11 ENT positions in SOAP 2017

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Irishlass

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
32
Reaction score
1
Wow, any thoughts on why this occurred?

Yes, applications overall and per applicant were down, but there were still more applicants that spots and on average ENT applicants apply to more programs than those who apply to other specialties.

One thought on the reduction in the overall number is that applicants who don't have the stats (step 1 over 250, publications, all Honors etc.) either self-selected not to apply or were discouraged by their medical school advisors (schools don't like to have unmatched students).

However that would indicate that the applicants that did apply were not only more qualified, but also a more homogenous group. We'll have to wait for the NRMP data to establish that.

Is this a top-down problem, programs not interviewing or ranking enough applicants or are they all interviewing and ranking the same applicants?

Are the applicants all applying to the same top programs and not applying broadly to a range of programs?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I doubt so. I think reproducing individual programs would be a match violation.

This is indeed shocking tho. I wonder what happened.
2016 was Derm 250, NSG/Plastics 249, Ortho/ENT 248
I'll be curious to see if the average Step 1 was affected at all from having to take 11 in the SOAP.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Strange cycle indeed.

We interviewed the same number of applicants that we have interviewed for the past 10 years. We always interview the same numbers. The only thing that has been consistently different year-to-year for us is that the paper quality of medical student applicants has been steadily going up. We have noticed, perhaps, that the in person quality of medical students is stable or decreasing.

I have seen fewer people apply over the period of the newer requirements, but the same number of people make it through our doors.

I spoke to some colleagues, and they can confirm that their programs have interviewed the same number of students except for one program, and they interviewed fewer this year. However, they matched all spots.

If I were to speculate, I'd say that the deviation of quality is narrowing. I'd also speculate that more people are discouraged from applying because of the perception that they are not qualified. I won't speculate beyond that. I'd like to see the stats.
 
Strange cycle indeed.

We interviewed the same number of applicants that we have interviewed for the past 10 years. We always interview the same numbers. The only thing that has been consistently different year-to-year for us is that the paper quality of medical student applicants has been steadily going up. We have noticed, perhaps, that the in person quality of medical students is stable or decreasing.

I have seen fewer people apply over the period of the newer requirements, but the same number of people make it through our doors.

I spoke to some colleagues, and they can confirm that their programs have interviewed the same number of students except for one program, and they interviewed fewer this year. However, they matched all spots.

If I were to speculate, I'd say that the deviation of quality is narrowing. I'd also speculate that more people are discouraged from applying because of the perception that they are not qualified. I won't speculate beyond that. I'd like to see the stats.

1. In re to the OP: Doesn't this idea that there were less immortal applicants (Triad: Step 1 >250, AOA, pubs up the yang) this cycle, while currently unsubstantiated, miss the point? I doubt 14 spots (per NRMP) went unfilled because there were proportionally less applicants fitting this presentation. I'm sure there were plenty of those predators in the pool.

I would speculate that it came down to either: programs weren't ranking all of their applicants and those applicants got in elsewhere; applicants weren't ranking all of the programs they interviewed at. Both scenarios, or some combination, compounded by a year with less total applicants.

Either way, it will be interesting to see what the data shows.

2. Seeing Neutropeniaboy post makes me quite giddy! Like Batman coming out of hiding in the Dark Knight Rises...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
2. Seeing Neutropeniaboy post makes me quite giddy! Like Batman coming out of hiding in the Dark Knight Rises...

BatmanTAS.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Just have a question about how all of this works. According to the NMRP data (http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Advance-Data-Tables-2017.pdf), there are 305 ENT positions offered and there were 291 matches. So where does the number of 11 SOAP positions come from?

From Otomatch, originally someone posted that there were 14 unmatched spots, but then someone reported that per an applicant who was going through SOAP that there were 11. Looks like 14 was the correct number of unmatched spots and 10 programs that didn't fill.

It will be interesting to see how this effects next year's applicants and program directors. "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Some programs only rank a few candidates. They have residents speak to the applicants to make sure they going to rank #1. My program did/does that. Plus, this new interview and specific essay per program is stupid. Applicants are very busy and do not have free time on surgical auditions to write another essay. This is done on purpose to make the process extremely difficult to keep numbers lower. It turns applicants off.

Perhaps rotators saw the other side of ENT and figured it was not for them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top