How competitive is anesthesia residency? Here you go...

[IlDestriero]

Directly from the chair at Stanford.

The number and the quality of residency and fellowship applicants this year is unprecedented. At Stanford, we received over 700 residency applications. There were over 80 applicants who had been elected to AOA and 100 applicants with USMLE scores above 240. Almost two dozen applicants had combined MD-PhD degrees, and a similar number had MPH or MBA degrees. Our department is one of the few programs that offers all 4 ACGME-approved fellowships (pediatrics, critical care, cardiothoracic, and pain management), and the number and quality of applicants in each fellowships is at a historic high.

Good luck to the applicants from the forum.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pseudoknot]

So, at a big name place like Stanford, 11% of applicants were AOA (versus 13.5% of all US seniors), and 14% had Step I > 240 (v. about 16% of all test takers, as that is 1 SD above the mean). Yes, that's very consistent with previous data from Charting Outcomes in the Match, showing that anesthesiology is an average specialty in terms of competitiveness.

I guess I'm a little surprised that Stanford's applicants weren't any better than the average.

Good luck to the applicants, and good luck to those trying to sow fear and anxiety.

 

[IlDestriero]

So, at a big name place like Stanford, 11% of applicants were AOA (versus 13.5% of all US seniors), and 14% had Step I > 240 (v. about 16% of all test takers, as that is 1 SD above the mean). Yes, that's very consistent with previous data from Charting Outcomes in the Match, showing that anesthesiology is an average specialty in terms of competitiveness.

I guess I'm a little surprised that Stanford's applicants weren't any better than the average.

Good luck to the applicants, and good luck to those trying to sow fear and anxiety.

The scores are not that bad, however there are >700 applicants for about 18-20 spots. Thats more than 35 applicants for each available position. Those odds are not so great (at Stanford). I am sure that in other highly competitive specialties, those odds would be considered good. Don't think that they are inviting anyone from the bottom half of that pool of applicants for an interview either. They just don't need to.
Having said that, the reality is that as long as you are a solid candidate w/o any significant skeletons, you should match somewhere in anesthesia as long as you are realistic about yourself and interview at enough programs. The top 10 programs all want the same 100 applicants, that leaves a lot of positions for everyone else.

 

[geogil]

The scores are not that bad, however there are >700 applicants for about 18-20 spots. Thats more than 35 applicants for each available position. Those odds are not so great (at Stanford). I am sure that in other highly competitive specialties, those odds would be considered good. Don't think that they are inviting anyone from the bottom half of that pool of applicants for an interview either. They just don't need to.
Having said that, the reality is that as long as you are a solid candidate w/o any significant skeletons, you should match somewhere in anesthesia as long as you are realistic about yourself and interview at enough programs. The top 10 programs all want the same 100 applicants, that leaves a lot of positions for everyone else.

Just because 4th years are applying to more programs doesn't make anesthesia more competitive. If more 4th years are applying period, then of course the competition for every spot increases.

 

[fakin' the funk]

Just because 4th years are applying to more programs doesn't make anesthesia more competitive.

100% agree.

If more 4th years are applying period, then of course the competition for every spot increases.

100% disagree. The number of spots, quality of applicants, and number of applicants determines competitiveness. More applications per applicants just means everyone has to go on more interviews and spend $$$.

 

[pseudoknot]

Yes, the number of applicants per spot is always impressive, but meaningless since applicants also apply to many programs. Indeed, even the change in this number over time is meaningless: if applicants get nervous and start applying to more programs, then (applicants/spot) will go up without any change in competitiveness.

The qualifications of those who match are a much better measure. As always, see Charting Outcomes for the real truth.

 

[RxBoy]

I guess its scary if you think about the fact that in charting outcomes in the match 2007 there were Total (of all applicants)

141 US seniors with step 1 > 240.
75 AOA
30 Graduate Degrees.

Question is... did 70% of all applicants >240s apply to Stanford?
75 AOA's in 07 doesn't cover the 80 applying to just Stanford.
And "two dozen" at just Stanford is awfully close to the 30 total.

