Didn't match PM&R :(
- Thread starter Want2Bdoc
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2010
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,571
- Medical Student
Sorry to hear that! Are you a D.O. or M.D.? I heard through the grapevine that there may be one opening via the AOA residency match in PM&R that you could possibly scramble for but you would have to wait until after the ACGME match is finalized to do so...which might be risky.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2010
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,571
- Medical Student
I don't know the specifics, sorry! I'm sure if you contacted your school they might know. It may, also, have already been filled since the AOA scramble has already taken place.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 207
- Points
- 4,776
Neither did I and I had 11 interviews!!
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2014
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 4,641
That's crazy. Are you an AMG or IMG?
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 4,621
- Resident [Any Field]
I heard that PMR match rate was just over 50% this year. Hard to believe but given what some students that have pm me for advice on reapplication starting to think true.
One of our younger residents told me this but not sure fits with match outcome data. Anyone know?
One of our younger residents told me this but not sure fits with match outcome data. Anyone know?
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 7,495
- Reaction score
- 4,187
- Points
- 6,886
- Location
- Utah
- Attending Physician
shouldn't the #s be published by now? pretty sure it's not 50% match rate.. thats ridiculous
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 207
- Points
- 4,776
I am a DO student.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 207
- Points
- 4,776
Where can I see this data?
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 4,621
- Resident [Any Field]
I am not sure. Like I said a colleague told me. Outcomes of match should be posted soon. No gospel just heard from reliable source
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2010
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 4,571
- Medical Student
Not sure if this link will work:
http://b83c73bcf0e7ca356c80-e8560f4...Residency-Match-Advance-Data-Tables-FINAL.pdf
2014 stats are on the NRMP's website under "What's Happening."
http://b83c73bcf0e7ca356c80-e8560f4...Residency-Match-Advance-Data-Tables-FINAL.pdf
2014 stats are on the NRMP's website under "What's Happening."
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Medical Student
This was my second, and final, try for PM&R. I had ranked 5 programs last year, who all told me the same thing, "you're a great candidate, we just had a lot of applicants this year." So, this round I applied to twice as many programs, ended up with 11 interviews, and ranked all of them. I was fortunate enough to have gotten a transitional spot during the previous match, so I figured I had to give it one more shot.
Match day rolls around, and I was pretty shocked to come up with nothing. As far as stats go, I'm a DO whose board scores were fairly average, but had gotten As and Bs through years 3 and 4 in medical school, and only good remarks on my evaluations as an intern. Granted, just the fact that this was my second time trying to match probably worsened my odds, but I still had to give it one more shot anyway.
So while I haven't seen the statistics for this year, just based on my experience it seems like PM&R is getting fairly competitive the past couple of years.
Match day rolls around, and I was pretty shocked to come up with nothing. As far as stats go, I'm a DO whose board scores were fairly average, but had gotten As and Bs through years 3 and 4 in medical school, and only good remarks on my evaluations as an intern. Granted, just the fact that this was my second time trying to match probably worsened my odds, but I still had to give it one more shot anyway.
So while I haven't seen the statistics for this year, just based on my experience it seems like PM&R is getting fairly competitive the past couple of years.
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 4,621
- Resident [Any Field]
http://b83c73bcf0e7ca356c80-e8560f4...Residency-Match-Advance-Data-Tables-FINAL.pdf
Here are charting outcomes. 617 applicants for 287 Advanced PM&R spots (starting PGy-2) (47%) and 444 applicants for 96 Categorical PM&R spots (starting PGY-1) (22 %). All the PEDS-PM&R spots were filled. All the 8 spots for those with advanced degrees were filled.
I do not think anyone can tell me now that PM&R is not getting to be very competitive. Good for PM&R programs, tough for applicants.
Here are charting outcomes. 617 applicants for 287 Advanced PM&R spots (starting PGy-2) (47%) and 444 applicants for 96 Categorical PM&R spots (starting PGY-1) (22 %). All the PEDS-PM&R spots were filled. All the 8 spots for those with advanced degrees were filled.
