Now let's say someone is applying to a competitive specialty with below average stats will applying to every single residency program make a significant difference?
I was speaking to a 4th year today that's going into Dermatology and he said that after applying to a certain number of programs it becomes a waste of time/money. Logically that doesn't make sense to me. The way I see it is that you're applying to more programs hence increasing the chances of increased interviews. I'm not talking about matching post-interview, I'm talking about getting interviews.
At least in derm, one of the issues is that of the 115 programs, there are many applicants who apply to 80+, 90+, 100+, or all 115 programs. Consequently, many programs get 500 applicants for 2-4 spots (I know this because during the past cycles, many programs released these figures when sending out invitations/rejections). Now I'm sure a similar situation happens in most fields, especially in IMG heavy fields like IM, path, and pscyh, however, in derm, of those 500 or so applicants, most are probably US seniors, and most are probably fairly competitive applicants.
If you look at IM, people may apply to 20 or so programs, and they'll select programs based on their regional preference, as well as how competitive they are (i.e. apply to a few safeties, a few reaches, and mostly fit programs). In derm though, the national pool of applicants does not vary based on location or the tier or a program. Instead, applicants tend to carpet bomb programs with applicants, so the same pool of applicants at a "top-tier" program in the Northeast is likely identical to a "low-tier" program in the rural Midwest.
For example, this year, in their invitation and rejection emails, UNC told applicants that they received 550 applicants and they were only able to interview 30 people for their 4 spots in the match. From the AAMC's 2014 data, it looks like 1031 people applied to derm this year (
https://www.aamc.org/download/321558/data/factstable38.pdf), so if we assume there is a similar number of applicants this year, about half of all applicants applied to UNC. However, I would actually argue that in terms of "real candidates" the number is higher than one-half. What do I mean? If you look at charting outcomes in the match for 2014, when you combined US seniors and independent applicants who did and did not match, there were 593 people who received at least one dermatology interview. Again, in 2014, 1031 people applied to at least one derm program, but only 593 people received at least one interview. This suggests that there are a sizable number of people who are not competitive for derm who apply, and unsurprisingly, do not get an interview. This is pure speculation on my part, but I would imagine these people do not apply to a lot of programs (i.e. they do it on a whim), which is why I think the "average number of applications" listed in the AAMC document does not reflect the average number of applications among people who are viable contenders for derm.
(Update: if you open the preliminary residency data for 2015, it lists previous years, and in this document, the total number of applicants for 2014 is 858, not 1031 (I have no idea where the discrepancy is).However, it does illustrate that applicants of US and Canadian allopathic schools apply to about 70 programs, IMGs applies to about 27, and DOs applied to about 12.
https://www.aamc.org/services/eras/stats/)
Anyhow, in order to allow for a distribution of derm candidates similar to IM candidates (see my point above), I think it would be helpful if ERAS capped the number of applications can submit within a field. However, this would mean ERAS would take in less money, so this will never happen.
