What stats/application are safe to have for IR?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
T

Thesimplelifeofamyloid

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
518
Reaction score
601
Say with step 1 245+, no AOA
Hardly anything about this in the IR thread
Looking at midwest/southeast programs
Good academic programs
Members don't see this ad.
 
The charting outcomes data says that no step score is sufficient for IR. Even at 270 the match rate is barely 80%
1595206865834.png
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thesimplelifeofamyloid said:
What do you mean by know you well?
Click to expand...
like you should have some sort of relationship with that program, do some research with them, get a letter from an IR doctor.
The IR match according to the data is the most brutal match out of every field. mostly due to DR folks throwing in their apps, but the way to mitigate this would be to have an IR focused app.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
libertyyne said:
like you should have some sort of relationship with that program, do some research with them, get a letter from an IR doctor.
The IR match according to the data is the most brutal match out of every field. mostly due to DR folks throwing in their apps, but the way to mitigate this would be to have an IR focused app.
Click to expand...
Would doing an away rotation satisfy that requirement?
 
libertyyne said:
The charting outcomes data says that no step score is sufficient for IR. Even at 270 the match rate is barely 80%
View attachment 313335
Click to expand...
The 2020 match was much less competitive than this older data. Hard to say what the coming years will look like since the field is so small. You should definitely be able to match somewhere with a 245 if the rest of your app checks out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
bobjonesbob said:
The 2020 match was much less competitive than this older data. Hard to say what the coming years will look like since the field is so small. You should definitely be able to match somewhere with a 245 if the rest of your app checks out.
Click to expand...
How much research do you think one needs to match?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
There were ~5 IR spots that SOAPed last year. So if you rank all the IR programs you interview at over the DR ones you should be good unless you’re DNR
 
The relative decline in competitiveness of IR was due in part to self-selection. I suspect many students who might have applied in 2016 did not apply in 2019 after realizing how competitive the match was.

I view letters of recommendation as the most important factor in selecting students for interviews. Students who rotate with our program and have a good showing are also at a significant advantage - though this won't be a factor this year because visiting rotations have been closed due to COVID. I'd also point out that things in your CV that demonstrate a commitment to IR are very important. That can include research or involvement in SIR.

Hope that helps. If you have any more specific questions you can try PM'ing me, but keep in mind I don't log into SDN often.
 
UChicagoIR said:
The relative decline in competitiveness of IR was due in part to self-selection. I suspect many students who might have applied in 2016 did not apply in 2019 after realizing how competitive the match was.

I view letters of recommendation as the most important factor in selecting students for interviews. Students who rotate with our program and have a good showing are also at a significant advantage - though this won't be a factor this year because visiting rotations have been closed due to COVID. I'd also point out that things in your CV that demonstrate a commitment to IR are very important. That can include research or involvement in SIR.

Hope that helps. If you have any more specific questions you can try PM'ing me, but keep in mind I don't log into SDN often.
Click to expand...

Thank you for stating this I agree 100%. Yes, there was a drop in applicants from the 2018-19 match to the 2019 -20 match. Interestingly, the average Step 1 score for IR applicants was slightly increased this match cycle, so the decline in applicants was largely due to less competitive applicants realizing they weren't competitive with a 58% match rate. Either way, because the IR independent pathway is still a relatively new specialty, the match data will likely ebb and flow over the next 10 years.
 
JRY6788 said:
Thank you for stating this I agree 100%. Yes, there was a drop in applicants from the 2018-19 match to the 2019 -20 match. Interestingly, the average Step 1 score for IR applicants was slightly increased this match cycle, so the decline in applicants was largely due to less competitive applicants realizing they weren't competitive with a 58% match rate. Either way, because the IR independent pathway is still a relatively new specialty, the match data will likely ebb and flow over the next 10 years.
Click to expand...

What was the average Step 1 Score for this cycle?
 
UChicagoIR said:
The relative decline in competitiveness of IR was due in part to self-selection. I suspect many students who might have applied in 2016 did not apply in 2019 after realizing how competitive the match was.

I view letters of recommendation as the most important factor in selecting students for interviews. Students who rotate with our program and have a good showing are also at a significant advantage - though this won't be a factor this year because visiting rotations have been closed due to COVID. I'd also point out that things in your CV that demonstrate a commitment to IR are very important. That can include research or involvement in SIR.

