Love Letters & Post-Interview Communications

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

Pursuitofsanity

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
34
Reaction score
27
Members don't see this ad.
So my friends and I were talking about post-match communications, and one of the things that came up was the fact that while we've all gotten some very positively worded emails from programs, its hard to say if they are saying the same thing to everyone that they interviewed.

I was thinking that it might be helpful to have a list of post-interview communications - something like if they contacted spontaneously or replied to an email you sent, and examples of wording. If people want to message me so that they stay anonymous, I am happy to do that. I just feel like it would be helpful to know if everyone is hearing the same things you are, or if they are actually as into me as I am into them. I'll put some stuff out there just to give examples:

Columbia: Spontaneous phone call from APD to see if I had questions and to say that they were "excited about my candidacy"

Harvard South Shore: Spontaneous email from PD saying that they think I would be a "great fit"

Do people think this would be helpful?
 
Missouri: Email from Chair saying everyone thought highly of me and I will be strongly considered

UConn: Faculty said he was impressed with experiences I have and will be excellent contributor to program
 
Pursuitofsanity said:
So my friends and I were talking about post-match communications, and one of the things that came up was the fact that while we've all gotten some very positively worded emails from programs, its hard to say if they are saying the same thing to everyone that they interviewed.

Do people think this would be helpful?
Click to expand...

No.
 
I guarantee most applicants neurotic enough to care about post interview communication (DESPITE NUMEROUS POSTINGS FROM RESIDENTS AND PROGRAM DIRECTORS ON THIS SITE SAYING THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE OVERINTERPRETED) have frantically searched through all of the threads on this subject from years past.

Btw love that article OPD. This made me laugh: "However, in our survey, 52.6% (141 of 268) of program directors reported that at least once a year 1 or more applicants falsely claim they are ranking their program No. 1. Additionally, multiple studies spanning a decade have demonstrated that applicants deliberately exaggerate their interest in certain training programs.5,10,11 Applicants may feel there are few repercussions to making false statements, but when the extent of hyperbole and the number of offenders get critically high, it calls into question the authenticity of all postinterview communications."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Several programs specifically told us on interview day that they don't call or email anyone after interviews because there's too much potential for misunderstandings, etc. Obviously they're happy to respond if you have a question or something, but nothing unsolicited.

I did get a couple of very nice "thanks for interviewing with us," emails, but nothing that made me say "OMG they obviously love me the most!" 😉
 
Please, please, please don't start this thread. I'll be compelled to read it and then re-read emails I've gotten from programs, all to no avail. Let's all just agree to rank programs in the order we like them and then step away from our computers until Match Day.
 
I guess everyone is so much reading into their emails including myself. I am staying positive. I did send #1 email to my top program, however, I wasn't sure if program will take it into view as previously applicants have been dishonest. That is why I asked for a 2nd look. I went again and met the PD. I asked hi specific Qs that showed my interest, and then spent rest of day on inpatient service. I sent my #1 email after 2nd look so I can solidify my decision. I do NOT know if it will help me match there, but I tried my best.
 
My real question about this is: do we feel obligated to respond at all to any post-interview communication if it isn't warranted? For example, someone emails to say "We'd love to have you! Let me know if you have any questions."
 
Thanks for the article OPD. I think it would be insightful to stratify that data according to specialty, but of course that would require a much greater participation from applicants and PDs.
 
D3sidud3 said:
Thanks for the article OPD. I think it would be insightful to stratify that data according to specialty, but of course that would require a much greater participation from applicants and PDs.
Click to expand...

I guess my point in thinking about this was similar to D3sidud3, I suspect that like almost everything else in the match, the meaning of communications is program and specialty dependent. I just thought that it would be good to have data specific to the field/programs to help decide if communications are at all meaningful or not. I personally have felt like I am vacillating between feeling very encouraged and very jaded.

If people are that opposed to this, I certainly didn't want to make people more stressed. I personally found that one of the most helpful things about the interview invite thread was being able to tell myself "If nobody else has heard from them yet, I shouldn't worry about it." I was thinking that data on this side might be similarly calming.
 
