- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 844
- Reaction score
- 77
Now that match day is over, can anyone comment on how many open spots there were in radonc and which programs?
Soap
- Thread starter napoleondynamite
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 4
Iowa, Kansas, Henry Ford, Wayne St, Buffalo, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt (which did not participate in SOAP)
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,213
- Reaction score
- 398
This, for a total of 6 spots in SOAP.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 844
- Reaction score
- 77
Wow, that's a lot. Were they all legit spots? Oftentimes there have been clerical errors in the match where programs didn't actually have an opening, but forgot to pull out of the match in time, so it appeared they had an unfilled spot when they really didn't.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,213
- Reaction score
- 398
So there were 7 spots, 6 of which were legit. Apparently the spot that showed up from Vanderbilt was not a real spot because they have other plans for it.
So still, 6 is pretty impressive considering there were none last year. I think that these spots are a result of the "Sky is falling" mentality we all have in terms of how competitive the field is. It means that the really competitive applicants interview too many places, including the above that went unfilled.
I feel like this field could benefit from limiting the number of applications allowed, so that some of the "power" could be returned to the applicants in terms of locations. As it is, if everyone applies everywhere then its up to the programs to decide who really wants to go there.
based on the match stats (specifically the match rate and number of non-us grads that matched, number of unfilled spots, etc.), I'd venture to say this years match was quite a bit less competitive than last years.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,213
- Reaction score
- 398
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,737
- Reaction score
- 11,827
That's nuts. Used to only be a phenomenon with foreign grads. Medicare funding hasn't kept up funding spots with all of these new medical schools coming online here in the US
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,637
- Reaction score
- 1,141
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 725
- Reaction score
- 0
Boo. I was hoping maybe it was a reflection of less interest in the field given the funding cuts, etc. and potentially better hope for those of use applying this year. Makes sense, though.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 844
- Reaction score
- 77
Also probably a reflection of the increasing number of spots each year. I think when I applied it was around ~120 or 130 spots..Last I heard we were around 160, maybe even more?
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,637
- Reaction score
- 1,141
171 last year. This is getting out of hand.
Based on the NRMP advanced data tables here:
http://www.nrmp.org/data/advancedatatables2013.pdf
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2012.pdf
http://www.nrmp.org/data/2011Adv Data Tbl.pdf
It looks like there were ~183 spots this year with 212 applicants. I don't really know what the PGY-1 spots are but I'm guessing they're the categorical programs (penn/emory/cleveland clinic/mayo etc). What's surprising to me is that only 170 US grads applied (i.e. fewer US grads than there were positions) and that there were 41! non-US grads. This compares to last year when there were 171 positions with a total of 222 US grads applying and 257 applying overall (with only 2 non-US grads matching). I'd heard from a couple PDs that though applications were down, the quality of the applicants was higher, so perhaps it's just like sheldor and thesauce have mentioned. People interviewing at far too many places (I know MD/PHDs with stellar stats applying everywhere and going on 16+ interviews) combined with the downturn following a particularly competitive year. The 2011 match looked a bit more similar to this year's though. Whatever it is, I'm happy I was applying this year and not last year and I'm ecstatic to be entering this field and to know that all the people I met on the trail are awesome.
http://www.nrmp.org/data/advancedatatables2013.pdf
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2012.pdf
http://www.nrmp.org/data/2011Adv Data Tbl.pdf
It looks like there were ~183 spots this year with 212 applicants. I don't really know what the PGY-1 spots are but I'm guessing they're the categorical programs (penn/emory/cleveland clinic/mayo etc). What's surprising to me is that only 170 US grads applied (i.e. fewer US grads than there were positions) and that there were 41! non-US grads. This compares to last year when there were 171 positions with a total of 222 US grads applying and 257 applying overall (with only 2 non-US grads matching). I'd heard from a couple PDs that though applications were down, the quality of the applicants was higher, so perhaps it's just like sheldor and thesauce have mentioned. People interviewing at far too many places (I know MD/PHDs with stellar stats applying everywhere and going on 16+ interviews) combined with the downturn following a particularly competitive year. The 2011 match looked a bit more similar to this year's though. Whatever it is, I'm happy I was applying this year and not last year and I'm ecstatic to be entering this field and to know that all the people I met on the trail are awesome.
It looks like there's been an increase of ~40 spots since 2008, a roughly 33% increase in positions over a 5 year period. It's obviously easy to say this having already matched but it does seem like a pretty substantial increase and makes me a little worried about future job prospects, especially at a time when reimbursements are being cut and there's significant uncertainty regarding the future of healthcare and how it will affect us. Hopefully things have slowed down a bit and I guess I have a solid 5 years to figure things out, but I anticipate that the next couple years' graduates will find themselves in even more competitive job markets once the applicants from these periods of expansion start to graduate. I'm just glad to have matched though =)
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2013
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 1
If you look at the #'s for the different years that have been posted, the AMG match rate has been stable. Look at the fact that there were about 1000 more AMGs this year than last. Last year 815 people did not match, the year before over 1000. This year a bit over 1000 even though there were 1000 more grads, so it's about the same as other years. It's 1000/17000+ not bad. Also think about the fact that there are more applicants for things like rad onc, derm, ortho, etc that don't match obviously so of course there will be unmatched AMGs. Most AMGs match though.
