Was it harder to match what you wanted in 2021? A closer look at the NRMP results.

[efle]

Match rates this year looked surprisingly similar to last year, with only 0.9% less MDs and 1.6% less DOs landing a spot. I've been saying for a while I think those numbers aren't the full picture, because falling further down your ranklist or into a backup specialty are also "worse" outcomes. With the full data report for 2021 out, I tried to look closer.

1) Among US Seniors who applied to ONLY ONE specialty, 27% more failed to match (Table 14A). That's actually the same information as above - only a 1% worse rate for MDs, 7.0% versus 6.0%, but it looks much worse when you frame it relative to the prior year.

The numbers of unmatched students are:

US MD 2020: 955
US MD 2021: 1173
Change: 23% more unmatched

US DO 2020: 433
US DO 2021: 589
Change: 36% more unmatched

Total Seniors 2020: 1388
Total Seniors 2021: 1762
Change: 27% more unmatched

Keep in mind this is only capturing people who didn't dual apply. There were likely many more folks who fell off their ranks for their choice specialty into something else.

2) Match rate changes varied greatly by specialty.

Interestingly, this larger unmatched group was not all people falling off their list in competitive fields - some fields with high match rates were hit hard too. Anesthesia, for example, was 100% worse (up to 160 unmatched from 80). Emergency medicine was 50% worse (up to 260 unmatched from 170). Here's a summary of what got harder and what got easier for our year:

Spoiler: By Unmatched Rate, Relative to Last Year

Specialty	Percent Unmatched - 2021	2020	Relative Change
GenSurg-Prelim	15.9	3.7	329.70% (Harder)
IM/Peds	6.3	2.1	200.00%
Diagnostic Rads	6.1	2.2	177.30%
Anesthesia	9.4	4.8	95.80%
EM	9.1	5.9	54.20%
ENT	28	22.3	25.60%
Peds	1	0.8	25.00%
Derm	13.5	11	22.70%
Ortho	21.7	18	20.60%
Vascular	14.6	13.6	7.40%
Neuro	2	1.9	5.30%
Psych	9.4	9	4.40%
PM&R	5.9	5.7	3.50%
OBGYN	10.7	10.5	1.90%
GenSurg	10.6	10.5	1.00%
Plastics	20.1	20.3	-1.00%
IM	1.6	1.8	-11.10%
Neurosurg	19.8	23	-13.90%
IM-Prelim	1.5	2	-25.00%
FM	1.6	3	-46.70%
Child Neuro	1.3	3.4	-61.80%
Path	1	4.5	-77.80% (Easier)

3) People also fell further down their ranks, a trend for decades.

Several hundred less people hit their top rank this cycle than last; similarly, several hundred more fell to rank 5 or lower.

Number of MDs falling to rank 5+ this year (2021): 3,778
Number of MDs falling to rank 5+ last year (2020): 3,190
Change: 18.4%

Number of DOs falling to rank 5+ this year (2021): 1,252
Number of DOs falling to rank 5+ last year (2020): 958
Change: 30.7%

This has been a trend for the last two decades. Adjusting for cohort sizes over the years, the rate of falling to 5 or lower has more than doubled. We're also at record low rates of matching to 1st choices.

Spoiler: 20 Years of Falling Further Down Ranklists

TL;DR This year's match was rougher than the announced match rate made me realize, with hundreds more MDs and DOs unmatched. Certain fields like rads, gas and EM had, relatively, a much larger unmatched fraction than last year. We've continued to match our top choice less often and our 5th+ ranks more often. This was all in context of programs interviewing 15% more candidates this year.

We need to cap applications.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Banco]

Interesting analysis. Does increased number of applicants at least partially account for the data for this year?

 

[efle]

Interesting analysis. Does increased number of applicants at least partially account for the data for this year?

Totals in table 14A only went up a fraction of the unmatched:

Total MDs 2021: 15569
Total MDs 2020: 15034
Change: 3.6%

Total DOs 2021: 4849
Total DOs 2020: 4558
Change: 6.4%

So the growth in unmatched cohorts was much larger than the growth in overall cohorts.

