Reapplicant Admit Rate

[KnightDoc]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Many of us know that around 60% of applicants are unsuccessful each cycle. Do any of the adcoms (@Goro, @gonnif, @LizzyM, @gyngyn, etc.) have any idea how many of these people are never ultimately admitted?

Assuming the bias against reapplicants is real, it's reasonable to assume that less than 40% of them would be successful in a subsequent cycle, and that a substantial number of them are never successful, regardless of how much they want it or how many times they apply. Are there any numbers anywhere to shed light on this? I cannot seem to find anything on reapplicant success rates, or what percentage of those apply are never successful. Thanks!!

 

[Goro]

It's going to be school specific.

All I can tell you is that late applicants have success in cycle 2 upon applying early.

And people who bolster their ECs have success upon fixing those deficits.

 

[KnightDoc]

It's going to be school specific.

All I can tell you is that late applicants have success in cycle 2 upon applying early.

And people who bolster their ECs have success upon fixing those deficits.

Understood. I was just wondering, especially as people who haven't even started yet are asking picky questions about where they should attend, and we all respond that they need to slow down, because 60% are unsuccessful and half of the remaining 40% only have one choice, how many of the 60% never become MDs, because those people most likely drop away and we never see them here. We see the triumphant survivors, and I was wondering what portion of the 60% they represent. Surely the data exists -- is it not made available to anyone, including schools themselves, by AAMC?

 

[LizzyM]

Let's make some assumptions.
1) 43% of applicants get in on the first try.
2) 43% of unsuccessful applicants get in on the second try
3) 43% of previously unsuccessful applicants get in on the third try
4) All applicants make 2nd and 3rd attempts if previously unsuccessful.

At the end of 3 attempts per applicant, we'd have 22% of the original pool with no admission. You can play with those assumptions. If some people do not make a 2nd or 3rd attempt, then the proportion who eventually get in will be lower. If the pool of repeat applicants are more likely to be successful than the pool of first time applicants, then the proportion of never successful will be lower.

You can play around with the numbers and assumptions yourself. I'm not sure if anyone has ever looked at the data. AAMC certainly has it.

 

[Hopeful101]

Let's make some assumptions.
1) 43% of applicants get in on the first try.
2) 43% of unsuccessful applicants get in on the second try
3) 43% of previously unsuccessful applicants get in on the third try
4) All applicants make 2nd and 3rd attempts if previously unsuccessful.

At the end of 3 attempts per applicant, we'd have 22% of the original pool with no admission. You can play with those assumptions. If some people do not make a 2nd or 3rd attempt, then the proportion who eventually get in will be lower. If the pool of repeat applicants are more likely to be successful than the pool of first time applicants, then the proportion of never successful will be lower.

You can play around with the numbers and assumptions yourself. I'm not sure if anyone has ever looked at the data. AAMC certainly has it.

That sounds like admission process is nearly random if you have the same chance of getting in each time....

 

[KnightDoc]

That sounds like admission process is nearly random if you have the same chance of getting in each time....

@Hopeful101 makes a great point. Also, the general opinion, at least among the adcoms here, is that being a reapplicant is a negative, not neutral or a positive, so their admit rate should be lower than 43%. It's certainly not zero, but is almost certainly less than 43%.

@LizzyM -- I totally see what you are saying, and 22% is probably a reasonable ballpark. If that is the case, then it's probably more accurate to say that around 75% of applicants are ultimately admitted rather than the often cited 43%, which only represents one applicant pool during one cycle.

 

[LizzyM]

That sounds like admission process is nearly random if you have the same chance of getting in each time....

No more random than the number of student athletes who are drafted in each round. With the draft, the pool of athletes is so large and the number chosen in each round is so small that the proportion of the entire pool that is drafted in each round is about the same (far less than 0.1%) but it is hardly random.

 

[KnightDoc]

No more random than the number of student athletes who are drafted in each round. With the draft, the pool of athletes is so large and the number chosen in each round is so small that the proportion of the entire pool that is drafted in each round is about the same (far less than 0.1%) but it is hardly random.

