- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 226
- Reaction score
- 18
First of all congrats on matching class of 2012. This is probably a waste of a thread but I was wondering around when last year did the SF match release data for the latest match. Thanks!
SF match data
- Thread starter OPPforlife
- Start date
did any programs not match?
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 22
Give them a couple weeks to release the data for this years match. Here is a link to the past few years data. I doubt it will be substantially different this year.
http://www.sfmatch.org/residency/ophthalmology/about_match/match_report.pdf
SF match updated the match stats to include this years stats
http://www.sfmatch.org/residency/ophthalmology/about_match/match_report.pdf
avg step 1 is now 238, and avg step 1 of unmatched applicants is 220 .. that is crazy --
Your thoughts?
http://www.sfmatch.org/residency/ophthalmology/about_match/match_report.pdf
avg step 1 is now 238, and avg step 1 of unmatched applicants is 220 .. that is crazy --
Your thoughts?
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 15,649
- Reaction score
- 38
So despite numerous emails going out saying "this is a record number of applicants" from residency programs it was actually the least amount of applicants in the last 10 years?
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
Agreed that its interesting that the number of applicants is at the lowest in 10 years. Could it be an indicator of declining interest among med students in ophthalmology?
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,335
- Reaction score
- 9
People already hate me anyway so what the hell:
1. From 2000 to 2009 the number of ophthalmologists completing training ranged from 480 (2000) to 419 (2009). The other medical specialties also essentially held their residency programs at constant levels over this period.
2. While ophthalmology residents declined from 480 to 410, during this time the number of graduating optometrists rose from 1,150 to 1,600 and will continue to increase as new schools open.
From 2000 to 2009:
2000 OMD 480 completed training
2009 OMD 419 completed training
-13% decline
2000 OD 1,150 completed training
2009 OD 1,600 completed training
+ 39% increase
The report also found:
OMD starting salaries did not keep pace with inflation in this period.
OMD job offers declined from 3.5 to 1.8 per new OMD
OMD switching of plans increased fromn 11% to 44%.
Source: http://fb.me/Tp4KtOLi
1. From 2000 to 2009 the number of ophthalmologists completing training ranged from 480 (2000) to 419 (2009). The other medical specialties also essentially held their residency programs at constant levels over this period.
2. While ophthalmology residents declined from 480 to 410, during this time the number of graduating optometrists rose from 1,150 to 1,600 and will continue to increase as new schools open.
From 2000 to 2009:
2000 OMD 480 completed training
2009 OMD 419 completed training
-13% decline
2000 OD 1,150 completed training
2009 OD 1,600 completed training
+ 39% increase
The report also found:
OMD starting salaries did not keep pace with inflation in this period.
OMD job offers declined from 3.5 to 1.8 per new OMD
OMD switching of plans increased fromn 11% to 44%.
Source: http://fb.me/Tp4KtOLi
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 1,235
- Reaction score
- 37
So, ophthalmologists are holding the market somewhat steady, while optometrists are flooding it? Guess that's why they are looking to expand privileges. Need something for all those optometrists to do, eh? Why don't you see what Jason, Tippytoe, and the rest have to say about your numbers? Your leadership is more of a joke than ours!
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 22
Its worth noting there is a regional bias with this survey. It only surveys graduates of New York programs which may not be applicable beyond this region of the country. Even so, it is surprising how low median ophthalmology incomes compare to other surgical subspecialities. Oh well...
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
I've clicked on the link and it only shows up to 2011 data, did they perhaps remove the 2012 temporarily?
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,335
- Reaction score
- 9
So, ophthalmologists are holding the market somewhat steady, while optometrists are flooding it? Guess that's why they are looking to expand privileges. Need something for all those optometrists to do, eh? Why don't you see what Jason, Tippytoe, and the rest have to say about your numbers? Your leadership is more of a joke than ours!
I don't think its the OMDs that are keeping it steady. Residencies aren't expanding slots in general as the government and CMS won't pay for extra GME slots. Internet people are almost always more negative than real life people btw.
As a first year med student very interested in Ophtho, this years match stats scare the piss out of me. Seems like by the time its my turn I'm going to need a 240 to even be an average applicant. Seeing as that my first year test scores have been 'middle of the pack', I'm not encouraged. Seems like its getting tougher and tougher to sneak into an interview with step 1 scores anywhere near the average.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
Ahhh ok, that worked, thanks!
