Just how competitive was it this year? and other questions

[NightOwlPM]

Little background. I am an osteopathic medical student. Psychiatry is the only specialty I am really interested in and the sudden spike of competitiveness has me a bit worried. If I were to get stuck in Internal Medicine or Family Practice I don't think I would be very happy with my career.

1) Just how competitive was it this year and does it appear it will increase much?
2) For Allopathic Psych should I take the USMLE along with the COMPLEX? It is my understanding Osteopathic Psych residencies are few and far between, correct me if I am wrong.
3) I know MD's get preference over DO's for allo residencies. How pronounced is that for Psych?

Thanks in advance.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[swanny]

I'll give you my answers, but I would sugest checking with PDs at programs you are considering:

1) Just how competitive was it this year and does it appear it will increase much?

Very competitive-only 10 unfilled spots across the country. I would expect it to be competitive this year as well.

2) For Allopathic Psych should I take the USMLE along with the COMPLEX? It is my understanding Osteopathic Psych residencies are few and far between, correct me if I am wrong.

Osteopathic psych residencies are indeed limited. At our allopathic program, we accept either COMLEX or USMLE scores for DOs. Most of our DO applicants have just taken the COMLEX.

3) I know MD's get preference over DO's for allo residencies. How pronounced is that for Psych?

I don't know that MDs get preference over DOs. I would challenge that assertion-although it may be true in some areas of the country or in some programs. You can always ask the program whether they have DOs on the faculty or in the residency, or how many they've graduated over the years, in order to get a better sense of that issue.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

From what I gather, it's been more competitive than it's been in a long time, especially in that there were so few spots left in the scramble. That seems to be kind of an across the board issue, though, because scrambling was apparently really rough for lots of specialties. I still think overall psych is probably less "competitive" than lots of other specialties, so I wouldn't freak out about it yet.

Anecdotally, it seems like the students who didn't match were more geographically/program limited. At my school everyone who wanted psych (and we had a ton of them) matched except for one person who only ranked the most competitive of competitive programs.

As for the USMLE, why not take it? If you apply to programs that don't have a lot of DOs, it'll make it easier for them to figure out where to place you. And I know it seems unlikely, but what if you decide to do something other than psych and taking the USMLE might help for that other specialty. I met a 4th year last year who was taking USMLE Step 1 because he had fallen in love with a program that required it. Stuff like that happens, so why not keep doors open?

 

[peppy]

I'm a DO who took the USMLE and did well on it. In spite of that, I didn't match this past year. Still, I don't regret taking the USMLE. I received interview invites at pretty much every place I wanted, and I think that was mostly because of my USMLE scores. I think the biggest reason I didn't match was that I made some strategic errors in deciding which interviews to accept and which to turn down. I underestimated how competitive applications would be this year and took it for granted that I would match within my top 3 choices like people usually do. I wound up wasting some precious interviewing time on a couple of programs that turned out to be probably not very open to DOs, and I was somewhat limited geographically by wanting to stay within a few hundred miles to an ill relative. If I had known then what I know now, I would have chosen my interviews more carefully, made my rank list a little longer, and I think I could have matched.
Since everyone had told me that psych was an easy match and a "buyer's market" (and even a PD told me that it was "up to me" whether I matched with them or not), I never considered that I might go unmatched and was blindsided by it when it happened...so the lesson is, hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst (i.e., know what to do if you have to scramble).

All that being said, I still recommend taking the USMLE. First, because you are perfectly capable of doing as well as a MD grad on it if you study the way MD students do for it. There is no big secret about what MD learn in their first two years that we DOs aren't privy to. Second, because I think it does help at some allopathic programs to give them a way of easily comparing you to the MDs. One of the allopathic places I interviewed at had a DO on staff, so you would think it would be DO friendly, but that was also the only place where an interviewer outright asked me what my COMLEX score meant because that particular interviewer had no familiarity with the test at all. If I had not also had the USMLE to show that person, I would have gone on to wonder if their lack of familiarity with COMLEX was why I didn't match there. It's good if you can look back and know you did everything you could to optimize your chances, regardless of the outcome.

