PM&R advice to applicants

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

j4pac

Prior Flight Surgeon PM&R attending guy
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,041
Reaction score
3,242
Update: 4/15/2024

It's been quite the journey. I started this thread as an applicant about a decade ago with the purpose of understanding the civilian match process coming from military medicine. I found that there was not much transparency and all of the resources to help applicants make informed decisions were incredibly lacking or disorganized. So I compiled every bit of data and information that I could find to help myself be more informed about getting into the specialty, and then I compiled those details within this thread.

Fortunately, I was able to match into a civilian PM&R program, and subsequently learned even more about the match process while in residency and now in leadership within PM&R academics. These are, of course, my own opinions based on the statistics available and my own experience in mentoring over the last decade. But no two applicants are identical, neither are two programs, and there is a bit of randomness to this process. The data that I am sharing is 100% publicly available through NRMP and AAMC.


PRE-MEDS (MD vs DO vs FMG)
If you read enough SDN, the general consensus is MD>DO>FMG. But if you know for certain that you want to do PM&R, does it matter? To get this answer you have to look at the NRMP Match Data Sheets. There is a lot of data that can be interpreted in a number of way. The specialty specific stats get split into three categories: 1) only choice, 2) first choice, and 3) not first choice. I'm going to focus my attention on the first category, because that has the best statistics (especially for USMD/DO). USMD had 183 applicants matched and 21 applicants unmatched (89.7% match rate), and DO had 90 applicants matched and 28 applicants unmatched (76.2% match rate). There were far fewer FMG that ranked PM&R as their only choice, with only 10 applicants matched and 21 applicants unmatched (32.2% match rate). Looking at the data a little different, when considering ALL applicants (including those with multiple specialties ranked), there were 213 USMD matched applicants with 35 unmatched applicants (85.9% match rate). There were 134 DO matched applicants and 77 unmatched applicants (63.5% match rate). There were 15 FMG matched applicants and 19 unmatched applicants (44.1% match rate). Also note that FMGs have the lowest graduation rate of all school types. So my recommendation would be to avoid FMG. I would work hard to get into MD school, and use DO as a fall back plan. PM&R is considered a "DO-friendly" specialty, maybe the most friendly of all ACGME specialties, so consider how much lower the acceptance rate would be for other ACGME specialties. Graduates (of all types) are also statistically at a disadvantage (with the one exception being military applicants).

TYPES OF PM&R PROGRAMS
I will break this up into three categories: Advanced, Categorical, and Physician (R). Advanced programs are three year programs which start PGY-2. Categorical programs are four year programs that start PGY-1. Physician (R) programs are three year programs that start PGY-2. The difference between Advanced and Physician (R) is that you apply two years in advance for Advanced programs, and same year for Physician (R). Physician (R) is valuable for those who have already started post-graduate training. In regards to competitiveness of types of programs, categorical are typically the most competitive because most applicants don’t want to move between internship and residency, and it is also easier to match to one program vs two (PGY1 and PGY2). Physician (R) spots are competitive because there are typically less than 10 spots total available per year. Military brethren…timing is important. If you are getting out in two years…you need to apply to advanced programs now! Use applying to categorical/physician-only as a fall back plan next year. But it isn’t ideal because you need to get your separation request in before even the military match same year.

AM I COMPETITIVE FOR PM&R
Let me start by saying that PM&R, despite being one of the most competitive specialties by sheer numbers, is one of the more forgiving specialties in terms of board scores. I am not going to say that your numbers don’t matter, because they do. But you are more likely to get an interview at a reputable PM&R residency without elite scores than many of the other competitive specialties. PM&R prides itself on “fit” and “personality”. If you are a gunner…stay away, because you will stick out like a sore thumb. Many programs conduct a holistic review of applications, but I'd acknowledge that some applicants are helped more than others. Individuals from underrepresented backgrounds, such as ethnic minorities, military, and those with disabilities are more likely to benefit from holistic review than individuals not within those groups. On the most recent program director survey, the most significant factor in the decision to conduct a holistic review is "increase resident diversity". Both the average USMLE rate for matched individuals and the overall match percentage is very similar for PM&R and all specialties. It's a semi competitive specialty regarding board scores, but the competition comes in the form of large number of applicants with limited seats.

ERAS
ERAS is the system used to submit your application to programs you are interested in. I'm going to include this here so help preserve your wellness. I recommend opening a new email account specific for receiving interview invitations. Then you can set push notifications for receiving emails from that specific account. Most programs are good about giving applicants plenty of time to respond to interview invites so that you do not have to rush out of a patient encounter in the middle of the day to coordinate interviews. However, with that said, there are still some reports of not every program being civil/humane on this matter. By setting push notifications on your phone connected to your email you get immediate notifications about interviews so that you can be prompt on replying. The importance of not linking your school or primary personal email is because it would be distracting to get frequent push notifications for emails not specific to interviews, and has a high likelihood of adding to OCD tendencies and anxiety.

HOW MANY PROGRAMS TO APPLY/HOW MANY PROGRAM TO RANK
This is an excellent topic and you'll get a variety of opinions. Not to mention, this is very much a moving target because I anticipate changes with signals and the interviewing format (virtual versus live) over the next two years that is going to have a dramatic impact on strategy. So stay tuned, because I anticipate an additional edit to this section within the next two years.

I've decide to combine these two different topics into one section because even though, chronologically, you interview before you rank programs, the ultimate goal is to match. I'm going to discuss the match/ranking statistics first, which will help you better understand the context of applications.

If you look at charting outcomes you will see a graph that is commonly referenced to determine how many programs to rank. That graph shows that an applicant that ranks 12-13 programs contiguously has a 90% chance to match, and after that point there are diminishing returns and the probability never gets to 100%. Understand that there is quite a bit of bias that goes into that graph. First, most applicants are aware of the information derived from the graph (either from seeing the graph or being told by someone that you need "x" number of interviews to match). So the significant majority of applicants are intentionally meeting that threshold. But does an applicant need 12-13 ranked programs to match? The answer is not necessarily. For example, there are many applicants that match at their #1 ranked program. They clearly didn't need 12-13 ranked programs to match, they only need one. There are also individuals with over 15 ranked programs that fail to match. Applicants don't match by having a ton of interviews (though getting a ton of interviews is often a reflection of the strength of the applicant), they match by being ranked highly by at least one program.

