- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,942
- Reaction score
- 167
Best of luck everyone. Hope you get the program you want.
Match week thread
- Thread starter greg1184
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
so on my rank list, i put all of my radiology ranks on top of the primary list and few prelim programs at the bottom of the primary list, in case i didnt match radiology so id try again next year. is there anyway to tell if i matched radiology or prelim med?
- Joined
- May 19, 2010
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 118
Does anyone have numbers from the last few years for comparison?
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,942
- Reaction score
- 167
The rate we are going, radiology is quickly turning to other specialties' backup option. However I am convinced that is exactly what programs want. They prefer to be other specialties' sloppy seconds and grab the sexy step 1, then widen the applicant pool of people who actually want to be here. I know at least 2 people in my prelim year who failed to match into Ortho and ended up getting a spot in radiology one way or the other.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
- Messages
- 390
- Reaction score
- 469
Why is this a problem? One of the problems with the radiology workforce currently is oversupply of new trainees. The number of resident positions has been artificially inflated to match academic institution needs, not the workforce needs. If the number of offered spots this year had maxed out it would make it tougher for you. I would argue that med student interest is not a leading indicator of a field's viability, it's a lagging indicator.
Last edited:
I know I know I was being unnecessarily hyperbolic...
That being said those spots will just fill in the SOAP.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
- Messages
- 390
- Reaction score
- 469
I don't know of an example. It would require academic institutions to take a workforce hit for the long-term interest of the field. Not an easy sell.
It would seem likely to prevent academic institutions from even more resident class expansion, which at least some of them are contemplating.
@qwerty89 you're right about SOAP. I think that shift in matching will not be much of a threat to you on the micro level, such as getting a job. If one were to make the argument that it's a threat on the 10+ year macro level because a lot of poor candidates will now be residents, eventually slowing R&D in rads, and leading to unmotivated, bottom-of-the-curve practitioners... that could be a concern.
This match trend is most concerning to rads residencies that are considered less desirable. They used to have almost too many good candidates to choose from. Now they may not fill their residency class. If a more desirable residency doesn't fill, it's probably because they were too strict in their match criteria.
One could look at this situation either as a good thing or a bad thing. I think of it as a good thing because it's nice objective data that hits training programs somewhere it hurts. It makes it harder for them as a whole to coast blindly into the training future, curbs future expansion, and hopefully prompts real debate among training programs about how better to serve trainees and the field. It takes stuff like this to get their attention. I don't think it's a good indicator that radiology is doomed, only that med student interest is fickle.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2014
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 3
Did you notice only 3 unfilled PGY-2 spots were on the West Region? Most unfilled spots were in the Northeast, actually. That's a pretty interesting regional bias.
radiology spots were decreased HEAVILY in the 90s. Look up the following since I can't upload it: "How Competitive is the Match for Radiology Residency? Present View and Historical Perspective" by Jim Chen and matthew Heller published in the J Am Coll Radiol 2014.
Also keep in mind the TOTAL spots for rads this year was 1156 which is increased only slightly from 2013 numbers. I will quote myself from 2 years ago below.
"Derm went from 28 PGY1 and 310 PGY2 in 2009 (338 total) to 38 PGY1 and 369 PGY2 in 2013 (407 total). 20.4% increase. Now 427 spots.
Anesthesia went from 733 PGY1 and 641 PGY2 in 2009 (1374 total) to 580 PGY1 and 1073 PGY2 in 2013 (1653 total). 20.3% increase. Now 1692.
EM went from 1472 PGY1 and 43 PGY2 in 2009 (1515 total) to 1744 PGY1 and 0 PGY2 in 2013 (1744 total). 15.1% increase. Now 1821.
Rads went from 151 PGY1 and 944 PGY2 in 2009 (1095 total) to 164 PGY1 and 979 PGY2 in 2013 (1143 total). 4.3% increase." Now 1156.
EM has 1821 spots in the match this year up from 1744 in 2013 and 1374 in 2009...
Also I posted this in the GI forum with no responses when I asked about their recent fellowship spot increases.
"325 spots in 2008
...
383 spots in 2011,
399 in 2012
433 in 2013
461 in 2014
464 in 2015"
Everyone talks about how GI has a great market. Well this those numbers it appears they took the route of Cards and Rads and may have increased spots by too much, but time will tell.
