What do you think contributed to your match

[Radonkey]

Board scores - step1 239, step2 243
AOA - not AOA, ranked top 1/3
Reputation of med school - top 20 according to US news
Research - 2 small publications in the area of Cardiology
Honors in clerkship - Rad Onc, Med Onc
Away rotations - 2 (one in CA and one in WI)
#Programs applied - 50
#Interviews - 13 (5 East Coast, 5 Midwest, 3 CA)
Where matched - in NY state
What helped - a string of research since college/ got lucky.

Did you apply this year or last year? How do you know that you matched in NY? Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[stephew]

--Board Scores: 238, 221
--AOA and class rank: not AOA, top 25%
--Reputation of medical school: Top 50
--Research: Year of post-med school rad onc research (1 publication accepted after most interviews completed)
--Honors in clerkships: Peds, Surgery, Med onc, Rad onc
--# and where you did away rotations: OSU
--# of programs you applied to: all ERAS, 1 non-ERAS, ~65
--Where invited for interviews: 16 (Pittsburgh, Kansas, Wisconsin, UC-irvine, howard, rochester, yale, suny-syracuse, cinncinati, Arizona, Case Western, Cleveland Clinic, Minnesota, Utah, Colorado, MUSC)
--Where matched: Pittsburgh!
--Anything that helped your app: Research

you'll know your CNS stuff...

 

[IndyXRT]

Reading this thread is giving me an inferiority complex. Congrats to you all!

 

[pikachu]

Just another thought as I was looking over other posters' input and match lists posted on the "general residency issues" section: it seems important to be a known quantity to a program. Many people are matching at their home institution or a program where they did an away elective. Not that this is an absolute, but my guess is if a program is looking at 2 applicants who are the same on paper they will go with the student they know...does anyone else agree?

 

[trjb]

Anybody out there with board scores not as great as these? (I need hope). Mine are not the best but I am planning on rotating at a small institution so hopefully that will help me at that program.

 

[UHS05]

True...though it might also work the other way where familiarity with a program makes an applicant rank them higher (since they know the work ethic, scutwork involved, etc.). I know that I personally ranked my #1 that high because I'd rotated there and really liked everything about it. While my #2 was a great program too, it got bumped down from the top spot due to lack of complete familiarity. I guess it works both ways...

Just another thought as I was looking over other posters' input and match lists posted on the "general residency issues" section: it seems important to be a known quantity to a program. Many people are matching at their home institution or a program where they did an away elective. Not that this is an absolute, but my guess is if a program is looking at 2 applicants who are the same on paper they will go with the student they know...does anyone else agree?

 

[G'ville Nole]

>>Just another thought as I was looking over other posters' input and match lists posted on the "general residency issues" section: it seems important to be a known quantity to a program. Many people are matching at their home institution or a program where they did an away elective. Not that this is an absolute, but my guess is if a program is looking at 2 applicants who are the same on paper they will go with the student they know...does anyone else agree?<<

Actually, I matched at my highest rated program at which I did not rotate (hmmm, should this be telling me something?). I ranked the institutions where I rotated 1-2 because I had very positive experiences there and felt a distinct comfort level at both. In the back of my mind, I had the same perception that you are referring to, that all things being equal, programs would prefer a known quantity. With such a high interviewee to position ratio, though, this relationship by no means assures you of a spot.

The upside to all this is that I think it's a pretty good thing to get outside your comfort level. I'm now going to be exposed to three different ways of practice, which I'm hoping will make me more prone to crtically thinking through my patients' care than if all of my training were obtained at a single institution.

Just one guy's experience.

 

[stephew]

since this thread was tkaing a turn ive split it into a new topic. I hope to encourage more to post regarding where their going in the original thread, but here's a good place to talk about what you think contributed to your particular match.

 

[kimplera]

Although I matched at my home institution, during the interview season I definately had the feeling that it was important to rotate through programs you are very interested in. In particular, my impression (which could be wrong) is that at the top programs they look more favorably upon students who have spent a month. At one "top" program, I was asked why I didn't choose to spend a month with them. I did a month at a chicago program where I had housing available and in which I was very interested. In addition, I have a young child at home and my wife wasn't thrilled with my leaving her a single mother for yet another month. These answers didn't seem to satisfy them.

good luck to all those applying next year.

rk

 

[stephew]

Its interesting and I suppose in a way not surprising to note that people aren't focusing on the interview. I guess this is because what is coming across is "invisible" to the applicant. Aside from the obvious factors what get people selected for interivew to begin with, I think applicants underrate the interview process itself. The "known quantity" of someone rotation through can help to the extent that its an extended interview. But even in the setting of a rotation through more infomation can come up during the social context of the interview day. INteresting to hear people's perspectives.