On the issue of DO discrimination, I think it is hard to generalize because you're ultimately dealing with individual people's preferences. Even if a program has historically been DO friendly (or not) that can change fast if there is a change in leadership at the program. At one of my interviews, one of the interviewers acted very impressed with my credentials and we seemed to hit it off unusually well, so I thought I was a shoo in there...but then after my interview one of the residents sent a mass email out to applicants talking about how the chairman of the department had initially intended to get away from recruiting DOs and FMGs to raise the prestige of the department (oh, but don't worry, because they had talked him out of that plan and the resident reassured us that DOs were welcome after all). I ultimately didn't match there. I can't say for sure if that's because I'm a DO, or if it's because they just had so many good applicants that I just got the short straw by random chance, or if I was oblivious to totally bombing every other interview but the one that went so well...but I had no idea until after I had traveled there that the culture at the institution was potentially becoming DO-unfriendly.
For that reason, I recommend not blowing off the DO residencies. Even if they aren't in your dream location or whatever, they'll still get you to the ultimate goal of becoming a psychiatrist, and if you don't match in the MD match you'll regret not having given them a chance.

If by some chance you don't match even with all the best planning...well, not matching isn't the end of the world. Even though I was unable to scramble into a psych spot, I found an osteopathic internship at a program that is very supportive of my psych goal and I expect to be better prepared for the match next year.
All the best to you.

 

[rpkall]

I think the best way to NOT match in psych is to rank only competititve programs, and also to make your rank list short (<5 programs). I don't think it's "significantly (statistically)" more competitive than it was a year ago, though, really. There may be more FMGs entering, and taking up more "open spots" in programs, but I think the number of american (MD/DO) grads has been relatively stable, with small increases, if anything. If this is wrong, someone please correct me....

I think below average students should rank ~12-14 programs, with no more than 1/4being "competitive" (Harvard, Yale, Brown, California programs).

Average students should rank ~10-12 programs with about half being "competitive."

Above average students should rank 8-10 programs with about 3 or 4 being "safeties" and the rest "competitive"...

Excellent students (USMLE 230+/AOA, etc) probably only need to rank 5 or 6 places with at least one or two safeties (i.e., your home school and/or a regional state-U or something), and most places ranked can be "competitive".

I think if you interview well (have some degree of personal insight, have good reasons for choosing psych, and are passionate about the field when you talk to people) the psych applications circuit isn't terribly competitive, once you get your foot in the door.

A lot of it is providing good reasons why you want to go to a certain program. Family in the area, a strong connection to the community, spouse needing a job in the area, couples matching, housing market/affordability, etc. A lot of the more suburban/rural areas are hurting for psych people right now.

PS -- There are some great "sleeper" programs out there: smaller university/teaching hosp. based departments, departments with a community psych focus, etc. You don't need a big name/prestige to get a good psych education, IMO. As long as the department is well balanced (research/pharm/therapy) and there are opportunities for resident development in each of those, and the faculty is nurturing and supportive and willing to get to know residents, you'll have what you need to flourish (unless you want to be super-career-research-psychiatrist-doctor-person--then you should go for the big names and research $$ schools).

PPS -- I didn't run into any DO discrimination on the circuit, and met some very nice DO people at more traditionally competitive schools. You could contact the program directors at the places you're interested in and ask about this, I would think. They might appreciate the initiative, especially if you do it professionally and courteously. I wouldn't think psych PDs would hold that kind of curiosity/initiative against anyone...

 

[silas2642]

What I don't understand is how last year it went from very competitive programs like Yale, Longwood, and NYU having unfilled spots to this year-- 10 unfilled spots in the country total? Is this just some sort of random fluctuation? How do you account for this much of an increase in 1 year?

 

[NightOwlPM]

What I don't understand is how last year it went from very competitive programs like Yale, Longwood, and NYU having unfilled spots to this year-- 10 unfilled spots in the country total? Is this just some sort of random fluctuation? How do you account for this much of an increase in 1 year?

I found this baffling as well and it is something I would like to know. Thanks for asking it.

If by some chance you don't match even with all the best planning...well, not matching isn't the end of the world. Even though I was unable to scramble into a psych spot, I found an osteopathic internship at a program that is very supportive of my psych goal and I expect to be better prepared for the match next year.