In most cases, the individuals that match, do so by matching HIGHLY on their own rank list. There are not available statistics specific for PM&R, but there are stats on this topic that incorporate all specialties, and considering that PM&R is a middle of the pack specialty regarding competitiveness, I think that it is fair to extrapolate these trends to apply to PM&R. Here is how USMD's match based on their rank list: 1st rank 45%, 2nd rank 14%, 3rd rank 10%, 4th rank 7%, >4th rank 20%, unmatched 6%. That means that 74% of the applicants only needed four programs on their rank list to match. The DO stats aren't considerably different: 1st rank 43%, 2nd rank 16%, 3rd rank 10%, 4th rank 7%, >4th rank 17%, unmatched 8%. Again, 75% of applicants only need to rank 4 programs to match. So it is clear that most individuals that match do so by matching highly on their rank list. How many applicants are actually matching at programs ranked below 8 on their rank list? The number has be very low (sub-10%). If an applicant is not matching within their top 8, I'd actually wager that they are pretty unlikely to match at all. But as it stands, there is very little downside to ranking every program that you interview, and the average USMD applicant is ranking over 16 programs (likely slightly inflated because programs with both categorical and advanced programs are counted twice). The average applicant should attempt to rank at least 8 program.

Are all interview invites created equal? This is a topic very difficult to study. More work needs to be done to determine the characteristics of those that match versus those that do not match. I do know that interview linked to a home/away PM&R rotation has more opportunity than the interviews without a rotation. I believe that this would be especially true during the age of virtual interviews. The key to matching isn't getting 12-13+ interviews, it's getting ranked to match by at least one program. An applicant doing well on a rotation tied with doing well on an interview is going to have an advantage. I say all of this to tell you that if you have multiple home/away rotations and 8 interviews I'd feel more confident in your ability to match than 8 interviews with one home/away rotation. The number of home/away PM&R rotations, as well as the overall strength of the applicant, are all considerations in determining the length of a rank list (as well as the number of applications to submit). Speaking of the later...

If you thought that the decision on how many programs to rank (and how many interviews to attend) was nebulous and confusing, you haven't seen nothing yet! Get ready for some math. NRMP tracks match data, but it does not track data about applications. But fortunately, AAMC has started to track a limited amount of data regarding application trends. Applications to signaled programs resulted in slightly higher than 50% return on an interview. Applications to non-signaled programs resulted in about a 12% return on an interview.

This is year the AAP has decided to increase the number of signals from 5 to 8. So considering the 51% return on signals, the average applicant will get 4 interviews through signals. If an applicant is aiming for at least 8 programs to rank, an applicant would have to find a way to get 4 interviews from non-signaled programs. So considering the 12% return on non-signaled applications, that would take 33 applications for the average applicant to get 4 interviews. So if you at those 33 applications to the 8 signals, that would give you 41 applications.

The challenge is how to make adjustments if you are not 50th percentile. If you are an above average applicant, or below average applicant, what do you do? The AAMC did put out some stats on return on applications for applicants that were either 10th or 90th percentile. Starting with 10th percentile students, the return on a signaled program is 26% and it's 7% for non-signaled programs. For 90th percentile students, there is a 71% return on signaled programs versus 22% for non-signaled programs. We don't have good stats for 25th and 75th percentile so I had to project based on averages of between the 90th, median, and 10th percentiles. So using those stats, I have calculated the following:

USMDs/DOs:
10th percentile (Step 1-2 failure, remediation, no research, application red flags)- Apply to minimum 85 (not including signals)
25th percentile (215-230 step 2, minimal research/extracurricular activities)- Apply to minimum 52 (not including signals)
50th percentile (230-245 step 2)- Apply to minimum 34 (not including signals)
75th percentile (245-260 step 2, above average research/extracurricular activities)- Apply to minimum 19 (not including signals)
90th percentile (260+ step 2, exceptional research/work experience)- Apply to minimum 11 (not including signals)

FMGs/IMGS: Apply to 85 programs minimum (not including signals)

One train of thought is to apply to every program under the sun. Of course, this may be cost prohibitive for many. But with virtual interviews, it does cut the overall costs of the interview process significantly. It'd cost roughly $2500 to apply to every PM&R program. In most cases, it is not necessary to apply to every program and many ways you could be hurting both yourself and everyone else in the progress of doing it.

If, by chance, the number of signals doubles, then I'd feel comfortable reducing the average number of applications submitted by 30%.

ARE OSTEOPATHIC STUDENTS COMPETITIVE
PM&R is a very DO friendly field. It has the highest percentage of DOs per specialty. As of now I do not believe that it is necessary to perform a USMLE in order to match. I base this on research I performed on match rates for those who performed a USMLE and those who did not. The match rates were only negligibly lower for those without the USMLE. You can see my methods and calculations here: COMLEX vs. USMLE and COMLEX - PM&R. Note that I can't speak specifically about every programs opinion on this topic. So if you have a very specific program targeted, it would be wise to look into the application requirements for that program. But on the whole, most programs do not discriminate against DOs, and it doesn't seem to matter if the applicant has a USMLE score or not. It is interesting that the match rate is so much lower for DO applicants than MD applicants considering that the specialty is very DO-friendly. When I review applications, it is actually quite rare to see a USMD applicant that does not have a competitive application. Does that mean that there aren't below average MD students out there? Of course not. But they generally do not apply to PM&R. I cannot say the same for DO applicants. I frequently see DO applications with sub-500 COMLEX or failures, no research, etc. There is a bit of a discrepancy in the extracurricular opportunities for DOs versus USMDs, and I do not think that DOs have the same research opportunities as MD students that largely are attached to academic centers with attendings that are conducting research. But that is not even the biggest factor. I truly believe that DOs are a disadvantage when it comes to mentorship. DO schools are not consistently giving their students good advice and showing them "tough love" on the competitiveness of the specialties they hope to apply. I'm convinced that about 30% of DOs that apply to PM&R probably shouldn't be, or at least should be applying with a strong consideration of a backup. Meanwhile, USMD students are getting better advice from their schools and are self-selecting for less competitive specialties.

