open the AMA document. 42.6 categorical spots on average over the last 5 cycles.
And before you say it. The AMA owns the NRMP. So yes, the AMA is the authority on NRMP results (as they actually represent the whole ACGME programming and thus represent pre-match results as well, not just the mid-march match results)
I'd prefer not to be lectured by someone who disregards 50% of the DO matches to *categorical* spots because it'd be too much effort to open a second, much more complete, document.
I'm out!
EDIT: I will admit that I couldnt parse out applicants for preliminary spots from categorical as the applicant data comes as one big chunk of "who applied to surgery". But I can parse out who *gets* categorical spots, so i applied the same ratios of the successful categorical spot to the applicant pool. But that math assumption would, if anything, *lower* the rate of successful matching, not inflate it as I have no prelims in the accepted numbers but i have them in the applicant numbers. So correcting for it would further my point. Feel free to correct for it in my favor.