Where do go from here? Do you try matching again next year or do you get a slot outside of the match?

 

[NightOwlPM]

I looked at the hard numbers from match.

http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2009.pdf

Psych did get more competitive this year, 55.7% of spots filled by US grads to 61.7% which is a pretty dramatic increase. However, the % has been higher in previous years. There was major increase in total amount of spots filled 99% this year as opposed to about 95% last year, it has never been that high.

Not exactly sure what to make of this. Is it possible there has been a drastic increase in IMG's matching into Psych?

On a side note, I must say I am glad I have no desire to be a neurosurgeon.

 

[peppy]

Where do go from here? Do you try matching again next year or do you get a slot outside of the match?

I'm definitely applying through ERAS again. If I get a pre-match offer once I start interviewing I probably will take it (I am hoping that having made a more careful selection of interviews and hopefully having a good letter from my internship program will help). If there is no prematch offer, then yep, I'll do the match again just like last year.
It's already almost time to fill out all that info in ERAS again.

 

[notdeadyet]

I looked at the hard numbers from match.

http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2009.pdf

Psych did get more competitive this year, 55.7% of spots filled by US grads to 61.7% which is a pretty dramatic increase.

I'm curious if anyone's done a big crunch of the numbers yet. Is there a way to carve out DOs in this data from international applicants?

Just curious. It looks like more USMDs are going into Psych, but the match rate for allopathic grads seems to be about the same this year as years past (95%). So I don't know how much more competitive its really gotten for US MDs.

Is the match rate significantly lower for independent applicants this last match from years past?

 

[Still Kickin]

Excellent students (USMLE 230+/AOA, etc) probably only need to rank 5 or 6 places with at least one or two safeties (i.e., your home school and/or a regional state-U or something), and most places ranked can be "competitive".

Personally, I'd vote for ranking 8-10 even with awesome stats. Maybe 2-3 of them as "safeties".

I also have some questions about this year's competitiveness. (Maybe it's in that "match" report but being a new intern, I don't have time to go look it up...)

(1)Progs reported receiving more apps than usual. Some have speculated this was just because each applicant was applying to more programs on average. Do we now have any data on the TOTAL # of applicants vs. other years? (ie - did they indeed each apply to more progs on average, or were there also more applicants overall?)

(2)11 unfilled spots have also been quoted as a measure of increased competition this year. But then others have speculated applicants (and programs) just made longer rank lists. Is there any data on any of the following?
2a)Avg # of programs ranked per applicant vs. previous years & avg # of applicants ranked per program vs. previous years.
2b)Did programs not go as far down on their rank list as usual? (ie - did only the people at the *very top* top of their list got in?)
2c)Did applicants (on avg) get a "lower #" choice from their rank lists vs. previous years. (ie - did the oft-quoted statistic that we heard on the interview trail hold true this year - "most everyone in psych gets one of their top 3 choices")

 

[heyjack70]

Personally, I'd vote for ranking 8-10 even with awesome stats. Maybe 2-3 of them as "safeties".

I also have some questions about this year's competitiveness. (Maybe it's in that "match" report but being a new intern, I don't have time to go look it up...)

(1)Progs reported receiving more apps than usual. Some have speculated this was just because each applicant was applying to more programs on average. Do we now have any data on the TOTAL # of applicants vs. other years? (ie - did they indeed each apply to more progs on average, or were there also more applicants overall?)

(2)11 unfilled spots have also been quoted as a measure of increased competition this year. But then others have speculated applicants (and programs) just made longer rank lists. Is there any data on any of the following?
2a)Avg # of programs ranked per applicant vs. previous years & avg # of applicants ranked per program vs. previous years.
2b)Did programs not go as far down on their rank list as usual? (ie - did only the people at the *very top* top of their list got in?)
2c)Did applicants (on avg) get a "lower #" choice from their rank lists vs. previous years. (ie - did the oft-quoted statistic that we heard on the interview trail hold true this year - "most everyone in psych gets one of their top 3 choices")

You are absolutely right. The number of people who applied and matched is less meaningful than how applicants and programs made rank lists.

 

[whopper]

Not exactly sure what to make of this. Is it possible there has been a drastic increase in IMG's matching into Psych?

