Lowest Drop on a Rank List

Extremely unlikely. Quite the opposite, I believe there is over a 90% chance of matching at your top 3.

Hence, I'm not sure why people tend to take that 13-16th interview.

Because that 13th interview may end up being ranked #1.

Based on orthogate, not often at all. Looking back at previous years it seems like #5 is about the max. Obviously orthogate is a small sample size and is clearly skewed toward the more competitive applicants. However, based on my own anecdotal evidence of people I know that are in ortho, I would say that in general people that match ortho don't go that far down their list. Which makes me suspicious about the whole magic number of interviews to match thought process. What is it like 11 or 12 interviews? I don't think this is the amount to have to be safe, I think getting that many interviews is an indication that someone is a very strong applicant. And if they are strong enough to get 12+ interviews they are probably going to ranked favorably at a lot of places including their top 4-5 places.

I know someone who matched their 13th/15

So you're tellin me there's a chance....

...know someone who matched at #14 out of 14. On another note, I know someone in the urology match who matched at his #7 program, and 5 of the programs ranked higher on his list had told him he was ranked to match. Just sayin, take it all with a grain of salt.

I wonder what a place can show you on interview day or say to you that would propel you from #13 on your list to #1. Its one thing to take less desirable interviews earlier in the season, as you don't know if or what more you're going to get. But taking them in the end of the season does not seem to make as much sense (coming into an interview, applicants already know Location, community vs academic, reputation, etc)

I agree with Vsabesh - its kinda a make-it take-it game. The strong are rewarded w dozen+ interviews, but usu don't need them. The less strong are only given a few, of which they need them all.

The 17th (and last) interview I went on ended up being #3 on my list

How can you really know a program will be 'less desirable' unless you give them a shot and interview there. And just because they are your last interview doesn't mean you'd go in thinking they are last on your list.

I really didn't want to go to my last interview because I was tired and didn't think I'd rank them highly. They ended up being in my top 3 also.

Skipped my last interview a few years ago (would have been like number 13 or 14), didn't match, have always regretted that. Would I have matched at that program had I interviewed? I'll never know because I didn't just go to the interview feeling everything would be okay and I already saw the programs I liked. All worked out in the end, but man I would love to have matched at number 13 rather than the prelim year and re-apply crap I did.

Besides, what if that last interview or two becomes number one on your list? Statistically, the most reliable correlation between applicant data on the charting outcomes in the match thing each year and those who match is the number of consecutively ranked programs by the applicant. In other words, rank as many as you possibly can unless you truly would rather not do ortho or prelim and apply again than go to a certain program.

The whole "number of consecutively ranked programs" and the "magic number" thing has so much confounding in it that there is little use in my opinion. The reason that there is a "magic number" that has been hashed out in the data analysis of this crazy process is because people who are stronger applicants get more interviews, those that are weaker applicants get less interviews. If you are a stronger applicant and you rank 6-8 programs you'll probably match somewhere. If you're a strong applicant and you don't interview very well, you'll probably need to rank more programs.

It seems like with this process that a lot of people can't see the forest for the trees. There is a reason people get a ton of interviews, there is a reason people match lower or higher. The number of places that people rank and how many interviews they get is the Y variable in other words.

JMO though so don't blast me.

I disagree with Oski MD to an extent. The average program has 4 or 5 spots so ranking 6 programs means you are only ranking 30 overall spots. But not every spot is actually available to you. Lets say you did aways at 2 of those 6 programs so you have a chance at say 4 out of the 5 spots (assuming the program you rotated at is rotator heavy in their selection) at both aways, This gives you 8 spots from 2 aways plus 1 or 2 spots from your home program. Realistically you are also going for 1 or 2 spots tops at programs you didn't rotate. So if you rank 6 places you are really only ranking about 16 spots max (8 from aways, 1-2 for home program, 1-2 for remaining 3 ranks where you didn't rotate). I don't care how good an applicant you are, programs could find 16 other people they like as much as you or more. This also doesn't include programs' desires for gender, ethnic or racial diversity that further reduce the number of spots "available."

I don't subsribe to any "magic number" for interviews, and certainly stronger applicants will get more interviews. It seems rather basic, however, to understand that the more interviews you go to the more chance you have of matching. I assume OskiMD is on the outside of ortho looking in right now, maybe not. However, my point is to caution not to become so overconfident in your interviewing ability or your strength as an applicant as to turn down interviews. If you are under the impression that only weak applicants or those who interview poorly don't match, you've been mislead. Fortunately, most good applicants who interview well match. However, why would a good applicant who interviews well take the risk of passing up an interview knowing that a number of such applicants don't match every year?

I have no room to talk seeing that I did just that a few years ago. I believed program directors when they told me what my chances were before and after interviews and skipped an interview. I'm just saying it's such a small sacrifice to go to the interview vs. becoming one of those who "just slipped through the cracks" and all that other junk they tell you after you don't match when they can't find a problem with your strength of application or interview skills when you ask about those things specifically after the fact.

The point is just go to as many interviews as you can. What is the real downside to that? Thinking you don't need to in order to match is at the very least a bit risky and somewhat ignorant. I love being in ortho despite the fatigue and so forth, and I'd say it's definately worth an extra interview or two if only to hedge your bet. JMO.

Good luck with the match folks. Hope it goes well for as many as possible. It's definately worth the work and worry you've put in.

