What does post interview correspondence really mean?

[LadyJubilee8_18]

I got a letter from the PD at a program I really liked saying he thought I'd be a good match there. Of course I was incredibly excited because I'd love to do my residency at that program, but a different letter made me wonder if these emails are a as genuine as they seem. One of my friends on the interview trail told me of an encouraging letter she got from a program where we both interviewed. It was sent just after the day ended and I told her that I thought they really wanted her. Later that night I got the exact same letter with the exact same wording. Do all interviewees get the "rank us high because we loved you" letter? How much can I count on the correspondence?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[smq123]

I got a letter from the PD at a program I really liked saying he thought I'd be a good match there. Of course I was incredibly excited because I'd love to do my residency at that program, but a different letter made me wonder if these emails are a as genuine as they seem. One of my friends on the interview trail told me of an encouraging letter she got from a program where we both interviewed. It was sent just after the day ended and I told her that I thought they really wanted her. Later that night I got the exact same letter with the exact same wording. Do all interviewees get the "rank us high because we loved you" letter? How much can I count on the correspondence?

For your own peace of mind, I wouldn't count on it much.

The main objective of every PD is to have applicants rank their program highly, because if the vast majority of people they interviewed do so, then they'll be almost sure to fill. And that's the real goal of the PD - to have his/her program fill so that they don't have to scramble.

(I've also heard some rumors that the PD's salary is tied to how low they have to go down their rank list, and that they lose money if their program doesn't fill, but I can't say how accurate that is.)

So, my personal belief is that a lot of such post-interview "WE LOVE YOU!!!" letters/cards from PDs is....well....blowing smoke.

Everyone knows a story where a PD said to an applicant, "You're ranked to match," and then the person either doesn't match there or has to scramble. So, the prevailing wisdom is not to put too much stock into these types of things. Sorry.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

I got a letter from the PD at a program I really liked saying he thought I'd be a good match there. Of course I was incredibly excited because I'd love to do my residency at that program, but a different letter made me wonder if these emails are a as genuine as they seem. One of my friends on the interview trail told me of an encouraging letter she got from a program where we both interviewed. It was sent just after the day ended and I told her that I thought they really wanted her. Later that night I got the exact same letter with the exact same wording. Do all interviewees get the "rank us high because we loved you" letter? How much can I count on the correspondence?

So I just interviewed at a pretty highly thought of program, and was kind of flattered to see an email in my inbox when I got back home (had a little bit of a trip to get back, so not surprising). It basically said, "you have a great application, your interviews were great, you'd be a good fit, etc," and the kicker was that "while they weren't done interviewing so couldn't say exactly, they were confident that I would be ranked to have a good chance to match." (All paraphrased).

2 problems:
1) There was no greeting (i.e., generic email).
2) The timestamp was sent BEFORE I INTERVIEWED.

Basically, I could have slapped all of my interviewers silly, insulted their mothers, ate an entire wheel of cheese and pooped in their fridge, and I would have returned home to see that email.

Epic interview follow-up email fail.

So, I would say, count on it ~ 0%.

 

[howelljolly]

So I just interviewed at a pretty highly thought of program, and was kind of flattered to see an email in my inbox when I got back home (had a little bit of a trip to get back, so not surprising). It basically said, "you have a great application, your interviews were great, you'd be a good fit, etc," and the kicker was that "while they weren't done interviewing so couldn't say exactly, they were confident that I would be ranked to have a good chance to match." (All paraphrased).

2 problems:
1) There was no greeting (i.e., generic email).
2) The timestamp was sent BEFORE I INTERVIEWED.

Basically, I could have slapped all of my interviewers silly, insulted their mothers, ate an entire wheel of cheese and pooped in their fridge, and I would have returned home to see that email.

Epic interview follow-up email fail.

So, I would say, count on it ~ 0%.

legend

 

[LadyJubilee8_18]

So I just interviewed at a pretty highly thought of program, and was kind of flattered to see an email in my inbox when I got back home (had a little bit of a trip to get back, so not surprising). It basically said, "you have a great application, your interviews were great, you'd be a good fit, etc," and the kicker was that "while they weren't done interviewing so couldn't say exactly, they were confident that I would be ranked to have a good chance to match." (All paraphrased).

2 problems:
1) There was no greeting (i.e., generic email).
2) The timestamp was sent BEFORE I INTERVIEWED.