Actually, with all due respect, this is a horrible example, because the population in the draft is the same, other than those selected in each round. If each subsequent round was reseeded with athletes similar to the 0.1% selected in the prior round, virtually no people remaining from a prior round would ever be selected. There might be no big difference in quality between the 10th round and the 20th, but there really is a big difference between the first round and the third.

With med school admissions, the pool is reseeded each year. @Hopeful101 is correct. If 43% of the 60% who were ALL rejected in previous cycles are admitted, it does look random. Of course, that doesn't take into account the fact that deficiencies are often remediated in subsequent cycles. Also, I'm pretty sure the reapplicant rate is significantly below the 43%, and the first time applicant rate is consequently above it.

P.S. AAMC publishes so much detailed data -- why does this not seem to be available anywhere? Is the big secret that the process really is somewhat random???

 

[LizzyM]

It is not "random". The pool is assessed and the best 43% are chosen (or whatever the percentage is in a given year). Some of those who were not in the top 43% at the time of their first application may greatly improve and be solidly in the top 20% the next time thus easily making the top 43%. Others might be close to the cut off, reapply with the exact same application and, because of a stronger pool, end up well below the cut-off the following year due to a stronger overall pool.

 

[Goro]

P.S. AAMC publishes so much detailed data -- why does this not seem to be available anywhere? Is the big secret that the process really is somewhat random???

Because it's not all that relevant?

 

[KnightDoc]

Because it's not all that relevant?

Why is it less relevant than the 43%?

 

[KnightDoc]

It is not "random". The pool is assessed and the best 43% are chosen (or whatever the percentage is in a given year). Some of those who were not in the top 43% at the time of their first application may greatly improve and be solidly in the top 20% the next time thus easily making the top 43%. Others might be close to the cut off, reapply with the exact same application and, because of a stronger pool, end up well below the cut-off the following year due to a stronger overall pool.

Okay ... but if the same 43% that is accepted from the overall pool is accepted from the reapplicant pool, even with improvements, it really does look kind of random. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that's not the case, but it's still close enough that, maybe like your athletic draft example, other than with respect to the relative few at the top and bottom, this high stakes process that leaves a lot of people outside looking in every year does appear to be way more random than it should.

 

[Goro]

Why is it less relevant than the 43%?

It may be relevant to you, but not the schools?

 

[jhmmd]

This may just be heresay but I've heard that the admit rate is 1/2 what it normally is (so ~1/6-1/8 of all applicants end up matriculating). So that means that ~12-17% of those who re-apply are admitted.

 

[KnightDoc]

It may be relevant to you, but not the schools?

LOL. I guess, but then, why would any admit rate, other than the school's own, be relevant to the schools. The statistics give us benchmarks against which to measure ourselves, and give you numbers to throw at us when giving advice (seller's market, lucky if we receive any As, 60% failure rate, etc.). I, for one, would love to know what the 60% one year failure rate translates to over the long term for those applicants, because that would provide a much better, truer measure of what percent of highly motivated applicants are ultimately unsuccessful.

If it were true, as a first time applicant I would find it highly relevant to know that the pool is 50/50 first time applicant/reapplicant, and the 43% accept rate is really 56% first time/30% reapplicant! (Note: those numbers are just made up as an example!!!) From what I have seen, it looks like the real numbers are closer to this than 43% for everyone.

Again, given how much data AAMC collects and disseminates, why is this such a well kept secret? The reapplicant admit rate is irrelevant, the percent of applicants who are never successful is irrelevant, but each and every data set they publish in "2019 FACTS: Applicants and Matriculants Data" is not? Really???

Since I started this thread, I went back to the only data set that I have access to. This UG does not publish reapplicant data (it seems like nobody does), but they do break down outcomes by number of gap years, which might be a loose proxy for being a reapplicant beyond a certain point.

Interestingly, while one can argue that reapplicants have an opportunity to make great improvements, it is also true, if the process is not random, that reapplicants are reapplicants for a reason, and, if so, it would be expected that their accept rates would be lower than random first time applicants. For this one school, admit rates for applicants with between zero and two gap years are remarkably similar, and the number drops by half after that.

