Unfilled Path Residency Spots

[gringotuno]

Does anyone know what Path Residency programs didn't fill with the match this year? Where are the 42 open spots?

Very curious since there are many more unfilled spots compared to last year (more than double).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lipomas]

lol, the ERAS website is down and has been for sometime. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=10728460

What a cluster****! The AAMC is probably all at lunch and doesn't even realize what's going on. Glad I am not matching this year! Sorry to those who are.

 

[lipomas]

Very curious since there are many more unfilled spots compared to last year (more than double).

Are you talking about unfilled spots after the scrumble or before the scrumble? Because the list released after match day will include unfilled spots but doesn't tell you how many were filled during the scrumble.

 

[gringotuno]

I meant unfilled spots before the scramble... all the programs that I went to on the interview trail were talking about how competitive things were this year with more people applying for path residency but then there are more than double the unfilled spots compared to last year. Seems strange.

I was just curious about programs that I applied to that might have unfilled spots... if they have unfilled spots and I ranked them, then I at least got into that program or better in terms of my match list.

 

[moodydoc]

In the past, I think it was only the people that did not match who had access to the "dynamic unfilled position list." but if you have access to ERAS (and it is up and working) then you can try to find out... and let the rest of us stalkers know....😎

 

[gschl1234]

all the programs that I went to on the interview trail were talking about how competitive things were this year with more people applying for path residency

They've said that every year, ast least since 2007-2008. They probably just forgot how "competitive" it was last year, and the year before that. 🙄

 

[gbwillner]

They've said that every year, ast least since 2007-2008. They probably just forgot how "competitive" it was last year, and the year before that. 🙄

Path is getting more competitive. look at average Step1 scores over time- it's gone up, and the mean score for path is higher than the overall mean. That does not mean, however, that path is competitive relative to all specialties.

It's the Will Rogers phenomenon.

 

[gringotuno]

I would agree based on scores that it is more "competitive" but then I'm trying to understand why there are so many unfilled spots in path. Maybe it would be fair to say that things are more competitive for the top programs but the opposite for the lower programs?

 

[gbwillner]

I would agree based on scores that it is more "competitive" but then I'm trying to understand why there are so many unfilled spots in path. Maybe it would be fair to say that things are more competitive for the top programs but the opposite for the lower programs?

First, I don't think there are so many unfilled spots. I don't know how many "scramble" spots were available last year, but looking at the data, there were 503 total spots and 484 filled. That means AFTER the scramble, 19 programs were vacant. 96% of programs filled, and that's been going up every year. If there were as many scramble spots last year as this year, that would mean only about 20 people scramble into a spot. I bet there were more last year. There were only 67 non-US IMGs that matched... Do you think only 67 applied?*

As for your second point: DUH.

*289 IMGs applied to path only, another 86 to path as their first choice, and another 118 to path as a second choice (total is 493).

 

[gschl1234]

Path is getting more competitive. look at average Step1 scores over time- it's gone up, and the mean score for path is higher than the overall mean. That does not mean, however, that path is competitive relative to all specialties.

It's the Will Rogers phenomenon.

I recall the year prior to my application the average step 1 was low 220s. Haven't followed the stats since. Do you have links to Match data for 2007-2008 onwards? Thanks in advance. And sorry I'm too lazy to look it up myself. 😳

 

[KCShaw]

I'm not sure USMLE averages is the key stat for how competitive it is. When one is looking at positions filling, one has to look at the programs as well as the applicants. Some programs are very selective, or increasingly selective, and select themselves out of filling. Some programs aren't very attractive for applicants. Some applicants are fairly selective, and everyone has to draw the line somewhere in terms of number of programs they apply to, interview at, and rank. And some applicants simply aren't suited to be residents -- it's almost surprising how many people can apply who simply don't have the paperwork required to be a resident, whether it's all the proper exams or certifications, or whatever. That doesn't even take into consideration those people who barely scraped by exams, can't speak much English, may have passport/visa issues, or have other concerns. I suppose the scramble takes care of many of those.

I also think many programs claim the competition is higher every single year, else they say nothing about the competitiveness at all. I don't know what has happened as far as the number of applicants vs the number of spots available, though.

