2013-2014 Interview Gossip/Chit-Chat

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I know Kansas went unfilled last year, not sure of the others
 
May just be a coincidence. I mean statistically the same total number of interviews should be offered. Or around the same.

That's why we need more people to put stats in, to get a better picture.

This will be a great resource for future applicants. Let's be real, when it comes to Rad Onc, SDN is the best resource, there aren't other sites like other specialties have.
 
runnerdoc7 said:
Has there been a fall off in application numbers the last two years? Looking at that spreadsheet I am amazed how many interviews people got. I mean it is a limited sample size but in talking to applicants this year I got the impression that 15+ interviews was commonplace. I matched in 2012 with step 1/2 both mid 250's, AOA, multiple research projects and good LORs and only had 9 interviews. A reduced number of applicants could explain more unfilled spots as programs have gotten used to interviewing only the best of the best and are thus overshooting with respect to who they invite.
Click to expand...

While there is no charting outcomes data from 2012 or 2013, if you look at the match rate and number of non-US seniors who matched, last year was significantly less competitive.
(match rate for US seniors ~15-20% higher, number of non-US seniors matching going from about 2 to 20, number of unmatched US-seniors way down...those numbers are off the top of my head...)
From what I've seen/heard, this year (2014) is more similar to last year than to 2012. I guess we'll get more data in a few weeks/months though.

Also, the number of apps from 2012 to last year was down 15% or so.
 
Maybe add a couples match column into the spreadsheet? I matched as a couple this year (don't know where yet), but that info would be helpful.
 
lhl said:
While there is no charting outcomes data from 2012 or 2013, if you look at the match rate and number of non-US seniors who matched, last year was significantly less competitive.
(match rate for US seniors ~15-20% higher, number of non-US seniors matching going from about 2 to 20, number of unmatched US-seniors way down...those numbers are off the top of my head...)
From what I've seen/heard, this year (2014) is more similar to last year than to 2012. I guess we'll get more data in a few weeks/months though.

Also, the number of apps from 2012 to last year was down 15% or so.
Click to expand...

As new residency programs open, more residency spots are created. More spots = a reduction in the unmatched rate, given a consistent applicant pool size. Let's not confuse this with the [more] competitive programs being less competitive than previous years. That isn't the case. If it is your goal to apply to a competitive program, you will face the same or very similar hurdles as those who applied in recent years.
 
Last edited:
Tumba said:
Maybe add a couples match column into the spreadsheet? I matched as a couple this year (don't know where yet), but that info would be helpful.
Click to expand...

Added a column for couples match status, didn't add anything for it in summary stats though.
Also added a column for radonc-specific research entries in ERAS - as someone pointed out a lot of people have lots of pubs in unrelated fields.
 
Sheldor said:
Well, all of your future PD's now know who you are.

Not sure if that's comforting or not 🙂
Click to expand...

Haha how? The google doc isn't tied to our usernames, is it?
 
Last edited:
No - he meant that programs find out who matched at their program today. Just like we are supposed to find out tomorrow.
 
A column for 'research year' would prob be very helpful, no?
 
Someone scrambled the data to sort by step 1 score and it's not correct now
 
FYI we have a FB group now, it's closed but searchable. Search 'Radiation Oncology Residents 2015-2019'
 
californiaXRT said:
Someone scrambled the data to sort by step 1 score and it's not correct now
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the whole point be for someone to look across and see step score, number of aways, aoa status etc and see how many interviews they got? If not, what's the point. Hope it gets fixed. Looks like it will be a valuable resource for us 2014-2015'ers
 
***** If you've entered your data already, please go back and make sure it wasn't scrambled and fill in missing data for new columns. *****
Please don't move columns, sort, scramble or anything like that unless you REALLY know what you're doing and we have a consensus on it. Moving one of the columns messed up a bunch of formulas and I had to go in and adjust them by hand just now. Also read the DISCLAIMERS tab before modifying anything - I put my email there so you can contact me for specific issues/questions/comments with the spreadsheet. I also added in the research year column as requested. It would probably be good if people can remember to save copies of the spreadsheet periodically so we'll have backups in case things get screwed up/deleted in the future.