I do not think anyone can tell me now that PM&R is not getting to be very competitive. Good for PM&R programs, tough for applicants.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 347
- Reaction score
- 29
- Points
- 4,621
If you're an average or below average candidate going for PM&R (or any field these days) you need to take a very honest look at your candidacy and always ask, "why would they rank me over someone else?" To that end, I would focus your attention on the vast number of PM&R programs that - up until recently - were uncompetitive enough that they weren't even sure they would fill. Though there are no unfilled spots this year, I still believe that there are a lot of programs that aren't super competitive and will match even someone with lower stats with whom they have a personal connection (e.g. did a rotation there). In fact, I know this to be true. On this forum in particular, the majority of attendings/residents seem to be graduates from about 15% of the programs and the majority of candidates are looking at those same 15% of programs, due to the preponderance of gunners. Everything else here is considered "crap", though in reality residency is just a means to an end and if Physiatry is what you want you need to maximize your efforts at matching somewhere, anywhere rather than trying to match somewhere in particular, if you are not in fact a stellar candidate (and by definition, most people will not be).
People always say 8-10 based on the charting outcomes data. Anecdotally, I'm an average MD applicant in both grades and scores. Ranked 11, matched #3.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2014
- Messages
- 686
- Reaction score
- 497
- Points
- 5,246
Wow. How did PMR get to be 50% match rate? That's probably the worst match rate in medicine...
Also, PMR is strange in that the US senior match rate is very similar to the non US senior match rate. (63% for US senior, I guess that's a bit higher).
Anesthesia US senior match rate at 65%... some of these # seem suspect. Ok, that's all - FM US senior match rate at 84%. I'm not sure how these #'s are calculated. Waiting for updated info. 65% for anesthesia and 84% for FM seem off. ENT is 74% US senior.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2013
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 4,696
- Medical Student
Hey guys,
I am sincerely interested in PM&R, and I am writing this so that people do not get scared and run away from PM&R thinking that it recently got overly competitive. I just wanted to point out that the numbers can be very deceptive sometimes. Let me get straight to my point (FYI. Number A/ Number B = Matched / Applied)
For PM&R
2012
PGY1) 86/373 = 23%
PGY2) 277/532 = 52%
2013
103/444 = 23%
293/593 = 50%
2014
96/444 = 22%
297/617 = 48%
I think it is probably somewhat safe to assume that most people who applied for PGY1 also applied to PGY2 positions. I don't see too many people only applying to PGY 1 position. So it comes down to...
2012
363/532=68%
2013
396/593 =67%
2014
393/617 = 64%
So, it may seem that 64% (2014) drop from 67% (2013) could look somewhat significant. For US grad, in 2013, 204 matched and 242 applied = 85%. But in 2014, 208 matched and 243 applied = 86%. So, for AMGs, both percentage and number wise, we did better than last year.
For psych
2012 their categorical was 1080/2008 = 54%
2014 their categorical was 1291/2363 = 55%
Does this mean psych is more competitive than us? I doubt it.
For radiation oncology
2014 their categorical was 175 / 224 applied = 78% (For US grads, I think 170 matched out of only 190 something applied. That is like almost 90% match rate!!)
Does this mean we should all apply for radiation oncology because we got better chance? No way, Jose!
Personally, comparing % filled position or % match rate from previous years don't get you anywhere . If PM&R's step 1, step 2, %AOA, # of honors for clinical year, or things like that increases comparing to previous year and other specialties, then that may be a different story. So, as of right now, I don't think anybody can say for sure that PM&R got more competitive than last year based on % filled position or % match rate (Well... in a way, one can argue it got easier for US grads!)
I am not saying I am definitely right. Please fill free to fill in, if you see any gaps. Again, I am not trying to play down on PM&R. I am just saying it is too early to tell. That's all folks!
I am sincerely interested in PM&R, and I am writing this so that people do not get scared and run away from PM&R thinking that it recently got overly competitive. I just wanted to point out that the numbers can be very deceptive sometimes. Let me get straight to my point (FYI. Number A/ Number B = Matched / Applied)
For PM&R
2012
PGY1) 86/373 = 23%
PGY2) 277/532 = 52%
2013
103/444 = 23%
293/593 = 50%
2014
96/444 = 22%
297/617 = 48%
I think it is probably somewhat safe to assume that most people who applied for PGY1 also applied to PGY2 positions. I don't see too many people only applying to PGY 1 position. So it comes down to...
2012
363/532=68%
2013
396/593 =67%
2014
393/617 = 64%
So, it may seem that 64% (2014) drop from 67% (2013) could look somewhat significant. For US grad, in 2013, 204 matched and 242 applied = 85%. But in 2014, 208 matched and 243 applied = 86%. So, for AMGs, both percentage and number wise, we did better than last year.
