it’s time to take a research year?

 

[efle]

I would avoid talking so definitively about things you haven't experienced yet.

Its self-evident in the match algorithm, but time will tell. I know I've already experienced advisor here telling us to apply 150% as many programs as normal, but I guess if you're confident in your yield one wouldn't have to care.

 

[mehc012]

This question is above my pay grade in terms of giving a firm prediction or official answer, but I anticipate Zoom interviews actually being more difficult for programs in my specialty than in-person interviews. We usually have around 10 rooms, each with 1-2 (sometimes 3) faculty, running 15- to 20-minute interviews. Most are just rotating, like speed-dating, so it will be much harder to set up all the Zoom rooms and get everyone in the right "room" on time. Meanwhile some attendings are still running ORs and can come grab an applicant from the waiting room later on if there's a delay (edit: which won't be possible with virtual interviews). Moving all of this online is going to be really challenging for programs, and I highly doubt we will want to offer more interviews than usual.

Not to mention the fact that experienced attendings are all known for being IT experts, right?
How long are they going to have to spend just training the faculty to get on the meeting to begin with, nevermind that most of them will be staring at their own image for 90% of the calls!

 

[curbsideconsult]

Looks like it’s time to take a research year?

I wonder how many more people are taking a research year because of this madness. I think the increase in the number of people delaying graduation is going to make Match 2022 worse than 2021.

 

[libertyyne]

Not to mention the fact that experienced attendings are all known for being IT experts, right?
How long are they going to have to spend just training the faculty to get on the meeting to begin with, nevermind that most of them will be staring at their own image for 90% of the calls!

I have been attending a few skype/zoom meetings for programs regarding resident education for the past month. Most of the attendings in the departments have been showing up and actually talking during them. The only downside was seeing their nose hair or half their face because they were using their phones. I dont think it is stretch to have them interview people via zoom.

 

[You shall know the Truth]

most of them will be staring at their own image for 90% of the calls!

this made me laugh

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Great post. To take it a step further, if programs invite the same number of applicants as usual, and the top applicants don't cancel as many interviews as usual because they're easier to attend, there's a chance that some of those programs will go unmatched, because all the programs will have the same group of top applicants on their rank lists.

Possible

Alternatively, middle of the road programs may decide not worth interviewing top candidates because of this?

Also possible. But this happens already. Some community programs are right next to big name programs. They know that people who apply to the big name program might also apply to them, figure maybe they can get two interviews out of one plane ticket.

People are spending too much time thinking about what PDs would do if they were a monolithic group of rational actors. Like Mehc says above, a lot of PDs and department chairs don't even understand the math enough to rank by true preference.

I think a whole lot of programs this year are going to say "oh, interviews now cost us nothing and can be done anytime at faculty convenience? Let's dial the total number waaaaay up, since it's purely beneficial for us"

But, since that thinking will be widespread and superstar applicants will have the ability to attend scores of interviews, we're going to end up with a tragedy of the commons in the form of a nasty SOAP rate.

So RadiologyPD says that she doesn't see programs interviewing substantially more than usual because even though the interviews are virtual, an interview is still an interview and it takes time away from clinic duties, which is an obvious lo$$ for the program. What do you guys think? @longhaul3 @NotAProgDirector feel free to chime in as well

I think it's anyone's guess. Programs are going to do all sorts of things. Some may decide to interview the same number of people. Some will decide to interview more -- perhaps faculty will interview on the weekends or in the evening from home. The increased flexibility of video based interviewing might make it easier to schedule more interviews. In the end, i expect the number of interview slots will go up, the number of interviews per applicant will go up, and the match rate will remain exactly the same -- just more churn. But that's a guess.

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

Does anyone think there will be less stigma for reapplicants next year due to how much of a mess match will be this year?

 

[libertyyne]

Does anyone think there will be less stigma for reapplicants next year due to how much of a mess match will be this year?

probably, but probably not.

 

[Eye-eye]

Does anyone think there will be less stigma for reapplicants next year due to how much of a mess match will be this year?

I doubt it. The general sense I tend to get with these things is "there are these X, Y, and Z reasons why the match will be horrendous this year," but even if that was true and the match rate for the specialty was low that year, people who didn't match can't use those as excuses, and are still seen as lesser. Other people matched, so why didn't they / why are they relying on excuses / what's the real reason they didn't match all seem to be the prevailing mentalities when it gets down to individual cases.

