Ophtho Match Stats

[hamid32]

Hey guys,

Do you know of the match statistics for the opthho match. Meaning what is the match rate for US seniors into ophtho? Or any other stats like avg step 1, etc...

There is a chart on the sfmatch website, but it doesn't breakdown match rates for US seniors, IMGs, etc.

Thanks so much.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dos palomas]

Deleted.

 

[Corn Dog]

Very nice. It looks like the general trend is increasing mean on step 1 and total # of applications per applicant (ave of 53 applications per applicant! wow).

 

[eyesonme]

I would caution future applicants about the statistics page provided on the SFMatch.org website. http://sfmatch.org/residency/ophthalmology/about_match/match_report.pdf

When you look at the percentage matching columns where it differentiates "US Seniors" vs. "US Grads" vs. "IMGs" and it says 91/3/6, it may not mean what you think it means.

I met a lot of people on the trail who thought that these numbers meant that 91% of US Seniors who applied matched. These numbers actually represent the percentage of matched applicants who were US Seniors/US Grads/IMGs. In other words, 91 percent *of people who matched* were US Seniors, 3 percent were US Grads, and 6 percent were IMGs.

This is a HUGE difference for whichever pool you belong to. You probably have a lot better than a 6% chance of matching if you are an IMG and a lot worse than 91% chance of matching for US Seniors.

Though SF Match did provide the exact percentage of each category matching (the numbers were in the high 70s for US Grads) a few years ago, for some reason they have done away with this.

Another misleading statistic is that for some reason the SF Match uses *percent of applicants who submitted a ranklist* as the basis for the percentage of those matched.

If you will look at the numbers of applicants, there are a lot more people who were "CAS participants" (they had to submit an application and pay the registration fee) than submitted rank lists. While I'm sure some of those people changed their minds and decided to withdraw, I can't help but think that a large percentage (maybe the vast majority) of the difference between # CAS Participant and # Rank List Submitters is due to people not having gotten a single interview so that they can submit a ranklist at all.

Still higher are the # of people who registered and were not "CAS Participants"

Even though the match rate is low--73%--this number is still higher than how the NRMP would represent it, as the NRMP sets the percentage as the # matched over # of people who applied. If the NRMP used SFMatch's methodology to do their statistics, where "total" is "# of people who ranked this specialty (i.e. # of people who got at least 1 interview)," the match rate for Derm, RadOnc, Ortho, ENT would go even lower than they are currently.

To sum it up, ophthalmology is a very rewarding field, but it is still extremely competitive, even more so than what cursory examinations of the statistics on SFMatch would suggest.

Congrats to everybody who matched. Only 62.6% of people who applied matched. (456 matched /728 CAS Participants).

 

[speyeder]

I would caution future applicants about the statistics page provided on the SFMatch.org website. http://sfmatch.org/residency/ophthalmology/about_match/match_report.pdf

When you look at the percentage matching columns where it differentiates "US Seniors" vs. "US Grads" vs. "IMGs" and it says 91/3/6, it may not mean what you think it means.

I met a lot of people on the trail who thought that these numbers meant that 91% of US Seniors who applied matched. These numbers actually represent the percentage of matched applicants who were US Seniors/US Grads/IMGs. In other words, 91 percent *of people who matched* were US Seniors, 3 percent were US Grads, and 6 percent were IMGs.

This is a HUGE difference for whichever pool you belong to. You probably have a lot better than a 6% chance of matching if you are an IMG and a lot worse than 91% chance of matching for US Seniors.

Though SF Match did provide the exact percentage of each category matching (the numbers were in the high 70s for US Grads) a few years ago, for some reason they have done away with this.

Another misleading statistic is that for some reason the SF Match uses *percent of applicants who submitted a ranklist* as the basis for the percentage of those matched.

If you will look at the numbers of applicants, there are a lot more people who were "CAS participants" (they had to submit an application and pay the registration fee) than submitted rank lists. While I'm sure some of those people changed their minds and decided to withdraw, I can't help but think that a large percentage (maybe the vast majority) of the difference between # CAS Participant and # Rank List Submitters is due to people not having gotten a single interview so that they can submit a ranklist at all.

