2018 Match

[MrGyrus]

Here is the report and an analysis of the date. BTW, two other surveys have been filled out since my last export. But it shouldn't change the analysis too much.

---

Here is the Raw Data file

---

Hope you all find this useful

---

Let me know if you have any questions.

[Guest]

Btw, we need more representation from west coast matches applicants

[MrGyrus]

It might be easier for people to access data and report through this link.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...sp=sharing

[Guest]

....Whats the Facebook group?

---

The average number of manuscripts was 7.75?? Wtf. Am I reading that correct?

[Guest]

Yes. That is correct. Remember that the reported number by ERAS is a composite of manuscripts abstracts posters and presentations. The median (better measure) is actually even lower as there were a few ‘high achievers’ driving the number up. Also there was no association between number of pubs and likelihood of matching at your top choice or top 3 choices.

---

Networking social group of applicants that met during the interview trail. Every year for the last few match cycles applicants/matched applicants creat one to stay connected with friends, colleagues and for networking and collaboration.

The purpose of the survey was to help inform future applicants and to dispel ‘myths’ about the application and match process. For example number of SubIs. Matched applicants doing 4 had no greater advantage than those only doing 3 when looking at matching into your top choice or top 3 choices as the outcome. Taking a year out seemed to potentially have an advantage. This association was lost in the regression model. However it is possible that the survey was underpowered so although still an unknown is did tend towards statistical significance. Also, it is not true that the average number of pubs is as ridiculous as some might have you believe.

[Guest]

(03-21-2018, 07:28 PM)Guest Wrote: Yes. That is correct. Remember that the reported number by ERAS is a composite of manuscripts abstracts posters and presentations. The median (better measure) is actually even lower as there were a few ‘high achievers’ driving the number up. Also there was no association between number of pubs and likelihood of matching at your top choice or top 3 choices.

---

Networking social group of applicants that met during the interview trail. Every year for the last few match cycles  applicants/matched applicants creat one to stay connected with friends, colleagues and for networking and collaboration.

The purpose of the survey was to help inform future applicants and to dispel ‘myths’ about the application and match process. For example number of SubIs. Matched applicants doing 4 had no greater advantage than those only doing 3 when looking at matching into your top choice or top 3 choices as the outcome. Taking a year out seemed to potentially have an advantage. This association was lost in the regression model. However it is possible that the survey was underpowered so although still an unknown is did tend towards statistical significance. Also, it is not true that the average number of pubs is as ridiculous as some might have you believe.

(1) It seems that what is likely happening is that your Step 1 score is determining where you get interviews, and once you've passed that hurdle, it's no longer associated with whether you get your top choice

(2) Would it be possible to combine this year's data with last to try and increase the power on this survey; might be useful to resolve some of these remaining questions.

[Guest]

It would. Unfortunately I don’t believe in the past we have collected all the variables we did this year. For example the year out for research has not been collected in the past, that I know of. That being said though, most of my friends in the trail this year had taken a year out. And I already know of bias at certain programs. Just to give an example, MGH this year only interviewed applicants with PhD or research year.

[Guest]

(03-22-2018, 04:34 PM)Guest Wrote: It would. Unfortunately I don’t believe in the past we have collected all the variables we did this year. For example the year out for research has not been collected in the past, that I know of. That being said though, most of my friends in the trail this year had taken a year out. And I already know of bias at certain programs. Just to give an example, MGH this year only interviewed applicants with PhD or research year.

Could someone who's in charge or have access to the data at least perhaps start tracking it all in one place? I understand we may have discordance between variables collected and such, but empty values could be censored. And even if it's not that useful for this year, it may be good to have this in place going forward (and would ensure some consistency with data collection).

[MS4]

This is excellent and very informative, added to the nrmp match data publications later on makes it that much more helpful. Thank you based NSG anons.

[Guest]

^^now programs are requiring a research year or a PhD for an interview? this process has turned into a joke. that is a terrible precedent to set for future applicants. adding more years to an already inefficient process. fortunately the program was already going downhill anyway. I hope other programs do not follow suit. So many things wrong with this whole concept, it’s almost as if people are intentionally trying to bring down this specialty.