No last minute calls here either.  I wonder if switching to NRMP has made programs much more tight lipped for fear of match violations.  The NRMP has a list of shame for all the programs that have violated match regulations.

I informed my top 5 via email that I was “ranking them highly” ~2 weeks prior to the ROL deadline. I heard back quickly from 2 of these programs (email replies from the chair/PDs), and then heard back 1-2 days before the deadline from 2 (one was by email from the chair, the other as a phone message from the PD). The actual wording varied, but for each it was essentially “you will be competitive to match here, and we would be glad if you did.” One PD told us at the interview that they would not contact applicants in this manner, and they kept their word (at least toward me).

I informed my top 4 that I was ranking them very highly and explained why in my thank you cards. If they were prgms where I rotated, I emailed a day or two after interviewing and then sent the card. I received a quick response from 3 of them, that ranged from relatively generic to a reiteration of the fact that they were very interested:

1) PD: ‘All the faculty and residents thought highly of you and believe you would make a great resident.’

2) Chair: ‘It would be a mistake for you not to train at X.’

3) Chair: ‘I wanted to follow up with you to let you know how impressed we are with you and your accomplishments. I and the rest of the faculty think that you would absolutely thrive in our program at X.’

I did second looks at #2 & 3. During the second look at #2 the chair said, ‘I and the rest of the group really like you and think you’d be great… I’m not going to tell you we’re ranking you number 1, but we’re ranking you highly… highly enough that if you rank us highly, this is where you will train.’ During second look at prgm #3, spent ~ 45 mins talking with the Chair in his office. He reiterated their interest in me and explained why he believed his prgm was a better fit than another prgm I was interested in. Then met with PD for 30 mins. He also reiterated their interest and suggested I’d be a great fit. We talked science for a few mins then went to the OR.

Matched at prgm #3.

MDPHD - 05 April 2010 07:24 AM

I informed my top 4 that I was ranking them very highly and explained why in my thank you cards. If they were prgms where I rotated, I emailed a day or two after interviewing and then sent the card. I received a quick response from 3 of them, that ranged from relatively generic to a reiteration of the fact that they were very interested:


1) PD: ‘All the faculty and residents thought highly of you and believe you would make a great resident.’

2) Chair: ‘It would be a mistake for you not to train at X.’

3) Chair: ‘I wanted to follow up with you to let you know how impressed we are with you and your accomplishments. I and the rest of the faculty think that you would absolutely thrive in our program at X.’


I did second looks at #2 & 3. During the second look at #2 the chair said, ‘I and the rest of the group really like you and think you’d be great… I’m not going to tell you we’re ranking you number 1, but we’re ranking you highly… highly enough that if you rank us highly, this is where you will train.’ During second look at prgm #3, spent ~ 45 mins talking with the Chair in his office. He reiterated their interest in me and explained why he believed his prgm was a better fit than another prgm I was interested in. Then met with PD for 30 mins. He also reiterated their interest and suggested I’d be a great fit. We talked science for a few mins then went to the OR.

Matched at prgm #3.

First of all MDPHD, congrats on matching.  Second, if you don’t mind revealing/discussing your post further....I was wondering, did you rank the programs in the order listed in your post “1), 2), 3)”?  I ask because there seems to be questions about the ethical nature of “expressing interest” and how that plays into the process.  In other words, some candidates can be misled by certain expressions of interest and decide to rank fewer programs.  This could obviously be a mistake (poor strategy) given every program ranks more candidates than it needs.  So even if a candidate is “high” on a program’s rank list, the candidate could still end up not ranking at that program. 

I suppose this has been discussed in other threads...but it bears repeating (I am aware this may not be relevant for many candidates who will ultimately match highly):

1. Rank where you want to go preferentially. (This does not necessarily mean the same as ranking a program highly that expresses interest via email/phone call/face-to-face).
2. Unless you are absolutely certain you will match, use the data from NRMP as a guide for how many programs to rank to increase your odds of ranking.

I interviewed at 12 programs this season spread across all regions of the country, representing high, mid and a few saftey programs.  I received phone calls from 7 of those 12 programs basically telling me that they were very interested in me and that I had anywhere from a very good chance to a 100% sure thing at matching at that respective program.  I made my rank list as I interviewed, so I was finished with my list before I even got the first call.  I would suggest that everyone basically disregard ALL communication as any indication of your actual placement on a program’s rank list and rank programs as you like them. 

For example, I received a call from my #1 program and that person said “you are one of our top choices”.  That program was ranked #1 and I matched at my #2.  So, don’t bet the farm based on a phone call or letter.

Longistheway - 05 April 2010 07:11 PM

First of all MDPHD, congrats on matching.  Second, if you don’t mind revealing/discussing your post further....I was wondering, did you rank the programs in the order listed in your post “1), 2), 3)”?  I ask because there seems to be questions about the ethical nature of “expressing interest” and how that plays into the process.  In other words, some candidates can be misled by certain expressions of interest and decide to rank fewer programs.  This could obviously be a mistake (poor strategy) given every program ranks more candidates than it needs.  So even if a candidate is “high” on a program’s rank list, the candidate could still end up not ranking at that program. 

I suppose this has been discussed in other threads...but it bears repeating (I am aware this may not be relevant for many candidates who will ultimately match highly):

1. Rank where you want to go preferentially. (This does not necessarily mean the same as ranking a program highly that expresses interest via email/phone call/face-to-face).
2. Unless you are absolutely certain you will match, use the data from NRMP as a guide for how many programs to rank to increase your odds of ranking.

Thanks. I would rather not discuss it any further, except to say that I did not rank in the order listed in the post. I ranked mainly based on the objective strength of the program, overall and with respect to my particular interests (clinical & research), as well as a subjective sense of ‘fit’ with the residents and faculty. Only minimal consideraiton was given to location in the ranking process since I did this when applying. I did not apply to programs in locations where I absolutely didn’t want to be.

Also, there was one additional program which I didn’t mention where I received strong positive comments from a couple senior faculty and the PD. Spoke to chair on phone, he offered largely neutral comments. Still ranked it very highly.

Isn’t this the frank violation of Don’t ask Don’t tell rule?