That feeling when you only have six Psych interviews

[ExcaliburPrime1]

At least one of them is at my home institution which I think would be very likely to accept me, but you never know.

Not sure what I did wrong, but regardless, I'd be extremely happy at any of the six places, so hopefully I will just be saving money on interview costs and still end up some place great.

👎

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[J ROD]

It has been a tough season for many of us. Depending on how many you applied to 6 is not bad. At least in my opinion.

I say be happy you got 6. Could be worse...................

 

[Wyvernrider]

At least one of them is at my home institution which I think would be very likely to accept me, but you never know.

Not sure what I did wrong, but regardless, I'd be extremely happy at any of the six places, so hopefully I will just be saving money on interview costs and still end up some place great.

👎

I don't think you need to worry at all if the places you have interviews are actually places you want to be. Charting outcomes puts 6 ranks at >90% match with each additional rank becoming a very small gain compared to the first 6. I can only speak as a fellow 4th year, but I'd imagine if you interview well and show the interviewers that you are a good fit then it should be no problem.

Also, interviews are still going out. I was also at 6, but I got another interview today to a great program toda

 

[Monocles]

I've got a similar number myself (7 interviews, 2 waitlists) and I think this is the point where we should stop worrying, based on previous statistical data (^as Wyvernrider mentioned above). On the interview trail essentially everyone that I've talked to is in the same boat (4-7 interviews).

Also, you've got Hopkins, NYPH/Columbia, and Sinai man! Those are all AMAZING programs so I imagine you're a good candidate. I absolutely would not worry if I were you, hang in there and show them how awesome you are at those interviews. 🙂

 

[J ROD]

Yeah, I am not sure how well we can take those numbers of the 2014 Charting Outcomes. I believe this year is much more competitive or at least it seems. But, then again, each program still can only interview but so many. So, it probably is still fairly accurate. I have a few programs tell me they added more spots to interview since the numbers are greater than before. I was told at several places (2) where I am waitlisted that I would have gotten an interview last year.

Also, due to personal reasons, I could not take Step 2 CK until beginning of Nov. My school told me it would not matter. Well, I have had 3 programs basically tell me I would have gotten an interview if I had it in. They told me to update them in a few weeks and one said they probably can still interview me. The other 2 were not so forthcoming. So, I guess if you are in a similar case for those that read this next year pay close attention to their website. When they say you must have both, you do.

And, I got my first rejection letter! It was kinda funny. They were so blunt about it.

Just for reference. I have 7 interviews and potentially several more. But those I do have, 6 of the 7 are in my top 10. So, I have places I really wanted to interview at. I got 4 out of top 5 as well. Goal was to get 8-10. So, I am happy. And will take a few more if they come my way. Some programs are still filling late spots and there are also cancellations that will follow. They should be kicking in about now and more so toward the end of the month.

So, hang in there and just do well on the ones you have. It will all work out I believe if you have half a dozen or so interviews and can interview like a human at least.

 

[Dharma]

Is it that much more competitive (and I'm sure it is to some degree)... Or are folks holding on to too many interviews? I'm meeting USMDs from solid schools, who are bright, personable, outgoing, and dedicated to psychiatry going on 15+ interviews. I think it's ridiculous to be honest. Just my opinion but fear may be more of a factor here than true competitiveness.

 

[J ROD]

Well I don't know any of them. lol

15+ But that's why I think some spots will open up after those decide I have had enough and folks like myself might get a look.

 

[Blitz2006]

Is it that much more competitive (and I'm sure it is to some degree)... Or are folks holding on to too many interviews? I'm meeting USMDs from solid schools, who are bright, personable, outgoing, and dedicated to psychiatry going on 15+ interviews. I think it's ridiculous to be honest. Just my opinion but fear may be more of a factor here than true competitiveness.

IMHO, I think it's a dual effect. It is more competitive, and therefore applicants are applying to even more programs and having more interviews, compounding the situation.

So while it may no appear that psych is 3x more competitive than last year, it probably really is only 2x more competitive.

