NRMP's The Match Illuminator - September 2014 Issue
2014 Charting the Outcomes?
- Thread starter mybubbles627
- Start date
NRMP's The Match Illuminator - September 2014 Issue
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 192
But of course. The average derm applicant scored about 10 pts higher than the average ENT applicant. Every little bit helps.
- Joined
- May 10, 2011
- Messages
- 559
- Reaction score
- 83
Charting the outcomes 2014 is officially out on the NRMP website.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5,323
- Reaction score
- 6,961
Child neurology...the only speciality with less applicants than spots lol.
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5,323
- Reaction score
- 6,961
In other notes the mean Step 1 score creeped up by 4 points and the mean Step 2 score jumped 8 points to 243...no wonder they raised the passing minimum for Step 2. I mean **** the mean UNmatched Step 1 and Step 2 score was 221 and 231.
We're starting to see the same kind of MCAT creep that made them revamp the new MCAT...makes you wonder if we're going to see a major revamp for Step 1 and 2 sometime soon (especially since they're doing it with Step 3) since their annual "question mixing" seems to not be doing to trick to keep averages down.
In the same vein, from just a preliminary glance it looks like the Step scores for even "uncompetitive" specialities are right shifting pretty significantly. Peds, for example, had 50+ more applicants with 250+ Step 1 scores than in 2011 (whoever the two people are who had 251-260 and didn't match peds...feel bad for you son). Psych's mean matched Step 1 score jumped 6 points and mean Step 2 score jumped 8 points, with 30 vs 19 250+ matched Step 1 scores.
Times are gettin tough out there folks.
We're starting to see the same kind of MCAT creep that made them revamp the new MCAT...makes you wonder if we're going to see a major revamp for Step 1 and 2 sometime soon (especially since they're doing it with Step 3) since their annual "question mixing" seems to not be doing to trick to keep averages down.
In the same vein, from just a preliminary glance it looks like the Step scores for even "uncompetitive" specialities are right shifting pretty significantly. Peds, for example, had 50+ more applicants with 250+ Step 1 scores than in 2011 (whoever the two people are who had 251-260 and didn't match peds...feel bad for you son). Psych's mean matched Step 1 score jumped 6 points and mean Step 2 score jumped 8 points, with 30 vs 19 250+ matched Step 1 scores.
Times are gettin tough out there folks.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 192
What a treasure trove of information.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
I don't know if they're taking the time to "revamp" the MCAT bc scores are getting too high, honestly. As far as the Steps, they've been changing the types of questions for a while now - anything can be done now that the exam is computerized and not paper-and-pencil. I think what has happened is that there are just much better resources now in terms of review books, Qbanks, etc. For goodness sakes, even just for CLASSES, people are using these spaced repetition programs to commit things to memory long term for a supposed cognitive advantage. Things have gotten crazy in that respect.
2
235009
Interesting stuff especially when you compare it to the 2011 data. Looking only at average US MD Step 1 scores you find that as compared to 2011...
SPECIALTY / AVG STEP 1 SCORE 2014 / CHANGE FROM 2011
Plastic Surgery 245 (-4)
Radiology 241 (+1)
Rad Onc 241 (+1)
Derm 247 (+3)
Anesthesia 230 (+4)
FM 218 (+5)
Gen Surg 232 (+5)
IM 231 (+5)
Neurosurgery 244 (+5)
Neurology 230 (+5)
Ortho 245 (+5)
ENT 248 (+5)
Pathology 231 (+5)
Pediatrics 226 (+5)
OB/GYN 226 (+6)
PM&R 220 (+6)
Psych 220 (+6)
EM 230 (+7)
SPECIALTY / AVG STEP 1 SCORE 2014 / CHANGE FROM 2011
Plastic Surgery 245 (-4)
Radiology 241 (+1)
Rad Onc 241 (+1)
Derm 247 (+3)
Anesthesia 230 (+4)
FM 218 (+5)
Gen Surg 232 (+5)
IM 231 (+5)
Neurosurgery 244 (+5)
Neurology 230 (+5)
Ortho 245 (+5)
ENT 248 (+5)
Pathology 231 (+5)
Pediatrics 226 (+5)
OB/GYN 226 (+6)
PM&R 220 (+6)
Psych 220 (+6)
EM 230 (+7)
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
Darn, you're fast!
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 192
I was thinking about calling it a night from studying, till I saw this report that is...
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
How many people do you think tomorrow will be freaking out bc they chose a specialty based on the match/unmatch board scores in 2011 with now the numbers in 2014 being even higher?