Perhaps a more interesting way to phrase this... are there certain programs that are known to be offenders for telling people that they will be ranked highly, at the top, to match, etc. and then having a surprising number of people not match there?

As the article states, applicants are more impressionable (as they have *way* more at stake than PDs and this is their first/only rodeo), and (US Seniors) are more likely to go unmatched than a program is to go unfilled; therefore, if any shaming is to be done, it should be directed towards the PDs who give false hope. Also, sometimes, excessive communication can put applicants in an awkward position as they feel as though not spending time to respond would look negatively. Some places have provided excellent communication (e.g. please contact us with further questions, or offering to set up meetings with specific people who were unavailable on interview day who can answer specific questions/potential research mentors/fellowship PDs), others are trying too hard, and some have provided what I hope isn't false hope. I like honesty, and wish that programs (who have literally nothing to lose) would provide more of it.
 
I would hope that was true for everyone. It would be true for me, my choices are my choices regardless of where I fall on their lists. However, my level of anxiety in facing the next 43 days 17 hours and 21 minutes, is somewhat influenced by the question of if what they are saying actually means anything.
 
splik said:
anything less than "you are ranked in our top x" applications is worthless.

oh and those PDs who complain the most about applicants being dishonest are the most FOS
Click to expand...

As I understand the rules isn't telling a candidate that he or she is "ranked to match" (or equivalent..."you are ranked in our top 12" in a program w 12 slots) an NRMP violation? It seems doing this by either email or phone is a pretty risky endeavor for a program, especially considering the most highly sought after applicants probably don't care about post interview communication
 
MacDonaldTriad said:
If I gave applicants a copy of our list, I don't think they would change their lists at all because of this information. If applicants showed me their lists, I wouldn't change mine any.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 90%. The problem lies not with how we construct our lists but with personal well being. I'm sure you've seen the number of families separated, relationships lost ect. around the match. Of course, if PDs would say nothing... The waiting would be hard... But when they make *ambiguous* yet very positive sounding communication, for many people this can lead to unnecessary stress and potentially worsened disappointment. Alternatively, you are ranked x and the last three years we matched #A, B and C might spare people a lot of "honey, what do we do with the kids if you match at #4???" But I'd rather get nothing than ambiguous.

It's also made slightly worse by the tendadcy of med schools to use coded language (eg good clinical skills means bad, outstanding might mean top 50%). I know that some residencies use different language (ranked to match, top of the list, excellent/outstanding candidate, would love it if you pick us, hope to see you here next year, excited about your career, etc.) with different levels of applicants, so of course this leads to us wanting to know what they mean (and wondering why they bother speaking to us in codes that we don't know).
 
HarryMTieboutMD said:
As I understand the rules isn't telling a candidate that he or she is "ranked to match" (or equivalent..."you are ranked in our top 12" in a program w 12 slots) an NRMP violation? It seems doing this by either email or phone is a pretty risky endeavor for a program, especially considering the most highly sought after applicants probably don't care about post interview communication
Click to expand...
nope you can tell applicants that. It's only a match violation for either party to demand you tell them. they are just as able to tell you "you are ranked x" as an applicant is "you are my no.1). in fact my program used to tell you where you were on the rank list if you asked but hasn't for quite a few years.
 
That would not be a violation. It is violoation for either side to A) ask how they are being ranked or B) make their rank contingent upon the other side committing to a rank. Either side can volunteer any information they want. And yes, violations occur.
 
Truly, we could only be definitive for a small handful of applicants. We speak in code only because we have no idea what will happen.
 
downwithDTB said:
Then why bother speaking in code when it causes undue anxiety?
Click to expand...
Because when we say nothing, it's taken as disinterest! :bang:

Basically, unless you're a complete stiff or sociopath at interview, if we invited you to interview we think you're matchable. You just need to accept that some candidates will appear better to us than others, just as some programs will appear more desirable to you than others. We'll rank applicants in the order we like them. You should rank programs in the order you prefer. Then we will all learn how to live with one another for the next 4 years.
 
uh, i've heard anecdotally that MGH/Columbia do have habit of schmoozing applicants they are going to rank highly. I frankly called out my #1 program on the positive email received, asking if it was meaningless or not. They were taken aback at my bluntness but answered me straight (was pho that they are selective about who they follow up with.

