Finally! An ophthalmology match report

[alta91]

I noticed this was posted on the sf match website today and figured I would repost many have asked about this in the past. It looks like they made an error on the website statistics posting of 89% overall matching this year. Looks like 89% of allopathic seniors matched with an overall match rate of 78% of all applicants. Enjoy.

https://www.sfmatch.org/PDFFilesDisplay/Ophthalmology_Residency_Stats_2017.pdf

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TTChopper]

Agree with 78% overall match rate, but how did you get 89% allopathic match rate?

 

[alta91]

Agree with 78% overall match rate, but how did you get 89% allopathic match rate?

Page 3 of the report on the bar that reads US allopathic seniors. Also on the sf match website home page under "overall pct. matching" it currently reads 89% for 2017

 

[TTChopper]

ohhhhh oops! I just read the summary table on the website. Thank!

 

[PhillyMed777]

Very interesting...not only has the avg step 1 declined by a tiny bit, but the match rate has exponentially increased!

 

[Dr.Acula1]

looks like the reason being that a lot less people applied to ophtho. Any thoughts?

 

[outdoorfanatic]

This is really interesting on a number of levels. Surprised to see 6 open spots when none of those showed up on the SFMATCH website. Are these generally filled by word of mouth?

 

[alta91]

This is really interesting on a number of levels. Surprised to see 6 open spots when none of those showed up on the SFMATCH website. Are these generally filled by word of mouth?

Four of the spots showed up the day after the match 1 at Nassau University Medical College, 1 at New York Medical College, and 2 at SUNY Downstate. NUMC and NYMC filled by the end of that day. From talking to some residents at Downstate, the positions filled there around Weds the week after another round of interviews. No idea about the other two spots as they weren't listed. I think Downstate's vacancies might have had something to do with the fact that the chair announced he would resign shortly before the match which altered more than a few people's rank lists as he was one of the major connections to fellowship for that program.

 

[eyeFone]

SF Match presents data in odd ways, especially the pie charts on the last two pages. But I don't understand the overall match rate -- 594 people submitted ranks lists, and 462 people matched; that's a 78% match rate (pg. 3's statistic). 660 people submitted CAS applications, which means 70% match rate for those that applied. Where does the 89% overall match rate come from on page 6? I see that it works when just considering MD seniors (418/472), but not overall.

 

[tongtongbravo]

.

 

[EyeOweYou]

SF Match presents data in odd ways, especially the pie charts on the last two pages. But I don't understand the overall match rate -- 594 people submitted ranks lists, and 462 people matched; that's a 78% match rate (pg. 3's statistic). 660 people submitted CAS applications, which means 70% match rate for those that applied. Where does the 89% overall match rate come from on page 6? I see that it works when just considering MD seniors (418/472), but not overall.

The 89% on page six appears to be a typo, but on an earlier page, it shows that 89% of US seniors who PARTICIPATED, matched. The match rates are a little inflated because they only count those who participated in the denominator, and you have to go on at least 1 interview to participate.

It's interesting that the total number of applications dropped by over 10% though. I wonder why. Maybe another typo?

 

[bonoz]

It's hard to conclude that things are becoming any less competitive. 2017 resembles 2013 quite a bit. Step score last year was 244 and 243 this year... probably within margin of error I reckon.

 

[DrZeke]

It really isn't much less competitive. It fluctuates year to year but my guess is step scores will continue to keep going up. This happened in 2010 or something as well... there was a 2 point dip in step scores. The following year things went right back up and kept going.

While these stats are fun... I think people who truly want to do Ophtho need to evaluate their application and decide whether or not they have a chance and what they need to do to make it happen.

Numbers are important but they aren't everything. I matched with a step 1 score below the unmatched mean my year. I know at least 2 students that I advised that did the same thing this year. I'm not saying it doesn't matter I'm just saying numbers aren't everything.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[BlankSlate]

The scores also do not evaluate the number or quality of other experiences, such as volunteer, leadership, and research. Maybe there's an increase in MD/PhD applicants for all we know. A growing number of students elect to do research years or get additional degrees in medical school. This is all on top of an already self selected group. The last 2 years were brutal years in terms of match, which could have discouraged some applicants form applying at all.

 

[Bluesclera]

"While these stats are fun... I think people who truly want to do Ophtho need to evaluate their application and decide whether or not they have a chance and what they need to do to make it happen."

This is key. Several friends who applied to ophthalmology and other specialties and would start obsessing about each board score fluctuation. You just want to grab them by the face and shake them...

It is true several programs have cut offs, it is true some programs judge based on what med school you are applying from, and it is true that there several factors that are just out of your control.

As an applicant you can just try your hardest and if you fall short let say on boards, amp it up with class grades or try to boost up your research with a few solid papers.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EyeOweYou]

Agreed about the board scores, they're essentially unchanged. What really changed was the total number of applicants

 

[freakonomics]

Yes, same board score, but few applicants applied. This means that you still have to have high step1 score (and many others but it only shows step 1 score) to match regardless of the # of applicants. In fact, the proportion of competitive/less-competitive applicants ratio must have increased to keep the step 1 average still the same.

 

[Feugmed]

Out of curiosity, I ran a calculation of how they got the previous overall match rate. For example: for 2016 - total matched (467) divided by total # ranked list (634) = 73.65%. This algorithm appears to apply to all of the percentage number SF posted for overall percent matching. Using this algorithm, for 2017, total matched (462) divided by total # ranked listed (594) = 77.7% (round up to 78%).

I found it odd that fewer people registered for the CAS than previous years, but the magnitude of this change should not result in an overall percent match rate going up to 89%. I do not think the level of competitiveness changed for ophthalmology either. One reason may be articles released from AAO about advising students (http://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420(16)30132-4/abstract). Although this was released in July 2016 so it likely did not have an impact.

 

[Feugmed]

FYI, the statistics has been edited!