Hope that helps. If you have any more specific questions you can try PM'ing me, but keep in mind I don't log into SDN often.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The averages for most specialties went up by 1 or 2 pts. Its jsut a reflection of the national average for step 1 creeping up every year by a 1 or 2 pts. Relatively speaking, IRs competitiveness has dropped by quite a bit since people are now realizing that it's not as great as SJIR paints it out to be. I think a good number of these applicants are diverting to the subsurgical specialties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
medradthrowaway said:
I disagree. The averages for most specialties went up by 1 or 2 pts. Its jsut a reflection of the national average for step 1 creeping up every year by a 1 or 2 pts. Relatively speaking, IRs competitiveness has dropped by quite a bit since people are now realizing that it's not as great as SJIR paints it out to be. I think a good number of these applicants are diverting to the subsurgical specialties.
Click to expand...

It's crazy how great marketing and hype can make a field hot overnight. I had a feeling this would happen. When people began to understand the totality of what IR entails...this was the result. Funny how it works, lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
medradthrowaway said:
I disagree. The averages for most specialties went up by 1 or 2 pts. Its jsut a reflection of the national average for step 1 creeping up every year by a 1 or 2 pts. Relatively speaking, IRs competitiveness has dropped by quite a bit since people are now realizing that it's not as great as SJIR paints it out to be. I think a good number of these applicants are diverting to the subsurgical specialties.
Click to expand...

How long have you been practicing IR? That was a rhetorical question. You're a medical student. I'd avoid making bold claims about fields in which you have little to zero experience. In fact, that's just a general good rule of thumb for life. Clearly you don't have personal interest in the field, which is important to recognize, but making baseless arguments helps no one.

Now to the original point, the argument comes down to basic statistics. There were 50-60 fewer IR applicants this year in a specialty that offers ~130 independent spots per year. There was a 58% match rate in 2019!! The next most competitive specialty had a 79% match rate. This undoubtedly led to applicant self selection in IR, as the average Step 1 score for matched applicants this year increased from 244-->247. Please explain again how IR has become less competitive? Even if the Step 1 increase is consistent with a yearly trend across all residency fields (which it isn't; the average step 1 score across all specialties decreased by 1 point this year), then IR should have seen an identical or lower Step 1 score average this year.

Anyways, all this is sort of silly to argue about. I just think it's important for people to make factually based arguments, especially when you are commenting on someone else's career choice.
 
JRY6788 said:
How long have you been practicing IR? That was a rhetorical question. You're a medical student. I'd avoid making bold claims about fields in which you have little to zero experience. In fact, that's just a general good rule of thumb for life. Clearly you don't have personal interest in the field, which is important to recognize, but making baseless arguments helps no one.

Now to the original point, the argument comes down to basic statistics. There were 50-60 fewer IR applicants this year in a specialty that offers ~130 independent spots per year. There was a 58% match rate in 2019!! The next most competitive specialty had a 79% match rate. This undoubtedly led to applicant self selection in IR, as the average Step 1 score for matched applicants this year increased from 244-->247. Please explain again how IR has become less competitive? Even if the Step 1 increase is consistent with a yearly trend across all residency fields (which it isn't; the average step 1 score across all specialties decreased by 1 point this year), then IR should have seen an identical or lower Step 1 score average this year.

Anyways, all this is sort of silly to argue about. I just think it's important for people to make factually based arguments, especially when you are commenting on someone else's career choice.
Click to expand...

Calm down. It's a good thing for people wanting to go into the field. A drop in competitiveness isn't bad. Also, you're just chery picking parts of the NRMP to support your argument. That's your interpretation, but I see it differently when there are less applicants and the mean step score did not rise more than it did for the other specialties.
 
@JRY6788, you don't need to be a practicing IR to be able to interpret statistics. That change in step 1 score is tiny and not significant. Way fewer applicants means a much higher match rate regardless of what tier the applicant is. Look at the match rates for the different step 1 bins from 2018 vs 2020. Higher match rate across the board, with the most notable increases coming for those <240 step 1. The IR match was less competitive this year than in years prior.
 