ARE FMG STUDENTS COMPETITIVE
The field is becoming more competitive for FMGs as the competitiveness increases on the whole. But it is becoming a challenge specifically for FMGs. The percentage of FMG matching to PM&R has been on a steady decline over the past 20 years. FMGs typically self-select for less competitive specialties and we are seeing a trend of fewer FMGs applying to PM&R over the past few years. So take that into consideration when looking at the match rate. The FMGs that are applying are either very strong FMGs (relative to their FMG peers), or they do not have great insight on the competitiveness of the specialty. When reviewing applications I tend to see that dichotomy. I do think that strong FMG applicants should attempt to match into PM&R but it's no guarantee, and I'd have a backup. Average FMGs are facing an uphill battle matching to PM&R. If "all in" on PM&R, I'd recommend getting auditions and signal your auditions, and perhaps only apply to your audition programs/signals (and perhaps new or historically less competitive programs), and use all of your other financial resources to apply/interview at a less competitive specialty. If you look at the statistics on FMGs that apply to PM&R as their ONLY option on their rank-order list (ROL), the match rate is about 32% (for both US and non-US FMG). Poor strategy.

ARE MILITARY APPLICANTS COMPETITIVE
Military applicants have a rare opportunity to close the gap with an excellent personal statement. The truth is that most med students’ personal statements look very similar. If you can tie together your fleet experience and training with your desire to do PM&R, the personal statement will help you stand apart. With the emphasis on holistic application review, this further helps military applicants. I would also say that military applicants have a good chance to stand apart in the interview process. Even if you were a mediocre med student, I would still strongly suggest that you apply to even the top PM&R programs because a PD may read your personal statement and want to meet you. That is an open door. There are not any statistics specific to military applicants in the civilian match, unfortunately.

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS PROGRAMS FIND IMPORTANT FOR ISSUING INVITES
The majority of programs are using holistic review to screen out applicants (roughly 60%). Increasing residency diversity is a significant factor in the significant majority of programs (95%) adopting holistic review, so that is certainly a factor. You have to look back at the 2021 Program Directors survey to see the factors that they found most important in granting interviews. The most notable academic factors at that time were: 1) MSPE (aka Dean's letter), 2) Failed attempt at USMLE/COMLEX, 3) USMLE score, 4) COMLEX score. The most impactful personal characteristics included: 1) Prior match violation, 2) Specialty LOR, 3) Commitment to specialty, 4) Diversity characteristics, 5) Professionalism/ethics. All other factors were far less impactful. I would recommend reading this article for more information: https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-PD-Survey-Report-for-WWW.pdf.

I HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN INTERVIEW…WHICH DATE SHOULD I CHOOSE
Most programs are going to conduct invitations from October through January (with early November being the peak). Most invites will occur in September-October and trickle in afterward. Many programs will also not conduct interviews for the weeks of Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, and AAPMR Annual Meeting. With virtual interviews, strategy on when to schedule interviews has become less important. The key is just staying organized. Have a list of dates on your calendar that you cannot attend going into the process, and then keep track of all of the invitations that you receive so that you don't schedule two on the same day. The yearly Google Sheet is a solid resource in determining when each program usually conducts interviews.

DO LETTERS OF INTEREST MATTER?
I honestly don’t think that status update requests are incredibly helpful. PC’s get tons of these each week. What is helpful is expressing your interest to program coordinators while requesting an invitation if one becomes available. When should you consider emailing PCs? Considering that peak season is November, I would take advance of that time period. Only email PCs at programs you are genuinely interested in, and only do so if you know that the program has sent out a batch of rejections and you weren't on the list. Will programs hold it against you that you were a “waitlist guy/gal”? See below.

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS PROGRAMS FIND IMPORTANT FOR RANKING APPLICANTS
The process in which program directors rank candidates is very different than the process in which they issue interviews. Think about this for a second. If you rank every PM&R program before and after you interview, you will notice a big difference between your pre-and-post interview rankings. Which ranking list would you trust more? Of course you would trust your post-interview ranking more, because some programs will exceed your expectations and some will let you down. The same applies to applicants. There are some people who look good on paper…high board scores, lots of research, cured cancer, etc. But that does not tend to translate to where an applicant gets ranked. If you don’t believe me, look at this study: https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-PD-Survey-Report-for-WWW.pdf. The most important factors in determine where an applicant gets ranked includes: 1) Interpersonal skills, 2) Interactions with faculty, 3) Interactions with housestaff during interview/visit, and 4) Feedback from current residents. The PD's were NOT asked about the significance of signals or home/away rotations, but one would suspect that an applicant that does a home/away rotation has a better opportunity of demonstrating interpersonal skills and better interactions with staff/residents.

Will you be considered as a “waitlist guy/gal”…the answer is absolutely. First of all, you may not have lower scores than the ones who received invites. The primary reason is that once you get your invite you are essentially put on a level playing field. So if you are offered an interview by your dream program late in the season and have to cancel a program lower on your list…do it without hesitation. The numbers get you the invitation; the personality gets you the ranking.

HOW SHOULD I RANK MY PROGRAMS
I don’t think that any one person will be able to help you with this topic. It was my most difficult topic to tackle…by a good margin. After speaking with a variety of residents, staff, and PDs…I have come up with these two questions that are helpful in determining where to rank programs.

Ask yourself the following about each program in which you interview:
1) Will I be able to gain the level of training needed to set myself up for success in fellowship/employment?
2) Is the program a place where I feel I can thrive?

They are broad questions…but they are incredibly important. Will you gain the tools and will you be able to stand out? If you live in a location where you don’t feel comfortable…then you will not be able to thrive in that environment. If you have a family, you want to consider cost of living, safety, schools, and livability. If you are worried about your family member’s living conditions, you will struggle to thrive. If you didn’t feel like you have a good rapport with staff and residents…then that will make it difficult to stand apart. Being able to thrive is essential because it will determine if you are able to gain incredibly important recommendations by staff members. And that in large part will determine if you will get a fellowship or employment. Part of thriving is feeling supported by staff members. Are these folks going to go to bat for you and place calls to people to get you a job one day? Prestige is a factor, but it is something that it difficult to quantify. It's a consideration, but you definitely need to verify that a program lives up to the hype.

