Easiest fields to match this year

[officedepot]

---

Members don't see this ad.

.

 

[RafaTech]

here's the data:
http://www.nrmp.org/data/datatables2012.pdf

I will use the example of EM to illustrate my method:

In EM there were 1498 total US grad applicants and 1335 matches for US grads giving it a 89.1% match rate. Using the same system the match rate for Fam Med was 87%, IM was 85.2%, rads 84.7%, etc. Similar rates to EM were peds at 90.3%, psych at 90.6%, obgyn at 93.4%, etc

Derm was 74.8%, Gen surg was 72.7%, ENT was 81%, radonc (pgy2) was 68.9%, etc

Yes, it is not the absolute best method:
1. it doesn't take into account IMGs but US grads essentially take almost all the spots so that's why I didn't include them.
2. it doesn't include people who ranked more than one specialty (though using historical data from 2011 charting outcomes that is likely insignificant for EM, fam med, IM, gen surg, obgyn, etc).
3. it doesn't really work for fields with large numbers of both pgy1 and pgy2 spots like anesthesia as people make exclusively go for one or both and it's unknown what the breakdown is.
4. we don't know board scores, grades, etc from this data

However overall I think the method is solid. It looks at raw numbers separate from all the extraneous board scores/AOA/number of honors/research debate.

conclusion: EM is easier to match than Fam med. It's almost as easy as psych. It isn't competitive at all. Obgyn was probably the easiest of all which does not surprise me.

I dont think that is a fair conclusion. You forget that there is a lot of self selection going on with matching into specialties. This is why specialties like ENT have a 81% match rate vs Gen Surg which is 72%. People for the most part have a general idea of what they are competitive for and usually try to match into that. EM is definitely more competitive than family medicine if you look at the average board scores. I know some people that were discouraged from applying to EM by my school's clerkship director because they wouldnt have been as competitive of an applicant for EM as for IM (and they were trying to decide between the two).

 

[flatearth22]

The problem with this finding is that there's definitely some self-selection going on. The people trying out for FM aren't as competitive, on average, as the people trying out for EM. So while it is true that EM was the "easiest" to match into this year numbers-wise it doesn't really tell you much else. For example, how would someone with average FM stats fair in the EM match? Probably not as well as someone with average EM stats in the FM match. It's also interesting to hear accounts like these:

I was a competitive applicant for EM and for some reason did not match. I opened the email at noon on Monday to utter shock. Had to read the first line about five times before I packed my stuff and ran out of the room where I had been sitting. I am at a writer's workshop in a very rural area of PA this week and so was not prepared to scramble. In fact, had not even considered the possibility. I have high Step scores and interviewed at ten places, none except perhaps Emory terribly competitive.

I didn't sleep all Monday night, wee hours of Tuesday morning--in part because of being so isolated from friends and family. I was devastated.

For SOAP, I applied widely to thirty places, not taking the time to change my personal statement or anything like that. Having no idea what to expect. Got one call Monday night, and about fifty on Tuesday. Programs who liked me had multiple people call me. Throughout this process I was surrounded by writers who had never heard of the match, but were all very interested and supportive and whenever I left the room I heard them make comments to each other like, "I never knew it was like this for doctors, it reminds me of the football draft or something, I'll never walk into a doctor's office again without looking at their certificates, etc".

As noon approached, several PDs called relentlessly, wanting a committment that I would take their offer if they put me first. They seemed just as shocked that they had not filled, and just as worried and desperate to get a good outcome in the process. A lot of anxiety on both sides.

At noon yesterday we were all on the edge of our seats as the page with my offers uploaded. I had ten offers and everyone cheered. Three Anes, one Radiology-Diag with a medicine Prelim year offered at the same site, they had coordinated that purposefully for me, several IM, FM, and one or two Peds.

