TheBoss Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 That number's wrong - not sure how CaRMS got it, but the actual rate was 86.4% for CMGs, about the same as the last few years. Aw, yeah I think you're right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vidhya Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 This is a silly question but in many of the reports they list quotas after reversion. What are they referring to when they say "reversion"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChemPetE Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 I had some requests to amalgamate most of the stats posted here on my first post to consolidate information; it should now be displayed correctly on my first post with edits demarcated. Thanks for everyone else's information and thoughts as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerroger Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 I'm hoping to make a sticky with the summarized CaRMS data. If anyone makes up a good post summarizing the ratio of spots to interviewed (eg. competitiveness) between specialties across the last 3-4 years I will then sticky it to this forum. Volunteers much appreciated! Any other interesting statistical summaries will be considered as well. Something like: Specialty/2011/2012/2013/2014 Cardiac Surgery/0.xx/0.xx/0.xx/0.xx/ etc etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralk Posted June 23, 2014 Report Share Posted June 23, 2014 I'm hoping to make a sticky with the summarized CaRMS data. If anyone makes up a good post summarizing the ratio of spots to interviewed (eg. competitiveness) between specialties across the last 3-4 years I will then sticky it to this forum. Volunteers much appreciated! Any other interesting statistical summaries will be considered as well. Something like: Specialty/2011/2012/2013/2014 Cardiac Surgery/0.xx/0.xx/0.xx/0.xx/ etc etc etc I can work something up with the quota and the number of applicants to the specialty - not sure if that's the same as the number interviewing, CaRMS isn't all that specific with their terminology and I don't see any stats CaRMS gives that would fit better. The interpretation's a bit tricky using those numbers as well, since there are a lot of specialties that are frequently applied to that the applicant has little intention of matching into. For example, I ran the numbers for 2014 and the most "competitive" specialty was Laboratory Medicine, since it has a small after-revision quota, but everyone who picked it as their first choice matched into it. By this metric, ENT and Ophtho were about as competitive as Family and Internal respectively, but mostly because Family and Internal are good back-ups for many specialties, while ENT and Ophtho are unique fields with little crossover with other specialties and not used as back-ups by anyone. If this is what you're looking for, I'd be happy to run the numbers for the past five years or so and post what I get, but I'm not sure that's what you're asking for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerroger Posted June 24, 2014 Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 I can work something up with the quota and the number of applicants to the specialty - not sure if that's the same as the number interviewing, CaRMS isn't all that specific with their terminology and I don't see any stats CaRMS gives that would fit better. The interpretation's a bit tricky using those numbers as well, since there are a lot of specialties that are frequently applied to that the applicant has little intention of matching into. For example, I ran the numbers for 2014 and the most "competitive" specialty was Laboratory Medicine, since it has a small after-revision quota, but everyone who picked it as their first choice matched into it. By this metric, ENT and Ophtho were about as competitive as Family and Internal respectively, but mostly because Family and Internal are good back-ups for many specialties, while ENT and Ophtho are unique fields with little crossover with other specialties and not used as back-ups by anyone. If this is what you're looking for, I'd be happy to run the numbers for the past five years or so and post what I get, but I'm not sure that's what you're asking for... I think first choice specialty/spots available is a good rough metric for general competitiveness. If I remember correctly the first choice specialty stat reported from CaRMS is based on the rank order. So these are not total applicants but those that interviewed and then ranked a program in a given specialty. It does not include those who applied and didn't get an interview. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. It has been a while since I looked at the stats in depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralk Posted June 24, 2014 Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 I think first choice specialty/spots available is a good rough metric for general competitiveness. If I remember correctly the first choice specialty stat reported from CaRMS is based on the rank order. So these are not total applicants but those that interviewed and then ranked a program in a given specialty. It does not include those who applied and didn't get an interview. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. It has been a while since I looked at the stats in depth. That I could do, certainly. It might include people ranking a specialty first where they didn't interview, but since that's a fairly poor strategy, I can't imagine there'd be many people (if anyone) in that metric. It'll be fairly close to the stats I presented before in this thread, which was the percentage of people successfully matching to their first-choice field by specialty. I'll get something worked up in the next couple days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para14zers Posted June 24, 2014 Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 Page 17 of the CFMS CaRMS Match Book has this data except for this year. If we combine that with the percentages calculated already it pretty much gives a good summary going back to 2010. http://www.cfms.org/attachments/article/121/Match%20Book%202013.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.