DO LETTERS OF INTENT MATTER?
The answer to this question may vary by program. Is it a new program and the program is placing a high emphasis on recruiting chief residents that are ambassadors for their program? I'd argue that program has reason to value letters of intent. But if it is a well established program, should it matter if someone has you #1 or #2 on their rank list? Likely not. But it doesn't hurt to notify your top program that they are #1 on your rank list. Just be aware of ACGME match rules. You cannot ask the program where they intent to rank you. That's a match violation. Many programs do not conduct post-interview communication with applicants out of concerns of match violations. So if you get a "ranked to match" letter from a program, that is great, but don't panic if you do not receive one.

I wish you the best of luck.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 38 users
Kudos for writing this @j4pac. I agree personal statement and LORs are weighted much more heavily in PM&R. It's no secret this specialty lends itself to a nice lifestyle and can be quite lucrative depending on how you play your cards. That said, PDs want to know that you are genuinely passionate about this specialty
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Can we make this a sticky thread? Having just gone through this process I find his advice to be spot on.
 
Hi,
I am wanting to do PM&R. I just got my Step 1 back, 204. I haven't gotten my Comlex back yet, I'm a DO student. I got my doctorate in physical therapy before med school and worked with physiatrists, which is why I want to do physiatry. Will my 204 prevent me from getting a PM&R residemcy?
 
Hi,
I am wanting to do PM&R. I just got my Step 1 back, 204. I haven't gotten my Comlex back yet, I'm a DO student. I got my doctorate in physical therapy before med school and worked with physiatrists, which is why I want to do physiatry. Will my 204 prevent me from getting a PM&R residemcy?

With your background, as long as you aren't failing or have other red flags, I say go for it. Passing the USMLE is a good thing. Some people do considerably better on COMLEX than USMLE, especially those who are strong at OMT.

At this point I would focus on what is under your control. You need to learn on your clerkships and do well on your Step 2. You also need to hammer down a strong specialty LOR. With your background as a PT PhD, something's wrong if you don't have an elite personal statement. After you write it up...get as many opinions on it as possible. I have no problem reviewing it. Make it GREAT. You would also greatly benefit by auditioning at a few programs. You need to find ways to stand apart in other ways if the trend of below average scores continues.

I honestly have average scores and didn't take the USMLE...but I received invitations from about 35% of the programs I applied by doing my best to stand apart in other ways. I'm involved in self-directed research, I've done PM&R article reviews, I have a rockstar speciality LOR, I have a heck of a work experience, and I made a point to have the best personal statement on the circuit. I am also incredibly persistent and was able to get invites by simply asking PCs for an invite if I wasn't rejected from the program. If you want something...do everything in your power to put yourself in a position to succeed.

I had a number of PDs that told me that they like their residency classes to have diversity. They want incredibly bright people (see board scores), but they also want people with real world experience. I don't think that matching will be an issue for you...you just have to find ways to get interviews. That is going to be the key for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Is it okay to email schools you are interested in if I'm a 3rd year and wanna do audition rotations there?
 
Is it okay to email schools you are interested in if I'm a 3rd year and wanna do audition rotations there?

Before emailing, ensure that the program's website does not specify a way to request rotations. Not following a defined protocol listed on the programs website may come off lazy and could easily piss of the program coordinator.

If there is no such rotation request guidelines or if there are instructions to email the PC...you need to do it the right way. PCs are usually helpful, but they are busy. You want to be polite, un-entitled, and succinct. You want to get what you want accomplished in one email. In the email include an introduction, your request, specific dates you will be available for the rotation, and attached CV.

That would allow the PC to email you back with one email (hopefully a confirmation for the rotation)...which greatly increases your chance of accomplishing your goal in a timely manner.

If the PC does not email you back after a week...call, prepared to give the same information.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hi, it was a great post. How is the job market of PM&r after graduation?Is it possible for an IMG to be accepted in a university hospital? Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hi, it was a great post. How is the job market of PM&r after graduation?Is it possible for an IMG to be accepted in a university hospital? Thanks

I know very little bit about fellowship and employment at this time. I haven't even started PGY-2 yet. :) I'll try to make an addendum at some point in the future after I get that figured out.

From what I have heard, academic appointment isn't always easy. There are tons of jobs in PM&R, but the more choosy you get, the less likely you get what you want.

Looking at the trends, I don't think that there is any question that ACGME programs are becoming more restrictive toward IMG/FMGs. PM&R is likely one of the least discriminating specialties, as they have taken taken DOs in high numbers for years...but I would still apply broadly. If you do well in residency, especially at a major rehab hospital with a decent network...I think that you could land a job at a major university hospital.
 
Just a tip to all applicants that have been "rejected". Writing letters to the Program Director/Program Coordinator does not improve your chances, and are frankly annoying. You're application was thoroughly reviewed and you weren't chosen. It's nothing personal.
 
Just a tip to all applicants that have been "rejected". Writing letters to the Program Director/Program Coordinator does not improve your chances, and are frankly annoying. You're application was thoroughly reviewed and you weren't chosen. It's nothing personal.


Improving chances for what? They have already been “rejected.”

I see nothing wrong with someone asking for constructive criticism on how they can improve their credentials/application.

It is partially personal. Maybe they were too boisterous or too reserved. Applicants aren’t picked solely on board scores.
 
I wouldnt ask a program why you were rejected unless it was after not matching. To do so with an opportunity to match to a different program is a massive waste of time to both the PC and the applicant.

Not to mention that it's not a PCs place to explain why you were rejected. It's a low yield request...abe I don't blame PCs for not playing that game with you.

If you don't match, you likely know why. And if you don't...I'm sure a medical school advisor will be able to explain to you why you didn't match.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I would not contact a program after a rejection. It is a red flag for someone who would create problems if on your service. It could also come back to bite you down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If you are rejected from a program, what is the point to email them? They already made up their minds. You're not going to get an interview.
 