 

[2121115]

Of course they are going to tell you stuff like "it is really competitive this year" and the like. The interview process is about blowing smoke up various asses on all sides. They are "recruiting" and it pays for them to "recruit" you and sell you their program even if they aren't going to rank you highly.

Think about it, they are not going to tell you "it is not competitive this year, only scrubs applying".

 

[malchik]

... if they have unfilled spots and I ranked them, then I at least got into that program or better in terms of my match list.

Not sure what you mean here. Did you match? How does a program not filling say anything about how they ranked you?

My program director and the recruitment committee members all said this year was actually less competitive than last year, one of them actually seemed kind of surprised by it.

 

[Gene_]

was just curious about programs that I applied to that might have unfilled spots... if they have unfilled spots and I ranked them, then I at least got into that program or better in terms of my match list.

Assuming of course that they ranked you. Every year, a few applicants to our program do not get ranked.

 

[Entgegen]

My program director and the recruitment committee members all said this year was actually less competitive than last year, one of them actually seemed kind of surprised by it.

Maybe all the applicants are getting scared off by reading this forum.

 

[pathstudent]

First, I don't think there are so many unfilled spots. I don't know how many "scramble" spots were available last year, but looking at the data, there were 503 total spots and 484 filled. That means AFTER the scramble, 19 programs were vacant. 96% of programs filled, and that's been going up every year. If there were as many scramble spots last year as this year, that would mean only about 20 people scramble into a spot. I bet there were more last year. There were only 67 non-US IMGs that matched... Do you think only 67 applied?*

As for your second point: DUH.

*289 IMGs applied to path only, another 86 to path as their first choice, and another 118 to path as a second choice (total is 493).

But I think you need to compare it to other specialties. Categorical surgery has 1000 spots and recently all but one filled in the match. Derm and Ortho fill 100% with nearly 100% AMGs. Pathology fills about 67% with AMGs and is filled out by FMGs and scramblers. Pathology is more in line with Psych and family practice in terms of competitiveness. But like I have written in the past, many of the shining lights of academic pathology are FMGs (maybe the majority, just look at the authors of Robbins). So that is not meant to imply FMGs are negative.

 

[2121115]

But I think you need to compare it to other specialties. Categorical surgery has 1000 spots and recently all but one filled in the match. Derm and Ortho fill 100% with nearly 100% AMGs. Pathology fills about 67% with AMGs and about is filled out by FMGs and scramblers. Pathology is more in line with Psych and family practice in terms of competitiveness.

This is closer to the truth. Pathology is not all that competitive. Sure some of the top programs will be more competitive than others, but still just about any AMG can match into a pathology program.

 

[ilovepath]

I was thinking about this too, and I'm not sure how much you can use unfilled positions as a marker for competitiveness. Rads had an insane # of unfilled spots and it may be due to program behavior. My friend in a rads program said they had to scramble because they were too picky--they put their filters way high for steps, and didn't rank very many of their candidates, but he said the scramblers they picked up were insanely top tier. I'm not sure if unfilled spots is a black and white indicator like everyone thinks it is, ifso you can say something similar about rads by their insanely high #.

 

[gbwillner]

But I think you need to compare it to other specialties. Categorical surgery has 1000 spots and recently all but one filled in the match. Derm and Ortho fill 100% with nearly 100% AMGs. Pathology fills about 67% with AMGs and is filled out by FMGs and scramblers. Pathology is more in line with Psych and family practice in terms of competitiveness. But like I have written in the past, many of the shining lights of academic pathology are FMGs (maybe the majority, just look at the authors of Robbins). So that is not meant to imply FMGs are negative.