Attachments

  • Charting-Outcomes-in-the-Match-2018-USMDSeniors.pdf
    74.4 KB · Views: 77
  • Charting-Outcomes-in-the-Match-2020-USMDSeniors.pdf
    8 KB · Views: 54
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
bobjonesbob said:
@JRY6788, you don't need to be a practicing IR to be able to interpret statistics. That change in step 1 score is tiny and not significant. Way fewer applicants means a much higher match rate regardless of what tier the applicant is. Look at the match rates for the different step 1 bins from 2018 vs 2020. Higher match rate across the board, with the most notable increases coming for those <240 step 1. The IR match was less competitive this year than in years prior.
Click to expand...

medradthrowaway said:
Calm down. It's a good thing for people wanting to go into the field. A drop in competitiveness isn't bad. Also, you're just chery picking parts of the NRMP to support your argument. That's your interpretation, but I see it differently when there are less applicants and the mean step score did not rise more than it did for the other specialties.
Click to expand...

@bobjonesbob @medradthrowaway

This was mentioned earlier in the thread, but I'll echo what's already been said. Residency competitiveness and residency match rate are not equivalent. It's not hard to understand. Just as an example, the Diagnostic Radiology match rate last year was 95%, which is on par with the match rate for family medicine or IM, but the average Step 1 score for matched DR applicants was 241. So, are IM and DR equal in competitiveness b/c they had similar match rates ? Of course not.

Step 1 scores are undoubtedly the single most important factor when applying for any residency, but even more so for highly competitive specialties. That is why I singled out Step 1 as a variable over other factors that come in to play. If you can't grasp that now, you'll understand when you apply for residency or sit on a residency selection committee.

For IR applicants this past cycle with Step 1 scores > 245+, the competitiveness was identical or even higher to last year, as the applicant pool was more concentrated with competitive applicants. I am telling you this as a member of my residency selection committee, and while my experience is not identical to every other IR program, it undoubtedly gives me a higher level perspective than outsiders looking in. For noncompetitive applicants (eg, applicants with Step 1 scores in the 220-235 range), the chances of matching this past cycle dropped considerably. Despite the overall match rate increasing from 58% to 80%, applicants were still competing against other applicants with similarly high test scores. The increased match rate % was almost entirely the result of noncompetitive applicants self selecting and applying to different residency pathways, and that is clear if you simply compare applicant pools from both years. And please, show me another field in which the average Step 1 score increased by 3+ points. I'll save you the trouble, there isn't one.
 
JRY6788 said:
@bobjonesbob @medradthrowaway

This was mentioned earlier in the thread, but I'll echo what's already been said. Residency competitiveness and residency match rate are not equivalent. It's not hard to understand. Just as an example, the Diagnostic Radiology match rate last year was 95%, which is on par with the match rate for family medicine or IM, but the average Step 1 score for matched DR applicants was 241. So, are IM and DR equal in competitiveness b/c they had similar match rates ? Of course not.

Step 1 scores are undoubtedly the single most important factor when applying for any residency, but even more so for highly competitive specialties. That is why I singled out Step 1 as a variable over other factors that come in to play. If you can't grasp that now, you'll understand when you apply for residency or sit on a residency selection committee.

For IR applicants this past cycle with Step 1 scores > 245+, the competitiveness was identical or even higher to last year, as the applicant pool was more concentrated with competitive applicants. I am telling you this as a member of my residency selection committee, and while my experience is not identical to every other IR program, it undoubtedly gives me a higher level perspective than outsiders looking in. For noncompetitive applicants (eg, applicants with Step 1 scores in the 220-235 range), the chances of matching this past cycle dropped considerably. Despite the overall match rate increasing from 58% to 80%, applicants were still competing against other applicants with similarly high test scores. The increased match rate % was almost entirely the result of noncompetitive applicants self selecting and applying to different residency pathways, and that is clear if you simply compare applicant pools from both years. And please, show me another field in which the average Step 1 score increased by 3+ points. I'll save you the trouble, there isn't one.
Click to expand...

He's not comparing IR to DR or DR to IM. We're comparing IR match rates from 2018 to IR match rates in 2020. This is an apples to apples comparison. It's pretty simple logic.

I am telling you this as a member of my residency selection committee,
Click to expand...
Wud? Lol. It doesn't matter who the hell you are. The stats on the NRMP charting outcomes are what they are.
 
medradthrowaway said:
He's not comparing IR to DR or DR to IM. We're comparing IR match rates from 2018 to IR match rates in 2020. This is an apples to apples comparison. It's pretty simple logic.
Click to expand...