 

[Lem0nz]

Totals in table 14A only went up a fraction of the unmatched:

Total MDs 2021: 15569
Total MDs 2020: 15034
Change: 3.6%

Total DOs 2021: 4849
Total DOs 2020: 4558
Change: 6.4%

So the growth in unmatched cohorts was much larger than the growth in overall cohorts.

Sorry just clarifying, are these numbers quoted above the amount applications that went in to residency programs overall? We know the trend has been to apply to 100 programs instead of 50 (or all of them) so perhaps many applicants are already hitting that hard cap and we won't see those numbers change much in the years to come, if those numbers are what I think they are.

 

[efle]

Sorry just clarifying, are these numbers quoted above the amount applications that went in to residency programs overall? We know the trend has been to apply to 100 programs instead of 50 (or all of them) so perhaps many applicants are already hitting that hard cap and we won't see those numbers change much in the years to come, if those numbers are what I think they are.

It's the total number of non-dual-applicants, both those who matched and those who didn't. There's another several thousand dual applicants, but we don't get to see info on them in this document.

 

[Lem0nz]

It's the total number of non-dual-applicants, both those who matched and those who didn't. There's another several thousand dual applicants, but we don't get to see info on them in this document.

Have they made available average number of applications submitted per applicant for 2021 vs. prior? And/or is there average number of offered vs. accepted/completed interviews? Not sure if this is regular data.

 

[futureapppsy2]

You should write this up and publish it.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

So it looks like it being rougher this year was just continuing a trend and wasn’t necessarily an anomaly.

 

[efle]

So it looks like it being rougher this year was just continuing a trend and wasn’t necessarily an anomaly.

There's also been much larger SOAP participation in both 2020 and 2021. I think the programs interviewing 15% more than usual kept us steady along the trend line when these kinds of numbers otherwise would've shot up.

Spoiler: SOAP Participation 2012-2021

 

[Lawpy]

More efle analyses!! Will add this too

 

[efle]

Have they made available average number of applications submitted per applicant for 2021 vs. prior? And/or is there average number of offered vs. accepted/completed interviews? Not sure if this is regular data.

Yeah the average applications is released every year, it actually wasn't much higher this year than last. We don't get any data on offered interviews, but we get data on ranklist length so you can ballpark how many people are attending.

 

[Lawpy]

Wait did the other thread get deleted?

 

[Lawpy]

Match rates this year looked surprisingly similar to last year, with only 0.9% less MDs and 1.6% less DOs landing a spot. I've been saying for a while I think those numbers aren't the full picture, because falling further down your ranklist or into a backup specialty are also "worse" outcomes. With the full data report for 2021 out, I tried to look closer.

1) Among US Seniors who applied to ONLY ONE specialty, 27% more failed to match (Table 14A). That's actually the same information as above - only a 1% worse rate for MDs, 7.0% versus 6.0%, but it looks much worse when you frame it relative to the prior year.

The numbers of unmatched students are:

US MD 2020: 955
US MD 2021: 1173
Change: 23% more unmatched

US DO 2020: 433
US DO 2021: 589
Change: 36% more unmatched

Total Seniors 2020: 1388
Total Seniors 2021: 1762
Change: 27% more unmatched

Keep in mind this is only capturing people who didn't dual apply. There were likely many more folks who fell off their ranks for their choice specialty into something else.

2) Match rate changes varied greatly by specialty.

Interestingly, this larger unmatched group was not all people falling off their list in competitive fields - some fields with high match rates were hit hard too. Anesthesia, for example, was 100% worse (up to 160 unmatched from 80). Emergency medicine was 50% worse (up to 260 unmatched from 170). Here's a summary of what got harder and what got easier for our year:

Spoiler: By Unmatched Rate, Relative to Last Year

Specialty	Percent Unmatched - 2021	2020	Relative Change
GenSurg-Prelim	15.9	3.7	329.70% (Harder)
IM/Peds	6.3	2.1	200.00%
Diagnostic Rads	6.1	2.2	177.30%
Anesthesia	9.4	4.8	95.80%
EM	9.1	5.9	54.20%
ENT	28	22.3	25.60%
Peds	1	0.8	25.00%
Derm	13.5	11	22.70%
Ortho	21.7	18	20.60%
Vascular	14.6	13.6	7.40%
Neuro	2	1.9	5.30%
Psych	9.4	9	4.40%
PM&R	5.9	5.7	3.50%
OBGYN	10.7	10.5	1.90%
GenSurg	10.6	10.5	1.00%
Plastics	20.1	20.3	-1.00%
IM	1.6	1.8	-11.10%
Neurosurg	19.8	23	-13.90%
IM-Prelim	1.5	2	-25.00%
FM	1.6	3	-46.70%
Child Neuro	1.3	3.4	-61.80%
Path	1	4.5	-77.80% (Easier)

3) People also fell further down their ranks, a trend for decades.

Several hundred less people hit their top rank this cycle than last; similarly, several hundred more fell to rank 5 or lower.

Number of MDs falling to rank 5+ this year (2021): 3,778
Number of MDs falling to rank 5+ last year (2020): 3,190
Change: 18.4%

Number of DOs falling to rank 5+ this year (2021): 1,252
Number of DOs falling to rank 5+ last year (2020): 958
Change: 30.7%

This has been a trend for the last two decades. Adjusting for cohort sizes over the years, the rate of falling to 5 or lower has more than doubled. We're also at record low rates of matching to 1st choices.

Spoiler: 20 Years of Falling Further Down Ranklists

View attachment 337812

TL;DR This year's match was rougher than the announced match rate made me realize, with hundreds more MDs and DOs unmatched. Certain fields like rads, gas and EM had, relatively, a much larger unmatched fraction than last year. We've continued to match our top choice less often and our 5th+ ranks more often. This was all in context of programs interviewing 15% more candidates this year.

We need to cap applications.

How helpful would interview caps only be?

 

[efle]

How helpful would interview caps only be?

Helpful but much harder to coordinate. There's a bunch of ways to schedule interviews - ERAS, Thalamus, interviewbroker, emails directly with the program.

There's only one way to apply, which is ERAS. Much easier to institute there.

 

[Lawpy]

Helpful but much harder to coordinate. There's a bunch of ways to schedule interviews - ERAS, Thalamus, interviewbroker, emails directly with the program.

There's only one way to apply, which is ERAS. Much easier to institute there.

Wait how would an app cap resolve the problem of falling down to 5+ in rank list? That's determined post interview?

 

[efle]

Wait how would an app cap resolve the problem of falling down to 5+ in rank list? That's determined post interview?

It used to mean something when you applied to a program. Yield was so much higher for sending an app, you could just apply to the places that you actually thought would be best fits. On the PD side, they could interview fewer folks because their applicants were actually interested in them. Rank lists were overall shorter and this system let >60% of people get their top choice, while >90% got their first four.

Fast forward through Application Fever, as Carmody terms it, and its a different world. Everyone applies to ridiculous numbers of programs, many of which are not good fits at all, because they need to pad their odds. On the PD side, you're drowning in applications. You have to filter out more people every year, some of whom really did want your program. You have to interview more people, because everyone is interviewing more (especially the strongest applicants) and you need a longer list than before to fill your program. As application yield gets worse and ranklists get longer on both sides, the places you're ranking becomes more about where you happen to interview than mutual fit. The system functions a little worse year after year until ~45% are getting their favorite and <80% are landing in their first four.

I was expecting these numbers to be good this year. The only place anyone saw in person was their home program, and its generally easier to stay at your own hospital than match out. Instead we hit record lows because programs interviewed even more people. This trend is not beneficial to anyone on either side, but the central application service that would have to institute caps is generating millions in extra revenue from it. So instead we'll keep seeing more applications, more interviews, worse yield on your true favorites and lower average rank matched.

 

[7331poas]

More and more evidence to justify applying to the largest amount of programs you can afford.

Honestly I dont care about fit whatsoever. I just want a place that will train/pay me. If they aren't malignant that is just icing on the top.

