NRMP Releases 2020 Charting Outcomes Data for US DO Seniors

[trundlethegreat]

The NRMP released the Charting Outcomes Data for 2020. Here are some highlights and first-pass thoughts on the data for US DO Seniors:

Section 1: "Match" Definition
"defined as a match to the specialty of the applicant’s first-ranked program, or "preferred specialty," because that is assumed to be the specialty of choice. Lack of success includes matching to another specialty as well as failure to match at all. No distinction was made based on whether applicants matched to the first, second, third, or lower choice program"

Section 2: NRMP Recommendations
Besides better board exam performance and ranking more programs in your specialty (duh), the NRMP makes these recommendations for Match success:

"The data in this report support the following straightforward advice one should give to an applicant:
 Rank all of the programs you really want, without regard to your estimate of your chances with those programs.
 Include a mix of both highly competitive and less competitive programs within your preferred specialty.
 Include all of the programs on your list where the program has expressed an interest in you and where you would accept a position.
 If you are applying to a competitive specialty and you want to have a residency position in the event you are unsuccessful in matching to a program in your preferred specialty, also rank your most preferred programs in an alternate specialty.
 Include all of your qualifications in your application, but know that you do not have to have the highest COMLEX-USA scores, have publications, or have participated in research projects to match successfully."

Section 3: Boards
Average Level 1 and Step 1 for matched DOs in all specialties: 542, 228 (2018: 547, 227)
Average Level 2 and Step 2 for matched DOs in all specialties: 575, 240 (2018: 584, 240)
Top Specialties in terms of Board Scores: Dermatology (245/651;253/675), Ortho (242/656;250/677), IR (252/688;250/693), ENT (240/660;252/697), NSG (252/568;231/584), Vasc Surgery (243/629;250/627)
Bottom Specialties in terms of Board Scores: Family Medicine (218/495;233/526), Pathology (220/527;234/544), Pediatric (223/523;237/562), PMR (224/545;236/569), Psych (225/527;238/555)
*Scores reported as S1/L1;S2/L2

Section 4: Match Rates
Specialties with match rates >90% for US DO Seniors: Pediatrics (95.5%), Family Medicine (93.8%), Neurology (92.9%), Pathology (92.8%), Internal Medicine (92.7%), Diagnostic Radiology (91.8%), and Child Neurology (90.9%)
Specialties with match rates <75% for US DO Seniors: Integrated Plastic Surgery (0%), Neurosurgery (20%), Vascular Surgery (55.6%), ENT (56.7%), Ortho (65.1%), IR (68.2%), General Surgery (69.2%), Dermatology (70.7%), OB/GYN (71.4%)
Other Notable Match Rates: Anesthesia (78.7%), ER (83%), PM&R (82.5%), Psychiatry (83.4%), OB/GYN

Section 5: Questionable Sample Sizes
Specialties with <40 applicants total (thus questioning their statistical power): IM/Pediatrics (N=38), IR (N=20), NSG (N=14), ENT (N=28), Int Plastics (N=12), Vasc Surgery (N=7), Child Neuro (N=20)
*Does not include all applicants, just those reported to NRMP

Section 6: Rank Lists
Besides Child Neurology and ENT, applicants were more successful in matching when they applied to fewer specialties. Applicants to the following specialties and successfully matched ranked >1.4 specialty choices: Dermatology, IR, Vascular Surgery, Neurosurgery, DR, PM&R, Anesthesia, CN, IM/Peds, and ENT. This analysis does not delineate primary and back up specialty, but it can be reasonably assumed that those specialties with the highest specialty counts and lowest match rates were those where applicants applied to the competitive specialty as the preferred one with another being the backup. This includes the aforementioned specialties minus DR, PM&R, CN, and IM/Peds.

Section 7: Notable Match Rate Changes from 2018
Derm: 38.7% (2018) to 70.7% (2020); +32%
General Surgery: 50% to 69.2%; +19.2%
IR: 15% to 68.2%; +53.2%
Ortho: 23.5% to 65.1%; +41.6%
Anesthesia: 90.2% to 78.7%; -11.5%