I suspect the next 4 weeks cancellations will happen and invites will be sent out, but I don't think it will be a barrage like it has been in previous years.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[SmallBird]

At least one of them is at my home institution which I think would be very likely to accept me, but you never know.

Not sure what I did wrong, but regardless, I'd be extremely happy at any of the six places, so hopefully I will just be saving money on interview costs and still end up some place great.

👎

I really don't understand why you are unhappy. You have six interviews in mid November - thats a good number unless you applied at 50 places . And you like all those programs. You are in good shape.

Is there any evidence that psychiatry is more competitive this year? Talking to a bunch of people who say they aren't getting that many interviews might not mean anything. Its really hard to say until after the match, and every year people seem to think its more competitive but this is not really supported by the match outcomes.

 

[J ROD]

All I know is the every program I talked to said they had never had that many apps. Some even mentioned they were having a hard time getting through them all. We shall see..........

 

[notdeadyet]

I have a feeling that there aren't a huge number more of applicants, there are just applicants applying to more spots.

This presents a challenge, because programs are not necessarily conducting any more interviews than they usually do.

Applicants feel the pinch because stronger applicants will end up with more interviews than typically and weaker applicants will end up with fewer.

Programs are going to feel the pinch as well, because they will all be ranking the same smaller subset of applicants. You may very well have programs not filling that typically would.

 

[J ROD]

The truth is probably somewhere in that middle. More apps and folks applying to more programs.

I am still too scared to take that chance and not rank everyone and test that scramble out.

I only applied to places I would go. And so far I have not had a program turn me off so bad I would not go there.

Also, most of the interviews I did get were at places I really want to go based on my pre-interview assessment.

I only applied to 20 and would have been happy with just 14. But I added 3 reaches and 3 less desired places I would go just to finish off the 20 since it was the same price to apply.

I got 7/14 in my rankings. Can't complain.....

 

[Freddie Mercury]

The truth is probably somewhere in that middle. More apps and folks applying to more programs.

I am still too scared to take that chance and not rank everyone and test that scramble out.

Agreed. I was originally planning to apply only to 10-12 programs, including upper tier and safeties, and a lot of that decision was supported by posts made here in the WAMC thread. However, our department chair and other advisers scared us into applying to way more just to be safe. I'm talking 30+ places, with the goal of going to a minimum 15 interviews. I caved in and ended up applying to ~20. I've heard similar stories from others on the interview trail as well. I guess only time and data will tell us how much of it really is increased competition vs hysteria.

 

[J ROD]

Agreed. I was originally planning to apply only to 10-12 programs, including upper tier and safeties, and a lot of that decision was supported by posts made here in the WAMC thread. However, our department chair and other advisers scared us into applying to way more just to be safe. I'm talking 30+ places, with the goal of going to a minimum 15 interviews. I caved in and ended up applying to ~20. I've heard similar stories from others on the interview trail as well. I guess only time and data will tell us how much of it really is increased competition vs hysteria.

Yeah, we had a "scare" session! lol. Brought in our EM PD and he scared the hell out of everyone in my year. Made the AAMC some money that day! I wonder if should have disclosed if he had any financial considerations after that talk! haha

I still stayed true to my process and did my 20 since it was the same price. Wish I could have had Step 2's in before I applied but it has worked out well enough.

 

[Freddie Mercury]

Wish I could have had Step 2's in before I applied but it has worked out well enough.

Same here. Like you, I received several rejections because I didn't submit a Step 2 CK score (also like you, I was stuck taking it November because of elective scheduling issues). One school even required a CS pass just for interview.

Advice to future applicants - take Step 2CK and CS ASAP. Even if you have a solid step 1 score.

 

[Oppie]

Same here. Like you, I received several rejections because I didn't submit a Step 2 CK score (also like you, I was stuck taking it November because of elective scheduling issues). One school even required a CS pass just for interview.

Advice to future applicants - take Step 2CK and CS ASAP. Even if you have a solid step 1 score.

I am a 3rd year likely applying to Psychiatry programs next year. My plan was Step 2 CK and CS in the middle of October due to scheduling issues. If you don't mind, which programs required Step 2 scores before giving an interview invite? Were they clear about this on their website? I am looking at program websites I will likely apply to, and most do not mention when they require Step 2 scores.