I went with one of the Anes programs and I am relatively relieved, though still trying to adjust to my new reality as I had not been mentally/emotionally prepared for this possibility. Several of the PDs said that they had gone through my app with a fine tooth comb, looking for the red flag, looking for the F, looking for the class I had to retake, thinking there MUST be some reason I had not matched with scores and grades like I have. But there truly wasn't anything. I don't know what happened and I told them that.

If any future SOAPers have questions, please feel free to PM me.

Good luck to everyone.

This is almost identical to my story. I was a competitive applicant for EM (very high steps, AOA, good clinical grades, etc) but did not match. I was so devastated when I saw the email (at first I thought it was a mistake. Then I spent about 10 minutes crying before doing anything). I couldn't believe all the EM spots were taken. This is the only field that I want to do and the idea of having to do another specialty seemed like the end of the world for me. I applied to EM/IM and IM spots and got 1 offer yesterday. Thankfully it was in EM/IM so I can still follow my dream of becoming an EM doc. But I am still very disappointed and half of me still believes that this was all just a mistake. The past few days have been some of the worst of my life. I am so glad this is all over. Good luck to the rest of you still in the scramble!

 

[dr zaius]

This is terrifying.

 

[Aphtalyfe]

here's the data:
http://www.nrmp.org/data/datatables2012.pdf

I will use the example of EM to illustrate my method:

In EM there were 1498 total US grad applicants and 1335 matches for US grads giving it a 89.1% match rate. Using the same system the match rate for Fam Med was 87%, IM was 85.2%, rads 84.7%, etc. Similar rates to EM were peds at 90.3%, psych at 90.6%, obgyn at 93.4%, etc

Derm was 74.8%, Gen surg was 72.7%, ENT was 81%, radonc (pgy2) was 68.9%, etc

Yes, it is not the absolute best method:
1. it doesn't take into account IMGs but US grads essentially take almost all the spots so that's why I didn't include them.
2. it doesn't include people who ranked more than one specialty (though using historical data from 2011 charting outcomes that is likely insignificant for EM, fam med, IM, gen surg, obgyn, etc).
3. it doesn't really work for fields with large numbers of both pgy1 and pgy2 spots like anesthesia as people make exclusively go for one or both and it's unknown what the breakdown is.
4. we don't know board scores, grades, etc from this data

However overall I think the method is solid. It looks at raw numbers separate from all the extraneous board scores/AOA/number of honors/research debate.

conclusion: EM is easier to match than Fam med. It's almost as easy as psych. It isn't competitive at all. Obgyn was probably the easiest of all which does not surprise me.

The data doesn't really take into account the fact that many specialities "self-select." That is to say that a person with a 210 isn't going to be applying to ENT to begin with.

I wish they would just release the average step score for each specialty every year, instead of doing charting outcomes every other year.

 

[CarlATHF]

Pretty crazy how competitive EM has become these past few years.

 

[Leon22]

how competitive is general surgery? without research,and high step 1 score enough?

 

[Lokhtar]

here's the data:
http://www.nrmp.org/data/datatables2012.pdf

I will use the example of EM to illustrate my method:

In EM there were 1498 total US grad applicants and 1335 matches for US grads giving it a 89.1% match rate. Using the same system the match rate for Fam Med was 87%, IM was 85.2%, rads 84.7%, etc. Similar rates to EM were peds at 90.3%, psych at 90.6%, obgyn at 93.4%, etc

Derm was 74.8%, Gen surg was 72.7%, ENT was 81%, radonc (pgy2) was 68.9%, etc

Yes, it is not the absolute best method:
1. it doesn't take into account IMGs but US grads essentially take almost all the spots so that's why I didn't include them.
2. it doesn't include people who ranked more than one specialty (though using historical data from 2011 charting outcomes that is likely insignificant for EM, fam med, IM, gen surg, obgyn, etc).
3. it doesn't really work for fields with large numbers of both pgy1 and pgy2 spots like anesthesia as people make exclusively go for one or both and it's unknown what the breakdown is.
4. we don't know board scores, grades, etc from this data

However overall I think the method is solid. It looks at raw numbers separate from all the extraneous board scores/AOA/number of honors/research debate.

conclusion: EM is easier to match than Fam med. It's almost as easy as psych. It isn't competitive at all. Obgyn was probably the easiest of all which does not surprise me.