My take on the data:
True that this year had the least amount of applicants in the past 10 years. However, the overall trend still suggests that Ophthalmology is highly competitive, if not even more competitive than last year. The USMLE Step 1 average of matched applicants actually increased from 237 to 238; however the telling statistic is the USMLE Step 1 score of unmatched applicants: 220 (large jump from last year, 214). What the tells me is that compared to last year, there were probably fewer "weak" applicants with low step 1 scores, and that would explain both the fewer applicants and the jump in unmatched Step 1 average (outliers bringing the unmatched average down maybe were discouraged from applying this year?).
Would also be interesting to compare how many IMG applicants there were this year compared to last. I emailed SF match last year to suggest including this data, but they never responded. Fewer IMG's matched this year (21 this year vs. 27 last year) which suggests that there may have been fewer of them applying this year.
Overall, on first glance the data may seem misleading, and there is a tendency to think interest in Ophtho is decreasing. However I would bet that fewer IMG's and very weak applicants applied this year. The overall applicant pool, although fewer in number, was probably stronger, and that would also explain the slight rise in number of offers per applicants (4.7 up from 4.4).
My take on the data:
True that this year had the least amount of applicants in the past 10 years. However, the overall trend still suggests that Ophthalmology is highly competitive, if not even more competitive than last year. The USMLE Step 1 average of matched applicants actually increased from 237 to 238; however the telling statistic is the USMLE Step 1 score of unmatched applicants: 220 (large jump from last year, 214). What the tells me is that compared to last year, there were probably fewer "weak" applicants with low step 1 scores, and that would explain both the fewer applicants and the jump in unmatched Step 1 average (outliers bringing the unmatched average down maybe were discouraged from applying this year?).
Would also be interesting to compare how many IMG applicants there were this year compared to last. I emailed SF match last year to suggest including this data, but they never responded. Fewer IMG's matched this year (21 this year vs. 27 last year) which suggests that there may have been fewer of them applying this year.
Overall, on first glance the data may seem misleading, and there is a tendency to think interest in Ophtho is decreasing. However I would bet that fewer IMG's and very weak applicants applied this year. The overall applicant pool, although fewer in number, was probably stronger, and that would also explain the slight rise in number of offers per applicants (4.7 up from 4.4).
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 18
As a first year med student very interested in Ophtho, this years match stats scare the piss out of me. Seems like by the time its my turn I'm going to need a 240 to even be an average applicant. Seeing as that my first year test scores have been 'middle of the pack', I'm not encouraged. Seems like its getting tougher and tougher to sneak into an interview with step 1 scores anywhere near the average.
I think it's great you are looking this far ahead if you are interested in ophtho. My school does step 1 differently and has students take it much later than normal. It's almost an afterthought, and so when I did poorly on step 1 the match process became much more difficult. I wish I had understood at the beginning of med school several things: 1) step 1 score trumps everything. Spend your first two years reading and memorizing first aid, doing Uworld practice problems, and do what you need to pass your basic science courses. Aside from helping you to get AOA, which isn't critical for applications, the basic science grades are much, much, much, much, much, much (should I add several more muches?) less important than the clinical rotation grades and step 1 score. If you make step 1 your focus for the next two years, you can probably get a decent score. Which brings me to my next point, work your butt off on your medicine, surgery, and ophthalmology rotations - those grades will be the most important. Get involved in a research project early on as well and you should be okay. Good luck. (another people may disagree with this advice, and they are welcome to chime in)
Shnurek, I respect you for the future professional colleague that you will be, but I wanted to tell you that it has become difficult for me to read your signature posting addendum about the deficits in medical training in every thread. I come to these forums to try to help others and to share knowledge about eye diseases. I worked 14 hours today telling mothers for the first time that their sons and daughters would be afflicted with type 1 diabetes for the rest of their lives. I managed over 15 types of endocrine disease today. I've done two years of research in ophthalmology and done my part to generate knowledge and to help save lives. Before medical school I worked to be at the top of my class in college and before that I worked to graduate at the top of my class in high school. Next year in internship I'll work 80 hours a week guiding people through the most difficult times in their lives, gaining an appreciation for systemic medical diseases and social issues, and beyond that I'll have 5 years of dedicated training in ophthalmology. I don't feel like I know "nothing", and it makes me feel disrespected to have a contrary opinion emphasized repeatedly. I don't mean to be forward, but it has been a trying day, and I felt like I had to say something. With that said, I wish you every peace and success.
