Long Distance Relationship in Med School/Couples Match

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

buckeyegal1129

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
89
Reaction score
99
My boyfriend and I will be attending separate med schools in the fall 2 hours away from each other (not super far but still). We've been dating for 2 years and are planning on doing the couples match together. I was wondering if anyone had experience with a long distance, long term relationship during med school, especially when the other partner was also in med school. Any insight, especially for doing the couples match while at different med schools, would be greatly appreciated!

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The way my dean put it was that you should only consider couples matching if you are married or planning to get married. Otherwise it puts both your applications at a disadvantage.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The way my dean put it was that you sound only consider couples matching if you are married or planning to get married. Otherwise it puts both your applications at a disadvantage.
We weren't planning on getting married until residency because of financial reasons
 
Members don't see this ad :)
We weren't planning on getting married until residency because of financial reasons
What financial reasons are there that exist in med school but not residency? Won't you both be reporting no income in med school and still both have all the debt in res?
 
it puts both your applications at a disadvantage.
This doesn't make sense. Mathematically you can make your individual chances just the same as would be the case had you gone through the process individually. All you have to do is rank every possible combination of you and your SO's choices. Assume your partner has X ranks and you have Y ranks. The total number of combinations (including the possibility that one of you goes unmatched, but excluding the possibility that both of you go unmatched) will then be [(X+1)(Y+1)]-1.
If you list out all of these [(X+1)(Y+1)]-1 combinations of both yours and your SO's programs, you wouldn't be able to increase your chances obviously, but you can make it so that the probabilities are exactly the same.

Do this incorrectly (not including all possible combinations) and you will, however, disadvantage one or both of you.
 
This doesn't make sense. Mathematically you can make your individual chances just the same as would be the case had you gone through the process individually. All you have to do is rank every possible combination of you and your SO's choices. Assume your partner has X ranks and you have Y ranks. The total number of combinations (including the possibility that one of you goes unmatched, but excluding the possibility that both of you go unmatched) will then be [(X+1)(Y+1)]-1.
If you list out all of these [(X+1)(Y+1)]-1 combinations of both yours and your SO's programs, you wouldn't be able to increase your chances obviously, but you can make it so that the probabilities are exactly the same.

Do this incorrectly (not including all possible combinations) and you will, however, disadvantage one or both of you.
I think the reason is PDs are less likely to rank you. If she wants to do a small field like urology, and he wants to do derm, for instance, the Uro residency won't rank her if he didn't get an interview to their derm program, assuming they have one. They know she's back unlikely to rank them highly because of him. Same can happen to the guy in the derm field.
 
I think the reason is PDs are less likely to rank you. If she wants to do a small field like urology, and he wants to do derm, for instance, the Uro residency won't rank her if he didn't get an interview to their derm program, assuming they have one. They know she's back unlikely to rank them highly because of him. Same can happen to the guy in the derm field.
If I am correct, you do not have to disclose the fact that you are couples matching?
 
This doesn't make sense. Mathematically you can make your individual chances just the same as would be the case had you gone through the process individually. All you have to do is rank every possible combination of you and your SO's choices. Assume your partner has X ranks and you have Y ranks. The total number of combinations (including the possibility that one of you goes unmatched, but excluding the possibility that both of you go unmatched) will then be [(X+1)(Y+1)]-1.
If you list out all of these [(X+1)(Y+1)]-1 combinations of both yours and your SO's programs, you wouldn't be able to increase your chances obviously, but you can make it so that the probabilities are exactly the same.

Do this incorrectly (not including all possible combinations) and you will, however, disadvantage one or both of you.
It's a couples match, it's disadvantageous because residencies must now decide they want both of you for you to match there.

If I am correct, you do not have to disclose the fact that you are couples matching?
Even without disclosing it hurts your odds. Chances of Residency A or B or C (my top 3) ranking me well, vs chances of Residency A or B or C (my top 3) ranking both of us well. Latter will always be lower?
 
It's a couples match, it's disadvantageous because residencies must now decide they want both of you for you to match there.