Per the APsychiatricA's newspaper, indeed--all spots were filled, and this was attributed to a dramatic increase in the number of IMGs who applied & were accepted into psychiatry, though yes--US grads did also increase.

Will this trend continue? Who knows? The best way to get an early gauge is to ask people involved in the application process in programs--the Chief Resident, Program Director & Coordinator. Unfortunately I'm not in one of those positions anymore. Just the year before, I remember some top programs still having open spots. This year--they all filled up--even the bottom tier programs.

Why did it happen? I'm not sure either. Psychiatry per the APsychiatricA's paper (which was printed about 6 months ago-forgot the exact date) is enjoying better public acceptance now than in the past few years, however IMGs are often times from cultures outside the US. Psyche residencies also want people who communicate clearly more so than other professions & several IMGs speak English as a 2nd language. There however is a large IMG population that are American citizens & went to institutions outside the US for their M.D. The NY Times printed an article about a new trend where doctors are trying to go into fields where they will not be pushed to the brink...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/u....html?scp=1&sq=brain drain dermatology&st=cse

 

[GreenShirt]

It'll probably get even more competitive the next few years with the 30% goal increase in the number of medical students in the country too.

Wow, this forum is really freaking me out. I though psych was bottom of the list in terms of competitiveness but these posts seem to emphasize otherwise.

 

[whopper]

I had been telling students before to take it a bit easier in terms of worry than they were when applying to psychiatry residency because their last frame of reference was getting into medical school which is much more difficult.

That being said, I still agree several students worry too much--to the point where its not in their interests, unhealthy for them, and they are probably safer than they think, but one really has to factor in that the competition is up, and may continue to go up. Who is to say how easy/hard it'll be if the applications go up again next year?

This also isn't necessarily a bad thing either. There is a shortage of psychiatrists in several areas. This may help to reduce that shortage. While the shortage is good for our pockets, its not good for our patients, and that should be our primary concern. Our pockets also are still in a comfortable area, and I suspect will be for several years. It may also quell the argument against psychologist prescribers.

Surgery had several open spots in this year's match. Perhaps that may have benefits in their field as well considering that surgery is an extremely hard field and most surgeons I've met appeared overstressed. Perhaps the number of open spots in surgery reflects a trend showing that medical students don't want to work ungodly hours while being pimped all the time? Who can blame them.

Definitely have some safety programs planned out. I hope that that are involved in the admissions processes will report any changes in the trends on this forum. I'll see if I can ask at University of Cincinnati. I'm not involved in that process, but the people who are have offices just down the hallway from me. Anyone in any residency program can simply ask their program director or coordinator and report the application trends on the forum.

 

[peppy]

It'll probably get even more competitive the next few years with the 30% goal increase in the number of medical students in the country too.
Wow, this forum is really freaking me out. I though psych was bottom of the list in terms of competitiveness but these posts seem to emphasize otherwise.

I don't think there is a danger that Psych will suddenly leapfrog over Derm in sheer difficulty of matching. However, I agree there will likely be increased competition across all residency fields because of the increase in the number of US med school grads. I also think that fields that offer a good lifestyle but were not as well-paying as the traditional ROAD fields are now getting more attention from students whose priorities have become more lifestyle-focused. PM&R has traditionally been regarded as an "easy match" too, but it appears to be getting more attention due to its benign lifestyle and seems to be trending towards harder to get into now.
Still, we need to keep perspective. Even though we all dream of getting a certain residency in a certain field, we should all feel very lucky to be in the medical field, which is one of the few secure fields of employment nowadays. Almost all of us will be able some kind of work - maybe not in our dream program, and maybe not even in our preferred specialty, but we'll still be doctors and still make a good living. While I had to turn down numerous offers from FM and IM programs who wanted me to scramble into their program, in contrast there are numerous recent law school graduates who can't get *any* job even though they often have debt on par with what we have.
Even though I was pretty crushed on Match Day, I am still very thankful for the opportunities that are open to me that many others don't have.

 

[Still Kickin]

Hmm, another thought...
(and again, I have no data on this, just musing to myself...)