The thing about workforce trends is that nobody notices until things go bad. Look at pharmacy. Job market sucks and its only now that people realize the "shortage" that was predicted was based on BS (like assuming there would only be a couple new pharm schools per decade lol). EM has been increasing spots like crazy apparently and is increasing in popularity at the same time (sounds like rads 10 years ago). EM faces similar pressures as Radiology in that they are both hospital-based specialties. Also GI may find itself with an oversupply if the combination of increased workforce and decreased endoscopy reimbursement occurs (with the subsequent reduction in services provided or increased work hours to make up the difference).
Overall this at least demonstrates rads positions are stabilizing. Good news for us.
*I know this post is totally disorganized.
Also keep in mind the TOTAL spots for rads this year was 1156 which is increased only slightly from 2013 numbers. I will quote myself from 2 years ago below.
"Derm went from 28 PGY1 and 310 PGY2 in 2009 (338 total) to 38 PGY1 and 369 PGY2 in 2013 (407 total). 20.4% increase. Now 427 spots.
Anesthesia went from 733 PGY1 and 641 PGY2 in 2009 (1374 total) to 580 PGY1 and 1073 PGY2 in 2013 (1653 total). 20.3% increase. Now 1692.
EM went from 1472 PGY1 and 43 PGY2 in 2009 (1515 total) to 1744 PGY1 and 0 PGY2 in 2013 (1744 total). 15.1% increase. Now 1821.
Rads went from 151 PGY1 and 944 PGY2 in 2009 (1095 total) to 164 PGY1 and 979 PGY2 in 2013 (1143 total). 4.3% increase." Now 1156.
EM has 1821 spots in the match this year up from 1744 in 2013 and 1374 in 2009...
Also I posted this in the GI forum with no responses when I asked about their recent fellowship spot increases.
"325 spots in 2008
...
383 spots in 2011,
399 in 2012
433 in 2013
461 in 2014
464 in 2015"
Everyone talks about how GI has a great market. Well this those numbers it appears they took the route of Cards and Rads and may have increased spots by too much, but time will tell.
The thing about workforce trends is that nobody notices until things go bad. Look at pharmacy. Job market sucks and its only now that people realize the "shortage" that was predicted was based on BS (like assuming there would only be a couple new pharm schools per decade lol). EM has been increasing spots like crazy apparently and is increasing in popularity at the same time (sounds like rads 10 years ago). EM faces similar pressures as Radiology in that they are both hospital-based specialties. Also GI may find itself with an oversupply if the combination of increased workforce and decreased endoscopy reimbursement occurs (with the subsequent reduction in services provided or increased work hours to make up the difference).
Overall this at least demonstrates rads positions are stabilizing. Good news for us.
*I know this post is totally disorganized.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 995
- Reaction score
- 507
Where did you get this info?radiology spots were decreased HEAVILY in the 90s. Look up the following since I can't upload it: "How Competitive is the Match for Radiology Residency? Present View and Historical Perspective" by Jim Chen and matthew Heller published in the J Am Coll Radiol 2014.
Also keep in mind the TOTAL spots for rads this year was 1156 which is increased only slightly from 2013 numbers. I will quote myself from 2 years ago below.
"Derm went from 28 PGY1 and 310 PGY2 in 2009 (338 total) to 38 PGY1 and 369 PGY2 in 2013 (407 total). 20.4% increase. Now 427 spots.
Anesthesia went from 733 PGY1 and 641 PGY2 in 2009 (1374 total) to 580 PGY1 and 1073 PGY2 in 2013 (1653 total). 20.3% increase. Now 1692.
EM went from 1472 PGY1 and 43 PGY2 in 2009 (1515 total) to 1744 PGY1 and 0 PGY2 in 2013 (1744 total). 15.1% increase. Now 1821.
Rads went from 151 PGY1 and 944 PGY2 in 2009 (1095 total) to 164 PGY1 and 979 PGY2 in 2013 (1143 total). 4.3% increase." Now 1156.
EM has 1821 spots in the match this year up from 1744 in 2013 and 1374 in 2009...
Also I posted this in the GI forum with no responses when I asked about their recent fellowship spot increases.
"325 spots in 2008
...
