- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 226
- Reaction score
- 18
First of all congrats on matching class of 2012. This is probably a waste of a thread but I was wondering around when last year did the SF match release data for the latest match. Thanks!
did any programs not match?First of all congrats on matching class of 2012. This is probably a waste of a thread but I was wondering around when last year did the SF match release data for the latest match. Thanks!
First of all congrats on matching class of 2012. This is probably a waste of a thread but I was wondering around when last year did the SF match release data for the latest match. Thanks!
So despite numerous emails going out saying "this is a record number of applicants" from residency programs it was actually the least amount of applicants in the last 10 years?SF match updated the match stats to include this years stats
http://www.sfmatch.org/residency/ophthalmology/about_match/match_report.pdf
avg step 1 is now 238, and avg step 1 of unmatched applicants is 220 .. that is crazy --
Your thoughts?
People already hate me anyway so what the hell:
1. From 2000 to 2009 the number of ophthalmologists completing training ranged from 480 (2000) to 419 (2009). The other medical specialties also essentially held their residency programs at constant levels over this period.
2. While ophthalmology residents declined from 480 to 410, during this time the number of graduating optometrists rose from 1,150 to 1,600 and will continue to increase as new schools open.
From 2000 to 2009:
2000 OMD 480 completed training
2009 OMD 419 completed training
-13% decline
2000 OD 1,150 completed training
2009 OD 1,600 completed training
+ 39% increase
The report also found:
OMD starting salaries did not keep pace with inflation in this period.
OMD job offers declined from 3.5 to 1.8 per new OMD
OMD switching of plans increased fromn 11% to 44%.
Source: http://fb.me/Tp4KtOLi
People already hate me anyway so what the hell:
1. From 2000 to 2009 the number of ophthalmologists completing training ranged from 480 (2000) to 419 (2009). The other medical specialties also essentially held their residency programs at constant levels over this period.
2. While ophthalmology residents declined from 480 to 410, during this time the number of graduating optometrists rose from 1,150 to 1,600 and will continue to increase as new schools open.
From 2000 to 2009:
2000 OMD 480 completed training
2009 OMD 419 completed training
-13% decline
2000 OD 1,150 completed training
2009 OD 1,600 completed training
+ 39% increase
The report also found:
OMD starting salaries did not keep pace with inflation in this period.
OMD job offers declined from 3.5 to 1.8 per new OMD
OMD switching of plans increased fromn 11% to 44%.
Source: http://fb.me/Tp4KtOLi
SF match updated the match stats to include this years stats
http://www.sfmatch.org/residency/ophthalmology/about_match/match_report.pdf
avg step 1 is now 238, and avg step 1 of unmatched applicants is 220 .. that is crazy --
Your thoughts?
So, ophthalmologists are holding the market somewhat steady, while optometrists are flooding it? Guess that's why they are looking to expand privileges. Need something for all those optometrists to do, eh? Why don't you see what Jason, Tippytoe, and the rest have to say about your numbers? Your leadership is more of a joke than ours!
If you go through the sf match then it should show up
Sf match website --> ophthalmology -->about the match -> statistics
As a first year med student very interested in Ophtho, this years match stats scare the piss out of me. Seems like by the time its my turn I'm going to need a 240 to even be an average applicant. Seeing as that my first year test scores have been 'middle of the pack', I'm not encouraged. Seems like its getting tougher and tougher to sneak into an interview with step 1 scores anywhere near the average.
People already hate me anyway so what the hell
...The overall applicant pool, although fewer in number, was probably stronger, and that would also explain the slight rise in number of offers per applicants (4.7 up from 4.4)...