 

[Lawpy]

More and more evidence to justify applying to the largest amount of programs you can afford.

Honestly I dont care about fit whatsoever. I just want a place that will train/pay me. If they aren't malignant that is just icing on the top.

The data suggest the opposite though?

 

[MedScat]

So, if this is the case and we want to apply for a backup specialty...if you're limited to a geographic region there will be some overlap in programs you apply to. For example, if I'm applying EM NYU there's probably also a FM program there too which would be a backup specialty. Is it not wise to apply to two programs within the same institution? I always heard that this is not a good idea but is this changing?

 

[deleted952648]

This data supports the theory that applicants who might have normally applied to the most competitive specialities "settled" for gas or rads, popular back-ups that saw the biggest increase in being harder to match.

So people were more cautious, yet I presume all the most competitive specialities had no problem filling. Does this mean they also had to settle for less impressive applicants, or are there just that many great applicants out there, where not only do derm/surgical specialties get the best students but gas and rads are also now super competitive?

 

[Frogger27]

When do charting outcomes typically get released?

 

[DrStephenStrange]

When do charting outcomes typically get released?

Every 2 years. Last one was in 2020, next one is 2022.

 

[calivianya]

So, if this is the case and we want to apply for a backup specialty...if you're limited to a geographic region there will be some overlap in programs you apply to. For example, if I'm applying EM NYU there's probably also a FM program there too which would be a backup specialty. Is it not wise to apply to two programs within the same institution? I always heard that this is not a good idea but is this changing?

I am personally not going to risk it. Odds of them finding out might be low, but still. The 2020 program director survey had perceived commitment to specialty not quite at the very top, but PDs think about it for both interviews (70%) and ranking (61%), and it’s rated pretty dang high in importance (4.4/5) for even getting the interview in the first place.

I’d consider addressing it in a specific personal statement for both programs at the institution if I was dual applying like that.

 

[efle]

This data supports the theory that applicants who might have normally applied to the most competitive specialities "settled" for gas or rads, popular back-ups that saw the biggest increase in being harder to match.

So people were more cautious, yet I presume all the most competitive specialities had no problem filling. Does this mean they also had to settle for less impressive applicants, or are there just that many great applicants out there, where not only do derm/surgical specialties get the best students but gas and rads are also now super competitive?

It does follow that if specialties like ENT and Ortho were harder for solo applicants this year, theyd also be harder for dual applicants and push more people into their backup. As far as I can tell theres no available data on the percent of dual applicants that hit their top ranked field.

 

[DOVinciRobot]

This data supports the theory that applicants who might have normally applied to the most competitive specialities "settled" for gas or rads, popular back-ups that saw the biggest increase in being harder to match.

I'm not sure that's what the data says. The numbers of applicants to the most competitive specialties were not lower this year.

I suspect @efle is right about those very competitive applicant pools having people end up in back up specialties, and Gas and Rads are very common back up specialties for people applying ultra-competitive specialties. This alone would drive the competitiveness up for those specialties.

I personally believe the competitive specialties were so competitive because of an increase in overall applicants, as they were extremely competitive to begin with. The overall trends @efle has pointed out in this thread are likely due to COVID, but the increasing applicants are an underlying exacerbating issue, coupled with Application Fever. It's created a big mess.

 

[Goro]

What I'd like to know is have reached the critical mass of having number of graduates become more than number of residency slots?????

 

[DrStephenStrange]

What I'd like to know is have reached the critical mass of having number of graduates become more than number of residency slots?????

If we're considering all applicants, then Yes. If we're only considering US applicants, No.

 

[WhittyPsyche]

Sorry if I missed this in one of your responses, but isn’t the data points on how far someone fell down their rank list influenced by the wider cast nets of this application season? Particularly for competitive specialties, many applicants applied to programs they would never had under normal circumstances ie with external rotations. Many applicants that weren’t cream of the crop for competitive programs within competitive fields would have never applied or received an interview as they would have been filtered as non-SubI’s geographic bias, etc. For 2021 those top programs had more holistic reviews and had to by nature of no SubI’s interview applicants they probably would have passed on before.

