Another competitiveness thread

[RickCK]

I know these are annoying and somewhat self-indulgent, but I am concerned about my chances for securing a residency position, particularly after seeing posts of seemingly stellar applicants on SDN who didn't match or had to scramble. Please let me know what you think and what I can do to improve my chances.

- Step I 263
- AOA, Junior
- State School
- Research (weak area) - submitted 1 ASTRO abstract, first author. Setting up other radonc related research this fall. Various other research involvements in different fields, though no pubs.
- Electives. Home elective. Applying for 1 away at several programs including some "top dogs".

Thanks for any input

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted4401]

1. Do not get convicted of any crimes between now and the rank list deadline.

2. Try not to curse out or physically fight any interviewers.

I think you'll be good if you follow my advice.
-S

 

[deleted254819]

1. Do not get convicted of any crimes between now and the rank list deadline.

2. Try not to curse out or physically fight any interviewers.

I think you'll be good if you follow my advice.
-S

Yeah i'd say that's an about accurate To-Do list for your next 9 months. I'd maybe toss "Avoid driving yourself nuts about applying for residency" on that list too. Great piece of advice.

 

[DOme2009]

actually, if you can subdue an interviewer (bonus points if there's more than one interviewer) before the interview is over, they are more likely to remember you when making their rank list. having spent time on the interview trail just recently, i can confirm the truthiness to that statement.

go get 'em, tiger

 

[asmallchild]

actually, if you can subdue an interviewer (bonus points if there's more than one interviewer) before the interview is over, they are more likely to remember you when making their rank list.

Example:

 

[MHotep]

I will indulge you RickCK

So far only 4 people have posted on the SDN users match thread from this past match and their Step1/AOA status was: 220/No; 226/Yes; 235/No; and 258/No. In addition, if you look at the Charting Outcomes data from 2007 on the NRMP website you will see that the median Step 1 Score of for those who matched into Rad Onc was only 237; futhermore, 97% of AOA members matched.

Granted you have solid letters of recommendation, based on your scores you will get many interviews. You will only find it difficult to get interviews at programs like Vanderbilt, UCSF, Harvard, and MDACC where previous research productivity is weighed more heavily.

Hopefully this will allow you to get good sleep for the next 330 days prior to match day.

 

[cgk]

I will indulge you RickCK

So far only 4 people have posted on the SDN users match thread from this past match and their Step1/AOA status was: 220/No; 226/Yes; 235/No; and 258/No. In addition, if you look at the Charting Outcomes data from 2007 on the NRMP website you will see that the median Step 1 Score of for those who matched into Rad Onc was only 237; futhermore, 97% of AOA members matched.

Granted you have solid letters of recommendation, based on your scores you will get many interviews. You will only find it difficult to get interviews at programs like Vanderbilt, UCSF, Harvard, and MDACC where previous research productivity is weighed more heavily.

Hopefully this will allow you to get good sleep for the next 330 days prior to match day.

Perhaps if more of the folks that just matched would post on the SDN USERS thread, we "nervous nillies" wouldn't have to keep asking about our competitivness for match 2010, because we would have some basis of comparison to judge for ourselves. So to all recent matched applicants out there, PLEASE post on the SDN USERS thread!!!!

 

[RickCK]

Thanks MHotep,

I guess I should rephrase my question. My real inquirey was how much will my application be affected by:

1. Lack of substantial radonc research experience/publications
2. Not being from a traditional powerhouse med school.

In looking at the "who's who" and "sdn users match" threads, it seems the majority of those who do match have lots and lots of research (and many say that's the most important thing). It also seems like going to a powerhouse school can really make an impact. Though I'm sure there is a signaficant SDN sampling bias. But I would still like to hear more sdn people way in on the subject . . .

