I swear if residency interviews are virtual this year

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

---

Members don't see this ad.

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

Not that anyone will listen, but you don’t see the logic that having higher stats means you can apply to fewer programs in order to comfortably match?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

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

Keep the personal attacks to yourself, please.

 

[Sriddymopboi]

Not that anyone will listen, but you don’t see the logic that having higher stats means you can apply to fewer programs in order to comfortably match?

I do see that logic, but this residency application cycle is unprecedented, and even though I'm a strong applicant I'm going to apply to as many programs and go on as many interviews as possible. Prisoner's dilemma.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I do see that logic, but this residency application cycle is unprecedented, and even though I'm a strong applicant I'm going to apply to as many programs and go on as many interviews as possible. Prisoner's dilemma.

Yeah, like I said no one will listen since they aren’t enforcing it. Ironically, if y’all were rational actors you would cooperate and everyone would come out ahead. That’s actually the point of the PD, especially in the case of a non-linear good, which this is.

 

[Lawpy]

what's the point of recommendations if they're not being enforced?

 

[efle]

what's the point of recommendations if they're not being enforced?

I mean, they have to at least try and tell us not to collectively screw ourselves over. We know we still will, I'm sure they know we still will, but they have to at least acknowledge that they see it coming and tell us not to.

 

[Lawpy]

I mean, they have to at least try and tell us not to collectively screw ourselves over. We know we still will, I'm sure they know we still will, but they have to at least acknowledge that they see it coming and tell us not to.

if programs are following the recommendations, are they going to cap the interviews sent ahead of time?

 

[efle]

if programs are following the recommendations, are they going to cap the interviews sent ahead of time?

If they feel like putting themselves at a disadvantage compared to other programs, sure

 

[peachrings]

Yeah, like I said no one will listen since they aren’t enforcing it. Ironically, if y’all were rational actors you would cooperate and everyone would come out ahead. That’s actually the point of the PD, especially in the case of a non-linear good, which this is.

Actually if everyone was a rational actor, they would apply to as many programs as possible, under the assumption that others will as well. One of the best predictors of match success is number of interviews, better than stats on paper.

 

[sharkbyte]

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.

8-12 applications?? I mean, 8-12 interviews is what they recommend to feel safe for matching in most specialties, but only 8-12 apps?

 

[libertyyne]

Actually if everyone was a rational actor, they would apply to as many programs as possible, under the assumption that others will as well. One of the best predictors of match success is number of interviews, better than stats on paper.

Yeah, by your logic carribean graduates should have the highest match rate .

 

[Naruhodo]

8-12 applications?? I mean, 8-12 interviews is what they recommend to feel safe for matching in most specialties, but only 8-12 apps?

This is extremely specialty-specific, which is why it's hard to generalize from others' experiences. I didn't mean to sound like a goody two-shoes (though reading my previous post, definitely see how it could be interpreted that way). But I do hope that much of the panic here is unwarranted, and that students often apply to more residencies than they truly need. I know there's just a lot of uncertainty/ worry right now (I'm right there with you), and I don't mean to be insensitive to those going into competitive specialties like neurosurgery, ortho, ENT, derm, plastics, etc., but that is also not the majority of applicants. I'd like to think that if most of us treat this like a regular year we'll still do OK.

 

[peachrings]

Yeah, by your logic carribean graduates should have the highest match rate .

I am not exactly sure of the data regarding number of interviews Carribean grads get, but I would not be surprised to see them match at the same rates at a given interview number. I may be wrong, but I thought getting enough interviews was usually the problem.

Edit: I stand corrected. 90% chance of matching in IM - USMDs need 4 interviews, DOs - 5, US-IMGS - 8, FMGS - 9.5. However, applying to as many programs as possible is still one of the most actionable ways to match.

 

[sella.turcica]

what's the point of recommendations if they're not being enforced?

Should a letter of recommendation be called a letter of enforcement?

 

[Doggeronie]

Should a letter of recommendation be called a letter of enforcement?

I think what he meant to say is that organizations should not be simply recommending guidelines for this cycle. There should be enforced changes. Otherwise it's the same as no change at all.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Actually if everyone was a rational actor, they would apply to as many programs as possible, under the assumption that others will as well. One of the best predictors of match success is number of interviews, better than stats on paper.

