This year, are psych programs rejecting more, or interviewing more?

[Nahom]

Given the sudden increase of applications in psych this year, are programs interviewing more people, or are the interview spots essentially unchanged and they are rejecting more?

This is an important question with big implications. If the number of interview spots is mostly unchanged, the charting outcomes data that compares rank to % probability of matching from last year should still hold weight this year. Last year for example, 9 invites gave you a 90% chance of matching in psych (assuming you ranked all programs you interviewed at). Do you think this still holds generally true this year?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Old&InTheWay]

Apparently, according to preliminary NRMP data, there are actually fewer applications overall due to a decrease in IMG applicants.

The data I would really like to see included in NRMP data would be the number of applicants who got their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. rank. I don't care if someone ranked 20 programs if they got their 2nd choice; I wonder if the people who rank 15+ programs do well in the match because they are worriers who overdo all aspects of their applications.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Apparently, according to preliminary NRMP data, there are actually fewer applications overall due to a decrease in IMG applicants.

The data I would really like to see included in NRMP data would be the number of applicants who got their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. rank. I don't care if someone ranked 20 programs if they got their 2nd choice; I wonder if the people who rank 15+ programs do well in the match because they are worriers who overdo all aspects of their applications.

I don't think many of those IMGs were going to be getting invites however.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Given the sudden increase of applications in psych this year, are programs interviewing more people, or are the interview spots essentially unchanged and they are rejecting more?

This is an important question with big implications. If the number of interview spots is mostly unchanged, the charting outcomes data that compares rank to % probability of matching from last year should still hold weight this year. Last year for example, 9 invites gave you a 90% chance of matching in psych (assuming you ranked all programs you interviewed at). Do you think this still holds generally true this year?

Programs are generally slow to respond to changes. They have years of data about the type of applicant that matriculates and the number of ranks to match. When programs get too close to the end of their list, they evaluate what happened and take precautions next year. Programs do not generally change their formula just because they get extra applications.

 

[ridethecliche]

I don't think this increase is shocking or sudden. Every program I've interviewed at has said that there's been a steady increase over the last few years. They're pretty ecstatic that the pointy end of the applicant pool has deepened. Though, this may explained in large part by the same folks are applying EVERYWHERE on top and the larger number of applicants applying to mid and lower tier places. I have no data to support this, so I'm looking forward to the updates.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I don't think this increase is shocking or sudden. Every program I've interviewed at has said that there's been a steady increase over the last few years. They're pretty ecstatic that the pointy end of the applicant pool has deepened. Though, this may explained in large part by the same folks are applying EVERYWHERE on top and the larger number of applicants applying to mid and lower tier places. I have no data to support this, so I'm looking forward to the updates.

The pointy end???

 

[TexasPhysician]

The pointy end???

More males applying?

 

[ridethecliche]

The pointy end???

 

[psychattending]

I suspect that most of us are not increasing the number of people we are interviewing. Interviewing takes a lot of time and effort. A program would only increase interview slots if it thought it was at risk of not filling. More applications per applicant runs the risk of producing more unfilled slots but up until now that has not occurred.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

BOTH ends are "pointy"...

 

[ridethecliche]

Yes, there's an arrow there for a reason and we're concerned about that end. It was pretty clear I wasn't talking about the applications in your trash pile..

 

[clausewitz2]

Yes, there's an arrow there for a reason and we're concerned about that end. It was pretty clear I wasn't talking about the applications in your trash pile..

"Tail" is how we usually refer to this in English.

 

[ridethecliche]

"Tail" is how we usually refer to this in English.

Wait, are you trying to teach me statistics? That is adorable!

In this case, the sharp end or the pointy end (colloquial) means the part where most problems are going to be found.
THE SHARP END | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

In the match, with folks applying widely and the pool of qualified applicants increasing, it creates a problem of sorts for the stable marriage problem because folks are theoretically entertaining more of the same suitors since programs, interview slots, and positions stay stable.

Edited to remove excessive pre coffee snark that would invariably ruffle feathers.

 

[whackamole21]

I hope ridethecliche doesn’t end up being a co-resident of mine.

 

[ridethecliche]

I hope ridethecliche doesn’t end up being a co-resident of mine.

You sound boring enough to be safe tbh.

 

[whackamole21]

You sound boring enough to be safe tbh.

Yikes

 

[ridethecliche]