Are there new standards this year?

[dropshotdragon]

I have Mid 240s step score and great letters from well known faculty in the ophthalmology field from a well known medical school. Good research and some international experiences as well.

Anyone know if interview cutoffs this year that are higher than previous years (ie. step score, etc)? I am confused because I got rejections from WashU, Iowa, MEEI, and South Carolina even with what I would consider to be an above average application.

I did get 5 other interviews but they would be considered lower tier schools. I'm happy and feel blessed by the the ones that I have, but I thought I would be at least interviewed at the more prestigious institutions, given the emphasis on step scores in the past.

Also, is there any truth to the fact that programs will only interview a certain # of applicants from each school? My class has 10 others applying so I thought this may be hurting me.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[thalia44]

I don't know if there are new standards, but when did you submit your CAS application? That could have an effect...

 

[dropshotdragon]

I don't know if there are new standards, but when did you submit your CAS application? That could have an effect...

Submitted in late July-early August. Pretty sure that didn't hurt me too much.

 

[OcularPatdown]

I'm in a very similar situation (except that you can add rejections from Hopkins and CPMC). I have received several invitations to interview, for which I'm very thankful. I highly doubt that "new standards" exist. Remember, interviews generally go out to only 10% of the applicant pool and while I thought that I might snag a couple of invites from top-tiers (and still may....), I also know that I'm probably not among the top 10% at any of these places. I'm not AOA, and my grades during 3rd year weren't perfect. I doubt that places would reject me just for those reasons, but they certainly don't help (despite my high boards, good letters, research, etc.). Interview season isn't over just yet, so hopefully we're in good shape with more invites coming our way soon

 

[CastroViejo]

ya don't feel bad, i have similar stats and rejected by the same group of programs. gotta remember that this is ophthalmology. Being a 'strong applicant' means you can feel confident that u will MATCH but there will be people applying with 260 and 270 scores, people who have taken time off to publish a lot, people with very strong connections, etc. getting into a super competitive program in a super competitive specialty is...difficult.

 

[toaddd]

hey there,

i feel you. i am in the same boat and was wondering the same thing.
i have step I in 250s, junior AOA, strong research, international experience, great letters from well known people.

i have a handful of rejections/waitlists only 2 interviews at this point, both good programs, but not the same level as wilmer or meei or iowa. lots of places i am yet to hear from, but with so many of them already having offered interviews, i'm not horribly optimistic.

i too am grateful for what i have, but i still thought i would have more interviews at this point. it sounds like a lot of folks on here are racking up. i know that sdn is not a good sample of the average applicant, but i thought my application would compare favorably to many on here...i guess not.

i know someone who comes off as an @$$ probably doesn't know it and will say that they don't rub people the wrong way, but really, i am not an a*hole and i know i didn't come off as one in my app, so that doesn't explain it.

the only thing i can think of that might cause me to get overlooked is that i'm not from a top med school. not sure how much that matters.

anyway, i wanted to know that you are not the only one who feels this way. keep your head up. once more programs start offering, there will have to be some cancellations since there is large amount of overlap in nov./dec. interviews so hopefully we'll start to hear some good news from programs that have already offered, and we'll hopefully hear good news from programs yet to offer as well.

best of luck to you and all applicants on here.

I have Mid 240s step score and great letters from well known faculty in the ophthalmology field from a well known medical school. Good research and some international experiences as well.

Anyone know if interview cutoffs this year that are higher than previous years (ie. step score, etc)? I am confused because I got rejections from WashU, Iowa, MEEI, and South Carolina even with what I would consider to be an above average application.

I did get 5 other interviews but they would be considered lower tier schools. I'm happy and feel blessed by the the ones that I have, but I thought I would be at least interviewed at the more prestigious institutions, given the emphasis on step scores in the past.

Also, is there any truth to the fact that programs will only interview a certain # of applicants from each school? My class has 10 others applying so I thought this may be hurting me.

 

[dropshotdragon]

Great posts by OcularPatdown, Toadd, and CastroViejo. It's nice to know that I'm not alone. I wish you guys all the best, hopefully we'll all start hearing good news soon.

Another question: What's is ophtho's "magic" number of interviews for matching (ie. giving you a strong chance of matching)? My dean says 10, is that what you guys have been hearing?

 

[Eyefixer]

I am out of residency now, but a good friend of mine recently told me that because of budget cuts some programs are interviewing fewer people since application process is costly. In my day, programs usually interviewed 10:1, but most probably realize now that they don't need to interview so many to fill. There is probably some truth to that.

 

[VikingFavre]

You are not alone! I have gotten interviews from some fantastic places but have been rejected by all the places you named (Wilmer, Iowa, MEEI, WashU). This process is very competitive and at some level arbitrary.

Keep your head up!

As for the number per school cutoff I am sure it varies depending on the school but so far none of the people applying from our school has overlapped in top places offering interviews!

 

[FenderB2004]

do you guys feel that this year is more competitive than previous years? the fact that people with board scores in the 250s arent getting that many interviews is kinda crazy to me...i hope that it's because schools are cutting back on the number of people they interview (which hopefully means you need less interviews to match) rather than the overall applicant pool being more competitive than previous years

 

[panoptes]

Another data point:

My board score is slightly above the historic average for ophthalmology and my grades are mediocre. I have great letters including one from a well-known ophthalmologist. I go to a well-regarded medical school.

So far, I have received 18 interviews - but I applied very broadly. I have 3 top tier (but not like Wilmer, MEEI), 9 at middle tier, and 6 in the lower tier. I was advised to apply broadly and I'm glad I did. I had no way of predicting which top tier schools would consider me and I'm very happy with the interviews I've received.

Another question: What's is ophtho's "magic" number of interviews for matching (ie. giving you a strong chance of matching)? My dean says 10, is that what you guys have been hearing?

I've heard at least 10 and with 14 you can feel comfortable. I've assumed that one should rank programs within a wide range of tiers, but haven't actually verified this.

Also, I've been canceling/declining interviews in a timely manner, since programs all seem to schedule the same dates and travel plans are becoming impossible.

 

[Visionary]

To the OP, I agree with much of what is posted above. Likely, there are fewer interviews being offered this year. Most of the top-tier programs don't need to go very far down their rank lists to fill. That being said, ALL programs have cutoffs, with some obviously higher than others. I matched in 2004. Of the 20 programs (mainly southeast/midwest) I applied to, I had rejections from BP, Emory, Wash U, Iowa, and Duke. The only top-tier program that interviewed me was Wilmer, likely because I have an MD/PhD. My Step I was a respectable 240, and (true or not) I was told that a lot of the programs I was rejected by had cutoffs of ~250. The cutoffs are set as a way to prune huge lists of applicants, and the quality of applicants to the top-tier programs no doubt results in higher cutoffs. Don't take it as a knock on your credentials. It's a competitive field. The odds of you NOT matching with an app like yours are quite low. You may not match to your top choice, but should do well and receive good training. Keep your chin up.

 

[i4eye]

This is crazy! 250 cut off for AMGs!!!!! What makes them think that only step-one 250 plus people will make good Ophthalmologists!!?? That's ridiculous!! If it is 250 for AMGs, I wonder what it would be like for IMGs? 300 perhaps????? Just curious, any Nobel winner here this year as Ophthalmology applicant?? Gosh!!!

 

[KHE]

This is crazy! 250 cut off for AMGs!!!!! What makes them think that only step-one 250 plus people will make good Ophthalmologists!!?? That's ridiculous!! If it is 250 for AMGs, I wonder what it would be like for IMGs? 300 perhaps????? Just curious, any Nobel winner here this year as Ophthalmology applicant?? Gosh!!!

Unfortunately, there are many of people with 3.95 GPAs who get rejected from Harvard and Princeton who almost certainly would have excelled. Problem is, there are plenty of people who have 4.0s who will also excell and the schools can choose from that pool of applicants. That's just the nature of applying to selective programs.

 

[Corn Dog]

My Step I was a respectable 240, and (true or not) I was told that a lot of the programs I was rejected by had cutoffs of ~250. The cutoffs are set as a way to prune huge lists of applicants, and the quality of applicants to the top-tier programs no doubt results in higher cutoffs.

Hmmm... 250 seems a bit too high. Think that would put way too much emphasis on step1 score. For one thing, I know people with less than 250 who were invited for an interview at those places that rejected you. This is not to exclude any possibility of any program setting such a high cutoff point, but I don't think it would be a smart thing to do on their part either.

 

[DKofLV]

To the OP, I agree with much of what is posted above. Likely, there are fewer interviews being offered this year. Most of the top-tier programs don't need to go very far down their rank lists to fill. That being said, ALL programs have cutoffs, with some obviously higher than others. I matched in 2004. Of the 20 programs (mainly southeast/midwest) I applied to, I had rejections from BP, Emory, Wash U, Iowa, and Duke. The only top-tier program that interviewed me was Wilmer, likely because I have an MD/PhD. My Step I was a respectable 240, and (true or not) I was told that a lot of the programs I was rejected by had cutoffs of ~250. The cutoffs are set as a way to prune huge lists of applicants, and the quality of applicants to the top-tier programs no doubt results in higher cutoffs. Don't take it as a knock on your credentials. It's a competitive field. The odds of you NOT matching with an app like yours are quite low. You may not match to your top choice, but should do well and receive good training. Keep your chin up.

I disagree, I had a score in the 240s and was not an MD-PhD and got interviews at WashU, Duke, AND Iowa...and I did not go to a top 10 med school (or even top 25). I was a 240s board score, AOA, plenty of research but did not get extra degrees or even take time off between college/med school or anything like that to enhance my CV. So I dont know what I did differently, but I dont think it was anything outstanding/unique that made me shine through...

 

[thackl]

I don't know where the official rank list for programs is (low/mid/high), but I can only imagine most on here consider mine to be low. So far, everyone we've interviewed had step1=99. I've been told #'s (both applicants and scores) are way up this yr.

 

[DOCTORSAIB]

Maybe everyone's numbers seem way up this year b/c the cut-off for a "99" is 236 these days vs. a 244 in years past...

 

[DKofLV]

Maybe everyone's numbers seem way up this year b/c the cut-off for a "99" is 236 these days vs. a 244 in years past...

Could be, I was a 98 and was in the 240s...you can actually get a 99 with a sub-240???

 

[FenderB2004]

I don't know where the official rank list for programs is (low/mid/high), but I can only imagine most on here consider mine to be low. So far, everyone we've interviewed had step1=99. I've been told #'s (both applicants and scores) are way up this yr.

might be that people are applying to more places these days, so while the absolute number of applicants might be about the same as previous years, the number of overall applications is higher...just a thought

 

[hinduluv]

delete

 

[Eyefixer]

Step 1 256, not AOA, published, optho research pending, extra degrees MBA and MS, unique extracurriculars, volunteering, decent Midwest public school

A friend with a good step 1 and great step 2, tons of legitimate optho research with over 8 publications, one being a book chapter in duane's, been to ARVO etc etc. Not AOA, optho sig president, and also has an MBA.

Ophtho misspelled 3 times. Sorry, could not resist...

 

[hinduluv]

delete

 

[ILikeEyeballs]

Could be, I was a 98 and was in the 240s...you can actually get a 99 with a sub-240???

I took step I this past July and got a 237/99. I'm not sure why they are lowering the standards for getting a 99, considering that the average this year was a 221 compared to 217 last year (if I remember correctly). I'm happy they did though because it makes my score look better.

 

[FenderB2004]

is anyone else a little disappointed by the number of interviews they received? i certainly haven't been raking in the interviews and I can't help but notice that applicants with similar or sometimes even worse stats than mine in the matched applicants thread were able to get a TON more interviews...not sure what's going on, I'm hoping I don't have a red flag somewhere in my app that's gonna prevent me from matching...does anyone else feel that way or is it just me?

 

[Visionary]

I disagree, I had a score in the 240s and was not an MD-PhD and got interviews at WashU, Duke, AND Iowa...and I did not go to a top 10 med school (or even top 25). I was a 240s board score, AOA, plenty of research but did not get extra degrees or even take time off between college/med school or anything like that to enhance my CV. So I dont know what I did differently, but I dont think it was anything outstanding/unique that made me shine through...

Interesting. May have to do with differences in the test score distribution across years, as one of the later posters suggested.

 

[echinoderm]

my understanding of the two-digit number is that it allows program's to compare among different years... thus a 99/245, for example, 5 years ago is equivalent to a 99/238 last year.

as we know, the two-digit is not a percentile as nbme states loud and clear, but often programs perceive it as a percentile.. some ignore the two-digit number regardless and just look at the three-digit number without consideration of the above comparison between years.

not sure how to explain the lower threshold, but higher national average.

 

[thackl]

my understanding of the two-digit number is that it allows program's to compare among different years... thus a 99/245, for example, 5 years ago is equivalent to a 99/238 last year.

as we know, the two-digit is not a percentile as nbme states loud and clear, but often programs perceive it as a percentile.. some ignore the two-digit number regardless and just look at the three-digit number without consideration of the above comparison between years.

not sure how to explain the lower threshold, but higher national average.

I believe the 2digit score has to do with standard deviations. 99 is around 1 dev and above. As for my earlier post about increased #'s at my school.... got the answer at the recent RRC visit. Out 5yr rolling board pass rate is in the crapper right now. Apparently there were a few classes (over five yrs ago) that did poorly and the one thing they all had in common was lower than avg step scores. So now we're putting a higher priority on it.