Of course, one could be a reapplicant with one or two gap years, but it is much more likely with more than two than with less, and it's probably not a coincidence that the admit rate drops precipitously at this point. Why is this irrelevant data such a secret, and why isn't it published along with all of the other irrelevant data made available to us by AAMC?

 

[Goro]

Multiple schools give advice on thier websites to people reapplying, so whatever you're concerned about is, I'll wager, not that important.

 

[KnightDoc]

Multiple schools give advice on thier websites to people reapplying, so whatever you're concerned about is, I'll wager, not that important.

You're right, as usual! I'm not reapplying. What I'm concerned about is what is the first time applicant admit rate, as a subset of the 43% overall admit rate, so I can better assess my odds going in. Unfortunately, that is a piece of irrelevant data that nobody wants me to have.

 

[eigen]

You're right, as usual! I'm not reapplying. What I'm concerned about is what is the first time applicant admit rate, as a subset of the 43% overall admit rate, so I can better assess my odds going in. Unfortunately, that a piece of irrelevant data that nobody wants me to have.

Honest question: Why?

This is not a random chance game, nor does knowing the odds help in making a stronger application, aside from being prepared for not getting in.

My advice would be to put in the best application you can at the time to schools where you fit the mission and meet the average requirements. And then move on.

Several soul-crushing years on the academic job market and applying for grants has taught me that it's emotionally better to do your best and assume you won't get anything. Then you're pleasantly surprised if you do, and you don't spend time on "what-ifs".

Spending time and energy analyzing odds is time and energy not spent on things that are more likely to yield a productive outcome.

 

[KnightDoc]

Honest question: Why?

This is not a random chance game, nor does knowing the odds help in making a stronger application, aside from being prepared for not getting in.

My advice would be to put in the best application you can at the time to schools where you fit the mission and meet the average requirements. And then move on.

Several soul-crushing years on the academic job market and applying for grants has taught me that it's emotionally better to do your best and assume you won't get anything. Then you're pleasantly surprised if you do, and you don't spend time on "what-ifs".

Spending time and energy analyzing odds is time and energy not spent on things that are more likely to yield a productive outcome.

Because I'm as OCD as anyone else, and I would like to know what my chances are as well as to be able to benchmark myself. Take a look around -- it's what 90% of this site is about (what did you get on the MCAT, cGPA, sGPA, LM, when did you submit, when did you get a secondary, when did you get an II, did you get a call or an e-mail, are you WL or HPWL, etc., etc., etc.?) .

By the way, a lot of people here will challenge the assertion that there is no element of randomness here (filling 20,000 med school seats is very different from filling a few dozen, or even a few hundred academic jobs, where randomness might very well be replaced by who you know). Also, knowing the odds might also prepare me for getting in.

 

[eigen]

Because I'm as OCD as anyone else, and I would like to know what my chances are as well as to be able to benchmark myself. Take a look around -- it's what 90% of this site is about.

I'm not sure how the statistics you're looking for help with that.

You benchmark yourself by looking at averages in matriculating classes and getting a feeling for what different schools consider competitive.

Acceptance rates in terms of bulk percentages don't really help with that. If twice as many people with uncompetitive applications apply this year that will change the acceptance rate, but won't materially effect the chances of a competitive applicant.

 

[KnightDoc]

I'm not sure how the statistics you're looking for help with that.

You benchmark yourself by looking at averages in matriculating classes and getting a feeling for what different schools consider competitive.

Acceptance rates in terms of bulk percentages don't really help with that. If twice as many people with uncompetitive applications apply this year that will change the acceptance rate, but won't materially effect the chances of a competitive applicant.

True, but knowing that the first time applicant admit rate is 55% rather than 40%, if true, would alter my expectations, making me a little less uptight up front, and then even more disappointed if it doesn't work out. What you say in the abstract is true, of course, but then, why publish or look at anything? In fact, given how bad the odds are at each school, why even apply?

