A Foreigner’s guide to the dreaded veterinary residency ‘Match’ process.

Welcome to the first instalment of this mini-series on the dreaded veterinary residency Match process. Unlike the stiff, borderline condescending, and often frustratingly vague explanations you’ll find on official websites, this series is here to walk you through the chaos like a moderately jaded friend who’s been through it one too many times and still hasn’t fully recovered.

I was inspired to write this after being reminded of something Eleanor Roosevelt once said: “Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself.” Having entered the match (and applied to international programs) multiple times unsuccessfully I am hoping to share the mistakes of another (me) so that you can learn without having to make the mistakes yourself.

The match is, without a doubt, one of the most stress-inducing times of year for any aspiring specialist. Some fields have it easier, a handful of spots, a manageable applicant pool. Others are absolute bloodbaths. In cardiology, for example, our department has been receiving around 50 applications every year for a single position when we have participated in the VIRMP (Veterinary Internship and Residency Match Program). Additionally, each year there are only 10-20 cardiology positions in North America, which means that 30-40 people will not match a residency at all. So, if you’re feeling overwhelmed, you’re not alone.

Everything in this guide is personal, probably biased, and definitely coloured by being in a competitive program. But I’m hoping there’s enough general usefulness here that it helps anyone navigating the Match.

This mini-series will start with the big picture: breaking down how the match works, why it doesn’t always work, and highlighting some of the quirks and lesser-known pitfalls that no one really talks about. It won’t be exhaustive, but it should be honest. And hopefully less soul-draining to read than the official PDFs.

The ideology

The VIRMP is modeled after the system used by the single-species doctors—human medicine. The idea is that you apply to a broad range of programs (private, university, whatever) and then rank them from first to last based on where you’d most like to end up. The programs receive your application, interview their shortlisted candidates, and then rank those candidates from top to bottom. Then, somewhere, a computer performs some black magic and you’re “matched” to a program.

If you’re not matched, you’re enter the next round, where internship applications are ranked (assuming you applied for those too). If you’re still not successful, or didn’t apply for internships at all, welcome to the “scramble,” where all the unmatched positions are suddenly released, and everyone frantically applies – this is fast paced, and if you are abroad you will likely have to wake up when the match results are released so that you can apply for the unmatched positions ASAP.

This system works for the noncompetitive specialties, but don’t get your hopes up about the scramble if you’re in a competitive field. There are usually no spots left. And yes, you’ll be stressed, sad and vulnerable, which is exactly when the “we have the best internship in the world, totally unmatched by choice!” crowd will appear. They didn’t match either, usually for a reason. They’re either obscure, have a horrific reputation, and from experience will ghost you the moment they realize you need a visa.

If you rank a place first and they rank you first, great I think you’re likely in. If you rank them first, they rank you second, and the person they ranked first puts them lower, then you apparently still get matched because the system prioritises the applicant’s choice. That’s the theory, anyway. I won’t lie, I can’t say I fully believe it, and since the whole process is kept suspiciously vague, I remain skeptical, especially about the part where the applicant supposedly gets their way. Since when do we ever get our way?

The reasoning behind this whole system is to reduce internal bias, to prevent programs from using internships as year-long interviews for pre-selected residents while still advertising the position and getting everyone else’s hopes up. The idea is that by removing direct hiring and instead having everyone rank each other, it becomes “fair”. Well-intentioned, yes. Perfect, no.

The rubric

While the match algorithm handles who goes where, it doesn’t set any rules about what makes a candidate eligible for a specific program. That’s up to each institution. Most programs will have some sort of rubric, with categories like research experience, GPA, recommendation letters, and so on. Each category gets a score, and at the end you’ve got a tidy spreadsheet ranking everyone on paper.

Now don’t panic. Plenty of programs do not pick the highest-ranked-on-paper candidate as their number one. They often go with the person who seems like the best fit for their department culture. That being said, I’m sure there are still some programs out there, probably the ones with Latin mottos and mahogany paneling, that rank entirely on academics and couldn’t care less if you’re a personality vacuum. Remember, the faculty (or supervising specialists) must spend a lot of time with you over 3 to 4 years and they want someone they can work with and enjoy spending time with.

For most programs, the rubric exists mainly to decide whom to interview (you can’t interview everyone—there simply isn’t enough time) and to weed out the underqualified. Let’s be honest, it also gives the university administration something to occupy themselves with. There are only so many times they can stroll the carpeted halls on their way to the coffee machine while pretending to be both useful and busy.

The flaws that will cause you grief

As an international applicant, you’re going to run into at least three major stumbling blocks. Four, if your written or spoken English isn’t up to professional standard.

But let’s start with the biggest flaw in the match system itself, and it’s a bit of a ridiculous one.

Bias

One of the main points in the VIRMP, at least in theory, is to remove bias. You rank your programs, they rank their applicants, and a computer sorts it out without the messiness of people playing favorites. The problem is that the application packets come through with your name, your current institution, and pretty much everything short of your blood type.

