If not EM then what?

IM/EM or FM/EM would be next on my list

 

OR transitional surgery...then you can match to 2-4 programs like denver....

 

I thought Denver was a 1-4?

 

forget i said anything !

 

Best strategy is to try to get into a transitional year in IM or Surg at a hospital with a good residency program.

Equally important: try to find out why you didn't match. One good strategy would be to go to your friendly neighborhood home PD and say, "why didn't I match?" and then be ready for whatever they might say.

 

As of late I have become fascinated with the match processes. I have to ask, how often does this really happen? From every indicator I can find even individuals with subpar board scores still get a spot someplace. Let’s say your heart was set on a moderately difficult specialty such as ER or gas, and that your scores were, across the board, subpar. Now maybe not failing or passing the boards by a point, but just a click below the average, say 200 USMLE, and a C average in your classes. Just by passing all your classes, boards, and with a few away rotations, couldn’t you bet on getting a spot someplace? It seems to me that as long as you’re not looking for a top tier spot (read derm/rad onc) and you were willing to go anyplace, you could get a spot? According to NRMP, people with 190-200 represent a large chunk of those who got a spot for both gas and ER, while derm, plastics, and rad onc have less than ten a piece with less than a 210. Please advise?

 

Is EM/IM less competitive than categorical EM?

 

From what I hear, it is. This theory is because people are usually ready to get done faster, and 5 years is long when you can get a 3 or 4 yr program.

 

my bad-it's now a 1-4. it used to be 2-4 and require 1 yr of transitional surgery:
http://www.denverem.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=73

 

Well, thats good to know.

I thought that it would be more competitive, because theres only 11 programs, and there are plenty of folks who are interested in academic careers which is a goal of some EM/IM programs.

 

That's true too.

Here's the data I found regarding this information:

It takes ranking 5 people for IM/EM to fill their spots, while it takes ranking 6 people to fill all EM spots (supports your theory)

Tried to get data another way, and I have a feeling it's not too reliable. Some places claimed 2 interviews for 0 spots others varied up to 85 interviews for 4 spots for IM/EM. I am thinking some wrote the number of applicants. There were 2 programs that said 8 interviews for 2 spots, which is a 1/4 chance for the applicant past the interview. Tried to find applications received per spot, but that would also be skewed because people will turn them down / withdraw after they get enough interviews other places for EM. And, I'm guessing many rank the IM/EM lower on the list. Of course these are all just speculations.

 

It takes ranking 6 people to fill all EM spots...meaning it takes a program ranking 6 applicants per slot?

 

haha...sorry, yes I think that's what it meant. I'm glad I did my research pre-napping - always makes for a nice, confusing post. I guess that means less competitive for the IM/EM than EM. I'm totally confused now. I found that info on the NRMP website. Okay, just re-read it. What you said is correct. Here is the link just in case I just further confused you all: Data 2008 . Page 41 is where I pulled the info from.

 

I wouldn't take too much about competitiveness from the data.

Yes, it says that EM/IM takes 5 ranked applicants to fill one spot vs. 6 in EM.

However, it also says that radiology and rad-onc each needed 6 rankings to fill one spot...compared to IM which took 5.6 ranked applicants per filled spot.

 

I go more by what I hear from people. Many had it as a back-up. Some chose IM/EM because they didn't know which one they wanted to do yet. Wish we had somewhere to get info on it.

 

If you know what is in your packet. However, many schools still go with the antiquated "don't let the applicant know what is in their letters" and there are quite a few dishonest people out there who will say one thing, and write another. So you might get all the interviews. You might do fine at them. You might even talk with the interviewers afterwards. Nothing compares to not having a job or a backup plan because there aren't any spots after the match. And not knowing why. And they people not telling you afterwards, even after you finally learn why.
So it might not happen as often in the uber-competitive specialties. But due to the nature of the match, people can fall through the cracks. Think of it like the NFL. Tom Brady wouldn't have gotten a job if the draft were the same as the match. Was he qualified? Probably. Did they give him a fair shot? Nope.

 

I guess what Im saying is, from a shear numbers standpoint how often do people have there heart set on a moderately difficult specialty and are unable to ever get a spot? Again, I understand that you may be out of luck if the only thing you would settle for was NS and you failed step 1 three times. But for things other than peds, psych, and FM, how often do people really not get to do what they want? Again, it just seems to me, from the numbers, that if you really wanted ER, gas, gen surg, or any other middle of the road specialty, somplace would take you as long as you passed everything. Am I being too optimistic?

 

Yes. Hence the reason of the post you quoted.

 

Numbers? What percentage? 10-20-50%?
I just cant buy that more than 20% of people who want into a moderate spec' can't get it eventually someplace.

 

In my eyes, numbers are numbers. Numbers don't matter when these things happen to you, it only matters that you were unlucky/unfortunate and you will torture yourself as to why for an entire year because you didn't match in the specialty you wanted and you are reapplying the next year.