FMGs are vultures circling for the residency position your scrambling for PART 2

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
this was on scutwork



Thought that I would crunch the numbers for this years match, and offer my conclusions.

Overall for all specialties, the match rate for US senior students this year dropped to a six year low (92.9%). Conversely, the unmatch rate was at a six year high (7.1%).

US Seniors took 208 of the 262 PGY2 matched derm spots this year (1 spot was unmatched). This means that 20.6% (54) of the derm spots went to either people going through the match again, FMGs, or other physicians. This figure is up 1.8% from last year (18.8%-45/239), down 0.6% from 2002 (21.2%-51/241), down 1.9% from 2001 (22.5%-51/227), and down 1.6% from 2000 (22.2%-48/216).
Conclusion: about 20% of all derm spots do not go to US MS4's

Next stat: 94 programs ranked candidates this year for 263 positions. That is an average of 2.8 spots per program. A total of 2,210 ranks of US Seniors were submitted. That averages each program ranking 23.51 US Senior candidates (or 8.40 US Senior candidates ranked for each spot). Overall, there were 2,728 ranks of candidates. This averages to each program ranking 29.02 candidates (or 10.37 candidates for each spot).
-----------------------------------------

We all know that the NRMP is going to court. Well, the six year high unmatch rate does not speak well for the system. Of course, I do not have the numbers from the pre-NRMP years to compare.

Unfortunately, the number of applicants for derm is not released. We could get some really interesting numbers if we had a true figure for that.

Personally, having interviewed at 11 programs, I would say that the average number of interviewees per spot where I went was about 15 (give or take some for the various programs). These numbers suggest that an interview is definitely not a guarantee that you will be ranked. I personally think that is extremely lame, especially when you consider the time and money that applicants are putting into this process.

Also, interestingly, it is pretty consistant that 20% of the spots go to people other than MS4's. I would be interested to see the breakdown of applicants to see if MS4's have developed any disadvantages over the years.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Originally posted by chef
this was on scutwork



Thought that I would crunch the numbers for this years match, and offer my conclusions.

Overall for all specialties, the match rate for US senior students this year dropped to a six year low (92.9%). Conversely, the unmatch rate was at a six year high (7.1%).

US Seniors took 208 of the 262 PGY2 matched derm spots this year (1 spot was unmatched). This means that 20.6% (54) of the derm spots went to either people going through the match again, FMGs, or other physicians. This figure is up 1.8% from last year (18.8%-45/239), down 0.6% from 2002 (21.2%-51/241), down 1.9% from 2001 (22.5%-51/227), and down 1.6% from 2000 (22.2%-48/216).
Conclusion: about 20% of all derm spots do not go to US MS4's

Next stat: 94 programs ranked candidates this year for 263 positions. That is an average of 2.8 spots per program. A total of 2,210 ranks of US Seniors were submitted. That averages each program ranking 23.51 US Senior candidates (or 8.40 US Senior candidates ranked for each spot). Overall, there were 2,728 ranks of candidates. This averages to each program ranking 29.02 candidates (or 10.37 candidates for each spot).
-----------------------------------------

We all know that the NRMP is going to court. Well, the six year high unmatch rate does not speak well for the system. Of course, I do not have the numbers from the pre-NRMP years to compare.

Unfortunately, the number of applicants for derm is not released. We could get some really interesting numbers if we had a true figure for that.

Personally, having interviewed at 11 programs, I would say that the average number of interviewees per spot where I went was about 15 (give or take some for the various programs). These numbers suggest that an interview is definitely not a guarantee that you will be ranked. I personally think that is extremely lame, especially when you consider the time and money that applicants are putting into this process.

Also, interestingly, it is pretty consistant that 20% of the spots go to people other than MS4's. I would be interested to see the breakdown of applicants to see if MS4's have developed any disadvantages over the years.

I started a thread called was gen surg as competitive as ortho and ENT. This is on the surgery/subspec forum. There are some very interesting numbers on that site for neurosurg and ent from the SF match. The 20% you are talking about is broken down for these specialties. The vast majority of the 20% that you are talking about is US grads who are not US seniors. In other words they are people who took time off for whatever reason, or they are people who didn't match last year and are reapplying. The amount of FMGs in this 20% is very small. Literally a handful of the best and brightest FMGs. Furthermore someone mentions that these FMGs are often ones who have done research at the residencies that they have matched at.