Still higher are the # of people who registered and were not "CAS Participants"

Even though the match rate is low--73%--this number is still higher than how the NRMP would represent it, as the NRMP sets the percentage as the # matched over # of people who applied. If the NRMP used SFMatch's methodology to do their statistics, where "total" is "# of people who ranked this specialty (i.e. # of people who got at least 1 interview)," the match rate for Derm, RadOnc, Ortho, ENT would go even lower than they are currently.

To sum it up, ophthalmology is a very rewarding field, but it is still extremely competitive, even more so than what cursory examinations of the statistics on SFMatch would suggest.

Congrats to everybody who matched. Only 62.6% of people who applied matched. (456 matched /728 CAS Participants).

Agree with all of the above. The SF Match used to calculate the match rate for U.S. seniors but stopped doing so a few years ago. The stats they put out now are extremely confusing. My best guesstimate based on previous years is that the match rate for IMGs is about 20% and in the 80's % for 1st time U.S. allopathic applicants.

 

[EyeMD116]

I would caution future applicants about the statistics page provided on the SFMatch.org website. http://sfmatch.org/residency/ophthalmology/about_match/match_report.pdf

When you look at the percentage matching columns where it differentiates "US Seniors" vs. "US Grads" vs. "IMGs" and it says 91/3/6, it may not mean what you think it means.

I met a lot of people on the trail who thought that these numbers meant that 91% of US Seniors who applied matched. These numbers actually represent the percentage of matched applicants who were US Seniors/US Grads/IMGs. In other words, 91 percent *of people who matched* were US Seniors, 3 percent were US Grads, and 6 percent were IMGs.

This is a HUGE difference for whichever pool you belong to. You probably have a lot better than a 6% chance of matching if you are an IMG and a lot worse than 91% chance of matching for US Seniors.

Though SF Match did provide the exact percentage of each category matching (the numbers were in the high 70s for US Grads) a few years ago, for some reason they have done away with this.

Another misleading statistic is that for some reason the SF Match uses *percent of applicants who submitted a ranklist* as the basis for the percentage of those matched.

If you will look at the numbers of applicants, there are a lot more people who were "CAS participants" (they had to submit an application and pay the registration fee) than submitted rank lists. While I'm sure some of those people changed their minds and decided to withdraw, I can't help but think that a large percentage (maybe the vast majority) of the difference between # CAS Participant and # Rank List Submitters is due to people not having gotten a single interview so that they can submit a ranklist at all.

Still higher are the # of people who registered and were not "CAS Participants"

Even though the match rate is low--73%--this number is still higher than how the NRMP would represent it, as the NRMP sets the percentage as the # matched over # of people who applied. If the NRMP used SFMatch's methodology to do their statistics, where "total" is "# of people who ranked this specialty (i.e. # of people who got at least 1 interview)," the match rate for Derm, RadOnc, Ortho, ENT would go even lower than they are currently.

To sum it up, ophthalmology is a very rewarding field, but it is still extremely competitive, even more so than what cursory examinations of the statistics on SFMatch would suggest.

Congrats to everybody who matched. Only 62.6% of people who applied matched. (456 matched /728 CAS Participants).

Definitely agree with eyesonme. The statistics can be confusing. What I am interested to know is, out of those 728 CAS participants, how many are US Seniors vs. IMG's? And how many are allopathic, 1st vs 2nd time applicants, etc? We know that 415 US Seniors matched, but out of how many total? That would be pretty useful if SF Match included that number. 630 rank lists were submitted, meaning 98 applicants did not receive a single interview. My guess is that ~500-530 out of 630 of those applicants who got interviews were US Seniors, making the match rate around 80% for US Seniors who received interviews. That means, for every 5 US senior applicants anxiously waiting to hear their match results in mid-Jan, one person did not match. Of course this is pure speculation and no data to back me up.

 

[usamsIII]

Thanks for the replies...This is an issue that has confused many applicants, and I for one can tell you that I have heard tons of different opinions of what the stats really mean. I wish they would be more clear...

I was curious to know...people who apply to two specialties...lets say ophtho and rads...and then decide to pull out of the match because they decide they don't want to do ophtho...those people are also included too...
I have heard of a couple of people in that dilemma who ended up not submitting an ophtho rank list...people who had really good stats and would have probably matched...

i guess some food for thought...

 

[MAVSMANIAC]

what does the Avg # of offers per applicant stat mean? Does this mean that 4.3 interviews were given per applicant? Or, 4.3 offers; as in "would of matched there had you ranked them high enough"?