 

[nod]

this is just my opinion: i think you will having no problem matching, but it is unlikely you will match into a "top" program with little research and not being from a "big name school" (feel free to prove me wrong ).

that being said, many applicants have ongoing projects when they apply. you said you have some projects lined up, can you move them up sooner, or is there some way for them to make it onto your cv? it is okay to just have abstracts and manuscripts submitted, that was the bulk of my publication section.

also, you mentioned you are doing one away, maybe at a "top dog" place. i am personally against doing too many aways, but in this case you may wish to consider a third, depending on the reason you are doing aways. if you just need a big name letter, then doing one away at a top place is fine. if you are trying to maximize your chances of matching somewhere else, you may wish to shoot for a less competitive program and do an away there.

Thanks MHotep,

I guess I should rephrase my question. My real inquirey was how much will my application be affected by:

1. Lack of substantial radonc research experience/publications
2. Not being from a traditional powerhouse med school.

In looking at the "who's who" and "sdn users match" threads, it seems the majority of those who do match have lots and lots of research (and many say that's the most important thing). It also seems like going to a powerhouse school can really make an impact. Though I'm sure there is a signaficant SDN sampling bias. But I would still like to hear more sdn people way in on the subject . . .

 

[LCK]

Having SOME research is important to match into rad onc anywhere. Having extensive research (when other parts of your application are strong) are only important if you want to match at MDACC, MSKCC, UCSF, basically the top programs. Unfortunately (or fortunately I guess depending on your school), top rad onc places also seem to place great importance on your pedigree. Some exceptions that at times take from less prestigious med schools are Penn and MDACC if you look at that who's who thread. Harvard- forget about it. Matching from a no name place at top schools will likely be helped by 1) more research and 2) possibly an away rotation IF they really like you. So...strong app in other ways = likely rad onc match. Will you match at what is considered a top ten institution is more debatable. Hope that helps.

 

[MHotep]

Perhaps if more of the folks that just matched would post on the SDN USERS thread, we "nervous nillies" wouldn't have to keep asking about our competitivness for match 2010, because we would have some basis of comparison to judge for ourselves. So to all recent matched applicants out there, PLEASE post on the SDN USERS thread!!!!

The most accurate source of information is NRMP's Charting Outcomes--IMHO. In the past I found that only people with very stellar board scores and grades posted their data on SDN USERS thread. I am an MD/PhD from a "top" med school, and even I felt nervous about my chances of matching after looking at that thread. In retrospect, even though Charting Outcomes is now a few years old, the data is probably still appropriate to apply to our situation in 2009 and 2010.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

R U Kidding me 263 and you're worried?

Attn to anyone else on here... if you have board scores of greater than 250 you will find a spot. A spot at the top, may be not without the research.

I know many people who are stunned and agitated when people say

"Do I have a chance I have a score of 250+, X years of research, and only 3 publications in non rad onc fields"

There are so many people who are not even close to this who really do need to stress out. Rick, count your blessings, and KNOW THAT YOU WILL MATCH.

So please people, for the "bottom feeders" who only have scores around the lowly 230 mark, if you have above 240 even don't worry - my goodness! Feel sorry for the "pathetic" 230 scorers...

Have some sense, if you got above 250 you're super super smart and will get in. Let the ones with 230 and even *gasp* below ask the competitiveness questions.

 

[erectorspinae]

R U Kidding me 263 and you're worried?

Attn to anyone else on here... if you have board scores of greater than 250 you will find a spot. A spot at the top, may be not without the research.

I know many people who are stunned and agitated when people say

"Do I have a chance I have a score of 250+, X years of research, and only 3 publications in non rad onc fields"

There are so many people who are not even close to this who really do need to stress out. Rick, count your blessings, and KNOW THAT YOU WILL MATCH.

So please people, for the "bottom feeders" who only have scores around the lowly 230 mark, if you have above 240 even don't worry - my goodness! Feel sorry for the "pathetic" 230 scorers...

Have some sense, if you got above 250 you're super super smart and will get in. Let the ones with 230 and even *gasp* below ask the competitiveness questions.

I don't know if that's fair, it seems like there are several areas (home program/research/school ranking) that rad onc programs look more highly at than other specialties. This might make just grades and scores of seemingly less importance in applicants minds when they've got significant weakness in other areas.

 

[Gfunk6]

2 out of 27 US Rad Onc applicants in the 2008-2009 application cycle did not match with Step I scores of 251-260. Lesson: no guarantees.