Section 8: Aggregate Analysis for Each Specialty (2018 and 2020); Including S1/2 Averages and Match Rate
Anesthesiology (N=649, Match Rate = 84.13%)
- Matched: 230.32 (S1), 241.21 (S2); (N=546)
- Unmatched: 219.14, 227.90; (N=103)
Child Neurology (N=30, Match Rate = 90%)
- Matched: 229.67 (S1), 237.67 (S2); (N=27)
- Unmatched: 202.33, 236.00; (N=3)
Dermatology (N=78, Match Rate = 61.5%)
- Matched: 243.50 (S1), 253.19 (S2); (N=48)
- Unmatched: 238.53, 243.73; (N=30)
Diagnostic Radiology (N=286, Match Rate = 88.1%)
- Matched: 239.57 (S1), 246.43 (S2); (N=252)
- Unmatched: 221.09, 231.32; (N=34)
Emergency Medicine (N=1284, Match Rate = 83.9%)
- Matched: 228.40 (S1), 241.00 (S2); (N=1077)
- Unmatched: 219.00, 231.40; (N=207)
Family Medicine (N=1827, Match Rate = 93.43%)
- Matched: 217.68 (S1), 233.00 (S2); (N=1707)
- Unmatched: 207.88, 221.68; (N=120)
General Surgery (***)

Section 9: Comparison of 2020 Match Rates Between US DO Seniors, US MD Seniors, and IMGs
Anesthesia
- US DO: 78.7%
- US MD: 89.6%
- US IMG: 54%
- Non-US IMG: 51%
Child Neurology
- US DO: 90.9%
- US MD: 94%
- US IMG: 43%
- Non-US IMG: 57%
Dermatology
- US DO: 70.7%
- US MD: 84.7%
- US IMG: 0%
- Non-US IMG: 49%
Diagnostic Radiology
- US DO: 91.8%
- US MD: 95.5%
- US IMG: 68%
- Non-US IMG: 63%
Emergency Medicine
***

Section 10: Conclusions
1. DO Applicants matched better on average in almost all specialties in 2020 than they did in 2018, although any comparison should take the still-existing AOA match in 2018 into account
2. Dermatology is now similarly competitive to OB/GYN for an average applicant in both of those specialties, respectively. However, dermatology is still more competitive than OB for the average generic DO applicant.
3. Anesthesia match rate as a first-choice specialty decreased by over 10% in just two years
4. The most competitive specialties for DOs remained surgical, namely plastic surgery, neurosurgery, vascular surgery, ENT, Ortho, IR, and general surgery, although in general the sample size of reported data is small and any conclusions drawn should be performed with caution
5. For a full picture, it is imperative that you analyze this data in conjunction with the US MD Senior and IMG data. Analyzing the data in aggregate will help you see how the DO degree itself is playing a part in residency rank-list decisions.
6. Senior DO students may be applying more realistically than in previous years.
7. In general, applying to more than 1 specialty decreases your chances of matching into a said specialty, but no conclusions can be made about which because primary and backups are not reported.
8. This does not compare how many people actually matched between years or take into account matching to specific programs.

Stay safe and happy data-mining. As I go through this data in the coming days, I will update this post.

Updates and Edits:
1. Adding Aggregate 2018 and 2020 Averages for Step 1 and 2 For Each Specialty (In Progress)
2. Conclusion 6 and 7
3. Rank List Implications
4. Section 9

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[phagocytosis41]

The NRMP released the Charting Outcomes Data for 2020. Here are some highlights and first-pass thoughts on the data for US DO Seniors:

"Match" Definition: "defined as a match to the specialty of the applicant’s first-ranked program, or "preferred specialty," because that is assumed to be the specialty of choice. Lack of success includes matching to another specialty as well as failure to match at all. No distinction was made based on whether applicants matched to the first, second, third, or lower choice program"

Besides better board exam performance and ranking more programs in your specialty (duh), the NRMP makes these recommendations for Match success:

"The data in this report support the following straightforward advice one should give to an applicant:
 Rank all of the programs you really want, without regard to your estimate of your chances with those programs.
 Include a mix of both highly competitive and less competitive programs within your preferred specialty.
 Include all of the programs on your list where the program has expressed an interest in you and where you would accept a position.
 If you are applying to a competitive specialty and you want to have a residency position in the event you are unsuccessful in matching to a program in your preferred specialty, also rank your most preferred programs in an alternate specialty.
 Include all of your qualifications in your application, but know that you do not have to have the highest COMLEX-USA scores, have publications, or have participated in research projects to match successfully."

Average Level 1 and Step 1 for matched DOs in all specialties: 542, 228 (2018: 547, 227)
Average Level 2 and Step 2 for matched DOs in all specialties: 575, 240 (2018: 584, 240)
Top Specialties in terms of Board Scores: Dermatology (245/651;253/675), Ortho (242/656;250/677), IR (252/688;250/693), ENT (240/660;252/697), NSG (252/568;231/584), Vasc Surgery (243/629;250/627)
Bottom Specialties in terms of Board Scores: Family Medicine (218/495;233/526), Pathology (220/527;234/544), Pediatric (223/523;237/562), PMR (224/545;236/569), Psych (225/527;238/555)
*Scores reported as S1/L1;S2/L2