I agree that Path is not that competitive (see my first post). I think it is a step above family medicine (the absolute botton in competitiveness) medicine, PM&R, neurology, peds, and maybe psych. Also, probaby more competitive than all the "combined" programs... but it's hard to say since theren't that many spots, and definitely the preliminary medicine or surgery spots. It's somewhere between those and OBGYN, ER, and general surgery. The overall rise in Step scores does mean something because many programs use that as a primary source for determining applicant competitiveness (for right or wrong). Since the average path applicant's scores are higher than the mean (doubtfully significantly so), I would say the average path applicant is slightly above average in overall competitiveness. I also think there is more stratification in path programs than in other fields. The ones at the bottom (with bad reputations) may go entirely unfilled, while the "top" programs get their pick of stellar candidates. The 19 unfilled slots last year were at 14 programs. I know many CP-only programs that would rather go unfilled than take a sub-par applicant. That doesn't really happen in other fields, as far as I know. But no one would argue that Path is anywhere near the surgical subspecialties (any of them).

I also agree about FMGs, but I do believe than in GENERAL programs prefer AMGs, and as a result, their overall number does correlate with competitiveness in the field. Look, it's impossible to be completely objective in this. You have to look at all factors and no one metric will accurately compare specialties. It's a subjective claim to begin with. Look at ENT, for example. Everyone would agree it's fairly competitive. However, if you look at ALL applicants (including all IMGs) and the percent that land a spot- there is roughly 0.7 spots/applicant. That means it could be easier to match into ENT than Path by that metric, since there are 0.58 spots/applicant in path.

Here comes the data (as requested):
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2010.pdf

 

[yaah]

Good path programs are very competitive and almost always fill (unless there is some random reason). Lesser path programs are not competitive and may not fill routinely.

As an aside, do not post links or files that are copyrighted (like ERAS materials) unless they have been released to everyone. AAMC is quite active on making sure this does not happen and you do not want to get into trouble with them.

 

[pathstudent]

Good path programs are very competitive and almost always fill (unless there is some random reason). Lesser path programs are not competitive and may not fill routinely.

As an aside, do not post links or files that are copyrighted (like ERAS materials) unless they have been released to everyone. AAMC is quite active on making sure this does not happen and you do not want to get into trouble with them.

Out of curiosity, what kind of trouble would you be getting in? What law would you be breaking? Photos are copyrighted. Newspaper articles are copyrighted and they get posted all the time.

 

[gbwillner]

Out of curiosity, what kind of trouble would you be getting in? What law would you be breaking? Photos are copyrighted. Newspaper articles are copyrighted and they get posted all the time.

I hope that wasn't directed at me since:
A) I didn't "post" anything, except a link to another website and

B) it was from the NRMP's own website

 

[pathstudent]

I hope that wasn't directed at me since:
A) I didn't "post" anything, except a link to another website and

B) it was from the NRMP's own website

It wasn't.

I have just seen these threats about not posting links to AAMC/NRMP materials. What, will the AAMC police break down my door, haul me off to sing-sing and hang me for treason like I am the bloody Rosenbergs?

 

[lipomas]

Out of curiosity, what kind of trouble would you be getting in? What law would you be breaking? Photos are copyrighted. Newspaper articles are copyrighted and they get posted all the time.

I doubt you would go to jail. But they could sure as hell sue you and make your life hell. And I wonder if in the disclaimers where you sign that you won't disclose any information if that becomes a match violation and you could be in trouble for that too.

I thought I saw some notice on SDN that they don't want us posting articles on here either, just links to them, because of copyright issues. And photos get taken down it seems all the time because of copyright. You can't link to a farside cartoon on the web without getting in trouble, I think.

 

[yaah]

Out of curiosity, what kind of trouble would you be getting in? What law would you be breaking? Photos are copyrighted. Newspaper articles are copyrighted and they get posted all the time.

I don't know specifically. But the AAMC can try to make you stop. People who register for the match agree not to disseminate the info, as far as I know. And if you violate that agreement, you violate the agreement.

 

[pathstudent]

Not sure what you mean here. Did you match? How does a program not filling say anything about how they ranked you?

My program director and the recruitment committee members all said this year was actually less competitive than last year, one of them actually seemed kind of surprised by it.

Maybe pathology is starting to wane after having a bit of a revival. 2000 was the absolute low for pathology with only about 150 US AMG applicants (Which is like 1 per medical school). PDs from top programs said back then you would get maybe 40 applications and could get 10 of those to come interview. By 2006 it was well over twice that by 2005/2006.