Yea....NS and ENT are not easier than GS. They just aren't.

 

[gman33]

Your logic is off.
Maybe the FM applicants have a lower match rate because they are less qualified applicants as a group.

You would have to control for a whole bunch of variables that you don't have access to in your analysis.

That being said, I think for an "average" US applicant, getting a spot in EM is not that difficult. Getting a spot you want, that's another story.

 

[JackShephard MD]

here's the data:
http://www.nrmp.org/data/datatables2012.pdf

I will use the example of EM to illustrate my method:

In EM there were 1498 total US grad applicants and 1335 matches for US grads giving it a 89.1% match rate. Using the same system the match rate for Fam Med was 87%, IM was 85.2%, rads 84.7%, etc. Similar rates to EM were peds at 90.3%, psych at 90.6%, obgyn at 93.4%, etc

Derm was 74.8%, Gen surg was 72.7%, ENT was 81%, radonc (pgy2) was 68.9%, etc

Yes, it is not the absolute best method:
1. it doesn't take into account IMGs but US grads essentially take almost all the spots so that's why I didn't include them.
2. it doesn't include people who ranked more than one specialty (though using historical data from 2011 charting outcomes that is likely insignificant for EM, fam med, IM, gen surg, obgyn, etc).
3. it doesn't really work for fields with large numbers of both pgy1 and pgy2 spots like anesthesia as people make exclusively go for one or both and it's unknown what the breakdown is.
4. we don't know board scores, grades, etc from this data

However overall I think the method is solid. It looks at raw numbers separate from all the extraneous board scores/AOA/number of honors/research debate.

conclusion: EM is easier to match than Fam med. It's almost as easy as psych. It isn't competitive at all. Obgyn was probably the easiest of all which does not surprise me.

I'm not trying to defend EM, but your methods are horrible.

Trying to omit selection bias from this data is ridiculous. Match rates are helpful to shed light on competitiveness, but to compare two groups based solely upon match % isn't helpful.

It's really surprising the conclusions people try to draw from limited data.

4. we don't know board scores, grades, etc from this data

However overall I think the method is solid. It looks at raw numbers separate from all the extraneous board scores/AOA/number of honors/research debate.

You've mentioned we don't know the Step 1 score, clinical rotation grades, research, or class rank/medical school pedigree. It's amusing to see you draw this conclusion, then read on the "advice from medical students matching" threads or program director surveys that these are by far the most important factors to matching. How can you determine what is competitive or not when you lack this critical data?

 

[ElCura]

here's the data:
http://www.nrmp.org/data/datatables2012.pdf

I will use the example of EM to illustrate my method:

In EM there were 1498 total US grad applicants and 1335 matches for US grads giving it a 89.1% match rate. Using the same system the match rate for Fam Med was 87%, IM was 85.2%, rads 84.7%, etc. Similar rates to EM were peds at 90.3%, psych at 90.6%, obgyn at 93.4%, etc

Derm was 74.8%, Gen surg was 72.7%, ENT was 81%, radonc (pgy2) was 68.9%, etc

Yes, it is not the absolute best method:
1. it doesn't take into account IMGs but US grads essentially take almost all the spots so that's why I didn't include them.
2. it doesn't include people who ranked more than one specialty (though using historical data from 2011 charting outcomes that is likely insignificant for EM, fam med, IM, gen surg, obgyn, etc).
3. it doesn't really work for fields with large numbers of both pgy1 and pgy2 spots like anesthesia as people make exclusively go for one or both and it's unknown what the breakdown is.
4. we don't know board scores, grades, etc from this data

However overall I think the method is solid. It looks at raw numbers separate from all the extraneous board scores/AOA/number of honors/research debate.

conclusion: EM is easier to match than Fam med. It's almost as easy as psych. It isn't competitive at all. Obgyn was probably the easiest of all which does not surprise me.

