Why are interview rates so low?

[SillyGenius]

I was looking at interview rates for IM and the average shows that programs for IM-categorical interviews around 8.4% of their applicant pool. FM- categorical also interviews around the same percentage of applicants.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AnonymousDoctorGuyPerson]

Because they don't need to interview more to fill their spots.

Interviewing is a 'costly' expense to the program in the form of time.

 

[SillyGenius]

Because they don't need to interview more to fill their spots.

Interviewing is a 'costly' expense to the program in the form of time.

I see a lot of posts about people getting 15+ interviews to FM and IM programs. Of course its not a legit way fo data collection, but i just wonder how people do it.

Do people typically apply to like 50+ programs or something? I feel like with 8% interview rate it would be really hard to match somewhere if you only applied to like 10-15?

 

[AnonymousDoctorGuyPerson]

I see a lot of posts about people getting 15+ interviews to FM and IM programs. Of course its not a legit way fo data collection, but i just wonder how people do it.

Do people typically apply to like 50+ programs or something? I feel like with 8% interview rate it would be really hard to match somewhere if you only applied to like 10-15?

Most people I know who applied this cycle for IM applied to ~45 programs and received around 15+ IIs. Granted, they're US MDs with no red flags, with decent to great step scores.

There are a LOT of IM programs. People with great apps can afford to apply to fewer programs, so long as they apply intelligently.

 

[Angler]

Do people typically apply to like 50+ programs or something?

It seems like a positive feedback loop. Interview rates are low; hence applicants apply to more programs. Programs get hundreds / thousands of applicants that they cannot possibly interview, making interview rates lower. Rinse and repeat. Pretty soon applicants will apply to an infinite number of programs and the interview rates will be zero.

 

[randommedstudent24]

I’m a DO student, COMLEX only (slightly below average level 2), one red flag, applied to 30 programs very strategically, got 10 interviews. It’s been totally crazy this year…places I thought I would hear from I didn’t but classmates with lower scores did, and places I thought were reaches I got interviews. No rhyme or reason.

 

[SillyGenius]

I’m a DO student, COMLEX only (slightly below average level 2), one red flag, applied to 30 programs very strategically, got 10 interviews. It’s been totally crazy this year…places I thought I would hear from I didn’t but classmates with lower scores did, and places I thought were reaches I got interviews. No rhyme or reason.

I hope you match, I also have a red flag (failed first year). I'm at a low-tier US MD school. stories like yours scare me

 

[ACSurgeon]

I was looking at interview rates for IM and the average shows that programs for IM-categorical interviews around 8.4% of their applicant pool. FM- categorical also interviews around the same percentage of applicants.

Each program gets hundreds or thousands of international applicants that apply to to a ton of programs across different fields

 

[LunaOri]

With the advent of virtual interviews, numbers of applications skyrocketed, so interview rates went down. We can interview more applicants with virtual interviews, but there’s still a limit, and some applicants are now applying to hundreds of programs.

 

[Med Ed]

Over-application.

According to ERAS, the average applicant now submits over 102 applications. US MDs submit an average in the low 70's, DOs in the low 90's, and IMGs average 144.

All numbers have gone up by about 10 in just the last 4 years, with no end in sight.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

When everything is virtual there is no hurdle. Might as well apply to every program.

 

[SillyGenius]

Over-application.

According to ERAS, the average applicant now submits over 102 applications. US MDs submit an average in the low 70's, DOs in the low 90's, and IMGs average 144.

All numbers have gone up by about 10 in just the last 4 years, with no end in sight.

102 applications? Wouldn't this cost like a TON of money....

This is just crazy. Man, I can't even imagine what this would look like in the next few years

 

[Angler]

Clearly, programs will need to employ a strategy of yield protection, strict screens (where possible), and signals to manage their interviews. Applicants will need to use their signals judiciously. The Sheriff of Sodium actually has a reasonable strategy for applicants to utilize signals.

 

[Esmolol]

Clearly, programs will need to employ a strategy of yield protection, strict screens (where possible), and signals to manage their interviews. Applicants will need to use their signals judiciously. The Sheriff of Sodium actually has a reasonable strategy for applicants to utilize signals.