The match just happened right? Well in 2005 there were a couple dozen people announcing their match in a thread. It was like UCSF!, BWH!, Stanfrod!, MGH!, UVA!, UCSF!, BWH!.... This year there hasn't been a rank list or match result posted. We will have to see what the numbers show when they are released.

 

[jenesaispas0005]

Maybe pathology is starting to wane after having a bit of a revival. 2000 was the absolute low for pathology with only about 150 US AMG applicants (Which is like 1 per medical school). PDs from top programs said back then you would get maybe 40 applications and could get 10 of those to come interview. By 2006 it was well over twice that by 2005/2006.

The match just happened right? Well in 2005 there were a couple dozen people announcing their match in a thread. It was like UCSF!, BWH!, Stanfrod!, MGH!, UVA!, UCSF!, BWH!.... This year there hasn't been a rank list or match result posted. We will have to see what the numbers show when they are released.

In the 2010/2011 applicants thread there were a few people who posted their ROL's (look at the last page). Again, nothing much different than what you mentioned. I personally didn't apply to or interview at any of those places. I matched at my first choice, a "high end of the middle tier" program, if you will. Almost everyone I've heard from or talked to applying to pathology AND most other specialties got 1, 2, or 3.

During my interview season, programs did make it a point to say there wasn't an increase in number of applicants this year, although the caliber of applicants has gone up. So maybe that's why the numbers are lagging a little.

 

[jp123ok]

Maybe pathology is starting to wane after having a bit of a revival. 2000 was the absolute low for pathology with only about 150 US AMG applicants (Which is like 1 per medical school). PDs from top programs said back then you would get maybe 40 applications and could get 10 of those to come interview. By 2006 it was well over twice that by 2005/2006.

The match just happened right? Well in 2005 there were a couple dozen people announcing their match in a thread. It was like UCSF!, BWH!, Stanfrod!, MGH!, UVA!, UCSF!, BWH!.... This year there hasn't been a rank list or match result posted. We will have to see what the numbers show when they are released.

At my program (mid-tier east coast program) the caliber of the residency candidates was really disappointing this year. The NRMP "advance data tables" (http://www.nrmp.org/data/2011Adv%20Data%20Tbl.pdf) show that the number of US graduates matching in Pathology was lower this year than in any year since at least 2006.

2011......... AMG......Total .............................2010 ....AMG .......Total
Offered .....Filled.... Filled .......................... Offered... Filled........ Filled
518 ..........269...... 476.............................. 503....... 327.......... 484

Also there were 25 unfilled programs this year and 42 unfilled positions going into the scramble.

Therefore, this data would certainly support the view that interest in pathology is declining. It isn't any wonder given the state of the job market in pathology.

 

[pathstudent]

That seems like a significant drop off. I think in 2005 or 06 it might have been closer to 350 than 300.

And also check it out that us med students were only 1/3 of the applicants and only filled 1/2 the spots. Contrast that to similarly sized fields such as ent and oortho or a much larger one such as surgery. You can't really compare it to internal medicine because there are 8 billion spots.

I predict pathology interest is waning but it will take a couple more years to see if this is an aberration or trend.

At my program (mid-tier east coast program) the caliber of the residency candidates was really disappointing this year. The NRMP "advance data tables" (http://www.nrmp.org/data/2011Adv%20Data%20Tbl.pdf) show that the number of US graduates matching in Pathology was lower this year than in any year since at least 2006.

2011......... AMG......Total .............................2010 ....AMG .......Total
Offered .....Filled.... Filled .......................... Offered... Filled........ Filled
518 ..........269...... 476.............................. 503....... 327.......... 484

Also there were 25 unfilled programs this year and 42 unfilled positions going into the scramble.

Therefore, this data would certainly support the view that interest in pathology is declining. It isn't any wonder given the state of the job market in pathology.

 

[2121115]

At my program, I am told the caliber of applicants was lower overall this year as well. We did have an increase in the woeful job market threads here on SDN over the past year and a half or so, so that may have contributed. Far more people read these forums than post, particularly med students trying to decide what to do. When I was deciding to apply to pathology the majority of the threads were cautiously optimistic about the job market (i.e. great pumpkin got a PP-partnership track job coming from a mid tier program with no fellowship and documented his story here). Lately the threads have been much more negative. Not saying SDN is responsible, but it may reflect the general mood (although maybe not reality) regarding the job market nationally in the bigger picture.