For psych
2012 their categorical was 1080/2008 = 54%
2014 their categorical was 1291/2363 = 55%
Does this mean psych is more competitive than us? I doubt it.
For radiation oncology
2014 their categorical was 175 / 224 applied = 78% (For US grads, I think 170 matched out of only 190 something applied. That is like almost 90% match rate!!)
Does this mean we should all apply for radiation oncology because we got better chance? No way, Jose!
Personally, comparing % filled position or % match rate from previous years don't get you anywhere . If PM&R's step 1, step 2, %AOA, # of honors for clinical year, or things like that increases comparing to previous year and other specialties, then that may be a different story. So, as of right now, I don't think anybody can say for sure that PM&R got more competitive than last year based on % filled position or % match rate (Well... in a way, one can argue it got easier for US grads!)
I am not saying I am definitely right. Please fill free to fill in, if you see any gaps. Again, I am not trying to play down on PM&R. I am just saying it is too early to tell. That's all folks!
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2014
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 4,641
I think that the trend surprisingly enough is that PMR is getting more competitive. It's not as easy to match as it was before. The fact that there were 617 total applicants says a lot. Given that there were only 383 positions for both PGY1 and 2, it's not going to be as easy to match going forward given the small # of positions. Given also that most programs only have a handful of positions, it becomes even harder to match. I think this field was a hidden gem and now that the secret is out, competitiveness will shoot up.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2014
- Messages
- 686
- Reaction score
- 497
- Points
- 5,246
Well, medical school in general is turning out to be a bad deal.
If people are only getting 70% chance to match into their field (or less!!) after building up 250k in debt, what a joke.
MD / DO combined match plus lots of new schools opening - while the match percentages are dropping to the 70's in fields once considered moderate/low competitiveness (including anesthesia/FM dropping)... med school match in 5 years? Who knows. Glad I'm done next year, entering class of 2018... good luck.
The surgical sub specialties are matching in the 70's, PMR in the 60's, Anesthesia in the 60's, even FM had 15% US seniors (MDs) unable to match. I need to know if they count multi specialty applications here or what. Charting the outcomes would be nice to make sense of these #'s.
If people are only getting 70% chance to match into their field (or less!!) after building up 250k in debt, what a joke.
MD / DO combined match plus lots of new schools opening - while the match percentages are dropping to the 70's in fields once considered moderate/low competitiveness (including anesthesia/FM dropping)... med school match in 5 years? Who knows. Glad I'm done next year, entering class of 2018... good luck.
The surgical sub specialties are matching in the 70's, PMR in the 60's, Anesthesia in the 60's, even FM had 15% US seniors (MDs) unable to match. I need to know if they count multi specialty applications here or what. Charting the outcomes would be nice to make sense of these #'s.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2014
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 4,641
I think it's time to do what Canada does honestly. First round - only AMGs/DOs. Whatever's left - whoever. No reason why anyone who is an AMG/DO should not get a spot.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 4,551
- Location
- Philadelphia
- Resident [Any Field]
I'm glad you posted this cause I saves me the time of posting something very similar.
My overall impression has been that PM&R has gotten more popular (meaning mostly that the number of applicants has increased) and that the average board scores, etc. haven't adjusted yet. I think if you are an MD with above average numbers you still have a better chance at matching to Rehab than many or most other specialties. 5 or 10 years from now that might not be the case.
Anecdotally though, it does feel like the qualified but more or less average applicants are I know are having a harder time.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2014
- Messages
- 686
- Reaction score
- 497
- Points
- 5,246
Well, honestly if we are hitting 60's in many fields, or even 50's - that would be terrible for the American healthcare system.
People with 250k in debt and practicing medicine they don't want to because their 1st choice was 50%... I mean, imagine if everyone on this thread had to become an OB/GYN because that was the only thing left.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 347
- Reaction score
- 29
- Points
- 4,621
The fact is program directors usually do prefer matching US MD's whenever possible. And within PM&R, they give a reasonably good break to DO's, over IMG's and FMG's. If you're a US MD with below average board scores and even 1-2 clerkship failures, you should match in PM&R if you play your cards right.
