- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Messages
- 130
- Reaction score
- 57
What's generally considered the most competitive residency to match in these days?
Most Competitive Residency to Match in ??
- Thread starter lazers
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 698
- Reaction score
- 1
My top ten for competitiveness. Based on step 1 and 2 scores, probability of matching, number of applicants, etc. Other people will have slight variation.
1. Plastics
2. Dermatology
3. Otolaryngology
4. Orthopedics
5. Rad onc
6. Neurosurg
7. Diagnostic Radiology
8. Gen Surgery
9. Int med/peds
10. Anesthesia
1. Plastics
2. Dermatology
3. Otolaryngology
4. Orthopedics
5. Rad onc
6. Neurosurg
7. Diagnostic Radiology
8. Gen Surgery
9. Int med/peds
10. Anesthesia
emergency, urology, ophthalmology probably all fall right after rad onc or neuro surg.
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 574
- Reaction score
- 7
Really hard to rank past your top 8, you have EM/Anesthesia/IM/Path which are all so close in competitiveness that there is no sense in ordering them.
I think in general it is better to set up a tier system. Like highly competitive, moderately competitive, and the rest.
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 574
- Reaction score
- 7
View attachment AOA.JPG
AOA % is probably a good barometer also. This only goes so far though, below 12% doesn't tell much.
Edit: Interesting other take could be AOA% that didn't match. I think that gives an excellent look @ what is most competitive.
AOA % is probably a good barometer also. This only goes so far though, below 12% doesn't tell much.
Edit: Interesting other take could be AOA% that didn't match. I think that gives an excellent look @ what is most competitive.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
Other than Plastics, derm, and ENT, as long as you are an above-average student, you have a very, very good chance of matching 4-7, and you're all but guaranteed to match in 8-10
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 698
- Reaction score
- 1
I didn't take into account ophtho or uro because they go through a different match process. But ophtho's step 1 avg I do know is a few points below rads, but is probably just after neurosurg since there are less spots and the match rate is lower.
Also EM is not that tough from what I can tell. Rads is definitely more competitive IMO looking at scores and the probability of matching curves. I would say EM is just after anesthesia.
The three most competitive fields now are Derm, Plastics, and Radonc. But they have different selection criteria. For example Radonc relies much more on original research than Derm or Plastics which rely more on numbers...
The average Radonc had >5 publications and 50% had dual degrees last year
The average Radonc had >5 publications and 50% had dual degrees last year
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
RadOnc places a tremendous weight on research, but it terms of numbers, it's no where nearly as competitive as derm, plastics, or ENT. Let's take a look at Charting Outcomes for 2011:
The mean Step I of US allopathic applicants who matched RadOnc in 2011 was 240, the mean Step I of US allopathic applicants who did not match was 217! That's a HUGE gap. In the range of 221 to 230, 21 us allopathic applicants matched while only 4 did not match; between 201 and 210, 9 us allo applicants matched while 2 did not. By comparison in derm, in the 221-230 range, 28 US allos matched while 14 did not, and in the 201 to 210 range, 9 us allos matched while 10 did not.
Let's look at the mean Step I for matched and not matched US allos in several specialties
Plastics: 249 238
Derm: 244 227
ENT: 243 232
Orth: 240 225
(RadOnce: 240 217)
NS: 239 218
Diagnostic Rads: 240 211
I agree, though program directors in general expect MD-PHDs to not have as high of scores (due to the years spent in research) than pure MDs. Also in terms of self-selection, radonc (as a more super-specialized field) tends to self select more than derm...
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2010
- Messages
- 774
- Reaction score
- 35
Agree with this with the inclusion that publications is another # the look at in plastics. Doesn't have to be as basic/translational sciencey as I understand from friends in RadOnc it does for them.
Across the board, a second degree doesn't matter so much for plastics. Some programs (Harvard comes to mind) really like the PhD.
In general, these are really small fields. Everyone is going to have sick scores, honors grades, and pubs. Your contacts and personality when you interview are what will get you the match.
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,673
- Reaction score
- 10,543
Huh? You generally take Step I before you do any of your PhD years.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2010
- Messages
- 774
- Reaction score
- 35
Tell me about it man. 2009 charting outcomes had reasonable hope in it, but the 2011 version basically stated that no matter what you do, you may not match. Total fml moment when I read it.
Very glad I took a research year.
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 42
Yea, but people mistakenly might think that, because they're doing the PhD also, it'll compensate for a potentially average/above average Step 1 score.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
so u've made the right decision.
I find this hard to believe on both accounts.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 30,872
- Reaction score
- 10,062
agreed. While there are a few very desirable EM programs that are quite competitive, the majority are certainly less competitive than radiology or even gen surg. EM is a field that is becoming more popular, but the less desirable centers are still very much in reach for a lot of the lower end applicants, moreso than some of these other fields.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 30,872
- Reaction score
- 10,062
The couple of guys I know who got it certainly met these criteria. There are very few spots, and it's a high tech field probably of interest to the PhD -MD types. Also there is such a strong emphasis on research and publishing within the residency programs that if you aren't already of that leaning, you probably wouldn't thrive there.
