Match process! Help

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

MrSunny1

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
203
Reaction score
75
Members don't see this ad.
I am still confused with this process. I have received and gone to just a few interviews so far but seems I am only going to end up getting 4 total🙁

The problem is I applied to 30 schools and I interviewed at my number 1 and the other three are my number 27-30. If I rank my number 1 and the other 3 programs 2-3-4. what are my chances of getting actually getting my number 1. I feel that I may be ranked lower on their list maybe like 50/50 last. The other 3 schools I may be ranked very highly top 10. So my question is if I rank them in order 1-2-3-4, Wouldn't I be essentially guaranteed to go to one of the 2-3-4 programs that ranked me much higher? Lets just say hypothetically my number one is at UCSF and the other 3 are small community programs that sometimes dont fill all their positions.

SO my question is if I only rank my number 1 and dont rank the other three essentially a suicide bid wouldnt I have a much much higher chance of actually matching there? Of course there is the infinitely much greater chance of not matching and needing to go for scramble which would possibly result in the same outcome in the original match ranking them 1-2-3-4.
 
MrSunny1 said:
I am still confused with this process. I have received and gone to just a few interviews so far but seems I am only going to end up getting 4 total🙁

The problem is I applied to 30 schools and I interviewed at my number 1 and the other three are my number 27-30. If I rank my number 1 and the other 3 programs 2-3-4. what are my chances of getting actually getting my number 1. I feel that I may be ranked lower on their list maybe like 50/50 last. The other 3 schools I may be ranked very highly top 10. So my question is if I rank them in order 1-2-3-4, Wouldn't I be essentially guaranteed to go to one of the 2-3-4 programs that ranked me much higher? Lets just say hypothetically my number one is at UCSF and the other 3 are small community programs that sometimes dont fill all their positions.

SO my question is if I only rank my number 1 and dont rank the other three essentially a suicide bid wouldnt I have a much much higher chance of actually matching there? Of course there is the infinitely much greater chance of not matching and needing to go for scramble which would possibly result in the same outcome in the original match ranking them 1-2-3-4.
Click to expand...
You don't understand the match. Rank the programs in your order of preference and you'll land at your best possible spot.
 

MrSunny1 said:
I am still confused with this process. I have received and gone to just a few interviews so far but seems I am only going to end up getting 4 total🙁

The problem is I applied to 30 schools and I interviewed at my number 1 and the other three are my number 27-30. If I rank my number 1 and the other 3 programs 2-3-4. what are my chances of getting actually getting my number 1. I feel that I may be ranked lower on their list maybe like 50/50 last. The other 3 schools I may be ranked very highly top 10. So my question is if I rank them in order 1-2-3-4, Wouldn't I be essentially guaranteed to go to one of the 2-3-4 programs that ranked me much higher? Lets just say hypothetically my number one is at UCSF and the other 3 are small community programs that sometimes dont fill all their positions.

SO my question is if I only rank my number 1 and dont rank the other three essentially a suicide bid wouldnt I have a much much higher chance of actually matching there? Of course there is the infinitely much greater chance of not matching and needing to go for scramble which would possibly result in the same outcome in the original match ranking them 1-2-3-4.
Click to expand...
 
Cognovi said:
The chance that truncating your rank list will result in a more favorable outcome is a 1 in 10,000 event. See Roth and Peranson. "The Effects of the Change in the NRMP Matching Algorithm." JAMA 1999.

You should weigh this against the chance that you don't match to program 1 and the programs 2-3-4 fill in the Match and that you wouldn't be able to SOAP into them.
Click to expand...

The only way that truncating your rank list will result in a favorable outcome is if you don't match and got lucky enough to soap into a better program. Otherwise it would make no sense to rank fewer programs.
 
My god it baffles me how many people don't understand such a simple algorithm.

Here's my fast way that seems to dispel the more prevalent myths like the OP's:

If you were to rank 100 random programs that you didn't even apply to ahead of your current list, it would make zero difference on your ultimate match.

