- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 0
I dont get it.
http://www.nrmp.org/fellow/match_name/index.html#PCCM
The NRMP data for peds fellowships shows that there are lots of unfilled programs every year. Even peds cards has unfilled programs inthe double digits, more than 10% of their programs went unfilled last year.
But when you look at the match rates, they are low. For example only 83% of US grads successfully matched in peds heme onc, 86% for peds cards, etc.
The only conclusion that I can draw frmo this program is that there are lots of fellowships who would rather go unfilled than take a mediocre applicant, and that they are literally looking for only top tier applicants.
Is this a fair assumption? Other4wise how do you reconcile the high unmatched rates iwth teh high number of unfilled programs?
I dont get it.
http://www.nrmp.org/fellow/match_name/index.html#PCCM
The NRMP data for peds fellowships shows that there are lots of unfilled programs every year. Even peds cards has unfilled programs inthe double digits, more than 10% of their programs went unfilled last year.
But when you look at the match rates, they are low. For example only 83% of US grads successfully matched in peds heme onc, 86% for peds cards, etc.
The only conclusion that I can draw frmo this program is that there are lots of fellowships who would rather go unfilled than take a mediocre applicant, and that they are literally looking for only top tier applicants.
Is this a fair assumption? Other4wise how do you reconcile the high unmatched rates iwth teh high number of unfilled programs?
I dont get it.