Even without disclosing it hurts your odds. Chances of Residency A or B or C (my top 3) ranking me well, vs chances of Residency A or B or C (my top 3) ranking both of us well. Latter will always be lower?
That's simply not true. By listing out every possible combination and ranking them appropriately, you can make the P(A) + P(B) = P(A+B) where A=applicant A matching where they want, B=applicant B matching where they want, and A+B is both applicants couples matching where they want.

Take this toy example where applicant A has three ranks: 1, 2, and 3 and applicant B has 3 ranks, X, Y, and Z.

Set M = all applicant A's options (1, 2, 3, unranked)
Set N = all applicant B's options (X, Y, Z, unranked).
Take the cartesian product of sets M and N to get all possible combinations, but exclude the possibility that both of you go unmatched.
This set is the new set of ranks you have to list, N x M and it is {1X, 1Y, 1Z, 2X, 2Y, 2Z, 3X, 3Y, 3Z, 0X, 0Y, 0Z, 10, 20, 30}

Now, if applicant A's ranking is: 1, 2, 3 in descending order down their rank list and applicant B's ranking is X, Y, Z in descending order down the rank list, it is clear to see the individual ranking opportunities.

You can craft the list of set N x M in such a way as to mimic the case where you matched individually by doing the following:

New rank list:
1. 1X
2. 1Y
3. 1Z
4. 2X
5. 2Y
6. 2Z
7. 3X
8. 3Y
9. 3Z.
10. 0X
11. 0Y
12. 0Z
13. 10
14. 20
15. 30


Think of it like this now: If applicant A had matched individually, he would have either been placed at 1, 2, 3, or gone unmatched, in that order of preference, and applicant B would have done the same at X, Y, Z respectively. This method of numbering ranks as a couple ensures that that same outcome will happen here. If applicant A matches his first choice, applicant B's ranking remains as if applicant B had applied alone (numbers 1->3 of our new list). The same is true if applicant A matched at his second choice (number 4-->6 on our new list), and so on. This method of labeling ensures that

You could also think of it the other way around. If applicant B matches their first choice, applicant A's ranking is still in tact in the list (numbers 1, 4, 7 in our list)

This is only true, however, if you rank all possible combinations of your individual match lists, but if you do do that, your chances of matching in the couples match are identical to that of doing it individually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's simply not true. By listing out every possible combination and ranking them appropriately, you can make the P(A) + P(B) = P(A+B) where A=applicant A matching where they want, B=applicant B matching where they want, and A+B is both applicants couples matching where they want.

Take this toy example where applicant A has three ranks: 1, 2, and 3 and applicant B has 3 ranks, X, Y, and Z.

Set M = all applicant A's options (1, 2, 3, unranked)
Set N = all applicant B's options (X, Y, Z, unranked).
Take the cartesian product of sets M and N to get all possible combinations, but exclude the possibility that both of you go unmatched.
This set is the new set of ranks you have to list, N x M and it is {1X, 1Y, 1Z, 2X, 2Y, 2Z, 3X, 3Y, 3Z, 0X, 0Y, 0Z, 10, 20, 30}

Now, if applicant A's ranking is: 1, 2, 3 in descending order down their rank list and applicant B's ranking is X, Y, Z in descending order down the rank list, it is clear to see the individual ranking opportunities.

You can craft the list of set N x M in such a way as to mimic the case where you matched individually by doing the following:

New rank list:
1. 1X
2. 1Y
3. 1Z
4. 2X
5. 2Y
6. 2Z
7. 3X
8. 3Y
9. 3Z.
10. 0X
11. 0Y
12. 0Z
13. 10
14. 20
15. 30


Think of it like this now: If applicant A had matched individually, he would have either been placed at 1, 2, 3, or gone unmatched, in that order of preference, and applicant B would have done the same at X, Y, Z respectively. This method of numbering ranks as a couple ensures that that same outcome will happen here. If applicant A matches his first choice, applicant B's ranking remains as if applicant B had applied alone (numbers 1->3 of our new list). The same is true if applicant A matched at his second choice (number 4-->6 on our new list), and so on. This method of labeling ensures that