Programs obviously also would like their #1- #x ranked applicants, so if sweet words will get you to rank them higher then they'll have their pick of the nice litter, rt? So in same light, if a prog is doing that, to NOT receive the schmooze is probably somewhat predictive of a lower rank spot i would imagine.

but meh, figure we just gotta play the game best we can. (p.s. could use yall insight on my CS dilemma just posted thread on).
 
Last edited:
I understand that love letters from programs may not mean anything, but is a LACK of contact something to be concerned about?

Anyone match somewhere where they had no post interview contact with the program?
 
I have not received any spontaneous love letters/calls from programs. I did send an email to my #1 stating that I'm ranking them first, and received a "we would be happy if you matched here" email in return. No idea what this means, and am not trying to read into it. I think the only way this thread would be helpful is if current residents chimed in regarding their post-interview communication and where they matched, which is unlikely to happen.
 
xjoc said:
I have not received any spontaneous love letters/calls from programs. I did send an email to my #1 stating that I'm ranking them first, and received a "we would be happy if you matched here" email in return. No idea what this means, and am not trying to read into it. I think the only way this thread would be helpful is if current residents chimed in regarding their post-interview communication and where they matched, which is unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...

Totally agree input from current residents will be helpful. After 2nd look and send #1 email this is what I got back:

"If the Match computers assign you to us we would be happy to provide you with your training."
 
Columbia called a few days ago. It was a very nice conversation but I had the distinct impression that they were pretty much calling everyone. It was nice of them to call but I doubt it was unique to me or made a difference.

Georgetown also sent out a nice e-mail about being a good fit and all that jazz.

In either case, while it might give you a momentary ego boost, I doubt it means anything. I also don't think it matters if you don't get a love letter. Regardless, I'm going to rank the programs based on whatever criteria I selected and I think they'll do the same, post-interview communications notwithstanding.

Honestly, just feels like another thing med students will fret over for no reason. Stay sane people!
 
7
MacDonaldTriad said:
If I gave applicants a copy of our list, I don't think they would change their lists at all because of this information. If applicants showed me their lists, I wouldn't change mine any.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this, and actually, I find it surprising that reliable knowledge of applicant rank lists would not in any way change a PD rank list. I mean, I am ranking mutually exclusive possibilities, but PDs are building a class.

I can imagine situations in which you have several applicants with similar "roles" and you don't necessarily want them all, even if they are all great, because you want diversity. (As in, you don't want a class of all research people, or all people going into CL, or all men, or all people from the Midwest.) Assuming that you don't have tracks with separate match numbers, if you knew that the research-loving, addiction fellowship destined woman from the west coast that was in your top three was going to rank you 1, wouldn't that change the way that you ranked other research people, other people interested in addiction, etc.? If the best student from your home medical school were ranking you #1, then might you not rank the other students from your home program lower?Seems to me that perfect knowledge on the PD end would (and probably should) change your rank lists. I agree completely that it shouldn't change mine.
 
Psych747 said:
"If the Match computers assign you to us we would be happy to provide you with your training."
Click to expand...
Sounds like a program that's tired of the whole thing, and knows they just don't have that much control.

Pursuitofsanity said:
7
I was thinking about this, and actually, I find it surprising that reliable knowledge of applicant rank lists would not in any way change a PD rank list. I mean, I am ranking mutually exclusive possibilities, but PDs are building a class.

I can imagine situations in which you have several applicants with similar "roles" and you don't necessarily want them all, even if they are all great, because you want diversity. (As in, you don't want a class of all research people, or all people going into CL, or all men, or all people from the Midwest.)...
Click to expand...
Again, we just don't have that much control. And even if we did have perfect knowledge of each applicant, and some kind of prescience about what "role" they might end up fulfilling...well, I just can't imagine even the most tightly wound PD trying to "construct a class" to his/her specifications. (Besides which, the "role" you imagine as an applicant is only rarely the role you take four years from then. Research-y people become clinicians (self included), applicants "passionate about child psychiatry" turn tail and run when they are faced with endless family meetings and school calls...etc.)