Basically, I could have slapped all of my interviewers silly, insulted their mothers, ate an entire wheel of cheese and pooped in their fridge, and I would have returned home to see that email.

Epic interview follow-up email fail.

So, I would say, count on it ~ 0%.

nice, well there you go. This is a really ****ty game they play. If every program sends these emails, then isn't it ultimately like no one sends them? Every applicant thinks every program is going to rank them

 

[smq123]

This is a really ****ty game they play.

Couldn't agree with you more. The whole process kind of sucks.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

So I just interviewed at a pretty highly thought of program, and was kind of flattered to see an email in my inbox when I got back home (had a little bit of a trip to get back, so not surprising). It basically said, "you have a great application, your interviews were great, you'd be a good fit, etc," and the kicker was that "while they weren't done interviewing so couldn't say exactly, they were confident that I would be ranked to have a good chance to match." (All paraphrased).

2 problems:
1) There was no greeting (i.e., generic email).
2) The timestamp was sent BEFORE I INTERVIEWED.

Basically, I could have slapped all of my interviewers silly, insulted their mothers, ate an entire wheel of cheese and pooped in their fridge, and I would have returned home to see that email.

Epic interview follow-up email fail.

So, I would say, count on it ~ 0%.

So lame! This stuff creates so much distrust between applicants and programs. I know they think we lie, but it sounds like they lie, too. Maybe post-interview correspondence really should be banned.

On another note, how do you reply to these messages. I've gotten a few that actually appeared personally written, but who knows? Are you sending a reply email?

 

[Rogue Synapse]

I am taking every letter with a grain of salt and not replying beyond my own than you letter, which would be sent no matter what sort of post-interview correspondence they send me. I have gotten a few nice handwritten notes from PDs, which are flattering as someone mentioned above, but I have every reason to think that I'm certainly not the only one getting flattering handwritten notes. Also, I would point out that it's not necessarily a conniving scheme on the part of the programs, any more so than our writing thank you notes to every program we apply to and mentioning personal details and our excitement for the program is deception on our part. It's just a nice thing to do.

 

[smq123]

Also, I would point out that it's not necessarily a conniving scheme on the part of the programs, any more so than our writing thank you notes to every program we apply to and mentioning personal details and our excitement for the program is deception on our part. It's just a nice thing to do.

While I agree that polite communication is a nice thing to do, when a program throws around phrases like "will likely be ranked to match," or "we will be sure to rank you very highly," or even "we think we will see you here next year," then it becomes a game, and a crappy game at that.

 

[ResidentMD]

While I agree that polite communication is a nice thing to do, when a program throws around phrases like "will likely be ranked to match," or "we will be sure to rank you very highly," or even "we think we will see you here next year," then it becomes a game, and a crappy game at that.

The unfortunate thing is, when one finds a program that one really likes, then the fact that it is perceived as such a crappy game, puts a sort of sheet of doubt over any communication that you may still express. I think that sucks too.

 

[howelljolly]

I read somewhere, that across the board, the interview will rule out about 10% of the applicants from the program's ROL.

So, one has a 90% chance of being ranked, provided that one has no idea if they succeeded in alienating the program.

Now, where you are ranked is the issue. I don't think the program can even know where an individual will be ranked until they have interviewed most of the applicants. And even then, you stand out because you are fresh in their memory. Once the program goes through their notes on other interviewees, you might not seem so hot.

Also, keep in mind that programs interview 10-20 applicants per seat, multiply that by the number of seats... you need a computer to figure out where you stand.

 

[MrBurns10]

So I just interviewed at a pretty highly thought of program, and was kind of flattered to see an email in my inbox when I got back home (had a little bit of a trip to get back, so not surprising). It basically said, "you have a great application, your interviews were great, you'd be a good fit, etc," and the kicker was that "while they weren't done interviewing so couldn't say exactly, they were confident that I would be ranked to have a good chance to match." (All paraphrased).

2 problems:
1) There was no greeting (i.e., generic email).
2) The timestamp was sent BEFORE I INTERVIEWED.

Basically, I could have slapped all of my interviewers silly, insulted their mothers, ate an entire wheel of cheese and pooped in their fridge, and I would have returned home to see that email.

Epic interview follow-up email fail.

So, I would say, count on it ~ 0%.

What we really need is to hear from the girl that didn't show up to the interview...

 

[LucidSplash]

I don't think the program can even know where an individual will be ranked until they have interviewed most of the applicants.