 

[J ROD]

I am a 3rd year likely applying to Psychiatry programs next year. My plan was Step 2 CK and CS in the middle of October due to scheduling issues. If you don't mind, which programs required Step 2 scores before giving an interview invite? Were they clear about this on their website? I am looking at program websites I will likely apply to, and most do not mention when they require Step 2 scores.

Some have the info and some don't. I would advise calling them and verifying.
Because if you are going to only apply to 20 programs, you might blow a few chances like I did. But, I was really only interested in 14 and only 2 of those had the Step 2 requirement. And one said it was more preferred. But then said they would like to see it first.

 

[Leo Aquarius]

I have a feeling that there aren't a huge number more of applicants, there are just applicants applying to more spots.

This presents a challenge, because programs are not necessarily conducting any more interviews than they usually do.

Applicants feel the pinch because stronger applicants will end up with more interviews than typically and weaker applicants will end up with fewer.

Programs are going to feel the pinch as well, because they will all be ranking the same smaller subset of applicants. You may very well have programs not filling that typically would.

I call your attention to Figure 1. UC-Irvine 2014.

 

[W19]

Things are getting scary in psych... I am only a MS2, so I assume it will get even worst when I apply... I guess if my step1 score is not above average (like 230+), I probably will be applying to 50 psych and 50 FM programs... The thought of not matching after that 4-year is scary...

 

[jjmack]

Let's not get crazy, it's still psych.

Things are getting scary in psych... I am only a MS2, so I assume it will get even worst when I apply... I guess if my step1 score is not above average (like 230+), I probably will be applying to 50 psych and 50 FM programs... The thought of not matching after that 4-year is scary...

 

[notdeadyet]

Let's not get crazy, it's still psych.

Ditto this.

If you do a search, you'll find a pattern of "holy $hit, this year it's different" going back lots of years.

It was certainly the theme last year and lo and behold, almost half the psych matches were IMGs and almost everybody matched with a couple of scrambles.

The problem isn't causing the fear, the fear is causing the problem. Programs aren't going to start increasing their interview slots to accommodate applicants increasing their applications by 50%, so you're going to have programs potentially match lower on their lists and some applicants not get a chance to interview at places they would have in year's past. All driven by panic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[J ROD]

Ditto this.

If you do a search, you'll find a pattern of "holy $hit, this year it's different" going back lots of years.

It was certainly the theme last year and lo and behold, almost half the psych matches were IMGs and almost everybody matched with a couple of scrambles.

The problem isn't causing the fear, the fear is causing the problem. Programs aren't going to start increasing their interview slots to accommodate applicants increasing their applications by 50%, so you're going to have programs potentially match lower on their lists and some applicants not get a chance to interview at places they would have in year's past. All driven by panic.

That does seem to be the main driver. I also do believe there has been a bump in applicants too. I know in my own class we have double the number of folks wanting to do Psychiatry. I have been told I would have gotten interviews last year at 2 places. In the end, I think it will still be similar to past years. But, I do see the trend continuing because more and more folks seem to be interested in Psychiatry. I know 2 years ago I could barely get 5 folks for Psy themed movie night. And now, I got 20+ that are interested. I am having to find a location instead of my house. I can't accommodate that many unless we sit piled up on the floor! haha

Psychiatry may not be an IMG hot spot in a few years but that trend in general is true. I just think Psy will trend more than average. It is getting more competitive. Not crazy like.....but it is more competitive. I still think you will be fine with a 220 Step 1. No need to get that 240+ yet!

 

[notdeadyet]

Yes, psych is getting more competitive, but so are all specialties. Allopathic schools increased seats, osteopathic schools increased numbers of schools, and folks still head to the Caribbean. Despite this, there's been no sizable increase in GME.

So psych is more competitive along with everything else. The question is whether we are MORE competitive than anything else, and the answer is that we continue to be one of the least competitive specialties out there. Which is a good thing. But we can stand to use some more interest in the field. I hear from some schools talking about how many more people are going into psych, but I'm going to hold off on my optimism for now.