You misunderstood what I meant. I didn’t mean rational as in given the circumstances what would a rational person do to make sure they succeed. I meant a rational actor in game theory terms. In this case, given that it is a non-linear good game where it is possible to maximize benefit and minimize costs by applying to a limited number of programs that is based on the strength of your application, a rational actor would do that.

But people are not rational actors, and that will break down because people won’t see it as a non-linear good and will simply PD the **** out of it to try to maximize their own benefit without regard for the other players and the cost to themselves.

 

[peachrings]

You misunderstood what I meant. I didn’t mean rational as in given the circumstances what would a rational person do to make sure they succeed. I meant a rational actor in game theory terms. In this case, given that it is a non-linear good game where it is possible to maximize benefit and minimize costs by applying to a limited number of programs that is based on the strength of your application, a rational actor would do that.

But people are not rational actors, and that will break down because people won’t see it as a non-linear good and will simply PD the **** out of it to try to maximize their own benefit without regard for the other players and the cost to themselves.

I think I understood what you meant and still disagree. A rational actor in game theory looks out for their own self interest and does not seek to maximize average utility amongst all participants. The extra cost to the applicant is additional application fee and I agree there is a point of diminishing returns. However, not matching is such a large negative that it trumps those other costs.

 

[libertyyne]

I think I understood what you meant and still disagree. A rational actor in game theory looks out for their own self interest and does not seek to maximize average utility amongst all participants. The extra cost to the applicant is additional application fee and I agree there is a point of diminishing returns. However, not matching is such a large negative that it trumps those other costs.

the point of diminishing returns is not as high as people would like to think it is.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I think I understood what you meant and still disagree. A rational actor in game theory looks out for their own self interest and does not seek to maximize average utility amongst all participants. The extra cost to the applicant is additional application fee and I agree there is a point of diminishing returns. However, not matching is such a large negative that it trumps those other costs.

They look to maximize their own benefit while minimizing their expenditures. In a non linear good, helping others increases your payoff. In a standard PD you are right in that a rational actor would likely defect. But this isn’t a standard PD.

 

[peachrings]

I still fail to see in this iteration of PD how helping others increases your payoff. If we assume there is a fixed number of interviews, the applicant with the larger share of those interviews does better. The best possible outcome for the applicant to match and match well would be if they had 100% of the interview pool and same with the converse. Obviously, this is not realistic, but having more interviews, all else equal, increases your chances, however marginally. And yes, there are expenditures, but in this case it's just paying a bit more (relative to cost of education) and clicking more buttons.

 

[peachrings]

View attachment 306402
the point of diminishing returns is not as high as people would like to think it is.

I agree, the point of diminishing returns in specialties with lots of spots is generally not that high, and application numbers generally reflect that. However, more applications still helps, however negligibly. And being that going unmatched is such a negative outcome, the relative risk reduction can be substantial and worth it.

 

[libertyyne]

I agree, the point of diminishing returns in specialties with lots of spots is generally not that high, and application numbers generally reflect that. However, more applications still helps, however negligibly. And being that going unmatched is such a negative outcome, the relative risk reduction can be substantial and worth it.

the data doesnt really corroborate that. There is a plateau at a certain threshold and even a subsequent decrease for lower performers on that chart.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I still fail to see in this iteration of PD how helping others increases your payoff. If we assume there is a fixed number of interviews, the applicant with the larger share of those interviews does better. The best possible outcome for the applicant to match and match well would be if they had 100% of the interview pool and same with the converse. Obviously, this is not realistic, but having more interviews, all else equal, increases your chances, however marginally. And yes, there are expenditures, but in this case it's just paying a bit more (relative to cost of education) and clicking more buttons.

You’re leaving out a bunch of things from the actual scenario and assuming infinite time and resources for all applicants and programs. That’s not reality.

 

[peachrings]

You’re leaving out a bunch of things from the actual scenario and assuming infinite time and resources for all applicants and programs. That’s not reality.

I am talking solely from the point of applicants in terms of cost. For programs, I anticipate video interviews may be just as hard as in person interviews to coordinate so they can't just spam interview invites.

 

[peachrings]

the data doesnt really corroborate that. There is a plateau at a certain threshold and even a subsequent decrease for lower performers on that chart.

