Who Loves You?

Started by napoleondynamite
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It was released in July..I have no idea why information like this is not ALL OVER THE PLACE every single year! This is the kind of stuff we all stay up late giving ourselves paper-cuts over..

Anyway, it's nice to see that somebody is finally taking the mistory out of the match. 😕 :idea:

I was surprised to see that the results aren't nearly as bleak as I had anticipated...looks like most people who can get at least 4 interviews will match. Of course, there are lots of variables..but at least we know what they are now!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Just looking at the numbers, you realize how much score inflation we get here at SDN. I expected there to be far more people with scores >260 on step 1. It seems like we have at least half of them here at SDN. Unless I am misreading the graph for rad onc, we had only 4 people total with scores above 260 apply to radonc? I thought it would be 100 🙂
 
Reaganite said:
Just looking at the numbers, you realize how much score inflation we get here at SDN. I expected there to be far more people with scores >260 on step 1. It seems like we have at least half of them here at SDN. Unless I am misreading the graph for rad onc, we had only 4 people total with scores above 260 apply to radonc? I thought it would be 100 🙂
Click to expand...


Agreed. These stats gave me a small sigh of relief...it appears that Steph is right: there really are mere mortals who somehow break into radonc each year! Maybe I hadn't done enough homework, but I was going into this actually believing that the step 1 average was >240 and that only 1 in 3 applicants match...those are honestly the numbers :laugh: I had been told by multiple people & there's just a lot of conflicting info out there. It's nice to have some actual numbers for once..

Does anyone know how many US SENIOR applicants there were for the 2006 match? I'd be curious to know if it's higher or lower than the 148 in 2005.
 
Reaganite said:
Just looking at the numbers, you realize how much score inflation we get here at SDN. I expected there to be far more people with scores >260 on step 1. It seems like we have at least half of them here at SDN. Unless I am misreading the graph for rad onc, we had only 4 people total with scores above 260 apply to radonc? I thought it would be 100 🙂
Click to expand...


The histogram is rather confusing. Are the 14 students listed above the 260 line actually 250-260?
 
napoleondynamite said:
The histogram is rather confusing. Are the 14 students listed above the 260 line actually 250-260?
Click to expand...


this study really hasnt shed any light into the match imho. also, if you read closely, they only included 4th year medical students, fmgs, and img's. they did not included people who failed to match the previous years and were re-applying (which is not an insignificant number), nor did they include people who were transferring from other specialties...
 
The data do in fact include those who are changing specialties and are reapplying for example. The data reported do NOT include those who ranked radiation oncology as a "not first choice" but do include those who ranked radiation oncology as the "only choice" or "first choice". The total in the category of "not first choice" for 2005 was 13 US seniors and 6 "independent applicants". For the purposes of the report, independent applicants are "all others". Independent applicants include: previous graduate of a US medical school, student/graduate of an osteopathic medical school, student/graduate of a Canadian medical school, student/graduate of a Fifth Pathway program, US citizen/graduate of an international medical school, non-US citizen/graduate of an international medical school.

The number of US seniors who participated in the NRMP match for 2006 was 145. Details of the 2006 NRMP match will be published in the IJROPB shortly.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
landon said:
The data do in fact include those who are changing specialties and are reapplying for example. The data reported do NOT include those who ranked radiation oncology as a "not first choice" but do include those who ranked radiation oncology as the "only choice" or "first choice". The total in the category of "not first choice" for 2005 was 13 US seniors and 6 "independent applicants". For the purposes of the report, independent applicants are "all others". Independent applicants include: previous graduate of a US medical school, student/graduate of an osteopathic medical school, student/graduate of a Canadian medical school, student/graduate of a Fifth Pathway program, US citizen/graduate of an international medical school, non-US citizen/graduate of an international medical school.

The number of US seniors who participated in the NRMP match for 2006 was 145. Details of the 2006 NRMP match will be published in the IJROPB shortly.
Click to expand...