 

[HarryMTieboutMD]

I agree that psychiatry is not more competitive relative to other specialties, but it is becoming more competitive just as everything is becoming more competitive because of increasing # of applicants, trend toward diaspora from home medical schools (just my observation), pressure from Deans of Students to have all med students match, Step 1 score inflation, increasing importance of Step 2 (simply because it's another number), etc. With that said, here are a few observations
1) Psychiatry used to be (read: even two years ago) a specialty in which you could be a very average or below average medical student (from a non top 20ish US MD school) with nothing particularly spectacular about your application and still have a reasonable shot at interviewing and matching at pretty much anywhere except MGH, Columbia, etc. Now places like Emory, Wash U, UNC, Longwood, UTSW etc are probably more exclusionary. That said, if you go to Harvard/Hopkins/Columbia/whatever for med school and are a mediocre student, you are pretty much still competitive for anywhere.
2) The student's step 1 score will become (if it isn't already) solidified as the single most important factor (other than where the student went to medical school). Compared with 5ish years ago, every gradient is about 10 points higher (when I started med school ~220 was average, 230 was considered really good, and 240 was considered "competitive for anything") but these have since increased ab0ut 10 points in each "tier" with 260s and 270s becoming much more common. With more people pounding through UWorld multiple times and verbatim memorizing first aid, the scores will keep going up. And with more and more applicants, PDs will have less time to read through apps thoroughly and will rely more and more on the score itself, at least for offering interviews.
3) More and more MDPhDs are going into psych, and these applicants are on a whole different level of competitiveness, irrespective of medical school performance (though many I know from med school and residency were AOA and had excellent scores)

So yeah, don't blow off Step 1 as "Im going into psych so it's not important), and as other people mentioned, take Step 2 (BOTH CS AND CK) early!

 

[Leo Aquarius]

Example. You have 10 med students applying for 5 psych spots.

Scenario A: each med student applies to 1 program. Some programs may get 3 or more applications, some 1 (let's say none get none), but on average 2 applications per program.

Scenario B: all students apply to all programs, so that each program sees 10 applications.

Which scenario is more competitive, A or B? In both scenarios 5 students land 5 spots, and 5 go unmatched. The only difference is that in scenario B programs have more exposure to more applicants, and can thus pick from a greater pool, and will thus pick the stronger applicants. Which means that the more programs people apply to, the more you are pushing the stronger students into stronger programs and weaker students into the weaker spots (or SOAP).

Scenario C is more to reality: it's a combination of Scenario B and each year the number of med students (including IMGs) > residency spots across the board.

 

[downwithDTB]

Which means that the more programs people apply to, the more you are pushing the stronger students into stronger programs and weaker students into the weaker spots (or SOAP).

True but not true, especially when scale increases. There's a lot of noise in the applicants (how do you distinguish between hundreds of people with 210-225/mostly HP?). The assumption of the match algorithm is that programs know applicants well and visa versa. However, it's really hard for programs to actually differentiate between applicants pre-interview. Increasing applications just increases noise. *If* applicants could interview everywhere and programs could interview everyone, and there wasn't a massive cost, you would be correct. Instead, there are too many *good* but not exceptional candidates that no one can really distinguish between pre-interview (and post). With fixed interview slot #s, added applications just increases the chance that the good candidates will be selected to interview at places that they find less desirable. As I've said before, with applicants > slots, the only efficient way to run a match is to have either A) mid match offers to top people or B) an interview match prior to the real match.

In your scenario, you're assuming that these five programs can actually meaningfully distinguish between most of the applicants and fully evaluate them. When it's 10 applicants for 5 slots that seems reasonable. But when it's 2000 applicants for 1000 slots and 2000 people are applying to every slot, lots of chance starts to settle in.