Just so there is no confusion I'm using your 20% number in the paragraph above as a concept. The actual numbers for ENT and Neurosurg are not 20% exactly, more like 15%.

Hopefully this sheds some light on the topic.
 
Originally posted by tofurious
I don't see how your comments are so much more thought out and intelligent than cedricw's. I think you made my point right here: people who are not too PC for the time and the audience are banned, while others can attack those who speak their mind with name calling and immaturity without impunity.

Although I feel I shouldn't have to explain AGAIN, cedricw, medschoolhunter, etc. was not banned for his un-PC comments but rather numerous TOS violations and, at the request of a number of SDN users (whose complaints we felt were valid).

The others whom you are worried about (and who are also posting in this thread) have been warned about the use of name calling and profanity in their posts. As noted earlier, users are not banned for a single misstep (unless one so aggregious as to offend nearly everyone).

Remember SDN is not a free society that allows all users to do and post whatever they want. We do not endorse closing unpopular threads or banning unpopular users but we do reserve the right to take such actions if the group of Moderators and Administrators sees fit. Everyone agreed to this when they signed the TOS. Most of the Moderation here these days is actually handled by the SDN users themselves - the Mods/Admins exist only to electronically enforce the rules if we have to.

There are plenty of BBs out there who will let anyone post whatever they want; this is not the atmosphere we want here and we know that most responsible SDN users feel the same.

I hope this clarifies things as I will not be posting further on the subject of cedricw's banning.
 
Originally posted by Disenchanted 1
Well the same could apply for you.....Plus, what gives you a write to generalize all those indivuals into one stereotype.....

What gives me the right is knowing my right from my write.
 
Thanks for doing the legwork on the statistics, chef. I think I disagree with your conclusions. Non-US grads (the 20.6%) also include osteos and residents switching into different spots. While I only have speculation to go on, I'm would bet at least 50% of those 54 spots went to the above and not FMGs.

Also, maybe one of the reasons that the match rate for US seniors was so low this year was the increased amount of applicants to the lifestyle specialties. How many of those non-matched applicants were going for ROAD specialties? I would hazard to guess quite a few...

As for those FMGs/IMGs who are angry with how the residency system here works....at least the US gives non-US grad docs a reasonable opportunity to train and practice here. The same wouldn't be said if I was seeking a position in Canada, UK, etc.

Originally posted by chef
this was on scutwork



Thought that I would crunch the numbers for this years match, and offer my conclusions.

Overall for all specialties, the match rate for US senior students this year dropped to a six year low (92.9%). Conversely, the unmatch rate was at a six year high (7.1%).

US Seniors took 208 of the 262 PGY2 matched derm spots this year (1 spot was unmatched). This means that 20.6% (54) of the derm spots went to either people going through the match again, FMGs, or other physicians. This figure is up 1.8% from last year (18.8%-45/239), down 0.6% from 2002 (21.2%-51/241), down 1.9% from 2001 (22.5%-51/227), and down 1.6% from 2000 (22.2%-48/216).
Conclusion: about 20% of all derm spots do not go to US MS4's

Next stat: 94 programs ranked candidates this year for 263 positions. That is an average of 2.8 spots per program. A total of 2,210 ranks of US Seniors were submitted. That averages each program ranking 23.51 US Senior candidates (or 8.40 US Senior candidates ranked for each spot). Overall, there were 2,728 ranks of candidates. This averages to each program ranking 29.02 candidates (or 10.37 candidates for each spot).
-----------------------------------------

We all know that the NRMP is going to court. Well, the six year high unmatch rate does not speak well for the system. Of course, I do not have the numbers from the pre-NRMP years to compare.

Unfortunately, the number of applicants for derm is not released. We could get some really interesting numbers if we had a true figure for that.

Personally, having interviewed at 11 programs, I would say that the average number of interviewees per spot where I went was about 15 (give or take some for the various programs). These numbers suggest that an interview is definitely not a guarantee that you will be ranked. I personally think that is extremely lame, especially when you consider the time and money that applicants are putting into this process.

Also, interestingly, it is pretty consistant that 20% of the spots go to people other than MS4's. I would be interested to see the breakdown of applicants to see if MS4's have developed any disadvantages over the years.
 
Top