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5,323
- Reaction score
- 6,961
Oh **** I was gonna do derm but now it looks like I'll have to do psych...NEED NEW LOR AND PS NOW!
2
235009
I think the people who will be freaking out the most will be the gunners applying plastics when they realize their specialty just went from highest to third highest step 1 score. Their ego won't allow them to live down the shame of not applying to the most competitive specialty.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
More like Deans of Student Affairs frantically calling up their students they've previously advised telling them to change their minds on their specialty (not srs): https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/april2014/378174/viewpoint.html
More likely they'll just apply to both specialties. It's not uncommon for many specialties (not just Derm) to apply with a backup. You can scroll thru this AAMC powerpoint talk from an assistant dean who recommends exactly that: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1512467...ve-Specialty-and-the-Less-Competitive----AAMC
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
But at least with Plastics, you have a second shot with the General Surgery route. Integrated Plastics is a relatively "new" pathway. It's almost always been a fellowship after General Surgery. I think they used to allow you to enter the integrated pathway, leaving in the middle of a categorical Gen Surgery residency, but I could be wrong on this. @Winged Scapula may know more.
Edit: Just got the joke.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,974
- Reaction score
- 2,680
WE'RE NUMBER 1! WE'RE NUMBER 1!
Eat ****, dermatology, with your inferior 247 Step 1 scores! And look at those pathetic plastic surgeons. Can barely tell the ponticulus from the subiculum.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 32
Looks like the step 1 average for a matched US student is 230 overall. I believe the average step 1 score the class of 2014 is 227. Its surprising that the unmatched applicants, which are just over 7%, can bring the matching average up 3 points.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,390
- Reaction score
- 1,429
Interesting.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 780
- Reaction score
- 700
That's what she said...
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,854
- Reaction score
- 815
If psych is getting that competitive, maybe I should do general surgery so I can at least have the prestige associated with being a surgeon...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,854
- Reaction score
- 815
I m already... I have been studying 5hrs/day as a MS1, but after seeing these numbers I think I am going to crank it up to 7+ hours. These numbers are impressive!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Messages
- 4,303
- Reaction score
- 22,293
The part of the data I actually think is most interesting is the interview creep.
For all specialties, the mean number of contiguous ranks for matched applicants went from 10.4 to 11.5
In my field, this went from 11.2 to 12.4. Most striking, 208 US MD students ranked 16 or more programs, compared to 110 the last time they did charting outcomes.
In other words - people are going on a LOT more interviews than they used to.
The "magic number" (generally referred to as the tipping point where your chances of matching are > 90%) went up significantly. Applicants who ranked 8 programs had only a 67% match rate.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 6,239
- Reaction score
- 1,658
Loling pretty hard at the pathology matched/unmatched table by USMLE 1 score. It's obvious that path is in the ****ter.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 357
- Reaction score
- 472
Maybe someone can help me understand the importance of contiguous rank.
It makes sense to me that the total number of programs an applicant ranks for a specialty would increase that applicant's chances of matching that specialty, but how does contiguous rank factor in?
Let's say my preferred specialty is Ear Surgery, but Ear Surgery is competitive. I also really enjoy Pediatric Gerontology, which is less competitive. I live on Nantucket and would like to stay there for residency. The difference in my interest between my interest in Ear Surgery and Pediatric Gerontology is less of a factor than my desire to stay on Nantucket. So I rank #1 UNantucket Ear Surgery and #2 UNantucket Pediatric Gerontology. The next closest programs are at Martha's Vineyard, so not too far. I rank #3 Martha's Vineyard Ear Surgery and #4 Martha's Vineyard Pediatric Gerontology. After this point, I figure I'll have to move a considerable distance anyway, and rank #5-13 Ear Surgery at other programs. Then I maybe sprinkle in a few more Pediatric Gerontology programs at the end.
How does the discontinuity of ranking a specialty affect the applicant? Does the applicant somehow appear less committed to the specialty? It seems that for many people, there is a tipping point where they have to decide "location" vs. "specialty."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,112
- Reaction score
- 10,078
You're absolutely right, though programs cannot see where else you have applied, at least in theory. You may get asked in interviews or people may talk, but theoretically you could have separate letters, personal statements, and ask your dean's office to write a more generic MSPE that doesn't specify your plans for specialty. For those people who value location uber alles, I'm sure this is what they must do.
