To all of those who participated in the survey, thank you. I hope to do this again next year. Here are the results:
50 people responded with their USMLE I scores, the number of applications they submitted, and the number of interview offers they received. Of those, we partial data, including USMLE II from 36, and class rank from 46. 44 provided final ROL position. 6 participants were DOs.
The average USMLE I in this survey was 228 (±17), higher than both the nat'l average (215) and the EM-matched US senior average (219) for 2005
. This reflects the standard SDN selection bias of BKN’s earlier survey
Of those who reported their final position on their ROL, 67% respondents got their #1, 19% got their #2, and 7% got their third choice. (93% matched in their top 3) Only one person had to scramble. Class rank did not differ significantly between those who got their 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice.
Mean number of applications sent out per person was 29 (±10), which garnered an average of 20 (±8) invites. The number of applications each senior sent out declined with increasing score as expected. The number of interviews offered did not correlate with either USMLE score. I interpret this as evidence of generally good mentoring, as excess applications were avoided.
This survey was intended to create a tool to help future US seniors applying in EM (per poster suggestion
). To that end, for each responder, I divided the number of interviews offered by divided by the number of applications sent out for each participant. This ratio gives the “effectiveness” of a senior’s applications. E.g., an applicant with an effectiveness of 0.66 had to send out 3 applications to get 2 invites, whereas a more competitive applicant may have had an effectiveness of 0.75. Working backwards, future applicants can use their USMLE I score and class rank to gauge the effectiveness of their application, and project how many applications they need to send out to get a desired number of interviews*.
Effectiveness of applications ranged from 0.15 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.72. Effectiveness correlated positively with both USMLE I score (r^2 = 0.367, df = 48, p-value = 0.0001) and class rank (r^2 = 0.214, df = 44, p-value = 0.0012). This makes sense, as highly competitive candidates have generally high scores and class rank. USMLE II score was not correlated because not at all programs require applicants to report their exact score when interview offers are made.
Interestingly, only 58% of the difference between highly effective (or competitive) applications and less effective applications was accounted for by USMLE I score and class rank. Other factors not covered in this survey (letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities, or presence of graduate degrees) may explain the remaining variance.
*I can re-post the correlation equations if it is too difficult to see from the attachments. I had to re-size the graphs to post them.