Nah... They'll just employ AI to vet the applications and narrow them down to a handleable number. AI... that we can't use to get our apps ready.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Nah... They'll just employ AI to vet the applications and narrow them down to a handleable number. AI... that we can't use to get our apps ready.

This assumes programs/clinics are willing to spend money on AI programs.

 

[Dr. Vinnie Boombatz]

Based on the program director survey from 2022, IM programs (N=147) received an average of 2,876 applications. Of those, an average of 799 applications received a holistic review. The majority of applications are auto-rejected based on standardization criteria. The criteria are something like IMGs, DOs, step thresholds, failures, etc. It is worth noting that IM programs send out an average of 275 interviews, so there's a ~34% chance of getting an interview if you can get past the criteria and have an actual human look at your application.

Until ERAS places hard caps on the number of applications, I think big signaling, like ortho is doing, is going to be the answer. If you give applicants 30 signals then as a program if you get an application without a signal it means you are not in that applicant's top 30. You can then auto-reject them because even if you interview them, odds are they won't rank you highly enough to match at your program. Eventually, applicants will get the memo and won't bother applying to more than 30 programs. At least that's the idea.

 

[Esmolol]

This assumes programs/clinics are willing to spend money on AI programs.

I could see that. An AI vetting system is already a part of a platform that is quite popular among the programs.

 

[randommedstudent24]

I hope you match, I also have a red flag (failed first year). I'm at a low-tier US MD school. stories like yours scare me

lol, what about my story scares you? I’m pretty confident I’ll match, according to the data I’ve seen.

 

[SillyGenius]

lol, what about my story scares you? I’m pretty confident I’ll match, according to the data I’ve seen.

Forgive me, I'm not too familiar with the match. I thought that red flags on an app would be a big barrier to matching and you would only have a shot at FM, IM, psych, and maybe EM.

I also thought that you would need amazing board scores and even then you'd only be able to match to low-tier programs and that matching to mid-tier programs would be like hitting the jackpot.

Of course, the nature of the red flag would matter. Mine is having to redo M1 due to failing courses in M1 year.

I obviously have no experience with the match and my info is limited to what I've read online. So please enlighten me and share the data with me, please

 

[Angler]

With the advent of virtual interviews, numbers of applications skyrocketed, so interview rates went down. We can interview more applicants with virtual interviews, but there’s still a limit, and some applicants are now applying to hundreds of programs.

When everything is virtual there is no hurdle. Might as well apply to every program.

I'm not certain I understand how in-person interviews would deter an applicant from mega-applying (as opposed to virtual interviews).

In a universe with only in-person interviews, an applicant with a great application who mega-applied would just start declining interviews (or canceling the less desirable ones that were scheduled). An applicant with a suboptimal application would have a larger pool from which to hope for an II.

Of course, I'm not saying that the universe with virtual interviews is any better... other than allowing for significantly reduced costs for applicants.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

In a universe with only in-person interviews, an applicant with a great application who mega-applied would just start declining interviews (or canceling the less desirable ones that were scheduled). An applicant with a suboptimal application would have a larger pool from which to hope for an II.

You mean 2019? Like 4 years ago?

It’s amazing how much has changed in so little time.

My only real advice with virtual interviews is:

Note… reference predates virtual interviews…

 

[randommedstudent24]

Forgive me, I'm not too familiar with the match. I thought that red flags on an app would be a big barrier to matching and you would only have a shot at FM, IM, psych, and maybe EM.

I also thought that you would need amazing board scores and even then you'd only be able to match to low-tier programs and that matching to mid-tier programs would be like hitting the jackpot.

Of course, the nature of the red flag would matter. Mine is having to redo M1 due to failing courses in M1 year.

I obviously have no experience with the match and my info is limited to what I've read online. So please enlighten me and share the data with me, please

My red flag is repeating M1 also, but getting 10 interviews gives me a good chance of matching. I’ve been asked about it in all my interviews, but I just framed it as a growth experience & gotten good feedback. I’m applying IM (by choice, not default), but psych has become competitive so I wouldn’t count on that with a red flag.

 

[Med Ed]

In a universe with only in-person interviews, an applicant with a great application who mega-applied would just start declining interviews (or canceling the less desirable ones that were scheduled). An applicant with a suboptimal application would have a larger pool from which to hope for an II.

