Really? Your program wouldn't rank someone highly even if they are a very desirable candidate and would be a good fit for the program just because you know you're they're safety?
Yep. It doesn't make sense to me to rank someone that I know isn't very interested in coming to my program. I'd rather have someone with less stellar numbers, etc. who is excited about coming there and is a good fit. Someone who considers my program a safety and would prefer to be elsewhere is not a good fit, IMHO.
Is this why during some of my interviews they asked specifically where else I've interviewed? I thought the point of the match from the programs' perspective is to try and get the best possible residents.
No its to get a sense of where geographically and reputation-wise you are applying. Sometimes its just filler conversation but in general its to assess what you are looking for in a program.
For example, if you are applying to all academic programs with the exception of 1 or 2 community programs, if I'm faculty at said community program I'd like to know why you are applying here. And if your answer doesn't seem to make sense and if I understand that I cannot really offer you what you really want, then why should I rank you over someone else who really does fit?
Similarly, if you are an MD/PhD with a stellar Step 1 score, outstanding application, interviewing at Penn, Harvard, etc. why should I believe you REALLY want to come to little old Penn State?
I might invite you for an interview because of your academic credentials, but unless there is some reason you can really show me that you would be a good fit, that our program could provide you with what you want and need, and that you would be happy here, I am bound to think that we really won't be and that I would be better off ranking someone else higher who wants to be there, rather than ranking you high when you will either not rank us or put us at the bottom of your list because we are your "safety".
Of course the goal is to get the best possible resident. But that doesn't mean that the resident with the best scores is the best resident for MY program. Every program has a different personality. I can think of quite a few applicants who looked great on paper, but their personality did not mesh with those of the current residents and faculty at my program. So those people would not be the best residents for US. They certainly may be elsewhere.
Then wouldn't it make sense to rank them in this order even if you are considered their safety, and hope against hope that they get bumped down enough to land with you?
I understand your line of reasoning and others may feel that way. But the fact of the matter is that we have enough good quality candidates who really want to come to our program, so we don't necessarily need to "waste" a ranking position on someone who isn't so interested. A candidate like you describe wouldn't necessarily be at the bottom of the program's list, but they might be put into the "B" category - ie, not the top, not the bottom, but certainly not one who is in our Top 10.
I look at if from the unique perspective of a program that wasn't considered top tier, nor bottom tier, but rather somewhere in the middle. So we DID see people who wanted to be on the east coast and who were interviewing at lots of big name places. It looks a little strange when they came to ours just as it would look a little strange to see someone with all west coast interviews and then ours. I spoke at length with an applicant about the fact that she was from Texas, had lived her whole life in Texas, applied to almost all Texas residency programs. WTF would she apply to a program in Pennsylvania? There has be some sense of motivation or resource that we offered to make me believe that we would really be a good fit for a person like that. We had lots of people who really wanted to be there, so again, it doesn't make sense to me to rank someone who I am pretty sure doesn't really want to be there, or who's spouse won't want them to be there, etc. That makes for miserable residents who end up quitting.
And I don't deny that this wasn't something that we argued about every year. We would have faculty who would want to rank highly anyone with great creds...regardless of whether or not the interviewees thought they'd be a good fit. Some people are hung up on the creds and the potential for raising average in service training scores, etc. Fortunately, other things won out and we generally ended up with a good mix of people who worked well together and had similar personalities.
I regret ONE person we matched over the years and it was only because he ranked us highly based on some lies a resident told him and he was extremely unhappy to find out later that he was not told the truth. Great guy, great credentials, etc. - but he would have been better off someplace else because we couldn't provide what he was looking for and there were certainly a number of other places that could have that he undoubtedly would have matched at.
YMMV and other programs may handle it totally differently. I have heard first hand from a fellowship PD at a big name west coast program that they don't rank more than 20 people, even though they interview twice as many, for two positions. If they have to go lower than 20 on their rank list, they'd rather go without.
So I don't buy the argument that its better to rank all qualified candidates and hope that someone who really isn't a good fit (for whatever reason) matches elsewhere. Sometimes its better, at least in the program's eyes, to do without.