What you say about competitive applications is true. So what is that number? That would help me out even more. 🙂

 

[eigen]

Again, I suggest asking yourself what concrete value knowing this information will have. Will it let you make a stronger application? Will it change what schools you apply to, or if you apply at all?

Would you no longer be interested in being a physician if the acceptance rate was only 10%?

Presumably, the answer to "why even apply" is because you want to be a doctor and think you have the qualifications and background to make your application competitive and attractive to an admissions committee.

 

[KnightDoc]

Again, I suggest asking yourself what concrete value knowing this information will have. Will it let you make a stronger application? Will it change what schools you apply to, or if you apply at all?

Would you no longer be interested in being a physician if the acceptance rate was only 10%?

Presumably, the answer to "why even apply" is because you want to be a doctor and think you have the qualifications and background to make your application competitive and attractive to an admissions committee.

Would I no longer be interested? No. Would I maybe reevaluate what my chances are and whether all of the hard work will be a waste of time? Yes.

I also wanted to be an astronaut, but, after seeing what was involved and what the odds were, I made other choices. 🙂

Information drives decisions. More information drives better decisions.

 

[LizzyM]

If it were true, as a first time applicant I would find it highly relevant to know that the pool is 50/50 first time applicant/reapplicant, and the 43% accept rate is really 56% first time/30% reapplicant! (Note: those numbers are just made up as an example!!!) From what I have seen, it looks like the real numbers are closer to this than 43% for everyone.

If we changed the earlier formula of 43% of 1st, 2nd and 3rd time applicants admitted, and said 56% of first time applicants are admitted and of the remaining 44%, 30% are admitted when they reapply and of the reminder who apply for a third time, 30% of those applicants are admitted, we'd have a system that ends up admitting 80% of people who apply and I think that is unrealistic given that we only have room for about 43% of all applicants in a given year.

 

[LizzyM]

Frankly, I think it is much better to use the AMCAS table that shows GPA range and MCAT range and the proportion admitted. Which cell you fit in will in large part drive whether or not you are admitted.

 

[KnightDoc]

If we changed the earlier formula of 43% of 1st, 2nd and 3rd time applicants admitted, and said 56% of first time applicants are admitted and of the remaining 44%, 30% are admitted when they reapply and of the reminder who apply for a third time, 30% of those applicants are admitted, we'd have a system that ends up admitting 80% of people who apply and I think that is unrealistic given that we only have room for about 43% of all applicants in a given year.

????? But this is exactly what you have. You are forgetting that the 80% is spread over multiple years. All this would mean is that 56% of 25,000 first time applicants (14,000) and 30% of 25,000 reapplicants (7,500) are admitted each year, and that, over time, 80% of all applicants are ultimately admitted. This is probably about right, by the way! It's important to remember that all of the 44% do not immediately reapply, and some never do.

 

[Maimonides1]

You're right, as usual! I'm not reapplying. What I'm concerned about is what is the first time applicant admit rate, as a subset of the 43% overall admit rate, so I can better assess my odds going in. Unfortunately, that a piece of irrelevant data that nobody wants me to have.

I think @Goro nailed the best answer to your question in his first response to your argument assumptions in the best way we can..!!

In the last year cycle 39,238 were first year applicants out of the total 53,371 applicants! ( 26% are Re-applicants)

We know with great degree of assumption.., that in each cycle:
- 25-30% ? of the applicants don't have the Stats
- ?? % of applicants got the Stats but were late..!
- ?? % of applicants got the Stats but had deficiencies in their ECs..!
- ?? % Other miscellaneous issues..!

Variables:
- School specific: mission, geographic, legacies.. etc
- Gender: slight bias toward women admission
- Race: URMs, disadvantaged etc..

Now, you can go ahead and plug all kind of numbers and assumptions to come up with all kinds of percentages..!!

