Discussion in 'Radiation Oncology' started by stephew, Dec 4, 2003.
Wish I could read it but no password.
here's the abstract and link to pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14575834&dopt=Abstract
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Nov 15;57(4):1033-7. Related Articles, Links
Evaluation of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) radiation oncology data (1993-2003).
Wilson LD, Haffty BG.
Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. Lynn.Wilson@yale.edu
PURPOSE: Radiation oncology continues to evolve as a specialty. In the early 1990s, issues of manpower oversupply, resource allocation, development of academic radiation oncology, and residency training curricula were fervently considered and evaluated. Much of this effort continues. This communication endeavors to examine the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) results as they pertain to radiation oncology to identify and document applicant trends over the last decade. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The NRMP database tables for inclusive dates 1993-2003 were evaluated. The database figures were supplied directly from the executive staff at the AAMC/NRMP. Data were reviewed for radiation oncology, and the following variables were evaluated for the study period (1993-2003): Training program participation, positions offered, applicant totals, proportion of US senior applicants, US seniors as a percentage of those who successfully matched, ratio of applicants to positions, and percentage of training program positions filled. Trends over the study period were analyzed. Data were also analyzed for all specialties collectively as a comparison group. RESULTS: The number of training programs has remained relatively stable between 1993 and 2003. In 2003, each radiation oncology program in the NRMP on average accepted two new candidates. The number of positions offered has fluctuated over time. There appeared to be a downward trend until 2003, during which 107 positions were offered. The number of applicants continues to rise with totals of 209 and 214 in 2003 and 2001, respectively. Percentage of US senior applicants compared with the total pool has remained relatively stable, but raw numbers are rising. The number of US seniors as a percentage of those who successfully matched escalated during 2001 compared with previous years. This value has been consistent over the past 3 years, at a level of approximately 94%. The ratio of applicants to positions, which is a broad indicator of level of competition for entrance, began to rise significantly in 2000 to a level of 1.9. It peaked at 2.6 in 2001, and the ratio for 2003 was approximately 2.0. For the first time, all positions offered were filled (100%) through the NRMP match process in 2003. Such positive trends have not been realized to the same degree for all specialties analyzed as a cohort. CONCLUSION: Acceptance into radiation oncology training programs through the NRMP has become very competitive. The explanation for this trend is likely complex with many variables. These data may be helpful in training program development and will certainly be of service to advisors of medical students seeking entrance into the field in the near future.
Didn't applications quadruple this year? I remember a post that said there were 3-400 applications for some positions. That drops the match ratio to 4 instead of 2 that is quoted in the article. Talking to other third years, this ratio will increase more next year for the 2005 match.
remember this isnt the 2003 year, its the 2004 year (for 2005). Also, i dont think the apps total is as high as 300-400 but in the 200-250 range. Just anecdotal.
I heard on the interview trail that the total number of spots is up to around 130 so if you're just looking at pure spot to applicant ratio, it looks about the same as last year.
I heard the 400 applicant story too, but in all my rejection letters (and boy there are lots ), no program lists anywhere close to that many applicants. I'm starting to get sympathy from Derm people though
unfortunately no, there aren't that many spots;
Separate names with a comma.