P.S. This thread is a year old.

 

[Abnormal Saline]

It's true that nothing is gauranteed by simply achieving a high score on USMLE. This is a competitive field in which a variety of factors truly play into one's chances of matching.

I would caution those who may put too much stock into the NRMP data as they are statistics, and statistics can be very misleading. It's true that 2 out of 27 people in 2008-2009 cycle with scores of 251-260 did not match, however, we only know that they did not match into Radiation Oncology. What the chart does not tell us is whether or not those applicants had other specialties such as plastic surgery or dermatology ranked ahead of rad onc. If this was the case, the data would read that they did not match into rad onc...which is exactly what you see on the chart.

Try to be the best "all around" applicant with a great attitude on interviews, and success will come your way.


"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive. What they hide is vital."--Anonymous

 

[thesauce]

It's true that nothing is gauranteed by simply achieving a high score on USMLE. This is a competitive field in which a variety of factors truly play into one's chances of matching.

I would caution those who may put too much stock into the NRMP data as they are statistics, and statistics can be very misleading. It's true that 2 out of 27 people in 2008-2009 cycle with scores of 251-260 did not match, however, we only know that they did not match into Radiation Oncology. What the chart does not tell us is whether or not those applicants had other specialties such as plastic surgery or dermatology ranked ahead of rad onc. If this was the case, the data would read that they did not match into rad onc...which is exactly what you see on the chart.

Try to be the best "all around" applicant with a great attitude on interviews, and success will come your way.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive. What they hide is vital."--Anonymous

Read through the document again. A "radonc applicant," as defined by the NRMP, ranked radonc FIRST. If they ranked derm first, they would have been classified as a "derm applicant" and so forth. Thus, it's impossible to be classified as both.

 

[deleted4401]

Yeah, but if a rad onc applicant only gets one or two interviews, ranks those few programs, and then ranks anesthesia, they are labeled a radonc applicant, even though they may have interviewed at 10 anesthesia programs.
S

 

[thesauce]

Yeah, but if a rad onc applicant only gets one or two interviews, ranks those few programs, and then ranks anesthesia, they are labeled a radonc applicant, even though they may have interviewed at 10 anesthesia programs.
S

Correct. They would be a radonc applicant that matched in a backup. Probably the case for many/most of the unmatched applicants.

To clarify: everyone that went unmatched (as listed by NRMP) wanted to match in radonc, not another specialty as was suggested.

 

[Abnormal Saline]

Read through the document again. A "radonc applicant," as defined by the NRMP, ranked radonc FIRST. If they ranked derm first, they would have been classified as a "derm applicant" and so forth. Thus, it's impossible to be classified as both.

I should clarify my gist. If someone mixes their specialties within their rank list, it is possible that they match into another specialty before matching into the program that they rank FIRST. NRMP only considers the number of contiguous ranks in the first choice specialty. Take this rank list for example:

1. Rad Onc (desirable program)
2. Rad Onc (desirable program)
3. Derm (desirable program)
4. Derm (desirable program)
5. Rad Onc (undesirable program)

If the applicant matches at #3, then the system reads this as unmatched in Rad Onc despite the fact that they may have been ranked highly enough by program #5 to match in that program. It seems funny that someone would mix the specialties in such a way, but this sometimes occurs with couples matching or people who have strict geographical requirements. The NRMP considers this "anomalous", but it is still a real phenomenon. The point is that the chart does not give you the whole picture.

 

[Helo]

d

 

[thesauce]

I should clarify my gist. If someone mixes their specialties within their rank list, it is possible that they match into another specialty before matching into the program that they rank FIRST. NRMP only considers the number of contiguous ranks in the first choice specialty. Take this rank list for example:

1. Rad Onc (desirable program)
2. Rad Onc (desirable program)
3. Derm (desirable program)
4. Derm (desirable program)
5. Rad Onc (undesirable program)

If the applicant matches at #3, then the system reads this as unmatched in Rad Onc despite the fact that they may have been ranked highly enough by program #5 to match in that program. It seems funny that someone would mix the specialties in such a way, but this sometimes occurs with couples matching or people who have strict geographical requirements. The NRMP considers this "anomalous", but it is still a real phenomenon. The point is that the chart does not give you the whole picture.