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,213
- Reaction score
- 398
Its not the 1000ish unmatched seniors that I think is worrying, so much as the ratio of 1100 unmatched to 900 spots in the SOAP. Our dean was saying that he had talked with other deans and more than any other year their students weren't getting spots in the SOAP.
1) I feel like the unmatched spots are like I mentioned and someone else commented, the top applicants who interview at too many places. I know first hand a few people who interviewed at over 20 places. I also interviewed at a couple of the unmatched programs, and saw multiple people at those places that I also saw at SDN top 10 programs. Its one thing to have safeties, but ya.
2) Based on these charts:
2009 - 156
2010 - 157
2011 - 171
2012 - 171
2013 - 183
That is pretty incredible. It looks like 2011 and 2013 both saw big increases in spots. I'm thankful to have matched, but the thought of "competing" for jobs with the biggest rad onc class in history is certainly daunting.
3) This year:
183 spots, 170 US applicants, with 134 US matched seniors (153 total, meaning 19 independent matched)
If you look at PGY-2 spots this year: 160 offered, 134 US matched. Last year: 156 offered with 153 US matched. That really demonstrates the changes this year.
Ultimately, people need to stop interviewing at 20+ programs, stop applying to 80+ programs, and that would be in our, the applicants, best interest. I assume the SOAP spots for Rad Onc got filled, I'd be curious to hear from those who went through the SOAP for Rad Onc how that went?
D
deleted4401
So, is the thought that ultra-competitive candidates crowd out the average/below-average candidates, and so they don't get interviews, therefore they don't get a chance at those lower tier programs (basically, all the unmatched positions except Vanderbilt were average programs)?
It makes sense, but in a field this competitive, it's not really fair to tell a solid candidate that they shouldn't apply/interview at as many programs. I know people that ranked 15 places and didn't match or matched at the bottom of the list.
I think it would be in the best interest for less qualified applicants. What's the benefit for the guys/gals that are getting 25 interviews? Also, sometimes you just don't know - I see the postings of who interviewed where, and sometimes the stats/background are discordant with where the get opportunities to interview.
Anyway, it definitely is an issue ... I can see it getting worse, just because sheer number of spots is higher. There could be 10-15 open spots in the next few matches.
It makes sense, but in a field this competitive, it's not really fair to tell a solid candidate that they shouldn't apply/interview at as many programs. I know people that ranked 15 places and didn't match or matched at the bottom of the list.
I think it would be in the best interest for less qualified applicants. What's the benefit for the guys/gals that are getting 25 interviews? Also, sometimes you just don't know - I see the postings of who interviewed where, and sometimes the stats/background are discordant with where the get opportunities to interview.
Anyway, it definitely is an issue ... I can see it getting worse, just because sheer number of spots is higher. There could be 10-15 open spots in the next few matches.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 4
Programs also share the blame for inviting a large number of overly qualified people. They need to adjust their expectations too.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,661
- Reaction score
- 5,080
I don't have the numbers to back me up, but I'm pretty sure that there has not been a 33% increase of RO jobs in "desirable" areas.
Market yourselves early and vigorously folks . . .
Market yourselves early and vigorously folks . . .
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,737
- Reaction score
- 11,827
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,213
- Reaction score
- 398
Unless the Midwest and parts of the southeast are your thing.
Yay for those of us for whom this is actually true!
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 844
- Reaction score
- 77
Don't. Do. Urorad!!!
C'mon guys - promise!
Seriously, if there are going to be 180+ new grads all looking for work in a few years, I worry that the carrot might just be big enough with limited prospects elsewhere..
C'mon guys - promise!
Seriously, if there are going to be 180+ new grads all looking for work in a few years, I worry that the carrot might just be big enough with limited prospects elsewhere..
With all the concerns about a saturating market, can someone (especially GFunk and other senior members) comment on prospects of the physician scientist track? I know, in general, there are less of those positions but if you are an M.D., Ph.D. + Holman pathway and coming out of a top 10 program (lower tier) with solid scientific credentials, would you still struggle to find a position (especially in a desirable location) or are most places eager to attract you to bolster their academic reputation? Thoughts and suggestions on how to better market yourself as a physician scientist (i.e. 80:20 research: clinical) appreciated.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 844
- Reaction score
- 77
Is that 80:20 meaning 80% lab? If so, speaking as a non-MD/PhD, those jobs are extremely hard to come by in this market even right now..who knows 4 or 5 years from now as research funding is likely to take further hits..
If you meant 80% clinical and 20% research, I think those jobs are very achievable with the stats you mentioned. I have just such an arrangement myself and I certainly didn't have that CV.
Even if you are after the 80% lab job, if that's your dream, go for it. You have not self-selected yourself out of anything else up to this point (med school..radonc, etc). Someone has to get that job, might as well be you.
If you meant 80% clinical and 20% research, I think those jobs are very achievable with the stats you mentioned. I have just such an arrangement myself and I certainly didn't have that CV.
Even if you are after the 80% lab job, if that's your dream, go for it. You have not self-selected yourself out of anything else up to this point (med school..radonc, etc). Someone has to get that job, might as well be you.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 580
- Reaction score
- 451
Positions for physician-scientist tracks are certainly avaialable. The bigger issue is not 'saturation of the market' but rather tighter University budgets. The need to come in with, or have a tangible plan to obtain, funding will be critical, and start-up packages may be hard to come by. Also- I think the days of 80:20 physician scientists being paid the same as other academic physicians who are more like 20:80 are dwindling if not already gone.
