melvindo said:
I have looked over the fill rates for the match and kinda used that as a guide to how competitive certain fields are. A friend of mine told me that a lot of factors go into the fill rates like FMG and DO peeps. I was wondering if there is a better statistical way of monitoring the competitiveness of gas. I know it is rising, but is that based on fill rates alone? or on #s of applicants? or some other number?
Well, here's the data (extracted from
these tables) over the past five match cycles. You be the judge...
PGY-1 Spots (Categorical Track)
Year---Spots--%Filled U.S.-- % Independent --Total Filled %
2001 -- 371 ----- 63.9% --------- 25.6% -------- 89.5%
2002 -- 392 ----- 78.3% --------- 17.4% -------- 95.7%
2003 -- 431 ----- 74.5% --------- 21.8% -------- 96.3%
2004 -- 443 ----- 72.7% --------- 20.8% -------- 93.5%
2005 -- 463 ----- 70.4% --------- 24.4% -------- 94.8%
PGY-2 Spots (Advanced Track)
Year---Spots--%Filled U.S.-- % Independent --Total Filled %
2001 -- 733 ----- 64.9% --------- 22.5% -------- 87.4%
2002 -- 777 ----- 76.8% --------- 18.1% -------- 94.9%
2003 -- 833 ----- 72.7% --------- 22.9% -------- 95.6%
2004 -- 846 ----- 68.0% --------- 24.9% -------- 92.9%
2005 -- 820 ----- 72.0% --------- 24.5% -------- 96.5%
TOTAL SPOTS OFFERED (PGY-1 & PGY-2 SPOTS)
Year------Spots---%Filled U.S.-- % Independent --Total Filled %
2001 ---- 1,104 ----- 64.6% --------- 23.5% ---------- 88.1%
2002 ---- 1,169 ----- 77.3% --------- 17.9% ---------- 95.2%
2003 ---- 1,264 ----- 73.3% --------- 22.5% ---------- 95.8%
2004 ---- 1,289 ----- 69.6% --------- 23.5% ---------- 93.1%
2005 ---- 1,283 ----- 71.4% --------- 24.5% ----------
95.9%
CONCLUSIONS:
- Total number of spots have increased. Between 2001 and 2005, there were at total of 179 additional spots offered through the Match. However, six (6) total spots were lost in the past year (26 Advanced track spots were lost, but 20 Categorical track spots were added in 2005). This may reflect the fact that, by 2008, each and every program will have to offer at least one 4-year (Categorical) spot.
- The overall fill rate for 2005 was the highest in the past five match cycles. If you look at the percentage of spots filled for all combined spots, the fill rate this year was 95.9%, with the second closest in 2003, when there were also 19 fewer spots offered in the Match.
- Overall, the percentage of U.S. seniors taking spots versus the percentage of Independent applicants taking spots is consistent. It appears that the overall "competitiveness" of anesthesiology is driven by the interest of U.S. seniors wanting to go into the field. The range of Independent applicants, except for 2002 when there seemed to be a "higher-than-normal" number of U.S. seniors choosing the field, has stayed fairly consistent between 22.5 - 24.5% of positions matched. It appears that the more U.S. seniors choose anesthesia, the more it affects the number of spots available to Independent applicants entering the field.
- Anesthesiology seems to be consistent over the past four (4) years in terms of overall fill rates via the NRMP.
That's what I get from the data. And, related to the data, "U.S. seniors" only includes graduating seniors in "allopathic", M.D.-granting schools. IMGs and DO students (among others including non-seniors and Canadian students) are, for the sake of the match, considered "independent applicants." (
see definitions here) Therefore, all other applicants including DO students are lumped into the "Independent" data, not just IMGs.
But, your point about total number of
applicants is still well-taken. Although, I'm not sure you could look at the "number of applicants" that way unless you somehow correlated and cross-referenced with the ERAS data by looking at how many people applied to programs, how many were offered interviews, how many turned-down interviews, etc., etc. Despite the fact that they are probably not capturing that data, I think this would probably be a Herculean task that wouldn't give you too many really meaningful answers in the end anyway.
However, one may be able to look at the "ranks/position ratio" as a gauge of competitiveness. This year, on average there were
9.9 ranks/position (PGY-1) and
9.3 ranks/position (PGY-2) for each Anesthesiology spot offered in the Match (same data table). For what it's worth, that tells me that a lot of people went on a lot of interviews and ranked a lot of programs to get their matches. Furthermore, if we had this same data to compare for the past five cycles, it may be more meaningful in terms of perceived "competitiveness".
But, to further the point at hand, the
only other non-preliminary fields that had a higher ranks/position ratio than Anesthesiology this year were:
- Dermatology
- Combined Med-Derm
- Categorical Surgery (only 6 categorical spots unfilled after the match!!
)
- Orthopedic Surgery
- Plastic Surgery
- Radiation Oncology
- Diagnostic Radiology
The ranks/position ratio might be an overall pretty good "quick and dirty" way to judge the perceived competitiveness of a field by the applicants trying to enter that field, and it puts Anesthesiology in a fairly elite group. For what it's worth, Emergency Medicine (another perceived "highly competitive field") was right behind Anesthesiology at 9.5 ranks/position for PGY-1 spots and 8.9 ranks/position for PGY-2 spots, but they also had a higher number of spots available across the board (1,476 for EM vs. 1,283 for Anesthesiology, or about 15% more
total, PGY-1 & PGY-2, spots available in the Match).
-Skip