I agree with 2014XRT that one important goal is to keep the info together so future applicants can know where they stand. If you disagree reply in this thread so we can discuss. If people know your exact step scores and can potentially identify you with them, I'd suggest just modifying them by 1 or 2 points up or down.
 
R R said:
***** If you've entered your data already, please go back and make sure it wasn't scrambled and fill in missing data for new columns. *****
Please don't move columns, sort, scramble or anything like that unless you REALLY know what you're doing and we have a consensus on it. Moving one of the columns messed up a bunch of formulas and I had to go in and adjust them by hand just now. Also read the DISCLAIMERS tab before modifying anything - I put my email there so you can contact me for specific issues/questions/comments with the spreadsheet. I also added in the research year column as requested. It would probably be good if people can remember to save copies of the spreadsheet periodically so we'll have backups in case things get screwed up/deleted in the future.

I agree with 2014XRT that one important goal is to keep the info together so future applicants can know where they stand. If you disagree reply in this thread so we can discuss. If people know your exact step scores and can potentially identify you with them, I'd suggest just modifying them by 1 or 2 points up or down.
Click to expand...

I just highlighted in red the first 11 entries that got scrambled. If you're one of these first 11 entries, after you change your data move it down below the red area so that we know it's correct, thanks. Or if someone has the time to go back and correct the entries as suggested by looking at previous versions, please also move the unscrambled data down below the red area as you correct it
 
RadOnc37 said:
As new residency programs open, more residency spots are created. More spots = a reduction in the unmatched rate, given a consistent applicant pool size. Let's not confuse this with the [more] competitive programs being less competitive than previous years. That isn't the case. If it is your goal to apply to a competitive program, you will face the same or very similar hurdles as those who applied in recent years.
Click to expand...

My comments were more about the field as a whole; as in "getting a radiation oncology residency" or even just getting into an average program. Sure, expanding the number of spots had an effect. There were 12 more spots in 2013 (roughly 7% increase). BUT, I think the 52 fewer US seniors (almost a 25% reduction) had a bigger impact on the overall competitiveness of the field (this number comes from the NRMP data assuming each person who ranked a categorical program also ranked at least one advanced program, which I think is a fairly safe assumption or at least would be balanced between years).

But sure, I won't disagree that top programs nationally (MSKCC, MDACC, etc.) are any less competitive and require "significant hurdles" to get into, and I don't think many people would...unfortunately though I'm not privy to data to support that idea either. Also, the concept of how competitive the "top" programs are probably effects far fewer people than the competitiveness of the field as a whole, as many people just hope to get as many interviews as possible and match.
 
Last edited:
What I liked about the Who's who is that it was anonymous so it wasn't dependent on each person adding themselves, therefore you ended up getting nearly every person on there.

I guess it's up to those who can actually contribute, since I don't have any info to post this year.

Gfunk6 said:
Looks like the google doc makes such a list irrelevant this year.
Click to expand...
 
It's just the first day hopefully more people will fill out the document with their names.

It's silly to worry about anonymity all it is is where you matched. It's going to be on the program websites not long from now anyways. You should fill out you coresidents and other people you went to school with too.

Other specialties do this.
 
I should reiterate that the google doc is completely anonymous as well. You don't have to sign into a google account to modify it, so no way to identify who enters data.

I probably should've just created a new spreadsheet instead of copying uro's. The way they set it up it looks like the stats (step scores etc) match up to the person matching on the same row, but that's not the case - the stats and match results are completely independent
 
Not to stir up trouble but since our field is not that big and with all the variables on the spreadsheet, anonymous is almost completely out the door... Also I wonder about the ranking# since a PD looking at the data could know exactly how a person ranked them.
 
RadOncDoc21 said:
Not to stir up trouble but since our field is not that big and with all the variables on the spreadsheet, anonymous is almost completely out the door... Also I wonder about the ranking# since a PD looking at the data could know exactly how a person ranked them.
Click to expand...

I think the doc is great for those who want to contribute, but I just worry that we won't get the robust data we got with Who's who. Normally by this time its almost completely filled out because current residents, and M4's all contribute. Hopefully that doesn't stop, I always thought it was helpful/interesting in the years leading up to my match.