There is simply no other reasonable approach then to rank applicants according to our preference, and for you to rank programs according to yours.
 
downwithDTB said:
Then why bother speaking in code when it causes undue anxiety?
Click to expand...
We don't purposely speak in code. It is sometimes perceived that way because we are afraid to be definite. We really don't know what will happen. It isn't like we can look at our list and say "that one is coming, that one isn't, maybe that one... Oh sorry, you are toast."
 
MacDonaldTriad said:
We don't purposely speak in code. It is sometimes perceived that way because we are afraid to be definite. We really don't know what will happen.
Click to expand...
This. It seems like applicants get very disturbed by this whole post-interview correspondence thing, and have been since I applied. I don't think this is so much evidence of the messed up nature of the system as it is the lack of professional interview experience of the applicants.

If you interview for a job as a lawyer or consultant or technologist, you often get great emails, letters, or even gifts from the company you interviewed at, with them saying, "We'd love to have you come aboard. We are still going through the interview process, but we'll be in touch soon." Then you may or may not get the job offer. But I don't think lawyers, consultants, or technologists wring their hands and state that they are being lied to.

When a residency program says they really like you, they probably really like you. When they say that they think you'd make a great resident at Acme University, they probably think you'd make a great resident at Acme. When they say that they would love to have you start in July, they probably would love to have you start in July. But they aren't implying that you will be selected for a residency spot, because they don't know.

And this is not unique to the Match. In any field in which you interview, there are typically other applicants. And potential employers may tell you that they really like you, that you'd make a great employee at Acme Industries, and that they'd love for you to start. But you may not get hired because after meeting you, they meet someone they like more. And it's no harm, no foul.

The only thing any of us can get worked up about is when programs say, "you will match here if you rank us #1" and don't follow through or when applicants say, "you are my #1 choice" and then don't end up there when they are ranked to match. And from what I've seen (granted, small n) is that the latter is WAAAAY more common than the former.
 
Dear Down,

Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to come and interview with our program. As discussed in the interview, we do not disclose any information about our rank list; however, we are planning to rank you, meaning that we would be honored to train you. If there is any additional information that would help you decide where to rank us, please let us know. (Because you applied to Specific Track, we would be happy to set up Phone Calls/Second Visit for your consideration of that track). If we do not hear back from you we will assume that we were able to provide you with all of the information that you need about our program on your interview day and it will not alter our rank list in any way.

Best,
PD

Now I feel like I can let the match work its magic. I know the PD cares but I'm not left wondering what they meant. I know that just like programs/PDs differentially impressed me, so did I differentially impress them. I know that PDs don't know how the match will play out, so I'm glad that they didn't drop hints, lead me on, or leave me wondering what specific language they used with other applicants. If every program did that, the match would work with significantly less stress for the applicants. For programs who took that approach, their ranking certainly didn't go down for me. For programs who took other approaches, being ranked lower, never higher, was an occasional outcome. Match violating hurt a programs spot significantly.
 
I'm just trying to think of the mathematical outcomes here. I don't believe your chances of not matching are any different if your match list is arranged in any order, so long as you rank the same programs in any order. If that's the case, then you should disregard all of these emails and just stick to ranking where you would want to end up in order of preference.
 
thoffen said:
I'm just trying to think of the mathematical outcomes here. I don't believe your chances of not matching are any different if your match list is arranged in any order, so long as you rank the same programs in any order. If that's the case, then you should disregard all of these emails and just stick to ranking where you would want to end up in order of preference.
Click to expand...