 

[maceo]

just look at the percentage of unmatched us seniors on match day to determine compeptiveness. and of course how many programs that do not fill. In the late mid nineties the percentage of unmatched programs in anesthesia on match day were unbelievable. there were like four pages of unmatched programs.

 

[mstudent12345]

True but Stanfod is a major program. It wouldn't surprise me if many of those with those stats applied there. I am betting that when the final numbers come out they won't be drastically different from years past.

 

[SoCuteMD]

The scores are not that bad, however there are >700 applicants for about 18-20 spots. Thats more than 35 applicants for each available position. Those odds are not so great (at Stanford). I am sure that in other highly competitive specialties, those odds would be considered good. Don't think that they are inviting anyone from the bottom half of that pool of applicants for an interview either. They just don't need to.
Having said that, the reality is that as long as you are a solid candidate w/o any significant skeletons, you should match somewhere in anesthesia as long as you are realistic about yourself and interview at enough programs. The top 10 programs all want the same 100 applicants, that leaves a lot of positions for everyone else.

Well, as someone pointed out, the Stanford stats are about in line with your average US senior. I'm guessing that an average (not stellar) candidate probably puts in about 35 applications, but can ultimately only go to 1 program. True, the only ones who have a shot at matching at Stanford are the top half - but that's not unusual for a big name institution in a desirable geographic locations.

 

[pseudoknot]

I guess its scary if you think about the fact that in charting outcomes in the match 2007 there were Total (of all applicants)

141 US seniors with step 1 > 240.
75 AOA
30 Graduate Degrees.

Question is... did 70% of all applicants >240s apply to Stanford?
75 AOA's in 07 doesn't cover the 80 applying to just Stanford.
And "two dozen" at just Stanford is awfully close to the 30 total.

There were 30 with PhDs, and another 116 with "Other Graduate Degrees." That does hold up. It does seem like there is a discrepancy with the AOA numbers.

I would not be surprised if 70% of the 240+ folks applied to Stanford, and UCSF, and so forth.

 

[Consigliere]

Man I'm glad I'm an attending! My stats sucked compared to these.

 

[cfdavid]

PD's seem to have caught the board score bug these days. lol

From what I HEAR at my program and others that I've shadowed, it IS getting more competitive, and with higher scoring/class ranking applicants. Haven't looked into the stats though.

cf

 

[error404]

I know two things about Stanford anesthesia (that are relevant.)

1. Average Step 1 score of Stanford Anesthesia residents starting in 2008 was 237, and average step 2 score was 242.

2. Also, Stanford anesthesia has submitted their rank list.

 

[pmichaelmd]

I hope that everybody reading these competitiveness threads sees the big picture. You want to go to a good program in order to get good training for the real world. I would find it less important to go to UCSF or MGH unless I had a real hard-on for becoming an academic attending. For the greater percentage of us who don't, it makes sense to take a little pressure off and find a program that matches your personality, not just your board scores. I say this as a person who spent a considerable amount of time in my life chasing "big" names and tagging them to my resume. After doing that since the early '90s, I can tell you that, in the end, what matters most is how you present yourself to a group, how well you fit in, how hard you are willing to work, your degree of clinical acumen, application of clinical judgment, and how willing your are to embrace learning a new system. I look for these things in people who have interviewed with our group. As soon as you get through training, board-eligibility and passing your boards will be far more important to you than how you got there. We all train in different places, but we all have to pass our boards.

Good luck to all of you. Those of us who have been there and done that are rooting for you. Don't forget the forest for the trees.

Regards,
PMMD

 

[Spartyon]

I hope that everybody reading these competitiveness threads sees the big picture. You want to go to a good program in order to get good training for the real world. I would find it less important to go to UCSF or MGH unless I had a real hard-on for becoming an academic attending. For the greater percentage of us who don't, it makes sense to take a little pressure off and find a program that matches your personality, not just your board scores. I say this as a person who spent a considerable amount of time in my life chasing "big" names and tagging them to my resume. After doing that since the early '90s, I can tell you that, in the end, what matters most is how you present yourself to a group, how well you fit in, how hard you are willing to work, your degree of clinical acumen, application of clinical judgment, and how willing your are to embrace learning a new system. I look for these things in people who have interviewed with our group. As soon as you get through training, board-eligibility and passing your boards will be far more important to you than how you got there. We all train in different places, but we all have to pass our boards.

