Match stats
Started by siimpleton
waterski232002 said:
You're right, they don't tell the whole story. But the fact that >200 US seniors went umatched last year in general surgery, versus 70 for ER, shows that it is significantly more difficult to get a general surgery slot. There were only 2 unfilled cat spots for the scramble. What their qualifications were I don't know.
However, claiming that the stats of ER applicants are higher than those of general surgery applicants is absurd. You have no way of knowing that information. In fact, at my university, everyone who wanted ER got it, and there were some serious bottom feeders in that group... Again, I have no way of knowing what the overall stats of each group are like... Just my sample of applicants here... I have a feeling that the overall stats are probably similar, though I'd guess surgery is probably somewhat higher.
The bottom line is that compared to ER, it is significantly more difficult to obtain a general surgery residency slot, as demonstrated by the unmatch numbers. Also judging by the number of US seniors applying to both fields, general surgery is a more desirable residency to US medical students...
Celiac Plexus said:
Obviously you're biased since your chosen field is General Surgery. 🙂
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
There were three people unmatched at my school (Indiana) in EM. I managed to scramble into that dubious King/Drew program. I hope it's not because I'm a "bottom feeder" as someone so nicely put it. My boards and my letters were weak, but I've spent literally thousands of hours working in a community ED after school (sometimes puttting in 18 hour days to do it). It was just my misfortune to be relatively uncompetitive (on paper) combined with an exceptionally competetitive EM year.
BTW I'm glad I didn't go into surgery as I had contemplated for a brief period. It was harder to get into this year, just due to the shear number of people wanting to go into it.
BTW I'm glad I didn't go into surgery as I had contemplated for a brief period. It was harder to get into this year, just due to the shear number of people wanting to go into it.
WOW! You obviously completely missed my point in my previous post. You are still using statistics inappropriately and are basing judgements on these... Didn't your medical school require you to take statistics or do case reviews?
Again... than according to this logic, General surgery is more competitive than radiology, neurosurgery, ophthamoloy, etc... NOT TRUE!
Another thing to consider is that a lot of people that apply to GS do not actually want to do GS. They use it as a backup plan in case they don't match into surgical subspecialties (ortho, plastics, etc..). Thus, there are many people stealing spots from those who truly want to do GS. Last year I know of an EM applicant that matched into GS as his back-up as well (granted he was picky and city was more important than specialty, so he suicided with EM and GS... didn't match EM, but matched his backup GS).
Hahahah... Are you kidding me??? You have serious logic and reasoning flaws... According to this logic, the most desirable fields in medicine are family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics... The number of US seniors applying to those fields are MULTITUDES higher than the numbers applying to GS or EM!
I think you just had a big round or oral diarrhea!
Celiac Plexus said:
Again... than according to this logic, General surgery is more competitive than radiology, neurosurgery, ophthamoloy, etc... NOT TRUE!
As stated earlier, I just used my own observations at my school, and realize that there is variability from school-to-school. We can agree to disagree on our opinions. As for my school, we had 2 people who wanted to go into EM but didn't b/c they couldn't get interviews... they ended up matching in other fields b/c they couldn't even start the interview process in EM. These people are NOT included in you statistics from the WUSTL website b/c they matched in other fields after pursuing a back-up plan (just like people who have back-up plans when they apply to derm, neurosurg, ortho)... I don't know of anybody who ever has a backup plan for not matching in GS (besides maybe prelim surg... which is totally non-competitive with many unfilled spots)... Again, just my personal observation.
Another thing to consider is that a lot of people that apply to GS do not actually want to do GS. They use it as a backup plan in case they don't match into surgical subspecialties (ortho, plastics, etc..). Thus, there are many people stealing spots from those who truly want to do GS. Last year I know of an EM applicant that matched into GS as his back-up as well (granted he was picky and city was more important than specialty, so he suicided with EM and GS... didn't match EM, but matched his backup GS).
Okay... you're obviously not understanding the fact that % unmatched does not equate to more competitive specialties... Or you're willing to post on the Neurosurg, Ophtho, and Rads boards that GS is more competitive... I'd like to see your response in there...
Hahahah... Are you kidding me??? You have serious logic and reasoning flaws... According to this logic, the most desirable fields in medicine are family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics... The number of US seniors applying to those fields are MULTITUDES higher than the numbers applying to GS or EM!
I think you just had a big round or oral diarrhea!
I am very fond of EM myself but I think that these discussions are pretty useless. How is it that people on this site wont talk shop on board scores, and other vitals on getting and succeeding through this process. Meanwhile people have no problem arguing over usless crap like which field is more competetive?
Who cares, lets move on..
Who cares, lets move on..
waterski232002 said:
At some point in your life you have to start doing things because they are what you want to do and not because they are the hardest or most prestigous thing to get.
If cleaning outhouses were the most competitive prestigous job in America I'm pretty sure I still wouldn't want to do it.
If cleaning outhouses were the most competitive prestigous job in America I'm pretty sure I still wouldn't want to do it.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
ERMudPhud said:
yeah well my outhouse is cleaner than yours AND its a two holer.
i can pee further than anyone else on this thread, therefore peds > all.