I prefer to use % filled by U.S. students as a metric on page 8 (also not perfect). Examples:

Rad-Onc 100% (on very small n)
ENT 97.2%
Derm 95.7%
Orthopods 94.0%
Plastics 86%
EM 80%
Surgery 79.8%
Anesthesia 78.9%
Ob/Gyn 73.6%
Pediatrics 70%
Radiology 66.7% (down from 79.9% last year and 86% in 2008)
Neuro 59.2%
PM&R 59.1%
IM categorical 55.7%
Psych 55.1%
Family 48.2%

Seems to make more sense. Puts EM near Surgery (which has become slightly less attractive in recent years) and above IM, Ob, etc.--and FM below everything except becoming a writer. Also puts specialties in 3 or 4 general clumps (90% and above, 80%ish, 50% to 70%ish, and Family/PA/medical assistant/transport tech).

The amazing, "unmatched" drop in match rate for rads may reflect the higher ease to outsource radiology overseas and possibly the increased interest in some students to do something more hands-on with patients.

 

[officedepot]

.

 

[FML]

The problem with this finding is that there's definitely some self-selection going on. The people trying out for FM aren't as competitive, on average, as the people trying out for EM. So while it is true that EM was the "easiest" to match into this year numbers-wise it doesn't really tell you much else. For example, how would someone with average FM stats fair in the EM match? Probably not as well as someone with average EM stats in the FM match. It's also interesting to hear accounts like these:

Just as an aside comment of the personal stories you mentioned, the first thing to come to mind is that these people interview horribly... which would make getting into any specialty difficult.

 

[gravitywave]

The question that gets EM people's panties tight is if the average applicant for one field is better than the average applicant for another field. They will say they are better than fam med even though it was easier for them to match. I don't think that is fair to say.

what is this i don't even

look man, i get that now that you've matched you have all kinds of time on your hands. but this is a pretty lame attempt at trolling. not that many won't fall for it.

the lone fact that EM has an average Step 1 score 10-15 points higher than FM makes your arguments very silly. put another way, someone with a Step score of 200 is going to have a different experience trying to stroll into an EM residency than an FM one.

 

[Law2Doc]

I prefer to use % filled by U.S. students as a metric on page 8 (also not perfect). Examples:

Rad-Onc 100% (on very small n)
ENT 97.2%
Derm 95.7%
Orthopods 94.0%
Plastics 86%
EM 80%
Surgery 79.8%
Anesthesia 78.9%
Ob/Gyn 73.6%
Pediatrics 70%
Radiology 66.7% (down from 79.9% last year and 86% in 2008)
Neuro 59.2%
PM&R 59.1%
IM categorical 55.7%
Psych 55.1%
Family 48.2%

Seems to make more sense. Puts EM near Surgery (which has become slightly less attractive in recent years) and above IM, Ob, etc.--and FM below everything except becoming a writer. Also puts specialties in 3 or 4 general clumps (90% and above, 80%ish, 50% to 70%ish, and Family/PA/medical assistant/transport tech).

The amazing, "unmatched" drop in match rate for rads may reflect the higher ease to outsource radiology overseas and possibly the increased interest in some students to do something more hands-on with patients.

The numbers above are true, but do they really tell you anything? I mean radiology did worse this year than in years past, but I suspect the average Step 1 scores are still a lot higher than Peds, OB, Anesthsia, EM and Gen Surg, who are higher than it on your list. Does that really make it "less competitive"? I mean most of the folks going into Peds probably still wouldn't have gotten radiology interviews.

Also I doubt the lack of interest in radiology has much to do with outsourcing or hands on -- nothing has changed on those fronts in decades. Plain and simple radiologists coming out of fellowship these days are having a tough time finding jobs in this economy, and that fact hasn't been lost on med students.

