Percent unmatched by specialty

[bcsmith]

Well, I
1. threw the numbers into excel
2. added PGY1+2 spots
3. eliminated specialties predominantly matched outside this match
4. sorted by % unmatched

1% Radiology-Diagnostic
1% Dermatology
1% OrthopaedicSurgery
1% PlasticSurgery
2% RadiationOncology
2% EmergencMedicine
4% Pediatrics
4% Psychiatry
5% PhysicalMedicineandRehabilitation
5% InternalMedicine
7% ObstetricsandGynecology
7% Anesthesiology
7% TransitionalYear
8% Pathology-AnatomicandClinical
18% Surgery-General
21% FamilyPractice


Note: all the surgery/internal medicine prelim and catigorical spots are lumped together. also, competitive specialties like ENT, Optho, and Urology have been deleted.

While very unscientific, interesting nonetheless.
B

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[droliver]

You should have segregated the prelim from the categorical surgery positions. They really are not the same thing & mislead your #'s. The positions filled rate is >99% this year for surgery

 

[southerndoc]

Originally posted by droliver
You should have segregated the prelim from the categorical surgery positions. They really are not the same thing & mislead your #'s. The positions filled rate is >99% this year for surgery

Yea, surgery definitely got a lot of prelims that didn't fill that skews the data the NRMP provides. Only 2 categorical positions went unfilled? That's amazing! This makes surgery's categorical fill rate higher than radiology or dermatology.

On another note, all the people who matched in categorical surgery better hope the prelim positions fill or they'll be bearing the weightload. A lot of hospitals use the prelims as extra help... a lot of hospitals are going to be hurting if they don't match their prelims.

 

[droliver]

The fill rate (while good this year for surgery) can still be misleading if you take it as a straight proxy for competativeness. A lot of the slack that's been taken out of the non-match positions for surgery came when programs started to consider more FMG/IMG applicants rather then just a renewed interest among US grads. That's really what accounted for the last 2 yr trend of fewer spots open when you break down the data. There did seem to be a concensus that more US students have been attracted this year & you have to connect that with the work hour rules going into effect I think

 

[The White Coat Investor]

Originally posted by bcsmith
Well, I
1. threw the numbers into excel
2. added PGY1+2 spots
3. eliminated specialties predominantly matched outside this match
4. sorted by % unmatched

While very unscientific, interesting nonetheless.
B

The truly interesting numbers for next years applicants are the numbers of people who wanted to go into a specialty, and couldn't. I know a couple of years ago EM had a percentage of 93%, 93% of those who wanted to go into it, matched into it. I remember optho and ortho were in the 80% and Derm was in the 40%. I can't remember where I finally found the numbers though. If someone has them, please share.

 

[Oallostavros]

What are some things that people dislike about specializing in Anesthesiology?

 

[radiojimi]

... as in % of spots that went unfilled in the Match?

The term "% unmatched by specialty" seems to imply % of CANDIDATES who went unmatched, in which case your data could be interpreted as claiming that 1% of rad/derm/ortho/plastics applicants didn't match while 21% of Family Practice applicants didn't match.

Perhaps this is not what you mean?

 

[realruby2000]

more importantly, what does this say about getting into EM. How is it different from last year and years before and does it tell you anything about the future?

 

[beyond all hope]

Don?t let any silly statistics guide your decisions about a specialty. If you really want it, go for it, and I guarantee if you are persistant enough you will eventually get it. Even substandard students can get Derm, ENT, Rads, EM, Optho if they really go for it. Some may not match initially, and have to take a year of research and then reapply.

All these numbers flying around really mean nothing to one person?s residency search. All that matters is how focused you are on your own match.

 

[Willamette]

The truly interesting numbers for next years applicants are the numbers of people who wanted to go into a specialty, and couldn't. I know a couple of years ago EM had a percentage of 93%, 93% of those who wanted to go into it, matched into it. I remember optho and ortho were in the 80% and Derm was in the 40%. I can't remember where I finally found the numbers though. If someone has them, please share.

Here's a good site that will tell you the percentage of US seniors who matched into their desired specialties...


http://medicine.wustl.edu/~residenc/outside/spec/byspec.html

Willamette

 

[GiJoe]

Here's a good site that will tell you the percentage of US seniors who matched into their desired specialties...


http://medicine.wustl.edu/~residenc/outside/spec/byspec.html

Willamette

cometitiveness of EM is "low" according to that website. However, thats now what i've heard from many on this website and at school

 

[Willamette]

cometitiveness of EM is "low" according to that website. However, thats now what i've heard from many on this website and at school

Degree of difficulty in this case is relative. If you look at how they label "competitiveness," one finds that in 2002 EM was "intermediately competitive" at 93%, but "low" in 2003 at 96%. Their criteria distinguishes >95% match as "Low," but >92-93% (but <95%) as "intermediate." This info is from Washington University, and I suspect that it is fairly accurate...

Willamette

 

[beriberi]

Though trends are important, things change very much year to year.

In the 2003 match there were ~49 spots open.

In 2004, at least 50 spots were added (5 new programs x 6 students each, a number of programs were approved to expand by one or two students per year.) One might expect that 100 spots would be open. Instead, there were around 26 (counting the PGY2s).

My point here, even with good data from last year, a small percent change in the number of applicants led to a big tightening in the number of spots.