 

[LizzyM]

????? But this is exactly what you have. You are forgetting that the 80% is spread over multiple years. All this would mean is that 56% of 25,000 first time applicants (14,000) and 30% of 25,000 reapplicants (7,500) are admitted each year, and that, over time, 80% of all applicants are ultimately admitted. This is probably about right, by the way! It's important to remember that all of the 44% do not immediately reapply, and some never do.

Right! Some never do. We did not put that into our formula. We assumed that every applicant makes 3 attempts. Even if it is over a number of years, what we would be saying would be that of the cohort born in 1992 that applied, eventually 80% of them would be admitted. And of the cohort born in 1993, eventually 80% of them would be admitted and of the cohort born in 1994, eventually 80% of them would be admitted and I believe that making the assumption that 80% of 39,000 first time applicants in each of those years will eventually get admitted results in ~31,000 eventually and even spreading that over multiple years, is too many by many thousands.

 

[KnightDoc]

Right! Some never do. We did not put that into our formula. We assumed that every applicant makes 3 attempts. Even if it is over a number of years, what we would be saying would be that of the cohort born in 1992 that applied, eventually 80% of them would be admitted. And of the cohort born in 1993, eventually 80% of them would be admitted and of the cohort born in 1994, eventually 80% of them would be admitted and I believe that making the assumption that 80% of 39,000 first time applicants in each of those years will eventually get admitted results in ~31,000 eventually and even spreading that over multiple years, is too many by many thousands.

You are correct. I just found the table with the 39,000 first time applicant number -- I was using 25,000 as guesstimate. So we know 80% is way too high. I'm betting the reapplicant admit rate is way lower than 43% to compensate. Otherwise, using your numbers, 43% of 57%, twice, would be the 78% you previously calculated of the original 39,000 eventually being admitted, which would still be far too many! In fact, I've been playing with the numbers, and no combination works. Lowering one accept rate just raises the other, and we always come back to the cumulative accept rate over three cycles being in the 70s. The only possible answer is that a lot of people who are rejected just don't reapply and are never accepted. It's the only way to get to the 22,700 acceptees.

This still doesn't answer the question of why doesn't AAMC break down the different admit rates? Are the really the same? Are they even close at your school? Are other schools really that different, even if they are less selective?

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Vanderbilt and WashU publishes detailed data of their applicants

Vanderbilt (2019 data)
Vanderbilt University Acceptance Rate for First-Time Applicants 71% (The national acceptance rate for first-time applicants is not available from the AAMC)
Vanderbilt University Acceptance Rate for Re-Applicants 61% National Acceptance Rate (First-Time and Re-applicants) 43%
Vanderbilt University Acceptance Rate (First-Time and Re-applicants) 69%

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/hpao/documents/2019_Annual_Report-2020-04-01.pdf

WaSHU (2014-2018)
First-time 76%
Reapplicants 51%

Matriculation & Acceptance Rates

prehealth.wustl.edu

@KnightDoc - Added more data.

 

[KnightDoc]

Vanderbilt is one of the schools that publishes their applicants data and as per their 2019 data

Vanderbilt University Acceptance Rate for First-Time Applicants 71% (The national acceptance rate for first-time applicants is not available from the AAMC)
Vanderbilt University Acceptance Rate for Re-Applicants 61% National Acceptance Rate (First-Time and Re-applicants) 43%
Vanderbilt University Acceptance Rate (First-Time and Re-applicants) 69%

Thank you -- this is VERY helpful, and confirms that there is, indeed, a material difference between first time and reapplicant admit rates, even at a prestigious school like Vandy. This still leaves me wondering, given the huge amount of data AAMC publishes and makes available to the public, why they don't provide this. I guess it's to avoid discouraging reapplicants.

Given Vandy's numbers, and the fact that the national first time/reapplicant ratio is 39/14, and the overall accept rate is 43%, the first time accept rate is probably around 48%, with the reapplicant rate around 38% (using the same 10% differential as Vandy). This gets the number of overall acceptees to 24,000, which is pretty close to the actual number of 23,000, so the real numbers are probably within 1% +/-.

