Jump to content

Talk:National Resident Matching Program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NRMP

[edit]

NRMP website defines participants as US senoirs at an "allopathic" medical school. Indepedents are formers grads of allopathic schools, oseopathic grads, FMG, Candians, etc. Straight off their website. Adjusting to include reference to allopathic students. User:OsteopathicFreak 66.82.9.59 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the match works

[edit]

I would like to see a section here, or perhaps another article, on how the residency matching process works. It's actually quite fascinating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.237.87 (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be interesting, we need a graphic. There's a pretty complete explination here, but its a little convoluted. Perhaps something simpler? User:Hopping T 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allopathic

[edit]

This term is poorly understood, and has several meanings, including derogatory ones. I have replaced the term with MD or other, well understood and unambiguous, words where appropriate. I had no expectation that this would be controversial, and I'm sure they are good changes that the community will approve of. --221.202.40.78 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images and Copyedit

[edit]

I have removed the two pie charts as they were illegible without clicking on them, and they contained the term "allopathic" which is not neutral (see above). I ask Hopping or someone else to redo them without that term, make them legible, and then bring them here for discussion (do they actually add anything to this article?).

I also do not understand the relevance phrase to an encyclopaedia: "The median USMLE Step 1 scores for graduates of U.S. Medical Schools for various residencies are charted in Figure 4 on page 11 of Charting Outcomes in the Match." It also seems to break WP linking rules.

Also, the article seems to assume the reader is generally familiar with what is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.77.150.176 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for increasing the size of the images. I have moved them to the right so as not to break the flow of the article. However, the use of the term allopathy over more suitable and less controversial alternatives has still not been justified. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section labels in the chart are justified by WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE. The article is about the NRMP. This is the classification system that the NRMP uses for all applicants. NRMP website The labels have been lifted, verbatim, from the NRMP reports. Here is the link for the 2008 final report. Bryan Hopping T 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: edit 397747190 undoing edit 397588383

[edit]

I'll readily admit that my revision increased the detail of the relevant section of the article and the specificity of that section's language -- but even to the extent that that's a bad thing, my revision was a major improvement to the half-unintelligible, other-half-ambiguous blather that was there before.

Likewise, I readily admit that my writing isn't above the universal law that there's always room for improvement -- but the fact that an improvement can itself be further improved doesn't justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater, especially when what was there before was almost all bathwater and little or no baby.

If you think my revision contains "too much extrapolation," how about further editing it to condense it and make it better, as opposed to just changing it back?

165.176.7.3 (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attempt to clarify the language. I agree, your edit probably should not have been reverted so unceremoniously, however it did contain several technical inaccuracies. For example, partners need not be matched to the same institution (you could use the couples match system to ensure the opposite, if you wanted). I'm also not sure what it means to "[assume] that the matching algorithm accounts for all other factors", since we know that the only factors it makes any attempt to account for are the preference lists. In any case, I've made an attempt to clarify the meaning while fixing the inaccuracies, which I hope you'll find more intelligible than my original language. I don't really take issue with the speculation for why a hospital might find a "coupled" applicant more attractive, so I don't have a problem if you want to put that back in. mcs (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good explanation re: the paraphrase as having the program (do something like) match applicants individually and then have applicants "start at the top" of their own preference lists and turn down (or, rather, turn down on their behalf) matches until they reach a match that their respective partners have also reached. Nicely done. 165.176.7.3 (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! mcs (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOAP

[edit]

Not sure how to phrase this, but the section regarding the Scramble and SOAP is somewhat incorrect. The SOAP process occurs after the algorithm has been run, but before the release of the full results of the match (on Match Day), happening between Monday at noon and extending through Friday of Match Week (Match Day itself). Most of the SOAP offers and acceptances will actually occur before Match Day. The current wording makes it sound as if the SOAP process occurs after Match Day.

I believe the same chronological issue applies to the Scramble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.225.204 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critiques

[edit]

How is there no description of the criticisms of this highly flawed system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.28 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because no editor (such as yourself) has written well-sourced, critical content. -- Scray (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Software implementation

[edit]

I think it useful to add links to open source software that implements the Gale-Shapely matching algorithm for the College-Admissions problem used in the NRMP and described in the article. To this end I suggest to add the following in the External links section:

Mtching (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's very doubtful that this would be useful information for readers of this article. Is this the specific algorithm and the specific implementation of that algorithm used for the National Resident Matching Program? ElKevbo (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the implementation of the Gale-Shapley matching algorithm (simple case w/out couples) described in the article and the reference. Mtching (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the specific implementation of the algorithm that is used in this process or is just one of several implementations that exist? The article that describes the new (as of 1999) algorithm doesn't seem to mention R and it seems very implausible that an R package that is on version .1-2 would be a core component of such an essential program. ElKevbo (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the clarification. The R package was published this year and is therefore, of course, not mentioned in the 1999 AER paper. This package is also not used by the NRMP but it is, to my knowledge, the only freely available implementation of the algorithm. A reader interested in understanding and applying the algorithm will find no added value of working with the NRMP's implementation of the algorithm, which is not available anyway, over the implementation in this R package. To reemphasise, this is a well-tested, documented and archived implementation of the algorithm that I think would be very useful information for readers of this article. Mtching (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm still not sure how this link would be helpful to people interested in this program. It seems to be solely focused on such a narrow, specific, and technical aspect of this program that it doesn't seem like it would even be relevant for most readers. It may be more appropriate for an article that focuses on the algorithm itself. ElKevbo (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with the assertion that most of the readers are not interested in the technical aspects of the programme. Interest in the NRMP outside of the U.S. and the medical profession comes from audiences with very diverse backgrounds and this is mainly because of the remarkable properties of the algorithm. For example, the algorithm is now used in several school districts to assign students to schools and its description and application have been the subject of the 2012 Nobel Prize in economic sciences. This interest in the matching algorithm is well reflected in the article. The prominent discussion in the 'matching algorithm' section makes up almost half of the article's word count. Mtching (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on National Resident Matching Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Resident Matching Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Resident Matching Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New section/entry specific for Stable-Marriage extensions stemming from NRMP

[edit]

Stable-marriage points here twice - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem#:~:text=hospitals/residents%20problem%20with%20couples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem#:~:text=hospitals/residents%20problem and yet there's no actual description of this variant of the algorithm, which seems highly applicative, especially given partial preference lists, which reduce the complexity from O(n^2) to O(V+E).

I'd like to see a CS-oriented section/entry: 

 - Highlighting partial pref. lists
 - Describing how one-sided multi-match-capacity & couple-matching are handled
 - Discussing options for two-sided multi-match-capacity

192.114.105.254 (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Ehud[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Resident_Matching_Program&oldid=1199744677"