On the program side, if they have 10 positions to fill, the order of the first 10 names on their rank list is completely irrelevant and will have no impact on who they get.

Moral: rank every program you are willing to go to. Rank them in the order you want them. Don't try to game the system. The system is already weighted in your favor (see article referenced above).
 
Psai said:
The only way that truncating your rank list will result in a favorable outcome is if you don't match and got lucky enough to soap into a better program.
Click to expand...

This is a simplification (generally but not absolutely true) that everyone propagates because people like the OP would get confused.

The base algorithm is simple in theory but there are two match variations in the NRMP that introduces some complexity: 1) on the applicant side, couples can link preferences, 2) on the program side, an unfilled program can automatically move spots into a linked program. Because of the way the algorithm processes these variations, there are rare applicants who could benefit from truncating their list. See Al Roth's unpublished work here (such as section VI-B-2) on experiments with prior match data, described in more detail than the JAMA paper I cited above. The trick is that these applicants have no way of knowing if they are the rare one who could possibly benefit, so truncation would much more likely lead to not matching than to matching at a more preferred place.

This is just an entertaining theoretical situation to consider. Practically, what everyone is saying is right.

Side note: people love to say that the algorithm is weighted in the applicant's favor. This is mostly a marketing point. As Roth showed, the difference in results from a program-proposing vs applicant-proposing algorithm is tiny, about equal to the number of applicants or programs who could possibly benefit from truncating their rank list or quota.
 
Last edited:
Cognovi said:
This is a simplification (generally but not absolutely true) that everyone propagates because people like the OP would get confused.

The base algorithm is simple in theory but there are two match variations in the NRMP that introduces some complexity: 1) on the applicant side, couples can link preferences, 2) on the program side, an unfilled program can automatically move spots into a linked program. Because of the way the algorithm processes these variations, there are rare applicants who could benefit from truncating their list. See Al Roth's unpublished work here (such as section VI-B-2) on experiments with prior match data, described in more detail than the JAMA paper I cited above. The trick is that these applicants have no way of knowing if they are the rare one who could possibly benefit, so truncation would much more likely lead to not matching than to matching at a more preferred place.

This is just an entertaining theoretical situation to consider. Practically, what everyone is saying is right.

Side note: people love to say that the algorithm is weighted in the applicant's favor. This is mostly a marketing point. As Roth showed, the difference in results from a program-proposing vs applicant-proposing algorithm is tiny, about equal to the number of applicants or programs who could possibly benefit from truncating their rank list or quota.
Click to expand...

Wtf are you talking about? You will lose out on truncating your match list. What that guy is talking about is global benefit if applicants truncated match lists, for example if everyone in ENT was limited to 15 interviews instead of 70 and to help one applicant to match a better position, another would get hurt, by not matching. This is completely irrelevant to op's concern which is whether they should rank all 4 or just their top choice?

Ranking all 4 > just top choice.
 
Do schools explain to students how the match process works? I am almost half way thru 3rd year and we have not had any workshop about the match yet. I understand it's incumbent on students to do their own research, but it seems like many US students don't understand the algorithm that goes behind that process.
 
W19 said:
Do schools explain to students how the match process works? I am almost half way thru 3rd year and we have not had any workshop about the match yet. I understand it's incumbent on students to do their own research, but it seems like many US students don't understand the algorithm that goes behind that process.
Click to expand...

there's a 2 min video above that explains it. It's not really that complex.
 
W19 said:
Do schools explain to students how the match process works? I am almost half way thru 3rd year and we have not had any workshop about the match yet. I understand it's incumbent on students to do their own research, but it seems like many US students don't understand the algorithm that goes behind that process.
Click to expand...
We have a two hour "Matchworks" workshop in March but I'm not sure if that's common. I think it also covers the general timeline of applying for residencies.
 
Psai said:
What that guy is talking about is global benefit if applicants truncated match lists, for example if everyone in ENT was limited to 15 interviews instead of 70 and to help one applicant to match a better position, another would get hurt, by not matching. This is completely irrelevant to op's concern which is whether they should rank all 4 or just their top choice?
Click to expand...