You could also think of it the other way around. If applicant B matches their first choice, applicant A's ranking is still in tact in the list (numbers 1, 4, 7 in our list)

This is only true, however, if you rank all possible combinations of your individual match lists, but if you do do that, your chances of matching in the couples match are identical to that of doing it individually.
I think you might be misunderstanding how couples match works. The only possible results would be 1X, 2Y, and 3Z (assuming 1,2,3 and X,Y,Z are different specialty departments at the same place respectively, e.g. 1 is Derm and X is IM and both are at UCSF). The entire point of couples matching is because it makes it impossible to match to difference places, e.g. they absolutely do not want 1Y or 2X despite that giving each a high ranked choice, because it would mean separation.
 
I think you might be misunderstanding how couples match works. The only possible results would be 1X, 2Y, and 3Z (assuming 1,2,3 and X,Y,Z are different specialty departments at the same place respectively, e.g. 1 is Derm and X is IM and both are at UCSF). The entire point of couples matching is because it makes it impossible to match to difference places.
From what I understand (and I have read up quite a bit on this as I am in the same position as OP), you are actually misunderstanding how couples matching works here.

When you couples match, your rank list becomes a rank list of doubles in the format (place 1[ a rank on applicant A's list], place 2 [a rank on applicant B's list]). You can absolutely match into different places (often times the goal of a couple is to match into the same geographical region, not the same hospital), and certainly different regions even if you design your couples rank list in such a way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This doesn't make sense. Mathematically you can make your individual chances just the same as would be the case had you gone through the process individually. All you have to do is rank every possible combination of you and your SO's choices. Assume your partner has X ranks and you have Y ranks. The total number of combinations (including the possibility that one of you goes unmatched, but excluding the possibility that both of you go unmatched) will then be [(X+1)(Y+1)]-1.
If you list out all of these [(X+1)(Y+1)]-1 combinations of both yours and your SO's programs, you wouldn't be able to increase your chances obviously, but you can make it so that the probabilities are exactly the same.

Do this incorrectly (not including all possible combinations) and you will, however, disadvantage one or both of you.
It's a couples match, it's disadvantageous because residencies must now decide they want both of you for you to match there.


Even without disclosing it hurts your odds. Chances of Residency A or B or C (my top 3) ranking me well, vs chances of Residency A or B or C (my top 3) ranking both of us well. Latter will always be lower?
That's simply not true. By listing out every possible combination and ranking them appropriately, you can make the P(A) + P(B) = P(A+B) where A=applicant A matching where they want, B=applicant B matching where they want, and A+B is both applicants couples matching where they want.

Take this toy example where applicant A has three ranks: 1, 2, and 3 and applicant B has 3 ranks, X, Y, and Z.

Set M = all applicant A's options (1, 2, 3, unranked)
Set N = all applicant B's options (X, Y, Z, unranked).
Take the cartesian product of sets M and N to get all possible combinations, but exclude the possibility that both of you go unmatched.
This set is the new set of ranks you have to list, N x M and it is {1X, 1Y, 1Z, 2X, 2Y, 2Z, 3X, 3Y, 3Z, 0X, 0Y, 0Z, 10, 20, 30}

Now, if applicant A's ranking is: 1, 2, 3 in descending order down their rank list and applicant B's ranking is X, Y, Z in descending order down the rank list, it is clear to see the individual ranking opportunities.

