How to gauge if I'm competitive for a very specific program?

[PathNeuroIMorFM]

For example, lets say I was very interested in getting into Creighton's IM program.

How can I gauge if I am actually competitive for them?
How can I tell how their residents compare to the IM residents at Kansas University IM or Northwestern IM?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted1162863]

As far as I know, it isn't an easy thing to do, unless there is some information on the website? You can look at what schools the trainees come from, maybe?

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I believe many programs publish stats on their residents, or they used to. A call to the residency Director's office may yield you some info.

 

[operaman]

Good ideas above. Would add a couple:

1) you can probably get close by looking at some rankings of programs like on Doximity to get a very rough idea where your desired program falls. Then you look at the most recent charting outcomes data and assume a roughly normal distribution. They even give you histograms for things like step scores. You’ll need to convert to percentiles now that it’s all S2 and we have no outcomes data under the new meta yet, but that’s easy enough to do. If your desired program is in the middle, then field averages as far as scores are probably competitive. This isn’t the best data, but honestly probably not much worse than if you had all the current residents’ stats because there would still be a range for each data point. But generally speaking, people with higher stats will gravitate toward more selective programs.

2) pubmed search current residents to get a sense of their research stats. Obviously this doesn’t show posters and presentations or ongoing projects, but you can usually extrapolate that a pub also has a corresponding presentation or poster, and probably at least one other project at the poster/oral stage not yet published. Do remember the lag time for publication, and you can look at author info to see if it was an undergrad or med school paper.

3) do an away at the program if you’re good clinically. This carries some risk of course, but also potential reward. If your stats are high enough and your clinical performance inconsistent, you may want to err on the side of letting yourself look better on paper than you might in person. If you’ve basically aced all your evals and everyone loves you in every rotation you’ve ever done, then a strong away performance may also help you seal the deal.

 

[Esmolol]

What about TexasStar?

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Residency Explorer™ Tool: Home

www.residencyexplorer.org

Put your stats in there, and you'll have a comparison to people who have matched recently.

 

[PathNeuroIMorFM]

What about TexasStar?

Don't have access until either very late 3r year or early 4th year

 

[PathNeuroIMorFM]

Residency Explorer™ Tool: Home

www.residencyexplorer.org

Put your stats in there, and you'll have a comparison to people who have matched recently.

Thank you!

Is it common for locations to withhold their Step 2 minimums? All of them have a 196-210 Step 1 minimum, but that seems dated.

 

[Esmolol]

Thank you!

Is it common for locations to withhold their Step 2 minimums? All of them have a 196-210 Step 1 minimum, but that seems dated.

It’s absolutely common. There is a reason for that.

This is an interesting read:

There is a part that talks about why programs would like to withhold the stats. I am not affiliated with this source. I am not claiming that this is true or not. I am not endorsing any views. I am merely presenting someone else's point of view on things that everyone can judge for themselves.

 

[deleted1168269]

What about TexasStar?

Just took a look at it. Saw some surprises. From what I understand, it's self-reported information. Some programs don't even show up.

 

[Esmolol]

Just took a look at it. Saw some surprises. From what I understand, it's self-reported information. Some programs don't even show up.

Yes. It is self-reported. It's just another source. I don't know of any other that would address the question at hand as directly as this one.

The bottom line is that a lot of programs, most likely, do not want to share what their parameters are. No program will openly say - "We get about 1500 applications. We first filter by Step 2, need to be more than 240, then we look at the number of honored clerkships, and then we read letters looking for phrases like 'excellent' or 'wish they would stay at our program.' Then we interview and look for XYZ, rank, and then we usually fill in the range of 80th-120th spot on our rank list." This would make the program look undesirable (Why do the first 79 people want to go somewhere else?).

As far as TexasStar is concerned - I have no idea how it is affected by reporting bias. Is it like with the Step 2 CK scores this year where there was a period of time that people thought that the new average was 260 because of so many people reporting their score in the 260+ range, despite it being written on the score report - the average is 248? Are well-achieving candidates more likely to report their match results? IDK

We are the first class with a P/F Step 1. We are the first class with new signals (like anesthesia - 5 signals last year - 15 signals this year, 5 gold, 10 silver). We are a class that is still being experimented on in terms of geographical preferences. We are a class that is being experimented on by using a different application platform (Central App) for some specialties (Neurology, Urology, Plastic Surgery...)

What is not helping is the fact that there are programs out there that decided to start doing stuff like that (Central App) TODAY, two days before applications are due.

What I wish for is a centralized system from the NRMP that would allow us to plug in our metrics and give us a percentage probability of matching to a program. It's probably far from being possible.

What is possible and totally doable is for letter writers to not string us along till the very last minute and just submit their letters way ahead of time. Still waiting for 3 (!) letters...

 

[deleted1168269]

Yes. It is self-reported. It's just another source. I don't know of any other that would address the question at hand as directly as this one.

The bottom line is that a lot of programs, most likely, do not want to share what their parameters are. No program will openly say - "We get about 1500 applications. We first filter by Step 2, need to be more than 240, then we look at the number of honored clerkships, and then we read letters looking for phrases like 'excellent' or 'wish they would stay at our program.' Then we interview and look for XYZ, rank, and then we usually fill in the range of 80th-120th spot on our rank list." This would make the program look undesirable (Why do the first 79 people want to go somewhere else?).

As far as TexasStar is concerned - I have no idea how it is affected by reporting bias. Is it like with the Step 2 CK scores this year where there was a period of time that people thought that the new average was 260 because of so many people reporting their score in the 260+ range, despite it being written on the score report - the average is 248? Are well-achieving candidates more likely to report their match results? IDK

We are the first class with a P/F Step 1. We are the first class with new signals (like anesthesia - 5 signals last year - 15 signals this year, 5 gold, 10 silver). We are a class that is still being experimented on in terms of geographical preferences. We are a class that is being experimented on by using a different application platform (Central App) for some specialties (Neurology, Urology, Plastic Surgery...)

What is not helping is the fact that there are programs out there that decided to start doing stuff like that (Central App) TODAY, two days before applications are due.

What I wish for is a centralized system from the NRMP that would allow us to plug in our metrics and give us a percentage probability of matching to a program. It's probably far from being possible.

What is possible and totally doable is for letter writers to not string us along till the very last minute and just submit their letters way ahead of time. Still waiting for 3 (!) letters...

Regarding your comment about the average step score - that’s always been a thing. I looked at previous Reddit threads before 2022 and they are always filled with overachievers scoring high. It isn’t a new thing. I think the spotlight just shifted because Step 2 is the only marker now.