 

[COhiker]

With much respect to the moderator, I'd like to humbly suggest that perhaps the interview is not as huge a factor as it has been made to appear in pervious posts. I don’t have the experience to back any of this up but I want to play devil’s advocate. My sense is that while individual interviewers may have a strong reaction (usually negative) towards a certain applicant, other forces often come into play. These might include what the program is looking for (which slot they want the applicant to fit into), what a more senior person thought, or simply that the person came across well to others and had a strong app. I’d like to believe that I matched because I interviewed really well but based on some feedback, that seems to not be the case. By report, a few (of the many) people I interviewed with thought I came across negatively – I won’t be specific but people seemed to not like my personality. Despite this, I’m headed there in two years. I also noticed on other interview days that people did things which I would have thought were big no-no’s. Whether these were widely observed or not is not clear to me but I know in a couple of cases that people did end up there. Part of all of this is a simple numbers game. There is a pool of applicants which generally go to the same interviews and these people have to be spread out between the given set of programs – whether they were the program’s first choice or not.

I’ll conclude by admitting that I think the interview is an essential component of the process and to take it lightly is a grave mistake. Read and assiduously follow the advice previously posed regarding good behavior at interviews but know that if you do slip up (or are perceived to have slipped up), the end of the world is a long way off.

 

[Michael Spiker]

To add in my two cents, I also feel that interviews are not the distinguishing factor. I must say that a bad interview can really hurt you, but I don't know how much a good interview helps, since just about everyone has "good" interviews.

From going to several interviews, I noticed that just about ALL the applicants were friendly, interesting, and smart people. There were no "weirdos" or seemingly competitive people. And if you talk to people, you will see that everyone usually feels pretty good about their interviews afterwards.

So therefore, I feel that interviews are important, and you should take it seriously. Be interactive, interesting, and engaging. But don't think that the interviews will make you or break you. At the end, I think it comes down to your application.

Just my thoughts.

 

[stephew]

Actually in my experience interviewing and being a part of the process (that is being there for the discussion of the applicants) at two different programs and for several years now, i can tell you that it makes a HUGE difference. Im impressed but not surprised to the degree applicants aren't aware of this. As i say it seems to be invisible to them. Obviously clear bad vibes are picked up on all sides. But most of what's discussed isn't grades, letters etc. Its "what did you think" in a personality sence.

Now this may or not have practical consequences; by that I mean that you may get ranked lower...but still match at the place. but I can tell you every single year Ive seen people who we're gerat on paper bumped down or off a list, a "weak" on paper (but obviously good enoug hto get radonc interivews which isnt anything to sneeze at) match at really amazing places and above many other "stronger" applicants because at the interview, we just liked them. Its not the "weirdo" factor that effects you. But i have to respectfully disagree with the last two posters. The interview can make or break you (at least for a given program) and more often than you think. It most certainly does not just come down to the application. I really think this element is transparent to the applicant. I like to use the story of a guy who interviewed witih us this year. he got bumped up significantly on the list because he was "caught" in a genuine act of graciousness towards a fellow applicant. He has no idea anyone saw it, and probably wouldnt even rememebr doing it. And that's the point. it was a reflection of a character our program liked. This is a nice illustration and hardly an isolated example of how these things work. Anyway, take it or leave it. someday you might be selecting applicants and id love to hear how you see things then. all the best.
Steph

Whether these were widely observed or not is not clear to me but I know in a couple of cases that people did end up there. Part of all of this is a simple numbers game. There is a pool of applicants which generally go to the same interviews and these people have to be spread out between the given set of programs – whether they were the program’s first choice or not.

I’ll conclude by admitting that I think the interview is an essential component of the process and to take it lightly is a grave mistake. Read and assiduously follow the advice previously posed regarding good behavior at interviews but know that if you do slip up (or are perceived to have slipped up), the end of the world is a long way off.