 

[splik]

BTW people were complaining about psych getting more competitive the year I applied, and upset about lack of interviews. That year was actually less competitive than the year before. Psych is not really getting more competitive. We've seen some real stinkers this year in addition to highly impressive applicants. I do think that the process across the board is getting a little more competitive with the proliferation of med schools and DO schoolsand people are applying to psych as a back up does appear to be happening and people are applying to more programs (which ahs been the trend for some years now)

 

[Leo Aquarius]

True but not true, especially when scale increases. There's a lot of noise in the applicants (how do you distinguish between hundreds of people with 210-225/mostly HP?). The assumption of the match algorithm is that programs know applicants well and visa versa. However, it's really hard for programs to actually differentiate between applicants pre-interview. Increasing applications just increases noise. *If* applicants could interview everywhere and programs could interview everyone, and there wasn't a massive cost, you would be correct. Instead, there are too many *good* but not exceptional candidates that no one can really distinguish between pre-interview (and post). With fixed interview slot #s, added applications just increases the chance that the good candidates will be selected to interview at places that they find less desirable. As I've said before, with applicants > slots, the only efficient way to run a match is to have either A) mid match offers to top people or B) an interview match prior to the real match.

In your scenario, you're assuming that these five programs can actually meaningfully distinguish between most of the applicants and fully evaluate them. When it's 10 applicants for 5 slots that seems reasonable. But when it's 2000 applicants for 1000 slots and 2000 people are applying to every slot, lots of chance starts to settle in.

Good point. Mine was an oversimplification for the point of thought experiment. There's lots of noise and chatter that makes what you describe a complicated process for both sides.

 

[Leo Aquarius]

Of those who ranked psychiatry as their only choice:

2011:
1965 total applicants
23 US grads did not match, 433 International applicants did not match for 1097 total spots
3.7% of US seniors went unmatched

2015:
2445 total applicants
48 US grads did not match, 494 International applicants did not match for 1353 total spots
6.4% of US seniors went unmatched

Twice as many US Grads did not match albeit the number is small, and the % of US seniors not matching into Psych doubled. It's difficult to interpret this data. It begs the question of how do you define competitive. I personally think a good measure is the % of unmatched US seniors.

Just something to consider.

 

[splik]

to me this suggests that more crappy medical students are applying to psychiatry not that it is becoming more competitive. This is not surprising given that there are more med students than ever before including more lackluster ones. The reality is that programs prefer meh US applicants to good IMGs so you were a lot worse than the IMG applicant if they matched and you didn't.

 

[notdeadyet]

Leo- is this coming from Charting Outcomes? In that data "US Seniors" is referring only to graduating MDs. I'm just curious if this data is including osteopaths....

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Leo- is this coming from Charting Outcomes? In that data "US Seniors" is referring only to graduating MDs. I'm just curious if this data is including osteopaths....

Unless they've just changed it, charting outcomes treats DOs as independent applicants. Makes it hard to know what their outcomes actually are.

 

[Blitz2006]

Why is everyone focusing on the number of applications?

Simple method to determine if psych is becoming more competitive is from medical students, and asking how many are applying for their class this year vs. last year. Simple.

I believe that it is more competitive this year because from what I've heard from medical students (at the residency pre-interview dinner nights that I've attended), there is an increase in applicants between the years at their respective schools.

This is the best indicator. Not how many applications programs are receiving obviously.

 

[SmallBird]

Simple method to determine if psych is becoming more competitive is from medical students, and asking how many are applying for their class this year vs. last year. Simple.

Well, this would be an indicator if we had this data - asking people you meet is absurdly unreliable; there are so many medical schools, you couldn't possibly be sure you had an accurate sense of national trends.

 

[Leo Aquarius]

Leo- is this coming from Charting Outcomes? In that data "US Seniors" is referring only to graduating MDs. I'm just curious if this data is including osteopaths....

Yes, this is NRMP data I pulled from their 2015 and 2011 reports. Independent Applicants (IA): All applicant categories excluding U.S. allopathic seniors. So I think DO would fall under IA.

 

[downwithDTB]

I believe that it is more competitive this year because from what I've heard from medical students (at the residency pre-interview dinner nights that I've attended), there is an increase in applicants between the years at their respective schools.
This is the best indicator. Not how many applications programs are receiving obviously.

Not exactly true. Pretend everyone who applied but you had the same step 1 score. If 100 other people with 230 applied last year, and 110 people others with 200 applied this year, many would argue that psych is less "competitive" this year, as last year a 215 wouldn't get you looked at but this year it would be the best in the match.