If you add up the total # of matched students on the radonc histograms, none of them add up to 137 (the number of spots last year). I guess this means that people who did not rank radonc as their first choice ended up matching?!?
 
napoleondynamite said:
The histogram is rather confusing. Are the 14 students listed above the 260 line actually 250-260?
Click to expand...


That is how I read it. They had 4 above the <=270 line, which must mean 260-270 since there were 0 scores above >270.
 
Here's my humble take on the fact that the average USMLE Step 1 score is not as high as most would think it is.

There is a far higher percentage of MD/PhDs per available residency slot in rad onc than in other fields with similar average board scores (radiology, ortho, etc.). Newly graduating MSTP students (MD/PhDs) are listed in the same category ("U.S. Seniors") as all other more "typical" graduating seniors (those with just an M.D.). I believe that, given the advantage that MD/PhDs have in the match process with their extra years of research and publication potential, they simply do not need as high of a USMLE Step 1 score to match successfully. I think stephew said that she has seen many MD/PhDs match with 210s or lower, which I think would support my point.

I think that this fact skews the data a bit. For example, I believe if you took all of the U.S. seniors and excluded the MD/PhDs from the group, the average USMLE Step 1 of successful applicants would jump up to the 250 range instead of 230s as we see now.

This is my sense of things based on the data I've seen and what I've seen from successful applicants that I know personally.

I think with so few spots and so many PhDs applying each year, the competiveness of rad onc is still far above diagnostic rads and ortho and still in the ballpark with plastics and derm.

Sorry for my grim analysis. This is only my take on things.
 
Clive said:
Here's my humble take on the fact that the average USMLE Step 1 score is not as high as most would think it is.

There is a far higher percentage of MD/PhDs per available residency slot in rad onc than in other fields with similar average board scores (radiology, ortho, etc.). Newly graduating MSTP students (MD/PhDs) are listed in the same category ("U.S. Seniors") as all other more "typical" graduating seniors (those with just an M.D.). I believe that, given the advantage that MD/PhDs have in the match process with their extra years of research and publication potential, they simply do not need as high of a USMLE Step 1 score to match successfully. I think stephew said that she has seen many MD/PhDs match with 210s or lower, which I think would support my point.

I think that this fact skews the data a bit. For example, I believe if you took all of the U.S. seniors and excluded the MD/PhDs from the group, the average USMLE Step 1 of successful applicants would jump up to the 250 range instead of 230s as we see now.

This is my sense of things based on the data I've seen and what I've seen from successful applicants that I know personally.

I think with so few spots and so many PhDs applying each year, the competiveness of rad onc is still far above diagnostic rads and ortho and still in the ballpark with plastics and derm.

Sorry for my grim analysis. This is only my take on things.
Click to expand...


I completely agree with the "grim" analysis. There are two broad groups of applicants...the non-PhDs who tend to have great board scores (240 +) with excellent academic records and the PhDs who have great publication records. Most of the PhDs I met on the trail did not have 240 + scores. They did not need them. However, there were some that had 250 +...they matched very, very well 😉 .

So, I would hesitate to take too much comfort in this report. If you don't have an extensive research background, you will need something to set you apart. Most of the non-PhDs who got 10 + interviews had very solid CVs...scores, grades, AND big LORs.
 
id also hesitate in getting too concerned with having the "most competitive" field or "highest board scores" or "most PhDs". Once we are worrying about that we're really misguided.
 
stephew said:
id also hesitate in getting too concerned with having the "most competitive" field or "highest board scores" or "most PhDs". Once we are worrying about that we're really misguided.
Click to expand...


unfortunately, that is where this field is headed...for better or for worse.
 
Clive said:
Here's my humble take on the fact that the average USMLE Step 1 score is not as high as most would think it is.

There is a far higher percentage of MD/PhDs per available residency slot in rad onc than in other fields with similar average board scores (radiology, ortho, etc.). Newly graduating MSTP students (MD/PhDs) are listed in the same category ("U.S. Seniors") as all other more "typical" graduating seniors (those with just an M.D.). I believe that, given the advantage that MD/PhDs have in the match process with their extra years of research and publication potential, they simply do not need as high of a USMLE Step 1 score to match successfully. I think stephew said that she has seen many MD/PhDs match with 210s or lower, which I think would support my point.

