Ranking based on early/average/late interview offer.

[member2721]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Now that interviews are starting to come through, how much should we read into WHEN we got the interviewer offer.



My uneducated thoughts are-

a) if you are offered an early interview (i.e., first batch), you are seen as a great fit for the program and will be recruited by the program. All you need to do to get ranked to match is not have an poor interview (i.e., be antisocial, act with a chip on your shoulder, act in a way that's inconsistent with your app), and you're pretty much set.

b) if you are offered an interview around when everyone else is, you are in the mix; and as long as you have a good interview and express strong interests you have a good chance to be ranked to match

c) if you are offered late (i.e., vast majority of slots are filled even when you reply immediately, or they only offered after you email/called), you have to have strong strong interview and mesh really well with the faculty and residents, and have a strong advocate on the committee, just to have a good chance for matching.



Is there any validity to interpreting the date of our interview offer in this way?

Does determination of interviews offers vary based on programs, making this generalization valid only for some programs?

Or for elite programs, even if you are in the first batch, do you still need to have an outstanding home-run interview to stand above everyone else that is interviewed?

 

[Leo Aquarius]

I matched at the first place I interviewed. They invited me two days after ERAS opened, so perhaps there's some truth to what you say.

 

[mass1]

There may be some validity to your thoughts. However, I was actually in the very last group to be interviewed at the program I matched at (which was my number 1), whereas my co-interns were offered earlier interviews. They also received invites for second looks, which I didn't receive. so it's hard to say.

 

[LimbicResponse]

Interesting theory but difficult to prove

 

[diagonal]

Keep in mind that every candidate only ends up at one program. In looking at the current invite thread, you'll notice a pattern. Several people were offered interviews at a lot if places. They're probably really strong candidates. And as such, will all probably be ranked highly. But it doesn't matter for the rest of us. They'll have the luxury of choice, but all the other programs will be SOL and have to fall down their ROL and start getting comfortable with us mere mortals. So in essence, it doesn't matter that much how high you're ranked, unless its at a hugely desirable program or you're at the bottom of their list.

 

[Schmee]

i have heard that some programs go through the apps alphabetically, has anyone else heard this? obviously they have to take them as they come in, but this may provide some insight as to why certain individuals receive interviews later than others aside from their qualifications.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Don't overthink it.
We're just trying to do the best we can.

 

[BobA]

Agree with above - don't over think it. Psychiatry is NOT competitive (outside of a handful of programs).

HOWEVER, the interview is the great equalizer. Once you get an interview, a strong performance can go a really long way to determining your place on the rank list. Remember, we're hiring a co-worker and not just a resume. We want someone we enjoy being around.

 

[billypilgrim37]

A central premise of CBT:

1) is this thought true?
2) if it is true, is it useful?

 

[m1345]

A central premise of CBT:

1) is this thought true?
2) if it is true, is it useful?

this could be applied to so many questions asked in this forum. Good to keep in mind!

 

[twright]

Now that interviews are starting to come through, how much should we read into WHEN we got the interviewer offer.

My uneducated thoughts are-

a) if you are offered an early interview (i.e., first batch), you are seen as a great fit for the program and will be recruited by the program. All you need to do to get ranked to match is not have an poor interview (i.e., be antisocial, act with a chip on your shoulder, act in a way that's inconsistent with your app), and you're pretty much set.

b) if you are offered an interview around when everyone else is, you are in the mix; and as long as you have a good interview and express strong interests you have a good chance to be ranked to match

c) if you are offered late (i.e., vast majority of slots are filled even when you reply immediately, or they only offered after you email/called), you have to have strong strong interview and mesh really well with the faculty and residents, and have a strong advocate on the committee, just to have a good chance for matching.

Is there any validity to interpreting the date of our interview offer in this way?

Does determination of interviews offers vary based on programs, making this generalization valid only for some programs?

Or for elite programs, even if you are in the first batch, do you still need to have an outstanding home-run interview to stand above everyone else that is interviewed?

There is no validity to (A) above, at least not from the perspective of our program. An early interview (i.e. prior to the Dean's Letter) only means: We infer that, given your initial submission materials (e.g., grades, board scores, CV) we expect the rest of your application will look similarly. So we may as well offer you an interview now under the assumption that the rest of your application will look similarly.

I do not believe there is much validity to (C) above in that we don't "fill" spots. We do have a preliminary rank list, and as we do more interviews people move up and down the list. However, there is validity to (C) in the sense that people who get late interviews are generally less compelling candidates.

We have had some stories where we issued interview invitations based on what looked like a very solid CV. But then the applicant turned out to have nightmare letters, or a nightmare Dean's Letter, or was a nightmare during the interview.

In general, I would agree that the interview counts for very little, being as it is neither sensitive nor specific (although the specificity probably exceeds the sensitivity).

