Not everyone can go home happy on Match Day – and one applicant’s win is almost necessarily another’s loss. Require supplemental applications or don’t, allow preference signaling or not – the point is, you can’t make everyone win. This is a key point: the Match is, in many ways, a zero sum game. The only way to get more applicants to Match is to add more positions. Over 70% of applicants agreed that they were satisfied with signalingīut yeah, if your measure of success is the Match rate, preference signaling isn’t gonna help you.The probability of receiving an interview offer was 58% at a signaled program vs.93% of applicants received at least one interview offer from a program to which they sent a signal 61% received 3 or more interviews from their 5 signals.Most applicants ( 91%) chose to send signals.I wouldn’t call preference signaling a “failed experiment.” Actually, the preliminary data from otolaryngology’s experience have been released – and they look encouraging. So why is ERAS expanding preference signaling if it didn’t help otolaryngology? Why expand a failed experiment? – The Match rate in ENT was brutal last year. I also argued the case against it at the NRMP meeting in the fall.)
(If you’re interested, I wrote a Winners & Losers piece on preference signaling after otolaryngology announced their plan last year. Viewed in a more realistic light, it’s a tool for programs to ensure they’re spending their time interviewing applicants who actually want to come to their program. Viewed in the most favorable light, it’s a way for applicants to ensure that their application isn’t overlooked by a program where they have sincere interest. But unlike the rank order list, this initial list isn’t binding. You’re right, the interview is the biggest determinant of rank order list position for programs and applicants alike.
#CRASH FEVER TIER LIST HAPPY HOW TO#
Don’t most applicants decide how to rank programs after they’ve met people (and learned information, good or bad) at their interview? – Could you please explain why ERAS is making us identify our top programs this year? This seems very unfair. (Section 6.2 notes that “both applicants and programs may express their interest in each other.”)Įssentially, it’s the same voluntary preference signaling that otolaryngology used in the 2020-2021 Match cycle – only instead of the program directors’ association requesting the signals of interest from applicants and distributing them to programs, ERAS will do it instead. Instead, it’s just a formalized way of expressing interest in a program – which is expressly allowed under the MPA. It’s true, the NRMP’s Match Participation Agreement (MPA) forbids programs from soliciting “verbal or written statements implying commitment.” But that’s not what this is. – Have you heard that ERAS is now requiring applicants in certain specialties to provide “an indication of their top residency programs of interest”? Isn’t this a Match violation?
This led to a surge of DMs and e-mails into my inbox, and necessitated this latest mailbag to clear them out.Īs always, these are real questions from real readers – but distilled down for clarity and anonymity. The original message that applicants received on June 23, 2021. Last week, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) announced some changes for this year’s residency applicants in three specialties (internal medicine, dermatology, and general surgery).
0 kommentar(er)