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 574
- Reaction score
- 7
You're right, I don't recall exactly but I think it's closer to 30% and 8 abstract/presentation/pubs or 4 "research experiences"
It's not too far from the truth.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,746
- Reaction score
- 3,847
1. It's a research heavy field, and highly values research in applicants. Lots of dual degrees, and lots of people take years off. Our PD at Pitt strongly recommends that we take a research year and looks for that in applicants.
2. 5 publications doesn't mean 5 NEJM articles. Research that generates 1 publication can/will also generate an abstract, a presentation at a meeting, etc. All those count as "publications" according to NRMP, and thus 5-6 "publications" can come from 2 actual publications.
- Joined
- May 10, 2011
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 56
I'd expect uro and ophtho are right there with ENT and ortho. I imagine they weren't included on officedepot's list because they go through their own matches (which don't publish as much data as NRMP) and are thus difficult to compare.
EM, while gaining in competitiveness, is nowhere near those specialties. I'd say that it comparable in competitiveness to mid-tier IM--an average US student has a good chance of matching.
Golden rule here:
plastics
--------------------------
derm,radonc,neurosurg*(very self-selective)
--------------------------
opth,ent,ortho,uro
--------------------------
radio,anesth,em
--------------------------
everything else
plastics
--------------------------
derm,radonc,neurosurg*(very self-selective)
--------------------------
opth,ent,ortho,uro
--------------------------
radio,anesth,em
--------------------------
everything else
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,746
- Reaction score
- 3,847
I'd bump down neurosurg to opth/ent/ortho/uro level. Radiology is clearly tougher then gas/em, but probably less so then the surgical subspecialties, so it would need its own teir.
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 574
- Reaction score
- 7
lol @ radiology getting it's own tier. 493 of 501 (98.4%) US seniors that attempted to match DR were successful (those that only chose 1 specialty to rank). EM 1117 of 1254 (94%).
Radiology - Step 1 matches
Mean of unmatched: 211
221-220: 115 of 122
211-220: 56 of 61
EM - Step 1 matches
Mean of unmatched: 207
211-220: 212 of 239
221-230: 262 of 270
I'm not making an argument that EM is more competitive because it isn't, just that DR is in a moderately competitive class with Anesthesia/EM.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 3
No, mr. use-selective-stats-to-support-your-argument
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,746
- Reaction score
- 3,847
# matched, while important means nothing without knowing the qualifications of those that matched successfully and those that failed.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 30,872
- Reaction score
- 10,062
Radiology had it's first bad year in years in terms of matching percentage, after being extremely competitive the prior few years. I would wait at least one more year before putting it on par with these other fields. EM is certainly on the rise in popularity, but it's still regarded as attainable even for non-US allo grads. There are some very good programs, but there is much more of a range than in these other two fields, which hurts it's overall competitive status.
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 574
- Reaction score
- 7
What Mr. Probationary Status, am I supposed to use stats that don't support my argument? lol.
Lol, didn't I follow my #'s matched with the two step 1 scores closest to the mean and the unsuccessful match average?
Again, obviously Radiology is more competitive just like ENT is more competitive than Ortho, but we consider them similarly difficult. EM is on a rise though and DR is on a bit of a down trend.
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 574
- Reaction score
- 7
Exactly, I agree that there is a very wide range of programs which can make them look less competitive overall. I still consider both "moderately competitive" behind the obviously difficult to match specialties and surgical subs.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 3
wow, what does that have to do with anything? lol i guess that explains your lack of logic in your argument.
Diagnostic Radiology:
Mean USMLE step 1 score - 240
Mean USMLE step 2 score - 245
EM:
Mean USMLE step 1 score - 223
Mean USMLE step 2 score - 234
Tell me again how they're on the same level of competitiveness.
They're not. Period.
4
45408
While there are some competitive programs out there, neither of those belong in any discussion of "most competitive." Otherwise, I mostly agree. I'd put EM on par with anesthesia. Urology and optho are somewhere around ENT and ortho.
It's always going to be hard to do direct comparisons though, because people who want to do specialties like neurosurgery are usually a breed of their own. Both of the people my class who applied for neurosurgery got in (as far as I know), but that's a small sample size. The two guys and one girl who applied for plastics got in, but a few of the ortho applicants did not. All but one of the 16 general surgery applicants got in (and the one that scrambled got a spot after doing a prelim year).
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 698
- Reaction score
- 1
I was referring to the combined internal medicine/peds speciality, not either individually. Agree that uro and optho probably after ortho or neurosurg.
