The match: what THEY look for?

[Kara]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi guys,

I know this topic has been discussed ad nauseum, but I have no clue where I stand in this whole process and have alot of trepidation towards the match and was hoping to get your take. My biggest concern is that I didnt do so hot in my core clerkships--I got a Pass in Peds and in Surgery and got a High Pass in everything else. How much will that hurt me?

I have, however, done well on my sub-i and rad onc elective, got a 245 on the boards, have some very solid recs..(i say this with my fingers crossed =) )...should have some research to show (hopefully an abstract) and go to a top ten med school. This messageboard has been incredibly helpful, but I still dont have a very good idea about where I stand (ie. "am I stuggling to match, should I be competitive to "mid-tier" programs, and do I even have a chance at some of the more traditionally competitve programs?). Thanks.

Kara

 

[RadOncAnon]

The fact that you have a very good Step I score, you go to a top 10 med school, have good recos, and have some research experience bodes very well for you.

Very few applicants are strong in every single area -- most of us have weaknesss in one or two. Try not to worry about it too much. Apply to a broad range of programs and keep your fingers crossed. Last year, ~72% of US Seniors who applied to just RadOnc matched, so your chances are pretty good.

 

[radonc]

The fact that you have a very good Step I score, you go to a top 10 med school, have good recos, and have some research experience bodes very well for you.

Very few applicants are strong in every single area -- most of us have weaknesss in one or two. Try not to worry about it too much. Apply to a broad range of programs and keep your fingers crossed. Last year, ~72% of US Seniors who applied to just RadOnc matched, so your chances are pretty good.

that statistic you use is very misleading. that statistic includes people who applied to radonc alone and those people who applied to radonc AND radiology/im/other fields. For some reason, the NRMP feels that if you apply to radonc but match into rads or IM, it doesnt count 'against' the statistic. for example, when i applied to radonc, certain programs received over 300 apps for less than 100 positions. that allows for a 33% match rate, give or take.

 

[Thaiger75]

I would say you are competitive, sure. What does that mean? All that means is that most likely you will get good interviews. Beyond that, hard to tell. As far as matching goes, being rated as "competitive" goes out the window. Speaking from personal experience, I was told I was competitive by different faculty, but wasn't able to match the 1st time around. To a certain point, it's a crapshoot.

The bottom line is that you have a good chance at matching, possibly at a top-tier program.

 

[stephew]

that statistic you use is very misleading. that statistic includes people who applied to radonc alone and those people who applied to radonc AND radiology/im/other fields. For some reason, the NRMP feels that if you apply to radonc but match into rads or IM, it doesnt count 'against' the statistic. for example, when i applied to radonc, certain programs received over 300 apps for less than 100 positions. that allows for a 33% match rate, give or take.

further more keep in mind nowadays, many aren't even trying for rad onc if they dont feel competitive; or think about how many apply but never get interview so dont get as far as ranking.

 

[bence]

Assessing your competitiveness is difficult. Having gone through the process…. With: mediocre grades/boards, from a top 50 (?) state school, very few extracurricular activities, the only thing going for me on paper was lots of onc research and a letter from an extremely well known rad-onc doc. The last two things I feel got my foot in the door.

I noticed that many faces became familiar on the interview trail… suggesting to me that research and who you know are pretty important in getting, at least where I interviewed. And it makes sense. Would you rather date a complete stranger, or someone who a well known friend suggests, that has similar interests (research). Every program asked about my research interests. (note: obviously this is one reason why away electives can help people. A chance for programs to get to know a person. But it can backfire on people)

Many programs told me that they have had more and more high quality applications every year. And that deciding on how to rank people was very difficult, because there were few people that they did not like.

I truly think that once you are at the interview, your personality will be the key. They are looking to make a 4 year commitment to someone… someone they can get along with, maybe even enjoy being with; someone who they can depend on, and hopefully someone with similar goals. I met people that I surely would not want to hang out with for four years. On the other hand, I met some really great people that I would love to train with.

If you are concerned about getting in, you should apply to many many programs. It is probably a good idea to get a feel for lots of programs; it will help you make an educated rank list. You are making a lifelong commitment… this is your training.

 

[RadOncAnon]

that statistic you use is very misleading. that statistic includes people who applied to radonc alone and those people who applied to radonc AND radiology/im/other fields. For some reason, the NRMP feels that if you apply to radonc but match into rads or IM, it doesnt count 'against' the statistic. for example, when i applied to radonc, certain programs received over 300 apps for less than 100 positions. that allows for a 33% match rate, give or take.

Hmmm . . . I did not know that. Thanks for passing on the info. I guess I mistakenly assumed that if people ranked more than one speciality and did not match in RadOnc, they would not be included in the 72% statistic.