The contiguous ranks would just mean that, for the purpose of the data in the report, the guy in your example would be counted for X number of ear surg ranks and Y number of peds gerontology ranks.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 1,515
Likely has to do with people applying to more programs, likely due to the perceived (and real) increase in competition to match. Which is kind of funny when you realize that this is sort of a self perpetuating cycle.
2
235009
I hope this was the point you realized you should throw in the towel and go to bed.
A couple things.
From what I can understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, this study was done differently from the one done in 2011 in a collaborative effort by AAMC/NRMP. Because NRMP is doing this alone now, they're gathering information from their registrants by asking to voluntarily release their score/other numbers. This means that if an applicant didn't consent to have his information released, or didn't fill out the section during NRMP registration asking for his scores, volunteer numbers, AOA status, etc to begin with, his data wasn't be included in this study.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of actual applicants was included in this data. I would guess that people with better numbers are more likely to submit and consent to his information being used.
From what I can understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, this study was done differently from the one done in 2011 in a collaborative effort by AAMC/NRMP. Because NRMP is doing this alone now, they're gathering information from their registrants by asking to voluntarily release their score/other numbers. This means that if an applicant didn't consent to have his information released, or didn't fill out the section during NRMP registration asking for his scores, volunteer numbers, AOA status, etc to begin with, his data wasn't be included in this study.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of actual applicants was included in this data. I would guess that people with better numbers are more likely to submit and consent to his information being used.
It was 224 for class of 2014 and 227 for class of 2015.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Messages
- 4,303
- Reaction score
- 22,293
Programs don't know how you rank. So discontiguous ranking doesn't come through until you see these kinds of reports.
Now, in general, programs do frown upon applying to multiple specialties and will question your "dedication". How much that impacts your ranking with them is very hard to say.
The number of people applying to multiple fields in a desire to maximize locational chances I would say is quite small.
Far and away the most common reason that people apply to multiple fields is that they are a reach for one field, and are using another as a back-up (eg. plastics with gen surg as backup - where only 45 US applicants ranked only one specialty, and 110 ranked 2 specialties).
The report doesn't give you a ton of information to help discriminate in these cases what the impact of discontiguous ranking is on these types of applicants, since the information is based on the outcome and not the intent.
By that what I mean is all the data is grouped into what field you ultimately matched in (or if you went unmatched).
So for example in the plastics charts I would really like to see for that "ranked 2 specialties" a third column. Column A is n(%) matched in plastics, Column B is n(%) matched in something else, Column C is n(%) unmatched. Unfortunately the way the data is divided now, all the people that would be in Column B end up represented in the data for whatever they did match in so we don't get that information.
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 5,323
- Reaction score
- 6,961
I'm assuming they must be in the "unreported" or "unknown" sections? You see this a lot with the Step 2CK scores bc a lot of people probably didn't have their results back by the time they registered for the NRMP.
While it is possible that a significant number of people may not have consented to the info being used, there's not much of a reason to say no.
You could also compared it to the match results from this last year to see if the numbers add up (on my phone so I can't compare the two right now).
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 8,810
- Reaction score
- 166
The Step scores jumps are bananas.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
They took it out since it's not an actual specialty.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
Good grief it's not the end of the world. It's 1 freaking year. Do a prelim IM or prelim Surgery. Heck, there are even prelim Peds and prelim OB years as well.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
At least coming from certain programs. The high step score is likely coming from a huge segment of Path applicants being IMGs.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 348
The step scores are also quite different from the AAMC Careers in Medicine 2013 data. For example 241(CIM) vs 247(CTO) for derm or 228(CIM) vs 232(CTO) for general surgery. Is the 4+ point jump from 2013 to 2014 realistic?
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
Good. Maybe people can finally start beating up on ENT, as a specialty, for once.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,569
- Reaction score
- 3,663
Well at least I'm not applying in 3yrs when the EM average jumps up to 240...
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 6
Add 4 to each score to get the true average, since the step 1 average rose 4 points the year after these applicants took their test. Sad, but that is the world we live in.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 501
- Reaction score
- 504
I don't think that's how statistics works..
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
They took the exam in 2012. The avg. was 227. In 2013, the avg. was 228.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 17,237
- Reaction score
- 13,023
I'm always amazed who people wrongly interpret Charting Outcomes and statistics. No wonder the NBME is writing more questions to address this.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 837
- Reaction score
- 688
I don't understand why they would use the mean. Really only the median is helpful.
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 6
.....i'm an idiot. carry on guys.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2012
- Messages
- 2,083
- Reaction score
- 4,193
So glorified ear wax cleaners are #1 now?
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,672
- Reaction score
- 9,732
Similar threads