The paper is absolutely not about global benefit to limiting everybody's rank lists; this is a very contemporary and new idea. The paper, by Nobelist Al "that guy" Roth is absolutely about individual applicants truncating their rank order list at or above the point where they actually matched.
 
W19 said:
Do schools explain to students how the match process works? I am almost half way thru 3rd year and we have not had any workshop about the match yet. I understand it's incumbent on students to do their own research, but it seems like many US students don't understand the algorithm that goes behind that process.
Click to expand...

I think each medical student can afford the 5 minutes it takes to read about it/watch the video on the NRMP site and not need a class-wide meeting for someone to spoon feed it to them. The website explains it very clearly and simply, it's not that hard to understand.

http://www.nrmp.org/match-a-to-z/video-tutorials/about-the-matching-algorithm-tutorial/

It's also super unnecessary to educate a 3rd year about the match in November. You're 15 months away from making your ROL. The focus right now is on the 4th years who are actually currently in the process.
 
Cognovi said:
The paper is absolutely not about global benefit to limiting everybody's rank lists; this is a very contemporary and new idea. The paper, by Nobelist Al "that guy" Roth is absolutely about individual applicants truncating their rank order list at or above the point where they actually matched.
Click to expand...

Okay not only do I not care about this 20 year old unpublished paper, you're wrong and unhelpful to op. Deal with it.
 
I understand the match process guys/gals.... I was saying that because so many of my classmates that I have talked to did not seem to understand it..
 
W19 said:
I understand the match process guys/gals.... I was saying that because so many of my classmates that I have talked to did not seem to understand it..
Click to expand...

The same thing applies to them then. I think someone in my class posted the NRMP Match video on our FB page, you can post that if you want to help them out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W19
Psai said:
Okay not only do I not care about this 20 year old unpublished paper, you're wrong and unhelpful to op. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely just trolling you. OP has all the helpful answers already.

SouthernSurgeon said:
Yes and no.

Truncation in the paper is defined as a rank list of "their true preferences which stops at the match they would have gotten from the applicant proposing match."

In order to obtain the theoretic 1-1000 benefit of truncation (and note that 999 out of 1000 are potentially harmed by truncation), you have to know what your match is in the stable algorithm is. The article does not cover what the impact is if an applicant truncates their list only to a single program (otherwise known as suicide matching).

It's a largely academic debate regardless.
Click to expand...

The initial experiments are truncating at the match point. The results in section VI-B-2 are from truncating at one above the match point.

It's an academic debate precisely because applicants do not know their match in the stable algorithm.
 
SO technically it is beneficial for me to truncate my list assuming that I would rather risk not matching than going to the other 3 programs that arent really ideal for me. Increase my odds who knows how much 1/1000? According to the studies definitely increased though. With the added bonus of potentially SOAPing into a program. I would have to review the SOAP process, chances of matching to an IM program that I would be content with. I would also have to review the chance of matching after reapplying a second year after doing research or whatever other options there are. Who knows, I could end up SOAPing to one of the three programs anyways then I would have essentially just added the bonus % chance of matching to my #1 for truncating my list.
 
MrSunny1 said:
SO technically it is beneficial for me to truncate my list assuming that I would rather risk not matching than going to the other 3 programs that arent really ideal for me. Increase my odds who knows how much 1/1000? According to the studies definitely increased though. With the added bonus of potentially SOAPing into a program. I would have to review the SOAP process, chances of matching to an IM program that I would be content with. I would also have to review the chance of matching after reapplying a second year after doing research or whatever other options there are. Who knows, I could end up SOAPing to one of the three programs anyways then I would have essentially just added the bonus % chance of matching to my #1 for truncating my list.
Click to expand...

...Did you read the thread at all??? No your odds are certainly not increased by truncating the list. Your odds of matching are greatly decreased by truncating your list. Try to understand the match process first before you delve into the studies above which have zero practical application to the individual applicant.

