Charting Outcomes 2014

[Sheldor]

http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Charting-Outcomes-2014-Final.pdf

Came out relatively recently, and haven't seen it posted here. Looks like Rad Onc remains fairly competitive as of this last match cycle.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[evilbooyaa]

I think it's funny when you get to page 274, the Abstracts/Presentations/Publications page for Rad Onc.

They should separate it out a little bit more than 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5+...

only 44 out of 184 applicants didn't have 5+ in that category. Maybe < 10, < 20, and 20+ categories would be beneficial.

 

[Sheldor]

I think it's funny when you get to page 274, the Abstracts/Presentations/Publications page for Rad Onc.

They should separate it out a little bit more than 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5+...

only 44 out of 184 applicants didn't have 5+ in that category. Maybe < 10, < 20, and 20+ categories would be beneficial.

I found it funny that as independent applicants Step 1 score goes up their chance of matching decreases.

 

[evilbooyaa]

I found it funny that as independent applicants Step 1 score goes up their chance of matching decreases.

Going to guess there's some self-selection bias there. Independent applicants with higher board scores go for gold without necessarily having the rest of their affaris (LoRs, Research, connections) in order.

 

[medgator]

23% of matched US Seniors were MD/PhD. Highest of any specialty?

 

[evilbooyaa]

23% of matched US Seniors were MD/PhD. Highest of any specialty?

Path is close at 22%, followed by Child Neuro at 18.7%. But yeah, makes sense given how research intensive the field is.

 

[texan2009]

I am a year away from applying and just curious what research projects and work experiences consist of? I will have a PhD so not sure this means I will include every project of my thesis or what? Just curious.

 

[laserbeams]

Of note, this is the first edition where the NRMP asked that applicants submit their data along with their rank list. In previous years, they worked with ERAS to pull in data from the application system.

Applicants were not required to submit their info prior to submitting a rank list, so this data is somewhat less robust than that provided in previous editions of Charting Outcomes.

That being said, damn, I'm glad I don't have to go through the application process again.

 

[Isradoc16]

I found it funny that as independent applicants Step 1 score goes up their chance of matching decreases.

That's a scary stat, and definitely funny.

Looking at the numbers though, it seems that RadOnc has a very low applicant pool.

There were only 27 independent applicants, and a third of them matched. Only 20 US seniors didn't match out of 188.

215 people applied for 177 spots... When it's put this way, it doesn't seem as daunting, somehow.

 

[medgator]

That's a scary stat, and definitely funny.

Looking at the numbers though, it seems that RadOnc has a very low applicant pool.

There were only 27 independent applicants, and a third of them matched. Only 20 US seniors didn't match out of 188.

215 people applied for 177 spots... When it's put this way, it doesn't seem as daunting, somehow.

When you point out there are 177 spots now vs less than 120 a decade ago, that does seem daunting to those of us in the field when all those people graduate and have to find a job since most of us, including myself, do not feel that demand has grown at that rate

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/bloodbath-in-red-journal.1014614/