I wonder if there were a way to stratify progams into 2 or 3 "tiers" and then compile statistics if we would see increased "competitiveness" amongst all tiers or just within the top tiers? (for AMG / native-English speakers anyway...)

I mean, the *type* of program one is aiming for might factor into all of this... (ie, do you want some high-powered research/academic career or do you just want to be a good, solid, competent physician who works out in the community?)

 

[Still Kickin]

P.S. Peppy - great attitude. (I didn't get into med school until my 3rd try and thus was always kind of impatient with the "complainers" in my class - I would think "they have no idea what a privelege it is to even BE here, if they don't like it they should shut up & leave & make space for someone who DOES want to be here instead of sitting around & whining all the time...)

Still, we need to keep perspective. Even though we all dream of getting a certain residency in a certain field, we should all feel very lucky to be in the medical field, which is one of the few secure fields of employment nowadays. Almost all of us will be able some kind of work - maybe not in our dream program, and maybe not even in our preferred specialty, but we'll still be doctors and still make a good living. While I had to turn down numerous offers from FM and IM programs who wanted me to scramble into their program, in contrast there are numerous recent law school graduates who can't get *any* job even though they often have debt on par with what we have.
Even though I was pretty crushed on Match Day, I am still very thankful for the opportunities that are open to me that many others don't have.

 

[notdeadyet]

Wow, this forum is really freaking me out. I though psych was bottom of the list in terms of competitiveness but these posts seem to emphasize otherwise.

Psych and Family Practice are still bottom of the list in terms of competitiveness. All residencies have become a bit more competitive and will probably continue to do so with increasing med school sizes. Nothing to get freaked out over.

 

[whopper]

Psych and Family Practice are still bottom of the list in terms of competitiveness.

Surgery had plenty of open spots. Does that make surgery less competitive than a field where all spots filled? I'm not saying your wrong, just that I figure surgery is pretty low too if it has plenty of open spots.

 

[notdeadyet]

Surgery had plenty of open spots. Does that make surgery less competitive than a field where all spots filled? I'm not saying your wrong, just that I figure surgery is pretty low too if it has plenty of open spots.

Yeah, general surgery is a weird one, isn't it? It seems like it's been dropping in popularity for a while now while everyone wants to specialize. I've heard general surgery isn't very competitive, but their average Steps are traditionally a fair bit higher than Psychiatry. Can't imagine too many folks are on the fence between Psych and GS though...

 

[whopper]

Geez,

I figure with surgery with so many open spots, its going to make it that much harder on surgery residents. Imagine being in a place designed to have 15 spots and 10 of them being filled. That just means those 10 PGY-1s will collectively have to do the work of 15 residents, or the attendings will have to actually do some more work to help their residents.

If that surgery residency is anything like the ones I've seen--> then it'll more likely be the 10 residents will have to work harder, even if that means violating ACGME guidelines. I've seen very few surgery attendings willing to do more work to help their residents. Of course if you report that to ACGME--> off with your head.

 

[heyjack70]

Geez,

I figure with surgery with so many open spots, its going to make it that much harder on surgery residents. Imagine being in a place designed to have 15 spots and 10 of them being filled. That just means those 10 PGY-1s will collectively have to do the work of 15 residents, or the attendings will have to actually do some more work to help their residents.

If that surgery residency is anything like the ones I've seen--> then it'll more likely be the 10 residents will have to work harder, even if that means violating ACGME guidelines. I've seen very few surgery attendings willing to do more work to help their residents. Of course if you report that to ACGME--> off with your head.

Imagine applying to a couple of surgery programs as safeties in case you didn't match into psych. Fantastic.

 

[whopper]

If I were an investigative report, and I wanted to do a report that would IMHO generate a lot of ratings--doing a secret & undercover investigation into an Ob-Gyn & surgery residency would probably find several of them in violation of ACGME guidelines.

I remember plenty of my buddies going into surgery or Ob-Gyn residency, being told in the interview that the program told them upfront that they would expect them to work more than 80 hrs, and if they didn't like it, to not match that program. This was several programs--not just 1. I figure there's some changes now because when I applied, it was just the 2nd or 3rd year when the 80hr cap started.

