Our Own Charting The Outcomes - 2012

[FSU2013]

So…..because the previously posted statistics have made me a bit neurotic, I decided to do a little analysis to make myself feel better. Yes, I know I'm OCD…….I don't care, it made me feel a little better. Plus, the basketball game I'm interested in doesn't come on for another hour or so. Either way, enjoy:

Based on the ‘Who's Who in 2012' (as of about 8:00 PM on 3/18)-
26 people had PhDs
6 had another grad degree
44 went to top 40 NIH-funded schools (based on 2010 numbers)

This means:
26/87 or 29.9% of people had PhDs
6/87 or 6.9% of people had another graduate degree
44/87 or 50.5% of people went to a top 40 school.

In Charting The Outcomes 2011
34/154 or 22.1% of matched applicants had PhDs
12/154 or 7.8% of matched applicants had other graduate degrees
70/154 or 45.5% of matched applicants went to top 40 schools

Of the people who responded to the ‘Match Stats'
3 had greater than 260 step 1
7 had 250-260
3 had 240-250

Last year:
16 had greater than 260
30 matched with 250-260
41 matched with 240-250

Seeing as these numbers are based on the not-so-negligible selection bias of SDN where an AOA, MD/PhD Harvard grad with a 265 and 100 1st author pubs in the NEJM is the norm, it's safe to say they may be slightly skewed.

My suspicion is that the small bump in PhD's (22 to 30%) and top 40 schools (45.5 to 50%) represents a slight increase in competitiveness in addition to a sizeable sampling bias.

Concerning Step 1 scores……with only 13 people reporting, it's impossible to say if there is any upward trend. There are certainly NOT enough high scores reported to say any rise is statistically significant.

Please note: I only used those matched in the charting the outcomes for comparison because those are the only stats available for the current match class.

Also, the more people that respond, the more accurate these statistics will become – so MS4's, please fill out some info to help those trying to get into the field! And don't forget your interview impressions! Congrats on matching.

Cheers!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FSU2013]

Updated info as of 9:00 PM 3/20/12

Who's who response:
34/110 or 31% had PhD's
7/110 or 6% had another graduate degree
62/110 or 57% went to top 40 schools.
In Charting The Outcomes 2011
34/154 or 22.1% of matched applicants had PhDs
12/154 or 7.8% of matched applicants had other graduate degrees
70/154 or 45.5% of matched applicants went to top 40 schools

Match Stats responses:
5 matched with >260
8 matched with 250-260
7 matched with <240
Last year:
16 had greater than 260
30 matched with 250-260
41 matched with 240-250

Average person applied to 54 programs and got 17 invitations average response: 31%
Step 1 scores <250 (n=7) 57 apps 12 interviews 22%
250-260 (n=8) 56 apps 20 interviews 36%
>260 (n=5) 48 apps 18 interviews 37%

AOA:
11 of 20 responders were AOA (assuming the 275 guy/girl was AOA &#8211; figure they had to be).

What we can learn from this:
The number of MD/PhDs and graduates of top medical schools has increased in a statistically significant manner.
It's impossible to comment on the step 1 scores&#8230;.the numbers listed are ridiculously high&#8230;..really really ridiculously high, but there are very few&#8230;&#8230;certainly not enough to say with certainty that they are increasing. Even still, it's intimidating.
Given the fact that almost everyone with 8 or more interviews matches, and everyone with >10 interviews matches (historically), people are applying to too many residencies (most likely secondary to terror from reading match stats listed on SDN).
Statistically with a score of 235-250, 45 apps should get you 10 interviews; 250-260 should get you 28 apps should get you 10; >260 ~ 27 apps should get you 10&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.so, if you have a score >255 or so, do the rest of us a favor and don't apply to tons of programs.

Side note to the guy who got a 275 &#8211; I gavomitted when I saw your score &#8211; yes, that's a gag and a vomit at the same time&#8230;..please for everyone's sanity, just lie and say you got a 260 from now on&#8230;.people will still be impressed.