 

[JackShephard MD]

I prefer to use % filled by U.S. students as a metric on page 8 (also not perfect). Examples:

Rad-Onc 100% (on very small n)
ENT 97.2%
Derm 95.7%
Orthopods 94.0%
Plastics 86%
EM 80%
Surgery 79.8%
Anesthesia 78.9%
Ob/Gyn 73.6%
Pediatrics 70%
Radiology 66.7% (down from 79.9% last year and 86% in 2008)
Neuro 59.2%
PM&R 59.1%
IM categorical 55.7%
Psych 55.1%
Family 48.2%

Seems to make more sense. Puts EM near Surgery (which has become slightly less attractive in recent years) and above IM, Ob, etc.--and FM below everything except becoming a writer. Also puts specialties in 3 or 4 general clumps (90% and above, 80%ish, 50% to 70%ish, and Family/PA/medical assistant/transport tech).

The amazing, "unmatched" drop in match rate for rads may reflect the higher ease to outsource radiology overseas and possibly the increased interest in some students to do something more hands-on with patients.

This has always been the metric I use in my mind, but it's very general at best. Smaller deltas ~5% don't tell you much but larger deltas might (>10% for example).

It's not everything though, as I agree a specialty like Rads isn't less competitive than Peds, Anesthesiology, or GS. Although that statistic is a bit alarming:

Radiology 66.7% (down from 79.9% last year and 86% in 2008)

We all know the best way to compare the competitiveness of specialties (with data alone) is the Charting the Outcomes report.

The question that gets EM people's panties tight is if the average applicant for one field is better than the average applicant for another field. They will say they are better than fam med even though it was easier for them to match. I don't think that is fair to say.

You're revealing your agenda against EM. Not sure why you're doing this.

 

[officedepot]

.

 

[flatearth22]

No agenda. It was just my example. Gen surg is harder than ENT. There's just not as many ENT peeps out getting riled up. They're more secure in their chosen field I guess.




No denying rads was much easier this year compared to a few years ago but the number you cite here is for the pgy1 spot... I don't even know what a pgy1 rads position is to be honest. The real number is 75.9% which is for the 900 or so pgy2 positions. Granted this number still isn't that high but rads is definitely not 34% filled by IMGs.

You're making the same logical fallacy.....again 👎

 

[upright]

You went full ****** with this analysis.

 

[drizzt3117]

I prefer to use % filled by U.S. students as a metric on page 8 (also not perfect). Examples:

Rad-Onc 100% (on very small n)
ENT 97.2%
Derm 95.7%
Orthopods 94.0%
Plastics 86%
EM 80%
Surgery 79.8%
Anesthesia 78.9%
Ob/Gyn 73.6%
Pediatrics 70%
Radiology 66.7% (down from 79.9% last year and 86% in 2008)
Neuro 59.2%
PM&R 59.1%
IM categorical 55.7%
Psych 55.1%
Family 48.2%

Seems to make more sense. Puts EM near Surgery (which has become slightly less attractive in recent years) and above IM, Ob, etc.--and FM below everything except becoming a writer. Also puts specialties in 3 or 4 general clumps (90% and above, 80%ish, 50% to 70%ish, and Family/PA/medical assistant/transport tech).

The amazing, "unmatched" drop in match rate for rads may reflect the higher ease to outsource radiology overseas and possibly the increased interest in some students to do something more hands-on with patients.

That US % is for US allo seniors and doesn't include DO, Us Grads, or IMGs, so it's not like all those spots are being filled by FMGs.

 

[drizzt3117]

No denying rads was much easier this year compared to a few years ago but the number you cite here is for the pgy1 spot... I don't even know what a pgy1 rads position is to be honest. The real number is 75.9% which is for the 900 or so pgy2 positions. Granted this number still isn't that high but rads is definitely not 34% filled by IMGs.

PGY-1 is a categorical rads position.

The # you're looking at for US Seniors only includes US MD seniors. Independent applicants include US Grads, IMGs, and DOs.