Good luck to all of you. Those of us who have been there and done that are rooting for you. Don't forget the forest for the trees.

Regards,
PMMD

Great point..the difference in the end is quality of training you receive and how well you fit in to the program as a person. There are numerous programs out there and choosing a right one comes down to what your goals for the future such as academia like you mentioned.

 

[lfesiam]

I hope that everybody reading these competitiveness threads sees the big picture. You want to go to a good program in order to get good training for the real world. I would find it less important to go to UCSF or MGH unless I had a real hard-on for becoming an academic attending. For the greater percentage of us who don't, it makes sense to take a little pressure off and find a program that matches your personality, not just your board scores. I say this as a person who spent a considerable amount of time in my life chasing "big" names and tagging them to my resume. After doing that since the early '90s, I can tell you that, in the end, what matters most is how you present yourself to a group, how well you fit in, how hard you are willing to work, your degree of clinical acumen, application of clinical judgment, and how willing your are to embrace learning a new system. I look for these things in people who have interviewed with our group. As soon as you get through training, board-eligibility and passing your boards will be far more important to you than how you got there. We all train in different places, but we all have to pass our boards.

Good luck to all of you. Those of us who have been there and done that are rooting for you. Don't forget the forest for the trees.

Regards,
PMMD

 

[Camel]

Main thing is really how many positions you are being considered for (so you rank 10 programs, each have 10 spots, you are eligible for any of 100 positions) and how many UNIQUE applicants are competing for those spots (at each of those 10 programs, the same 200 people are being considered).

So, theoretically, if you apply in multiple "markets", you should rank more places because you are mixing in multiple "groups" of people (people interested in big cities, people interested in the south, people interested in the west, people interested in names, etc.).

Ultimately, statistics are just what they are. They mean nothing to the individual once the outcome has been found.

Just a few more weeks. [shudders]

 

[NotAMD]

Main thing is really how many positions you are being considered for (so you rank 10 programs, each have 10 spots, you are eligible for any of 100 positions) and how many UNIQUE applicants are competing for those spots (at each of those 10 programs, the same 200 people are being considered).

So, theoretically, if you apply in multiple "markets", you should rank more places because you are mixing in multiple "groups" of people (people interested in big cities, people interested in the south, people interested in the west, people interested in names, etc.).

Ultimately, statistics are just what they are. They mean nothing to the individual once the outcome has been found.

Just a few more weeks. [shudders]

These numbers show a significant number of top quality applicants who could go into various other competitive fields are still choosing anesthesiology in light of the changes in the field - which is encouraging

 

[Sergio99]

I hope that everybody reading these competitiveness threads sees the big picture. You want to go to a good program in order to get good training for the real world. I would find it less important to go to UCSF or MGH unless I had a real hard-on for becoming an academic attending. For the greater percentage of us who don't, it makes sense to take a little pressure off and find a program that matches your personality, not just your board scores. I say this as a person who spent a considerable amount of time in my life chasing "big" names and tagging them to my resume. After doing that since the early '90s, I can tell you that, in the end, what matters most is how you present yourself to a group, how well you fit in, how hard you are willing to work, your degree of clinical acumen, application of clinical judgment, and how willing your are to embrace learning a new system. I look for these things in people who have interviewed with our group. As soon as you get through training, board-eligibility and passing your boards will be far more important to you than how you got there. We all train in different places, but we all have to pass our boards.

Good luck to all of you. Those of us who have been there and done that are rooting for you. Don't forget the forest for the trees.

Regards,
PMMD

Hello,

Pmichaelmd, it is nice of you to try to encourage those who don't match at big name places, but I hope your readers don't get the opposite false impression, either.

Unfortunately, people have the idea that those big names are only good for academia. Nothing farther from the truth. Places like UCSF, MGH, Stanford and the like, do instill clinical acumen, clinical judgment, work ethics, and all those other good things everyone wants to have. Although I was not at one of those places, I see the people that graduated from their residencies and can tell that they had a good training. If you get into one of them, don't think you are going to get only academic training at the expense of the clinical: you are going to get both, and both very good.