Right, please see above post where I compared 2019 IR match to 2020 IR match. My comment about DR was just providing you an example in the hopes you would understand your faulty logic.
 
JRY6788 said:
Right, please see above post where I compared 2019 IR match to 2020 IR match. My comment about DR was just providing you an example in the hopes you would understand your faulty logic.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain that the match rates for <240 scores have increased dramatically. The only explanation for that is that programs are getting less competitive applicants and are ranking and accepting them.

IN FACT, if you look at each of the step 1 score bin, 2020 had less applicants in the 241-250, 251-260, and 260+ bins. There were fewer competitive applicants applying IR last cycle than in 2018.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
medradthrowaway said:
He's not comparing IR to DR or DR to IM. We're comparing IR match rates from 2018 to IR match rates in 2020. This is an apples to apples comparison. It's pretty simple logic.


Wud? Lol. It doesn't matter who the hell you are. The stats on the NRMP charting outcomes are what they are.
Click to expand...

Please be more specific. You and @bobjonesbob have mentioned charting outcomes but fail to provide specific information in support of your argument. If you want to get technical, the match rate for applicants with Step 1 scores < 240 was almost identical in comparing 2019 to 2020 (in 2019 it was 31/118 = 26.2% and this past year it was 30/109 = 27.5%). If you're going to make an argument at least back it up with stats, otherwise you're just being salty. Anyways, I guess we'll just have to agree to to disagree, ain't nobody got time for this back and forth (unless maybe you're a med student). I seriously do wish you and @bobjonesbob the best of luck in medical school and whatever residency you pursue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
JRY6788 said:
Please be more specific. You and @bobjonesbob have mentioned charting outcomes but fail to provide specific information in support of your argument. If you want to get technical, the match rate for applicants with Step 1 scores < 240 was almost identical in comparing 2019 to 2020 (in 2019 it was 31/118 = 26.2% and this past year it was 30/109 = 27.5%). If you're going to make an argument at least back it up with stats, otherwise you're just being salty. Anyways, I guess we'll just have to agree to to disagree, ain't nobody got time for this back and forth (unless maybe you're a med student). I seriously do wish you and @bobjonesbob the best of luck in medical school and whatever residency you pursue.
Click to expand...

For 2018 Charting Outcomes, there were 31 people < 240 that matched with 39 people not matching. 31/70 is a match rate of 44% for this group.
For 2020 Charting Outcomes, there were 30 people < 240 that matched with 13 people not matching. 30/43 is a match rate of 69% for this group.

You just did simple math incorrectly by taking the group that <240 and dividing that by the whole applicant pool (that includes people >240). That's not how you do math. I mean it's a really simple calculation that you can't even do properly. This is like 5th grade math here.

In fact, on page 104 of the 2020 Charting Outcomes, NRMP actually draws out a graph for you, stratifying step 1 score vs probability of matching, in case you're mathematically challenged. The Y axis actually starts at 35% for a step score of 205 and goes up linearly as step 1 score increases from 205 and onward. So you should know automatically right away that your 27.5% is incorrect and stupid.
 
Last edited:
medradthrowaway said:
For 2018 Charting Outcomes, there were 31 people < 240 that matched with 39 people not matching. 31/70 is a match rate of 44% for this group.
For 2020 Charting Outcomes, there were 30 people < 240 that matched with 13 people not matching. 30/43 is a match rate of 69% for this group.

You just did simple math incorrectly by taking the group that <240 and dividing that by the whole applicant pool (that includes people >240). That's not how you do math. I mean it's a really simple calculation that you can't even do properly. This is like 5th grade math here.

In fact, on page 104 of the 2020 Charting Outcomes, NRMP actually draws out a graph for you, stratifying step 1 score vs probability of matching, in case you're mathematically challenged. The Y axis actually starts at 35% for a step score of 205 and goes up linearly as step 1 score increases from 205 and onward. So you should know automatically right away that your 27.5% is incorrect and stupid.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Applicants with Step 1 scores < 240 still have to compete against applicants with Step 1 scores > 240. You can't separate the 2 pools if you're using quantitative analysis or applying basic level regression models that extrapolate independent vairbales. You did simple math incorrectly by not understanding the difference between simple linear regression and stepwise regression! You're out of your element buddy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
JRY6788 said:
What are you talking about? Applicants with Step 1 scores < 240 still have to compete against applicants with Step 1 scores > 240. You can't separate the 2 pools if you're using quantitative analysis or applying basic level regression models that extrapolate independent vairbales. You did simple math incorrectly by not understanding the difference between simple linear regression and stepwise regression! You're out of your element buddy.
Click to expand...