 

[Faha]

The number of 1st time applicants has been steady at ~39,000 for several years now. The first year MD class for 2020 will be 22,000 and for DO schools 9,000. So we know that 22,000 of that 39,000 will eventually enroll in a MD school. Another 8,000 will enroll in a DO school. ( I estimate the additional 1,000 that enroll in DO schools are applicants that apply only to DO schools and never to a MD school). So 30,000 of the original 39,000 1st time applicant pool will eventually enroll in a MD or DO school. What of the remaining 9,000 ? At least 5,000 will end up in Caribbean schools.

 

[jhmmd]

You are correct. I just found the table with the 39,000 first time applicant number -- I was using 25,000 as guesstimate. So we know 80% is way too high. I'm betting the reapplicant admit rate is way lower than 43% to compensate. Otherwise, using your numbers, 43% of 57%, twice, would be the 78% you previously calculated of the original 39,000 eventually being admitted, which would still be far too many! In fact, I've been playing with the numbers, and no combination works. Lowering one accept rate just raises the other, and we always come back to the cumulative accept rate over three cycles being in the 70s. The only possible answer is that a lot of people who are rejected just don't reapply and are never accepted. It's the only way to get to the 22,700 acceptees.

This still doesn't answer the question of why doesn't AAMC break down the different admit rates? Are the really the same? Are they even close at your school? Are other schools really that different, even if they are less selective?

This (what's bolded) doesn't really make a lot of sense. And yes, every school is different.

Also, piggybacking off of what @Faha said, more important than the number of medical school seats is the number of residency seats. There are far more seats in medical school than slots in U.S. residencies, and it's been this way for years (it's a funding/Medicaid issue).

 

[Maimonides1]

The number of 1st time applicants has been steady at ~39,000 for several years now. The first year MD class for 2020 will be 22,000 and for DO schools 9,000. So we know that 22,000 of that 39,000 will eventually enroll in a MD school. Another 8,000 will enroll in a DO school. ( I estimate the additional 1,000 that enroll in DO schools are applicants that apply only to DO schools and never to a MD school). So 30,000 of the original 39,000 1st time applicant pool will eventually enroll in a MD or DO school. What of the remaining 9,000 ? At least 5,000 will end up in Caribbean schools.

Presumptive at best !!

 

[Maimonides1]

This (what's bolded) doesn't really make a lot of sense. And yes, every school is different.

Also, piggybacking off of what @Faha said, more important than the number of medical school seats is the number of residency seats. There are far more seats in medical school than slots in U.S. residencies, and it's been this way for years (it's a funding/Medicaid issue).

Agreed

CMS and medicare is the primary source of funding for GME

 

[Maimonides1]

Lets clarify this. There have always been more US residency slots than the number of US medical school graduates and this goes back to since WWII

Agreed
where it was always getting filled by IMGs.., but Not recently as it got a lot tighter and some US Grads are struggling to find suitable residencies..!!

 

[longhaul3]

This (what's bolded) doesn't really make a lot of sense. And yes, every school is different.

Also, piggybacking off of what @Faha said, more important than the number of medical school seats is the number of residency seats. There are far more seats in medical school than slots in U.S. residencies, and it's been this way for years (it's a funding/Medicaid issue).

This is not true. There were 34k pgy-1 positions offered in this year's NRMP match, plus a handful for urology. There were 20k graduating US MDs plus 7k DOs. Obviously some percentage of prelim pgy-1 spots end up as a dead end, but I doubt it's more than the difference (i.e. 7k). The rest of the pool is made up of IMGs. Still, only about 95% of spots are matched.

Edit: To the main point of the thread, the reapplicant designation is confounded to the point that it may not even be useful for statistical purposes (and almost certainly not for individual prediction). First, people are not necessarily applying to the same schools, or even the same number of schools, each time. Some people are under informed and may only apply to two schools, or only the schools near them, etc., and underperform relative to the strength of their application. Also, you can be a first-time reapplicant or a fifth-time reapplicant—the pool keeps growing until people stop applying or get in, and so those people who keep applying with weak apps are overrepresented in the reapplicant group.