You can craft the list of set N x M in such a way as to mimic the case where you matched individually by doing the following:

New rank list:
1. 1X
2. 1Y
3. 1Z
4. 2X
5. 2Y
6. 2Z
7. 3X
8. 3Y
9. 3Z.
10. 0X
11. 0Y
12. 0Z
13. 10
14. 20
15. 30


Think of it like this now: If applicant A had matched individually, he would have either been placed at 1, 2, 3, or gone unmatched, in that order of preference, and applicant B would have done the same at X, Y, Z respectively. This method of numbering ranks as a couple ensures that that same outcome will happen here. If applicant A matches his first choice, applicant B's ranking remains as if applicant B had applied alone (numbers 1->3 of our new list). The same is true if applicant A matched at his second choice (number 4-->6 on our new list), and so on. This method of labeling ensures that

You could also think of it the other way around. If applicant B matches their first choice, applicant A's ranking is still in tact in the list (numbers 1, 4, 7 in our list)

This is only true, however, if you rank all possible combinations of your individual match lists, but if you do do that, your chances of matching in the couples match are identical to that of doing it individually.
I think you might be misunderstanding how couples match works. The only possible results would be 1X, 2Y, and 3Z (assuming 1,2,3 and X,Y,Z are different specialty departments at the same place respectively, e.g. 1 is Derm and X is IM and both are at UCSF). The entire point of couples matching is because it makes it impossible to match to difference places, e.g. they absolutely do not want 1Y or 2X despite that giving each a high ranked choice, because it would mean separation.

A rare instance where math (specifically probability concepts) is used to understand the residency application process. Well done SDN. The math nerds @Matthew9Thirtyfive @freak7 are impressed
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
From what I understand (and I have read up quite a bit on this as I am in the same position as OP), you are actually misunderstanding how couples matching works here.

When you couples match, your rank list becomes a rank list of doubles in the format (place 1[ a rank on applicant A's list], place 2 [a rank on applicant B's list]). You can absolutely match into different places (often times the goal of a couple is to match into the same geographical region, not the same hospital), and certainly different regions even if you design your couples rank list in such a way.
I should rephrase. It is possible to list different regions but that would make it pointless to do couples instead of individual. You can't just make the cartesian product list like you did above. Substitute some names here, let's say UCSF MGH and Barnes-Jewish (BJC)

Rank list:

UCSF, UCSF
UCSF, MGH
UCSF, BJC
MGH, UCSF
MGH, MGH
MGH, BJC

You get the idea. This is not a good representation of couples match / what it is used for. The couple would (unless they're weirdos not using couples to stay together) be putting

UCSF, UCSF
MGH, MGH
BJC, BJC
etc

And the odds now of each person getting matched to one of their top 3 is reduced.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I should rephrase. It is possible to list different regions but that would make it pointless to do couples instead of individual. You can't just make the cartesian product list like you did above. Substitute some names here, let's say UCSF MGH and Barnes-Jewish (BJC)

Rank list:

UCSF, UCSF
UCSF, MGH
UCSF, BJC
MGH, UCSF
MGH, MGH
MGH, BJC

You get the idea. This is not a good representation of couples match / what it is used for. The couple would (unless they're weirdos not using couples to stay together) be putting

UCSF, UCSF
MGH, MGH
BJC, BJC
etc

And the odds now of each person getting matched to one of their top 3 is reduced.
It doesn't matter whether or not it s a "good representation of couples match" or if it is "what it is used for"

This is showing you how you can use what the couples match system does to your advantage.
Theoretically, you could couples match with your mortal enemy to ensure that you are on different sides of the country.


Lets use your example of UCSF, MGH and BJC for applicants A and B though. As we did before, take the cartesian product and remove the possibility that both of you go unmatched to get the list that you need to rank.

Our set then is {UCSF/UCSF, UCSF/MGH, UCSF/BJC, MGH/UCSF, MGH/MGH, MGH/BJC, BJC/UCSF, BJC/MGH, BJC/BJC, UCSF/0, MGH/0, BJC/0, 0/UCSF, 0/MGH, 0/BJC}
and our rank list is:
1. UCSF/UCSF
2. UCSF/MGH
3. UCSF/BJC
4. MGH/UCSF
5. MGH/MGH
6. MGH/BJC
7. BJC/UCSF
8. BJC/MGH
9. BJC/BJC
10. UCSF/0
11. MGH/0
12. BJC/0
13. 0/UCSF
14. 0/MGH
15. 0/BJC


Remember, PDs come up with a rank list of their own and they do not rank couples as a unit, they rank all people individually. If you disclose the information that you are matching as a couple, this may influence how the PD ranks you, but regardless you are still ranked as individuals.