I'm not entirely certain how to interpret these statistics. The overall number of applications (applicants x applications) is relatively steady, 41552 this year vs 42796 last year. Regardless of the overall applicants, the step 1 average did go up and the % of US seniors matching at 90% is lower than the 92% and 91% of past years. I've never completely understood the offers per applicant, but it sounds like the number of times a candidate would have matched at different programs as it goes through the algorithm - if so, the increase makes sense as there were fewer applicants applying for relatively more spots compared to past years and the algorithm would have to cycle through more candidate-program marriages.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,335
- Reaction score
- 9
Out of respect for your dedication and others like you I have abridged my signature to retain only positives of my profession. We get extensive systemic education as well but only to diseases specific to the eye. I know my compromise will not change the general opinion of our profession but you are not the first to have confronted me about my signature. I realize some people go through ophtho rotations in medical school as well.
What irks me however is that our school's average matriculant GPA is 3.5 (slightly higher than DO school average matriculant GPA) and yet we are not allowed to train further even though 30% of ODs stated in a survey that they would willingly do a 2-year surgical residency. Another thing that irks me is that our PhD. Anatomy professor that teaches both at NYU Medical and at SUNY Optometry states that our curriculum is harder than the NYU Med curriculum. I did not believe her at first but she explained that since we will be fully fledged eye doctors at four years, we have to learn at a faster pace.
Anyway, I hope in the future both of our professions can resolve their differences through cooperation and compromise.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 18
Thanks for that, Shnurek; it does make me feel better. I think you raise valid points that medical school and optometry school students face challenging curriculums and should be respected for their training. I trust a wonderful optometrist at my school for my personal eye care, and I've learned a lot from her over the past 4 years. I've also received great contact lens care for years that probably exceeds the ability of most ophthalmologists. I can understand the frustration that even though optometry students study eye diseases exclusively, the path to more advanced medical and surgical training is limited to medical students. If you have a strong interest in doing more complicated surgeries, you might consider switching paths to a medical school. (Nothing wrong with changing directions, I took a non-traditional path through medical school doing two years of research, and I think it was extremely valuable).
I think plain and simple many medical doctors feel threatened by other allied health providers. CRNAs are performing many of the same actions as anesthesiologists. Nurse practioners are assuming the roles of primary care doctors and hospitalists and will soon introduce themselves as "doctor". In some way, medical doctors probably feel as if their education is being devalued when others are allowed to introduce themselves similarly or to practice without putting in the same time or having to jump through the same hoops. They've worked their whole lives to achieve a certain credentialing only to discover an eroding of what it means to be a medical professional. I suspect that numerous concerns lie behind this issue including worries about competing financial interests, concerns for patients' well-being, and concerns about professional respect. I won't even graduate until May, but I can start to understand and feel some of these emotions myself. With that said, do we disrespect other career tracks or mid-level providers? No, I don't think so; my younger brother is in nursing school and will likely pursue a career as a CRNA or nurse practitioner, and I support his decision to do so. With baby boomers coming onto medicare, we'll need help to deal with the onslaught of patients. I respect many of the nurses I work with, and I think they fulfill a very valuable role for patients. At the same time, I would argue strongly that medical training offers many advantages that is worthy of preserving for our society. A diagnosis as simple as hypertension can be screened for and treated easily by a nurse practitioner following the JNC guidelines, and on a population level this will probably improve health. On an individual level, I can think of numerous underlying causes or associated conditions that go along with hypertension that might be missed by a provider working with a more limited curriculum in terms of didactic exposure and thousands of hours less of clinical training in diagnosis and treatment. I would like to think that helping to treat hundreds of patients for HTN over the past years and participating in surgeries designed to correct atherosclerotic damage and interpreting EKGs and so forth has helped to give me a unique understanding of the disease process that may contribute to healing and better diagnosis/treatment. There may be no significant difference in the levels of care. I'd have to see properly designed studies to even comment, but I can understand the desire to preserve the recognition and value of this level of medical training.