I have no idea what the experience is across the various specialties, but in my recent experience, most of my programs thus far have made it clear that they rank the applicants immediately after we leave on the day of the interview and then hold a final ranking session after all interviews are completed. So while I agree that a program might not know exactly where you will fall on their final list, they have a pretty good idea on your day of interview in what general place you will be on the list.

 

[howelljolly]

I have no idea what the experience is across the various specialties, but in my recent experience, most of my programs thus far have made it clear that they rank the applicants immediately after we leave on the day of the interview and then hold a final ranking session after all interviews are completed. So while I agree that a program might not know exactly where you will fall on their final list, they have a pretty good idea on your day of interview in what general place you will be on the list.

I heard something to that effect as well. That they use a point system, and basically know where you stand immediately afterward. But when you say that they rank you immediately afterward, does that mean that they pull out their running list and stick the applicants for that day somewhere on it? Sounds kinda scary, because near the end of the interview season, the shiny new applicant can bump off a more distant but well qualified applicant for no good reason.

 

[LucidSplash]

I heard something to that effect as well. That they use a point system, and basically know where you stand immediately afterward. But when you say that they rank you immediately afterward, does that mean that they pull out their running list and stick the applicants for that day somewhere on it? Sounds kinda scary, because near the end of the interview season, the shiny new applicant can bump off a more distant but well qualified applicant for no good reason.

The impression I perceived was that they rank you with others on your interview day. At the end, they take the individual rank lists from each interview day and reevaluate and compile a final rank list. I'm not convinced that the interview season is so long that those who interviewed early are at a disadvantage to those who interviewed later.

 

[mcl]

The impression I perceived was that they rank you with others on your interview day. At the end, they take the individual rank lists from each interview day and reevaluate and compile a final rank list. I'm not convinced that the interview season is so long that those who interviewed early are at a disadvantage to those who interviewed later.

That's basically how my program handles it. We have groups A, B, C and D and designate applicants immediately after the interview. Usually most of the people we interview start out in the A group, with a few in B and only one or two in C. The Selection Committee will meet in January and make a preliminary list to submit to the faculty, then there will be a final rank order meeting where placement is adjusted. Applicants aren't advantaged (or disadvantaged) by the timing of their interview, and it takes some significantly bad behavior not to be ranked.

My program will send a "thank you for coming" letter to everyone who came, and the PD will follow up with emails to the people who ended up in our A group. We don't promise that we'll rank to match, but I don't see a problem with telling someone who we like, who we hope likes us, that we plan to rank them highly.

In the end, if applicants rank the programs they visited in the order of their preference, and programs rank the applicants they interviewed in the order of their preference--it will all work out on Match Day.

 

[ResidentMD]

That's basically how my program handles it. We have groups A, B, C and D and designate applicants immediately after the interview. Usually most of the people we interview start out in the A group, with a few in B and only one or two in C. The Selection Committee will meet in January and make a preliminary list to submit to the faculty, then there will be a final rank order meeting where placement is adjusted. Applicants aren't advantaged (or disadvantaged) by the timing of their interview, and it takes some significantly bad behavior not to be ranked.

My program will send a "thank you for coming" letter to everyone who came, and the PD will follow up with emails to the people who ended up in our A group. We don't promise that we'll rank to match, but I don't see a problem with telling someone who we like, who we hope likes us, that we plan to rank them highly.

In the end, if applicants rank the programs they visited in the order of their preference, and programs rank the applicants they interviewed in the order of their preference--it will all work out on Match Day.

So when does the PD follow up with these emails? Is it immediately after the interview or sometime in February?

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

So lame! This stuff creates so much distrust between applicants and programs. I know they think we lie, but it sounds like they lie, too. Maybe post-interview correspondence really should be banned.

On another note, how do you reply to these messages. I've gotten a few that actually appeared personally written, but who knows? Are you sending a reply email?

I didn't send a reply email, mostly because it was so generic. I did send individual emails to my interviewers thanking them, etc.

I have gotten more appropriate "thank you for interviewing with us" emails, which I think are a nice touch, but this was obviously a bird of a different feather.

Honestly, I've heard so many stories of people being told that they were high on rank lists and not matching, that I just assume programs are all out to blow smoke up my bum. I hate that it's come to that, and I apologize to any programs that are being truthful with their compliments, but as is so often the case a few bad apples ruin it for the rest.