Furthermore, rads this year had some open spots because the quantity of applicants was down 15-20% from previous years, however the quality of the applicants was the same or higher. PDs have basically said that the average scores and % AOA increased while the number of applicants went down, making it a bit better year for applicants because programs were interviewing the same people, meaning they fell further down their list than usual, but individual programs had super high step 1 averages; UCI said their step 1 average this year for interviewees was > 260.

If you look at the numbers, rads and ortho had similar number of applicants last year (920 rads vs 810 orthopedics) but there were 229 radiology applicants with step 1 > 251 (25%) whereas there were 179 ortho applicants with step 1 > 251 (22%). Radiology is more top heavy, with the top programs having high averages while the lower programs have low averages.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Here is why selection bias is critical. It is the same logic people use when saying dental or PA school is harder to get into than med.

FM avg step 1: 210
Surgery: 230
Plastics: 250

Regardless of competition like # applicants, to exclude selection bias says that if an applicant suited for plastics changes his mind to FM, he decreases his chance of matching.

Do you think it is reasonable that someone w a 250 will not match lower scored programs? The struggle of the average applicant within a group may be higher, but with competition scaled to scores, someone who is a high outlier will not be subject to the same level of competition

 

[DreamingTheLive]

No agenda. It was just my example. Gen surg is harder than ENT. There's just not as many ENT peeps out getting riled up. They're more secure in their chosen field I guess.




No denying rads was much easier this year compared to a few years ago but the number you cite here is for the pgy1 spot... I don't even know what a pgy1 rads position is to be honest. The real number is 75.9% which is for the 900 or so pgy2 positions. Granted this number still isn't that high but rads is definitely not 34% filled by IMGs.

Lol. You mean the residency experience, right?

 

[gators21]

You went full ****** with this analysis.

Dude you never go full ******!

 

[Maybeknot]

However overall I think the method is solid. It looks at raw numbers separate from all the extraneous board scores/AOA/number of honors/research debate.

conclusion: EM is easier to match than Fam med. It's almost as easy as psych. It isn't competitive at all. Obgyn was probably the easiest of all which does not surprise me.

Your logic is absolutely infallible. Great job! 👍👍😍😍😍

For example, family medicine-preventive medicine programs had a whopping <6% US senior match rate. 😱 Clearly, this is the second most competitive field in medicine...

After Neurodevelopmental Disabilities PGY-1 programs, with a mind-boggling 0% US senior match rate. 😱😱

 

[OccupyTheED]

. . . However overall I think the method is solid. It looks at raw numbers separate from all the extraneous board scores/AOA/number of honors/research debate.

conclusion: EM is easier to match than Fam med. It's almost as easy as psych. It isn't competitive at all. Obgyn was probably the easiest of all which does not surprise me.

I don't see how you can make this argument based on "raw numbers" when the average step scores are significantly higher. In addition, any idiot who has ever taken a statistics class can tell you correlation does not equal causation. A higher percentage of matched applicants has very little, if anything, to do with competitiveness. You even identified 4 possible confounding variables yourself to this "analysis" and I use that term loosely here. So the real question is what do you have against EM? This is the second thread you've posted this idiotic argument in. SOAP got you feeling down?

 

[drizzt3117]

It is a little weird that he's so focused on EM... I think a lot of people (mostly premeds and underclassmen) are getting too excited about the 0 unfilled spots, but it's certainly increasing a bit in competitiveness.

I don't see how you can make this argument based on "raw numbers" when the average step scores are significantly higher. In addition, any idiot who has ever taken a statistics class can tell you correlation does not equal causation. A higher percentage of matched applicants has very little, if anything, to do with competitiveness. You even identified 4 possible confounding variables yourself to this "analysis" and I use that term loosely here. So the real question is what do you have against EM? This is the second thread you've posted this idiotic argument in. SOAP got you feeling down?

 

[DeadCactus]

Standard deviation of step score would probable be a much better metric for which fields are most difficult to match...