Similarly, with regards to the ophthalmology/optometry training divide, I can't say for certain that optometrists could not perform well after a two year surgical residency. I don't have enough experience yet to even discuss the matter intelligently. Part of medical school's value has been in making me realize how much I don't know about different specialized diseases. I'm sure many optometry students would make fine ophthalmologists given the same training program with the same surgical volume, call schedule, and number of clinical training hours. I think there could be serious issues at first with standardization of curriculum and surgical competencies that could put patients in jeopardy. There would be an issue of procuring funding for the training spots and acquiring enough training surgical volume. At the same time, I would also like to think that my medical background has given me a unique perspective that may contribute positively to patient care and that this is worthy of recognition and preservation. I know that many of my classmates going into ophthalmology are among the hardest studiers and smartest students among an already selective bunch. Will this contribute to improved patient outcomes? I could only speculate to that answer, but I can understand the desire to defend my future profession.
I know that this is an important issue to you and to me and my classmates. The only thing for certain is that the health care system will undergo massive changes. Most of these changes will be out of our hands individually. The best we can do is to gracefully accept what comes and respectfully fight for what we believe worthy of preserving and to comport ourselves individually with dignity.
I think plain and simple many medical doctors feel threatened by other allied health providers. CRNAs are performing many of the same actions as anesthesiologists. Nurse practioners are assuming the roles of primary care doctors and hospitalists and will soon introduce themselves as "doctor". In some way, medical doctors probably feel as if their education is being devalued when others are allowed to introduce themselves similarly or to practice without putting in the same time or having to jump through the same hoops. They've worked their whole lives to achieve a certain credentialing only to discover an eroding of what it means to be a medical professional. I suspect that numerous concerns lie behind this issue including worries about competing financial interests, concerns for patients' well-being, and concerns about professional respect. I won't even graduate until May, but I can start to understand and feel some of these emotions myself. With that said, do we disrespect other career tracks or mid-level providers? No, I don't think so; my younger brother is in nursing school and will likely pursue a career as a CRNA or nurse practitioner, and I support his decision to do so. With baby boomers coming onto medicare, we'll need help to deal with the onslaught of patients. I respect many of the nurses I work with, and I think they fulfill a very valuable role for patients. At the same time, I would argue strongly that medical training offers many advantages that is worthy of preserving for our society. A diagnosis as simple as hypertension can be screened for and treated easily by a nurse practitioner following the JNC guidelines, and on a population level this will probably improve health. On an individual level, I can think of numerous underlying causes or associated conditions that go along with hypertension that might be missed by a provider working with a more limited curriculum in terms of didactic exposure and thousands of hours less of clinical training in diagnosis and treatment. I would like to think that helping to treat hundreds of patients for HTN over the past years and participating in surgeries designed to correct atherosclerotic damage and interpreting EKGs and so forth has helped to give me a unique understanding of the disease process that may contribute to healing and better diagnosis/treatment. There may be no significant difference in the levels of care. I'd have to see properly designed studies to even comment, but I can understand the desire to preserve the recognition and value of this level of medical training.
Similarly, with regards to the ophthalmology/optometry training divide, I can't say for certain that optometrists could not perform well after a two year surgical residency. I don't have enough experience yet to even discuss the matter intelligently. Part of medical school's value has been in making me realize how much I don't know about different specialized diseases. I'm sure many optometry students would make fine ophthalmologists given the same training program with the same surgical volume, call schedule, and number of clinical training hours. I think there could be serious issues at first with standardization of curriculum and surgical competencies that could put patients in jeopardy. There would be an issue of procuring funding for the training spots and acquiring enough training surgical volume. At the same time, I would also like to think that my medical background has given me a unique perspective that may contribute positively to patient care and that this is worthy of recognition and preservation. I know that many of my classmates going into ophthalmology are among the hardest studiers and smartest students among an already selective bunch. Will this contribute to improved patient outcomes? I could only speculate to that answer, but I can understand the desire to defend my future profession.
