Competitiveness

[ilovepath]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Is there any real way to extrapolate from NRMP data the competitiveness of specialties? I've been trying to advise some peers (esp interested in path) and am frustrated that I get conflicting antecdotal reports. Just wanted to know if I can offer a concrete answer by somehow looking at the data.

 

[PMPMD]

Is there any real way to extrapolate from NRMP data the competitiveness of specialties? I've been trying to advise some peers (esp interested in path) and am frustrated that I get conflicting antecdotal reports. Just wanted to know if I can offer a concrete answer by somehow looking at the data.

I think you can get SOME idea from looking at a document from the NRMP called "Charting Outcomes in the Match." It's been heavily referenced on SDN. It tells you things like average Step 1 scores, number of ranks for matched applicants, etc. for each specialty. Just Google it.

 

[PMPMD]

They actually do logistic regression and provide odds ratios for various factors, so I would say this is much better than anecdotal evidence. Keep in mind that the match data only tells you about applicants who got at least one interview, since you have to have one interview to be able to submit a rank list.

 

[DrBowtie]

I think looking at average matched step 1 score and average unmatched step 1 score, %filled by US MDs, and # of ranks needed to match at X% (whatever risk you want to say is tolerable) gives you a pretty good picture.

 

[ilovepath]

I looked at the data for path in the most recent year's release (09), and the results for the matched candidates looks pretty high, so it seems pretty competitive from the avg data, though not too sure where to place it...maybe a bit under ER and surg?

 

[DrVanNostran]

I looked at a few things: Avg step 1, % AOA, and % from top 40 schools. I came up with a rough idea of where I stand from those number. Of course, when it comes down to ranking many other factors will play a role.

 

[Buzz Me]

I looked at a few things: Avg step 1, % AOA, and % from top 40 schools. I came up with a rough idea of where I stand from those number. Of course, when it comes down to ranking many other factors will play a role.

PLEASE do not let your perceived "competitiveness" at any given program influence your rank list.

 

[DrVanNostran]

PLEASE do not let your perceived "competitiveness" at any given program influence your rank list.

Trust me it won't. First, I will apply to everywhere that my wife and I would like to go. If I am offered interviews, the rank list will be formulated primarily where we will be the happiest...I have a gut feeling where that will be 🙂

As a lowly MS3, I think the trend is we actually think we are more competitive than we are. I will admit, "numbers" seem to be the most important thing to me now, but I know that isn't the entire truth🙂

 

[McGillGrad]

As a lowly MS3, I think the trend is we actually think we are more competitive than we are. I will admit, "numbers" seem to be the most important thing to me now, but I know that isn't the entire truth🙂

Don't be fooled, numbers are the most important initial factor.

It is the simplest way reduce large numbers to manageable piles. According to the Theory of Constraints, time is a commodity that has an inordinately large influence on how interviews are meted out. Offices don't have the time to look for a diamond in the rough. They will simply find the field with the most diamonds (i.e. place an arbitrary cut-off score), then look for rough diamonds there (i.e. the best people above the cut-off).

After that first cut (and there's no point worrying about it since there is nothing you can do after step 1), your interview and clinical performance will have some weight.