Specialties with match rates >90% for US DO Seniors: Pediatrics (95.5%), Family Medicine (93.8%), Neurology (92.9%), Pathology (92.8%), Internal Medicine (92.7%), Diagnostic Radiology (91.8%), and Child Neurology (90.9%)
Specialties with match rates <75% for US DO Seniors: Integrated Plastic Surgery (0%), Neurosurgery (20%), Vascular Surgery (55.6%), ENT (56.7%), Ortho (65.1%), IR (68.2%), General Surgery (69.2%), Dermatology (70.7%), OB/GYN (71.4%)
Other Notable Match Rates: Anesthesia (78.7%), ER (83%), PM&R (82.5%), Psychiatry (83.4%), OB/GYN

Specialties with <40 applicants total (thus questioning their statistical power): IM/Pediatrics (N=38), IR (N=20), NSG (N=14), ENT (N=28), Int Plastics (N=12), Vasc Surgery (N=7)
*Does not include all applicants, just those reported to NRMP

Notable Match Rate Changes from 2018
Derm: 38.7% (2018) to 70.7% (2020); +32%
General Surgery: 50% to 69.2%; +19.2%
IR: 15% to 68.2%; +53.2%
Ortho: 23.5% to 65.1%; +41.6%
Anesthesia: 90.2% to 78.7%; -11.5%

Conclusions:
1. DO Applicants matched better on average in almost all specialties in 2020 than they did in 2018, although any comparison should take the still-existing AOA match in 2018 into account
2. Dermatology is now similarly competitive to OB/GYN
3. Anesthesia match rate decreased by over 10% in just two years; this may be due to more interested applicants, or more people ranking it as a second-choice specialty
4. The most competitive specialties for DOs remained surgical, namely plastic surgery, neurosurgery, vascular surgery, ENT, Ortho, IR, and general surgery, although in general the sample size of reported data is small and any conclusions drawn should be performed with caution
5. For a full picture, it is imperative that you analyze this data in conjunction with the US MD Senior and IMG data. Analyzing the data in aggregate will help you see how the DO degree itself is playing a part in residency rank-list decisions.

Stay safe and happy data-mining. As I go through this data in the coming days, I will update this post.

I like the Psych stats... It looks like nearly everybody with decent boards got in, statistically of course. But tbh it looks like things improved for DOs everywhere.. Weird with the merger and competition increasing each year.

 

[WhereMyLiberalsAt]

Honestly, I wonder what role nepotism played in a couple of those derm matches?

 

[12jas]

Conclusions:

2. Dermatology is now similarly competitive to OB/GYN
3. Anesthesia match rate decreased by over 10% in just two years; this may be due to more interested applicants, or more people ranking it as a second-choice specialty

Thank you for posting this! I appreciate the little write up as well was nice to get a little overview. I do think these two conclusions are not really valid though. Addressing number 2 similar match rates does not correlate directly to similar competitiveness they represent two completely different cohorts of students. Ex: Derm average Step 1= 241 while OB=229. Addressing point 3 the way the data is organized people ranking anesthesia number two and then not matching it has no effect on the the reported match rate. The match rate given is for preferred specialty only i.e. the applicants that rank said specialty 1 and then don't match.

 

[trundlethegreat]

Thank you for posting this! I appreciate the little write up as well was nice to get a little overview. I do think these two conclusions are not really valid though. Addressing number 2 similar match rates does not correlate directly to similar competitiveness they represent two completely different cohorts of students. Ex: Derm average Step 1= 241 while OB=229. Addressing point 3 the way the data is organized people ranking anesthesia number two and then not matching it has no effect on the the reported match rate. The match rate given is for preferred specialty only i.e. the applicants that rank said specialty 1 and then don't match.

Updated. I had meant for Conclusion 2 to be read as for an average Derm or average OB applicant, not a generic DO applicant. Thanks for helping me clarify.

 

[12jas]

Updated. I had meant for Conclusion 2 to be read as for an average Derm or average OB applicant, not a generic DO applicant. Thanks for helping me clarify.

Ah I see. Sorry I miss interpreted that yeah makes more sense.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Overall things are much better across the board than I was expecting. Even in some of the specialties with lower match rates, if you look at the numbers a number of the people not matching were weaker candidates for that specialty to begin with.

The exception is plastics and neurosurgery. If you are interested in those.... RIP.

 

[Billroth_III]

Overall things are much better across the board than I was expecting. Even in some of the specialties with lower match rates, if you look at the numbers a number of the people not matching were weaker candidates for that specialty to begin with.

The exception is plastics and neurosurgery. If you are interested in those.... RIP.

Things look like they got a bit better for general surgery?