Additionally, it's hard to distinguish a "bias" against reapplicants from the fact that they are likely to be weaker applicants to begin with. I don't doubt that it exists to some extent, but I don't think it's likely to be quantifiable.

 

[jhmmd]

his is not true.

There were 34k pgy-1 positions offered in this year's NRMP match, plus a handful for urology. There were 20k graduating US MDs plus 7k DOs.

Obviously some percentage of prelim pgy-1 spots end up as a dead end, but I doubt it's more than the difference (i.e. 7k). The rest of the pool is made up of IMGs. Still, only about 95% of spots are matched.

Where are you getting this 95% figure?

 

[longhaul3]

Where are you getting this 95% figure?

NRMP Data

Also note that the number of US MD applicants submitting program choices plus US DO applicants submitting program choices is still far less than the number of pgy-1 positions offered. US graduates who don't match fail to match because they overestimate their competitiveness or don't want to apply for undesirable positions, not because there aren't spots for them.

 

[Maimonides1]

This is not true. There were 34k pgy-1 positions offered in this year's NRMP match, plus a handful for urology. There were 20k graduating US MDs plus 7k DOs. Obviously some percentage of prelim pgy-1 spots end up as a dead end, but I doubt it's more than the difference (i.e. 7k). The rest of the pool is made up of IMGs. Still, only about 95% of spots are matched.

Edit: To the main point of the thread, the reapplicant designation is confounded to the point that it may not even be useful for statistical purposes (and almost certainly not for individual prediction). First, people are not necessarily applying to the same schools, or even the same number of schools, each time. Some people are under informed and may only apply to two schools, or only the schools near them, etc., and underperform relative to the strength of their application. Also, you can be a first-time reapplicant or a fifth-time reapplicant—the pool keeps growing until people stop applying or get in, and so those people who keep applying with weak apps are overrepresented in the reapplicant group.

Additionally, it's hard to distinguish a "bias" against reapplicants from the fact that they are likely to be weaker applicants to begin with. I don't doubt that it exists to some extent, but I don't think it's likely to be quantifiable.

Agreed!!

Re-applicant date is not quantifiable in meaningful way!

5-6% of US Grads don't Match!!

If you’re feeling disappointed on Match Day, you are not alone

If you don’t land your No. 1 choice on Match Day, you have company. Here’s what former medical students say about that Match Day disappointment.

www.ama-assn.org

7K IMGs added to US System in 2020 NRMP!

 

[longhaul3]

Lets clarify this. 95% of seniors get MATCHED, with another 3-4%+ getting PLACED (either prematch, post match SOAP or ultimately replacement contract). About 99%+ graduating seniors get a residency slot

I was talking about the percentage of pgy-1 spots that are filled in the match (not the percentage of applicants who match), although I realize that it's not quite relevant to my argument because, including IMGs, there are actually more applicants than there are spots. There is some percentage of IMGs who can outcompete some percentage of US grads for the same spots. The overall point though is that there are far more spots than there are US seniors, and the number of positions each year is actually increasing faster than the number of med school seats.

 

[deleted859689]

and the number of positions each year is actually increasing faster than the number of med school seats.

Don’t worry, DO expansion has you covered /s

 

[jhmmd]

I was talking about the percentage of PGY-1 spots that are filled in the match (not the percentage of applicants who match), although I realize that it's not quite relevant to my argument because, including IMGs, there are actually more applicants than there are spots. There is some percentage of IMGs who can outcompete some percentage of US grads for the same spots. The overall point though is that there are far more spots than there are US seniors, and the number of positions each year is actually increasing faster than the number of med school seats.

This is not what was stated earlier; there are far more med school graduates (IMGs as well as U.S. grads) applying for U.S. residency seats than the number of actual seats available. This has to do with funding as stated earlier. From time to time, med schools create more residency slots on their own due to donations or govt. assistance, but for the most part the funding has to come from taxes and appropriations. So it's not as easy as it may seem.