It generates a substantial administrative burden and loss of efficiency if large numbers of interview invites are being turned down, especially if they are not being declined in a timely fashion. No-shows have always been an issue, I wonder if they have gotten worse with virtual interviews.

I was at a AAMC meeting a few years ago and one of the presenters (an OB/GYN resident) was describing how interview offers worked in her field. Basically some (many?) programs would sent out invites in batches with a link to self-schedule the interview date. Sounds convenient, right?

The catch was the batch size would be larger than the number of interview slots, so if you missed the invitation email by even a short time you might miss out on the interview altogether. This led applicants to recruit friends and family to help monitor their email accounts so they could do things like scrub into the OR without worrying. And that's when I realized there was yet another ring of Hell in this whole process.

 

[Esmolol]

It generates a substantial administrative burden and loss of efficiency if large numbers of interview invites are being turned down, especially if they are not being declined in a timely fashion. No-shows have always been an issue, I wonder if they have gotten worse with virtual interviews.

I was at a AAMC meeting a few years ago and one of the presenters (an OB/GYN resident) was describing how interview offers worked in her field. Basically some (many?) programs would sent out invites in batches with a link to self-schedule the interview date. Sounds convenient, right?

The catch was the batch size would be larger than the number of interview slots, so if you missed the invitation email by even a short time you might miss out on the interview altogether. This led applicants to recruit friends and family to help monitor their email accounts so they could do things like scrub into the OR without worrying. And that's when I realized there was yet another ring of Hell in this whole process.

Waaaait a sec... So you're saying that a resident of a program came out and publically announced that their program is in violation of the NRMP match policies????

For the record - The NRMP Match Participation Agreement states in 6.2.1 that:

During the recruitment phase, programs shall:1. Extend interview offers that equal, not exceed, the total number of available interview slots;

If I am missing something, please let me know.

 

[MateoGM416]

How long until this thread becomes another virtual vs. in-person interview debate

 

[Med Ed]

Waaaait a sec... So you're saying that a resident of a program came out and publically announced that their program is in violation of the NRMP match policies????

For the record - The NRMP Match Participation Agreement states in 6.2.1 that:

During the recruitment phase, programs shall:1. Extend interview offers that equal, not exceed, the total number of available interview slots;

If I am missing something, please let me know.

This all happened a number of years ago, and I believe the NRMP wrote that policy to put an end to that particular practice. But it underscores the nature of the problem when both applicants and programs have to play games to navigate the swamp of over-application.

 

[Esmolol]

This all happened a number of years ago, and I believe the NRMP wrote that policy to put an end to that particular practice. But it underscores the nature of the problem when both applicants and programs have to play games to navigate the swamp of over-application.

I agree. Well, some programs do the above still till day despite the policy in place...

 

[GoSpursGo]

Forgive me, I'm not too familiar with the match. I thought that red flags on an app would be a big barrier to matching and you would only have a shot at FM, IM, psych, and maybe EM.

I also thought that you would need amazing board scores and even then you'd only be able to match to low-tier programs and that matching to mid-tier programs would be like hitting the jackpot.

Of course, the nature of the red flag would matter. Mine is having to redo M1 due to failing courses in M1 year.

I obviously have no experience with the match and my info is limited to what I've read online. So please enlighten me and share the data with me, please

@SillyGenius , this has been repeated several times across your multiple threads, but I'll say it again here--you need to stop worrying about what may or may not happen 4 years from now and focus on successfully remediating M1. If you can do that and avoid additional red flags, you WILL match IM and could have an outside shot at more competitive specialties if you really turn things on.

To address your specific question in this thread, the statistics you're quoting are irrelevant, and as @Med Ed outlines taking a single data point like interview percentage out of context doesn't tell you anything useful. That includes all of the middling USMD/USDO students who apply to all of the top 50 programs because "YOLO." It includes students who way, way over-apply because of FOMO of not getting enough interviews and include a bunch of out-of-region programs that know they aren't really interested in the location. It includes the IMGs who apply to literally every program under the sun despite having no chance of getting in. @randommedstudent24 did a good job of applying strategically to an appropriate set of programs and has gotten plenty of interviews, and you can do that too.

 

[Angler]

It generates a substantial administrative burden and loss of efficiency if large numbers of interview invites are being turned down, especially if they are not being declined in a timely fashion. No-shows have always been an issue, I wonder if they have gotten worse with virtual interviews.