Take a very close look at your game plan. The numbers game is part of it, but don't don't think that 10 interviews means guaranteed match. You need to understand the nuance behind the numbers. Places like RIC and Kessler (as well as popular locations like California) get enormous interest from medical students. The other well regarded places get some interest, and then pretty much what's left over gets very limited interest. A lot of these programs have trouble even generating enough interest from their own institution's medical students, who come and do one rotation in July and then brag about how they have electives lined up at the above mentioned places the following months. Use this to your advantage to secure some "safety" programs by doing some away electives in places that are less competitive.
Take a very close look at your game plan. The numbers game is part of it, but don't don't think that 10 interviews means guaranteed match. You need to understand the nuance behind the numbers. Places like RIC and Kessler (as well as popular locations like California) get enormous interest from medical students. The other well regarded places get some interest, and then pretty much what's left over gets very limited interest. A lot of these programs have trouble even generating enough interest from their own institution's medical students, who come and do one rotation in July and then brag about how they have electives lined up at the above mentioned places the following months. Use this to your advantage to secure some "safety" programs by doing some away electives in places that are less competitive.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2014
- Messages
- 686
- Reaction score
- 497
- Points
- 5,246
hmm, I will need to revisit these #'s when I have more time.
First thought, they need to get someone smarter to put these #'s together. What's the purpose of them? To tell us what's the atmosphere of each specialty.
If someone matches PGY2 PMR but applied to PGY1 PMR (and then obviously didn't match PGY1) then they shouldn't include that person in the applicants total (because that person matched and we are double counting a person). OR, someone needs to make more categories so the numbers mean something. If we are double counting applicants in multiple fields and can't separate them (i.e. applied to both PGY1 / PGY2) then this is all chaos.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2014
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 4,641
I think that would be difficult to count. You should really look at the total numbers period. Obviously people will apply to both PGY1 and PGY2. I applied to both, clearly I only matched in one of those categories. But the matter of the fact is that regardless of this, at least 667 total applicants applied for PGY2 spots. I am assuming that of the 444 applicants who applied for PGY1 spots also applied for PGY2 spots. But again regardless of that, there were 667 TOTAL applicants and that is far in excess of the 383 spots that were available between PGY1 and PGY2 positions.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,551
- Medical Student
Hey, fellow DO here. I had 14 interviews and matched at my #12. No negative feedback on anything. Not sure what happened this year.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2013
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 4,696
- Medical Student
Again, what you point out is just based on the match% rate only. It should be more about quality, not quantity, if you know what I mean. So, PM&R's trend goes along the same line with some of other specialties that are considered "less competitive." For example, I pointed out that psych had 2000 or so total applicants for 1000 or so total spots offered. Psych has about 50% rate, so is it worse/harder to match at psych? Again, the answer is no. For PM&R or any other specialties, the number we need to focus are the number of spots offered vs. number of US grad applicants vs. how much of those spots are filled with IMGs (More so, then just total number / total applicants = % match rate).
For 2014, PM&R had 617 total applicants (only 240 or so were US grads) for ~390 spots. Fact numero uno = this never happens to specialties that are considered to be 'competitive.' In fact, even after 'self' selection, there are always more US grads applicants than position offered for those specialties (ex. ENT, radiation oncology, dermatology and so on).
Fact numero dos= you can definitely see that from 2009 to 2013 (2014 was not different!), PM&R residency programs 'consistently' had to fill ~50% of their spots with IMGs. I say 'had to' because no PD in any specialty would give better chance for IMGs if US grad has something similar or even lower. As Paddington said PM&R PDs give 'a reasonably good break to IMG's and FMG's', not because they want to (but they 'HAD' to) because some of US grads were not qualified enough to get a spot even with significant advantages! Not to mention there are fewer number of US grads applied than position offered. Again, this almost never happens to 'competitive' specialties.
The following data was directly from match data 2013, and I don't believe we will see any difference from this year's match result. You will see where my logic comes from:
Specialties with at least 10 positions in The Match and filled more than 90 percent by U.S. seniors:
Radiation Oncology (PGY-1): 100 percent
Radiation Oncology (PGY-2): 98.1 percent
Otolaryngology: 97.2 percent
Dermatology (PGY-1): 95.7 percent
Plastic Surgery (PGY-2): 95.0 percent
Thoracic Surgery: 95.0 percent
Orthopedic Surgery: 94.0 percent
Vascular Surgery: 92.7 percent
Top five specialties with at least 10 positions in The Match and filled with significant numbers of independent
applicants (calculated from table):
Pediatrics-Primary: 55.2 percent
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PGY-2): 48.1 percent
Family Medicine: 46.4 percent
Internal Medicine (Categorical): 43.3 percent
Neurology (PGY-2): 41.9 percent
Again, my point is that if you need to compare competitiveness with % match rate, then you need to dig deeper and see how many US grads were able to match vs. positions offered and % of IMGs filled.