The algorithm works as an application of the stable-marriage problem. The output of the algorithm is the pairing of all applicants and hospitals that achieves "stability" which is defined such that for every applicant (A) and hospital (H) there is no situation where an applicant would prefer to be at a hospital than the one he/she is currently matched at AND that hospital would also prefer that candidate over one that is currently there.


The key point here, remember, is that PDs rank applicants individually, not as couples. So in this case, hospitals rank lists are being evaluated against the combined rank list of these applicants that are matching as a couple.

Only two things influence where you will match: your ranking of the hospitals and the hospitals ranking of you. We know that the hospitals ranking of individual applicants will not change due to them participating in a couples match (if this information is not disclosed that is), so the only possible sources of variation comes from the applicants ranking of the programs.

If we can design a couples match rank list that is functionally the same as the two individual rank lists for the two applicants, we can ensure that the matching probabilities do not change.

A cartesian product list like this is functionally the same as two individual rank lists for applicants A and B, and because of that the odds will be exactly the same had they matched as individuals.


This is up to the couple to make sure they are not changing their odds. Doing MGH/MGH, BJC/BJC, etc. may seem like the best idea, but the point here is that you can design a rank list that works the same as two individual applicants individual lists.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If we can design a couples match rank list that is functionally the same as the two individual rank lists for the two applicants, we can ensure that the matching probabilities do not change.
OK let's recap for thread readers. The fuller way to state the above is:

We can design a couples match rank list that does not aim to keep the couple together and have it function the same as two individual rank lists for the applicants.

I agree completely with you. I also think it's a pointless observation to make about the couples match. If the couple wants to remain together, odds are negatively impacted.
 
Last edited:
OK let's recap for thread readers. The fuller way to state the above is:

We can design a couples match rank list that does not aim to keep the couple together and have it function the same as two individual rank lists for the applicants.

I agree completely with you. I also think it's a pointless observation to make about the couples match.
This is absolutely not a pointless observation to make, you use this principle to stay together but also to ensure your individual chances of matching remain unchanged. You use that cartesian product to come up with the full list of permutations that must be assigned in your couples rank list, from there you can move them around as you like. For the example above, an ideal rank list for a couple may look something like this:

1. MGH/MGH
2. UCSF/UCSF
3. BJC/BJC
4. MGH/UCSF
5. UCSF/MGH
6. MGH/BJC
7. BJC/MGH
8. UCSF/BJC
9. BJC/UCSF
10. 0/MGH
11. 0/UCSF
12. 0/BJC
13. MGH/0
14. UCSF/0
15. BJC/0

Obviously you would have a rank list much, much longer than this, and a couple would put all the geographical matches at the top of the list, filling in the rest of their list to reflect their rank list, like has been done in this instance.

However, the individual's individual rank lists still remain intact within this list, AFTER the top of the list where you aim to match in the same geographical region.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
This is absolutely not a pointless observation to make, you use this principle to stay together but also to ensure your individual chances of matching remain unchanged. You use that cartesian product to come up with the full list of permutations that must be assigned in your couples rank list, from there you can move them around as you like. For the example above, an ideal rank list for a couple may look something like this:

1. MGH/MGH
2. UCSF/UCSF
3. BJC/BJC
4. MGH/UCSF
5. UCSF/MGH
6. MGH/BJC
7. BJC/MGH
8. UCSF/BJC
9. BJC/UCSF
10. 0/MGH
11. 0/UCSF
12. 0/BJC
13. MGH/0
14. UCSF/0
15. BJC/0

Obviously you would have a rank list much, much longer than this, and a couple would put all the geographical matches at the top of the list, filling in the rest of their list to reflect their rank list, like has been done in this instance.

However, the individual's individual rank lists still remain intact within this list, AFTER the top of the list where you aim to match in the same geographical region.