383 spots in 2011,
399 in 2012
433 in 2013
461 in 2014
464 in 2015"
Everyone talks about how GI has a great market. Well this those numbers it appears they took the route of Cards and Rads and may have increased spots by too much, but time will tell.
The thing about workforce trends is that nobody notices until things go bad. Look at pharmacy. Job market sucks and its only now that people realize the "shortage" that was predicted was based on BS (like assuming there would only be a couple new pharm schools per decade lol). EM has been increasing spots like crazy apparently and is increasing in popularity at the same time (sounds like rads 10 years ago). EM faces similar pressures as Radiology in that they are both hospital-based specialties. Also GI may find itself with an oversupply if the combination of increased workforce and decreased endoscopy reimbursement occurs (with the subsequent reduction in services provided or increased work hours to make up the difference).
Overall this at least demonstrates rads positions are stabilizing. Good news for us.
*I know this post is totally disorganized.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 8,829
- Reaction score
- 9,087
The last few years radiology has been (by proportion) the specialty with the highest # of empty spots in the SOAP. Excepting surgical prelims of course. Maybe second if you count the tiny direct path for child neurology. Sounds like it's still getting worse.
- Joined
- May 19, 2010
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 118
That's a great article, thanks for posting. I loved the line "We need to be proactive in reaching out to students before their interest is swallowed up by online rumors and exaggerations from disgruntled residents," though it's appropriately grim about the current situation.
Matched and I'm very happy about that, but 137 unfilled spots is unfortunate.
In my class I saw a lot of people initially interested in Radiology switch to (more competitive) fields with more optimistic job markets: Ortho, Urology, ENT, etc. I'm betting at least a few will not match and wind up SOAPing into Radiology.
Seems to me that if we reduce the number of residency spots the job market will improve and interest in the field will increase.
In my class I saw a lot of people initially interested in Radiology switch to (more competitive) fields with more optimistic job markets: Ortho, Urology, ENT, etc. I'm betting at least a few will not match and wind up SOAPing into Radiology.
Seems to me that if we reduce the number of residency spots the job market will improve and interest in the field will increase.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 1
why is that unfortunate? who cares, that's good for you.
Good for me in the short term, maybe, but I want to see the best and brightest go into Rads and that many unfilled spots is a poor prognostic indicator.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 7,495
- Reaction score
- 4,186
radiology spots were decreased HEAVILY in the 90s. Look up the following since I can't upload it: "How Competitive is the Match for Radiology Residency? Present View and Historical Perspective" by Jim Chen and matthew Heller published in the J Am Coll Radiol 2014.
Also keep in mind the TOTAL spots for rads this year was 1156 which is increased only slightly from 2013 numbers. I will quote myself from 2 years ago below.
"Derm went from 28 PGY1 and 310 PGY2 in 2009 (338 total) to 38 PGY1 and 369 PGY2 in 2013 (407 total). 20.4% increase. Now 427 spots.
Anesthesia went from 733 PGY1 and 641 PGY2 in 2009 (1374 total) to 580 PGY1 and 1073 PGY2 in 2013 (1653 total). 20.3% increase. Now 1692.
EM went from 1472 PGY1 and 43 PGY2 in 2009 (1515 total) to 1744 PGY1 and 0 PGY2 in 2013 (1744 total). 15.1% increase. Now 1821.
Rads went from 151 PGY1 and 944 PGY2 in 2009 (1095 total) to 164 PGY1 and 979 PGY2 in 2013 (1143 total). 4.3% increase." Now 1156.
EM has 1821 spots in the match this year up from 1744 in 2013 and 1374 in 2009...
Also I posted this in the GI forum with no responses when I asked about their recent fellowship spot increases.
"325 spots in 2008
...
383 spots in 2011,
399 in 2012
433 in 2013
461 in 2014
464 in 2015"
Everyone talks about how GI has a great market. Well this those numbers it appears they took the route of Cards and Rads and may have increased spots by too much, but time will tell.
The thing about workforce trends is that nobody notices until things go bad. Look at pharmacy. Job market sucks and its only now that people realize the "shortage" that was predicted was based on BS (like assuming there would only be a couple new pharm schools per decade lol). EM has been increasing spots like crazy apparently and is increasing in popularity at the same time (sounds like rads 10 years ago). EM faces similar pressures as Radiology in that they are both hospital-based specialties. Also GI may find itself with an oversupply if the combination of increased workforce and decreased endoscopy reimbursement occurs (with the subsequent reduction in services provided or increased work hours to make up the difference).