 

[dos palomas]

Deleted.

 

[MAVSMANIAC]

lol yeah, been wondering that as well

prob doesnt mean interviews bc i doubt theres some official system that tallies up interview offers, seems like that part is informal

so who knows?

Well, I think there was a survey after match day that asked how many interviews we got....or it could be based on how many places we put on our rank list, then took the average

 

[OphthoGal]

what does the Avg # of offers per applicant stat mean? Does this mean that 4.3 interviews were given per applicant? Or, 4.3 offers; as in "would of matched there had you ranked them high enough"?

This is from a different board but this is what I think that statistic means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacularStar
I believe they mean average interview offers. The average number of interview offers each applicant receives is ~4. As far as I know the matching algorithm is the same as NRMP... there is a description of how it works on the SF match website. Never heard of the "stable marriage" method. Maybe I missed the boat... as far as I know there is no "proposing" involved in the residency match . Each program ranks their interviewees 1, 2, 3, etc. and each applicant ranks the programs where they interviewed and liked. Then a computer program "matches" both parties based on their rank lists. Most programs do not tell their applicants where they are on their rank list and vice versa. Some applicants have an attending/mentor call their top program(s) to convey strong interest, but the jury is out as far as how much this actually matters.

The "Avg. # of offers per applicant" is definitely not the average number of interviews per applicant. I did not apply for match, my wife did (I am posting under her name), and we too were confused about what this mysterious number meant, but after reading the commentary on the different types of algorithms used, it makes a lot of sense now (if my understanding described below is correct). The "Avg. # of offers per applicant" is a number generated by the ranking algorithms. It is not that straightforward to understand, but here is my best shot:

In the Gale/Shepley Algorithm allowing for multiple "marriages" (hospital/residency problem) the scenario is something like this (you may want to read the wikipedia article to better understand this):

1) Each program offers a spot to their top ranked applicant. The program and this applicant are now "engaged".

2) Each program then offers the second ranked student on their list a spot. If that student is not "engaged", the student and this program become "engaged". If the student is already "engaged" one of two things can happen: i) if the new program is ranked higher on the students list than the program he is currently "engaged" to, the student breaks the engagement with the old school and becomes "engaged" to the new school, ii) if the new program is ranked lower on the students list than the school he is currently "engaged" to, the student rejects the proposal. Regardless of whether the student accepts or rejects the offer, it is counted as an offer in the "Avg. # of offers per applicant" statistic.

3) Step (2) is repeated until each program has filled their max number of residency positions. Obviously programs cannot offer a spot to someone if they have already filled their maximum quota. However, if a program loses an engagement because an applicant breaks off an engagement because they get a better offer, than that program must offer a spot to the next highest ranked applicant on their list. This process continues until there are no spots available or the programs that do not have full quotos run out of ranked students. The total number of offers given out to students are averaged and this is the number reported.

I think that the number they are reporting is in fact what I have described above, so I hope the analysis I have provided is clear. The reason I know that this number is definitely not the number of interviews per applicant is rather straightforward. There are ~450 ophtho spots each year, and most programs interview 8-12 applicants per spot (some do more), or, for simplicity, about 10 interviews per spot. That means that a safe estimate for the number of interviews conducted each year is about 4500 interviews. Meanwhile, if we multiply the number of CAS participants (usually about 750-800) and multiply it by the reported "Avg. # of offers per applicant" (about 4-4.4), we only get about 3000-3500 interviews accounted for. Since it is obvious that the number of offers that can be given out is less than the number of interviews, these numbers are consistent with the argument that the value reported for "Avg.# of offers per applicant" is not the number of interviews but, in fact, something along the lines of what I have describe above.

 

[dos palomas]

Deleted.

 

[OphthoGal]

I think the algorithm they use is sound. It ensure the best "marriage" between both program and applicant across the board. Every student gets into the highest ranked program they possibly could and each department takes the top students they possibly can. The real question is why are they reporting this statistic, or at the least explaining what it is or what the number means. Obviously if you dont match you got 0 offers, and if you did match the max number of offers you could have possibly gotten is equal to (the # of schools you interviewed at and ranked) - (the # you matched at), but what does the 4.4 mean? Does it really give us any useful information at all?