I mean let's be realistic. Programs don't want to go unfilled, as it's bad for their image. So they are best served by telling everyone that they are willing to take that they will rank them highly, even when obviously some of those people will not make the cut. Just like we as med students are inclined to tell every program how much we love them, even the school we rank No.16, because we want them to rank us highly. It's all a house of lies!!!!

The one bright side of this is that now I can genuinely make my match list without worrying about how programs are going to rank me, (which I know is what you're supposed to do anyway), but I don't think the NRMP meant for it to happen this way...

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

What we really need is to hear from the girl that didn't show up to the interview...

Haha and yes, there was one applicant who didn't show up for the interview, so I would love to know if she woke up that day with an email telling her how great her interview was

 

[howelljolly]

Now that the applicant to seat ratio is approaching 2:1, no program needs to worry about going unfilled. Last year there were very few unfilled programs. This year there may be none at all.

So these mindgames should stop.

They are talking about closing the loophole which allows IMGs to prematch. They should find another way (besides cost) to deter pan-applications, and the subsequent no-shows at interviews.

If people would apply to programs they would be happy to be at, and everyone would stop playing mindgames, - the match would fit residents where they need to be. Students can apply wisely, and programs will fill with the applicants they like.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Now that the applicant to seat ratio is approaching 2:1, no program needs to worry about going unfilled. Last year there were very few unfilled programs. This year there may be none at all.

So these mindgames should stop.

They are talking about closing the loophole which allows IMGs to prematch. They should find another way (besides cost) to deter pan-applications, and the subsequent no-shows at interviews.

If people would apply to programs they would be happy to be at, and everyone would stop playing mindgames, - the match would fit residents where they need to be. Students can apply wisely, and programs will fill with the applicants they like.

I realize there are pros/cons to both systems, but I almost wonder if it wouldn't be easier to have the set-up similar to u-grad and med school. That way, once you get into a program that you like, you can just drop the rest. I know if I had heard back from some of the places I've interviewed at so far, I'd be cutting programs like whoa. It's just that the risk/benefit analysis is tilted so heavily in the "risk" direction (not matching), that no one wants to take any chances, and I understand that.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

I realize there are pros/cons to both systems, but I almost wonder if it wouldn't be easier to have the set-up similar to u-grad and med school. That way, once you get into a program that you like, you can just drop the rest. I know if I had heard back from some of the places I've interviewed at so far, I'd be cutting programs like whoa. It's just that the risk/benefit analysis is tilted so heavily in the "risk" direction (not matching), that no one wants to take any chances, and I understand that.

There have been several SDN threads trying to solve this problem.

One option is to do away with the match altogether. Let programs and applicants simply interview, offer, and figure things out for themselves. Although this might solve some problems, it creates others. First, programs would have an incentive to fill slots as quickly as possible -- hence if your interview would be in Jan you might be contacted now and told that all slots are full, don't bother coming. This in fact happens at some programs that prematch their spots -- SDN threads like this tend to show up in early January. Second, the "best" students might get spots up front, but those in the middle and those who are weaker might need to wait a long, long time to actually find a slot, waiting for others to decline spots etc. I have seen fellowship apps without a match -- it can be ugly and bad.

Another option is to create an "early decision" type process. If you know exactly what your #1 will be, you can apply early decision and hence avoid all the interview time/expense. This might be very handy if you have a spousal/family issue that limits your options. I think this could work -- as an applicant you could only apply early decision to a single program, and each program could accept as many early decision applicants as they want (or it could be limited to a certain % of slots). But this would only benefit a small percentage of applicants, you would need to somehow avoid the "please look at my application and tell me if I should apply early decision" type discussions, and might actually add a bunch more stress to the system rather than less if people are rejected for early decision.

If you simply allow anyone to prematch, the whole match will degenerate. Although the match seems crazy at times, I honestly feel it's better than any alternative I've seen discussed.

 

[ResidentMD]

There have been several SDN threads trying to solve this problem.

One option is to do away with the match altogether. Let programs and applicants simply interview, offer, and figure things out for themselves. Although this might solve some problems, it creates others. First, programs would have an incentive to fill slots as quickly as possible -- hence if your interview would be in Jan you might be contacted now and told that all slots are full, don't bother coming. This in fact happens at some programs that prematch their spots -- SDN threads like this tend to show up in early January. Second, the "best" students might get spots up front, but those in the middle and those who are weaker might need to wait a long, long time to actually find a slot, waiting for others to decline spots etc. I have seen fellowship apps without a match -- it can be ugly and bad.

