Thread Rating:
  • 5 Vote(s) - 2.4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NRMP Data
#1
Early look at the NRMP data: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2...s-2017.pdf

212 US seniors applied for 218 total slots.  183 matched.  So that's a 84% likelihood of matching as a US senior applying.

Also, 3,393 ranked positions in that 212 that applied, so the average rank list included 16 programs.
Reply
#2
(03-17-2017, 08:24 PM)socrates Wrote: Early look at the NRMP data: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2...s-2017.pdf

212 US seniors applied for 218 total slots.  183 matched.  So that's a 84% likelihood of matching as a US senior applying.

Also, 3,393 ranked positions in that 212 that applied, so the average rank list included 16 programs.

The 84% match rate is drastically higher than last year (~75%). Pretty difficult to determine if this is just due to the volatile nature of a small field, a decrease in interest in the field, or people self-selecting other fields due to their perceived noncompetitiveness.  Probably a combination of all three but a ~10% increase is pretty significant in my opinion.
Reply
#3
(03-17-2017, 08:36 PM)Guest Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 08:24 PM)socrates Wrote: Early look at the NRMP data: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2...s-2017.pdf

212 US seniors applied for 218 total slots.  183 matched.  So that's a 84% likelihood of matching as a US senior applying.

Also, 3,393 ranked positions in that 212 that applied, so the average rank list included 16 programs.

The 84% match rate is drastically higher than last year (~75%). Pretty difficult to determine if this is just due to the volatile nature of a small field, a decrease in interest in the field, or people self-selecting other fields due to their perceived noncompetitiveness.  Probably a combination of all three but a ~10% increase is pretty significant in my opinion.

Table 8 seems to suggest that the match rate last year for US seniors was 92.6, despite having 10% higher number filled by US seniors (table 7).
Reply
#4
(03-17-2017, 08:44 PM)Guest Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 08:36 PM)Guest Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 08:24 PM)socrates Wrote: Early look at the NRMP data: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2...s-2017.pdf

212 US seniors applied for 218 total slots.  183 matched.  So that's a 84% likelihood of matching as a US senior applying.

Also, 3,393 ranked positions in that 212 that applied, so the average rank list included 16 programs.

The 84% match rate is drastically higher than last year (~75%). Pretty difficult to determine if this is just due to the volatile nature of a small field, a decrease in interest in the field, or people self-selecting other fields due to their perceived noncompetitiveness.  Probably a combination of all three but a ~10% increase is pretty significant in my opinion.

Table 8 seems to suggest that the match rate last year for US seniors was 92.6, despite having 10% higher number filled by US seniors (table 7).

By match rate, I am referring to US applicants/US matched. According to the 2016 charting outcomes, 183/244 (75%) US seniors matched. This year, 183/212 (86%) US seniors matched.
Reply
#5
Can any one post average step scores for acceptances? Like a an anonymous excel sheet
Reply
#6
Much of this has to do with Step 1 scores. PD are looking for 250+ and applicants self select themselves by this.
Reply
#7
(03-18-2017, 12:41 AM)Guest Wrote: Much of this has to do with Step 1 scores.  PD are looking for 250+ and applicants self select themselves by this.

250+ may be true for the research-heavy programs but the distribution of Step 1 scores for matched applicants from the 2016 charting outcomes paints a more optimistic picture for at least matching somewhere.
Reply
#8
I know in my class, generally, people flocked to lower hour per dollar specialties. Do you think it's a cultural thing? Are smart capable students avoiding specialties like neurosurgery for a more reasonable lifestyle?
Reply
#9
I've seen the same trend. Not sure if it's just a natural progression of getting older (i.e., as you get older, you and the people around you start to value lifestyle, personal relationships, etc.) or an actual cultural shift. I personally think it's more of a cultural shift. Many of the competitive specialties are competitive because as an attending, there is a nice balance between great compensation and lifestyle. Yes, it certain specialties like neurosurgery you can make more than ophtho/derm/ENT but chances are that neurosurgeons don't get much time to spend that money while ophtho/derm/ENT physicians do.

There's also a point of diminishing returns. I'd say roughly 95% of physicians I know live pretty much the same upper-middle class lifestyle, regardless of if they are ortho or EM or psych. Decent luxury car (Mercedes, Lexus, BMW), comfortable house in a nice neighborhood, kids go to a good school, enough money to eat at nice restaurants, and 1-2 vacations a year. The major difference among this 95% of physicians lies in how much personal time they have (psychiatrists/ENT/derm will have to attend weddings, kid's sporting events, date nights with spouse while neurosurgeons miss these events more times than not). Of course there are people on both extremes (pediatrician who is knee-high in debt, private practice doc making millions with side businesses), but this is the life most people will have.
Reply


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Image Verification
Please enter the text contained within the image into the text box below it. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.
Image Verification
(case insensitive)

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)