 

[throwaway1000000]

Possible

Also possible. But this happens already. Some community programs are right next to big name programs. They know that people who apply to the big name program might also apply to them, figure maybe they can get two interviews out of one plane ticket.


I think it's anyone's guess. Programs are going to do all sorts of things. Some may decide to interview the same number of people. Some will decide to interview more -- perhaps faculty will interview on the weekends or in the evening from home. The increased flexibility of video based interviewing might make it easier to schedule more interviews. In the end, i expect the number of interview slots will go up, the number of interviews per applicant will go up, and the match rate will remain exactly the same -- just more churn. But that's a guess.

Probably what will happen. PDs will try to maintain the candidate mix as in previous years or simply increase the number of interviewing spots to make up for the for lack of cancellations.
I suspect PDs already do this as I didn't interviews where I might have been too competitive. More programs might do this just because the cancellations will be less.
Ultimately, I doubt anything will change. People will still match where they would have in a normal interview season.

The biggest harm probably is to people without home programs that can't do aways in fields like ortho and derm. Not sure how this will workout for them since it will be tougher to get any letters or rotations in that field.

 

[hallowmann]

Does anyone think there will be less stigma for reapplicants next year due to how much of a mess match will be this year?

probably, but probably not.

I really don't think this is going to be as big of an issue as you guys are thinking. There might be a slight decrease in the match rate, but it'll probably be on the order of a few percent. Programs deal with fluctuations every year, and I'm sure most are not going to be treating this like business as usual in terms of the number of interviews/ranking.

 

[peachrings]

This seems like a classic Prisoner's Dilemma for both applicants and programs. If you don't send out more applications or interview more applicants, that party will likely lose out relative to others.

 

[efle]

The match is only zero-sum after the SOAP. I also predict a much higher rate of SOAP participation this year.

I finally got around to reading some of these specialty guidelines, and the language in the Peds one about application limits was interesting. They're downright pleading with us not to carry out a tragedy of the commons by devaluing interviews.

"Finally, a strong plea: Please do not apply to more than 15 programs unless you have had some academic difficulty, are couples-matching, or are advised to by your pediatric medical school leadership. We want to ensure that applicants get a holistic review, but this will be difficult to do if programs are flooded by applications. "

1) Looks like they've realized what this situation is about to do to their applicant numbers and interview yield
2) There's nothing they can do about it besides asking us nicely. No enforcement mechanism at all.

Someone told me the upcoming ortho guidelines will have a similar appeal in them. Not looking pretty, I imagine nobody is going to risk their own relative competitiveness like they're asking.

 

[Lawpy]

The match is only zero-sum after the SOAP. I also predict a much higher rate of SOAP participation this year.

I finally got around to reading some of these specialty guidelines, and the language in the Peds one about application limits was interesting. They're downright pleading with us not to carry out a tragedy of the commons by devaluing interviews.

"Finally, a strong plea: Please do not apply to more than 15 programs unless you have had some academic difficulty, are couples-matching, or are advised to by your pediatric medical school leadership. We want to ensure that applicants get a holistic review, but this will be difficult to do if programs are flooded by applications. "

1) Looks like they've realized what this situation is about to do to their applicant numbers and interview yield
2) There's nothing they can do about it besides asking us nicely. No enforcement mechanism at all.

Someone told me the upcoming ortho guidelines will have a similar appeal in them. Not looking pretty, I imagine nobody is going to risk their own relative competitiveness like they're asking.

Then lets just force an application cap to help everyone out!

 

[Oedipa Maas]

The match is only zero-sum after the SOAP. I also predict a much higher rate of SOAP participation this year.

I finally got around to reading some of these specialty guidelines, and the language in the Peds one about application limits was interesting. They're downright pleading with us not to carry out a tragedy of the commons by devaluing interviews.

"Finally, a strong plea: Please do not apply to more than 15 programs unless you have had some academic difficulty, are couples-matching, or are advised to by your pediatric medical school leadership. We want to ensure that applicants get a holistic review, but this will be difficult to do if programs are flooded by applications. "

1) Looks like they've realized what this situation is about to do to their applicant numbers and interview yield
2) There's nothing they can do about it besides asking us nicely. No enforcement mechanism at all.

Someone told me the upcoming ortho guidelines will have a similar appeal in them. Not looking pretty, I imagine nobody is going to risk their own relative competitiveness like they're asking.