I see what you're saying, but it seems like a bit of a stretch, and you're possibly making the exception into the rule. We all know someone who was a great candidate and didn't match. It happens. For instance, I know 2 AOA guys that didn't match 2 years ago (current PGY2 class). They were both great candidates, got 11 and 13 interviews, ranked all of them, but it just didn't work out. They both posted their match stats on here, BTW. I think this is far more common that the scenario which you put forth, which although theoretically is possible, may have never happened. Do you know anyone that's ever had a rank list and outcome like that?

My point is that I don't think you can categorically ignore the statistics because some anomaly may have occurred. I think they're important to look at particularly because the match stats posted on this site have so often been skewed toward the top performers. You may get the impression that it's impossible to match without an insane pedigree.

Your point is duly noted, though.

 

[Abnormal Saline]

I see what you're saying, but it seems like a bit of a stretch, and you're possibly making the exception into the rule. We all know someone who was a great candidate and didn't match. It happens. For instance, I know 2 AOA guys that didn't match 2 years ago (current PGY2 class). They were both great candidates, got 11 and 13 interviews, ranked all of them, but it just didn't work out. They both posted their match stats on here, BTW. I think this is far more common that the scenario which you put forth, which although theoretically is possible, may have never happened. Do you know anyone that's ever had a rank list and outcome like that?

My point is that I don't think you can categorically ignore the statistics because some anomaly may have occurred. I think they're important to look at particularly because the match stats posted on this site have so often been skewed toward the top performers. You may get the impression that it's impossible to match without an insane pedigree.

Your point is duly noted, though.

The only reason why I even mention the possibility is because I know a few residents for whom this was the scenario in past years. They were top performers on boards and had outstanding applications, but for a variety of reasons mixed their lists in such a manner. I didn't understand it's impact at first, nor did I believe it would be represented in the stats.

Nonetheless, you are right. There are indeed individuals who score highly on Step 1 who do not match. I wanted to point out that it isn't always for the reasons that are so obvious to us and we shouldn't focus on these two people anyway. I don't think that we should highlight the 2 people out of 27 with extremely high board scores who didn't match so that we can say "Hey, there are no gaurantees." In that regard, we are attempting to discredit (in a sense) the people with great scores who post on this site. Rather I think that we should look at the individuals with lower scores to examine how one can make his or her application better. This is how we can dispel misperception that you don't need an outstanding pedigree to match.

I wish more applicants with average to mediocre scores would post on this site because they are clearly competitive in some respect. It's notable that all 7 applicants with board scores in the 211-220 range for the 2008-2009 cycle matched. The input of these candidates is probably more valuable than that of individuals with AOA, >240 Step 1, etc.

 

[SupraRadOnc]

This is what I want to do, do I stand a chance if I apply? I have asked this question before and was given advice not to apply for radiation until I could remove the IMG stigmata by having completed a residency first then applying to rad onc later on. I see people here with clearly higher board scores. Mine is 234/98. I have fell in love with radiation oncology about 3.5 years ago. I was able to visit the team at USC, COH (before they had residents I believe), and a private practice at Wyckoff in NY.

I have some notable research: molecular neural stem cell research as an undergrad at UC Berkeley. Currently, doing a paper on a meta-analysis study on standards for cerebral cortical biopsy in adult dementia which will hopefully implement a new standard of care of mandatory biopsy in a subset of population. I have a case study in process (an extra tick) and a tumor marker review article submitted. I was also working on a study of the current non invasive reproducible frames for fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery to test for margin error, patient comfort, etc, but was advised to put it on hold to focus on matching somewhere strong in Internal Medicine so that I could later seek to transfer into this field. I was nearly about to send a questionnaire to all the radonc programs countrywide to gather data for this project. The only thing that I feel that I can hang on to that would differentiate me is that I have some promising new ideas for large research projects. But then again, that's why I want to be in an omnicient field of oncology so I can pursue it with some force.