Another option is to create an "early decision" type process. If you know exactly what your #1 will be, you can apply early decision and hence avoid all the interview time/expense. This might be very handy if you have a spousal/family issue that limits your options. I think this could work -- as an applicant you could only apply early decision to a single program, and each program could accept as many early decision applicants as they want (or it could be limited to a certain % of slots). But this would only benefit a small percentage of applicants, you would need to somehow avoid the "please look at my application and tell me if I should apply early decision" type discussions, and might actually add a bunch more stress to the system rather than less if people are rejected for early decision.

If you simply allow anyone to prematch, the whole match will degenerate. Although the match seems crazy at times, I honestly feel it's better than any alternative I've seen discussed.

I agree. However, I am in favor of having prematches for certain reasons e.g. if a candidate wants to be at a particular program for a really particular reason (MD-PhD) with a mentor and lab already in place there.

The other thing where I think prematches help are for couples. I have seen couples going through a lot of trouble to match. A prematch would ease this out (I think).

 

[Hassler]

In my opinion, I think there should be a set limit on the number of programs one can apply to or interview at, i.e. it would be a match violation if you go above the limit. For example, you can apply to no more than 50 programs in IM and can interview at no more than 15 places. That way, applicants need to be more selective about their selection and programs get to interview the ones that are truly interested.

 

[howelljolly]

In my opinion, I think there should be a set limit on the number of programs one can apply to or interview at, i.e. it would be a match violation if you go above the limit. For example, you can apply to no more than 50 programs in IM and can interview at no more than 15 places. That way, applicants need to be more selective about their selection and programs get to interview the ones that are truly interested.

I agree. I've met people on the interview trail who have applied to 175 programs,and have gone on 20 interviews, And they are not showing up for 20 more because they applied to them "just in case". They had accepted an invite early on, and invariably (this year) an equally qualified applicant ( lets call them M.E.) was rejected randomly.

So now, later in the application cycle, Uberapplicant has found 10 programs that they're happy with. 20 programs are short two applicants that they like - the one they invited and the one they rejected. And, Applicant M.E. did not get to interview at the program they liked because Uberapplicant wanted to hold on to an interview "just in case"

 

[GmailQueen]

I agree. I've met people on the interview trail who have applied to 175 programs,and have gone on 20 interviews, And they are not showing up for 20 more because they applied to them "just in case". They had accepted an invite early on, and invariably (this year) an equally qualified applicant ( lets call them M.E.) was rejected randomly.

So now, later in the application cycle, Uberapplicant has found 10 programs that they're happy with. 20 programs are short two applicants that they like - the one they invited and the one they rejected. And, Applicant M.E. did not get to interview at the program they liked because Uberapplicant wanted to hold on to an interview "just in case"

It seems that most programs have a waitlist for interview spots because they expect this to happen. So as long as Uberapplicant cancels their interview with 2-3 weeks notice, the program can invite someone else. Simply not showing up is definitely rude.

 

[ResidentMD]

In my opinion, I think there should be a set limit on the number of programs one can apply to or interview at, i.e. it would be a match violation if you go above the limit. For example, you can apply to no more than 50 programs in IM and can interview at no more than 15 places. That way, applicants need to be more selective about their selection and programs get to interview the ones that are truly interested.

While perfect in theory, this would go heavily against -

1. Someone with a less than perfect application (including AMGs who failed on one of their steps)
2. IMGs
3.Those couples matching, especially in competitive subspecialties.

Also who knows if Brighams wouldnt mind taking a guy who failed his CK but set up a fully functioning health program in Africa that has saved over a thousand lives?

 

[Hassler]

While perfect in theory, this would go heavily against -

1. Someone with a less than perfect application (including AMGs who failed on one of their steps)
2. IMGs
3.Those couples matching, especially in competitive subspecialties.

Also who knows if Brighams wouldnt mind taking a guy who failed his CK but set up a fully functioning health program in Africa that has saved over a thousand lives?

Well that's why you have to be selective in where to apply. You should apply to only places where you have a realistic shot + some dream programs and safeties. I don't think people should be applying to 175 programs even they fail one of the steps or is an IMG. Perhaps there can be a higher limit for more competitive specialties.

As for couples matching, I think if both partners can interview at 15 programs each, that's still a lot of places and should be able to match. Yes, it's more work but that's the cost of trying to stay together.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Interesting, the contrast between specialties in their approach to the match.

