What # did you match on your ROL?

[givesmegas]

Probably would've been better to post right after last years match, but oh well. Just curious to see where applicants have historically (past few years) matched on their ROL. Seems like a fare number of PDs and interviewers are saying that you'll match at your top spot.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[spezimdoc]

Bump

In case there's more input before it gets lost.

 

[Plead the Fifth]

4/12

 

[deleted126335]

Not a super meaningful statistic, given that the big cut is the interview. If you make the interview cut,they are in theory willing to offer you a spot. Even Podunk med school boasts their high success rate at placing their graduates at one of their top three choices.
A more telling question, maybe coupled with credentials- Were there any programs high on your list that didn't offer you an interview?

 

[TeamZissou]

A more telling question, maybe coupled with credentials- Were there any programs high on your list that didn't offer you an interview?

If anyone wants to share I'm sure I'm not the only student who would like to know.

 

[MilkmanAl]

Of course, you'd need to know what criteria made the programs high on your list pre-interview. I, for one, didn't know a whole lot about most programs other than "I hear it's good" or something similar before interviewing there. Most places I wanted to go to were high on my list purely because of location.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Not a super meaningful statistic, given that the big cut is the interview. If you make the interview cut,they are in theory willing to offer you a spot. Even Podunk med school boasts their high success rate at placing their graduates at one of their top three choices.
A more telling question, maybe coupled with credentials- Were there any programs high on your list that didn't offer you an interview?

I think there are only a handful of students who get offers from every place they apply. So much of it depends on geography. An above average student from a location that one program has historically never drawn from (due to distance or completely different demographics) may get shunned in favor of an average student from a school that traditionally sends a lot of their students to that program. This is why I think it can be very important to let programs know if you have some reason to want to be in that particular area. Otherwise, why waste an interview spot on someone you have a very low likelihood of getting (and who will probably cancel the interview as soon as they get their "critical" number of invites) when you could interview someone you have at least a 50/50 shot at successfully recruiting.
ERAS and the internet have completely changed the dynamics of the process allowing students to easily apply to 70 or 80 programs with the click of a button and to find out intimate details about programs that are geographically distant to them. It wasn't that long ago that each program required a separate hand written application and letters of rec that each applicant had to provide their letter writers with stamped and addressed envelopes. Back then, applying to 10 programs was a big headache. I can't imagine applying to 80 under those circumstances.

 

[deleted126335]

I think there are only a handful of students who get offers from every place they apply. So much of it depends on geography. An above average student from a location that one program has historically never drawn from (due to distance or completely different demographics) may get shunned in favor of an average student from a school that traditionally sends a lot of their students to that program. This is why I think it can be very important to let programs know if you have some reason to want to be in that particular area. Otherwise, why waste an interview spot on someone you have a very low likelihood of getting (and who will probably cancel the interview as soon as they get their "critical" number of invites) when you could interview someone you have at least a 50/50 shot at successfully recruiting.
ERAS and the internet have completely changed the dynamics of the process allowing students to easily apply to 70 or 80 programs with the click of a button and to find out intimate details about programs that are geographically distant to them. It wasn't that long ago that each program required a separate hand written application and letters of rec that each applicant had to provide their letter writers with stamped and addressed envelopes. Back then, applying to 10 programs was a big headache. I can't imagine applying to 80 under those circumstances.

A valid point. But, bottom line is that you don't rank a place that declined to interview you because you have virtually ZERO chance of matching there. Thus the questionable meaning of "matching at one of your top two or three choices". This statistic has been an invariably high number since I matched more than 20 years ago. 91% is the current poll results in this thread for one of an individual's top three choices.

 

[nap$ter]

Probably would've been better to post right after last years match, but oh well. Just curious to see where applicants have historically (past few years) matched on their ROL. Seems like a fare number of PDs and interviewers are saying that you'll match at your top spot.

you're gonna get a skewed biased look here - don't pay the poll no mind.

buncha guys who got their #1 choice are gonna answer. oh, and i got my #1 choice

rank in the order you truly prefer - gaming the match can burn ya.

 

[ASA6]

Not to mention all of this information is available on charting the outcomes. And most people do get one of their top 3 choices.

 

[Gern Blansten]

A valid point. But, bottom line is that you don't rank a place that declined to interview you because you have virtually ZERO chance of matching there. Thus the questionable meaning of "matching at one of your top two or three choices". This statistic has been an invariably high number since I matched more than 20 years ago. 91% is the current poll results in this thread for one of an individual's top three choices.