 

[phagocytosis41]

Things look like they got a bit better for general surgery?

yea and esp for derm too...

 

[DarkHorizon]

Looks like things are improving for ortho as average COMLEX is over 650 now and average step 1 is over 240. Glad to see no one match below a 500. Back in the day with good ole boy system, quite a few 400ers would snatch spots. Average number of research experiences are still very low compared to MD counterparts.

 

[FutureDoctor5000]

Overall things are much better across the board than I was expecting. Even in some of the specialties with lower match rates, if you look at the numbers a number of the people not matching were weaker candidates for that specialty to begin with.

The exception is plastics and neurosurgery. If you are interested in those.... RIP.

For plastics and neurosurgery the sample size is soo small that you really cant make any conclusions, those specialties have very few people applying into them and its a lot about the individual and thier specific app for those specialties that determines if they will match..

 

[superior_vena_cana]

Noob question but if a specialty says "Unmatched" does that mean just for that specialty or unmatched period?

For example, could some of the 67 unmatched FM applicants have matched into IM if they were applying to say IM and FM?

 

[trundlethegreat]

Noob question but if a specialty says "Unmatched" does that mean just for that specialty or unmatched period?

For example, could some of the 67 unmatched FM applicants have matched into IM if they were applying to say IM and FM?

Good question. This only takes into account matching into a candidate's first-ranked "preferred" specialty. So yes, for example, those people who apply to IM/FM but match FM as their second choice, they would count as an "unmatched" IM data point and not count toward the FM data. That's why when all these schools talk about how their "match rate" is 100% and then compare it to the NRMP, they are being disingenuous. They are likely reporting the placement rate, which includes second-choice specialty, transitional/prelim years, SOAP, etc.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Things look like they got a bit better for general surgery?

I can't tell if things got better, or we are just seeing concrete proof of something I've suspected for quite a while, which is that I don't think general surgery has ever been terribly competitive at the DO programs.

There is definitely a strong correlation to board score and matching in general surgery in this data, likely giving credence to the anecdotal statements I've seen espousing this idea.

For plastics and neurosurgery the sample size is soo small that you really cant make any conclusions, those specialties have very few people applying into them and its a lot about the individual and thier specific app for those specialties that determines if they will match..

Eh maybe, but I remain unconvinced. I think it's just that bad in these fields. The anecdotes I know from people that have applied, and matched, those specialties are that DO's face a steeper uphill climb than in any other field.

 

[trundlethegreat]

For plastics and neurosurgery the sample size is soo small that you really cant make any conclusions, those specialties have very few people applying into them and its a lot about the individual and thier specific app for those specialties that determines if they will match.

That's true, but you can make reasonable inferences in the comparison between the DO and MD/IMG data. The match rate for US MD Seniors for NSG is 77%, while that of US DO Seniors is 20% over the last two charting outcomes datasets. If you had the individual datapoints, it'd still likely be statistically insignificant due to insufficient power, but still not useless for young students thinking NSG or plastics, especially in the context of anec-data that we get from people who go for them. I'm with Grey, don't be interested in either.

 

[FutureDoctor5000]

That's true, but you can make reasonable inferences in the comparison between the DO and MD/IMG data. The match rate for US MD Seniors for NSG is 77%, while that of US DO Seniors is 20% over the last two charting outcomes datasets. If you had the individual datapoints, it'd still likely be statistically insignificant due to insufficient power, but still not useless for young students thinking NSG or plastics, especially in the context of anec-data that we get from people who go for them. I'm with Grey, don't be interested in either.

I wouldn't say that, kid from my school matched MD neurosurgery last year, I would definetly pick his brains and ask him what all he did if I was intrested in Neurosurgery, I did hear he made connections but its still possible, definetly would apply to a easier backup tho.

 

[Goro]

When is the latest Program Director's guide coming out????

 

[FutureDoctor5000]

Also is there a reason why for some the individual specialties the number matched and unmated is different than those showed on page 3, ie Derm shows 41 matched and 17 unmatched but then on page 39, the number matched is 39 and unmatched is 14?

 

[getfat]

One thing I never noticed before.

The massive number of applicants that rank > 16 programs. I used IM as an example but FM, Peds had the same spike in > 16 ranks as well.

 

[trundlethegreat]

I wouldn't say that, kid from my school matched MD neurosurgery last year, I would definetly pick his brains and ask him what all he did if I was intrested in Neurosurgery, I did hear he made connections but its still possible, definetly would apply to a easier backup tho.

I never said it's impossible. I'm saying it's incredibly unlikely, as evidenced by the limited data we have.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Also is there a reason why for some the individual specialties the number matched and unmated is different than those showed on page 3, ie Derm shows 41 matched and 17 unmatched but then on page 39, the number matched is 39 and unmatched is 14?