If I apply to let’s say 5 top programs in my speciality and now rank all in my top 5 because this year I was able to interview there, I would then fall lower on my rank list. Whereas the typical year maybe 3 of those wouldn’t be there to begin with and I match in my top 5.

Honestly at my institution we even had applicants that should not have applied to the competitive specialty at all just throwing it in there because the chances were good sight unseen. Then had their more likely to match specialty 2nd— now seen as a back up.

 

[efle]

Sorry if I missed this in one of your responses, but isn’t the data points on how far someone fell down their rank list influenced by the wider cast nets of this application season? Particularly for competitive specialties, many applicants applied to programs they would never had under normal circumstances ie with external rotations. Many applicants that weren’t cream of the crop for competitive programs within competitive fields would have never applied or received an interview as they would have been filtered as non-SubI’s geographic bias, etc. For 2021 those top programs had more holistic reviews and had to by nature of no SubI’s interview applicants they probably would have passed on before.

If I apply to let’s say 5 top programs in my speciality and now rank all in my top 5 because this year I was able to interview there, I would then fall lower on my rank list. Whereas the typical year maybe 3 of those wouldn’t be there to begin with and I match in my top 5.

Honestly at my institution we even had applicants that should not have applied to the competitive specialty at all just throwing it in there because the chances were good sight unseen. Then had their more likely to match specialty 2nd— now seen as a back up.

Two things. First, people didnt actually apply to more programs this year (I was surprised by this too). It was hoarding, largely counteracted by programs interviewing 15% more people, that I think caused this to be the worst year yet.

Second, this data is for everyone. Tiny fields like ENT or plastics that traditionally rely on sub-I impressions are a blip in the face of IM, FM, EM, peds, etc.

 

[mandu_cheeks]

Particularly for competitive specialties, many applicants applied to programs they would never had under normal circumstances ie with external rotations. Many applicants that weren’t cream of the crop for competitive programs within competitive fields would have never applied or received an interview as they would have been filtered as non-SubI’s geographic bias, etc. For 2021 those top programs had more holistic reviews and had to by nature of no SubI’s interview applicants they probably would have passed on before.

Where did you hear this information from? Anecdotally at least (n=17 in my institution), it seemed like med students interested in competitive specialties went the opposite way and were more conservative in applying. They applied to a handful of reach programs without sub-i connections, yes, but they also applied to twice as many safety programs that they would have ignored in previous years. A wide net was cast, but a significant bulk of that width consisted of target/safety programs. Those who didn't do this either fell in their backup specialty, or failed to match altogether.

I also don't know about the geographic bias and the holistic review thing. There were competitive applicants applying to not-so-competitive programs who didn't get IIs from their home state. I wouldn't be surprised if top programs went out of their comfort zone in interviewing applicants with less stellar stats for the sake of "holistic review," but ended up ranking & matching applicants that were more "in their league."

 

[Redpancreas]

Two things. First, people didnt actually apply to more programs this year (I was surprised by this too). It was hoarding, largely counteracted by programs interviewing 15% more people, that I think caused this to be the worst year yet.

That makes sense. We don't look for ways to cheat the system but once we get opportunities, we don't relinquish them unless there's a cost. Travel.

 

[efle]

That makes sense. We don't look for ways to cheat the system but once we get opportunities, we don't relinquish them unless there's a cost. Travel.

If interviews stay virtual, should be able to check on this in the next charting outcomes, since they show how many people had ranklists of each length. I'm guessing we'll see a larger proportion in the "16 or more ranks" bin than we did in previous years for specialties like IM and FM

 

[Ho0v-man]

Two things. First, people didnt actually apply to more programs this year (I was surprised by this too). It was hoarding, largely counteracted by programs interviewing 15% more people, that I think caused this to be the worst year yet.

Second, this data is for everyone. Tiny fields like ENT or plastics that traditionally rely on sub-I impressions are a blip in the face of IM, FM, EM, peds, etc.