 

[aznsuperm3]

here's the data:
http://www.nrmp.org/data/datatables2012.pdf

I will use the example of EM to illustrate my method:

In EM there were 1498 total US grad applicants and 1335 matches for US grads giving it a 89.1% match rate. Using the same system the match rate for Fam Med was 87%, IM was 85.2%, rads 84.7%, etc. Similar rates to EM were peds at 90.3%, psych at 90.6%, obgyn at 93.4%, etc

Derm was 74.8%, Gen surg was 72.7%, ENT was 81%, radonc (pgy2) was 68.9%, etc

Yes, it is not the absolute best method:
1. it doesn't take into account IMGs but US grads essentially take almost all the spots so that's why I didn't include them.
2. it doesn't include people who ranked more than one specialty (though using historical data from 2011 charting outcomes that is likely insignificant for EM, fam med, IM, gen surg, obgyn, etc).
3. it doesn't really work for fields with large numbers of both pgy1 and pgy2 spots like anesthesia as people make exclusively go for one or both and it's unknown what the breakdown is.
4. we don't know board scores, grades, etc from this data

However overall I think the method is solid. It looks at raw numbers separate from all the extraneous board scores/AOA/number of honors/research debate.

conclusion: EM is easier to match than Fam med. It's almost as easy as psych. It isn't competitive at all. Obgyn was probably the easiest of all which does not surprise me.

Mind blown. Way too may fails to comprehend.

 

[HealingSenses]

I think hard evidence like average step 1 or % of AOA matched to that specialty might shed a little bit more "objective" light on the competitiveness of each one. Is NRMP only releasing the chart outcome every other year?

It seems IM and GS are getting more attention nowadays. Only 3 out of over 1000 GS positions went unmatched... WOW

The numbers above are true, but do they really tell you anything? I mean radiology did worse this year than in years past, but I suspect the average Step 1 scores are still a lot higher than Peds, OB, Anesthsia, EM and Gen Surg, who are higher than it on your list. Does that really make it "less competitive"? I mean most of the folks going into Peds probably still wouldn't have gotten radiology interviews.

Also I doubt the lack of interest in radiology has much to do with outsourcing or hands on -- nothing has changed on those fronts in decades. Plain and simple radiologists coming out of fellowship these days are having a tough time finding jobs in this economy, and that fact hasn't been lost on med students.

 

[ElCura]

That US % is for US allo seniors and doesn't include DO, Us Grads, or IMGs, so it's not like all those spots are being filled by FMGs.

True, but when I say that radiology can be outsourced overseas, I'm referring to the work, not to residents being imported.

It's a ready-made (and imperfect) metric to show how relatively competitive different fields are.

And it implicitly includes how few of everyone but U.S. seniors (allopathic) are being included.

 

[ElCura]

We all know the best way to compare the competitiveness of specialties (with data alone) is the Charting the Outcomes report.

Correct. And we also know that the Charting [the] Outcomes report isn't yet available for 2012.

 

[drizzt3117]

True, but when I say that radiology can be outsourced overseas, I'm referring to the work, not to residents being imported.

It's a ready-made (and imperfect) metric to show how relatively competitive different fields are.

And it implicitly includes how few of everyone but U.S. seniors (allopathic) are being included.

I don't think a lot of the work is being exported overseas. Most teleradiology/nighthawk places are located in the US. As far as the number of applicants/unfilled spots, it's pretty normal variation to see big swings in the number of applications. Urology also saw a 15% chance in applications this year, just like rads. If you see another increase in the number of applicants next year, then maybe we're starting to see a trend.

As far as the number of non-US seniors, that seems pretty consistent. If you look at the data in 2007 radiology only had 17 unfilled spots, and had 719 US seniors for 885 total matches for 81.2%, not too different from the 75.9% that we had this year (691/875).

Source: http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2011.pdf

 

[Dirt]

While his conclusions are absolutely ridiculous, the % of AMGs who matched in a given specialty out of those who applied is actually a very good stat to add to average step 1 and %AOA to assess a specialty's competitiveness.

 

[VenusinFurs]

Dude you never go full ******!

Well done.