I see posts of spots being unfilled, and more spots opening up, and even people with scores of 210-220 that match (more than meets the eye of course). I wonder if I have a shot? Should I apply now? Or is the old advice still applicable...not to be turned down the first time around, it would make it harder the second time around. Just apply as a stronger candidate: one that is board certified in the US. I really dont mind doing med onc, but this is so much better. And I have always been a HUGE math guy.

September 1st is coming up, and I don't want to give up an opportunity if there is a feasible one to start now rather than later. Thoughts?

I am grateful for all your comments.

 

[Gfunk6]

Go for it.

You seem to have a good understanding of this field's competitiveness and your chances as an IMG. With that said, your numbers and research appear to be solid.

I don't think applying twice (if you fail to Match the first time) adversely affects you. If anything, it will show your tenacity.

However, applying for a back-up would be prudent. Unfortunately, this entails a lot of time and money from your end. Good luck!

 

[SupraRadOnc]

Money is a huge issue. Time is not. And I can work like a work horse when happy and interested. Im also graduating by december, so I can focus efforts on one program entirely after that.

I am having a hard time deciding on a small list of radonc schools to apply to. Suggestions? I honestly don't care where I go (and this only suggests my love for this field because I AM FROM CALIFORNIA!), I just want to do it. On the other hand, my idea for research entails a novel idea for a new modality of treatment in oncology and would be an adjunctive treatment to any and all modalities of treatment that currently exist... perhaps a 12-15 year project or more, I have divided into 3 steps, a 1) prospective study to prove correlation, 2) isolating and purifying the "ingredient" and introducing it in rat models, 3) and going through the phase trials. #1 would take time but incidental findings in papers I've read suggest that the correlation would prove positively, #2 would be hard work but doable as well (basing this on my molecular research from back in the days, which Im not even sure I completely remember), #3. in vitro is one thing but it can be a nightmare in vivo, although Im fairly certain of the side effects already. I humbly include this, to substantiate that a heavily research oriented facility would be the best fit for me no matter what what field of oncology I get into. That being said, Im even more confused where to apply with my monetary constraints.


Additional constraints Im facing are that I am graduating from an European Union School, we have a strict 4th year curriculum, and they allow us only 5 weeks of elective total. So to focus on this and a back up could implode on me.

Ive been through a lot, too much explain, and Im not ready to give up on anything.

-Pateint for destiny to deal me a better card, confident to charm destiny itself.

 

[Gfunk6]

I'm not sure what else I can tell you that is of use. Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else can accurately predict the fate of you application.

Where I am sitting, it's easy for me to dispense advice as I don't really know the specifics of your situtation.
If you don't apply to many (if not all) residency programs I don't think you'll really have a good shot. There are a few programs that have historically taken IMGs in the past and these programs range from the best in the US to skirting probation. Thus, it would be a mistake to apply to a few programs. What you are telling me is that you cannot afford to apply to many (all) programs.

There is no easy solution here. Only you can decide which is the best path.

 

[SupraRadOnc]

Yes, it would be difficult to apply to all the programs and IM as a backup and go on interviews for all of them, etc, etc. I finish 6 months earlier than the july start date and would ideally love to commit somewhere (pushing to be able to get a california letter to keep my options open). Actually, maybe I am thinking too far ahead, if I get interviews then I can plan accordingly, so might as well apply to many programs. You would suggest applying to all? Honestly if it comes down to money, I'll find a way to earn it, so it's not a tremendously big deal. I just dont want to waste.

Ive read many of your posts and have an idea of what some programs want and how they are looking to fill applicants (thank you sooo much for allllll your comments, Im sure it helps a lot of people).

Which programs are currently flirting with probation? Which have had IMGs? I only know of few that have DOs/IMGs Which programs have limited hardware? And why do students choose these places (like Loma Linda). How do they close the gap of what they dont have experience in? I am looking through your old posts to find as many answers as I can.

 

[Seldon1985]

Hey!

When do most people submit their applications? September 1st or a few days later?

