I think you are using "cometitive" differently than the original poster here. Clearly the match is competitive for us, as students, trying to secure a spot. These kinds of lawsuits are saying that the match is uncompetitive in the sense that it restricts the ability to freely and independently search for a job and negotiate its benefits. When you look for other jobs you can negotiate a contract and have the final say over whether or not you work there or somewhere else. Although we have input into the match via ranking, the idea is that we all must go through it, it is our only option of finding a job, and its results are binding, therefore the match is in a sense a monopoly and according to these suits, illegal. Its not uncompetitive because we can have any spot we want, its uncompetitive because the match, as a whole, is our only option, and we're stuck with its decision. (Contrast to before the match when, as I understand it, finding postgrad spots was like finding any job, ultracompetitive, with everyone scrambling around on their own, promising applicants being recruited and offered jobs early in med school etc. If everyone is on their own and a program really wants you, they have to shell out, compete with other programs and recruit with salary, whatever...Now you have to go where you match regardless of benefits - no competition )
I don't know enough about the law to decide how valid this argument is, but this is their charge as I understand it. Am I on the mark?