--your friendly neighborhood talented caveman
--your friendly neighborhood talented caveman
ERMudPhud said:
I know some medical students who WOULD want to clean outhouses, if it was the most competitive, prestigious sub-specialty. As it is several of these same people decided to do neurosurg and ortho. One of whom chose to do neurosurgery before ever doing a rotation or being in the OR.
GeneralVeers said:
Really? Most of 'em are eyeing GI fellowships at my school. Good pay, highly competetive, lotsa sphincters...
waterski232002 said:
droliver said:
I agree with you... I don't think that any of this is clearcut. I was more pi$$ed off about the logic behind extrapolating the statistics, than the actual argument of which specialty is more competitive. I don't care which is more competitive in the end.
PS CeliacPlexuses-- I didn't mean to bust your chops up with my previous post. When I re-read it, I was kinda harsh... Regardless, I stand by my original points.
GeneralVeers said:
Veers,
Sorry about the "bottom feeder" comment. It was rude, and unprofessional. Congratulations on matching. Best of luck in your residency.
cp
waterski232002 said:
No problem man. I can dish it out, and I can take it too...
Best of luck in your residency.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Don't worry about it. I'm not that sensitive (you need somewhat of a thick skin for this profession anyway).
I stayed out of the fray for a bit, but now I'm jumping in. I disagree with the use of the stats presented for two reasons...
1. Using the % unmatched stat is only a barometer of how difficult the specialty is towards those people who believe they can match into the specialty. What I mean is this, neurosurgery does not have a high unmatched rate. Why? Because people "self-select" out of neurosurg. Realizing that they did not get any interviews, or perhaps upon reflection prior to even applying, many aspiring neurosurgeons end up not ranking any neurosurg programs. This may also effect the GS stats as those somewhat "rejected" from other types of surgical programs may end up applying GS - boosting their "unmatched" numbers.
2. Using the "average" individual statistics of applicants (i.e., board scores) to demonstrate "competiveness" is, in EM, also a faulty measure. This is because unlike many other specialties, EM tends to look toward "proven" dedication to the craft over academic achievement. A former EMS profesional, ED nurse, EMIG president, etc., with average grades and scores is likely fare better in the EM match than a 230+ score applicant who doesn't know much about EM. The frequent lecture at SAEM conferences for students states that there are only three board scores in EM. They are "Oops, I scr*wed up", "Holy $hit, I didn't know scores came that high", and "the rest of us". As long as you are not in the first catagory, you are usually o.k. To quote a PD I know well "I can remediate gaps in knowledge, I can't teach a true love of EM".
What would be an accurate measure of competitiveness? A single stat that is never released on a wide spread scale. That is, the ratio of applicants interviewed to slots available, by program - as an average. Neurosurg interviews only a handful of applicants per slot (i.e., 3-4), and scrambles are rare. Likewise, radiology, dermatology, and optho also interview fewer applicants per open position. IM interviews a ton, even at "top-notch" programs, as do FP and GS. I honestly think EM has, over the past few years, steadily decreased the number of interviews granted. This to me is a strong indication of its increasing competitiveness.
Just my $0.02 (actual cash value $0.005),
- H
1. Using the % unmatched stat is only a barometer of how difficult the specialty is towards those people who believe they can match into the specialty. What I mean is this, neurosurgery does not have a high unmatched rate. Why? Because people "self-select" out of neurosurg. Realizing that they did not get any interviews, or perhaps upon reflection prior to even applying, many aspiring neurosurgeons end up not ranking any neurosurg programs. This may also effect the GS stats as those somewhat "rejected" from other types of surgical programs may end up applying GS - boosting their "unmatched" numbers.
2. Using the "average" individual statistics of applicants (i.e., board scores) to demonstrate "competiveness" is, in EM, also a faulty measure. This is because unlike many other specialties, EM tends to look toward "proven" dedication to the craft over academic achievement. A former EMS profesional, ED nurse, EMIG president, etc., with average grades and scores is likely fare better in the EM match than a 230+ score applicant who doesn't know much about EM. The frequent lecture at SAEM conferences for students states that there are only three board scores in EM. They are "Oops, I scr*wed up", "Holy $hit, I didn't know scores came that high", and "the rest of us". As long as you are not in the first catagory, you are usually o.k. To quote a PD I know well "I can remediate gaps in knowledge, I can't teach a true love of EM".
What would be an accurate measure of competitiveness? A single stat that is never released on a wide spread scale. That is, the ratio of applicants interviewed to slots available, by program - as an average. Neurosurg interviews only a handful of applicants per slot (i.e., 3-4), and scrambles are rare. Likewise, radiology, dermatology, and optho also interview fewer applicants per open position. IM interviews a ton, even at "top-notch" programs, as do FP and GS. I honestly think EM has, over the past few years, steadily decreased the number of interviews granted. This to me is a strong indication of its increasing competitiveness.
Just my $0.02 (actual cash value $0.005),
- H
FF,
While I doubt seriously either of us much cares how competitive EM is, this is sort of getting to be an interesting academic exercise (interesting in the relative terms of someone who has nothing better to do).