1. MGH/MGH
2. UCSF/UCSF
3. BJC/BJC
4. MGH/UCSF
5. MGH/BJC
6. UCSF/MGH
7. UCSF/BJC
8. BJC/MGH
9. BJC/UCSF
10. 0/MGH
11. 0/UCSF
12. 0/BJC
13. MGH/0
14. UCSF/0
15. BJC/0

Would be the better ranking I think but the point still stands.
 
This is absolutely not a pointless observation to make, you use this principle to stay together but also to ensure your individual chances of matching remain unchanged. You use that cartesian product to come up with the full list of permutations that must be assigned in your couples rank list, from there you can move them around as you like. For the example above, an ideal rank list for a couple may look something like this:

1. MGH/MGH
2. UCSF/UCSF
3. BJC/BJC
4. MGH/UCSF
5. UCSF/MGH
6. MGH/BJC
7. BJC/MGH
8. UCSF/BJC
9. BJC/UCSF
10. 0/MGH
11. 0/UCSF
12. 0/BJC
13. MGH/0
14. UCSF/0
15. BJC/0

Obviously you would have a rank list much, much longer than this, and a couple would put all the geographical matches at the top of the list, filling in the rest of their list to reflect their rank list, like has been done in this instance.

However, the individual's individual rank lists still remain intact within this list, AFTER the top of the list where you aim to match in the same geographical region.
I get your point now, you're talking about using it to try and remain together without insisting on remaining together. I must reiterate for future readers however that people doing couples matches are generally unwilling to part ways for the coming years, and this is assumed in the statements you will hear (like from DarkJedi) that "it will put both applications at a disadvantage." If your couples match list is going to be limited to same-locale pairs, then you are hurting your odds, because your odds per each rank are going from p(you get ranked sufficiently high) to p(you x same for partner)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I get your point now, you're talking about using it to try and remain together without insisting on remaining together. I must reiterate for future readers however that people doing couples matches are generally unwilling to part ways for the coming years, and this is assumed in the statements you will hear (like from DarkJedi) that "it will put both applications at a disadvantage." If your couples match list is going to be limited to same-locale pairs, then you are hurting your odds, because your odds per each rank are going from p(you get ranked sufficiently high) to p(you x same for partner)
Yes, the point here is that you as a couple need to consider what you want to do, however, there is a way to as you put it "try to remain together without insisting" on it. Doing so will still give you a fairly good chance of remaining together (given that you apply to programs in areas concentrated with other programs, etc), but will also ensure that you do not change your chances of matching as individuals. Its the best of both worlds if you will.
 
A rare instance where math (specifically probability concepts) is used to understand the residency application process. Well done SDN. The math nerds @Matthew9Thirtyfive @freak7 are impressed
Damn it... Not enough time to read this this morning. I'll get to this in the afternoon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Remember, PDs come up with a rank list of their own and they do not rank couples as a unit, they rank all people individually. If you disclose the information that you are matching as a couple, this may influence how the PD ranks you, but regardless you are still ranked as a unit.
:confused:
typo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Wow, this thread got ridiculous quickly. Here's the reality:

1. I would only consider couples matching if you are in a 100% committed relationship. You don't have to be married, but you should at least be 100% committed that you guys are going to stay together. Have you ever lived together? Are you engaged? Have you discussed these things? You don't want to go to third- or fourth-choice residency location and/or program for someone you're barely seeing over the next two years, only to break up shortly after you start residency. Both of you should have some substantial skin in the game before sacrificing your freedom during the match.

2. Sorry, but doing the couples match definitely complicates the picture and does generally put average applicants at a disadvantage. The only exceptions are if both applicants are stellar and/or are aiming for relatively large specialties (i.e. with lots of residents per class) that aren't extraordinarily competitive. You can show me all the stats you want (and I'm not even going to reply to any of that), but the reality is that most couples want to match either at the same program or at least in the same city. Furthermore, in very competitive specialties, the odds that both programs rank highly both candidates (again, unless they're both superstars) is low. Finally, I suspect most candidates would actually benefit from disclosing their couples-match status. I have witnessed instances of program directors discussing the "other" candidate with other programs and, after discovering that the other program really wants a candidate, moving their own candidate up the rank list a bit.