 

[user_name]

I would be very careful about trying to place yourself and making decisions based on the feedback you get. It is natural to want to do so, but it did not seem beneficial to me or others that I observed. I had a little higher board score, placed higher in my class rank (according to your reported grades), but went to a little lower ranked med school (20-25 in most pubs.) I had done some basic science research without any publications. I had program directors and chairs at more than one place assure me I would get tons of interviews and be able to cancel some of the lower tier ones once the letters started pouring in. They never poured in for me. Fortunately, I didn't buy into what they were feeding me and stayed open to everywhere that I applied. I don't think they were deceiving me intentionally, but I think they (chairs and PDs) are poor judges of how quickly the applicant pool is rising in quality. Residents are even poorer sources as many places they have no input or see the full CV of other applicants. Every person but one at the program I did match at has said they wouldn't even get an interview anymore. I have had several attendings on the interview trail openly confess this, too. So moral of the story- stay open to every place, don't believe anything you are told too firmly even if from reputable people, and follow your own course because you have to live with the results.
For what it's worth, I know PhDs with cancer pubs who didn't match and non-PhDs with 250-260 Steps who didn't match. I know a few with neither of the above who did match. There is no specific formula.

 

[landon]

These are data from the NRMP in 2004 and 2003. These numbers reflect only those who participated in the match for PGY2 starting positions.

2004/2003
Radiation oncology programs
63/51
Positions offered
117/107
Total number of applicants (U.S./IA)
200/209
U.S. seniors as a percentage of the applicant pool
73%/75%
U.S. seniors as a percentage of those who matched
88%/91%
Percentage of positions filled
98%/100%
Ratio of applicants to positions
1.7/1.95

Further details via references below:

2005 data are similar and forthcoming in the IJROBP.

National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) results for radiation oncology, 2004 update
Wilson LD, Haffty BG
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics - 1 October 2004 (Vol. 60, Issue 2, Pages 689-690)

Evaluation of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) radiation oncology data (1993–2003)
Wilson LD, Haffty BG
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics - 15 November 2003 (Vol. 57, Issue 4, Pages 1033-1037)

 

[Thaiger75]

These articles have been discussed before in this forum and the general consensus I got was that these numbers are under-inflated. Many of us can vouch that PD's have told us that they have received 250 to over 300 applications in years past.

 

[landon]

The figures are not based on opinion or impression. They are the data directly from the NRMP and based on fact. There are also some applicants who apply to programs outside of the NRMP process.

 

[ijokergirl]

Speaking of numbers...this was a good link posted in an earlier thread

http://www.aamc.org/programs/eras/programs/statistics/residency/radonco.htm

 

[stephew]

bence is right and so far the only person ive seen really appreciate the importance of the interview. NOw if you are getting many interviews, you likely will get A spot; but will it be THE spot?

 

[radonculous]

These articles have been discussed before in this forum and the general consensus I got was that these numbers are under-inflated. Many of us can vouch that PD's have told us that they have received 250 to over 300 applications in years past.

er, let's stay grounded in science here (i.e. a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal) rather than hearsay.

 

[stephew]

actually thaiger is correct. As someone who's been there, i can tell you that while 300 is larger than ive ever seen, its not far off. Rememebr not all programs get the same number of applicants.

 

[landon]

The above manuscripts have the correct and actual data from the NRMP match. There are in fact more applicants than the number of individuals who participate in the NRMP match process. Some applicants will not be granted any interviews and obviously will not go on to participate in the match process. Other applicants are qualified and are invited for interviews, but may accept a position that is offered outside of the NRMP match. Some applicants may decide against radiation oncology and subsequently not participate in the match. So, if a program receives 300 applications, that does not by any means signify that all are competitive.
The NRMP data analysis is the only objective means by which to factually document the details as an approximation of degree of difficulty in garnering a position, trends from year to year, and to compare statistics among the various specialties.

 

[Thaiger75]

Yes, this explanation does make sense and may explain the discrepancy between NRMP numbers and actual applicant pool size. And yes, if those people did not get any interviews and participate in the match (which I do know happens to some people), then perhaps the NRMP numbers are the true numbers of "competitive" applicants.

So I suppose if you consider yourself in this category, your shot of matching doesn't look all that grim (around 50%). But of course, we all know that it's more complicated than that....

The above manuscripts have the correct and actual data from the NRMP match. There are in fact more applicants than the number of individuals who participate in the NRMP match process. Some applicants will not be granted any interviews and obviously will not go on to participate in the match process. Other applicants are qualified and are invited for interviews, but may accept a position that is offered outside of the NRMP match. Some applicants may decide against radiation oncology and subsequently not participate in the match. So, if a program receives 300 applications, that does not by any means signify that all are competitive.
The NRMP data analysis is the only objective means by which to factually document the details as an approximation of degree of difficulty in garnering a position, trends from year to year, and to compare statistics among the various specialties.

 

[stephew]

the reason youre having so much trouble with this is because you are trying to squeeze population stats into individual circumstances. No one given individual may have a 50-50 shot. For some they will be ranked high at every place and for others they wont get an interview. for a few more they just wont rank in spite of an interview.