I still believe that residency competitiveness should be determined by other objective measures such as average Step 1, 2, grades, research, and etc. comparing to other matched applicants in different specialties.
I am not arguing that PM&R isn't slowly winning the popularity contest and it sure will be up and coming for next 5-10 years (more applicants will apply fo sho! but more 'qualified' applicants? that should be our question). So, as of right now, I personally believe that PM&R is by no means a 'competitive' specialty for average US grad medical school student, and this year's match results still has not showed anything convincing enough for us to believe that PM&R is getting more 'competitive' (more 'popular' perhaps, but 'popularity' can not equal 'competitiveness' in my opinion, unless it gets its popularity from 'competitive' applicants)
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 207
- Points
- 4,776
Damnnnn!!! I thought I had enough, so I didn't go on two others that I got invitations for. Bad decision obviously.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2014
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 4,641
You can believe what you'd like, but you are wrong imo. You have to realize, for example, that a lot of those "independent" applicants are DOs, not IMG/FMGs, or reapplicants/transfers that are US MD's like myself. During the interview trail, I met numerous US MD's who were changing specialty. Very few of the people I met were IMGs/FMGs actually, and if you look at residency rosters, you will find that most PMR spots are now taken up by US MDs or DOs with few IMG/FMGs.
Of the 383 positions in the match, 175 were filled by "others" many of which include DOs, reapplicants, transfers.
You look at typically more competitive specialties such as gas, rads, etc and you will see that they have a large % of foreign grads.
So while PMR is by no means derm, rad onc, ortho, or whatever, it is certainly becoming competitive. Applications have doubled in the past few years, scores have gone up dramatically, and most programs are filled with US MDs these days.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2013
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 4,696
- Medical Student
1. I did not know independent included DOs (lolz what a shame.. really why would they do that), so anything I said regards to US senior should has to be changed to US MD (Ooops!). However, that just means that it is difficult to gauge on how DOs will do since there was a slight increase in number of independent applicants (however, quantity vs. quality still in mystery without more data). But, I would assume that since US MDs chance of matching did not change too much from 2013, so it may be safe to say that DOs should not be different (I may be wrong here).
2. My reasoning for US MDs still stands since it comes from data = "In 2013, 204 US MD applicants matched when 242 applied = 85%. But in 2014, 208 matched and 243 applied = 86%. And, if you really want to play numbers game your way, then do you agree that both percentage and number wise, it was easier for US MD to match than last year? But, not for independent applicants? By how much? It is very difficult and confusing to determine this. It is because we need more data.
3. The data I provided has nothing to do with me not knowing who independent applicants are. They were equal to all the specialties. And, you say 'gas, rads, and etc and you will see that they have a large % of foreign grads.' Uh..please do not say you don't see the big picture here. I gave you my reasoning and a NRMP data, which will make most medical student would agree upon. It should not be about ranking specific specialties, it is about seeing a big picture. No "less competitive" specialties were able to make the top list and no "competitive" specialties made the bottom list. It should say something that PM&R actually was listed at the bottom list. Not saying it gives specific ranking, but it could show you the reason why it may be 'GROUPED" as one of the "less competitive" specialties. If you cant see it, then oh well...