So yes, we know who you are. And if we really want to, we can absolutely say things like: “We think you’d do very well here… wink wink,” or, “We’re planning on ranking you highly… elbow nudge.” In fact, we can go as far as saying “We’re ranking you first,” and that’s completely allowed. The only thing we can’t do (and you cannot do) is ask where you’re ranking us, though how many programs toe that line is anyone’s guess. And if you are an internal candidate that is liked, you likely have a better chance as we know we can work with you.

So, while the Match aims to eliminate backdoor dealing, there’s still plenty of room for subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation. It’s like outlawing bribery but letting people hand over envelopes “as a gift.”

Now, let’s tackle the elephant in the room, visas.

When I started writing this, things looked different to the day I finished. And probably different again by the time you’re reading it. The rules and costs are changing faster than anyone can keep up with and there is a lot of uncertainty about what is going to happen.

To work in the US, you’ll need a visa, full stop. Before September 2025, the H1B was the go-to ticket for university positions, as they have no lottery, and there is no cap on the number that can be applied for. Private practices weren’t so lucky and had to gamble with the national H1B lottery system, where only certain numbers of visas were awarded each year. And programs don’t like gambling. They want certainty. They want to know that if they offer you a spot, you’ll show up. If you don’t, they do not have a resident in that cycle and that can cause issues, and if you do not turn up, you risk a 3 year ban on applying again through the VRIMP.

As of September, it is likely going to cost $100,000 to sponsor (no, that’s not a typo) an H1B visa and universities don’t appear to be exempt. If you think any residency program is going to pay that when your whole existence is on the premise of you being cheap labor, you may be delusional or, at best, wildly optimistic.

Australians might still have a working chance in the form of the E3 visa. It’s cheap and doesn’t require a lottery. But it only lasts two years, and programs may become wary of anything with an expiry which is shorter than the training program as nobody knows what is going to happen next.

The smartest approach, if you’re not a US citizen, is to apply to programs that offer a residency combined with a master’s degree as these can allow you to apply for student visas. Unfortunately, they rare in the US, although more common in Canada.

Next up: the NAVLE.

This one’s straightforward. If you want to work in the US or Canada, you need to pass the NAVLE. If your school isn’t AVMA-accredited, you’ll have to complete either the ECFVG or the PAVE. And both are long, bureaucratic, and involve a deeply unpleasant amount of paperwork, scheduling chaos, and exam stress.

If your school is accredited, and you haven’t yet graduated, then take the NAVLE if there is any remote possibility of you working in North America. Trust me, you do not want to be years out of school and suddenly faced with a multi-hour, multi-species, North-American-centric exam. I sat it during vet school in Australia, and I’m grateful I did so every time I see students studying NAVLE prep and struggling through the pig and chicken medicine questions as I would never be able to pass those now.

If you haven’t sat it and you don’t plan to, your only hope is a university hospital that will issue you a restricted institutional license. That’s assuming the state even allows that. Some still require the NAVLE regardless, and without it, you won’t be working in private practice,and you will struggle to stay in North America post residency as there are less than 5-10 states that have ways around the NAVLE for international specialists.

Finally: grades.

The problem with grades is that they’re used inconsistently across programs. Some care a lot, some not at all. But if you’re an international applicant, chances are your grades won’t look as good as those from a US school. That’s not because you didn’t do well, it’s because the systems are fundamentally different.

My undergrad and vet school didn’t use GPAs. I didn’t even have a class rank. I had to rely on janky online GPA converters which were unconvincingly accurate at best. There are several, and they give wildly different results depending on which one you pick.

But the real problem lies in how exams are structured.

In Australia and the UK, if you write down everything you were taught, you’ll score maybe up to 80% or so. To get into the 80s or 90s, you need to show broader reading outside of the lecture content, critical thought, and synthesis of ideas. Scores above consistently 85% are unicorn-level rare.

In the US, the exams are inflationary. If you only study what is taught you will be able to get 100%. Additionally, there are bonus points that can help puff up your marks, and I have found myself correcting exams where students have gotten 110% because they got all the exam questions right, and they answered the bonus questions correctly.

The end result? You might be stronger academically than a local applicant, but on paper, you look worse. And you will be asked where you ranked among your cohort, something my university does not calculate (and flat-out refused to when I asked), leaving me to write “N/A” and hope no one penalized me for not fitting the template.

Pearls of wisdom

If you can sit the NAVLE, do it. It opens far more doors.

Make life easy for those reading you application. Each packet has a lot of information, so make sure it take the least amount of time and effort for us to figure out what you are like as a person and that you will actually be able to join the program you ranked.

Reach out to programs. Ask if you can talk to the residents (they are less scary and still remember the struggles of the match). Ask what the program is looking for. Find out what they value and what research they’re known for. Then apply to everything, but rank the places that fit you best best. They’re more likely to want you too.

We are high achievers, and a lot of us make the mistake of ranking the “big names” first. Don’t do that unless they actually fit what you want. Everyone’s applying there, they are the MOST competitive. They might not even be the best place for your field. And programs in less trendy locations are often overlooked, which means less competition. Remember: the best residency is the one you get.

In the next post, I’ll focus more on how to actually be successful in the Match itself.

Good luck.

Words by: Dr. Joe Herbert – BVSc BSc (Hon) ARCS MRCVS (final year Cardiology Resident, USA)