I know that this is an important issue to you and to me and my classmates. The only thing for certain is that the health care system will undergo massive changes. Most of these changes will be out of our hands individually. The best we can do is to gracefully accept what comes and respectfully fight for what we believe worthy of preserving and to comport ourselves individually with dignity.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,335
- Reaction score
- 9
Thank you for your cordial response. I agree that the healthcare system will go through some major changes and it is this hazy uncertainty that frustrates individuals in choosing their paths. I don't believe anywhere in healthcare is there such a large friction between professions as there is with opto vs ophtho. We are both called doctors and are paid as and referred to as physicians by medicare. We both have the same prerequisites in undergraduate college. We both diagnose/treat diseases and anomalies of the eye. It is this similarity yet restriction that causes so much frustration.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 2
If you want to operate, go to medical school instead of optometry school.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 22
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you knew you would be frustrated with the restrictions associated with optometry why enter the field in the first place? If you really had the same success with undergraduate prerequisites and wanted to diagnose and treat ophthalmic conditions, why didn't you just become an ophthalmologist? The solution is not a backdoor 2 year surgical residency for any optometrist who becomes bored and wishes to enter surgery to cash in. Optometrists and ophthalmologists should (and do) work well together quite often, but problem arise when optometrists who didn't plan well in advance now have regrets about their choices, then lobby for greater scope of practice. Its an affront to every ophthalmologist who has completed legitimate training.
Just want to Co-sign my friend "The Doctor". This can't be stressed enough. Step 1 trumps everything. Of course, there are ways to compensate for a mediocre score, but your life will be much easier if you just do what the Doctor advised. If you already know you have test taking difficulties, Step 1 is not the time to "give it one more go". Talk to your Dean, express your concern. Ask about Students who have had similar difficulties. Consider test preps. It is an Ego blow for sure, but trust. You don't want to be that student explaining your Step 1 score on interview day.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2008
- Messages
- 293
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes and I understand what you are saying about GPAs etc BUT the average ophtho step 1 is 237- that is very hard to get. So bump that 3.5 to 3.8 to3.9. Very hard for DOs to get as well(I've heard almost impossible). So yea you could do surg with that avg, but general, etc maybe.
Also it may be that your class is harder- same here for us vs the dental school. BUT it's not that- it's the 36 hour of my call I'm on and my 5-730 6 days a week I'm putting in right now for surgery that differ greatly. I understand this conflict- I'm a med student in a family full of Optos.
Also it may be that your class is harder- same here for us vs the dental school. BUT it's not that- it's the 36 hour of my call I'm on and my 5-730 6 days a week I'm putting in right now for surgery that differ greatly. I understand this conflict- I'm a med student in a family full of Optos.
I wonder there are average step scores broken down by US Allo vs. US Osteo vs. FMG vs. IMG.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,335
- Reaction score
- 9
The problem is not everyone can predict 4 or 8 or 10 years down the line what they will enjoy doing. Especially I, coming from a family with no physicians. I guess if the system will remain so restricted then I might go back to medical school one day if I wish do to surgery and to have an unlimited license. I know many ODs that bit the bullet and did this. However, I don't believe they should start at square 1 with 4 years of education becoming suddenly irrelevant. Also, ODs treat/diagnose ophthalmic conditions and it seems I will probably practice to the extent of my license. Possibly move to a state with a large scope of practice for ODs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 855
- Reaction score
- 220
Again, it's not what you know that is important sometimes, but what you don't. The key is to know when *not* to operate, when *not* to start a certain drug, and *how* to discuss this with other physicians. You may learn optics *earlier* than an OMD does, but I wouldn't say that you learn it at a deeper level necessarily. Furthermore, this time-shifting of learning eye-related material is at the expense of much fundamental physiology and pathology concerning the rest of the body.
Unless you've worn a surgeon's hat, an internist's hat, a neurologist's hat, an ob/gyn's hat, etc. as one does in the 3rd year of medical school, it is extremely difficult to anticipate what goes on in patients with those co-morbidities, which is the key to medical school: critical thought processes in lieu of algorithms. The actual cutting isn't the difficult part.
Unless you've worn a surgeon's hat, an internist's hat, a neurologist's hat, an ob/gyn's hat, etc. as one does in the 3rd year of medical school, it is extremely difficult to anticipate what goes on in patients with those co-morbidities, which is the key to medical school: critical thought processes in lieu of algorithms. The actual cutting isn't the difficult part.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2006
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 3
This part is not true though. We are not the same here no matter what you or some law makers think. Therefore that is why there is the restriction.