Overall this at least demonstrates rads positions are stabilizing. Good news for us.
*I know this post is totally disorganized.
wow 500 applicants for 1100 spots in late 90s?? wow!!! amazing
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 3,220
- Reaction score
- 671
The job market has improved this year. That message will take time to spread to the medical students.
Choosing a specialty is like real estate investing or buying a stock. By the time you realize that the stock is hot or the housing market is great, it's already too late. The easy and best money has already been made. If you see a surge of interest in radiology again because the job market is improving, then the competition is a lot stiffer.
Oh well. I have no regrets. I literally make neurosurgery money and have 12 weeks of vacation. And I don't have to see patients. No regrets at all.
Choosing a specialty is like real estate investing or buying a stock. By the time you realize that the stock is hot or the housing market is great, it's already too late. The easy and best money has already been made. If you see a surge of interest in radiology again because the job market is improving, then the competition is a lot stiffer.
Oh well. I have no regrets. I literally make neurosurgery money and have 12 weeks of vacation. And I don't have to see patients. No regrets at all.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2015
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 1
you really hate NP's huh?
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,942
- Reaction score
- 167
I want to see applicants who actually want to go into radiology and not have programs resort to the SOAP to grab people who fail to match to ortho or another field. As I said, I have 2-3 friends during my preliminary year that did exactly that. In order to accomplish this it takes a combination of engaging and encouraging medical students during their radiology rotations, calming down any fears of the job market, and perhaps expanding the applicant pool when programs screen applicants based on the magical 3 digit number.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 7,495
- Reaction score
- 4,186
Its probably better if fewer apply and they decrease spots and then more ppl apply
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2002
- Messages
- 863
- Reaction score
- 651
That is great for you but most just entering the field will never have this type of opportunity. Also imagine that you are cranking out 120+ studies a day/16-18K+ RVUs year which is doable for some but not for the majority
Cranking through a long list has become a norm in many private practice groups. Some people enjoy it and can do it relatively easily. Some people hate it and can not keep up with the speed and eventually quit. If they are lucky they find a VA job or a Kaiser job or a university job. Many people hate it, but eventually manage to do it with lots of exhaustion and tiredness.
First group are happy with their job. Second group are disgruntled. Third group complain a lot.
In some fields in medicine you can dictate the pace of your work albeit by accepting a pay-cut. However, in other fields you can not, even if you accept the pay-cut. Radiology these days belong to the second group. You are pretty much hired by a group and they expect you to read certain number of studies a day with a pace that they want you to.
I agree to a certain extent. However part of the reason that they can get those "sloppy seconds" with high scores is that the competitiveness of many other fields has increased dramatically in a short period of time. Urology is a great example. As people begin to understand how competitive the match is, even for US Allopathic grads, then students will make better choices in terms of what specialty to apply for. Therefore there would be fewer desirable SOAP candidates.
Another factor is that people that don't pay attention to this stuff still think Rads is competitive which acts as a deterrent. IMGs and FMGs still think they have no shot and prefer to apply to other specialties instead. PM&R had only 3 unfilled spots in the match, however probably only 50-60% were taken by US MDs. Foreign grads and DOs know they are competitive for this specialty and probably apply in relatively greater numbers.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2008
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 21
on a rads rotation right now and can't help but wonder what it would be like to possibly snag one of those 137 spots up in the SOAP! I suppose I'm one to always second guess my decisions also though... had a tough enough time deciding on what field to pursue.
FMGs don't even have to do residency in the US if they want to become board certified radiologists. They can jump straight to fellowship. All they need is to show some prove they did residency in their home country (they don't even need internship).
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 3,220
- Reaction score
- 671
I'm not worried about these numbers. It looks like doom and gloom in radiology but it's all cyclical. As soon as people get wind of improving job prospects, people will come rushing back in. It's predictable. I would look at the situation as an investor. Do you want to follow the herd mentality or be a contrarian? If you see underlying value where others miss it, you will profit handsomely from it. People are scared because they don't know where the bottom is before they dip their toes back in. One of the things I've learned about investing is that you can't time the market. If you see value and you've done your homework, then take the risk and ride it out.