My hubby, when he was applying to ortho, got NO love letters (although he still matched).

My research mentor told me his daughter still got letters of promise from the programs whose interviews she cancelled...She was applying to medicine.

Moral: very specialty-dependent.

Applying to path/FM/IM/Psych/Peds: love letter should = response

Applying to Ortho/Plastics/Derm/ENT: love letter should garner response

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Well that's why you have to be selective in where to apply. You should apply to only places where you have a realistic shot + some dream programs and safeties. I don't think people should be applying to 175 programs even they fail one of the steps or is an IMG. Perhaps there can be a higher limit for more competitive specialties.

As for couples matching, I think if both partners can interview at 15 programs each, that's still a lot of places and should be able to match. Yes, it's more work but that's the cost of trying to stay together.

I think if there was a capped system, the only difference you would notice is a significantly higher unmatched rate in the competitive specialties, as well as (like another poster mentioned before) couples matching becoming an absolute nightmare. If both partners could interview at 15 places, sure they would be fine. But each partner's applications are independent and on different timeframes - they would be hard pressed to line up 15 interviews that corresponded with each other in a capped system.

 

[howelljolly]

While perfect in theory, this would go heavily against -

1. Someone with a less than perfect application (including AMGs who failed on one of their steps)
2. IMGs
3.Those couples matching, especially in competitive subspecialties.

Also who knows if Brighams wouldnt mind taking a guy who failed his CK but set up a fully functioning health program in Africa that has saved over a thousand lives?

Well yes, but 175 apps is excessive. Which specialites are competitive vs. not tends to be cyclical. And even then, keep the same limit across the board and force applicants to be self selective. They/we were self selective in applying to undergrad and med school. Its not hard.

Though it would require more transparency from the programs themselves. And you're right who knows if Brigham might like that type of applicant... though the way the system is now, the PD over there wouldnt even LOOK at such an application since they have thousands of apps with great CK scores - saving lives notwithstanding.

If there was a limit to the number of apps, applicants with something to offer would apply to the program - not every yahoo with an extra $25.

Students would apply wisely, and programs could pay more attention to applications.

And I assure you, they do not pay attention due to the number of apps they have to sift through.

Ive recieved a rejection email which quite nicely and civilly gave me the reasons I was not offered an interview. However, the reasons didnt apply to me at all (failed a USMLE attempt and graduated med school > 5 years ago). I replied to them to point this out... didnt make a difference. They simply didnt read my app, and sent me someone elses personalized rejection letter.

 

[howelljolly]

I think if there was a capped system, the only difference you would notice is a significantly higher unmatched rate in the competitive specialties, as well as (like another poster mentioned before) couples matching becoming an absolute nightmare. If both partners could interview at 15 places, sure they would be fine. But each partner's applications are independent and on different timeframes - they would be hard pressed to line up 15 interviews that corresponded with each other in a capped system.

I don't think so. The number of seats in the competitive specialties doesnt change. You will probably find that those applicants will still match, but closer to the pre-interview probability. That is, factors like location and online program info will weigh more heavily than info that would be obtained on a program visit.

You'd fish on your side, I'd fish on my side. We'd both get in, because theres fewer people going fishing on our respective sides.

 

[GmailQueen]

Going back to the original post - are people responding to these? I mean, I guess if you like the program you have nothing to lose... I've been getting a bunch wishing me a happy holidays, keep in touch, etc. and I'm not sure what to say in response.

 

[Eta Carinae]

Going back to the original post - are people responding to these? I mean, I guess if you like the program you have nothing to lose... I've been getting a bunch wishing me a happy holidays, keep in touch, etc. and I'm not sure what to say in response.

ditto.

I mean, I'm applying to a specialty (anesthesia) which, while it is really competitive (esp this year), is not one of the royal 5 (ortho/ENT/Plastics/Derm/RadOnc).

So now, I'm REALLY confused by the correspondence.

 

[Eta Carinae]

P.S.

If you're out there and are getting really direct wording on your kissy-kissiesD), please don't hesitate to share. At least so we have a better idea of the hidden meanings behind these nice little courtesies.

It's like dating a guy and wondering if he's headed for marriage. He says he loves you but seems to always change the subject when you talk about kids.

(Thank God those days are over, phew!)