Where I did residency, I believe the surgery residency there was one of the only surgery programs where I saw the 80 hr limit going on, and IMHO it was because the GME there was solid, and the surgery residency was surrounded by several other programs so one program couldn't get away with a violation because then all the other ones would've gotted ticked and started demanding why that one program could get away with it, and they couldn't. If someone goes into surgery, their best bet would be a university program surrounded by other residency programs.

 

[diosa428]

Wrt to applying to "safeties" - how do we know which programs are considered safeties? Obviously this varies based on the applicant, but programs don't publish their average GPA/Step 1, and so aside from MGH, Columbia and UCLA and other obviously "top" programs, how are we supposed to know where we stand? I guess I could ask my program's PD, but are they necessarily going to know about programs that aren't ours? Especially since my school is in the south, and I'd prefer to go back to the northeast.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

First you have to look at homogeneity.

Based on word-of-mouth, forums, etc, I am fairly convinced that competitiveness to get into a highly regarded residency programs in psychiatry went up significantly. There are a lot of psychiatry programs out there that aren't even in the same league.

There is a lot more heterogeneity with regard to size, quality, and competitiveness of programs in fields like peds, internal medicine, family medicine, and psych, than there is between different general surgery, or ORL programs.

A USMG is probably not looking very hard at a program that is 50% or more FMG, and there are plenty out there. We wouldnt expect much more competition in those programs.

Going further, because psych is so highly stratified, if some (say 1/3) programs experience a huge increase in the number of stellar candidates, and the majority do not, any rise in average USMLE scores (for instance) would be much smaller than one might otherwise expect.

If we're going to use stats to make this determination, we'd have to set some kind of 'quality' criterion of a program. The easiest one to use would probably be based on the historical percentage of FMGs there are out there (not fair I know, my mentor was an FMG so whatever), say no more than 10-20%. And THEN analyze the data.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

Wrt to applying to "safeties" - how do we know which programs are considered safeties? Obviously this varies based on the applicant, but programs don't publish their average GPA/Step 1, and so aside from MGH, Columbia and UCLA and other obviously "top" programs, how are we supposed to know where we stand? I guess I could ask my program's PD, but are they necessarily going to know about programs that aren't ours? Especially since my school is in the south, and I'd prefer to go back to the northeast.

You probably aren't going to know until you actually get to the interviews. It's all so vague. Some residency websites publish names, schools, and even bios of their existing residents. Which is a good place to start.

Being the only person at the interview who isn't a mudphud, being surrounded by people who went to better schools than you did, or being asked repeatedly if you're in an allopathic program by interviewers because they're pretty sure your state only has a DO school, are all good indicators that your school is a reach.

And all these people that say stellar candidates don't need to worry need to be quiet. You're not going to be the one opening the envelope on match day and find yourself farther down the list than you expected, or (horror) needing to scramble.

 

[whopper]

You probably aren't going to know until you actually get to the interviews. It's all so vague

Agree. There is no US News & World report teiring of residencies. There is no Kaplan or Barron's guide.

Some programs want different things vs others. Some will focus much more on USMLEs, some don't care at all so long as you passed them and didn't fail them too many times--yet all can be very good programs.

Several of the programs that I've found to be high up, I've only gotten to that opinion after being a resident for years and reading about these programs from others.

I'd rank the following programs as higher--university programs, programs with research reputations, programs with name brand faculty. This is with full acknowledgement that there exceptions. Some famous doctors can be great researchers but bad teachers. Some research places don't give good clinical experiences. Some community based programs give good teaching. The above are only generalities.

However once you get the interviews, I'd go on the offensive & politiely ask what they are looking for and the average type of person they usually tend to rank. I'd use that as a framework to decide with are more or less competitive.

 

[notdeadyet]

Being the only person at the interview who isn't a mudphud..

Out of curiosity, can I ask which program this was at? Even at the UCSFs, Columbia's, etc., there are only 1 or 2 for each entering class. Sounds like you had a particularly rotten interview day given to you...

And all these people that say stellar candidates don't need to worry need to be quiet. You're not going to be the one opening the envelope on match day and find yourself farther down the list than you expected, or (horror) needing to scramble.