You propose an indicator by which to judge the competitiveness of a specialty. I have question about your indicator.
If one were to have access to this ratio of applicants interviewed to slots available for each program and averaged for each specialty, what would be the indicator of competiveness? I think I understood you to suggest that the higher the ratio (that is, many more interviewees than slots) the more competitive the specialty.
If this is true and if, as you say, IM and FP interviews a ton of applicants, wouldn't this suggest that the conventional wisdom of these specialties as not being very competitive might be wrong?
The problem I see with using number of applicants interviewed as the numerator is it could be an indication of how competitive the program sees itself as instead of how competitive it really is. Take FP for example (at the risk of being wrong, assume for a moment that the conventional wisdom is correct). If an FP PD feels he will have a hard time filling, he'd interview many more applicants giving him a high ratio, even though this program and (assuming other FP PDs felt the same way) this specialty isn't all that competitive.
Would it not make more sense to use the number of applicants as the numerator instead of number of interviews? I'll grant you that this doesn't address the self-selection bias you mentioned.
Thanks for making the discussion more interesting than the typical "my-specialty-has-a-bigger-thingee-than-yours" one.
Take care,
Jeff
While I doubt seriously either of us much cares how competitive EM is, this is sort of getting to be an interesting academic exercise (interesting in the relative terms of someone who has nothing better to do).
You propose an indicator by which to judge the competitiveness of a specialty. I have question about your indicator.
If one were to have access to this ratio of applicants interviewed to slots available for each program and averaged for each specialty, what would be the indicator of competiveness? I think I understood you to suggest that the higher the ratio (that is, many more interviewees than slots) the more competitive the specialty.
If this is true and if, as you say, IM and FP interviews a ton of applicants, wouldn't this suggest that the conventional wisdom of these specialties as not being very competitive might be wrong?
The problem I see with using number of applicants interviewed as the numerator is it could be an indication of how competitive the program sees itself as instead of how competitive it really is. Take FP for example (at the risk of being wrong, assume for a moment that the conventional wisdom is correct). If an FP PD feels he will have a hard time filling, he'd interview many more applicants giving him a high ratio, even though this program and (assuming other FP PDs felt the same way) this specialty isn't all that competitive.
Would it not make more sense to use the number of applicants as the numerator instead of number of interviews? I'll grant you that this doesn't address the self-selection bias you mentioned.
Thanks for making the discussion more interesting than the typical "my-specialty-has-a-bigger-thingee-than-yours" one.
Take care,
Jeff
Jeff... FF and you are talking the same language. He was implying that a decreasing ratio of interviewee's-to-slots indicates higher competitiveness. Thus, if you interview 10 applicants for 2 open spots (i.e. derm) your program is much MORE competitive than a program that offers 100 interviews for 2 open spots (i.e. IM).
waterski232002 said:
Exactly! Dermatology knows that even if they only interview 10 "stellar" candidates for two slots, they will fill. Why? Because each and every one of those ten candidates will rank their program, and because no matter how stellar the candidates, few of them will be accepted at more than one program.
Contrast this to FP where a decent applicant is likely to be ranked by every program they interview at. To keep from having to scramble, FP programs must interview TONS of applicants.
Many EM programs, of late, have been matching very high in their ROLs. This is leading them to reduce the number of interviews they grant. I believe this is an indicator of the increasing "competitiveness" of EM.
- H
Not to pee on your pet theory re. this interview/position theory, but frequently for plastic surgery you have ratios of between 20 (and up to 40 on occasion) interviews @ a particular program for one position. I suspect you see this @ many of the other competative specialties as well.
I agree with you on a completely anecdotal personal experience that there has been a lot more of my better students going into ER as a trend over my (groan) upcoming PGY-8 year. You can follow this trend with the NRMP stats too in the years after "E.R." started started on NBC (which was during my MS-II year). I think the the peak of EM's popularity was a few years ago looking at the same data. Surgery hit bottom in 97-98 and has pretty steadily rebounded with recent near 100% fill rate of positions and a large group of unmatched applicants (unfortunately)
I agree with you on a completely anecdotal personal experience that there has been a lot more of my better students going into ER as a trend over my (groan) upcoming PGY-8 year. You can follow this trend with the NRMP stats too in the years after "E.R." started started on NBC (which was during my MS-II year). I think the the peak of EM's popularity was a few years ago looking at the same data. Surgery hit bottom in 97-98 and has pretty steadily rebounded with recent near 100% fill rate of positions and a large group of unmatched applicants (unfortunately)
droliver said:
Plastics fellowship or plastics integrated? I think fellowship might be a different animal. I asked around the departments here and the more traditionally "competitive" specialty (e.g., neurosurg, derm, etc) the fewer interviewees and the longer more drawn out the process.
Just my theory, I could be wrong. Maybe there is no objective way to measure this at all...
- H
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
FoughtFyr said:
You see this with both the NRMP & fellowship matches. 20:1 ratios, in particular are not uncommon
Seaglass said:
No, that doesn't account for self selecting out. Neurosurg is not competitive by this standard.
- H