Specialties with at least 10 positions in The Match and filled more than 90 percent by U.S. seniors:
Radiation Oncology (PGY-1): 100 percent
Radiation Oncology (PGY-2): 98.1 percent
Otolaryngology: 97.2 percent
Dermatology (PGY-1): 95.7 percent
Plastic Surgery (PGY-2): 95.0 percent
Thoracic Surgery: 95.0 percent
Orthopedic Surgery: 94.0 percent
Vascular Surgery: 92.7 percent
Top five specialties with at least 10 positions in The Match and filled with significant numbers of independent
applicants (calculated from table):
Pediatrics-Primary: 55.2 percent
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PGY-2): 48.1 percent
Family Medicine: 46.4 percent
Internal Medicine (Categorical): 43.3 percent
Neurology (PGY-2): 41.9 percent
3. You say you met few IMGs/FMGs and now you see only few IMGs on the roster, but how can you know how much was it different from previous years objectively? You can not. What if it is a trend for most of the specialties? Your experience definitely says something, but nobody can prove anything from their personal experience (sampling bias). I personally know my fellow colleagues who have met and seriously questioned qualification for some of the other PM&R applicants during his interview trail. He said he felt disappointed/encouraging? at the same time. Totally different experience from yours, so no conclusions can be based on anybody's personal experience. Period.
4. Average step 1 score in general goes up every year and this past year it went up a bit drastically (I believe recent step 1 average 227 or something!), so it is not just us PM&R, average step 1 score of every specialty will go up. So again, we need data that PM&R's step 1 score went up higher in its "RANK" comparing to other specialties. Last time I checked it was still in bottom third as far as step 1 score goes. If the data shows differently for this year, then we can say for sure that it is getting competitive (step score wise). Until then, there is no point of even mentioning things about step 1 score.
5. From 2012 to 2014, total number of applicants has increased I believe about one or two thousand in general. That is the trend every year. (Every year there are record breaking number of US graduates, you can easily see it by Googling) Most specialty has increase in number for their total applicants. Not just PM&R. (Some may even have decrease in number, but again that does not mean anything). For PM&R, 80 or so more people applied and there was 30 more position created and offered (it looks fairly proportional to me). I do not know where you get the doubling numbers from. If you compare the data from 10 to 15 years, then the total number of applicants were drastically increased anyway (Most specialties would have doubling numbers anyways). It will take too much time for anyone to figure out which specialty had higher ratio on increase. However, I still believe higher number of applicants does not mean crap, again quality quality quality.
6. Most PM&R programs are not filled with US MDs. It was not for the previous years and it was not for 2014! I showed you the data and you stated it yourself and you are still contradicting yourself (I think that kind of shows your bias). In 2014, 393 spots were offered and 208 were filled with US MDs = 53%. In other words, if I see the roster of some PM&R programs, then half of them would be US MDs and other half would be DOs, FMGs, IMGs, or whoever. This has not changed from previous years, again I showed you the data on number 2.
Final conclusion = my point is very simple. It is not wise to gauge on 'competitiveness,' by just looking at this years % match rate and % position filled. You definitely need more objective data.
Well.. You see more qualified applicants... great! You see increase in number of applicants (not double LOLs)... great! You see increase in step 1 grades... great! You see most programs with US MDs (not true).. but well still great! That's all great, but we want to talk about competitiveness right? That is a measure that can only be determined by comparing with other specialties. There is no way one can gauge on competitiveness just by looking at one's own data.
I will overly simplify, but you will get the point. If I may make a comparison, then what you are saying is that if US's average income for household increased by average of 5% this year, which is far better than 3% past few years (definite increase for sure!!), then does that mean U.S. economy is definitely growing faster (more competitive) than other countries? But, what if the average of the other countries income also increased by 5% and U.S's economy rank still stuck at same place? It means that we are not that special anymore.
Let's wait for more results and COMPARE. That's all.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2002
- Messages
- 1,618
- Reaction score
- 571
- Points
- 4,936
- Attending Physician
Blame the schools. The number of MD schools and their class sizes increase every year. New DO schools pop up at a more rapid pace. The number of residencies barely budges because their funding is set by CMS. Maybe merging all residencies under ACGME will create more openings
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 349
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 4,571
- Medical Student
This worries me as a 2015 applicant. :-/
I'm a DO student who only took the comlex because I wanted to do pm&r and wanted to concentrate on doing well on the one test rather than hedging my bets with both. I got a 550 and am in the top 15% of my class but now I'm scared I won't match due to sheer numbers. Yikes!
I'm a DO student who only took the comlex because I wanted to do pm&r and wanted to concentrate on doing well on the one test rather than hedging my bets with both. I got a 550 and am in the top 15% of my class but now I'm scared I won't match due to sheer numbers. Yikes!
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 207
- Points
- 4,776
Do as many auditions as you can, apply to every program, and take as many interviews as you can afford. I would take a month off in December if you can work it out with your school.