 

[deleted859689]

This is not what was stated earlier; there are far more med school graduates (IMGs as well as U.S. grads) applying for U.S. residency seats than the number of actual seats available. This has to do with funding as stated earlier. From time to time, med schools create more residency slots on their own due to donations or govt. assistance, but for the most part the funding has to come from taxes and appropriations. So it's not as easy as it may seem.

I think both of you are saying the same thing.

although I realize that it's not quite relevant to my argument because, including IMGs, there are actually more applicants than there are spots.

 

[longhaul3]

I think both of you are saying the same thing.

Yes, no doubt there are more overall residency applicants (including IMGs) than there are spots.

This is not what was stated earlier; there are far more med school graduates (IMGs as well as U.S. grads) applying for U.S. residency seats than the number of actual seats available. This has to do with funding as stated earlier. From time to time, med schools create more residency slots on their own due to donations or govt. assistance, but for the most part the funding has to come from taxes and appropriations. So it's not as easy as it may seem.

My original point was that the bottleneck for US MD/DO admissions is not actually the number of residency spots, which is widely invoked but is demonstrably false. There are way more positions in the match than there are US medical students to fill them—with 90%+ of MDs and DOs matching, they still only fill about 70% of the spots—so a huge percentage of unmatched applicants are IMGs, making fact that overall applicants : positions > 1 a red herring for US students and med schools.

Edit: my ratio was auto-converted into a smiley face

 

[longhaul3]

However, the whole argument about residency slots and competition is not supported by the data. For


and the data going back t0 1999 years clearly shows there has been a very consistent match rate for US seniors of between 93.5-95.5%. The recent bulge in IMG rates is likely due to the recent addition of unfilled traditional DO slots now ACGME accredited and open to MD grads (like IMGs) as well as a continuing decrease in the total number of IMGs (Citizen and non) which was running at more than 17,000 total applicants until 2017 and has dropped the last few years. I am guess that the last three years may have had a decrease in IMG from disruptions that hurricanes had on some of the schools

I don't think I get what you're saying. My point is that there are plenty of spots for US seniors and that competition for residency spots is mostly amongst the IMG pool who are left to fight over the spots that the US grads don't fill (because there aren't enough US grads to fill all the spots). I believe that argument is supported by the data.

The IMG match rate is irrelevant to US med students and med schools because, by and large, IMGs do not compete with US grads for residency spots—US grads win almost every time. If more US MD schools opened up, there would be enough residency spots for their graduates, the US MD match rate would remain relatively constant, and the IMG match rate would go down. It is an interesting guess about the hurricanes though, sounds like a good explanation.

 

[Maimonides1]

An increase in medical school enrollments will be well received and appreciated step to help to offset the worsening physicians shortages especially now after discovering all the cracks in our health care delivery system after Covid19 pandemic !!

 

[Maimonides1]

there has been a 30% increase in first year MD seats since 2009, with a larger percent increase in DO seats

To be exact, the 30% increase occurred between 2002-2019 !

If we get a modest 3% increase this year.., it will help with filling the pipes what we are seeing drained due to health care disruption during the pandemic and beyond..!!

 

[cubsfan95]

Contrary to popular belief, if you don't get in initially, the odds are against you getting in EVENTUALLY. A segment of that population that really wants to study medicine goes to St. George's.

I think this site promotes reinvention a bit recklessly. If you ain't got it going in, what makes you think you'll automatically "get it" for next cycle? I wish it were that simple.

 

[LizzyM]

Contrary to popular belief, if you don't get in initially, the odds are against you getting in EVENTUALLY. A segment of that population that really wants to study medicine goes to St. George's.

I think this site promotes reinvention a bit recklessly. If you ain't got it going in, what makes you think you'll automatically "get it" for next cycle? I wish it were that simple.

We all know people who got in on the second (or third) try. It doesn't happen magically and it doesn't always happen in the next cycle. Those who are really serious about getting into medical school make a serious assessment of their weaknesses, the aspects of the application that were sub-optimal, and make a plan to address the weakness and improve the aspects of the application that can be improved (earlier submission, better targeting of application to schools). Not every reapplicant is successful in gaining admission but for some it is well worth a second attempt.