 

[Doc013]

I see what you're saying, but it seems like a bit of a stretch, and you're possibly making the exception into the rule. We all know someone who was a great candidate and didn't match. It happens. For instance, I know 2 AOA guys that didn't match 2 years ago (current PGY2 class). They were both great candidates, got 11 and 13 interviews, ranked all of them, but it just didn't work out. They both posted their match stats on here, BTW. I think this is far more common that the scenario which you put forth, which although theoretically is possible, may have never happened. Do you know anyone that's ever had a rank list and outcome like that?

My point is that I don't think you can categorically ignore the statistics because some anomaly may have occurred. I think they're important to look at particularly because the match stats posted on this site have so often been skewed toward the top performers. You may get the impression that it's impossible to match without an insane pedigree.

Your point is duly noted, though.

there was a guy who was AOA and didnt match and also a guy who was md/phd and didnt match. this happens, and i feel like it takes everyone by surprise. i mean it'd suck to be so qualified, yet not get the position. i just wonder if these are the guys whose personalities set them back in life. anyone?

 

[medgator]

there was a guy who was AOA and didnt match and also a guy who was md/phd and didnt match. this happens, and i feel like it takes everyone by surprise. i mean it'd suck to be so qualified, yet not get the position. i just wonder if these are the guys whose personalities set them back in life. anyone?

It's a tough field to match into. Remember, each program (outside of MSKCC, MDACC, and Harvard) has around 1-2 spots to fill and they interviews many more than that, so if things don't like up perfectly, you can end up unmatched.

Being unmatched is not an end all, as many of us can attest to. Spots do open during internship and these spots allow to join in outside of the match since you've completed your required clinical year by the time the position starts.

 

[hot sauce]

there was a guy who was AOA and didnt match and also a guy who was md/phd and didnt match. this happens, and i feel like it takes everyone by surprise. i mean it'd suck to be so qualified, yet not get the position. i just wonder if these are the guys whose personalities set them back in life. anyone?

It is also difficult to know what they did with their applications. Were they constrained by geography and only interviewed at one or two institutions? Or have some red flag in their application. It is all just speculation.

 

[ScorpionKing]

**I apologize in advance for the length!!**

Hey all. I am new to the forum and although I have thoroughly enjoyed reading many of the threads I have become more and more worried with the more I read! I am a MD/PhD (MSTP) student at a pretty good institution/program, finishing my thesis and about to transition back to med school to do my clerkships in July. Coming into med school I though I was going to be a Heme/Onc guy all the way but have become very interested in and increasingly sold on RadOnc. I am here seeking advice on what I can do to increase my chances of creating a successful ERAS application for fall 2012 (matching in 2013). Below I will try to be brief in giving you guys my background:

Regardless of not being on the RadOnc track, my thesis work has been brief (mentor left last month) and thus likely to produce only one first author paper. Additionally, my research (at this point in time) has nothing to do with cancer. I work in a gene therapy lab and have been developing a vector that targets a specific tissue type. My grandiose plans upon taking on the project were to verify our novel targeting approach and then evaluate the vector's tumor-targeting potential in specific animal models.

I have 3 second author pubs from undergrad (all to the same crappy journal), will have the one first author paper from my PhD and with much luck a few mid-authors IF I can tie up some loose ends before ERAS. I have 2-3 regional/national meeting abstracts and a bunch of abstracts from our various home institutional symposia which earned a couple of poster awards. As for med school, very average MS1/2 grades (upper third quartile) and Step 1 was only 228 (again thought I was going into Peds or Medicine).

Basically, is there anything I can specifically do, if I can even do it at this point in time, in terms of say addtl research, can a good Step 2 really help me, (away) rotations, volunteering, and even other factors, to be competitive? I checked the 2009 NRMP Charting Outcomes Data, and I thought I had a good shot in terms of my Step 1 but then I have been reading through some of the threads like "tell the world of how many programs rejected you for interviews" and am now officially scared to death. I thought being a MD/PhD student might help me at least get interviews but now not so sure....

ANY ADVICE would be much appreciated.

 

[Gfunk6]

Read the FAQ. Rotate in a couple of Rad Onc programs (including your home program), try to get involved in clinical/physics projects and apply broadly.