Shnurek, I respect you for the future professional colleague that you will be, but I wanted to tell you that it has become difficult for me to read your signature posting addendum about the deficits in medical training in every thread. I come to these forums to try to help others and to share knowledge about eye diseases. I worked 14 hours today telling mothers for the first time that their sons and daughters would be afflicted with type 1 diabetes for the rest of their lives. I managed over 15 types of endocrine disease today. I've done two years of research in ophthalmology and done my part to generate knowledge and to help save lives. Before medical school I worked to be at the top of my class in college and before that I worked to graduate at the top of my class in high school. Next year in internship I'll work 80 hours a week guiding people through the most difficult times in their lives, gaining an appreciation for systemic medical diseases and social issues, and beyond that I'll have 5 years of dedicated training in ophthalmology. I don't feel like I know "nothing", and it makes me feel disrespected to have a contrary opinion emphasized repeatedly. I don't mean to be forward, but it has been a trying day, and I felt like I had to say something. With that said, I wish you every peace and success.
What irks me however is that our school's average matriculant GPA is 3.5 (slightly higher than DO school average matriculant GPA) and yet we are not allowed to train further even though 30% of ODs stated in a survey that they would willingly do a 2-year surgical residency.
We both diagnose/treat diseases and anomalies of the eye. It is this similarity yet restriction that causes so much frustration.
Yes and I understand what you are saying about GPAs etc BUT the average ophtho step 1 is 237- that is very hard to get. So bump that 3.5 to 3.8 to3.9. Very hard for DOs to get as well(I've heard almost impossible). So yea you could do surg with that avg, but general, etc maybe.
Also it may be that your class is harder- same here for us vs the dental school. BUT it's not that- it's the 36 hour of my call I'm on and my 5-730 6 days a week I'm putting in right now for surgery that differ greatly. I understand this conflict- I'm a med student in a family full of Optos.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you knew you would be frustrated with the restrictions associated with optometry why enter the field in the first place? If you really had the same success with undergraduate prerequisites and wanted to diagnose and treat ophthalmic conditions, why didn't you just become an ophthalmologist? The solution is not a backdoor 2 year surgical residency for any optometrist who becomes bored and wishes to enter surgery to cash in. Optometrists and ophthalmologists should (and do) work well together quite often, but problem arise when optometrists who didn't plan well in advance now have regrets about their choices, then lobby for greater scope of practice. Its an affront to every ophthalmologist who has completed legitimate training.
Thank you for your cordial response. I agree that the healthcare system will go through some major changes and it is this hazy uncertainty that frustrates individuals in choosing their paths. I don't believe anywhere in healthcare is there such a large friction between professions as there is with opto vs ophtho. We are both called doctors and are paid as and referred to as physicians by medicare. We both have the same prerequisites in undergraduate college. We both diagnose/treat diseases and anomalies of the eye. It is this similarity yet restriction that causes so much frustration.
The difference between OD and MD is not just surgery
I think the increment in Step I scores is only part of the story. It seems like it is becoming the norm for the majority of applicants to have Ophtho related research and pubs, big-wig letters and other measures of dedication to the field. I had multiple people in my class interested in Ophtho during 3rd year and decide not to pursue it because they thought that they needed to be interested in it from year 1 in order to be a competitive candidate. Though this is not necessarily true, the competitiveness of the field may be, in part, responsible for the declining number of applicants.
This may play a role in the declining number of applicants, but I also have to wonder if several other factors are to blame. I think the reputation of ophthalmology as a "ROAD" specialty is changing a bit. Starting salaries are low compared to other fields, reimbursement is no longer especially lucrative, constant legislative challenges threaten and leave a big question mark on our future scope of practice, and while you can arrange your eventual practice to have a good lifestyle, ophthalmology residency is not a cushy walk in the park in terms of stress, book study time, and overnight call. I knew this beforehand, but it became even clearer during the interview process. Medical students interested in ophthalmology are generally well qualified and probably pick up on this when choosing specialties. I am happy I matched in ophthalmology, and I think it will be a good field to work in, but I think it has been more competitive than it should be. I think the competitiveness may be driven more by supply and demand issues (fewer number of residency spots) rather than overall desirability of the specialty. I think there is a general changing attitude throughout medicine towards working fewer hours and this, coupled with the residency hour restrictions, may make other training pathways suddenly less undesirable relative to ophthalmology. For example, with the work hour restrictions, more students may be willing to go through internal medicine or general surgery residency in order to make it to an eventual specialized fellowship. With increasingly lifestyle friendly options available in other specialties during training and eventual practice (such as week-on week-off hospitalists), we may find less students opting to do ophthalmology primarily for lifestyle reasons and instead have a higher concentration of students with a particular interest for or research background in treating eye diseases.