If the Doc doesn't pan out, i'd give the no name version a try here.
 
RadOncDoc21 said:
Not to stir up trouble but since our field is not that big and with all the variables on the spreadsheet, anonymous is almost completely out the door... Also I wonder about the ranking# since a PD looking at the data could know exactly how a person ranked them.
Click to expand...
It's not much different from how people have posted their stats on this forum in years past. If anyone feels uncomfortable with a field, they don't have to fill it in. And if someone knows enough about your app to identify you from these anonymous stats (like your step scores), not sure what else is worth hiding
 
Ok... I completely want to know where everyone matched. Pretty bad. I've definitely checked the spreadsheet one too many times. But I have not put my fellow residents names there yet even though I could. And I think I have a decent justification.

I received an email from our program director welcoming us on match day. I responded to everyone... I have heard back from all of them by email. I know their names. I know their schools. I know their email addresses. The only other thing I know about them is that they matched into Radiation Oncology at the same place as me.

I have never met them. I don't know what their values are. I don't know what their interests are. And truthfully... I have absolutely no idea as to whether or not they want their name posted to that document. Yeah, it will become public information at some point. But that doesn't mean that maybe right now they don't want it there. If that happens to be the case, then their temporary privacy in that respect is more important to me than letting everyone else know where they will be.

I hate to be a debbie downer... but I will be training along side them for four years with the shared goal of treating cancer. I would rather not start out on the wrong foot.
 
MedStud! said:
Ok... I completely want to know where everyone matched. Pretty bad. I've definitely checked the spreadsheet one too many times. But I have not put my fellow residents names there yet even though I could. And I think I have a decent justification.

I received an email from our program director welcoming us on match day. I responded to everyone... I have heard back from all of them by email. I know their names. I know their schools. I know their email addresses. The only other thing I know about them is that they matched into Radiation Oncology at the same place as me.

I have never met them. I don't know what their values are. I don't know what their interests are. And truthfully... I have absolutely no idea as to whether or not they want their name posted to that document. Yeah, it will become public information at some point. But that doesn't mean that maybe right now they don't want it there. If that happens to be the case, then their temporary privacy in that respect is more important to me than letting everyone else know where they will be.

I hate to be a debbie downer... but I will be training along side them for four years with the shared goal of treating cancer. I would rather not start out on the wrong foot.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think with the Who's Who, people didn't mind posting the school and degree, but I'm not comfortable posting people's names.

On another note, I think one of the most useful parts of the match results thread was people posting advice to next year's applicants and what they thought was hurtful or helpful to their application. That is missing from this format also.
 
MedStud! said:
Ok... I completely want to know where everyone matched. Pretty bad. I've definitely checked the spreadsheet one too many times. But I have not put my fellow residents names there yet even though I could. And I think I have a decent justification.

I received an email from our program director welcoming us on match day. I responded to everyone... I have heard back from all of them by email. I know their names. I know their schools. I know their email addresses. The only other thing I know about them is that they matched into Radiation Oncology at the same place as me.

I have never met them. I don't know what their values are. I don't know what their interests are. And truthfully... I have absolutely no idea as to whether or not they want their name posted to that document. Yeah, it will become public information at some point. But that doesn't mean that maybe right now they don't want it there. If that happens to be the case, then their temporary privacy in that respect is more important to me than letting everyone else know where they will be.

I hate to be a debbie downer... but I will be training along side them for four years with the shared goal of treating cancer. I would rather not start out on the wrong foot.
Click to expand...

Thats the big reason why I liked the Who's who, it was anonymous enough that people didn't mind posting, but enough info that it helped everyone get a sense for who was who 🙂
 
At the very least, the "match stats" thread should come back. It gave good information on what kind of interviews people were getting with certain scores, research, and pedigree. And personalized advice on top of that.
 
I thought the who's who was only useful to show over-anxious applicants:

1. The top programs do not only fill with top tier school medical students and/or MD/PhDs.

and conversely:

2. Just because you went to a top tier school and/or have a PhD, that does not guarantee you admission into a top tier (or any other) radiation oncology program.