So in sum, only do couples match if you 100% know that you're going to be with this person for the long haul. Be prepared for the possibility that you will match somewhere that may not be your ideal choice and then break up with your partner shortly thereafter. If you're OK with that possibility, then proceed...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Wow, this thread got ridiculous quickly

Don't see how a mathematical exercise to show how you're actually not putting yourself at a disadvantage by couples matching is "ridiculous"

You can show me all the stats you want (and I'm not even going to reply to any of that)

If anything, this is the "ridiculous" part of this thread; denying math/stats.

but the reality is that most couples want to match either at the same program or at least in the same city

This is why you pick your programs intelligently, then use this principle to get a couples rank list that does not put you at a disadvantage. For instance, prioritizing programs in dense cities with many other programs in the neighboring areas. The above toy example was simply to show what needs to be done in order to make sure that you are not shooting yourself in the foot.

Finally, I suspect most candidates would actually benefit from disclosing their couples-match status. I have witnessed instances of program directors discussing the "other" candidate with other programs and, after discovering that the other program really wants a candidate, moving their own candidate up the rank list a bit.

This very well may be the case, I'm simply stating that you don't have to disclose your status, and as such you can create a list with high chance of matching together, but that does not insist on matching together, with probabilities of matching that are no different than had you done it individually.

So in sum, only do couples match if you 100% know that you're going to be with this person for the long haul. Be prepared for the possibility that you will match somewhere that may not be your ideal choice and then break up with your partner shortly thereafter. If you're OK with that possibility, then proceed...

Obviously true and very important. I'm just saying that you should be smart about your ranking system and by using a bit of math you can ensure that your odds of matching where you want to match are not artificially lowered just because you are doing couples match.
 
It got ridiculous because you're a pre-med (according to your status) who hasn't even gone to medical school claiming expertise about the couples match. I'm not denying the math. I agree that if you and your partner are both similarly qualified, then doing the couples match doesn't put you at a disadvantage per se. But that is hardly ever the reality. There's almost always one partner who is bringing the other one down and reducing his or her odds of matching where he or she really wants to go.

Furthermore, very competitive specialties sometimes only have two or three available position per year. Even if both partners are very well qualified, it's obvious that if Partner A wants to do dermatology at MGH and Partner B wants to do ENT at the same institution, their odds of both matching into those programs are lower as a pair than if they were just individually attempting to match into those programs. Because for each available spot in those specialties, MGH is getting 40-50 qualified applicants. It's a crap shoot as to whether Partner A is ranked #3 or #4 by the program, and #3 can mean while #4 means no match. The odds of one person lucking out and being ranked #3 are greater than both partners being ranked in the matching zone.

That said, if both partners want to do internal medicine in Kansas, then yeah, there's probably no statistical difference in either partner's individual chances.

And yes, as others have stated, hardly any couples I encountered actually were that interested in doing the couples match with only a "chance" of staying together. If you are in a relationship with someone who is cool with that, then more power to you. But it is not the reality for most people using the couples match.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It got ridiculous because you're a pre-med (according to your status) who hasn't even gone to medical school claiming expertise about the couples match.
Which class during your med school curriculum at Minnesota taught you the statistics underlying the match?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Which class during your med school curriculum at Minnesota taught you the statistics underlying the match?

I'll take my advice on how to land a plane from a pilot over an aeronautical engineering student any day of the week, thanks. :laugh:

OK, I'm done with this thread. Peace out, guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'll take my advice on how to land a plane from a pilot over an aeronautical engineering student any day of the week, thanks. :laugh:

OK, I'm done with this thread. Peace out, guys.
Did the pilot learn to fly in med school too? Is there any topic you don't become an expert on over premeds during med school?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I'll take my advice on how to land a plane from a pilot over an aeronautical engineering student any day of the week, thanks. :laugh:

OK, I'm done with this thread. Peace out, guys.
I agree, but I think you'd be more of a frequent flier/regular passenger than a pilot if we're extending that metaphor to this situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not sure how you can deny the math here (claiming you're not denying the math doesn't mean you aren't). Inequalities between the individuals is irrelevant to the underlying stats. That's how stats works.