No, I agree that there will be a point where they will be no absolute gain. But applying to get from 82% chance to 88%? That is up to the individual and their appetite for risk, but it it still a 33% risk reduction.

 

[efle]

I am talking solely from the point of applicants in terms of cost. For programs, I anticipate video interviews may be just as hard as in person interviews to coordinate so they can't just spam interview invites.

How/why? Why on earth would it be harder to turn on Zoom from any computer?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I am talking solely from the point of applicants in terms of cost. For programs, I anticipate video interviews may be just as hard as in person interviews to coordinate so they can't just spam interview invites.

Right but games don’t work like that. You can’t just ignore a huge chunk of the players and payoffs.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

How/why? Why on earth would it be harder to turn on Zoom from any computer?

I’m guessing you’ve not had to try to coordinate meetings and the like via zoom during this pandemic.

 

[libertyyne]

There are a few strategies for interviews programs could employ. They could make full interview days of zoom with sequential interviews or interactions with staff. This could potentially force applicants to reject other interviews. If a bunch of programs in a small specialty employ this they could kind of force applicants into the status quo. On the flip side interviews could be on demand and short , but this would probably imply more capacity for interviews that programs could accommodate. So in this scenario applicants would have to increase interview numbers to compensate.

 

[efle]

I’m guessing you’ve not had to try to coordinate meetings and the like via zoom during this pandemic.

Haha I did a whole remote elective via Zoom! Theres no way it's harder to schedule Zoom times than to host entire interview dinners and days

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Haha I did a whole remote elective via Zoom! Theres no way it's harder to schedule Zoom times than to host entire interview dinners and days

Lol yeah I’m sure it’s not.

 

[throwaway1000000]

How/why? Why on earth would it be harder to turn on Zoom from any computer?

It wouldn't be harder but there is still a limited amount of time.
Like each person can only do 1 zoom interview per day, assuming these will go from 8am-1pm like normal interview days
It is much easier to schedule interviews now because the traveling is out, but it is not like someone can schedule multiple interviews in a single day.

 

[peachrings]

Right but games don’t work like that. You can’t just ignore a huge chunk of the players and payoffs.

I’m speaking as an upcoming applicant, and it’s in my favor to apply to as many programs as possible. What the programs do is up to them.

 

[You shall know the Truth]

It wouldn't be harder but there is still a limited amount of time.
Like each person can only do 1 zoom interview per day, assuming these will go from 8am-1pm like normal interview days
It is much easier to schedule interviews now because the traveling is out, but it is not like someone can schedule multiple interviews in a single day.

Why assume normal interview days?

 

[efle]

Why assume normal interview days?

Yeah I imagine they'll want to make use of the flexibility and just say "Here's your people to interview this week. Please schedule Zoom slots with them at your convenience"

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I’m speaking as an upcoming applicant, and it’s in my favor to apply to as many programs as possible. What the programs do is up to them.

Which completely misses the point and just ends up hurting everyone. But you do you.

 

[Pluto98]

Which completely misses the point and just ends up hurting everyone. But you do you.

So you follow the suggested app limit and if you dont match, you can console yourself by saying you helped the system for everyone.....

 

[mehc012]

This is extremely specialty-specific, which is why it's hard to generalize from others' experiences. I didn't mean to sound like a goody two-shoes (though reading my previous post, definitely see how it could be interpreted that way). But I do hope that much of the panic here is unwarranted, and that students often apply to more residencies than they truly need. I know there's just a lot of uncertainty/ worry right now (I'm right there with you), and I don't mean to be insensitive to those going into competitive specialties like neurosurgery, ortho, ENT, derm, plastics, etc., but that is also not the majority of applicants. I'd like to think that if most of us treat this like a regular year we'll still do OK.

As someone who was in the 'majority of applicants' boat and somehow did NOT match last year in a noncompetitive specialty...if you get the short end of the random-stick, you'll be grateful for doing everything you could along the way to maximize your chances, just to feel better about yourself. I made fun of myself all season long for applying to so many programs and attending so many interviews, but...at the end of the day, doing so helped me only in that I can honestly say I did my best and left no stone unturned, and my current predicament could not have been avoided by just listening to the more cautious of my advisors.