Are we finally able to admit that hoarding occurred? I missed that.

I’ve been wondering if EM’s implosion also contributed to anesthesia’s uptick. I’m not sure if rads was actually more competitive this year or not (although I think it was). But there’s no denying anesthesia went insane.

 

[efle]

Are we finally able to admit that hoarding occurred? I missed that.

I’ve been wondering if EM’s implosion also contributed to anesthesia’s uptick. I’m not sure if rads was actually more competitive this year or not (although I think it was). But there’s no denying anesthesia went insane.

I'm pretty convinced, seeing as there were 15% more interviews yet we had similar-to-worse outcomes depending what you look at.

What I don't understand is how EM can simultaneously be this competitive for US Seniors and also on the verge of a job market crisis. When the radonc market turned ugly they had a precipitous drop from one of the most competitive specialties to having 1/3 seats unfilled. EM looks like it's careening towards the same cliff but more people are trying to climb aboard.

 

[Prehealth1011]

If I recall correctly, the ACEP study announcing the impending doom came out after the match. We’ll probably see a more drastic dip in EM competitiveness next cycle

 

[Lawpy]

If I recall correctly, the ACEP study announcing the impending doom came out after the match. We’ll probably see a more drastic dip in EM competitiveness next cycle

I'm not keeping my hopes up. If anything, i'm probably anticipating even more MS4s will be applying to EM

 

[efle]

If I recall correctly, the ACEP study announcing the impending doom came out after the match. We’ll probably see a more drastic dip in EM competitiveness next cycle

I remember having conversations about the bad market with senior EM residents on my ED rotation prior to the match - maybe it just wasn't as well known yet. Also something to look at next year!

 

[DOVinciRobot]

What I don't understand is how EM can simultaneously be this competitive for US Seniors and also on the verge of a job market crisis. When the radonc market turned ugly they had a precipitous drop from one of the most competitive specialties to having 1/3 seats unfilled. EM looks like it's careening towards the same cliff but more people are trying to climb aboard.

Outside of SDN and some other online forums the alarm wasn't really out there. The AACEP report dropped far too late for anyone to change course. If it stays that competitive this coming cycle then that will be absolutely shocking to me. There should be a mass exodus.

 

[Dantes]

I'm pretty convinced, seeing as there were 15% more interviews yet we had similar-to-worse outcomes depending what you look at.

What I don't understand is how EM can simultaneously be this competitive for US Seniors and also on the verge of a job market crisis. When the radonc market turned ugly they had a precipitous drop from one of the most competitive specialties to having 1/3 seats unfilled. EM looks like it's careening towards the same cliff but more people are trying to climb aboard.

If it's anything like my school, it's because people were either unaware (poor advising?) or thought others were blowing things out of proportion. Despite all this there's still a heavy interest in EM over here.

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

A lot of regret in my class, except for those who matched IM in this slightly less competitive year, they are generally pretty happy.

I think what’s worst about matching 5+ on your list is that medical students put considerably less mental effort into selecting and researching these places compared to Top 5. There are probably so many misplaced students out there who would be happy to switch programs with each other, but won’t be able to due to the logistics of the match and how difficult it is to transfer.

 

[deleted952648]

Any idea on what specialties will become more popular and competitive if there is an exodus from EM? Anesthesiology would seem like a natural fit and I guess the high competitiveness this year is here to stay?

 

[Ho0v-man]

Any idea on what specialties will become more popular and competitive if there is an exodus from EM? Anesthesiology would seem like a natural fit and I guess the high competitiveness this year is here to stay?

Yeah. Rads and gas have always been popular backups for the superstars going for derm and surgical subs. But they’ve also been popular for people who like shift work and are disinterested in longitudinal care.

Anesthesia and EM have also really been for the middle of the road applicant that just wants to do a short residency and get out. Now that EM is dead, these people will be flocking to anesthesia. The ones that happen to be a little more competitive numbers wise might go after the higher salary of rads. But overall, I think this personality type is less suited to rads.