A single solution to the stable marriage problem is not guaranteed due to couples matching (at least with the current algorithm). The order in which applicants are selected to propose has a non-zero but pretty darn small effect on outcomes, leading to different possible outcomes for a *very* small handful of programs and applicants. Although, to the best of my knowledge, the effect size has not been directly tested and published on recent (last ten years) match data. I'm not sure if rank ordering would have any effects on this group, am unsure if it's been directly tested in practice, but I hypothesize that it might have a non-zero effect.
 
downwithDTB said:
A single solution to the stable marriage problem is not guaranteed due to couples matching (at least with the current algorithm). The order in which applicants are selected to propose has a non-zero but pretty darn small effect on outcomes, leading to different possible outcomes for a *very* small handful of programs and applicants. Although, to the best of my knowledge, the effect size has not been directly tested and published on recent (last ten years) match data. I'm not sure if rank ordering would have any effects on this group, am unsure if it's been directly tested in practice, but I hypothesize that it might have a non-zero effect.
Click to expand...

Hmm I hadn't thought of couples matching throwing that wrench in here.

Removing the couples match piece of things, I think it would only have zero effect if each set of rankings was independent (e.g. people ranking Duke, UNC, Emory, Vandy ranked only those programs and did not rank the California programs and vice versa). Since this is not true, I have to reverse my prior statement in that it is definitely possible to affect the results.

Of course that's only possible. It would only affect those on the cusp of matching or not. So, if you're a marginal applicant then maybe you should pay attention to these emails.
 
downwithDTB said:
A single solution to the stable marriage problem is not guaranteed due to couples matching (at least with the current algorithm). The order in which applicants are selected to propose has a non-zero but pretty darn small effect on outcomes, leading to different possible outcomes for a *very* small handful of programs and applicants. Although, to the best of my knowledge, the effect size has not been directly tested and published on recent (last ten years) match data. I'm not sure if rank ordering would have any effects on this group, am unsure if it's been directly tested in practice, but I hypothesize that it might have a non-zero effect.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the effect sizes are large enough to cause someone to fail to math completely as the previous poster discussed?

Edit: Ninja'd by thoffen, making my post mostly irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
I would look at it more like there are some applicants who could change their rank list order and thereby change their match result, but it's entirely dependent on other applicants and programs and their rank lists. That is in addition to the sorting effect and couples (who are favored in the match but only if they act as two independent applicants IIRC.)
 
I thought I understood the algorithm fairly well. Taking couples out, in order to not match, you would have to be not reached by every program on your list. It stands to reason that the order in which you rank them will not change this. The order would only come into play if you match somewhere, or said better if you had the opportunity to match at more than one program. If you are only reached by one program, it wouldn't matter if you had them first or last.
 
thoffen said:
Hmm I hadn't thought of couples matching throwing that wrench in here.

Removing the couples match piece of things, I think it would only have zero effect if each set of rankings was independent (e.g. people ranking Duke, UNC, Emory, Vandy ranked only those programs and did not rank the California programs and vice versa). Since this is not true, I have to reverse my prior statement in that it is definitely possible to affect the results.

Of course that's only possible. It would only affect those on the cusp of matching or not. So, if you're a marginal applicant then maybe you should pay attention to these emails.
Click to expand...

Someone claims to have
clausewitz2 said:
Do you really think the effect sizes are large enough to cause someone to fail to math completely as the previous poster discussed?

Edit: Ninja'd by thoffen, making my post mostly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

In a paper from about 10 years ago, reversing the order of match proposing change the assigned program for no more than 12 people and usually less over a few years matches. It did not say whether early proposers or late proposers had better results, however, the effect of adding a program that you won't match to is equivalent to turning in early proposer interrelate proposer. It would be interesting to know how many people would be affected in today's larger match, if all proposal order algorithms were trialed. That said, its almost certain that all applicants should submit a true rank list as knowing if youll be one of the
MacDonaldTriad said:
I thought I understood the algorithm fairly well. Taking couples out, in order to not match, you would have to be not reached by every program on your list. It stands to reason that the order in which you rank them will not change this. The order would only come into play if you match somewhere, or said better if you had the opportunity to match at more than one program. If you are only reached by one program, it wouldn't matter if you had them first or last.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. Everything works ideally without couples in the match. In simulations of previous matches with couples present, a small (4-12) number of people's matches depend on whether they "propose" early or late in the process. In these simulations, these people still matched, just to different places.