 

[Lawpy]

Which completely misses the point and just ends up hurting everyone. But you do you.

I like game theory but i dont understand the discussion if we agree people won't act optimally (and not following the suggestions to self cap)?

 

[peachrings]

Which completely misses the point and just ends up hurting everyone. But you do you.

Believe me, I will. So like mehc said, if I don't match, I'm not going to say I left any stones unturned.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I like game theory but i dont understand the discussion if we agree people won't act optimally (and not following the suggestions to self cap)?

I was trying to clarify some terms, as people seem to think calling something a prisoners dilemma means they can just do whatever is best for them.

 

[Lawpy]

I was trying to clarify some terms, as people seem to think calling something a prisoners dilemma means they can just do whatever is best for them.

Oh that makes sense, and i agree with what you're saying.

 

[throwaway1000000]

Why assume normal interview days?

I mean it is possible. If they record their usual interview day spiel and have you watch it at your leisure and each program interview only consists of 1-2 hrs of actual interviews then yeah you can do multiple interviews a day

 

[Doggeronie]

Smh everyone thinks they're John Nash all of a sudden

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Smh everyone thinks they're John Nash all of a sudden

I don’t think I’m Nash, but I do have a math degree and have done a fair amount of research in evolutionary game theory so I kind of understand what I’m talking about.

 

[Naruhodo]

As someone who was in the 'majority of applicants' boat and somehow did NOT match last year in a noncompetitive specialty...if you get the short end of the random-stick, you'll be grateful for doing everything you could along the way to maximize your chances, just to feel better about yourself. I made fun of myself all season long for applying to so many programs and attending so many interviews, but...at the end of the day, doing so helped me only in that I can honestly say I did my best and left no stone unturned, and my current predicament could not have been avoided by just listening to the more cautious of my advisors.

I'm so sorry that this was your experience, and agree that unfortunately the match system does fail some people every year. However, last year was a "normal cycle" and all that I'm really trying to advocate is that we don't treat this year any differently than we would any other year in which we'd apply. Obviously details like the exact number of applications one needs have to be tailored to the individuals and the specialty they're applying to. Wishing you and everyone else the best in these stressful times.

 

[Sriddymopboi]

I'm so sorry that this was your experience, and agree that unfortunately the match system does fail some people every year. However, last year was a "normal cycle" and all that I'm really trying to advocate is that we don't treat this year any differently than we would any other year in which we'd apply. Obviously details like the exact number of applications one needs have to be tailored to the individuals and the specialty they're applying to. Wishing you and everyone else the best in these stressful times.

This year is not a "normal cycle" ergo, rules are different this time around. I'm doing what I can, personally, to ensure the best chance of matching (applying to a lot of programs and interviewing with as many as I possibly can)

 

[Lawpy]

I'm so sorry that this was your experience, and agree that unfortunately the match system does fail some people every year. However, last year was a "normal cycle" and all that I'm really trying to advocate is that we don't treat this year any differently than we would any other year in which we'd apply. Obviously details like the exact number of applications one needs have to be tailored to the individuals and the specialty they're applying to. Wishing you and everyone else the best in these stressful times.

Then go ahead and do what you think is right? People are still free to apply to as many programs they want since nothing is being capped.

 

[AMEHigh]

How/why? Why on earth would it be harder to turn on Zoom from any computer?

It's not going to be harder, but it's still going to be a lot of work.
We actually have an opening for this upcoming class and are coordinating interviews online right now.
Still have to reach out to the candidates, get the date, coordinate all the interviewers, send them info, schedule a session to rank/pick a person, etc.
At some point for programs also interviewing 100 vs 110 people isn't necessarily going to get them "better" candidates but involves more work.
People who do interviews also have the rest of their job of seeing patients, teaching, etc and this includes residents.
At the end of interview session most people are happy for it to be over and that isn't just the candidates, but also the people who have to sit through all the interviews as well!

ETA: This is also why people need to respect program coordinators a lot. Good ones are worth their weight in gold and do a lot of work.

 

[makennacompton]

No, I agree that there will be a point where they will be no absolute gain. But applying to get from 82% chance to 88%? That is up to the individual and their appetite for risk, but it it still a 33% risk reduction.

No. It’s about an 8% reduction. 6/82