Is the jump in average scores truly statistically significant? Why doesn't the SF Match release that bit of information? If the sample size is smaller (less applicants), then there will be a larger standard deviation and thus less of an ability to distinguish weather or not the mean score has truly changed. I would be weary of anyone that says the scores have absolutely gone up, as the average may not be the best indicator of this. But given the limited data we do have released, it seems that the trend is towards higher scores.
What is this score change we are talking about? I know the 2011 average was 237 but did this years go up or down when you say there was a statistically significant change?
The mean score (the statistics sheet says "average" but I assume this is the mean?) for matched applicants last year was 237 and this year was 238. I'm not certain it is appropriate to use terms like "statistically significant difference" with respect to characterizing the applicants' board scores. The reported mean is not derived from a representative sample of a larger applicant pool - the reported mean is the ACTUAL mean of the matched and unmatched applicants into ophthalmology, assuming they didn't lie or falsify NBME score reports. If we only had a representative sample, we could use the mean and standard deviation to compare two means using parametric statistics and come up with a p value for the probability of a type 1 error - the case in which there actually was no significant difference. But in this case, we have all the data on all of the applicants, and can say with 100% confidence that there is a higher actual mean score this year.
Thought I would post the pubmed link to this journal article that just came out in 2012 for the sake of posterity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22218141 The authors review the match data from 2011 and identify factors which were more common among matched applicants into ophthalmology compared to unmatched: 1) AOA, 2) top 40 med school by NIH funding, and 3) ranking more programs. Higher board scores too. Nothing earth-shattering there, but more interesting is their look at the probability of matching based upon the number of programs you rank. Ranking 6-10 programs yielded an 80-90% probability of matching, whereas >10 programs gave a >90% probability of matching with no demonstrated benefit beyond ranking 11 programs. So, based on this study's conclusions, 11 would appear to be a good "magic number" of interviews/programs for future applicants to shoot for.
I think its interesting that the average step 1 scores for match are 239 plus or minus 14, and unmatched 223 plus or minus 18. Scores up to 241 are still within one SD of the unmatched. Yikes.
My interpretation of this is than a score of 239 offers an applicant very little reassurance.
Its easy to make too much out of these statistics. About 68% of the values fall within one SD of the mean. So 68% of the unmatched applicants have a step 1 between 205 - 241, and 68% of matched applicants are between 225 - 253. Its pretty obvious these have a heavy overlap.
Programs don't think in terms of SD and mean. They think in terms of compatibility and convenience. My home program director flatly told me the SF match system allows you to screen applicants in advance based on STEP 1, and she randomly chose 220. Why 220? Not because of the above stats, means, SD, analysis of variance, blah blah, but because it reduced the applicant pool from about 500 to 100, and she likes round numbers like 100 to deal with. In other words, it was convenient.
Once you get past the screen, compatibility takes over. Is the institution a heavy academic center that values research or a community hospital? Do they have a strong regional bias? Are they inbred and only take their own students? Do they have a preference for students who do aways at their institution? How well did you interview? Do they like you? The intangibles are too numerous to count.
The take home message is STEP 1 is one very important piece of the application, but once you are past the screen there are many more factors they consider in selecting applicants for interviews and ranking. Its not possible to predict everything in advance.
Yeah, those stats are whack. The 'breakdown' is useless; we want to know what our actual chances are when applying as a MS4, US grad, or IMG. And what the hell does "# offers" even refer to? It's frustratingly opaque.