Ophthalmology match stats 2016
Started by macula87
You see the chart, right? .......
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Are you trying to be an a-hole? I asked that question based on the fact that it doesn't correlate with applicants' experiences this year. Last year's match was harder but it didn't sound as hard.
This is a very vague question.
There were more spots and less applicants. Percentages matched were higher.
Sounds like the opposite.
Exactly. OTOH, grads had a lower match rate than they did last year. My point being that it's difficult to say as a blanket statement that one year's match is "more difficult" than another's.
As we all expected, the average Step 1 score continues to creep upward. What's interesting is that it is not outpacing the general score creep among all medical students. This could actually be an indication of ophtho becoming less competitive - or, at least, not growing in competitiveness.
I'd honestly be wary of drawing ANY conclusions about competitiveness based on statistically-insignificant little wobbles in the data. I mean, radiology last year had 150 open spots. THAT is indicative of a sharp fall in competitiveness. This is not. Nor is the average matched Step 1 score going from 243 to 244 a sharp rise in competitiveness.
In fact, if you look at the overall pattern and not the individual data points, all we can safely conclude is that 1) overall % match is probably about the same over the past decade, while 2) board scores have continued to creep up, and has continued to ride about 15 points above the national average. To some degree that just follows the same trend you can see in many aspects of higher education -- college admissions, med school admissions, and other "competitive" specialty matches come to mind -- students are scoring higher and packing more extracurriculars into their CVs every year, but it's a slow en-masse drift. Thus, within a given cohort, relative competitiveness in terms of raw % success for any given thing actually isn't changing very much.
Pseudo-statistical babble aside, I really think the takeaway point should be that ophthalmology is, has been, and probably will remain a very competitive field where 25-30% of a very highly self-selected crowd goes unmatched. I just strongly caution against making mountains of molehills because I think the perception of false trends one way or the other can end up misleading people into applying when they realistically shouldn't, or not applying when they realistically should.
In fact, if you look at the overall pattern and not the individual data points, all we can safely conclude is that 1) overall % match is probably about the same over the past decade, while 2) board scores have continued to creep up, and has continued to ride about 15 points above the national average. To some degree that just follows the same trend you can see in many aspects of higher education -- college admissions, med school admissions, and other "competitive" specialty matches come to mind -- students are scoring higher and packing more extracurriculars into their CVs every year, but it's a slow en-masse drift. Thus, within a given cohort, relative competitiveness in terms of raw % success for any given thing actually isn't changing very much.
Pseudo-statistical babble aside, I really think the takeaway point should be that ophthalmology is, has been, and probably will remain a very competitive field where 25-30% of a very highly self-selected crowd goes unmatched. I just strongly caution against making mountains of molehills because I think the perception of false trends one way or the other can end up misleading people into applying when they realistically shouldn't, or not applying when they realistically should.
You can try to ask a program director... they have access to stats we don't have.
B
baoser
What does CAS stand for?
