I've always wanted to ask how far programs go down on their rank list, but obviously have not. If anybody has heard anything (particularly about the top tiered programs - don't need a debate), please post away!
Program Rank Lists
- Thread starter dreamfox
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 1
This is a big question I have. Everyone I meet at interviews is going to 10+ programs I guess out of fear of not matching. If someone is a strong enough applicant to get interviews at every top program Id imagine they would not go below their top 3 or 4. Places like Hopkins/Duke/Michigan etc have locations that not everyone is interested in. My guess as long as your list includes more than BWH/MGH/UCSF you'd be in good shape.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,531
- Reaction score
- 48
I think the OP wants to know how deep the programs have to dig to fill their spots i.e. for their X number of spots how much X+ do most programs go e.g. if there are 30 seats in a programs, do they fill their quota at 35, 65, 105 ... etc
exactly
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2008
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
here is what i've been told about the top programs (your MGH/Brigham/UCSF places) from my PD:
For 40 spots, if you are in the top 80 on their list you will match
Sounds as if most programs need at least 2 ranked applicants: 1 spot to fill. less highly regarded programs are probably need a much larger ratios.
brigham has the reputation for going the lowest down on its rank list each year, but I dont know exact numbers.
For 40 spots, if you are in the top 80 on their list you will match
Sounds as if most programs need at least 2 ranked applicants: 1 spot to fill. less highly regarded programs are probably need a much larger ratios.
brigham has the reputation for going the lowest down on its rank list each year, but I dont know exact numbers.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2005
- Messages
- 83
- Reaction score
- 0
I heard 60 once, but don't remember where I got that number.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 189
- Reaction score
- 0
I think it depends on how cocky/confident the program is. I know that Duke ranked very few applicants last year, which is why 10 spots went unfilled for which people ultimately scrambled into. I'm not sure how they'll change their approach for this year.
Thankfully no matter how much we analyze our chances, the strategy remains the same... interview well and rank 'em in your own order of preference.
Thankfully no matter how much we analyze our chances, the strategy remains the same... interview well and rank 'em in your own order of preference.
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,089
- Reaction score
- 55
I don't think that this info is public, but the 2:1 ratio sounds reasonable. I know that for some of the competitive medicine fellowships (i.e. GI and IM) sometimes programs go down to less than #10 to fill 5 or 6 spots. I'll bet that to fill 30 or so medicine spots, a lot of programs probably go down to 90 or even 120...even Mass General/Harvard I'll bet goes down to at least 45 or 50.
Duke not filling 10 spots...that was a couple of years ago, wasn't it? Or did they have that happen multiple years?
Interestingly, even competitive fellowships like GI and cards sometimes don't fill when they fail to interview enough folks.
Duke not filling 10 spots...that was a couple of years ago, wasn't it? Or did they have that happen multiple years?
Interestingly, even competitive fellowships like GI and cards sometimes don't fill when they fail to interview enough folks.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2003
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 0
i think duke not filling was strictly last year. as for the original question: assuming a class size of 35, my estimate would be that even the top programs go to 90 on their ROL since there are enough top notch programs fighting for the same students and since there are enough applicants ranking based on location (i.e. nyc over boston). just a guess, who knows, except maybe aPD.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 10,418
- Reaction score
- 14,645
The NRMP recommends that programs rank 15 applicants for each position in the match. Obviously, more competitive programs will be able to rank less than this.
If you interviewed at a program, you can likely take the number of applicants at the interview and multiply by the number of interview days to get the approx length of the rank list. Programs will not routinely rank 100's of extra candidates.
Remember that if you're interviewing at a top program, you're likely interviewing at many top hospitals but can only match to one -- so filling 30 spots in 60 ranks is honestly very unlikely.
For fellowships with a very small number of slots, this logic will not hold.
If you interviewed at a program, you can likely take the number of applicants at the interview and multiply by the number of interview days to get the approx length of the rank list. Programs will not routinely rank 100's of extra candidates.
Remember that if you're interviewing at a top program, you're likely interviewing at many top hospitals but can only match to one -- so filling 30 spots in 60 ranks is honestly very unlikely.
For fellowships with a very small number of slots, this logic will not hold.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 0
Just out of curiosity, what would be the rationale for not ranking most of the applicants a program interviews (e.g. *apparently* Duke one/several years ago)? I would think it wouldn't cost you too much to rank everyone the program interviews, especially compared with the time you already put in reading their ERAS forms, etc.
I mean, if the program really didn't like the applicant during the interview day, I could see not ranking them. Still, it seems like most applicants would clear the bar of "better than a scrambled spot" (especially if they have been offered interviews at competitive places). From an applicant's perspective, there is probably only one program I have interviewed at where I thought it would be better to scramble than to train at that program. Therefore, I won't rank that program. Curious why a similar logic wouldn't apply.
I mean, if the program really didn't like the applicant during the interview day, I could see not ranking them. Still, it seems like most applicants would clear the bar of "better than a scrambled spot" (especially if they have been offered interviews at competitive places). From an applicant's perspective, there is probably only one program I have interviewed at where I thought it would be better to scramble than to train at that program. Therefore, I won't rank that program. Curious why a similar logic wouldn't apply.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 10,418
- Reaction score
- 14,645
There is no cost to ranking more people. Programs pay a single fee, regardless of how long our rank lists are.
I expect most programs follow this logic -- ranking almost everyone they interview.
Programs get into trouble when they don't interview enough people, or when "word on the street" is that something is rotten. And sometimes, it's just random -- less people apply, etc.
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,089
- Reaction score
- 55
APD is right about the 2:1 ratio we were discussing above...probably you could get into even Harvard/Duke/UCSF if they were taking 30 people and you were below 60...of course it will vary from year to year. The NRMP web site has data on this (how many people programs had to rank to fill all their spots). It's broken down by specialty, not by individual program. For IM I think it was 5.4 people per spot or something...of course I'm sure it's >>5 for some programs and <5 for others (i.e. Mass General doesn't have to rank 200 to get 40...).
As far as Duke or other strong programs not filling, it's usually because they didn't interview enough people, not because they didn't rank a bunch of them. I think most medicine programs rank most all of the people they interview...unless someone acts obviously weird or obnoxious. Even competitive specialties like radiology, GI or cards there will often be a couple programs/year that don't fill in the Match. Again, this is usually because they didn't interview enough people...also there's usually some rumored badness going on at that particular program. It's not necessarily "malignant program" badness...it could be that applicants get there and find out there are financial problems in the hospital system, or the call schedule is super bad compared with other programs, etc. If enough interviewees rank the place low...bang! They don't fill. However, spots like these in competitive specialties fill up fast in the scramble.
As far as Duke or other strong programs not filling, it's usually because they didn't interview enough people, not because they didn't rank a bunch of them. I think most medicine programs rank most all of the people they interview...unless someone acts obviously weird or obnoxious. Even competitive specialties like radiology, GI or cards there will often be a couple programs/year that don't fill in the Match. Again, this is usually because they didn't interview enough people...also there's usually some rumored badness going on at that particular program. It's not necessarily "malignant program" badness...it could be that applicants get there and find out there are financial problems in the hospital system, or the call schedule is super bad compared with other programs, etc. If enough interviewees rank the place low...bang! They don't fill. However, spots like these in competitive specialties fill up fast in the scramble.