Oh, I see what you are saying. Your number one choice may be Mass Gen but you never sniffed an interview there and got interviews only at 4 nearby programs. So, maybe you still got your number one choice, but only because you never got an interview at many other programs you would have preferred. Good point.
I do know of at least one program that has not been competitive and will shoot hard for average to below average candidates because their track record with the top candidates is pretty dismal.

 

[spezimdoc]

Not to mention all of this information is available on charting the outcomes. And most people do get one of their top 3 choices.

I think the info on charting outcomes just tells you how many contiguous ranks you need to match, but nothing about where on the rank list they match.

 

[acrolentiginous]

What are the stats for matching into Transitional or Preliminary Internal Medicine or Surgery years, regarding how far applicants, on average, go down their rank lists?

 

[spezimdoc]

From what it seems like on the trail, is that getting an interview pretty much qualifies you for the residency program and the interview is meant for them to make sure you're not socially inept and also let us get a feel for a program.

I've had similar instances of programs telling applicants a) we've all probably applied at too many places, b) we're interviewing at more than enough places, and c) a majority of us will get our top 1 or 2 places on our rol (I'm sure assuming we don't rank places we didn't get interviews at).

I'm guessing what the OP is wondering, which I've also wondered, is if this is really the case. It makes sense because I think a lot of us look for and weigh different things whether it be location, reputation, research, etc so everyone's top ranks are diverse enough that a lot of applicants can get their 1 or 2. However, it's can't hurt to see what the "evidence" whether it be skewed or not (hopefully since it's anonymous it will be minimize that).

 

[givesmegas]

From what it seems like on the trail, is that getting an interview pretty much qualifies you for the residency program and the interview is meant for them to make sure you're not socially inept and also let us get a feel for a program.

I've had similar instances of programs telling applicants a) we've all probably applied at too many places, b) we're interviewing at more than enough places, and c) a majority of us will get our top 1 or 2 places on our rol (I'm sure assuming we don't rank places we didn't get interviews at).

I'm guessing what the OP is wondering, which I've also wondered, is if this is really the case. It makes sense because I think a lot of us look for and weigh different things whether it be location, reputation, research, etc so everyone's top ranks are diverse enough that a lot of applicants can get their 1 or 2. However, it's can't hurt to see what the "evidence" whether it be skewed or not (hopefully since it's anonymous it will be minimize that).

 

[givesmegas]

What are the stats for matching into Transitional or Preliminary Internal Medicine or Surgery years, regarding how far applicants, on average, go down their rank lists?

This was in the 2009 Charting Outcomes but not 2011. Someone on the internship forum thought because it wasn't really accurate with the "contiguous ranks".

 

[acrolentiginous]

Okay, thanks. Is anyone willing to give anecdotal evidence regarding transitional/prelim matching?

 

[deleted126335]

Oh, I see what you are saying. Your number one choice may be Mass Gen but you never sniffed an interview there and got interviews only at 4 nearby programs. So, maybe you still got your number one choice, but only because you never got an interview at many other programs you would have preferred. Good point.
I do know of at least one program that has not been competitive and will shoot hard for average to below average candidates because their track record with the top candidates is pretty dismal.

Yup. The guy who goes to medschool in New England applies to MGH, Brigham, BI -- but doesn't get an interview at any of them. Ranks BU his first choice and matches there. He and the school legitimately claim he matched at his "first choice". Thus my point at it not being a meaningful statistic.

 

[givesmegas]

Yup. The guy who goes to medschool in New England applies to MGH, Brigham, BI -- but doesn't get an interview at any of them. Ranks BU his first choice and matches there. He and the school legitimately claim he matched at his "first choice". Thus my point at it not being a meaningful statistic.

I was going for the spots on the rol assuming people only ranked programs they actually interviewed at. People don't actually rank programs they didn't get invites from do they?

 

[Gern Blansten]

I was going for the spots on the rol assuming people only ranked programs they actually interviewed at. People don't actually rank programs they didn't get invites from do they?

I have not heard of this practice and it would be pointless unless you and the PD had an agreement to do a phone / skype interview or something if you were unable to interview in person for some reason (for instance if weather caused a travel delay or if their was a death in the family when you were scheduled to interview). I have never heard of this occurring, but it doesn't seem out of the question.