 

[Eta Carinae]

I got a letter from the PD at a program I really liked saying he thought I'd be a good match there. Of course I was incredibly excited because I'd love to do my residency at that program, but a different letter made me wonder if these emails are a as genuine as they seem. One of my friends on the interview trail told me of an encouraging letter she got from a program where we both interviewed. It was sent just after the day ended and I told her that I thought they really wanted her. Later that night I got the exact same letter with the exact same wording. Do all interviewees get the "rank us high because we loved you" letter? How much can I count on the correspondence?

Hey everyone,

this might help:

It will serve you well to look at program director as being "devious" as everybody has a secondary, tertiary and quaternary agenda and I applaud you for recognizing this early on in your career. Program directors are evil in certain respects as they are not necessarily on your side at all, . . . even during residency and they may value abstract objects such as the "reputation" of their program over your needs.

When I interviewed I got a thank you note with a hand written note from a PD. I would be a fool not consider why the program director wrote me a personal note explaining why I would be a good fit at their program. It *is* emotionally manipulative of a program director to do this. The PD knows that their note may gain them a more favorable ranking. I have heard applicants getting "love letters" from residency programs only to have it all turn into a disaster later.

In the end, you must rely on your own gut instinct and don't let a "love letter" from a PD sway your decision, it could be a sign of manipulation. You have to wonder about a PD who has enough time to write personal thank you notes to hundreds of applicants . . . .

link below:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=9030600&postcount=5

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Hey everyone,

this might help:



link below:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=9030600&postcount=5

What's to say that us as applicants aren't devious also? It's a 2-way street. One residency recruitment director I talked to said they have people every year promise that they rank the program #1, the program ranks them to match, and they end up going somewhere else. Oops.

It's a vicious game that both sides have to play. Programs want applicants to rank them highly, applicants want programs to rank them highly. As long as both sides realize this and don't take things personally, it'll all turn out all right.

I'm not saying feel free to lie, however. Tell your #1 program they're #1, but don't tell it to anyone else. You can tell them you'd love to be at their program and would be fortunate to match there (which in the overwhelming majority of cases, at least for me, is true). Just don't be downright dishonest.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

What's to say that us as applicants aren't devious also? It's a 2-way street. One residency recruitment director I talked to said they have people every year promise that they rank the program #1, the program ranks them to match, and they end up going somewhere else. Oops.

It's a vicious game that both sides have to play. Programs want applicants to rank them highly, applicants want programs to rank them highly. As long as both sides realize this and don't take things personally, it'll all turn out all right.

I'm not saying feel free to lie, however. Tell your #1 program they're #1, but don't tell it to anyone else. You can tell them you'd love to be at their program and would be fortunate to match there (which in the overwhelming majority of cases, at least for me, is true). Just don't be downright dishonest.

I agree that it's super lame for anybody to lie or intentionally mislead other people about your intentions, but as a defense for the applicant who said this, it's possible they changed their mind at the last minute. I met someone on the interview trail who had ranked a program #1 last year and told them that she ranked them #1. Then she thought about it more and moved another program to #1. She wasn't intending to deceive anybody -- she just changed her mind.

I'm still with gmailqueen in wanting to know how to respond to stuff you hear from programs.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

I agree that it's super lame for anybody to lie or intentionally mislead other people about your intentions, but as a defense for the applicant who said this, it's possible they changed their mind at the last minute. I met someone on the interview trail who had ranked a program #1 last year and told them that she ranked them #1. Then she thought about it more and moved another program to #1. She wasn't intending to deceive anybody -- she just changed her mind.

I'm still with gmailqueen in wanting to know how to respond to stuff you hear from programs.

I don't think a Happy Holidays email requires a response. It's not like it's a personalized holiday greeting, I presume. If you want to reciprocate and send out a mass holiday email to all your programs, I guess that'd be OK.

As for other correspondence, I haven't necessarily been replying to it. I send out my thank-you emails, but I'm not going to send out a thank-you to their thank-you. If I have something specific to say or ask, I'll send them an email back, otherwise, I have enough stuff on my plate as it is.

 

[Eta Carinae]

I got a letter from the PD at a program I really liked saying he thought I'd be a good match there. Of course I was incredibly excited because I'd love to do my residency at that program, but a different letter made me wonder if these emails are a as genuine as they seem. One of my friends on the interview trail told me of an encouraging letter she got from a program where we both interviewed. It was sent just after the day ended and I told her that I thought they really wanted her. Later that night I got the exact same letter with the exact same wording. Do all interviewees get the "rank us high because we loved you" letter? How much can I count on the correspondence?