Because the specialty specific data is only those that clicked the button allowing their stats to be used for research purposes. I think the broad, general data doesn’t require such a release. So the difference is just the few that decided to not release their info

 

[Dochopeful13]

Because the specialty specific data is only those that clicked the button allowing their stats to be used for research purposes. I think the broad, general data doesn’t require such a release. So the difference is just the few that decided to not release their info

Total newbie here. Fair to say derm is somewhat DO friendly moving forward?

 

[Mad Jack]

That's true, but you can make reasonable inferences in the comparison between the DO and MD/IMG data. The match rate for US MD Seniors for NSG is 77%, while that of US DO Seniors is 20% over the last two charting outcomes datasets. If you had the individual datapoints, it'd still likely be statistically insignificant due to insufficient power, but still not useless for young students thinking NSG or plastics, especially in the context of anec-data that we get from people who go for them. I'm with Grey, don't be interested in either.

Neurosurgery and plastics were always long shot specialties for DOs. Putting your eggs in those baskets is foolish. MDs have the benefit of home programs and being known quantities that we just can't overcome

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Total newbie here. Fair to say derm is somewhat DO friendly moving forward?

Not really, what this data is showing is more that if you are a qualified derm applicant (read, an elite applicant) your chances are decent considering how many former DO spots there are.

 

[Dochopeful13]

Not really, what this data is showing is more that if you are a qualified derm applicant (read, an elite applicant) your chances are decent considering how many former DO spots there are.

Gotcha. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[trundlethegreat]

Neurosurgery and plastics were always long shot specialties for DOs. Putting your eggs in those baskets is foolish. MDs have the benefit of home programs and being known quantities that we just can't overcome

Mostly agree. I’ll push back slightly with the obvious exception: if you’re qualified, know that’s what you want to do, and have made those connections then by all means go for it. What’s foolish is believing you’re guaranteed to match even if you do everything right and not applying with a backup plan. While >70% of these people aren’t matching into these fields every year, we don’t know how many of those were being smart in their application strategy and still matched somewhere, either to a TY or another specialty. I mean, one of the people who matched NSG this year ranked one program and I’d guess they were the one with a <220 step 1. This business is still a who knows you business, and if you have those connections, then go for it. I just think too many people put faith in their CV and don’t think critically about what the data shows year after year as you describe.

 

[superior_vena_cana]

Good question. This only takes into account matching into a candidate's first-ranked "preferred" specialty. So yes, for example, those people who apply to IM/FM but match FM as their second choice, they would count as an "unmatched" IM data point and not count toward the FM data. That's why when all these schools talk about how their "match rate" is 100% and then compare it to the NRMP, they are being disingenuous. They are likely reporting the placement rate, which includes second-choice specialty, transitional/prelim years, SOAP, etc.

Thank you for clarifying! So it looks like it was not a good year for plastics lol, but those unmatched may have matched into a different specialty if they knew their chances were slim?

 

[trundlethegreat]

Thank you for clarifying! So it looks like it was not a good year for plastics lol, but those unmatched may have matched into a different specialty if they knew their chances were slim?

Correct. Or they SOAP’d, went transitional year, are doing a research year thing, etc.

 

[Dr. Death]

Can we just shout out the DO who matched neurosurg with a Level 1 between 400-450? Take some massive stones to be in the bottom of the barrel scores-wise and shoot for the moon.

 

[zNoodlez]

Can we just shout out the DO who matched neurosurg with a Level 1 between 400-450? Take some massive stones to be in the bottom of the barrel scores-wise and shoot for the moon.

How was this possible?

 

[DNC127]

How was this possible?

They were probably a 10/10 and well endowed.

 

[trundlethegreat]

Can we just shout out the DO who matched neurosurg with a Level 1 between 400-450? Take some massive stones to be in the bottom of the barrel scores-wise and shoot for the moon.

Well there was one person that also ranked only one NSG program and matched. I’m assuming they are the same person and had an outlier connection to that program somehow. Just speculating but I don’t know of another reasonable explanation. Nevertheless impressive as hell.

 

[FutureDoctor5000]

Well there was one person that also ranked only one NSG program and matched. I’m assuming they are the same person and had an outlier connection to that program somehow. Just speculating but I don’t know of another reasonable explanation. Nevertheless impressive as hell.

Idk if it’s impressive or reprehensible, based on the rest of the charting outcomes for neurosurgery that person most likley had nothing else that stood out, ie research or even letters, and the fact they only had 1 interview confirms that, their parent was prbly the PD if I had to bet... it’s nepotism at its best.. sadly there was also one person that had 16+ interviews and still didn’t match....