 

[marrowsmith]

Actually, I matched at my highest rated program at which I did not rotate (hmmm, should this be telling me something?). I ranked the institutions where I rotated 1-2 because I had very positive experiences there and felt a distinct comfort level at both. In the back of my mind, I had the same perception that you are referring to, that all things being equal, programs would prefer a known quantity.

Thanks for posting this, G'ville Nole! Happened to me, too (ranked the two places I rotated 1 and 2, matched at 3) - glad to hear I am not the only one to experience this. I was feeing not too good about this, thinking that my self-awareness must be close to non-existent, since I thought I performed fairly well (both clinically and socially) on my two rotations. Hearing that it happened to someone else gives me some hope that its not entirely a reflection on me.

Mock self-pity aside, I feel pretty darn good about matching where I did. In fact, had I not rotated at the other two places, I think this probably would have been 1 on my ROL. Funny thing is, during both of my rotations, I observed program attributes I was not crazy about (although they both had plenty of good attributes as well), and knowing this I ranked them 1-2 anyway. I think this observation regarding the known quantity certainly influenced my thinking. The match effectively neutralized this "devil you know..." approach for me (phew!).

 

[stephew]

hey guys dont worry about not matching at your "number one choice'. while everyone of course wants to , never forget- you matched in a specialty with a lot of brilliant people and its a gerat career. Enjoy.

 

[Pastrami King]

Actually in my experience interviewing and being a part of the process (that is being there for the discussion of the applicants) at two different programs and for several years now, i can tell you that it makes a HUGE difference. Im impressed but not surprised to the degree applicants aren't aware of this. As i say it seems to be invisible to them. Obviously clear bad vibes are picked up on all sides. But most of what's discussed isn't grades, letters etc. Its "what did you think" in a personality sence.

Now this may or not have practical consequences; by that I mean that you may get ranked lower...but still match at the place. but I can tell you every single year Ive seen people who we're gerat on paper bumped down or off a list, a "weak" on paper (but obviously good enoug hto get radonc interivews which isnt anything to sneeze at) match at really amazing places and above many other "stronger" applicants because at the interview, we just liked them. Its not the "weirdo" factor that effects you. But i have to respectfully disagree with the last two posters. The interview can make or break you (at least for a given program) and more often than you think. It most certainly does not just come down to the application. I really think this element is transparent to the applicant. I like to use the story of a guy who interviewed witih us this year. he got bumped up significantly on the list because he was "caught" in a genuine act of graciousness towards a fellow applicant. He has no idea anyone saw it, and probably wouldnt even rememebr doing it. And that's the point. it was a reflection of a character our program liked. This is a nice illustration and hardly an isolated example of how these things work. Anyway, take it or leave it. someday you might be selecting applicants and id love to hear how you see things then. all the best.
Steph

Whether these were widely observed or not is not clear to me but I know in a couple of cases that people did end up there. Part of all of this is a simple numbers game. There is a pool of applicants which generally go to the same interviews and these people have to be spread out between the given set of programs – whether they were the program’s first choice or not.

I’ll conclude by admitting that I think the interview is an essential component of the process and to take it lightly is a grave mistake. Read and assiduously follow the advice previously posed regarding good behavior at interviews but know that if you do slip up (or are perceived to have slipped up), the end of the world is a long way off.

This is interesting. How do we all feel about the wealth of literature supporting the argument that unstructured interviews are incredibly poor predictors of job performance, personality, etc. The government has actually put in a lot of time and effort to analyze this and suggest improvements in hiring interviews. To quote one study, "the purpose of the interview must be clearly articulated so that the interview and interviewer training can be designed to achieve that purpose. The interview structure should be increased by developing a "job analysis" set of questions that is posed to all candidates and scored using behavioral anchors... Interviewers should receive more training in rater bias, listening skills, and interview structure. Interviewers should not have access to the candidate's application unless the interview is used to verify information."

 

[stephew]

How do we all feel about the wealth of literature supporting the argument that unstructured interviews are incredibly poor predictors of job performance, personality, etc.

I dont think much of it at all. One can be wrong alright; but you really can see a class shaped by personalities and in the process we go through with this, a pretty good job is done creating a group that gels and finding people who are good juniors.