I see nothing wrong with someone asking for constructive criticism on how they can improve their credentials/application
.
Unless the applicant already has a personal relationship with the faculty, I would NOT bother them with any questions, even when framed constructively. This is a VERY small field, and you don't want to be "that guy" (or gal).
 
I wholeheartedly disagree with this thread. Information is king. Learning why you were rejected will enable you to improve your application for the following year. As for the dire predictions that you will somehow be harmed asking? The coordinator was "annoyed". So what. That program already rejected you. If you can gain insight how to improve your chances for the following year, bothering the delicate sensibilities of a glorified secretary doesn't seem like a bad trade off.
 
I wholeheartedly disagree with this thread. Information is king. Learning why you were rejected will enable you to improve your application for the following year. As for the dire predictions that you will somehow be harmed asking? The coordinator was "annoyed". So what. That program already rejected you. If you can gain insight how to improve your chances for the following year, bothering the delicate sensibilities of a glorified secretary doesn't seem like a bad trade off.

I can understand asking for help after not matching. I think posing the question immediately after being rejected screams butt hurt, neurotic med student. If someone doesn't match it probably doesn't require a conversation with a PC or PD to figure out why.
 
Applicants try and put your best foot forward. Clearly, if you weren't selected, either your scores were in high enough, where there something else in your record that led to that outcome. I still see no harm in asking what you could improve for next year's match.

Program directors are only the most important person in your life during residency. Thereafter, they hold very little sway. Most of us go into private practice. At that point, it's the quality of your work that establishes your reputation. What some academic, who couldn't survive in the real world, and so instead chose to hide inside an ivory tower, has to say about you has very little bearing on your career.
 
i see no harm in asking why your app was rejected, however you must understand we will wordsmith a pleasant PC statement. it may be of little use to you
 
Which is why it is worth a CALL, not a letter. People are typically more honest when not given the opportunity to edit their response multiple times
 
even on the phone I would calculate my response because recorded conversations have been known to occur with resulting lawsuits and ACGME inquiries.
 
Thank you j4pac for this thread. Do you have any updates on this thread for applicants during the summer of 2018?

I occasionally have people private message me with how their match season went. People have told me that this post is pretty useful. I've had a number of fringe-type applicants PM me who ended up matching into PM&R. A good strategy could take you a long ways...fit is incredibly important.

There is a new charting outcomes. https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Charting-Outcomes-US-Allopathic-Seniors-2016.pdf

The highlights:
- PM&R has the third lowest mean USMLE Step 1 and 2 for matched applicants.
- Mean USMLE step 1 for matched applicants = 226; unmatched = 210
- Mean USMLE step 2 for matched applicants = 238; unmatched = 221
- 10 of 19 applicants with a USMLE Step 1 between 191-200 matched into a PM&R residency
- 1 of 3 applicants with a USMLE Step 2 between 191-200 matched into a PM&R residency
- Mean USMLE Step 1 score to have a 90% chance of matching = 220; 80% change of matching = 204

- Mean number of contiguous ranks by matched applicants = 14; unmatched applicants = 5
- Mean number of contiguous ranks to have a 90% of matching = 10.5

- PM&R had the highest mean number of research experiences for matched applicants of all specialties (8.4) but was average when it came to mean abstracts, presentations, and publications (3.9). What makes a research experience different from abstracts/presentations/publications? Who knows.
- PM&R had the second highest mean number of work experiences for matched applicants of all specialties (3.6)

The numbers above aren't very different than when I matched back in 2015. Something that I probably undersold was the importance of standing apart from the crowd. There are a handful of exceptional applicants that every program would love...but when you take those people off the board, people look pretty similar. Even with interviews, it's still probably difficult for programs to make a rank list...because applicants don't look incredibly different. So if there is something about you that does help you stand apart...you need to sell that. Just about everyone liked their PM&R rotation in med school...it's assumed that you have the necessary exposure and you like the field. But that alone doesn't help PDs sift through the large number of applicants. If you have a work experience or volunteer experience that plays into your interest in PM&R...that's what helps to make you different from the average applicant. Not everyone has that type of experience...and that is when audition rotations can definitely help set you apart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Good evening ladies and gents. I just wanted to know that I spent the day updating my OP on this thread.

Good luck with the upcoming match!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I get quite a few questions regarding program quality or competitiveness. It’s a really tough topic because every program has strengths and weaknesses. Essentially every program fills yearly, so all are relatively competitive. If you’re interested in looking at a consensus list of program reputation, I recommend looking at the following source:
1. Doximity (https://www.doximity.com/residency/...66fb88d13300-physical-medicine-rehabilitation)

If you’re looking for a list of IRF affiliate rankings, here are two good sources:
1. US News and Health Report (https://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/rehabilitation)
2. Newsweek (America's Best Physical Rehabilitation Centers 2023)

Program competitiveness is very challenging to study. It’s slightly different than reputation because it includes factors such as location. There’s not a good consensus list available. I’ve created my own list, and you’re free to use. I essentially pulled the program rankings/signals averaged over the past three years on the Google sheet and used class size as a tie breaker between tiers. Highly unscientific. The sample size is still small, and I’m highly reliant on accurate reporting. So I’d use this list with a big grain of salt, but if you believe in the value of the Google sheet, you’ll probably like this list. Reminder that this isn’t a list of program quality, only program competitiveness. There aren't any notable differences with the same tier. The parentheses next to the program is the difference between Doximity's ranking (prestige) and the ranking on this list. The more negative a number would imply that a program is more prestigious than they are being credited.

Tier 1.
1. Spaulding (+2)
2. SRAL (-1)

Commentary: Two very reputable programs that are very competitive. Chicago and Boston are competitive regions of the country to both train and work. Both will be on a shortlist of practically every attending physicians' top program. Harvard also has the Harvard name, which carries weight both in and outside of PM&R.

Tier 2.
3. UPMC (+1)
4. NYP (+6)
5. Kessler (even)
6. UW (-4)
7. UCLA (+21)
8. Stanford (+5)
9. Mayo (Rochester) (-3)
10. Mount Sinai (-2)

Commentary: Not a lot of bargains to get in this tier. The significant majority of the programs in this tier are extremely reputable, many on par with the top 2. UCLA gets a nice bump in competitiveness for being in Los Angeles.