Also, I agree it's hard to make direct comparisons but since med students generally like to compare their intelligence it's easiest to do so by saying what field is the most challenging to match into thus equating that with their intelligence. I disagree with this premise because I think everyone is good at what they do and no one can do everything. Orthopedic surgeons still need their psychiatrist and family doctor for example. Both need radiologists...
jokes aside I do believe some fields in the end require more mental fortitude than others; as in who has to know the most details about the most subjects. I would be more interested in a rank of those than any other.
Don't feel like making a list now because it is tough. I would want to say things like family med/internal med but then again most docs in those field will refer complicated patients. They don't for the most part have to know the details. Not hard to treat simple depression and manage BP for example. Radiologists know a ton about diagnosis and even basic management and their scope is really broad but you'd have to make the case this takes more mental prowess than dealing with the management of patients on a day to day basis. Specialists would have to be included as well to make it fair. So whoever wants to take a stab have at it. Maybe I will when I get some time.
I've heard that as well. It is strange though because the research is done after step 1, not before.
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 574
- Reaction score
- 7
You're so sure of yourself that you didn't even look at the distribution.🙂 The data you've decided to look at only shows WHO applied, it doesn't tell us about the difficulty they had in the match. Lets look at actual #'s from people who decided to apply...
DR had a self selection for a higher Step 1 score, but it was less competitive/selective than EM in Step 1 scores above 200. A possible conclusion is applicants thought they were uncompetitive for DR but in reality, the data shows that the applicants that did apply with lower stats had no issues in the match.
EM
View attachment EM.JPG
DR
View attachment DR.JPG
You're so sure about DR being so much more competitive that you didn't even look at the #'s.
Step 1 scores where EM was more selective/competitive (211-220; 231-240; 241-250; 251-260; 260+)
Step 1 scores where DR was more selective/competitive (221-230)
Even scores of 201-210, they are close (EM 82% and DR 80%).
My point is that people thought DR was tougher to match but it didn't end up being the truth. Yes, self selection raised the mean Step 1 score to 240 but the distribution tells the whole story. My argument wasn't even that EM is more competitive but comparably competitive. One fact is that EM more selective throughout Step 1 scores above 200 almost across the board. In the end, I still would say in today's world, they are both moderately competitive and the match statistics only support this conclusion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to raise this point. There is a lot of self-selection in this process. Just looking at the % matched data is misleading. As pointed out, radiology's average board scores are high. Many people who might want to apply for it choose not to based upon a perceived lack of competitiveness. The same can be said for the other, more competitive specialties.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 0
A 221 in EM will get you interviews at a lot of places, and you'll probably match at a great program. A 221 in rads and you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, and will have to make concessions to match. They're not comparably competitive.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 574
- Reaction score
- 7
Wow, I'm really surprised at how relatively uncompetitive rads has become (compared to how it was a few years ago). And for gas to be so low is crazy- I knew it was low but not that low.
My question - is ROAD still a viable concept?
My question - is ROAD still a viable concept?
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 306
- Reaction score
- 6
your idiocy is hurting my head
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 3
yeah, ok, let's just pick and choose things that supports an argument and toss out things that don't. self-selection.... yep, don't matter.
put it this way to you. 5 high school grads applies to 3 janitor spots. 3 got in. 5 ivy league summa cum laude applies to 4 goldman sach. 4 got in. 60% vs 80%... as jahbrony said, quite misleading... like it mislead you.
in the absolute sense, goldman sach position is more competitive than the janitor spots.
put it to you another way. acceptance rate of some public state university are 30 something percent. overall acceptance rate of med school is around 40 or so percent. is admission to that public university really more competitive than med school admission?
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 698
- Reaction score
- 1
exactly. Self selection is hugely important. People who applied to rads in the past who weren't as competitive applied elsewhere this past year. This can be for whatever reason I guess. However in absolute terms rads is more competitive than EM. Look at probability of matching curves for step 1 scores. That should be enough. This was actually discussed in the rads forum.
wow, I've met some real asses here on SDN but you are at the top. Thanks for fulfilling stereotypes about the gunners here on the website...
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 339
- Reaction score
- 0
I think ob/gyn deserves to be on the list too. It's pretty competitive as well. Perhaps more competitive than EM and anesthesia, in my opinion.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,526
- Reaction score
- 22
sigh...0/10
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 6,397
- Reaction score
- 15
I've had that person on ignore ever since they made their third thread about how anxious they were about not matching into ob/gyn
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 339
- Reaction score
- 0
lol okay ignore me but that doesn't make ob less competitive... it's up there too
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 306
- Reaction score
- 6
Yes, I'm the gunner, not the guy who is wondering if a made-up acronym is still a "viable concept," whatever that means. You're taking an acronym that was started because it created a catchy phrase about lifestyle specialties and wondering if it's still "viable." No one ever said ROAD meant the most competitive specialties to match into, I don't know where people got that idea
Similar threads