Edit: I shouldn't say irrelevant. I should say taken into account by.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Against my better judgment, I'll revisit this thread and hopefully clarify my points.

First, let me apologize to aprilfools about implying that as a pre-medical student, your input is not of value. All I meant is that I thought it was amusing how in less than 12 hours, this thread went from a question by this med student about long-distance relationships and couples matching to a "ridiculous" debate about whether or not one is at a statistical disadvantage by doing the couples match or not. And I say "ridiculous" because while your understanding of the couples match algorithm and the associated statistics is correct, I would argue that for the vast majority of medical students in committed relationships, matching in geographically disparate programs is not a viable option. When others were disagreeing with you about whether or not the couples match process puts one at a disadvantage, I think that is what they were referring to. And I'm sorry if I offended you, but your staunch defense of your statistical analysis was humorous to me for some reason.

You are correct, however, that like the entire match algorithm, the couples match algorithm still matches applicants' match lists to programs' rank lists from the perspective of the applicants--putting each applicant in his or her highest ranked program as allowed given the programs' rank lists. In the case of the couples match, the single criterion is added that the applicant's partner must also match at his or her corresponding program. And as you suggest, the algorithm will happily go down the list until all of these criteria are met, even if that means eventually getting down to combinations in which one person matches at a Program A in City A while the other matches at Program B in City A--or even less ideal that one person matches at Program A in City A while the partner matches at Program B in City B.

So yes, the odds of each person matching are unchanged, especially if each person also includes some combinations towards the bottom of the list that don't even include the partner. The question is assuming a typical use of the couples match in which both partners preferentially--or exclusively--rank combinations in which both partners go to the same residency program or perhaps different programs in the same city, now what are the odds of each person matching at his or her ideal program? My argument is that in many cases, one or both partners will end up matching at a program farther down their individual "ideal" list than they would if they were not doing couples match with someone else. I would say this is even more true if one or both partners is trying to match into a competitive specialty--and yet more often the case if one is much more qualified an applicant than the other.

I'm not "denying the math." I'm just suggesting that the math is not representative of the way the couples match is typically used or the goals of most users of the couples match. And like most everything else in relationships, compromise and sacrifice might be required. So if you're going to make such sacrifices, you'd just better be 100% sure that you're actually committed to the relationship.

Finally, an added point... I know this is an anonymous forum and you don't know me from Adam. But FYI, once you do get to med school and residency, you'll unfortunately have attending physicians telling you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about because you're "just a med student" or "only a resident." They may be right, or you may be. And while I appreciate your willingness to battle it out and defend your logic, it won't go very far in the rigidly hierarchical world of academic medicine. It doesn't matter if you're talking with one of your official faculty or some community doc on a clinical rotation. If you were to mouth off in a similar fashion to your comments above, you will close doors in your career and make life harder for yourself. Word can spread like wildfire about "problem students" or "difficult residents."

You can tell me go to hell or that I'm full of it or whatever else you want. But it's just some free advice. You get what you pay for. :)

Okay, now peace out...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
OP asks about relationship advice and gets dragged down a rabbit hole that involves attending vs premed angst. OP, May I ask what your MCAT score is, if you are URM, and if you are MD or DO just so I can make this the most SDN thread ever?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
What about one matching Derm and the other family medicine? I would guess family wouldn't be tough to match into given the need but just wanted to ask your opinions.
 
My boyfriend and I will be attending separate med schools in the fall 2 hours away from each other (not super far but still). We've been dating for 2 years and are planning on doing the couples match together. I was wondering if anyone had experience with a long distance, long term relationship during med school, especially when the other partner was also in med school. Any insight, especially for doing the couples match while at different med schools, would be greatly appreciated!
My bf is attending dental school in July in Fl and I will be attending podiatry school next July in PA. I’m worried about how to make it work with a med student/ dental student mix and being a 17 hour drive from eachother. Is anyone in the same boat?
 
Top