Tier 3.
11. Colorado (+1)
12. Utah (+11)
13. NRH (-2)
14. UTSA (+8)
15. Baylor (Houston) (-8)

Commentary: The only program to really mention here is Baylor COM. Extremely strong program, arguably one of the very strongest at inpatient PM&R. Extremely large alumni network. Historically, Baylor has been well ahead of UTSA, but the Sheet suggests that many students think they're on par. It's difficult to go against a program with as strong of a long-term track record as Baylor.

Tier 4.
16. Mayo (FL)/Brooks (unranked on Doximity)
17. Carolinas (+22)
18. Michigan (-2)
19. UTSW (-4)
20. Miami (+23)
21. Thomas Jefferson (+4)
22. UT Houston (-13)
23. University of California (Irvine) (+30)
24. Vandy (-5)
25. University of California (Davis) (+20)
26. New Mexico (+36)
27. OSU (-3)
28. UAB (-7)
29. Baylor (Dallas) (-5)

Commentary: It’s not surprising that the sister program of Baylor COM, listed in tier 3, is also much more highly regarded by attendings than students. The California programs, with a relative scarcity of options (including good options) are more competitive than their Doxy rankings suggests.

Tier 5.
30. Einstein (+1)
31. UNC (+21)
32. VCU (+4)
33. NYU (-16)
34. Rush (-32)
35. Mary Free Bed (-2)
36. LSU (+29)
37. Washington Univ (+14)
38. Yale (+70)
39. Memorial (+29)
40. Connecticut (+48)
41. Schwab (-23)

Commentary: Those interested in NY and Chicago programs take note. Rush and Schwab in Chicago, and NYU in New York are all strong programs that are relatively less competitive (especially considering their crosstown rivals of SRAL, NYP, and Mount Sinai).

Tier 6.
42. Emory (-22)
43. Marianjoy (-2)
44. Minnesota (+4)
45. John Hopkins (+5)
46. USF (+54)
47. Cincinnati (-5)
48. Virginia (-2)
49. Burke (-5)
50. Kentucky (+35)
51. MSU (unranked on Doximity)
52. Louisville (+28)
53. OPTI West (+39)
54. Indiana (+9)
55. JFK (-20)

Commentary: The two programs to take note of here are Emory and JFK. Emory has a strong Sports fellowship and one of the stronger spinal cord injury centers in the region. Clearly, JFK has great PD. Very strong at Brain injury, but more well rounded than given credit for. Should definitely be in the conversation of one of the better programs in NY/NJ, but is in the middle of the pack regarding competitiveness.

Tier 7.
56. University of Missouri-Columbia (+11)
57. William Beaumont Hospital (Royal Oak) (-10)
58. Case Western (-44)
59. University of Florida (+17)
60. Kansas (-31)
61. HonorHealth (even)
62. MCW (-30)
63. UT Austin Dell (+19)
64. University of Wisconsin (-14)
65. Loma Linda (+7)
66. Detroit Medical Center/Wayne State (-10)
67. Sunrise (+7)
68. ECU/Vidant (+11)
69. University of Rochester (+8)

Commentary: Goodness there are still a ton of really strong programs. Case Western has historically been an underrated program, and that likely only increased with Cleveland Clinic getting a program. You’re going to see a trend on Midwest programs being underrated. The region is saturated with programs, and there are lots of good ones. That is going to hurt the overall competitiveness of the region. Likewise, Kansas and the two Wisconsin programs make the list.

Tier 8.
70. Toledo (-1)
71. NSLIJHS/Hofstra North Shore-LIJ (-13)
72. Parkview (+31)
73. Cleveland Clinic (-46)
74. Albany (-19)
75. Osteopathic Consortium (+3)
76. Inspira (+25)
77. Penn State (-40)
78. Arkansas (+3)
79. SUNY at Stony Brook (-4)
80. Puerto Rico (-23)
81. VA Caribbean (+2)
82. William Beaumont (Taylor) (+15)
83. Geisinger (+16)
84. Penn (-46)
85. Texas Tech (+21)
86. Rochester Regional (+16)
87. Mercy/Good Sam (+7)
88. Sinai Baltimore (-34)
89. Eastern Virginia (+7)
90. UCF (+5)
91. Nassau (-31)
92. Nebraska (-22)
93. Einstein/Moss (-62)
94. SUNY Brooklyn (-28)
95. SUNY Upstate (-9)

Commentary: We’re reaching the tail end of the list, but there are still strong programs to be found. Lots of NY programs in this tier, all good options for applicants trying to train the the NY area. If you have an extra signal or two…I’d consider peppering some of underrated programs from the tier and the tier above.

Tier 9.
96. NY Metropolitan (-9)
97. Kingsbrook (-6)
98. Westchester (+9)
99. Texas (Fort Worth) (+6)
100. Providence/St. Luke’s (-11)
101. Tufts (-28)
102. Temple (-76)
103. Larkin (-19)

Commentary: It’s hard to say that these programs are not competitive considering that they all perpetually fill. SOAP isn’t a strategy for PM&R. But if you’re an applicant that would be happy to just be a part of the specialty I’d look at programs from the last two tiers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Hmmm, is disclosing disabilities/setbacks/etc. actually beneficial for match for PM&R? Could consider disclosing mine in-depth but I hesitate because I could see it hurting the application as well.
 
Hmmm, is disclosing disabilities/setbacks/etc. actually beneficial for match for PM&R? Could consider disclosing mine in-depth but I hesitate because I could see it hurting the application as well.
It’s frustrating because we are a specialty designed to treat individuals with impairments. So it would make sense that we would be more receptive and see the value in having physicians that are relatable to our patients. But the reality is that there is still a stigma in medical training toward individuals with impairments. I went to the ACGME annual meeting this year, and they had a number of lectures on improving medical education and that including finding ways to include individuals with impairments into medical education. So perhaps things are changing.

