Overall Match %

[SweetBurger]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So the 2021 charting outcomes say that USMD's had a 93% match. Is that a pre or post SOAP number. I've looked around a lot can't seem to get an accurate answer on this.

 

[husky_doc16]

I'm pretty sure it's post soap

 

[whataschool_classof24]

I'm pretty sure it's post soap

If it was post soap there would be massive outrage, its presoap

 

[Splenda88]

It's most likely pre-soap... Placement rate (post-soap) is usually 97%+

 

[jambro]

Don't most schools count post-soap in their match stats?

 

[mrbreakfast]

Is that a pre or post SOAP number.

The 2021 NRMP report states that number is pre-soap. Post-soap data is harder to find but for USMDs likely exceeds 98%.

Don't most schools count post-soap in their match stats?

Yes, for statistics purposes, "soaped into program X" = matched there. For example, if a program matched 35 students to IM and had 5 soap into IM, they'd report that as 40 matches into IM.

 

[Joseph Beverly Hills]

SOAP this year was an absolute disaster. Something like 9,700 applicants applying for 1,700 positions. This whole virtual interview process really screwed up a lot. ERAS really needs to cap the number of programs applicants can apply to during the regular match process (just like they cap the number of programs you can apply during SOAP to like 45-50 programs). Ridiculous that very strong students crowded up interview spots in low-tier programs just because everything was virtual while mid/lower tier students were crowded out very early in the process. But it's the hunger games and the stakes are high; I get it but it's not fair to programs, not fair to applicants. But it is what it is. It will only get harder in the coming years.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

SOAP this year was an absolute disaster. Something like 9,700 applicants applying for 1,700 positions. This whole virtual interview process really screwed up a lot. ERAS really needs to cap the number of programs applicants can apply to during the regular match process (just like they cap the number of programs you can apply during SOAP to like 45-50 programs). Ridiculous that very strong students crowded up interview spots in low-tier programs just because everything was virtual while mid/lower tier students were crowded out very early in the process. But it's the hunger games and the stakes are high; I get it but it's not fair to programs, not fair to applicants. But it is what it is. It will only get harder in the coming years.

Why will it only get harder, when next year we revert back to in-person interviews (I assume) thereby limiting the number of programs people apply to ?

 

[Joseph Beverly Hills]

Why will it only get harder, when next year we revert back to in-person interviews (I assume) thereby limiting the number of programs people apply to ?

HIGHLY doubt it will be back to 100% in-person interviews for c/o 2022; it will likely be all virtual again or a split between in-person and virtual. Even after 2022, I can see "virtual interviews" being a lasting option for applicants moving forward for residency programs (fellowships are different story). Once you give this option for a year or so, it will likely be hard to "close the flood gates" moving forward, if that makes sense.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

HIGHLY doubt it will be back to 100% in-person interviews for c/o 2022; it will likely be all virtual again or a split between in-person and virtual. Even after 2022, I can see "virtual interviews" being a lasting option for applicants moving forward for residency programs (fellowships are different story). Once you give this option for a year or so, it will likely be hard to "close the flood gates" moving forward, if that makes sense.

Thanks. Don't programs prefer to meet future residents in-person ? I see the potential cost advantage of virtual for applicants, but as a program director I think I would want to see the "whites of their eyes" and see how applicants conduct themselves. Yeah, there is some cost on the program side too, but still I'd think they'd prefer in-person. There is some nuance lost in a video interview. Just 2 cents...

 

[mrbreakfast]

SOAP this year was an absolute disaster. Something like 9,700 applicants applying for 1,700 positions. This whole virtual interview process really screwed up a lot. ERAS really needs to cap the number of programs applicants can apply to during the regular match process (just like they cap the number of programs you can apply during SOAP to like 45-50 programs). Ridiculous that very strong students crowded up interview spots in low-tier programs just because everything was virtual while mid/lower tier students were crowded out very early in the process. But it's the hunger games and the stakes are high; I get it but it's not fair to programs, not fair to applicants. But it is what it is. It will only get harder in the coming years.

People keep saying this, but this year's pre-SOAP fill rate for programs was higher than 2020, and the positions offered in SOAP was lower. There is absolutely no evidence for "interview hogging" or anything like that. Programs were also able to interview more applicants - some by a lot - so from a program perspective this match was a smashing success.

There are always a lot of SOAP applicants. Keep in mind the SOAP is dominated - like, 75%+ of applicants - by re-applicants and FMGs.

The main difference is that programs that have a "good location" weren't able to show it off as well, so I would anticipate in-person second looks becoming more common. But we had a number of applicants who came in for "informal" second looks (e.g. didn't come on campus but just toured around the city on their own, asked us for places to check out, etc). I think students will still visit cities of their top few choices in person.

 

[efle]

People keep saying this, but this year's pre-SOAP fill rate for programs was higher than 2020, and the positions offered in SOAP was lower. There is absolutely no evidence for "interview hogging" or anything like that. Programs were also able to interview more applicants - some by a lot - so from a program perspective this match was a smashing success.

There are always a lot of SOAP applicants. Keep in mind the SOAP is dominated - like, 75%+ of applicants - by re-applicants and FMGs.

The main difference is that programs that have a "good location" weren't able to show it off as well, so I would anticipate in-person second looks becoming more common. But we had a number of applicants who came in for "informal" second looks (e.g. didn't come on campus but just toured around the city on their own, asked us for places to check out, etc). I think students will still visit cities of their top few choices in person.

In theory there could be a ton of evidence, just not that we're privy to. Overall match rate (both pre and post SOAP) were always going to look good, because it only considers if someone matches and not where. If a minority of applicants are over-interviewed and others under-interviewed, you'd see subtler differences like:

Shorter ranklist length for the median and below-median applicants (i.e., average people had less options this year).
Increased rate of average dual applicants falling off into their 2nd choice (less interviews received in their preferred specialty)
People matching high on their ranklist, but at programs they like less (i.e., average people got interviewed more at "match" and "safety" programs and less at their "reach" programs)

It's that kind of stuff - inefficiencies rather than failures to match - that would be the most common consequence of interview maldistribution

Match was a disaster at my school this year compared to usual. Hard to call it coincidence. If I was an MS3 preparing for ERAS right now, and the cycle stays virtual, I'd apply to like 100 programs if my specialty was competitive or I had any reason at all to worry.

 

[husky_doc16]

If it was post soap there would be massive outrage, its presoap

my bad y'all