Ranking 1 program vs ranking 4 programs has NOTHING to do with your chance of matching at your #1. It's not going to change anything. The only thing it will change is that if you only rank 1, if you don't match there, you will have to enter the SOAP.

SOAP isn't the end of the world but I wouldn't call it an "added bonus." I had several friends who had to go through it after not matching last year and it was an extremely stressful week, with a couple people ending up without a spot. I also know a couple people who decided at the last minute to go into a different field, didn't rank any programs, and ended up SOAPing into a decent program. This is not the norm and not something to aim for unless you're desperate and sure about it.

If you would absolutely not want to go to programs 2-4, then sure just rank 1 and risk going unmatched and having to SOAP, which risks not SOAPing and having to take a year off and reapply, doing whatever is needed to fix whatever is going on that you only got 4 interviews in the first place. Programs 2-4 would have to be really bad in order for me not to rank them. I got horrible vibes from the program I ended up ranking last, but I still ranked them as I would rather go there for 3 years than risk going unmatched and having to do this mess all over again.
 
I tend to be more of a tinfoil hat wearing kind of person when it comes to this process.

Yes, the NRMP describes their algorithm. No, they do not fully disclose the actual algorithm.

There is far too much backroom dealing and things not accounted for in their description. Where does couples match fit in here? Having sat in on rank-list meetings, I have a general understanding of the program side. Even so, does the NRMP have any augmentation to the way programs are assigned based on people couples matching?

Call me crazy, but a little transparency would be nice given they a) have a monopoly b) charge a significant amount of money for their "service."
 
It is essentially a sorority match, except not everyone that makes it to pref gets in. Suicide matches don't help.
 
MrSunny1 said:
SO technically it is beneficial for me to truncate my list assuming that I would rather risk not matching than going to the other 3 programs that arent really ideal for me. Increase my odds who knows how much 1/1000? According to the studies definitely increased though. With the added bonus of potentially SOAPing into a program. I would have to review the SOAP process, chances of matching to an IM program that I would be content with. I would also have to review the chance of matching after reapplying a second year after doing research or whatever other options there are. Who knows, I could end up SOAPing to one of the three programs anyways then I would have essentially just added the bonus % chance of matching to my #1 for truncating my list.
Click to expand...

You are literally too stupid to help. Hopefully, other people will read this thread and understand.
 
SouthernSurgeon said:
Yup, that's pretty tin foily.

I hate to fall back on an argument from authority, but the guys literally won a Nobel for this.

There are innumerable papers and books written on it. The "simple match" code is readily available and they've written a number of technical papers about how couples, etc are handled.
Click to expand...

I fundamentally agree the algorithm they present is sound. Their actual implementation of it, however, is what I question. I would be interested in seeing the source code.
 
neusu said:
Call me crazy, but a little transparency would be nice given they a) have a monopoly b) charge a significant amount of money for their "service."
Click to expand...
neusu said:
I fundamentally agree the algorithm they present is sound. Their actual implementation of it, however, is what I question. I would be interested in seeing the source code.
Click to expand...

While the NRMP has monopoly power, they are not a pure monopoly. There are multiple competing providers of matching services that could take the source code and run with it. These competitors include the American Urological Association (Urology Match) and American Academy of Ophthalmology (SF Match).

(The other major competitor, National Matching Services (osteopathic, dental, pharmacy, optometry, Canadian medical, etc.), developed the software NRMP uses.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Orthopedic Match Spreadsheet 2025
Replies
0
Views
4K
m22499
M
Kracin
OFFICIAL - 2025 Match Lists
2 3 4
Replies
174
Views
255K
MDMechEngr
MDMechEngr
M
Dermatology Match
Replies
12
Views
3K
m22499
M
A
General Surgery Match Chances and Strategy
Replies
1
Views
751
pazzer2
P
Mr.Smile12
MD & DO Match Week 2025!
Replies
19
Views
6K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top