Accordingly I would disagree that the interview is an 'equalizer'. If you have a 195 Step 1, no publications, 2 honors, and mediocre letters, even if you hit a home run on your interview, you will still not be a more compelling candidate compared to someone with a 265, 3 pubs, 6 honors, and glowing letters who had an average or above-average, even if not totally memorable, interview day.

 

[Psychlover2013]

I am trying to understand the match process. Should we rank based on the programs we like best or based on which program we think will rank us highly? I always thought you rank the programs you like the best even if your chance of matching there is slim but I have recently heard some information to the contrary.

 

[211519]

x

 

[diagonal]

^what he said. To put it into even clearer perspective: you could interview at 100 programs. 99 of which literally kicked you out mid-interview and said "you disgust me." Then on interview #100 you saved the PD's life in the parking lot as you pulled in for the interview.

You could rank those 99 programs ahead of the 1 sure thing, knowing damn well you stood no chance at any of the others, yet perhaps they were all awesome programs and you were praying for a glitch. You would still match at that one sure thing that you ranked #100.

 

[billypilgrim37]

I am trying to understand the match process. Should we rank based on the programs we like best or based on which program we think will rank us highly? I always thought you rank the programs you like the best even if your chance of matching there is slim but I have recently heard some information to the contrary.

Rank programs by your preference only! Anyone else who tells you otherwise is so incredibly mathematically inept that you should never listen to a single thing they say about anything. They're idiots. They're so stupid you should delete them from your facebook and put them on a do-not call list. They're so stupid you should never let your grandmother go see them.

Okay I'm being silly because I make really good manhattans and this is a lonely Friday night. But my point is correct.

 

[Psychlover2013]

Thx maldabrroc, diagonal, billypilgrim.

I really tried to explain it to this friend but he insisted that a PD has explained the match process to him and he had a very good grasp on matter. I guess he put this unnecessary doubt in my mind.

 

[billypilgrim37]

Thx maldabrroc, diagonal, billypilgrim.

I really tried to explain it to this friend but he insisted that a PD has explained the match process to him and he had a very good grasp on matter. I guess he put this unnecessary doubt in my mind.

It is in the interest of programs to say things like this, because it would result in them matching people who were better than they would otherwise match, i.e. applicants would match at less good programs than they would otherwise match. It is in the interest of the applicant to rank where they want to go in order, period.

 

[st2205]

It is in the interest of programs to say things like this, because it would result in them matching people who were better than they would otherwise match, i.e. applicants would match at less good programs than they would otherwise match. It is in the interest of the applicant to rank where they want to go in order, period.

The problem with this on the flip-side that if they've matched, the program just picked up an idiot. Either that or it serves as a useful screening tool for selecting those who will blindly follow unsubstantiated instruction.

 

[diagonal]

The problem with this on the flip-side that if they've matched, the program just picked up an idiot. Either that or it serves as a useful screening tool for selecting those who will blindly follow unsubstantiated instruction.

If their barometer of most awesome candidate is board scores, which it basically is, then who's the idiot.

 

[peppy]

At my program, I'd say that you can surmise that if you get an interview invitation right away that your paper application looked pretty good to our PD and it was an easy decision to invite you. If you get an invitation in January, it could mean that there was something on your paper application that seemed borderline/iffy. It definitely doesn't mean you're unlikely to match here, or that we don't want you to end up here, though. The paper application is only part of what is considered in ranking. My program is a mid-tier place that is able to be selective enough that we do genuinely like every candidate that we ask to interview here, even if the person was invited because someone else cancelled.

Some programs give every applicant they interview a numerical score and at some places that score includes points for your Step score and other factors like research. For that reason, I do feel that at least at some places the applicants with higher scores or better extracurriculars have an advantage coming into the interview. However, there are definitely cases where someone who sounded good "on paper" messed things up by acting strange or obnoxious at the interview. By the same token, some people who may have a blemish on their application end up being very charming at the interview.

Having had the chance to be involved in the process a bit, I would say that deciding who deserves an invitation to interview is a decision that can be very subjective.
We try to balance inviting the strongest candidates with inviting candidates who are realistically going to want to be at the program. As I mentioned, I'm at a mid-tier place. We sometimes get applications from Ivy League people with very impressive credentials. If we invited solely on the basis of who had the best application, that could be a waste of an interview slot if it turns out the Ivy Leaguer is just using our program as backup option for the places they really want to go to. Likewise, it can be tough to make the call on an applicant who sounds very sincere in their interest in psych but also have some academic blemishes on their application.

At my program, every year that I've been here we've been getting more applications for the same number of interview spots, so not everyone who sounds like a good candidate can be invited. I'm sure we do reject some people that would have done well here.