Reasons why programs fail to match residents

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

flapaTron

§ herpen the derp §
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
445
Reaction score
3
from natmatch 2011 match statistics:

CALIFORNIA LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY DEPT. ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURG. SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY LOMA LINDA CA
Openings: 1

CONNECTICUT UNIV. OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CTR. DIV. ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURG.
Openings: 1

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER DEPT. ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURG.
Openings: 1

MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL DEPT. ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURG.
Openings: 1

MICHIGAN DETROIT RECEIVING HOSPITAL AND UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTER
Openings: 1

NEW YORK LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CTR DEPT. OF ORAL AND MAX.FAC. SURG.
Openings: 2

HARLEM HOSPITAL CENTER/ DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT OF DENTISTRY/OMFS Openings: 1

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY/ BELLEVUE HOSPITAL CENTER DEPT ORAL SURG/NYU COLL OF DENT
Openings: 2

PENNSYLVANIA UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL CTR
Openings: 1


this begs the question: what are the various reasons that programs fail to match residents? failure to rank a sufficient # of applicants?
perhaps "failure" isn't the best word... but you get the point.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Saving the spots for legacies?

Hup
 
Programs don't have to rank applicants and applicants don't have to rank programs.

Say 40 students apply for 5 spots. The program ranks only the top 20. Already they have eliminated 20 students from being accepted. Of those 20, perhaps 14 of them ranked another program higher and got in, while 2 more just didn't rank this program at all. That leaves 4 students who match.

It's also possible that the program could rank all 40 students and over 35 of them ranked another program higher and got in, but that's probably less likely.

Then there's post-match. Again, the program doesn't have to accept the student.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Seems to me the number one reason is that certain programs fail to interview enough applicants or rank enough applicants. Good programs go unmatched just about every year because they don't interview enough people.
 
Why not ranking the "legacies" high so they match right away?


Some legacies don't even apply through PASS. It is assumed the program will save a spot for them. That spot it post-match.

I've seen it happen.
 
Some legacies don't even apply through PASS. It is assumed the program will save a spot for them. That spot it post-match.

I've seen it happen.

I don't know if you've actually seen it or not, but it does not really matter. I think this "legacy" theory is extremely rare. I don't believe that 2 or even 1 of the 11 spots that went unmatched were for "legacies". I think that applicants chose to go elsewhere for reasons only known to the applicants. There is not much to gather from an unmatched spot at a program, good programs go unmatched every year and it is not a big deal. They interview again and pick the best one. If a program wants to ensure it does not happen again they interview more people next time. As I understand it the majority of times that a program goes unmatched it is because of not interviewing enough people.
 
This legacy stuff may have some effect in certain specialties. In OMS it seems to not have a penetrance at all.
 
As I understand it the majority of times that a program goes unmatched it is because of not interviewing enough people.


it would seem, though, to be in the best interest of these specific programs to actually interview sufficient applicants to rank. seems inefficient for a program to leave spots open.
 
Many of the programs that go unmatched really love themselves. They take on the attitude that everyone wants to come to their program and are then really selective.
They have a poor ability to self evaluate, even if it is in their best interest
 
it would seem, though, to be in the best interest of these specific programs to actually interview sufficient applicants to rank. seems inefficient for a program to leave spots open.

Exactly! I imagine that the programs know how many applicants on average they need to interview to match. They definitely know how far down their list they went to match all of their spots in previous years. So they interview that many plus a few. It takes a lot of time, energy and money to interview so they don't just throw invitations to everyone to get their applicant interview numbers up. They balance between interviewing more than enough to match and not spending too many resources. They pick a number inbetween. In my experience programs onterview 7-10 people per spot. But sometimes the numbers don't play out the way the average does and they go unmatched. It was not intentional by the program, it just played out that way.
 
Many of the programs that go unmatched really love themselves. They take on the attitude that everyone wants to come to their program and are then really selective.
They have a poor ability to self evaluate, even if it is in their best interest

it's ironic, to say the least.
 
Some programs love having an unmatched spot. They invite 30 applicants that also did not match for a 10 minute panel interview and get the pick of the litter.
 
Some programs love having an unmatched spot. They invite 30 applicants that also did not match for a 10 minute panel interview and get the pick of the litter.

If you think the pick of the litter is found among 30 applicants that did not match, you might be a periodontist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If you think the pick of the litter is found among 30 applicants that did not match, you might be a periodontist.

There are always a few good applicants that don't match. There are hundreds of pedo applicants each year. Most programs only have around 5 spots.
 
Last edited:
Top