 

[onb2014]

Interesting analysis -- but you may be comparing apples to oranges with the who's who data. The data which gets left unfilled in the who's who often are the lower-ranked programs which inevitably took lower pedigree with less research -- you may want to look into this if you're interested. Also, are you using USNews Top 40 for the who's who data, because Charting Outcomes uses NIH Top 40, which are not the same.

With the match data, keep in mind that usually only the high achievers post their stats, even if its anonymous. You see this going all the way back to MCAT score posts, to Step 1 score posts, to match data...

 

[johnbeck]

Given the fact that almost everyone with 8 or more interviews matches, and everyone with >10 interviews matches (historically), people are applying to too many residencies (most likely secondary to terror from reading match stats listed on SDN).

I know two people who ranked 8-9 programs and did not match. I also know one individual with 12 interviews who did not match (very personable individual, just had bad luck).

I would advocate for everybody to apply broadly (unless you are from a top 10 med school with a PhD and step one score of >250). I received ~20 invitations, but had to turn down ~4 due to scheduling difficulties (applied to 70 programs). I would also advocate that you attend ~14 interviews if possible. This places you safely in the pool of applicants that will likely match.

On the flip side, if you are an applicant who has 20 invitations, and you are able to make all of them, it would be wise and courteous to cut back on the number of programs you will visit and allow others to take your spot. You should cancel as early as possible in order to give the applicant who will take your spot ample time to make travel arrangements.

 

[medgator]

Given the fact that almost everyone with 8 or more interviews matches, and everyone with >10 interviews matches (historically), people are applying to too many residencies (most likely secondary to terror from reading match stats listed on SDN).

Not at all. Some people match with 5 interviews, some don't match with 12-14. Technically, you only need one interview, but ideally, people try to go on as many as possible to increase their chances of matching.

 

[Aphtalyfe]

Strong work!

 

[FSU2013]

Charting the outcomes lists only about 5 people who ranked more than 8 and didn't match over the past 3 sets of data. Certainly people like your friends who didn't match exist, but thankfully they represent the exception to the rule.

(this is based on the premise that the years of charting the outcomes not available are similar to the ones we have)

 

[Sheldor]

Last year of those that ranked 9 or more programs, 88/89 matched. If you go out to 8 or more you get 97 out of 100 matched.

I know that Radiation Oncology is competitive, but the data seems to show that if your application is good enough to get >9 interview offers that you can attend, you have a roughly 98.8% chance of matching.

 

[johnbeck]

Last year of those that ranked 9 or more programs, 88/89 matched. If you go out to 8 or more you get 97 out of 100 matched.

I know that Radiation Oncology is competitive, but the data seems to show that if your application is good enough to get >9 interview offers that you can attend, you have a roughly 98.8% chance of matching.

I agree that your changes are very good if you rank 9 or more programs, but it is also safe to say that this year was more competitive than last year. The match rate was a full 10% lower for US seniors (76% in 2012 vs 86% in 2011).

 

[Sheldor]

I agree that your changes are very good if you rank 9 or more programs, but it is also safe to say that this year was more competitive than last year. The match rate was a full 10% lower for US seniors (76% in 2012 vs 86% in 2011).

Without more info isn't it difficult to say of its truly more competitive? Perhaps more people who weren't competitive applied to both Rad Onc and a back up specialty, etc.

 

[Aphtalyfe]

Without more info isn't it difficult to say of its truly more competitive? Perhaps more people who weren't competitive applied to both Rad Onc and a back up specialty, etc.

Some of it might be attributed to other variables... but at least part of it would be from increased competitiveness don't you think?

 

[FSU2013]

Some of it might be attributed to other variables... but at least part of it would be from increased competitiveness don't you think?

If it's not in a double-blinded study with P < or = 0.05, I don't buy it

 

[johnbeck]

Without more info isn't it difficult to say of its truly more competitive? Perhaps more people who weren't competitive applied to both Rad Onc and a back up specialty, etc.

Wishful thinking?

 

[Sheldor]

Wishful thinking?

I guess it's conjecture either way, so why not favor the choice that's less likely to freak me out?