 

[Kr#36]

Can we just shout out the DO who matched neurosurg with a Level 1 between 400-450? Take some massive stones to be in the bottom of the barrel scores-wise and shoot for the moon.

If anything they deserve a shoutout in a negative way (or at least the PD does). Obviously nepotism. Meanwhile a crazy good candidate with 16+ interviews went unmatched.

 

[Dr. Doctor MD]

Total newbie here. Fair to say derm is somewhat DO friendly moving forward?

Just to clarify on Derm, it did not get any better since 2018 despite the % changes; It actually got worse.

Remember this is the first charting outcomes post merger. Before the merger DOs had 50+ protected spots and 9 matched ACGME in 2018 (so maybe ~60 matches total). In 2020 they had no protected spots and most programs did convert over to ACGME especially the large ones, so I believe there were still at least 50 spots at formerly AOA programs. Of which at least 10 (20% of their spots) went to MDs in 2020. In 2020 only 39 DO's matched anywhere in the county. So it appears we went from ~60 DO's matching derm to ~40 in almost 2 years, and they are almost all still at previously AOA programs.

Also the standard last year was DO's doing 5-8 derm away rotations mostly at previously DO programs. This data is easy to misinterpret, but make no mistake, matching Derm as a DO is harder than it's ever been and requires even more effort than their MD counterparts.

There is still a small path to derm going forward as long as these former AOA programs favor DO applicants who rotated, but this trend is likely to get worse over time as more programs become receptive to MDs. First year of full merger and several DO programs are already filling their classes with 50%+ MD.

 

[FutureDoctor5000]

Just to clarify on Derm, it did not get any better since 2018 despite the % changes; It actually got worse.

Remember this is the first charting outcomes post merger. Before the merger DOs had 50+ protected spots and 9 matched ACGME in 2018 (so maybe ~60 matches total). In 2020 they had no protected spots and most programs did convert over to ACGME especially the large ones, so I believe there were still at least 50 spots at formerly AOA programs. Of which at least 10 (20% of their spots) went to MDs in 2020. In 2020 only 39 DO's matched anywhere in the county. So it appears we went from ~60 DO's matching derm to ~40 in almost 2 years, and they are almost all still at previously AOA programs.

Also the standard last year was DO's doing 5-8 derm away rotations mostly at previously DO programs. This data is easy to misinterpret, but make no mistake, matching Derm as a DO is harder than it's ever been and requires even more effort than their MD counterparts.

There is still a small path to derm going forward as long as these former AOA programs favor DO applicants who rotated, but this trend is likely to get worse over time as more programs become receptive to MDs. First year of full merger and several DO programs are already filling their classes with 50%+ MD.

41 DO’s matched in 2020, but my thing is that couldn’t it also be that more people applied in 2018 to get to ~ 60 matches, some of the former aoa prorgams had already transitioned and were already taking MD’s so idk if all 50 spots were protected in 2018. That year there were 9 DO matches at traditional MD prorgams, this year we don’t know. Also gotta look at the total # of applicants in 2018 vs 2020, there might be more applicants but the bottom line is that a ~70% match rate and even a higher rate for the truly qualified DO derm applicants is very good news

 

[Dr. Doctor MD]

41 DO’s matched in 2020, but my thing is that couldn’t it also be that more people applied in 2018 to get to ~ 60 matches, some of the former aoa prorgams had already transitioned and were already taking MD’s so idk if all 50 spots were protected in 2018. That year there were 9 DO matches at traditional MD prorgams, this year we don’t know. Also gotta look at the total # of applicants in 2018 vs 2020, there might be more applicants but the bottom line is that a ~70% match rate and even a higher rate for the truly qualified DO derm applicants is very good news

Yeah, except the bolded didn't happen. We have roughly the same number of applicants each year and it typically only increases over time. And in 2018, there were a few programs converted over already so as for those 9 matches in the second bolded statements, probably only 5 were true ACGME, as the rest were from early convert programs (for example programs like broward, who converted early on and started taking MDs).

Also 9 people in 2020 got 1 or 2 interviews only, how many people do you think applied and got 0 interviews, and thus aren't even counted in the denominator? I bet it was significant

Again, I'm not saying that Derm is unattainable as a DO, just that you can't look at the % and think it means anything. (Same thing for Charting Outcomes MD with 84.7% matching derm, this number is meaningless without context). Derm is still attainable at previously DO programs with auditions, just like it has always been, but it's as hard if not harder than ever, and is likely to slowly get harder every year. The bottom line is that there is a small fixed # of programs that will consider and take well qualified DO's and this has number started to contract slowly.