I have no doubt about this. Hence the pre-holistic review screening and yield protection (if such a thing exists in ERAS) in order to send II's to the target candidates.

How long until this thread becomes another virtual vs. in-person interview debate

I am not saying that one is better than the other. Both certainly have their merits.

I'm just saying that I don't think virtual or in-person doesn't necessarily determine the number of interviews or II's.

From multiple NRMP PD surveys:

I am assuming that 2014-2018 are all in-person interviews and 2020-2022 are all virtual, but I don't know that for a fact. But it doesn't look like, at a quick glance, that programs are getting more applications, nor that interview rates have dropped significantly (maybe rates have dropped a little, but not a huge amount).

You mean 2019? Like 4 years ago?

It’s amazing how much has changed in so little time.

So, unless I'm missing something, numbers haven't changed that much.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

I have no doubt about this. Hence the pre-holistic review screening and yield protection (if such a thing exists in ERAS) in order to send II's to the target candidates.


I am not saying that one is better than the other. Both certainly have their merits.

I'm just saying that I don't think virtual or in-person doesn't necessarily determine the number of interviews or II's.

From multiple NRMP PD surveys:

View attachment 380703


I am assuming that 2014-2018 are all in-person interviews and 2020-2022 are all virtual, but I don't know that for a fact. But it doesn't look like, at a quick glance, that programs are getting more applications, nor that interview rates have dropped significantly (maybe rates have dropped a little, but not a huge amount).


So, unless I'm missing something, numbers haven't changed that much.

Well, the number of total applicants, the number of interview slots and the residency spots are fixed numbers. Virtual versus in-person interviews can’t change that.

All that being said, in the table you sent, pre-2020 there was a gradual reduction of about 100 applications per program per year. In 2021, there was an increase of 800. So a ~5% reduction per year to a ~30% increase is a big change, even though as I stated, the number of graduating medical students and number of residency spots is a relative fixed number.

Though, I won’t claim to know why IM was becoming unpopular in the late 2010s.

 

[Angler]

Well, the number of total applicants, the number of interview slots and the residency spots are fixed numbers. Virtual versus in-person interviews can’t change that.

This is true, but the second column is not fixed. It will change depending on how many applications that individuals submit.

 

[Angler]

OK, I'm done with

 

[SurfingDoctor]

This is true, but the second column is not fixed. It will change depending on how many applications that individuals submit.

Well, what’s missing is actual interviews. People, myself included a couple decades ago, would send in applications, but then cancel the ones that I didn’t have time for and were too costly. Hence, the IIs sent didn’t always translate to interviews. What you need is interviews offered/interviews accepted.

I think the declined interview rate has… er, declined.

 

[Angler]

What you need is interviews offered/interviews accepted.

These numbers are in that table.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

These numbers are in that table.

No that’s the program’s numbers.

I’m talking about if I sent out 20 IIs, and I got 20 interview offers and declined 10 because I couldn’t rearrange my schedule or didn’t want to spend the money because I didn’t really want to go to program X, my interview decline rate was 50%.

What I want to know is that number the same from 2014 to 2022? That data is the program’s numbers, not the applicant’s numbers. Because that is the applicant’s “interview rate”… ie the subject of the thread. And I bet it used to be more uniform and now I bet it’s less so because the interview cancellation rate is much lower.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

OK, I added the same column with that math.View attachment 380705

Not the program’s interview rate, the applicant’s interview rate.

You can’t get the latter from the program’s numbers.

 

[Angler]

the applicant’s interview rate.

OK, that I don't have.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

OK, that I don't have.

I know. But to me, that’s the more interesting piece of data in the pre versus post-pandemic changes. Because that’s what the applicant sees/feels.

To the program, it’s burdensome to review more applications but the number of interviews and match spots don’t really change the calculus in the end.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I think you guys are arguing semantics. Clearly applicants are applying to too many programs, for myriad reasons. Virtual interviews likely play some role in that but do not fully explain the problem, which already existed prior to the 2021 match.

 

[aldol16]

Because there are a lot of applicants for the few spots they have. The lower tier the program the more they will interview. But Harvard doesn't need to interview 800 people for their spots because then it becomes a waste of everyone's time.