The difference between OD and MD is not just surgery
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 226
- Reaction score
- 18
I think part of the problem for ophthalmologists (and other medical fields) that no one seems to be addressing is that reimbursements don't seem to have anything to do what we went into medical school for. There's something wrong when the neuro-ophthalmologists, the ocular-pathologists and the uveitis specialists make so little that they can barely keep their practices open without help These are the fields of ophthalmology that save people's lives, most fully use our medical backgrounds, and have the least risk of being encroached on by mid-level providers.
(and just as a disclaimer, I'm not planning on going into any of these subspecialties).
(and just as a disclaimer, I'm not planning on going into any of these subspecialties).
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 743
- Reaction score
- 319
Is the jump in average scores truly statistically significant? Why doesn't the SF Match release that bit of information? If the sample size is smaller (less applicants), then there will be a larger standard deviation and thus less of an ability to distinguish weather or not the mean score has truly changed. I would be weary of anyone that says the scores have absolutely gone up, as the average may not be the best indicator of this. But given the limited data we do have released, it seems that the trend is towards higher scores.
I think the increment in Step I scores is only part of the story. It seems like it is becoming the norm for the majority of applicants to have Ophtho related research and pubs, big-wig letters and other measures of dedication to the field. I had multiple people in my class interested in Ophtho during 3rd year and decide not to pursue it because they thought that they needed to be interested in it from year 1 in order to be a competitive candidate. Though this is not necessarily true, the competitiveness of the field may be, in part, responsible for the declining number of applicants.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 18
This may play a role in the declining number of applicants, but I also have to wonder if several other factors are to blame. I think the reputation of ophthalmology as a "ROAD" specialty is changing a bit. Starting salaries are low compared to other fields, reimbursement is no longer especially lucrative, constant legislative challenges threaten and leave a big question mark on our future scope of practice, and while you can arrange your eventual practice to have a good lifestyle, ophthalmology residency is not a cushy walk in the park in terms of stress, book study time, and overnight call. I knew this beforehand, but it became even clearer during the interview process. Medical students interested in ophthalmology are generally well qualified and probably pick up on this when choosing specialties. I am happy I matched in ophthalmology, and I think it will be a good field to work in, but I think it has been more competitive than it should be. I think the competitiveness may be driven more by supply and demand issues (fewer number of residency spots) rather than overall desirability of the specialty. I think there is a general changing attitude throughout medicine towards working fewer hours and this, coupled with the residency hour restrictions, may make other training pathways suddenly less undesirable relative to ophthalmology. For example, with the work hour restrictions, more students may be willing to go through internal medicine or general surgery residency in order to make it to an eventual specialized fellowship. With increasingly lifestyle friendly options available in other specialties during training and eventual practice (such as week-on week-off hospitalists), we may find less students opting to do ophthalmology primarily for lifestyle reasons and instead have a higher concentration of students with a particular interest for or research background in treating eye diseases.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 15,649
- Reaction score
- 38
This is true of almost every single specialty, not just ophthalmology.
Sometimes I wonder what the average statistics would be for the ophthalmology match if it wasn't such a connection-heavy field...even if you aren't super competitive you can still easily get interviews at top 10 places if you know the right people.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 18
The mean score (the statistics sheet says "average" but I assume this is the mean?) for matched applicants last year was 237 and this year was 238. I'm not certain it is appropriate to use terms like "statistically significant difference" with respect to characterizing the applicants' board scores. The reported mean is not derived from a representative sample of a larger applicant pool - the reported mean is the ACTUAL mean of the matched and unmatched applicants into ophthalmology, assuming they didn't lie or falsify NBME score reports. If we only had a representative sample, we could use the mean and standard deviation to compare two means using parametric statistics and come up with a p value for the probability of a type 1 error - the case in which there actually was no significant difference. But in this case, we have all the data on all of the applicants, and can say with 100% confidence that there is a higher actual mean score this year.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 253
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 18
Thought I would post the pubmed link to this journal article that just came out in 2012 for the sake of posterity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22218141 The authors review the match data from 2011 and identify factors which were more common among matched applicants into ophthalmology compared to unmatched: 1) AOA, 2) top 40 med school by NIH funding, and 3) ranking more programs. Higher board scores too. Nothing earth-shattering there, but more interesting is their look at the probability of matching based upon the number of programs you rank. Ranking 6-10 programs yielded an 80-90% probability of matching, whereas >10 programs gave a >90% probability of matching with no demonstrated benefit beyond ranking 11 programs. So, based on this study's conclusions, 11 would appear to be a good "magic number" of interviews/programs for future applicants to shoot for.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,488
- Reaction score
- 383
I think its interesting that the average step 1 scores for match are 239 plus or minus 14, and unmatched 223 plus or minus 18. Scores up to 241 are still within one SD of the unmatched. Yikes.