 

[FutureDoctor5000]

Yeah, except the bolded didn't happen. We have roughly the same number of applicants each year and it typically only increases over time. And in 2018, there were a few programs converted over already so as for those 9 matches in the second bolded statements, probably only 5 were true ACGME, as the rest were from early convert programs (for example programs like broward, who converted early on and started taking MDs).

Also 9 people in 2020 got 1 or 2 interviews only, how many people do you think applied and got 0 interviews, and thus aren't even counted in the denominator? I bet it was significant

Again, I'm not saying that Derm is unattainable as a DO, just that you can't look at the % and think it means anything. (Same thing for Charting Outcomes MD with 84.7% matching derm, this number is meaningless without context). Derm is still attainable at previously DO programs with auditions, just like it has always been, but it's as hard if not harder than ever, and is likely to slowly get harder every year. The bottom line is that there is a small fixed # of programs that will consider and take well qualified DO's and this has number started to contract slowly.

No I don’t know about the number of people that weren’t counted, the # of applicants is the total amount that applied regardless of if they ranked a prorgam or not as far as I know.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

how many people do you think applied and got 0 interviews, and thus aren't even counted in the denominator? I bet it was significant

Just to clarify, I actually doubt this was significant. If someone went on all their auditions like they should have they would inevitably get one or two interviews from places that interview all rotators regardless of app (not uncommon in the DO world in any specialty). So I don't really think there is this significant number of applicants out there who didn't get a single interview from their auditions.

 

[Scrubs101]

Just to clarify, I actually doubt this was significant. If someone went on all their auditions like they should have they would inevitably get one or two interviews from places that interview all rotators regardless of app (not uncommon in the DO world in any specialty). So I don't really think there is this significant number of applicants out there who didn't get a single interview from their auditions.

I was thinking something similar, but from looking at the ortho data found it interesting how many people with 1-2 ranks there were. As like you said youd assume most people get IVs from their auditions and 3+ auditions is common place for the derm and some of the competitive specialties.

Perhaps theres a semi-decent amount of people out there shooting their shot at base hospitals/places where they got connects for competitive things and then applying all out in a different specialty.

 

[Kr#36]

I was thinking something similar, but from looking at the ortho data found it interesting how many people with 1-2 ranks there were. As like you said youd assume most people get IVs from their auditions and 3+ auditions is common place for the derm and some of the competitive specialties.

Perhaps theres a semi-decent amount of people out there shooting their shot at base hospitals/places where they got connects for competitive things and then applying all out in a different specialty.

Another factor is that you guys may be over-estimating advisors/students' use of advisors. I know of a few people who applied competitive specialties with fewer than 3 auditions. 1 only did a single audition rotation and spent the rest of the year chillin. Spoiler: he didnt match ENT.

 

[calivianya]

If anything they deserve a shoutout in a negative way (or at least the PD does). Obviously nepotism. Meanwhile a crazy good candidate with 16+ interviews went unmatched.

I wonder, honestly. Maybe I’m just being overly optimistic, but if the 4 research experiences w/ >/=5 abstracts/pubs and 8 volunteer experiences all belonged to the person with the low board scores, and they were all related to neurosurgery, isn’t it possible that a single place decided to give him a chance based on a. his/her potentially excellent research connections and b. obvious dedication to the specialty and serious amounts of butt kicking to make up for the abysmal board scores?

Of course, all of those experiences could also belong to the higher scoring candidate leading to all those other points being moot, but we just don’t know.

 

[Dr. Doctor MD]

Just to clarify, I actually doubt this was significant. If someone went on all their auditions like they should have they would inevitably get one or two interviews from places that interview all rotators regardless of app (not uncommon in the DO world in any specialty). So I don't really think there is this significant number of applicants out there who didn't get a single interview from their auditions.

Fair enough point, and I don't think these people make up a huge percentage by any means, but it is also not a non-zero number and would likely drop the match rate at least a few percentage points for MDs, but I highly doubt more than 5-10%. For DO's with such a small number, this actually could plummet the rate significantly. 9 people had 1 or 2 interviews, I wouldn't be surprised if at least 10-20+ people applied without aways and got 0 interviews with no home program, but that's just speculation.

I have actually met some of these people across several fields and it's super sad. Happens a ton in Vascular/CT Surg/IR but have also seen it in derm/plastics/etc. Some don't have a home program and don't do aways, and just shotgun an application for competitive fields, +/- a back-up specialty. Then there are others (very rare) whose home program doesn't even interview them

Never underestimate how many people get terrible application advice from their schools and don't do their own research.

