How to Read Match Lists

[Law2Doc]

Actually, I think there IS a correlation between having a "good" IM match and having a "good" match in the other specialties. If you look at the match lists of places like Harvard, Hopkins, Yale and Penn over the past 3-4 years you'll see that in addition to sending their IM students to the "top" IM programs(MGH, BWH, Hopkins, UCFS, Penn etc.) and "top" PEDS (CHOP, Boston Childrens etc.), they are the ones sending their students to "top" rad-onc (MSKCC, MDACC, Harvard etc.), top ophthalmology ( MEEI, Wills, Wilmer etc.)
top neurosurgery (BNI, UCSF, MGH etc..). Just take a look at the lists, there is a correlation.....

See Gutshot's point on correlation -- could be small, confounding and not something you would base a decision on.
Also, my argument is in part that few people know what all the top programs are in every specialty and without the aid of a mentor in that field you aren't really capable of "just taking a look". If it were that easy, there would already be such a list, and all this would be moot.

But putting that aside, I suspect this analysis may hold true for a few schools (particularly at the top) but not for most. That would give you your observed "correlation" but make the analysis lack utility. If the presumption is that IM tracks US News and good IM equals good match list (which we are presuming arguendo is true, but may not be), you are taking a huge and unsubstantiated leap further to then say good match list means good in most or every specialty. You are going too far out onto that limb. Even if you did know what clinicians consider good programs in various specialties, you cannot say that every school with a good IM list, or even most, also has a good list in surgery, rads, gas, peds, optho, etc. Certainly some good IM schools do well with some of those, but others won't. Which makes this lack utility.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

Excellent point, and it also applies to IM. Half the Medicine people in my class threw in MGH on their applications, just as a "reach" school. None, of course, matched to it. There are also the massive numbers of FMGs. Harvard is a brand, which is why their number of applicants is so high.

But there's a difference between applying and putting it on the match, though. Those who didn't get an interview wouldn't have listed it on the match. The hail mary's get cleaned out of this process at an earlier stage. And at med schools with stronger advising, you likely don't actually see as many wasted applications. So it's not really like applying to med schools.

 

[lot_commotion]

Several schools with great IM match lists and high scores on pyrois' algorithm do not match well in certain specialties. For example, Hopkins matches very well in IM, but fails to match well in dermatology compared to other top schools.

There's a much stronger correlation with the strength of a particular program and the strength of matches going into that field. For example, Stanford has a well known radiation oncology program, and its med school matches students unusually well into that field. For the really competitive specialties, factors like who you did research with, having a big name write you a letter, phone calls, and other intangibles make the difference.

See Gutshot's point on correlation -- could be small, confounding and not something you would base a decision on.
Also, my argument is in part that few people know what all the top programs are in every specialty and without the aid of a mentor in that field you aren't really capable of "just taking a look". If it were that easy, there would already be such a list, and all this would be moot.

But putting that aside, I suspect this analysis may hold true for a few schools (particularly at the top) but not for most. That would give you your observed "correlation" but make the analysis lack utility. If the presumption is that IM tracks US News and good IM equals good match list (which we are presuming arguendo is true, but may not be), you are taking a huge and unsubstantiated leap further to then say good match list means good in most or every specialty. You are going too far out onto that limb. Even if you did know what clinicians consider good programs in various specialties, you cannot say that every school with a good IM list, or even most, also has a good list in surgery, rads, gas, peds, optho, etc. Certainly some good IM schools do well with some of those, but others won't. Which makes this lack utility.