My interpretation of this is than a score of 239 offers an applicant very little reassurance.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 22
Its easy to make too much out of these statistics. About 68% of the values fall within one SD of the mean. So 68% of the unmatched applicants have a step 1 between 205 - 241, and 68% of matched applicants are between 225 - 253. Its pretty obvious these have a heavy overlap.
Programs don't think in terms of SD and mean. They think in terms of compatibility and convenience. My home program director flatly told me the SF match system allows you to screen applicants in advance based on STEP 1, and she randomly chose 220. Why 220? Not because of the above stats, means, SD, analysis of variance, blah blah, but because it reduced the applicant pool from about 500 to 100, and she likes round numbers like 100 to deal with. In other words, it was convenient.
Once you get past the screen, compatibility takes over. Is the institution a heavy academic center that values research or a community hospital? Do they have a strong regional bias? Are they inbred and only take their own students? Do they have a preference for students who do aways at their institution? How well did you interview? Do they like you? The intangibles are too numerous to count.
The take home message is STEP 1 is one very important piece of the application, but once you are past the screen there are many more factors they consider in selecting applicants for interviews and ranking. Its not possible to predict everything in advance.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 1,235
- Reaction score
- 37
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,488
- Reaction score
- 383
Thanks for the post, you make some great points.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2013
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 192
Resurrecting a dead thread, I have often wondered if anyone has ever challenged the SF Match regarding their sketchy statistics. Honestly, almost everyone who reads the summary is mislead, and unless you really stop and think about the numbers you won't realize how deceptive they are (likely intentional). I think it is time that applicants demand meaningful statistics. Based on what I have heard, this was probably the most competitive year in some time, but many applicants applied without backup plans. They likely thought they had a better chance of matching due to confusion regarding these statistics. With the impending integration of intern year into ophthalmology residencies, it seems like it would be easier for ophthalmology to shift to the more transparent NRMP. Any thoughts?
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 161
Yeah, those stats are whack. The 'breakdown' is useless; we want to know what our actual chances are when applying as a MS4, US grad, or IMG. And what the hell does "# offers" even refer to? It's frustratingly opaque.
When I was looking into the match algorithm, it appeared #offers could refer to the number of tentative matches the applicant had in the match algorithm (the last tentative match either being the program the applicant matched to or was bumped out of before going unmatched).
A tentative match happens during the shuffling of applicants as the algorithm is working. A bunch of applicants who all rank the same program number one will tentatively match at that program ("offers"). Only the the applicants who fall into the top of the program's rank list, for which there are residency spots, have that tentative match turn into a final match. Applicants can get bumped out of these final match positions by others who ranked this program lower but did not match higher on their own rank list. Bumped applicants then make offers to tentatively match at the next program on their list. This process continues until they either don't get bumped out of a final match position (and go on to match at that program) or they do get bumped but no longer have an alternative program on their rank list (subsequently go unmatched).
Therefore, this statistic would reflect an average of how far down an applicant matched on their list.
Of course, it is frustratingly opaque, so I could be totally wrong.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 161
That actually makes sense. I thought it might've been something reflecting the match algorithm itself, but it's just hard to make heads or tails of that statistic! I really do wish we had something as clear and thoroughly data-mined as NRMP offers in its Charting Outcomes publication.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2015
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 25
This article is the most detailed and straightforward data for the match Ive seen, though its from the 2011 match... I think the general competitiveness has remained relatively stable though... I have full pdf article if anyone would like:
Ophthalmology Residency Match Outcomes for 2011
Salman J. Yousuf DO, MSLeslie S. Jones MD
Ophthalmology Residency Match Outcomes for 2011
Salman J. Yousuf DO, MSLeslie S. Jones MD