I think that if you have a physical impairment it can definitely work to your benefit if you frame it appropriately. There are lots of great applicants out there. But an applicant with an amputation, SCI, brain injury? There may be only 1-2 of those in the entire country…and if they are also competitive…they are gold. There are elite programs that will take an average applicant with an impairment over a strong applicant with one.

I’ll let you know how my program selects applicants for interviews, as that is information that may be helpful for you. First, we determine the number of interview spots we’ll have. Last year we wanted a 20:1 for interviews per available residency seat because we were a new program. That equated to 40 interviews. Then we first discussed our auditioning/home institution students and determined which of those students get interviews. Next we asked if any of the reviewers had applicants that met diversity measures including underrepresented minorities, individuals with impairments, military applicants, etc. It wasn’t until then that we looked at everyone else. By then we had perhaps 25 spots left to decide who gets interviews from the general pool. Those spots were incredibly competitive. Considering where we matched on our rank list last year, and the number of letters of intent we gained within our top 10 on LOR, we’ve decided to cut back the number of auditioning spots (those spots are more competitive to get this year), and we’ll likely reduce the ratio of interviews per residency seat.

Granted, we are a sample size of 1. So I cannot say that every program will share a similar process. And it is also worth mentioning that there may be more concerns with individuals with cognitive impairments (or substance abuse) than physical impairments. I’d be more careful under that scenario. There is a reason why I have this advice thread on an anonymous forum and not on social media. This should be a relatively safe place to disclose your impairment, but I’d be careful to look through your post history to ensure you aren’t doxxing yourself. And if you are still concerned you can PM me.
 
Last edited:
I made an update to the OP reflecting the change in signals from 5 to 8. It does change the math a little bit regarding how many programs to apply. The good news is that I estimate about a 18% reduction of applications for applicants around the 50th percentile. That translates to money saved for medical students. It will also hopefully translate to a little less interview hoarding, and less of an application review burden by programs.

There is a still a significant priority on appropriately judging which programs to signal (perhaps even more than there was when there were 5 signals). Just something to consider, the top 10 or so programs had 22% of the signals last year. One program in particular had over 150 signals for likely half the number of interview seats. So it is quite possible that it will get about 175 signals next year. What is the likelihood of getting an interview at that program WITHOUT a signal? I'm guessing that the number has to be incredibly close to 0%. What is the likelihood of getting an interview at that program as a below average applicant? Again, that number has to be very close to 0% as well. That program can probably have their pick of anyone in the country, and its very unlikely to be anything but an above average applicant. Instead of wasting your signals on reach programs, I'd strongly recommend that you consider programs outside of the top 1-2 tiers if you're a below average applicant. If you somehow land an audition at the program or it's your home institution, sure, send them a signal. But if you don't, you'd be much better served using your signals more wisely. Remember that getting interviews is only the start. I've known people who have had over 15 interviews fail to match. Many were applicants that applied broadly, had a sub-20% return on their applications, and were apparently not ranked to match by any of the programs they interviewed. The key to matching is by being ranked to match by a program. Most strong programs are going to match in the top 50% of their rank list.
 
I get quite a few questions regarding program quality or competitiveness. It’s a really tough topic because every program has strengths and weaknesses. Essentially every program fills yearly, so all are relatively competitive. If you’re interested in looking at a consensus list of program reputation, I recommend looking at the following source:
1. Doximity (https://www.doximity.com/residency/...66fb88d13300-physical-medicine-rehabilitation)

If you’re looking for a list of IRF affiliate rankings, here are two good sources:
1. US News and Health Report (https://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/rehabilitation)
2. Newsweek (America's Best Physical Rehabilitation Centers 2023)

Program competitiveness is very challenging to study. It’s slightly different than reputation because it includes factors such as location. There’s not a good consensus list available. I’ve created my own list, and you’re free to use. I essentially pulled the program rankings/signals averaged over the past three years on the Google sheet and used class size as a tie breaker between tiers. Highly unscientific. The sample size is still small, and I’m highly reliant on accurate reporting. So I’d use this list with a big grain of salt, but if you believe in the value of the Google sheet, you’ll probably like this list. Reminder that this isn’t a list of program quality, only program competitiveness. There aren't any notable differences with the same tier. The parentheses next to the program is the difference between Doximity's ranking (prestige) and the ranking on this list. The more negative a number would imply that a program is more prestigious than they are being credited.

Tier 1.
1. Spaulding (+2)
2. SRAL (-1)

Commentary: Two very reputable programs that are very competitive. Chicago and Boston are competitive regions of the country to both train and work. Both will be on a shortlist of practically every attending physicians' top program. Harvard also has the Harvard name, which carries weight both in and outside of PM&R.

Tier 2.
3. UPMC (+1)
4. NYP (+6)
5. Kessler (even)
6. UW (-4)
7. UCLA (+21)
8. Stanford (+5)
9. Mayo (Rochester) (-3)
10. Mount Sinai (-2)

Commentary: Not a lot of bargains to get in this tier. The significant majority of the programs in this tier are extremely reputable, many on par with the top 2. UCLA gets a nice bump in competitiveness for being in Los Angeles.

Tier 3.
11. Colorado (+1)
12. Utah (+11)
13. NRH (-2)
14. UTSA (+8)
15. Baylor (Houston) (-8)

Commentary: The only program to really mention here is Baylor COM. Extremely strong program, arguably one of the very strongest at inpatient PM&R. Extremely large alumni network. Historically, Baylor has been well ahead of UTSA, but the Sheet suggests that many students think they're on par. It's difficult to go against a program with as strong of a long-term track record as Baylor.

Tier 4.
16. Mayo (FL)/Brooks (unranked on Doximity)
17. Carolinas (+22)
18. Michigan (-2)
19. UTSW (-4)
20. Miami (+23)
21. Thomas Jefferson (+4)
22. UT Houston (-13)
23. University of California (Irvine) (+30)
24. Vandy (-5)
25. University of California (Davis) (+20)
26. New Mexico (+36)
27. OSU (-3)
28. UAB (-7)
29. Baylor (Dallas) (-5)

Commentary: It’s not surprising that the sister program of Baylor COM, listed in tier 3, is also much more highly regarded by attendings than students. The California programs, with a relative scarcity of options (including good options) are more competitive than their Doxy rankings suggests.