I think that this fact skews the data a bit. For example, I believe if you took all of the U.S. seniors and excluded the MD/PhDs from the group, the average USMLE Step 1 of successful applicants would jump up to the 250 range instead of 230s as we see now.

This is my sense of things based on the data I've seen and what I've seen from successful applicants that I know personally.

I think with so few spots and so many PhDs applying each year, the competiveness of rad onc is still far above diagnostic rads and ortho and still in the ballpark with plastics and derm.

Sorry for my grim analysis. This is only my take on things.
Click to expand...


I will be applying for rad onc myself, so please don't take this as specialty-bashing...

I highly doubt that the average USMLE score would be anywhere near 250 if we excluded MD/PHDs. I also don't think rad onc is in the same tier as plastics and derm. Derm, for example, had 50% AOA vs. low 20s for rad onc. The small number of available spots makes rad onc extremely competitive, however, I think Derm, plastics, and a few others (ortho and ENT) still have us slightly beat on overall applicant quality. Just my 2 cents. 🙂
 
Reaganite said:
I will be applying for rad onc myself, so please don't take this as specialty-bashing...

I highly doubt that the average USMLE score would be anywhere near 250 if we excluded MD/PHDs. I also don't think rad onc is in the same tier as plastics and derm. Derm, for example, had 50% AOA vs. low 20s for rad onc. The small number of available spots makes rad onc extremely competitive, however, I think Derm, plastics, and a few others (ortho and ENT) still have us slightly beat on overall applicant quality. Just my 2 cents. 🙂
Click to expand...

I do agree with most of what you said that as far as candidate quality in the applicant pool goes, Derm and Plastics are top dogs with Rad Onc right below. I feel that ENT and ortho have probably fallen behind rad onc in competitiveness. I don't have recent stats to back this up, but the last I checked, Rad Onc has the highest unmatched % RATE among all the specialties.
 
Thaiger75 said:
I do agree with most of what you said that as far as candidate quality in the applicant pool goes, Derm and Plastics are top dogs with Rad Onc right below. .
Click to expand...

i really dont know how you can make that assessment. you can look at median usmle (and often it may be so close as to be meaningless). number of MD/Phds? Where they went to med school? It's neither here nor there I think.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
BTW the usmle median would likely be HIGHEr if MD/PHDs were excluded who in my expeirence have notablely lower scores. I am not sure if this is consistent but its a pretty impressive anectdotal observation.
 
stephew said:
i really dont know how you can make that assessment. you can look at median usmle (and often it may be so close as to be meaningless). number of MD/Phds? Where they went to med school? It's neither here nor there I think.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't have any stats to back my assessment, but that was the general impression I had obtained from fellow classmates and a brother in dermatology when I was applying for residency. But I will say that for derm, for example, it was almost a near requirement to be AOA or top of your class (excluding people with inside connections) to be even granted an interview. It isn't the case in rad onc, however, which is a great thing...to look at the candidate as a whole.
 
although that is the case, radonc has some diff criteria as well. first off, medical school name (and letters of rec) & research/publications hold much more weight than they do in derm and other such competitive specialties.

there is no use comparing radonc to derm, ortho, ent, plastics. lets just leave it that radonc is competitive for diff reasons & there is no magic bullet to matching.
 
very well said. I can't claim to know the first th ing about derm or plastics or any other matching scheme nowadays. but the general point is well taken.
 
radonc said:
although that is the case, radonc has some diff criteria as well. first off, medical school name (and letters of rec) & research/publications hold much more weight than they do in derm and other such competitive specialties.

there is no use comparing radonc to derm, ortho, ent, plastics. lets just leave it that radonc is competitive for diff reasons & there is no magic bullet to matching.
Click to expand...


I think this is very true. Rad Onc is very, very competitive regardless of background. However, it varies per individual. If you are a PhD with average grades, you have a much better chance of matching top tier in Rad Onc than derm. In Derm, you need grades, AOA, etc...If you are top 5% in your in state school class, with a 265 but just a little research - you would probably be more competitive with Derm.