Just looked at the Texas star ortho applicant data for someone. Average # of applications for matched applicants was 76 with average number of interviews at 16. What would those guidelines even look like?

 

[peachrings]

IMO, having to SOAP or fill via SOAP constitutes a large negative, and you’ve lost out already relative to peer applicants/programs. Without a cap, it will be even more of an arms race.

 

[efle]

Just looked at the Texas star ortho applicant data for someone. Average # of applications for matched applicants was 76 with average number of interviews at 16. What would those guidelines even look like?

Yeah, that sounds about right. Per my top secret source it would be a similar tiered system where people with high board scores and no red flags are asked to only apply to a few dozen, while people with weaknesses can apply to more.

But, nobody is going to listen. Like peachrings said, I would trade a lot of time and money to not SOAP.

 

[peachrings]

Yeah, that sounds about right. Per my top secret source it would be a similar tiered system where people with high board scores and no red flags are asked to only apply to a few dozen, while people with weaknesses can apply to more.

But, nobody is going to listen. Like peachrings said, I would trade a lot of time and money to not SOAP.

That sounds ripe for a lawsuit. We should be aiming for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Curious though, would low school tier count as a weakness?

 

[Sriddymopboi]

Then lets just force an application cap to help everyone out!

I would consider an interview cap, but an application cap, that can **** right off, just like the pedatric society's recommendation to only apply to 15 programs max. What a joke.

 

[libertyyne]

That sounds ripe for a lawsuit. We should be aiming for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Curious though, would low school tier count as a weakness?

theoretically weaker applicants applying to more places and recieving less interviews would lead to equal opportunity to match.

 

[Lawpy]

I would consider an interview cap, but an application cap, that can **** right off, just like the pedatric society's recommendation to only apply to 15 programs max. What a joke.

I just dont get the point of specialties begging applicants to self cap if they have no way to enforce it.

 

[Sriddymopboi]

I just dont get the point of specialties begging applicants to self cap if they have no way to enforce it.

Honestly it's insulting that they suggest this number without an enforcement method. Like I'm going to take a chance with my entire livelihood/career and risk not matching by applying to only 15 programs, with this unprecedented application cycle? What if I apply to programs based on previous residency application guidelines before COVID and it turns out that this year everything gets turned on its head?

"In general, it is recommended that allopathic students with Step 1 scores between 216-234 apply to 15 programs. Allopathic students with higher scores can apply to fewer programs, while students with lower scores should apply to more programs. "

If my step 1 is 235, they're telling me to apply to LESS programs. Hilarious.

 

[peachrings]

theoretically weaker applicants applying to more places and recieving less interviews would lead to equal opportunity to match.

I think of equality of opportunity as having similar obstacles and resources during school. Students who do better should have more interviews and choices, not be penalized for doing well.

 

[libertyyne]

I think of equality of opportunity as having similar obstacles and resources during school. Students who do better should have more interviews and choices, not be penalized for doing well.

Students are not the only stakeholders in this situation. Programs are also big stake holders. If match rates go down , programs and other applicants have to soap to fill positions, ultimately that may be sub optimal for everyone involved.
If a top tier applicant applies to 15 programs and gets 15 interviews compared to middle of the road applicant who applies to 30 and only gets 10. Im not sure some massive injustice is occurring.

 

[efle]

Well they do say this is based on good data that your match odds dont really suffer from their recommended number of apps

 

[Naruhodo]

I for one intend to follow the guidelines for applications. I don't presume to tell anyone else what they should do (you do what's right for you), but I think based on talking with past applicants from my school who've matched favorably into my desired specialty that 8-12 applications is reasonable. Partly this process is crazy because we continue to fuel the frenzy.

 

[Iz_FtB]

I for one intend to follow the guidelines for applications. I don't presume to tell anyone else what they should do (you do what's right for you), but I think based on talking with past applicants from my school who've matched favorably into my desired specialty that 8-12 applications is reasonable. Partly this process is crazy because we continue to fuel the frenzy.

I have no idea what you're applying into, but it isn't ortho.

 

[Sriddymopboi]

I for one intend to follow the guidelines for applications. I don't presume to tell anyone else what they should do (you do what's right for you), but I think based on talking with past applicants from my school who've matched favorably into my desired specialty that 8-12 applications is reasonable. Partly this process is crazy because we continue to fuel the frenzy.

Do you also tell on your classmates if they show up to lecture a few minutes late