How long do you think some of these other fields can keep it up before they become saturated? Gas with their 1692 grads or EM with their 1821 grads? It's just a matter of time before all 50 states allow NP's and CRNA's full independence. What's going to happen to the gas job market when hospitals start replacing all stool sitters with CRNA's? What's going to happen to primary care and ED when NP's flood the market? It's going to be ugly.
Think long term people.
How long do you think some of these other fields can keep it up before they become saturated? Gas with their 1692 grads or EM with their 1821 grads? It's just a matter of time before all 50 states allow NP's and CRNA's full independence. What's going to happen to the gas job market when hospitals start replacing all stool sitters with CRNA's? What's going to happen to primary care and ED when NP's flood the market? It's going to be ugly.
Think long term people.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 1
Can someone provide us a list of the programs that didn't fill and how many spots each of these had? Thanks.
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 33
Think it'll start getting better next year? Or will the unfilled numbers keep increasing?
Is this the "4 years of fellowship" loophole for FMGs? I should read more about it but it enrages me so much I would rather not.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 492
- Reaction score
- 199
A lot of people get real grouchy about it, and I agree it's BS. That being said I think it was only utilized by a dozen or so people last year, someone can correct me if I am wrong.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 492
- Reaction score
- 199
That would constitute a match violation until SOAP is over.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Only a dozen people? I can count 12 people only at my program (large academic program in NE).
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 492
- Reaction score
- 199
Your program has 12 fellows utilizing the alternative pathway (4 consecutive years of fellowship)? That's pretty ridiculous. I may have understated the amount but still do not think it's a significant amount of grads/year in comparison to the total graduating but am to lazy to sift through and find the data again.
What program do you hail from?
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
So theoretically...if every program contracted future classes by a single position...problem solved? Roughly, it seems that way at least to me (I recognize how impractical it would be in reality). I have great respect for how derm has closely guarded the total number of positions over time and am puzzled as to why radiology residencies seemingly have ignored this idea.
The graph from the J Am Coll Radiol 2014 article was a great find by querty89...sure looks like ~900 positions is the sweet spot
The graph from the J Am Coll Radiol 2014 article was a great find by querty89...sure looks like ~900 positions is the sweet spot
I am sure it is more than that but the amount doesn't matter as much. It is just a reflection of how poor the leadership in this profession is, which to me is worse than the job market in general.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 492
- Reaction score
- 199
I couldn't agree with that more. I think the ABR has stated to the American public with these board changes that they do not trust radiologists...Unless you do your residency out of the country then simply complete 4 fellowships and you are good to go. I think medical boards are gonna have some interesting change ups in the next decade, with all the hubalo in IM and now a new group of internists and surgeons starting there own board hopefully pressure gets applied and things change
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
- Messages
- 390
- Reaction score
- 469
There are many more than 12.
The leadership in radiology is not handling things well, agreed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,062
- Reaction score
- 390
Heck yes, I'm pretty excited that Rads is so easy to match into right now. I know that its for selfish reasons but I like knowing that even if my USMLE isn't 240+ I can still match into a field I'm very interested in.
I am amazed at how many of my osteopathic classmates believe that Rads is still super competitive. Every time I've brought it up they're like "oh man, rads is way too competitive... I'm going for (insert semi-competitive field such as EM)." Hell, even my adviser told me that rads is incredibly competitive... and that was the last time I took what he said seriously.
I am amazed at how many of my osteopathic classmates believe that Rads is still super competitive. Every time I've brought it up they're like "oh man, rads is way too competitive... I'm going for (insert semi-competitive field such as EM)." Hell, even my adviser told me that rads is incredibly competitive... and that was the last time I took what he said seriously.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 4,509
- Reaction score
- 4,135
I feel this way exactly. I think all specialties are cyclic and if you buy low and keep your expectations low, you can only be pleasantly surprised. Like derm and GI seem to be what is hot now, but I think by the time current students actually get into those, the landscapes could have changed completely.
I'd be much more hesitant about buying into a hot specialty right now personally.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 4,509
- Reaction score
- 4,135
I encounter the same thing, even in people actually interested in rads. It's like, are you completely obvious to match data