So I think Anesthesia will probably have a MASSIVE influx of USMDs. There will be some increase in rads as well. But anesthesia might be more competitive than rads next year. Which is nuts considering two years ago I would have told a DO with a 220 step 1 to shoot for university programs in gas.

 

[MDMechEngr]

How common is it for Gas and Rad applicants to apply for a backup such as IM and other less competive specialties? do you think it will be common, if it has not been, due to the large number of superstars using Gas and Rad as backup and the mass exedus in EM? It seems Gas and Rad match was pretty competitive this year and getting more competive going forward.

 

[efle]

How common is it for Gas and Rad applicants to apply for a backup such as IM and other less competive specialties? do you think it will be common, if it has not been, due to the large number of superstars using Gas and Rad as backup and the mass exedus in EM? It seems Gas and Rad match was pretty competitive this year and getting more competive going forward.

Prior to this year gas and rads had 95%+ match rates even with average or below average boards. I dont think many people dual applied this year but it might become more common if they stay this popular

 

[BlackSquirrelMed]

The more data that comes out, the more obvious it becomes to me that application caps are needed to stop this madness. Dr. Carmody has been right about this for years and yet so many people still incorrectly claim that interview caps would be better. Interview caps don’t address the root problem! It’s like putting a bandaid on a leaking faucet—the pressure/numbers will continue to build up.

 

[Dr.Cut.em.up]

I can think of one thing in-particular that could have affected the match and will probably affect it next year....away rotations. Luckily, a lot of home programs will take their own students without question. Some programs, even in the COVID age, refused to rank more than 1-2 applicants per speciality to their institution. I can think of a General Surgery program in particular that did this with great applicants. This left several of the GS applicant from that school unmatched this year when they otherwise should have matched. Plus, they had bad advising and were told to limit their number of applications because they were in great shape to match. Really, really disappointing.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I think we are near saturation of applicants. EM will still get lots of.applicants as they all have student loans coming due. They will apply even if the job market is poor. As for competitiveness, my son matched his 4 th choice for FM Sports Med. I didn't think it was a competitive specialty as Ortho can use their PAs to cover much of the sports related issues and keep the income in practice. I personally think the next 2 to 3 yrs will get ugly(er) until more slots open up.

 

[Dr.Cut.em.up]

The more data that comes out, the more obvious it becomes to me that application caps are needed to stop this madness. Dr. Carmody has been right about this for years and yet so many people still incorrectly claim that interview caps would be better. Interview caps don’t address the root problem! It’s like putting a bandaid on a leaking faucet—the pressure/numbers will continue to build up.

For sure! What sucks is that it will only be corrected by policy. Advisors telling students to limit their apps will not fix the issue because most students are shotgunning. Look at Ortho. People are applying to 70-100 programs with 250+ step 1 scores.

If you DON'T apply like this in these specialities, it will be tough to match.


This cycle will be like the last except possibly worse. I know of several places not enforcing the 1 Sub-I rule. To make matters worse, I know at least 3 people who applied surgical sub specialties who were asked why they didnt do away rotations last year. Apparently, some folks still did them.

I heard from a colleague that several students in EM decided to contact places for away rotations and were able to get more letters. In return, they all matched VERY well. The folks that abided by the rules either didnt match or fell WAY down the rank-list

This could all be gossip/false and hopefully isnt generalizable

 

[Lawpy]

The more data that comes out, the more obvious it becomes to me that application caps are needed to stop this madness. Dr. Carmody has been right about this for years and yet so many people still incorrectly claim that interview caps would be better. Interview caps don’t address the root problem! It’s like putting a bandaid on a leaking faucet—the pressure/numbers will continue to build up.

How would MS4s trying to couples match react?

 

[7331poas]

The more data that comes out, the more obvious it becomes to me that application caps are needed to stop this madness. Dr. Carmody has been right about this for years and yet so many people still incorrectly claim that interview caps would be better. Interview caps don’t address the root problem! It’s like putting a bandaid on a leaking faucet—the pressure/numbers will continue to build up.

So basically screw all couples matchers, DO applicants, and low tier MD applicants? got it.