Tier 5.
30. Einstein (+1)
31. UNC (+21)
32. VCU (+4)
33. NYU (-16)
34. Rush (-32)
35. Mary Free Bed (-2)
36. LSU (+29)
37. Washington Univ (+14)
38. Yale (+70)
39. Memorial (+29)
40. Connecticut (+48)
41. Schwab (-23)

Commentary: Those interested in NY and Chicago programs take note. Rush and Schwab in Chicago, and NYU in New York are all strong programs that are relatively less competitive (especially considering their crosstown rivals of SRAL, NYP, and Mount Sinai).

Tier 6.
42. Emory (-22)
43. Marianjoy (-2)
44. Minnesota (+4)
45. John Hopkins (+5)
46. USF (+54)
47. Cincinnati (-5)
48. Virginia (-2)
49. Burke (-5)
50. Kentucky (+35)
51. MSU (unranked on Doximity)
52. Louisville (+28)
53. OPTI West (+39)
54. Indiana (+9)
55. JFK (-20)

Commentary: The two programs to take note of here are Emory and JFK. Emory has a strong Sports fellowship and one of the stronger spinal cord injury centers in the region. Clearly, JFK has great PD. Very strong at Brain injury, but more well rounded than given credit for. Should definitely be in the conversation of one of the better programs in NY/NJ, but is in the middle of the pack regarding competitiveness.

Tier 7.
56. University of Missouri-Columbia (+11)
57. William Beaumont Hospital (Royal Oak) (-10)
58. Case Western (-44)
59. University of Florida (+17)
60. Kansas (-31)
61. HonorHealth (even)
62. MCW (-30)
63. UT Austin Dell (+19)
64. University of Wisconsin (-14)
65. Loma Linda (+7)
66. Detroit Medical Center/Wayne State (-10)
67. Sunrise (+7)
68. ECU/Vidant (+11)
69. University of Rochester (+8)

Commentary: Goodness there are still a ton of really strong programs. Case Western has historically been an underrated program, and that likely only increased with Cleveland Clinic getting a program. You’re going to see a trend on Midwest programs being underrated. The region is saturated with programs, and there are lots of good ones. That is going to hurt the overall competitiveness of the region. Likewise, Kansas and the two Wisconsin programs make the list.

Tier 8.
70. Toledo (-1)
71. NSLIJHS/Hofstra North Shore-LIJ (-13)
72. Parkview (+31)
73. Cleveland Clinic (-46)
74. Albany (-19)
75. Osteopathic Consortium (+3)
76. Inspira (+25)
77. Penn State (-40)
78. Arkansas (+3)
79. SUNY at Stony Brook (-4)
80. Puerto Rico (-23)
81. VA Caribbean (+2)
82. William Beaumont (Taylor) (+15)
83. Geisinger (+16)
84. Penn (-46)
85. Texas Tech (+21)
86. Rochester Regional (+16)
87. Mercy/Good Sam (+7)
88. Sinai Baltimore (-34)
89. Eastern Virginia (+7)
90. UCF (+5)
91. Nassau (-31)
92. Nebraska (-22)
93. Einstein/Moss (-62)
94. SUNY Brooklyn (-28)
95. SUNY Upstate (-9)

Commentary: We’re reaching the tail end of the list, but there are still strong programs to be found. Lots of NY programs in this tier, all good options for applicants trying to train the the NY area. If you have an extra signal or two…I’d consider peppering some of underrated programs from the tier and the tier above.

Tier 9.
96. NY Metropolitan (-9)
97. Kingsbrook (-6)
98. Westchester (+9)
99. Texas (Fort Worth) (+6)
100. Providence/St. Luke’s (-11)
101. Tufts (-28)
102. Temple (-76)
103. Larkin (-19)

Commentary: It’s hard to say that these programs are not competitive considering that they all perpetually fill. SOAP isn’t a strategy for PM&R. But if you’re an applicant that would be happy to just be a part of the specialty I’d look at programs from the last two tiers.
I am so sorry to say this. I am aware that I have made myself impression as a very sarcastic dark negative pessimistic participant of sdn pm&r thread. Unless, some physiatrists do miraculous stem cell implant to corticospinal tract to enable the T12 ASIA A pt to walk, our rankings will not matter. I respect this OP to admit lack of scientific background to justify tiers.
What I want to know is what applicants are looking for nowadays.
I hate to bring this up but there was research showing that applicants were looking at academic dildo ultrasound training qualities as the determining factor to decide rankings which I find to be very inane.
Also I would like to know if Gen Z applicants are considering “chill life” as the determining factors to rank programs. I highly valued the volume as the major factor to rank programs. I had a county hospital as training site. It was very good because patients did not care which doctors were doing procedures. For example, there were patients from jail who needed emg studies and they begged to stay longer and residents got to do nerve conduction studies that are not usually done like saphenous nerve. Where I work is so well off area and residents are begging to create injection clinic . Good luck with that
 
I am so sorry to say this. I am aware that I have made myself impression as a very sarcastic dark negative pessimistic participant of sdn pm&r thread. Unless, some physiatrists do miraculous stem cell implant to corticospinal tract to enable the T12 ASIA A pt to walk, our rankings will not matter. I respect this OP to admit lack of scientific background to justify tiers.
What I want to know is what applicants are looking for nowadays.
I hate to bring this up but there was research showing that applicants were looking at academic dildo ultrasound training qualities as the determining factor to decide rankings which I find to be very inane.
Also I would like to know if Gen Z applicants are considering “chill life” as the determining factors to rank programs. I highly valued the volume as the major factor to rank programs. I had a county hospital as training site. It was very good because patients did not care which doctors were doing procedures. For example, there were patients from jail who needed emg studies and they begged to stay longer and residents got to do nerve conduction studies that are not usually done like saphenous nerve. Where I work is so well off area and residents are begging to create injection clinic . Good luck with that
The academic dildo is king! Lol

I wouldn’t say lifestyle is the biggest factor. Some of the more competitive programs are not necessarily easy. I think competitiveness is largely an equation of prestige/quality plus location.
 
Top