 

[Kr#36]

I wonder, honestly. Maybe I’m just being overly optimistic, but if the 4 research experiences w/ >/=5 abstracts/pubs and 8 volunteer experiences all belonged to the person with the low board scores, and they were all related to neurosurgery, isn’t it possible that a single place decided to give him a chance based on a. his/her potentially excellent research connections and b. obvious dedication to the specialty and serious amounts of butt kicking to make up for the abysmal board scores?

Of course, all of those experiences could also belong to the higher scoring candidate leading to all those other points being moot, but we just don’t know.

Not really. I would bet almost every candidate matching to neuro has a serious amount of research to go along with good test scores and all the other fluff like volunteering.

 

[FutureDoctor5000]

Fair enough point, and I don't think these people make up a huge percentage by any means, but it is also not a non-zero number and would likely drop the match rate at least a few percentage points for MDs, but I highly doubt more than 5-10%. For DO's with such a small number, this actually could plummet the rate significantly. 9 people had 1 or 2 interviews, I wouldn't be surprised if at least 10-20+ people applied without aways and got 0 interviews with no home program, but that's just speculation.

I have actually met some of these people across several fields and it's super sad. Happens a ton in Vascular/CT Surg/IR but have also seen it in derm/plastics/etc. Some don't have a home program and don't do aways, and just shotgun an application for competitive fields, +/- a back-up specialty. Then there are others (very rare) whose home program doesn't even interview them

Never underestimate how many people get terrible application advice from their schools and don't do their own research.

But then why would the nrmp data not count them as applicants who wanted that specialty and applied Or are you saying that they are only counting applicants who received interviews and ranked a program, in which case the entire charting outcomes is pointless as we don’t know how many people applied and received 0 interviews across all specialties. My bet is that if you look at page 3 of the outcomes you see the total number and then for each individual specialties you see the number matched and unmatched, in almost all specialties these numbers are different and that difference for the unmatched number is most likely the number of people who applied but didn’t get an interview and didn’t rank any programs.

 

[Dr. Doctor MD]

But then why would the nrmp data not count them as applicants who wanted that specialty and applied Or are you saying that they are only counting applicants who received interviews and ranked a program, in which case the entire charting outcomes is pointless as we don’t know how many people applied and received 0 interviews across all specialties. My bet is that if you look at page 3 of the outcomes you see the total number and then for each individual specialties you see the number matched and unmatched, in almost all specialties these numbers are different and that difference for the unmatched number is most likely the number of people who applied but didn’t get an interview and didn’t rank any programs.

The bolded is correct. I wouldn't say it makes charting outcomes pointless, but it certainly makes the data a bit murkier, especially in smaller fields. It certainly makes charting outcomes for IMGs pretty unreliable since a large chunk of those applicants never get single interview or rank.

 

[WhereMyLiberalsAt]

View attachment 314681

View attachment 314678

MDs have gotten into multiple former AOA derm programs
Athens OH program: Meet Our Residents
Richmond Heights OH program: University Hospitals Dermatology Residents | Dermatology Residents in Cleveland, OH | University Hospitals
Maitland FL program: Current Residents - KCU-GME Consortium/ADCS Orlando Program
Orange Park FL program: Current residents

 

[You shall know the Truth]

View attachment 314681

View attachment 314678

MDs have gotten into multiple former AOA derm programs
Athens OH program: Meet Our Residents
Richmond Heights OH program: University Hospitals Dermatology Residents | Dermatology Residents in Cleveland, OH | University Hospitals
Maitland FL program: Current Residents - KCU-GME Consortium/ADCS Orlando Program
Orange Park FL program: Current residents

This was the reason for the merger. Competitive specialties. we were sold out for these spots, moving forward only the super star DOs will get them. I’m seeing this in ortho, ent, derm, optho, etc.

 

[FutureDoctor5000]

This was the reason for the merger. Competitive specialties. we were sold out for these spots, moving forward only the super star DOs will get them. I’m seeing this in ortho, ent, derm, optho, etc.

The other good thing however is that we are seeing more DO’s also getting into traditional MD spots in those specialties as well. Like derm at penn state and U Vermont , ortho at montfiore, Texas tech, U Colorado, unlv etc, that was definitely not happening before the merger as well....

 

[asdf123g]

I like the Psych stats... It looks like nearly everybody with decent boards got in, statistically of course. But tbh it looks like things improved for DOs everywhere.. Weird with the merger and competition increasing each year.

It depends on the specialty. Since you mentioned psychiatry, the number of IMG's applying has dropped by ~1,200 while the number of USMG applying increased by ~600 the past 5 years. So a lot of the difference is just on that and the door closing on IMGs I think. So as a DO, you're likely going to continue to be relegated to new/low-tier programs as more USMDs get a disproportionate number of interviews and such. The % USMD matching psych has been inching up while the %DO matching has been inching down.