I think part of the reason that some aren't too panicky is that your story really sounds much more the exception than the rule. Every applicant from my school (which is no top 20 school) and everyone I know personally got into one of their top three Pysch choices. Mind you, none of them ranked MGH, Columbia and UCSF as #1, #2, and #3.

I think the takeaway is that the very top programs might be getting more competitive, but even if you're an average applicant from an average school, you'll still be able to find a program that you can live with.

You definitely have my sympathy, as it sounds like you're a great applicant that ran into some rotten luck, but your story runs counter to the experience from folks most every other applicant I've talked to.

 

[chameleonknight]

Every applicant from my school (which is no top 20 school) and everyone I know personally got into one of their top three Pysch choices. Mind you, none of them ranked MGH, Columbia and UCSF as #1, #2, and #3.

And if they had, they would've matched further down. I think what monkey and some of the rest of us are trying to emphasize is that you CANNOT say "Oh, it's psych, I can go wherever I want" If your first choice is a middle tier state school, then sure you probably will get your first choice.

It's important not to get overconfident in the match process, especially now that a few more top-notch students are applying in psych.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

Out of curiosity, can I ask which program this was at? Even at the UCSFs, Columbia's, etc., there are only 1 or 2 for each entering class. Sounds like you had a particularly rotten interview day given to you...

It happened on several occasions. But that's because I presented myself as a research-focused applicant and interviewed at some top schools when it comes to that. I wasn't too surprised to be the only non mud-phud there, and I'm pretty sure the only reason I got grouped with them is because of the masters and prior pubs.

I think part of the reason that some aren't too panicky is that your story really sounds much more the exception than the rule. Every applicant from my school (which is no top 20 school) and everyone I know personally got into one of their top three Pysch choices. Mind you, none of them ranked MGH, Columbia and UCSF as #1, #2, and #3.

I think the takeaway is that the very top programs might be getting more competitive, but even if you're an average applicant from an average school, you'll still be able to find a program that you can live with.

That's exactly my point. You guys are assuming that everyone you're talking to isn't looking for a top tier school. I was, coming from a lower-tier school. Don't get me wrong, the match turned out just fine for me. I ended up at my number 4 in a funded research/integrated child slot at a top 10 or so NIH school. And the program REALLY should have been my number 1 or 2. I'm very happy with where I ended up.

But when you are one of those 'stellar' candidates, and don't even get invites from some of the top places you're told will be all over you (MGH, Columbia, and UCSF), it gets a little irksome.

You definitely have my sympathy, as it sounds like you're a great applicant that ran into some rotten luck, but your story runs counter to the experience from folks most every other applicant I've talked to.

I deal very well with disappointment. I wasn't terribly surprised when it happened to me. But if I'd listened to what everyone else had said, I might have spent the rest of my life, or at least the next few years, a bitter man.

 

[notdeadyet]

I wasn't too surprised to be the only non mud-phud there, and I'm pretty sure the only reason I got grouped with them is because of the masters and prior pubs.

Well, if its any consolation, most of them didn't get that residency either. Looking at the entering classes of most of the top programs, there are either 0, 1, or 2 MD-PhDs....

But when you are one of those 'stellar' candidates, and don't even get invites from some of the top places you're told will be all over you (MGH, Columbia, and UCSF), it gets a little irksome.

I think of residencies like MGH/Columbia/UCSF the same way I thought of Harvard for medical school or Princeton for undergrad: They're so sought after that there is no GPA/SAT/MCAT/Step 1 that makes anyone ought to feel confident of an invite to the dance. At that level of competitiveness, you need some weird magic sauce.

And I have a hunch a big ingredient in that sauce is exposure. Either they've worked with you, or they've worked with people you've worked with. I doubt it comes down to a 230 vs. a 250 Step 1 or a 3.7 vs. 3.9 GPA.

What schools folks came from seemed fairly diverse, but I'd be interested in seeing how many folks rotated at the particular programs...

I deal very well with disappointment. I wasn't terribly surprised when it happened to me. But if I'd listened to what everyone else had said, I might have spent the rest of my life, or at least the next few years, a bitter man.

Glad you found a happy home and that you're not bitter. If you're at your #4 and your #'s 1-3 were things like MGH/Columbia/UCSF, I have a hunch your residency program is probably a great one and will limit you in no way.