Both specialties require you to show an interest early, but they have little in common other than the painful match process.
 
With reference to the number of US seniors who registered with NRMP in 2006 - 145, and in 2005 - 148, my question is: Is this the number of total US seniors who applied for Rad-Onc and registered with NRMP OR is this the total number who were invited to interviews and who ranked programs?
For around 130 spots, 145 applicants doesn't seem too high........
 
irfanmd1 said:
With reference to the number of US seniors who registered with NRMP in 2006 - 145, and in 2005 - 148, my question is: Is this the number of total US seniors who applied for Rad-Onc and registered with NRMP OR is this the total number who were invited to interviews and who ranked programs?
For around 130 spots, 145 applicants doesn't seem too high........
Click to expand...

is that 130 first year spots?
 
According to the 2005 NRMP post-match analysis,there were 149 US senior applicants, for 137 positions in the main match.
 
irfanmd1 said:
According to the 2005 NRMP post-match analysis,there were 149 US senior applicants, for 137 positions in the main match.
Click to expand...
According to ERAS, there were 386 applicants last year...Is the 149 number just the number of US graduates that created a rank list?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
irfanmd1 said:
With reference to the number of US seniors who registered with NRMP in 2006 - 145, and in 2005 - 148, my question is: Is this the number of total US seniors who applied for Rad-Onc and registered with NRMP OR is this the total number who were invited to interviews and who ranked programs?
Click to expand...

The total number of indivuduals (US Seniors + Everyone else) who participated in the NRMP match for Rad Onc (e.g. ranked one or more programs) was: 205

The total number of indivudals (US Seniors + Everyone else) who initially applied to Rad Onc programs through ERAS was: 386

Thus ~ 47% of people who initially applied (a) recieved no interviews or (b) interviewed at one or more programs but declined to rank them.

These numbers must be taken w/ a grain of salt however. Many people who initially applied cross-applied to different specialities (e.g. IM and RadOnc or Rads and RadOnc) and may have ranked their speciality of choice higher than RadOnc.
 
Was anyone else shocked at the stats for general surgery.
1522 US aps
932 other
1051 positions available
the overal ratio is 2.34 applicants per position 😱
 
The total number of participants in the 2005 NRMP was 225. The recent NRMP report does not include those who ranked radiation oncology as "not first choice". Obviously these individuals are still competing for positions though if they do not match to whatever their first choice is.
 
thought here is no data for us on it, its is reasonable to think there were VERY FEW people who ranked radonc as anything other than a first choice (i.e. a "backup plan")
 
The total of those who ranked radiation oncology as NOT a first choice in 2005 was 19. These 19 are included in the total of 225.
 
This article casts a different light on the 2005 match:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...933&md5=9ad6360af4e39998fa0aff5e50e75ca2#tbl1

My interpretation is that there were 225 US Senior applicants for PROGRAMS. The data from the other article posted in this thread states that there were 149 applicants for the MATCH. So that leads me to believe that there were 76 applicants who either didn't get interviews or decided on something else after applying.

The ratio of applicants to positions was actually 1.76! This is much higher than what is reported when only looking at the NRMP data. 😱

So for those who get interviews, the match rate is 78%. However, overall chances of matching for APPLICANTS was actually about 55% for the 2005 class. I'm sure you'll all thank me for this added high-stress thread at a time when our apps are in and we know NOTHING 😀 Best of luck to all applying :luck:
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
RadOncs who are DOs
Replies
9
Views
4K
allseasons
allseasons
D
To rad oncs who acknowledge rt students, I love you
Replies
0
Views
1K
deleted1191256
D
B
WHO G2 Oligo, 1p/19q NCCN
Replies
13
Views
1K
TheWallnerus
TheWallnerus
CurbYourExpectations
  • Poll Poll
Would you apply today?
2 3
Replies
103
Views
13K
TheWallnerus
TheWallnerus
CurbYourExpectations
  • Locked
Thank you all
Replies
8
Views
2K
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa