High Rad Onc Match Rate

[sniderwes]

What are the factors contributing to the 91% match rate for rad onc? I know some say selection bias, but dermatology is very similar in terms of average candidate's Step 1 scores and number of publications, yet they only have a match rate of 77%

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[medgator]

50% increase in residency spots in the last decade coupled with a deteriorating job market.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

At this rate rad onc won't be the king anymore. It'll be integrated surgical specialities, uro, IR, derm, ortho, ENT and optho.

 

[medgator]

At this rate rad onc won't be the king anymore. It'll be integrated surgical specialities, uro, IR, derm, ortho, ENT and optho.

Rad onc will be fine, although preferably you should be in an integrated multidisciplinary group model.

Even on our own, we're probably better off than IR. No one else can do radiation,, plenty of specialties have poached IR procedures over the years.

I get plenty of referrals from many of those specialties, the problem is when independents get bought out by the hospital or form their own groups with radiation

 

[DrfluffyMD]

Rad onc will be fine, although preferably you should be in an integrated multidisciplinary group model.

Even on our own, we're probably better off than IR. No one else can do radiation,, plenty of specialties have poached IR procedures over the years.

I get plenty of referrals from many of those specialties, the problem is when independents get bought out by the hospital or form their own groups with radiation

I am speaking strictly about the number of trainees. Nobody can do pathology besides pathologist either, but that didn'f stop pathology from becoming pathology.

 

[medgator]

I am speaking strictly about the number of trainees. Nobody can do pathology besides pathologist either, but that didn'f stop pathology from becoming pathology.

It's true. Nobody is being helped by this rampant expansion in slots at a time where we are treating less breast and prostate and moving towards hypofractionation of the patients we do treat

It would behoove the OP to know that when I started training over a decade ago, the match rate was closer to 50% from what I heard. People are selecting out but it may not be for the reasons that the OP is thinking

 

[John Rattan]

Technically, my Ninja, he's right. If you add the DOs, the IMGs/FMGs, and the occasional nurses and PAs that accidentally applied to residency (happens more than you think), the number dipped to around 60%. But if you look at US MDs, the acceptance rate hovers around 80-95% depending on the year. But, yea, in the year you have the apply with 20-30 PAs, the number dips

 

[sniderwes]

50% increase in residency spots in the last decade coupled with a deteriorating job market.

Do you have sources on any of that? According to the 2016 MGMA report Rac Onc is still on top with the likes of derm, ortho, etc. but a 50% increase in supply coupled with a worsening job market is truly worrying to this MS3...

Also I would consider ophtho to be closer to anesthesia in terms of compensation than the other surgical subspecialties someone had mentioned.

 

[medgator]

Do you have sources on any of that? According to the 2016 MGMA report Rac Onc is still on top with the likes of derm, ortho, etc. but a 50% increase in supply coupled with a worsening job market is truly worrying to this MS3...

Also I would consider ophtho to be closer to anesthesia in terms of compensation than the other surgical subspecialties someone had mentioned.

Yeah. It's called reading the threads in this forum. There have also been recent studies published in the red journal regarding the above which you can find in some of the job market threads

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

It's true. Nobody is being helped by this rampant expansion in slots at a time where we are treating less breast and prostate and moving towards hypofractionation of the patients we do treat

It would behoove the OP to know that when I started training over a decade ago, the match rate was closer to 50%. People are selecting out but it may not be for the reasons that the OP is thinking

The complement increase notwithstanding I doubt that the match rate was ever 50%. I am happy to see data to support the contention (and be proven wrong) but as a program director for more than 15 years I know of no source that supports this contention. NRMP reports are consistently above 80-90% over the last decade. 50% match is "fake news".

 

[medgator]

The complement increase notwithstanding I doubt that the match rate was ever 50%. I am happy to see data to support the contention (and be proven wrong) but as a program director for more than 15 years I know of no source that supports this contention. NRMP reports are consistently above 80-90% over the last decade. 50% match is "fake news".

Yeah no data, just hearsay. Apparently it was harder to match then than now supposedly

 

[John Rattan]

Yeah no data, just hearsay. Apparently it was harder to match then than now supposedly

No data, just hearsay? That's a new one from you...

 

[Haybrant]

This isn't hard to figure out. Our multiple threads here have lead to this - is it that big of a deal, I don't know it might be. But that's the market balancing itself with more perfect knowledge. This should spur many of us to think about the future of healthcare - physicians have become too nihilistic about the system and don't participate but there are people out there making changes to our system from trends similar to this.

I still do think rad onc is the best field in medicine but unlikely I would go into it if I really understood the issues at play and many people are similar.

 

[fiji128]

This is from the NRMP's data:

2017 Match:
91 programs
193 total positions
231 total applicants
204 US Senior Allopathic applicants (169 matched ie 82%, 35 unmatched)
27 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (10 matched, 17 unmatched)

2014 Match:
87 programs
179 total positions
224 total applicants
195 US Senior Allopathic applicants (151 matched ie 77%, 44 unmatched)
29 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (10 matched, 19 unmatched)

2010 Match:
78 programs
157 total positions
210 total applicants
173 US Senior Allopathic applicants (123 matched ie 71%, 50 unmatched)
37 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (12 matched, 15 unmatched)

2005 Match:
65 programs (Couldn't find the number of programs this year but based off of nearest year available, in 2007 there were 66 programs)
137 total positions
149 US Senior Allopathic applicants (118 matched ie 79%, 31 unmatched)
56 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (7 matched, 49 unmatched)

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

This is from the NRMP's data:

2017 Match:
91 programs
193 total positions
231 total applicants
204 US Senior Allopathic applicants (169 matched ie 82%, 35 unmatched)
27 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (10 matched, 17 unmatched)

2014 Match:
87 programs
179 total positions
224 total applicants
195 US Senior Allopathic applicants (151 matched ie 77%, 44 unmatched)
29 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (10 matched, 19 unmatched)

2010 Match:
78 programs
157 total positions
210 total applicants
173 US Senior Allopathic applicants (123 matched ie 71%, 50 unmatched)
37 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (12 matched, 15 unmatched)

2005 Match:
65 programs (Couldn't find the number of programs this year but based off of nearest year available, in 2007 there were 66 programs)
137 total positions
149 US Senior Allopathic applicants (118 matched ie 79%, 31 unmatched)
56 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (7 matched, 49 unmatched)

Thanks for providing data.

 

[scarbrtj]

Thanks for providing data.

Goodness. We went from 65 programs in 2005 to 91 programs now??? Wowsers. America may have an MD shortage but it by God *will not* have a rad onc shortage!

 

[DrfluffyMD]

137 position in 2005 to 193 positions in 2017....

 

[sniderwes]

This is from the NRMP's data:

2017 Match:
91 programs
193 total positions
231 total applicants
204 US Senior Allopathic applicants (169 matched ie 82%, 35 unmatched)
27 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (10 matched, 17 unmatched)

2014 Match:
87 programs
179 total positions
224 total applicants
195 US Senior Allopathic applicants (151 matched ie 77%, 44 unmatched)
29 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (10 matched, 19 unmatched)

2010 Match:
78 programs
157 total positions
210 total applicants
173 US Senior Allopathic applicants (123 matched ie 71%, 50 unmatched)
37 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (12 matched, 15 unmatched)

2005 Match:
65 programs (Couldn't find the number of programs this year but based off of nearest year available, in 2007 there were 66 programs)
137 total positions
149 US Senior Allopathic applicants (118 matched ie 79%, 31 unmatched)
56 Non US Senior Allopathic applicants (7 matched, 49 unmatched)

https://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Charting-Outcomes-US-Allopathic-Seniors-2016.pdf
On page 10 of the PDF, it lists the match rate of US seniors with a preferred specialty of radiation oncology as 91%. Is the difference just that your data includes people who applied to rad onc as an alternative specialty? If so, which figure do you think is better to go off of for a medical student trying to gauge their chance?