I disagree w JDoc. The point of the thread is What are the odds you will match at your last choices? As a matter of fact, that was what the OP asked. The question then becomes, not whether more interviews will help you, but to what extent.

There are a lot of things applicants can do to help themselves minimally. Getting 6 people from your department to call/write on your behalf instead of a couple. Getting different faculty to call different places letting them all know they're your number one. Updated CVs, etc etc. The point is that these things help marginally. And that's what the crux of this discussion is about - the marginal gain vs expense/time/effort flying to your 15th interview of the season.

It sounds like from what people are saying, there tends to be anecdotal evidence that people match at #13, or their last choice, etc. but nobody has really quantified it yet as a regular occurrence. In fact, the data shows statistically less than a fraction match at the tail end of their long lists. Oski hit the nail on the head - # of programs ranked is an entirely confounding variable, maybe even the RESULT of strength of applicant, rather than an independent determinant.

Just thought I'd weigh in on this very interesting subject. I think the big question here is whether your rank on one list is correlated with your rank on other lists, or whether each rank is independent.

Personally, I don't think its necessarily true that the same applicants will be ranked at the top of all lists. Many of the places I interviewed it seemed like they invited all the people they liked on paper, and the interview was used more to choose the people they liked in terms of personality, fit, etc. These are so subjective - they can be influenced even by who you get as an interviewer. Consider how random the process of getting interviews was - why wouldn't post-interview ranking be pretty random too?

So, if there is at least some randomness to post-interview ranking, I'd say for a weaker applicant, it would definitely help to go on some extra interviews. Ortho's tough because you're looking for a place to love you, not just like you. Most places I went interviewed 10 people for each spot, so people who didn't rotate are probably facing 1 in 20 odds at least - going to say 15 interviews instead of 12 would have to help.

ROL_2010, you're right. The extra interviews may help some people only marginally and may not be worth their extra time and effort if they match at their number one and their number one would not have changed because of that last interview or two. But who are those people? No matter how many rank lists you may think you are at the top of, the programs decided that not you.

As mentioned before, ofcourse stronger applicants will get more interviews. However, I think it's pretty clear that if you don't go to an interview your chances of being ranked at that program are 0%. If you do go you likely will be ranked somewhere on the list. Being somewhere on 14 programs' lists gives you a better chance than being somewhere on 13 programs' lists. Sure, maybe all 14 programs will match their top 4-10 and you are number 15 on every list so it didn't help you. The point is, why take that risk? Especially when, as mentioned by others, you may end up ranking that 14th program very highly if you just go check it out. After investing so much in this process to determine your future, why not just finish the job?

I realize this means nothing to those who've submitted rank lists already, now that I realize what the date is. However, those who read this stuff and will apply next year should strongly consider trying to make as many interviews as possible. Whatever the "odds you will match at your last choices", just going to the interviews cannot hurt your chances of matching at a program you will really like. Isn't that why you're doing this anyway? Is it worth the marginal gain? The statistical gain may be marginal in your mind if you think you're at the top of everybody's list. However, the reality of matching vs. not matching and possibly passing up a program that you might have loved makes the statistics a little less important. Statistically, very few of your future patients will get a post-op PE, but I dare you to skip the DVT prophylaxis based on statistics. The clinical significance sometimes outweighs the statistical significance. That's all I'm saying.

In gen surg and medicine and other fields, the same catastrophic risk of not matching applies, but applicants there hardly if ever rank 15 places. I feel the need for restraint and perspective applies. Obviously ranking 15 places instead of 12 helps, but when the NMRP charting outcomes for the match shows that ranking 11 continuous places has you at a >95% chance of matching, then one has to question the ultimate utility of to what end each additional interview brings you.

Now if you think that the next place is going to be the greatest place on earth, by all means, go on that interview. But if you're pretty sure you don't want to go to a small community program in the middle of rural Michigan or in Jersey somewhere, and you're already on your 12th interview after having gone on interviews at 10 other places you love/like/rotated at, then it actually does make sense to question that addl benefit of what that next interview brings you. This is not necessarily thinking that you're the sweetest thing since sliced bread to ortho, this is just being realistic about your odds and the way the match goes down. The chances just happen to be overwhelming that you will match within your first 8, which usu include where you did your externships/ home school/ neighborhood or state programs, etc, which are usually a better fit for you anyway (and tend to rank applicants higher conversely for that reason)

And if you're a weaker candidate, then the question of going on 15 interviews does not arise. Chances are the candidate is not as weak as he/she thinks

hrm..
I wouldn't take any stock in where you match vs the rank list. The natural bias of the system is that people will match at places they like the best, and vica versa.

The number of interviews correlates to the increased matching potential, but is not an absolute determinant. The first time around, I ranked 19 or so places. Was told I was ranked to match at multiple places.. clearly that didn't happen. The second time around I ranked 14 places, and was ranked to match at a few, which I didn't match at, either.

Most people will match in their top 5, that's for sure. The underhanded question here I think, is that should you even bother ranking all of your interviews.. the answer is yes. You'd be foolish not to, even if you hated the program. A bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush.

In regards to going on various interviews. You should try to go on as many as possible, as long as it doesn't sacrifice your interview day. You will get very tired going through these interviews.. and you should put your best foot forward..always. With that being said, in regards to going to interview socials.. watch it. Watch what you do, and if it's going to compromise your next-day performance, be careful. Know who you are as a person. For me, I knew that if I stayed out late, I would probably blow the interview - ie not do my best.

Enough said.