It would be more helpful to show why those things are true, and stats help with that. Though I've found rad onc applicants to be particularly skittish about posting anything personally identifiable (or anything in general), in part because it is such a small field, any many fear they will be identifiable in some negative way far into the future.
 
Random question:

I interviewed at Emory this cycle, loved it, but ended up matching at a place I ranked a bit higher. Before rank lists were due they sent a letter out thanking me for interviewing and then used some vague language that I thought may be indicating that they were going to rank me highly but I couldn't tell. Was just wondering if everyone who interviewed got a letter? You can feel free to PM if you don't want to post here. Thanks, I'm just curious. Emory is a fantastic place.
 
FYI I moved the match results to a different worksheet to make it more clear that the stats don't correspond to anyone's name.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...UFl6anRWdWVmQ2N4WkhtZl85RUE&usp=sharing#gid=5

I think people will slowly fill it in, might just take a while. Also agree with starting the who's who and match stats threads still - can give more personalized advice and nuanced info there. Ideally people would post both in SDN threads and also on the spreadsheet (which should only take like 1 min)
 
Glad the GoogleDoc is filling quick. Cool.

I didn't know Allegheny was in the match this year though.
 
I'm certain that Allegheny wasn't on ERAS this cycle.

I guess they participated in SOAP. I didn't know you could do that if you weren't on ERAS though.
 
xrthopeful said:
I'm certain that Allegheny wasn't on ERAS this cycle.

I guess they participated in SOAP. I didn't know you could do that if you weren't on ERAS though.
Click to expand...
Don't know, but they are listed on the NRMP report as unfilled.
 
Is there a school specific NRMP report? where?

where were the programs that went unfilled?
 
The match results by program are available on NRMP under "my reports" but aren't posted on the NRMP site so I don't know if it's legal to share. It looks like the majority of the spots were not actual spots, but "physician only" spots that didn't fill.
 
I'm pretty sure it's public info.

Looks like Louisville went unmatched for their one spot.
UT-San Antonio was looking for 2 spots but only matched one
This is the weird one - University of Washington was supposed to match 3 but only matched 2.

one oddity - Vandy only took one person in the match for 2015 start.
 
Vandy only interviewed for 1 spot. If I recall correctly they had an uneven distribution with 2- 3 in other years and then just 1 for this cycle.
 
I'm certain that Allegheny wasn't on ERAS this cycle.
I guess they participated in SOAP. I didn't know you could do that if you weren't on ERAS though.
Click to expand...

Allegheny was on my list of applied programs. They definitely were in the match.

UT-San Antonio was looking for 2 spots but only matched one
Click to expand...

San Antonio matched their 1 spot. Their additional unmatched spot was a clerical error.
 
Just checked and you are right about Allegheny. I guess I completely forgot about them, ha.

I wonder if UWash's unfilled spot was a clerical error too.

If so, it appears that Louisville may have been the only truly unfilled spot this year.
 
Neuronix said:
I thought the who's who was only useful to show over-anxious applicants:

1. The top programs do not only fill with top tier school medical students and/or MD/PhDs.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't undersell that. Seeing B&W take someone from OHSU is a shining beacon of hope, though I wouldn't be shocked to find out she has a PhD.
But really if I end up being competitive for just a 'pretty good' program I'll be happy.

What's generally considered public information from a program's rank list? Is where interviewees went to med school and where they matched generally open, or would that be too much of a giveaway due to low number of interviews compared to other specialties?

According to that link posted above, it looked like Vandy went unfilled for 2013. is that right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elementaryschooleconomics
A Tribute: Choosing Wisely, 2013-202x(??)
Replies
12
Views
1K
sirspamalot
sirspamalot
U
Rad Onc Job Interview “test”
Replies
21
Views
4K
ramsesthenice
R
Brim
ChatGPT Letters
Replies
2
Views
2K
Brim
Brim
Gfunk6
Interview with incoming ASTRO CEO
Replies
11
Views
2K
thecarbonionangle
thecarbonionangle
B
Timeline from interview to offer
Replies
43
Views
8K
deleted1180461
D
Top Bottom