Ok I'll end this argument. @medradthrowaway...you're wrong. Take the advice of your username at toss yourself in the garbage. Your statistical knowledge is lacking big time.

It's also pretty amusing you're trying to lecture a @JRY6788 who I'm guessing is an IR resident/attending on how competitive the IR field actually is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
kriss56unes said:
Ok I'll end this argument. @medradthrowaway...you're wrong. Take the advice of your username at toss yourself in the garbage. Your statistical knowledge is lacking big time.

It's also pretty amusing you're trying to lecture a @JRY6788 who I'm guessing is an IR resident/attending on how competitive the IR field actually is.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter what he is. We're talking about statistics that are openly reported by NRMP. What a clown.
 
JRY6788 said:
What are you talking about? Applicants with Step 1 scores < 240 still have to compete against applicants with Step 1 scores > 240. You can't separate the 2 pools if you're using quantitative analysis or applying basic level regression models that extrapolate independent vairbales. You did simple math incorrectly by not understanding the difference between simple linear regression and stepwise regression! You're out of your element buddy.
Click to expand...

LMAO. You can if you're comparing the same groups from two different time points. We're looking at the change between 2018 and 2020, we're not looking at the match rate on its own. Looking at page 104, you can see NRMP's own calculation which is nowhere near the 27% you stupidly calculated lol.
 
medradthrowaway said:
For 2018 Charting Outcomes, there were 31 people < 240 that matched with 39 people not matching. 31/70 is a match rate of 44% for this group.
For 2020 Charting Outcomes, there were 30 people < 240 that matched with 13 people not matching. 30/43 is a match rate of 69% for this group.

You just did simple math incorrectly by taking the group that <240 and dividing that by the whole applicant pool (that includes people >240). That's not how you do math. I mean it's a really simple calculation that you can't even do properly. This is like 5th grade math here.

In fact, on page 104 of the 2020 Charting Outcomes, NRMP actually draws out a graph for you, stratifying step 1 score vs probability of matching, in case you're mathematically challenged. The Y axis actually starts at 35% for a step score of 205 and goes up linearly as step 1 score increases from 205 and onward. So you should know automatically right away that your 27.5% is incorrect and stupid.
Click to expand...

Wow. @medradthrowaway you seem like a super angry person.

Calling people 'stupid' or 'clowns' in an anonymous forum to make yourself feel good? Is that really how you talk to people? I mean we're all working together to achieve the same thing. If you get this upset and flustered just having a basic disagreement with someone I can guarantee you are going to make a terrible doctor. You may want to seriously reconsider pursuing medicine altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
RJL2345 said:
Wow. @medradthrowaway you seem like a super angry person.

Calling people 'stupid' or 'clowns' in an anonymous forum to make yourself feel good? Is that really how you talk to people? I mean we're all working together to achieve the same thing. If you get this upset and flustered just having a basic disagreement with someone I can guarantee you are going to make a terrible doctor. You may want to seriously reconsider pursuing medicine altogether.
Click to expand...

Your math is incorrect and it is stupid because NRMP already calculates that and it great differs from yours. If you are internalizing my feedback regarding your math then it's your own self-esteem that is in question, not me. Pease direct your criticisms towards yourself first and reflect on your own feelings.
 
medradthrowaway said:
Your math is incorrect and it is stupid because NRMP already calculates that and it great differs from yours. If you are internalizing that then it's your own self-esteem that is in question, not from me. Pease direct your criticisms towards yourself first and reflect on your own feelings.
Click to expand...

Your math is wrong.
 
medradthrowaway said:
LMAO. It's on page 104 of the NRMP charting outcomes. He's quoting a match rate of 27% for <240 when the graph starts at 35%.
Click to expand...

LMAO. @medradthrowaway you're the clown!! The NRMP graph you keep mentioning is formulated using regression models!! You can't just draw a line at home with a ruler to extrapolate independent means. Please for the love of god stop trying to use math/stats when you can't grasp basic level concepts.
 
kriss56unes said:
LMAO. @medradthrowaway you're actually a huge *****. The NRMP graph you keep mentioning is formulated using regression models!!! You can't just draw a line at home with a ruler to extrapolate independent means!! Please for the love of god stop trying to use math/stats when you can't grasp basic level concepts.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you can draw comparisons. Look at the two here: the match rate is much higher than 27% for the group and the match rate has increased dramatically between '18 and '20, a decrease in competitiveness. Notice the upward shift in the curve. He's the one with the shoddy math aka the match rate is not 27% for the group < 240.
 