More importantly, you're running up against a selection bias! Even if the number of students applying across the board stays the same, there will always be moderate within school variability. You are most likely to run into students from the schools with the most psych applicants this year, and those schools are the most likely to have had an increase over last year. Similarly, if a school has 1 or 0 applicants to psych, that's probably less than last year and you probably won't run into them. By your measure, you're almost statistically guaranteed to come to the conclusion that every specialty is getting more competitive every year, even if the same actual number of applicants were to be unchanged.

 

[Blitz2006]

Well, this would be an indicator if we had this data - asking people you meet is absurdly unreliable; there are so many medical schools, you couldn't possibly be sure you had an accurate sense of national trends.

of course not, Im saying it gives an idea though.

The correct answer will be in April 2016 when the NRMP match stats come out. Until then we are just going to be speculating.

 

[Blitz2006]

Not exactly true. Pretend everyone who applied but you had the same step 1 score. If 100 other people with 230 applied last year, and 110 people others with 200 applied this year, many would argue that psych is less "competitive" this year, as last year a 215 wouldn't get you looked at but this year it would be the best in the match.

More importantly, you're running up against a selection bias! Even if the number of students applying across the board stays the same, there will always be moderate within school variability. You are most likely to run into students from the schools with the most psych applicants this year, and those schools are the most likely to have had an increase over last year. Similarly, if a school has 1 or 0 applicants to psych, that's probably less than last year and you probably won't run into them. By your measure, you're almost statistically guaranteed to come to the conclusion that every specialty is getting more competitive every year, even if the same actual number of applicants were to be unchanged.

Points well taken, I guess we will just have to wait until the NRMP stats come out next year.

 

[notdeadyet]

The correct answer will be in April 2016 when the NRMP match stats come out. Until then we are just going to be speculating.

Yup. And we'll probably find it's getting more competitive. All fields are, just based on numbers and rising stats.

Whether or not psychiatry is specifically getting rougher will remain to be seen. But from having cruised this forum for about 10 years, I can say that every year applicants about this time marvel at how particularly competitive psychiatry is this match. I was certainly convinced during my Match year, god knows...

 

[Amygdarya]

Why is everyone focusing on the number of applications?

Simple method to determine if psych is becoming more competitive is from medical students, and asking how many are applying for their class this year vs. last year. Simple.

I believe that it is more competitive this year because from what I've heard from medical students (at the residency pre-interview dinner nights that I've attended), there is an increase in applicants between the years at their respective schools.

This is the best indicator. Not how many applications programs are receiving obviously.

I really don't think it's a good way of estimating a specialty's competitiveness. Aside from the selection bias and the unreliability of personal reports, which were mentioned above, there is also the fact that there is a year-to-year variation in the number of students interested in each specialty at each school, and this variation is especially noticeable in smaller specialties. Say, two students from school X applied to ophtho last year, and noone did this year (there just didn't happen to be a student interested in the eyes in this class) - would that mean that nobody wants to go into ophtho anymore, so it's not competitive anymore? Of course not! Psychiatry is a medium to smaller size specialty, so I'd argue that stochastic variations will likely be noticeable, but I'm not sure if they're meaningful.

Just like you said, the only way to know or sure is to read Charting Outcomes 2016. Till then all we can do is guess.

 

[Psychotic]

to me this suggests that more crappy medical students are applying to psychiatry not that it is becoming more competitive. This is not surprising given that there are more med students than ever before including more lackluster ones. The reality is that programs prefer meh US applicants to good IMGs so you were a lot worse than the IMG applicant if they matched and you didn't.

I agree with the underlined; there are plenty of strong applicants reporting double digit numbers of interviews. The applicants complaining the loudest on SDN about no/low interviews are the weaker ones (red flags, no CK scores or CS passes in hand, etc). These applicants would be struggling no matter what specialty they applied to.

I think there are more applicants in psych this cycle flooding the system with far more applications per applicant, and the programs have not made any adjustments to accommodate (like more interview slots). My guess is that there will be more SOAP action this cycle, and programs will have to rethink the interview situation.