2006 match stats for EM

[BKN]

Bumping. Quinn or spyderdoc - this might be a good FAQ link!!!

More stuff! I got the 2006 match report the other day:

EM: total positions 1363

only choice US seniors 996
first choice US seniors 94
not first choice US senior 57
only choice IAs 363
first choice IA 71
not first choice IA 60

positions per US senior 1.3
positions per IA 3.1
positions per all applicants 0.9

IA = independent applicant, that is, everybody except US seniors.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[trkd]

More stuff! I got the 2006 match report the other day:

EM: total positions 1363

only choice US seniors 996
first choice US seniors 94
not first choice US senior 57
only choice IAs 363
first choice IA 71
not first choice IA 60

positions per US senior 1.3
positions per IA 3.1
positions per all applicants 0.9

IA = independent applicant, that is, everybody except US seniors.

Can someone clarify these numbers for me? I am a bit dense. Is it that 996 US seniors matched and had only ranked EM? Then, 94 who ranked >1 specialty (but EM first) and matched EM? I am confused. Numbers aren't matching up. Am I reading this all wrong?

 

[totalbodypain]

Can someone clarify these numbers for me? I am a bit dense. Is it that 996 US seniors matched and had only ranked EM? Then, 94 who ranked >1 specialty (but EM first) and matched EM? I am confused. Numbers aren't matching up. Am I reading this all wrong?

don't worry trkd, I wasn't even sure we were still talking about the match until one post prior.

 

[BKN]

Can someone clarify these numbers for me? I am a bit dense. Is it that 996 US seniors matched and had only ranked EM? Then, 94 who ranked >1 specialty (but EM first) and matched EM? I am confused. Numbers aren't matching up. Am I reading this all wrong?

It's an attempt to suggest the relationship between # of positions offered by the institutions and the numbers of positions desired. It does not say anything about the numbers of each category who matched. Those numbers are in different tables in the report, which I presume scutwork will post as the interview season fires up.

My post says that 1383 positions were offered and if you divide that by the total number of US seniors who ranked an EM program you get 1.3. If by total number of IAs who ranked EM you get 3.1 and if by all applicants 0.9.

I conclude that 1 person in 10 who ranked EM did not get an EM position.

Presumably those unfortunates are mostly those who did not make EM a first choice. That category is almost exactly 1/10 the applicants. The only way that wouldn't be true is if the not ranked EM first group was generally going for more competitive specialties with EM as a backup.

So the end result? There was a position for almost everybody who wanted one.

They just had to play their interview season right.

 

[BKN]

Bump

 

[fuegorama]

They just had to play their interview season right.

So this is the real gritty.

As one of those falling in the "all applicant" pool (DO), what data is out there to suggest the ideal number of apps. to submit? I recognize there are plenty of confounders (geography, scores, bias, astrological sign etc.) but beyond the obvious >11 interviews for a likely match, what game-time pointers are there for an independent looking at ACGME programs?

Is there a data set describing the number of applications submitted, interviews offered, and rank selection per category of applicant?

 

[GeneralVeers]

Damn "not first choice" applicants taking good EM spots away from those of us who are academically challenged.

 

[trkd]

It does not say anything about the numbers of each category who matched. Those numbers are in different tables in the report, which I presume scutwork will post as the interview season fires up.

Chatted with an admin at scutwork a few months ago when they removed the stats and they will no longer be posting that info.

 

[DrQuinn]

Interesting info, BKN... I agree with your conclusion (that most of the people who didn't match didn't put it first choice).

Q

 

[EctopicFetus]

Interesting info, BKN... I agree with your conclusion (that most of the people who didn't match didn't put it first choice).

Q

Maybe I have been too far removed from using my brain but I dont think that this is the conclusion at all.

I think the only conclusion is that 1/10th of people who ranked EM didnt get it. Of course about 1/10th of EM applicants also looked into other fields so roughly there is 1 EM spot per person who wanted EM.

 

[RayF]

Interesting info, BKN... I agree with your conclusion (that most of the people who didn't match didn't put it first choice).

Q

meaning that they matched with their higher choice.. not that they didn't match...right?
(In other words they might or might not have matched EM, we just don't know)

 

[BKN]

meaning that they matched with their higher choice.. not that they didn't match...right?
(In other words they might or might not have matched EM, we just don't know)

Right.

More to follow.

 

[RayF]

so, ok.. do these numbers mean that "only choice" gives a better chance for matching than "first choice" ?
because the #s are like 996 vs ~100. In other words, applicants reduce their chance of matching EM if they select a second "backup" field ?

 

[BKN]

so, ok.. do these numbers mean that "only choice" gives a better chance for matching than "first choice" ?
because the #s are like 996 vs ~100. In other words, applicants reduce their chance of matching EM if they select a second "backup" field ?

No, You match to the highest choice on your list. If your backup is lower than all of your EM programs, you'll only end up at the backup if you didn't match to any EM place.

 

[BKN]

Bump for the new interview season