 

[pathstudent]

At my program, I am told the caliber of applicants was lower overall this year as well. We did have an increase in the woeful job market threads here on SDN over the past year and a half or so, so that may have contributed. Far more people read these forums than post, particularly med students trying to decide what to do. When I was deciding to apply to pathology the majority of the threads were cautiously optimistic about the job market (i.e. great pumpkin got a PP-partnership track job coming from a mid tier program with no fellowship and documented his story here). Lately the threads have been much more negative. Not saying SDN is responsible, but it may reflect the general mood (although maybe not reality) regarding the job market nationally in the bigger picture.

I don't think so. The job market threads have been a constant.

Pathology's bottom was 99-00 when only 150 us seniors applied. That was after the 90s when pathology was still full of golden apples, pathologists owned the outpatient tc component, there were few to no pod labs, and private practices hadn't been all sold off to mbas. The 80s and 90s were the golden age of lucrative pathology and interest in path was at its lowest. Ergo, there are other factors that influence interest in pathology. Sdn is not one of them.

 

[liliequist]

The match outcomes by program is available to those who participated in the match this year when you log in to NRMP.

 

[BornToCut]

I am suprised by Emory and U Penn as they are solid programs. The other programs not as much, but a lot of them are middle road programs. I wonder how the work load is going to be handled at schools that have unfilled spots. Especially ones that did not match at all. I guess it is good to know for future applicants to avoid some of these programs.

By the way...where did you get the above data from? Is there a link?

 

[liliequist]

The "Match Outcomes for all Programs by State" report is available when you log in to NRMP and look under "My Reports" for those who participated in the match this year.

 

[bps]

Is this before or after the scramble?

 

[pathstudent]

The "Match Outcomes for all Programs by State" report is available when you log in to NRMP and look under "My Reports" for those who participated in the match this year.

What are the programs and how many spots?

 

[pathstudent]

Wow Baylor in Houston only matched 2 out of 8 spots. What's that program like, anyway?

 

[gschl1234]

I am suprised by Emory and U Penn as they are solid programs.

The year before I matched Penn also didn't fill and talked about the reasons pretty openly at my interview. Seemed like a solid program to me. Wonder what's going on now.

 

[malchik]

I don't think a program not filling by one or two necessarily implies anything wrong with the program, it could just mean they didn't rank enough people. I am in a decent program and I know we had to go WAY down the list this year in order to fill, for some reason.

 

[HbyHA]

The year before I matched Penn also didn't fill and talked about the reasons pretty openly at my interview. Seemed like a solid program to me. Wonder what's going on now.

still no Dept Chair, long time PD just stepped down, and the Dean of the SOM is in limbo. I blame no one for shying away from that delightful mix of uncertainty.

 

[Pathologee]

I wonder how much of this has to do with the decrease in number of medical schools that actually use microscopes. I was someone who did not know that much about pathology but loved using a microscope. Without that experience, how can you know if you would be interested? Some of the applicants may have applied for something else as well and matched into that specialty.

 

[gbwillner]

At my program, I am told the caliber of applicants was lower overall this year as well. We did have an increase in the woeful job market threads here on SDN over the past year and a half or so, so that may have contributed. Far more people read these forums than post, particularly med students trying to decide what to do. When I was deciding to apply to pathology the majority of the threads were cautiously optimistic about the job market (i.e. great pumpkin got a PP-partnership track job coming from a mid tier program with no fellowship and documented his story here). Lately the threads have been much more negative. Not saying SDN is responsible, but it may reflect the general mood (although maybe not reality) regarding the job market nationally in the bigger picture.

At the beginning of the interview season I was also told that the general applicants were less appealing than in previous years. However, we did really well in the match, and I don't think we moved much (of at all) on our rank list this year. So overall, can't complain.

 

[icpshootyz]

Might not be the worst thing for the field. It seems like we may be training slightly too many residents for the available positions out there right now. Maybe this will trim things enough in coming years to put things more in line with the job market, who knows.