Attachments

  • 2018 Page 104 Charting Outcomes.pdf
    75 KB · Views: 69
  • 2020 Page 104 Charting Outcomes.pdf
    8.6 KB · Views: 89
medradthrowaway said:
Yes, but you can draw comparisons. Look at the two here: the match rate is much higher than 27% for the group and the match rate has increased dramatically between '18 and '20, a decrease in competitiveness. Notice the upward shift in the curve.
Click to expand...

Holy bajesus you keep saying the same thing and it's still wrong hahaha. What groups?? The graph is formulated using regression from every applicants score and analyzed linearly, they did NOT use quantile regression. Thus you can't make your own arbitrary paramaters and try to extrapolate meaningful data points. Please stop.
 
kriss56unes said:
Holy bajesus you keep saying the same thing and it's still wrong hahaha. What groups?? The graph is formulated using regression from every applicants score and analyzed linearly, they did NOT use quantile regression. Thus you can't make your own arbitrary paramaters and try to extrapolate meaningful data points. Please stop.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ bro, you're missing the point. The argument was if IR had become less competitive, and the upward shift in the curve proves that.
 
You guys are arguing silly semantics. Judging from the latest outcomes data, it kinda shows that IR is a bit less competitive than before. @medradthrowaway is wrong on his details but he's right on his point. So what if IR is a bit less competitive than before? That's just a fact and I don't know why people are up in arms over that. IR is still a wonderful field with great mix of technology, procedures, and medicine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
medradthrowaway said:
Jesus christ bro, you're missing the point. The argument was if IR had become less competitive, and the upward shift in the curve proves that.
Click to expand...

Bro, you've missed every point, and can't grasp basic statistical concepts. Pretty pathetic you're trying to mask your insecurity by throwing playground insults at people. I can tell you're that kid in med school.
 
kriss56unes said:
Bro, you've missed every point, and can't grasp basic statistical concepts. Pretty pathetic you're trying to mask your insecurity by throwing playground insults at people. I can tell you're that kid in med school.
Click to expand...

Insecurity about what? lol. The graphs are what they are. It's not my data.
 
medradthrowaway said:
Insecurity about what? lol. The graphs are what they are. It's not my data.
Click to expand...

If 10 people with 260 and 10000 people with a 200 Step 1 Score apply for 10 spots, the match rate will be very low

If the next year 10 people with a 260 apply and 0 people with a 200 Step 1 Score apply for the same 10 spots because the people with a 200 realize they have no shot, the match rate will be very high.

Does the increased match rate alone mean that it is less competitive? or does it just mean people who could not compete did not apply and it is the same level of competitive?
 
ineedhelpplse said:
If 10 people with 260 and 10000 people with a 200 Step 1 Score apply for 10 spots, the match rate will be very low

If the next year 10 people with a 260 apply and 0 people with a 200 Step 1 Score apply for the same 10 spots because the people with a 200 realize they have no shot, the match rate will be very high.

Does the increased match rate alone mean that it is less competitive? or does it just mean people who could not compete did not apply and it is the same level of competitive?
Click to expand...

Well there were also less applicants in the 250+ applying according to 2020 outcomes versus 2018 outcomes, so.....
yes it does mean that. lol.

What I see here is that there are a couple IR residents who probably bought in at the top 2 years ago and are now bitter or salty that IR isn't ultra competitive like before, so they're dismissing any data that don't agree with them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

SweetBurger
Do DR programs dismiss your application if it has IR involvement
Replies
14
Views
2K
irwarrior
I
O
IR and DR have essentially equalized in competitiveness
Replies
35
Views
5K
gyngyn
gyngyn
B
Importance of Step 2 for reapplicants to IR/DR next year
Replies
4
Views
1K
MadRadLad
M
Shunsui
Is neuro IR 1 or 2 years after integrated IR residency?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Cognovi
Cognovi
A
What is the future of IR?
2
Replies
62
Views
5K
NDcienporciento100
N
Top