This is a very trivial and technical arguement... And people shouldn't alter behavior based on it... It's sort of like a 1 in 5,000 mild side effect of a drug that is pretty effective. Submitting your true preference list will almost certainly benefit you, but because of couples its not an absolute 100% garuntee. It's a 99.99% good idea for everyone with no way to predict the 0.01% that match at #3 instead of #2. (And the number of surprise reach #1s from people who hear nothing I'd guess is actually pretty high given that like 30-40% of us mds end up at #1.)
 
downwithDTB said:
This is a very trivial and technical arguement... And people shouldn't alter behavior based on it... It's sort of like a 1 in 5,000 mild side effect of a drug that is pretty effective. Submitting your true preference list will almost certainly benefit you, but because of couples its not an absolute 100% garuntee. It's a 99.99% good idea for everyone with no way to predict the 0.01% that match at #3 instead of #2. (And the number of surprise reach #1s from people who hear nothing I'd guess is actually pretty high given that like 30-40% of us mds end up at #1.)
Click to expand...


If modern science tells us anything, it is that a 95% chance is equivalent to moral certainty. That's how statistics work, right?
 
Is interview performance the #1 factor programs use to create their rank list? I wonder if there is any data out there specific to psych programs.
 
Psych747 said:
Is interview performance the #1 factor programs use to create their rank list? I wonder if there is any data out there specific to psych programs.
Click to expand...
No way. Whole picture. I doubt most folks either completely impress or scare themselves into drastically different positions on a programs ROL. One day is but a snapshot. That snapshot just one piece to the puzzle. I don't buy into the notion that it's a level playing field once granted an interview.
 
impressions from your interview day are heavily weighted but cannot and do not surmount your board scores, clerkship grades, medical school of origin, and letters of recommendation. for research track, PhD, number and quality of publications and presentations and future potential to be a leader in the field are also important
 
splik said:
impressions from your interview day are heavily weighted but cannot and do not surmount your board scores, clerkship grades, medical school of origin, and letters of recommendation. for research track, PhD, number and quality of publications and presentations and future potential to be a leader in the field are also important
Click to expand...

Thought after invite they look at our interview performance n interest shown. That's why I did 2nd look and stayed in touch w my top 2 programs
 
Psych747 said:
Thought after invite they look at our interview performance n interest shown. That's why I did 2nd look and stayed in touch w my top 2 programs
Click to expand...

Can't speak for others, but I would guess that widely varies. And could vary to the extent of one person being super impressed by a high board score or similarly put off as being elitist by one. It isn't objective. Sorry. But, serial subjective impressions do average out to some resemblance of objectivity, so there's that...
 
nope that was a bad reason to do a 2nd look. only stupid programs will look at interest shown. if you applied to a program, accepted the interview offer, paid to fly out there to interview, stayed for the whole day, and thanked them for taking the time to meet with you afterwards that should be evidence enough. anything else just makes you look like the one night stand who won't go away
 
splik said:
nope that was a bad reason to do a 2nd look. only stupid programs will look at interest shown
Click to expand...

Although I disagree with the assertion that only stupid programs care about it, there is a more relevant point embedded within your own. There are programs there that look at interest shown, so regardless of the validity in the program doing so, your statement supports the notion that doing a 2nd look for the purposes of demonstrating interest may help you. I do agree, though, that this is a bad (principle) reason to do a 2nd look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

StilgarMD
Post-Interview Letters (Intent, Interest)
Replies
8
Views
1K
MacDonaldTriad
MacDonaldTriad
U
letters of recommendation question
Replies
4
Views
217
Chimed
Chimed
C
I love my job
Replies
26
Views
2K
Monocles
Monocles
L
Interview skills
Replies
15
Views
1K
JerryMouse
JerryMouse
bGMx
Interview season coming up, what is the way to communicate interest to programs?
Replies
0
Views
492
bGMx
bGMx
Top