2012-2013 Radiology Applicants Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
just wanted to say hi! i was on vacation and submitted my app in the caribbean hehe
I applied to NY/NJ/LI programs. 30 total programs with 18 rads, 2 prelim surg, 2 TY, and the rest prelim med.
my stats are average (238 step 1. one rads case report pub. one rads poster pub in undergrad, received a grant at my school to create a rads related project and did a rads summer thing after MS1)
hoping for the best!!
 
Seems like a handful of programs offered interviews last week. I am hoping this week will be more productive. I will feel a lot better once I get a few in the bag.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Doctor D said:
Seems like a handful of programs offered interviews last week. I am hoping this week will be more productive. I will feel a lot better once I get a few in the bag.
Click to expand...

Heh, yeah. Last week was light. On the bright side, this was the first weekend that programs had to look through complete apps so hopefully we see a bolus of invites today and tomorrow.
 
Those of you who have interviews already-

Can we see some stats?

US senior? IMG?
Step scores?
 
I think it'll be a bit yet for many programs. My first interview offer of 26 was 1 mo and 5 days after submission.
 
US senior, 238 step 1, 1 pub, 1 poster, 1 internal grant, other EC's, not AOA.
 
Away rotation at program or is it your home program? I would prefer a continuous infusion over a bolus of programs ;)
 
Doctor D said:
Away rotation at program or is it your home program? I would prefer a continuous infusion over a bolus of programs ;)
Click to expand...

That makes scheduling tough... I'd rather have had them all at once.
 
*in cartman's voice in 'go god go' episode*

come onnnn, come onnnn!, come onnnnnnn

Sitting at 1 TY interview here :p
 
Better than me, no invites yet.... fun times
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm sitting on one TY and rad interview. I feel like the MSPE will lead to an increase in invites for people. My EM buddy has gotten 3 or 4 already and someone else has been offered 5 in FM.
 
viper930 said:
US senior, 265+ step 1, top 10%, AOA
Click to expand...
one interview so far. US senior, step 1 244, lots of non-rads research, probably not AOA but our school won't announce it for several more weeks.

i'm assuming most programs will wait for our mspe's next week...? some haven't even downloaded my application yet
 
I got an email from Santa Barbara Cottage asking me to submit a letter of interest to them. Is this a common thing? I've never seen reference to a program specifically asking for a letter of interest. From the tone of the letter I get the hunch that they're inferring "You're not good enough, but if you beg hard, maybe we'll give you an interview." Or maybe I'm just being paranoid.
 
Got the same email, fizzle. No Cali connections here unfortunately. I was kind of thinking the same thing you were. I can see how I might be a borderline candidate to interview but may consider it with pressing reasons to want to go.
 
fizzle said:
I got an email from Santa Barbara Cottage asking me to submit a letter of interest to them. Is this a common thing? I've never seen reference to a program specifically asking for a letter of interest. From the tone of the letter I get the hunch that they're inferring "You're not good enough, but if you beg hard, maybe we'll give you an interview." Or maybe I'm just being paranoid.
Click to expand...

At least one other person I know got a similar letter/email (from your description, sounds like the same one). I don't know if you are necessarily being "paranoid" per se... the entire first paragraph reads like a rejection letter... but I would focus on the fact that they are interested enough in you to request further information. I imagine that instances arise where a program is interested in an applicant, but because of a persons geographical history, stated career goals, or some other factor they question how strongly said applicant truly desires to attend their institution. In other words, it might be that their goal is to find out if it is in their best interest to offer you an interview or if you are likely to turn it down later if/when another opportunity comes up. Perhaps someone who has been involved in the process can chime in?

Basically, focus on the positive and if you truly want to go there, tell them why.
 
Last edited:
Looks like a big drop in rads applicants this year. According to Dr. TLM from Aunt Minnie:

"After conferring with a few PD colleagues around the country, the news is this:

Overall, applications to radiology are down ranging anywhere from 15-25%, compared with the same time last year (some programs - which I will NOT name - are seeing close to a 30% decrease in applicants)."
 
Proxyfloxacin said:
Looks like a big drop in rads applicants this year. According to Dr. TLM from Aunt Minnie:

"After conferring with a few PD colleagues around the country, the news is this:

Overall, applications to radiology are down ranging anywhere from 15-25%, compared with the same time last year (some programs - which I will NOT name - are seeing close to a 30% decrease in applicants)."
Click to expand...
So, just like last year, the top programs will all be fighting for the same 200 or so students?
 
AlexMorph said:
So, just like last year, the top programs will all be fighting for the same 200 or so students?
Click to expand...

I mean, it's context, I think duke, Mir, Ucla, ucsf, bwh, etc all got ~700 apps last year or so, so a 10-20% reduction still means they have 600 applicants for 60-100 interview slots.
 
Also, quantity does not always mean quality. Will be interesting to see the NRMP charting outcomes for this application cycle.
 
yay maybe NYU will look at me!!
 
drizzt3117 said:
I mean, it's context, I think duke, Mir, Ucla, ucsf, bwh, etc all got ~700 apps last year or so, so a 10-20% reduction still means they have 600 applicants for 60-100 interview slots.
Click to expand...

True. That said, given the fact that the match rate has been 98% over the past 2 years it would seem odd that "less competitive" candidates would be disproportionally reflected in the reduction in overall applicants this year (I realize this is not what you are implying). More people should feel confident in matching than 5 years ago, I would think. I can't help but wonder if the persistent concerns over outsourcing and complaints about job satisfaction that have been well documented and discussed in various threads (even if IMHO they are unwarranted) have scared away many of the "top" candidates as well. This would seem to be of benefit to people on all levels of "competitiveness" (I hate how we classify each other, hence the use of quotes. I think the true separation between all of us is likely very small... but that is for another thread). In fact, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that this apparent reduction in applicants is skewed towards the top as those who feel they can match into any specialty may be more likely to be applying based on perceived lifestyle and compensation... not because they are greedier, but because they can. I mean, there is a reason that Dermatology, Radiology, and Ortho have been among the most competitive specialties for the past 10 years. If there is a general sense is that Radiology is not going to be as time friendly and lucrative over the next 20 years, the average board scores should go down, no? I would think this can translate into a significant increase in ones odds of matching at programs of all levels. As was stated above, it will be interesting to see the NRMP data next year.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I think the differences will only be seen in less competitive programs and may actually hurt less competitive applicants. Last year William Beaumont didn't fill, but the scramblers they filled their class with had higher stats than the people they got in the match. When you have an eager pool of people to pick/choose from that are shooting for competitive surgical specialties that aren't going to match, I'd argue the lower tier programs don't necessarily have to be less selective. Applications may be "down" at the top programs but that still means they have 60 ppl applying per seat rather than 70...

ScientiaVoxel said:
True. That said, given the fact that the match rate has been 98% over the past 2 years it would seem odd that "less competitive" candidates would be disproportionally reflected in the reduction in overall applicants this year (I realize this is not what you are implying). More people should feel confident in matching than 5 years ago, I would think. I can't help but wonder if the persistent concerns over outsourcing and complaints about job satisfaction that have been well documented and discussed in various threads (even if IMHO they are unwarranted) have scared away many of the "top" candidates as well. This would seem to be of benefit to people on all levels of "competitiveness" (I hate how we classify each other, hence the use of quotes. I think the true separation between all of us is likely very small... but that is for another thread). In fact, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that this apparent reduction in applicants is skewed towards the top as those who feel they can match into any specialty may be more likely to be applying based on perceived lifestyle and compensation... not because they are greedier, but because they can. I mean, there is a reason that Dermatology, Radiology, and Ortho have been among the most competitive specialties for the past 10 years. If there is a general sense is that Radiology is not going to be as time friendly and lucrative over the next 20 years, the average board scores should go down, no? I would think this can translate into a significant increase in ones odds of matching at programs of all levels. As was stated above, it will be interesting to see the NRMP data next year.
Click to expand...
 
Need some advice!

If you get a Rads interview date, is it ok to contact the prelim programs in that area you applied for to try to arrange an interview with them while you are there?
 
Hopefully we see lots of activity starting next week. Still sitting with 0 rads invites so far. :/
 
I hope so too. I feel like most programs would just wait the extra week for the dean's letter instead of offering this week. Ready to get this ball rolling.
 
Don't expect anything from any place competitive early exc Michigan. CCF might have been early too.
 
drizzt3117 said:
I disagree. I think the differences will only be seen in less competitive programs and may actually hurt less competitive applicants. Last year William Beaumont didn't fill, but the scramblers they filled their class with had higher stats than the people they got in the match. When you have an eager pool of people to pick/choose from that are shooting for competitive surgical specialties that aren't going to match, I'd argue the lower tier programs don't necessarily have to be less selective. Applications may be "down" at the top programs but that still means they have 60 ppl applying per seat rather than 70...
Click to expand...

While I agree that going from a 1/70 shot to a 1/60 shot probably does not constitute a significant change in ones odds, in my view this is an oversimplification of the situation. For one, not every applicant to a given school will have the same odds of ending up there; some will have a chance approaching 100%, and some will have a chance approaching 0%. The 1/60 value reflects the average applicant in that programs given pool. This means there are those who might be greatly affected by a small change at the top of that institutions applicant pool. For example, lets say I want to go to BigWigX, and BigWigX has 10 slots. Let's also say that BWX typically reaches number 25 on their rank list in order to fill. Then say they generally find 20 people who they all agree on, and there are another 20 who are highly debated by the committee to fill those next 5 spots on the rank list. That means if I am on the cusp for BWX, my odds of matching appear to be about 1/4 (5 slots / 20 people). Thus 25%. Now take away 10% (2 people) from both pools. Suddenly I am looking at 7 spots and only 18 people to compete with. That's a 39% chance of matching, a significant increase from 25%. If you take away 20% of applicants, my odds go up to 56%. Naturally, there are a number of caveats here, but this is meant to highlight a point. If you are on the cusp somewhere, regardless of where it is, and the pool is smaller your odds of matching there go up. This same principle applies to obtaining interviews as well.

Second, most people apply to more than one place. If you apply to 10 programs for which you are a 1/70 shot at matching, the sum of your odds is 1/7. Thus they may go from a 1/7 (14.3%) chance at those places to a 1/6 (16.7%). That does make a modest difference. If you apply to 20, the odds go from 28.5% to 33%. Again, there are caveats to this, but it highlights a point. While it is true that if someone is an average candidate and are telling themselves they have to go to Johns Hopkins or their life will end, a 10-20% reduction in competition will not make their delusion into a realistic dream. However, I think that if you are on the cusp somewhere, and/or if you have a list of 10-20 places that you are moderately competitive for, this reduction in competition will significantly help you.

I would also contest that the outcome you described at Beaumont last year is likely somewhat of an anomaly or perhaps reflects their approach to interviewing candidates. I would also be curious to know how many of those people with higher numbers than the matched candidates were FMGs, which would greatly skew the picture. Either way, its hard to envision a program intentionally employing that strategy in an effort to increase their numbers. For one, you are getting someone who may not have wanted to be at your program but is "settling" (at least in their mind) because they have to. Having a large number of people in that situation is likely not in the programs best interest. Second, if there are fewer candidates this year, programs are likely going to be concerned about filling all their slots. I don't see them wanting to wait until the SOAP process to do so.

In my view, the bottom line is that fewer applicants means more opportunity for everyone. Over the past 4 years the number of unmatched seniors has steadily dropped from 121 in 2009 to 10 last year, while the number of unfilled spots has steadily risen from 5 to 42. These numbers directly correlate with the number in the applicant pool. In 2011, there were 918 US seniors and 329 FMGs (1247 total) applying to radiology for 1124 positions. If you take away even 10% of those 2011 applicants, now there are more slots than people. Programs are going to be fighting to fill their slots during the match, not waiting until after to hope they can find diamonds in the rough because there may not even be enough people in the SOAP process to fill them. I really don't see how this can hurt any applicant.



IMHO, everyone should feel good about their overall chances and their dream programs if there really is a 10-20% decrease in the number of people seeking a career in radiology.
 
I'd contest that maybe it will help and maybe it won't. If it does help anyone, it will be those people who are right on the edge and probably would've gotten one or two competitive places.

I really have no problem being the second one asked to prom.

Also, those people with the high stats who SOAPed in aren't necessarily going to stick with it. I know one guy that is reapplying ortho this year after SOAPing into a spot.
 
That's just not the way it works.

You're operating under the assumption that every spot a program has is one you're eligible for, which is certainly not the case. 10-50% of each program's slots are reserved for internal applicants. If you look at every top program, they kept 1-6 of their own people. Furthermore, last year was a serious anomaly because the top schools had very few people go into radiology. Between them, Harvard, Hopkins, Penn, and UCSF had 14 applicants, which is extremely low. I heard two of those schools had that many applicants EACH this year. My sense is that the top programs will be more competitive this year from discussion with my PD friends.

ScientiaVoxel said:
While I agree that going from a 1/70 shot to a 1/60 shot probably does not constitute a significant change in ones odds, in my view this is an oversimplification of the situation. For one, not every applicant to a given school will have the same odds of ending up there; some will have a chance approaching 100%, and some will have a chance approaching 0%. The 1/60 value reflects the average applicant in that programs given pool. This means there are those who might be greatly affected by a small change at the top of that institutions applicant pool. For example, lets say I want to go to BigWigX, and BigWigX has 10 slots. Let’s also say that BWX typically reaches number 25 on their rank list in order to fill. Then say they generally find 20 people who they all agree on, and there are another 20 who are highly debated by the committee to fill those next 5 spots on the rank list. That means if I am on the cusp for BWX, my odds of matching appear to be about 1/4 (5 slots / 20 people). Thus 25%. Now take away 10% (2 people) from both pools. Suddenly I am looking at 7 spots and only 18 people to compete with. That’s a 39% chance of matching, a significant increase from 25%. If you take away 20% of applicants, my odds go up to 56%. Naturally, there are a number of caveats here, but this is meant to highlight a point. If you are on the cusp somewhere, regardless of where it is, and the pool is smaller your odds of matching there go up. This same principle applies to obtaining interviews as well.

Second, most people apply to more than one place. If you apply to 10 programs for which you are a 1/70 shot at matching, the sum of your odds is 1/7. Thus they may go from a 1/7 (14.3%) chance at those places to a 1/6 (16.7%). That does make a modest difference. If you apply to 20, the odds go from 28.5% to 33%. Again, there are caveats to this, but it highlights a point. While it is true that if someone is an average candidate and are telling themselves they have to go to Johns Hopkins or their life will end, a 10-20% reduction in competition will not make their delusion into a realistic dream. However, I think that if you are on the cusp somewhere, and/or if you have a list of 10-20 places that you are moderately competitive for, this reduction in competition will significantly help you.

I would also contest that the outcome you described at Beaumont last year is likely somewhat of an anomaly or perhaps reflects their approach to interviewing candidates. I would also be curious to know how many of those people with higher numbers than the matched candidates were FMGs, which would greatly skew the picture. Either way, its hard to envision a program intentionally employing that strategy in an effort to increase their numbers. For one, you are getting someone who may not have wanted to be at your program but is “settling” (at least in their mind) because they have to. Having a large number of people in that situation is likely not in the programs best interest. Second, if there are fewer candidates this year, programs are likely going to be concerned about filling all their slots. I don’t see them wanting to wait until the SOAP process to do so.

In my view, the bottom line is that fewer applicants means more opportunity for everyone. Over the past 4 years the number of unmatched seniors has steadily dropped from 121 in 2009 to 10 last year, while the number of unfilled spots has steadily risen from 5 to 42. These numbers directly correlate with the number in the applicant pool. In 2011, there were 918 US seniors and 329 FMGs (1247 total) applying to radiology for 1124 positions. If you take away even 10% of those 2011 applicants, now there are more slots than people. Programs are going to be fighting to fill their slots during the match, not waiting until after to hope they can find diamonds in the rough because there may not even be enough people in the SOAP process to fill them. I really don’t see how this can hurt any applicant.



IMHO, everyone should feel good about their overall chances and their dream programs if there really is a 10-20% decrease in the number of people seeking a career in radiology.
Click to expand...
 
drizzt3117 said:
That's just not the way it works.

You're operating under the assumption that every spot a program has is one you're eligible for, which is certainly not the case. 10-50% of each program's slots are reserved for internal applicants. If you look at every top program, they kept 1-6 of their own people. Furthermore, last year was a serious anomaly because the top schools had very few people go into radiology. Between them, Harvard, Hopkins, Penn, and UCSF had 14 applicants, which is extremely low. I heard two of those schools had that many applicants EACH this year. My sense is that the top programs will be more competitive this year from discussion with my PD friends.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. I guess time will tell.
 
Not really much point in speculation. If it happens, the person may associate it with decreased apps. If it doesn't, then the other theory will be applied. Just have to wait and see. If last year was an anomaly and this year is decreased from last, then one must avoid assuming it is particular schools with a decrease on applicants.
 
The other question is regarding quality; that's generally going to make the bigger difference on how the cycle goes. According to charting outcomes the average went from 235-240 from 2009 to 2011.
 
Was the quality of last year's applicants generally considered to be similar to those of 2011 despite the drop in number of applicants?
 
Proxyfloxacin said:
Was the quality of last year's applicants generally considered to be similar to those of 2011 despite the drop in number of applicants?
Click to expand...

The quality was higher last year on average. There were about 100 ppl with 260+ last year.
 
member 123 said:
Need some advice!

If you get a Rads interview date, is it ok to contact the prelim programs in that area you applied for to try to arrange an interview with them while you are there?
Click to expand...
I have the opposite issue, lol. What to do...any ideas, people?
 
AlexMorph said:
I have the opposite issue, lol. What to do...any ideas, people?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't contact rads programs if they haven't sent out invites. For the most part, programs don't give a f if you're in the area or not.
 
drizzt3117 said:
The other question is regarding quality; that's generally going to make the bigger difference on how the cycle goes. According to charting outcomes the average went from 235-240 from 2009 to 2011.
Click to expand...

Definitely a good resource to consider. Here are some other numbers:

FOR US SENIORS:

Mean Step 1 - 2009: 238 220 ( Matched Unmatched )
Mean Step 1 - 2011: 240 211
Mean Step 2 - 2009: 242 218
Mean Step 2 - 2011: 245 214

FOR INDEPENDENT APPLICANTS:

Mean Step 1 - 2009: 235 223
Mean Step 1 - 2011: 235 222
Mean Step 2 - 2009: 239 223
Mean Step 2 - 2011: 234 222

To give some hope to those US seniors who might not have a 240+ on your board scores, there was another interesting trend to note.

PERCENTAGE WHO MATCHED (with STEP 1 scores of 201-220)

2009: 102 out of 159 US seniors (64%)
2011: 81 out of 92 US seniors (88%)

Thus the average USMLE step 1 score for matched US Seniors went up from 238 to 240, and there was a 42% drop in the number of US senior applicants with a step 1 score of 201-220. It is interesting that the average Step 1 score and Step 2 score for those who did not match actually went down. Perhaps is reflects an increased emphasis on step scores? This trend was seen in several competitive specialties. I have not seen the data over the past 2 years, but there is also the trend for the overall average USMLE score to go up by about 1 point every 1-2 years which is worth considering.

Just for sake of comparison, over this same time span the average USMLE score for matched US seniors changed from 2009 to 2011 as follows:

Anesthesia 224 to 226
Dermatology 242 to 244
EM 222 to 223
Family Med 214 to 213
Ortho 238 to 240
ENT 240 to 243
Psych 216 to 214
Rad Onc 238 to 240

Notably, there was an increase in the percentage of people who had AOA between 2009 and 2011, both in matched (23.2% to 26.4%) and unmatched (1.9% to 5.6%) US seniors. This might suggest the pool is getting more competitive from that standpoint.

Not sure what it all means, but I thought it was interesting so make of it what you will.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, do most programs send out invites over several days, or do they have one day that they send out their invitations? As in, if I haven't heard from a program, but others have, am I SOL for getting an interview there?
 
Wish my interview offers reflected my board scores. 250s step 1 and still nada so far. Still early I know.
 
Why in the heck are the offers so slow?
I have step1 and 2 in the 260s. I mean what the heck. Nothing bad on mspe and what not.
 
tenau12 said:
Why in the heck are the offers so slow?
I have step1 and 2 in the 260s. I mean what the heck. Nothing bad on mspe and what not.
Click to expand...

All we can do is wait at this point. Based on the two interview invite lists (here and auntminnie), A LOT of programs haven't sent out invites yet. It seems the lesser known programs have been giving out invites so far with a few big names, but it is still really really early.
 
tenau12 said:
Why in the heck are the offers so slow?
I have step1 and 2 in the 260s. I mean what the heck. Nothing bad on mspe and what not.
Click to expand...

This has been posted previously, but here is a link to the last page of the 2011-2012 interview invite thread from AuntMinnie.com. As has been discussed above many programs didn't offer until November last year, and at least some made multiple offers. Hopefully this will help assuage your stress level. Best of luck.

http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/tm.aspx?&m=319372&mpage=11
 
Anyone have thoughts about calling programs that have sent out invites already to express interest in the program and check on the status of the application?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

C
Competitiveness of Radiology Fellowships
Replies
14
Views
2K
MadRadLad
M
lobelsteve
Jefferson Radiology poor service
Replies
17
Views
2K
meister
meister
Y
Chillest radiology fellowship programs
Replies
6
Views
2K
Isonicphoton
I
O
How To Find A Radiology Job And Evaluate A Radiology Job Offer
Replies
2
Views
1K
Womb Raider
Womb Raider
J
MSK Radiology Fellowship Programs
Replies
2
Views
1K
vm26
vm26
Top