 

[2121115]

We need half of all programs to not fill to reach that goal.

 

[pathstudent]

Back to the Baylor Houston Program that only filled 2 of 8 spots. Is that a good program? I would have thought so, and they must be huge to have 8 first year spots.

Wow and Hawaii had an open spot. That would be an Adonis-like scrammble to score that.

 

[gbwillner]

Might not be the worst thing for the field. It seems like we may be training slightly too many residents for the available positions out there right now. Maybe this will trim things enough in coming years to put things more in line with the job market, who knows.

Actually, I think it's pretty terrible for the field. There were still hundreds more applicants than there were spots, so that means that spots were filled by less-than-desirable applicants. Sub-par applicants, should they make sub-par residents and graduates, will make the problem worse, not better.

I would agree that it may be good for the field to close bad programs, but I cant's see how it's good that programs go unfilled, other than programs would rather go unfilled than fill with crap.

 

[SIZZLE11]

Back to the Baylor Houston Program that only filled 2 of 8 spots. Is that a good program? I would have thought so, and they must be huge to have 8 first year spots.

Wow and Hawaii had an open spot. That would be an Adonis-like scrammble to score that.

Baylor has the worst reputation. They are notorious for discrimination. I will never go to Baylor at all. How can a pathology program be good if 6 out of 8 spots remain unmatched? May be as soon as they realized this I can bet they would be begging the candidates to accept their offers to avoid embarrassment. This is realy a worst situation. Texas has many good programs except baylor college of medicine<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com😳ffice😳ffice" /><o😛></o😛>

 

[jp123ok]

Actually, I think it's pretty terrible for the field. There were still hundreds more applicants than there were spots, so that means that spots were filled by less-than-desirable applicants. Sub-par applicants, should they make sub-par residents and graduates, will make the problem worse, not better.

I would agree that it may be good for the field to close bad programs, but I cant's see how it's good that programs go unfilled, other than programs would rather go unfilled than fill with crap.

It would be very interesting to hear from residents training at programs that didn't fill through this year's match to learn how many program chose to go unfilled rather than "fill with crap". My guess is that programs overwhelming chose to fill through the scramble.

I agree that it is not good for the field of pathology as a whole to have lots of suboptimal trainees graduating in 4yrs time. However, it does mean that finding a job should be easier for more desirable graduates, so if you count yourself in that category it is a good thing on an individual level.

 

[gbwillner]

Baylor has the worst reputation. They are notorious for discrimination.

WTF are you talking about?????

 

[GOLJANOID]

Lately the threads have been much more negative. Not saying SDN is responsible, but it may reflect the general mood (although maybe not reality) regarding the job market nationally in the bigger picture.

As a competitive applicant, SDN nearly chased me out the field. It definitely has an influence. I stuck with it though and I'm happy with the result 👍

still no Dept Chair, long time PD just stepped down, and the Dean of the SOM is in limbo. I blame no one for shying away from that delightful mix of uncertainty.

😀 Is it wrong that this gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside given they were the only school I applied to in which I heard absolutely no response from the entire cycle? Probably plays into why they didn't fill.

Baylor has the worst reputation. They are notorious for discrimination. I will never go to Baylor at all. How can a pathology program be good if 6 out of 8 spots remain unmatched? May be as soon as they realized this I can bet they would be begging the candidates to accept their offers to avoid embarrassment. This is realy a worst situation. Texas has many good programs except baylor college of medicine<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com😳ffice😳ffice" /><o😛></o😛>

Expound.

It would be very interesting to hear from residents training at programs that didn't fill through this year's match to learn how many program chose to go unfilled rather than "fill with crap". My guess is that programs overwhelming chose to fill through the scramble.

I agree that it is not good for the field of pathology as a whole to have lots of suboptimal trainees graduating in 4yrs time. However, it does mean that finding a job should be easier for more desirable graduates, so if you count yourself in that category it is a good thing on an individual level.

lol @ fill with crap

*looks around*

...

aw damn..

*has an existential crisis*


What if I'm the crap?


🙁