Annual Specialty Competitiveness Stats

[GrouchoMarx]

Of those 20, probably about 5 are serious path applicants and thats being generous - didnt the carms stats from last year show less than 5% CMGs (less than 1%?) ranked pathology as first choice?

[JohnGrisham]

Of those 20, probably about 5 are serious path applicants and thats being generous - didnt the carms stats from last year show less than 5% CMGs (less than 1%?) ranked pathology as first choice?

Showed 24 out of the 50 CMG applicants put Anatomical Path as their 1st choice in first iteration.  22(1st choice) + 5(2nd choice) = 27 Matched 1st iteration. 4 More matched in 2nd iteration.

 

27 out of 138 IMG applicants to Anatomical Path put it as their 1st choice!  ....3 Matched 1st iteration. 4 More matched in 2nd iteration.

 

 

 

Too lazy too type of General Path and Hema Path. 

[rmorelan]

Showed 24 out of the 50 CMG applicants put Anatomical Path as their 1st choice. 

 

27 out of 138 IMG applicants to Anatomical Path put it as their 1st choice! 

 

(First iteration)

 

sounds about right

[plane]

Some early stats from the CaRMS 2016 match are out.

 

From the CaRMS Forum presentation at CCME: http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-CaRMS-Forum-Data-Deck_FINAL_EN.pdf

 

Derm, Plastics and Emerg most competitive again this year. 

[ralk]

Some early stats from the CaRMS 2016 match are out.

 

From the CaRMS Forum presentation at CCME: http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-CaRMS-Forum-Data-Deck_FINAL_EN.pdf

 

Derm, Plastics and Emerg most competitive again this year. 

 

Wow, CaRMS is really putting some good details into its preliminary presentations!

 

Lots to dig into there... First, the ratio of CMGs to CMG spots has never been tighter and applying (VERY) broadly is still a good - but not an assured - way to keep from going unmatched. Definitely a difficult year overall though. For those who went unmatched this year, however, chances are still pretty good for matching in future years. An over 80% eventual match rate for 2013 grads is very encouraging. Really surprised at some of the numbers on why CMGs went unmatched - 11% could have matched if they ranked all their programs, while 26% didn't get ranked by any program (and presumably have to change something for next cycle).

 

Secondly, Derm, Plastics and EM being the most competitive is entirely expected, and while I'd like to see the full stats before making any big judgments on true competitiveness, looks like it was a rather tough year for those going for Neurosurg and PM&R! PM&R doesn't surprise me at all, it's always had a lot going for it and people are now starting to realize that, but Neurosurg I figured was going to be getting progressively easier to match into, not harder. Rads really did have an uncompetitive year though, yikes.

 

Third, if going abroad to study, at the moment, Australia, Ireland, and the UK looks like the best options. Still not a great match rate, though better than I would have thought. Avoid eastern Europe like the plague and the Caribbean - especially outside of the Big 4 - does not look like a good way to land a Canadian residency (perhaps a US one though).

[psychoswim]

2 people matched to their 352nd choice?! I can't even begin to imagine...

[Huron]

2 people matched to their 352nd choice?! I can't even begin to imagine...

 

2 people to 105, 2 to 110, 2 to 289 and 2 to 352... goes to show how stressful the couples match can be for people. The number of different permutations and combinations they enter is insane. 

 

If you ask me the 1 who matched to their 92nd choice is even crazier. 

[ralk]

2 people to 105, 2 to 110, 2 to 289 and 2 to 352... goes to show how stressful the couples match can be for people. The number of different permutations and combinations they enter is insane. 

 

If you ask me the 1 who matched to their 92nd choice is even crazier. 

 

I'm guessing that's one half of a couple's match, where the other half put their preference as "unmatched" in the 92nd combination.

[ploughboy]

Some early stats from the CaRMS 2016 match are out.

 

From the CaRMS Forum presentation at CCME: http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-CaRMS-Forum-Data-Deck_FINAL_EN.pdf

 

Derm, Plastics and Emerg most competitive again this year. 

 

Very interesting stats.  Should be required reading for every first and second year med student.

[Vanguard]

Lots of interesting data for sure. The top 3 most competitive specialties is not a surprise. It is surprising that the ratios continue to increase and they have reached new highs in terms of how competitive they are.

 

Overall, it seems the trend in recent years is that CaRMS is getting tougher. That is before the additional 25 spots are cut in Ontario next yr. Will be interesting to see how things shake out. I wonder if future policy decisions will need to be made to improve the situation if things continue to get harder over the next several years.

[Anythingradiation]

Lots of interesting data for sure. The top 3 most competitive specialties is not a surprise. It is surprising that the ratios continue to increase and they have reached new highs in terms of how competitive they are.

 

Overall, it seems the trend in recent years is that CaRMS is getting tougher. That is before the additional 25 spots are cut in Ontario next yr. Will be interesting to see how things shake out. I wonder if future policy decisions will need to be made to improve the situation if things continue to get harder over the next several years.

 

The 25 that will be cut next year are IMG spots. 

Overall match for current year CMG grads was 98.3% which was the highest overall since 2011. 

Looks like the 25 cut spots did not have a large impact.

[_ _]

The 25 that will be cut next year are IMG spots. 

Overall match for current year CMG grads was 98.3% which was the highest overall since 2011. 

Looks like the 25 cut spots did not have a large impact.

Oh, so the 25 spots for next year shouldn't have any impacts on CMG matching in Ontario? 

[Anythingradiation]

Oh, so the 25 spots for next year shouldn't have any impacts on CMG matching in Ontario? 

The government initially said 50 CMG spots then backtracked to 25 cmg and 25 img. next years cuts should not have any effect on the cmg match.

[Vanguard]

The government initially said 50 CMG spots then backtracked to 25 cmg and 25 img. next years cuts should not have any effect on the cmg match.

Thanks for clearing that up!

[ralk]

The 25 that will be cut next year are IMG spots. 

Overall match for current year CMG grads was 98.3% which was the highest overall since 2011. 

Looks like the 25 cut spots did not have a large impact.

 

The post-2nd iteration match rate was 98.3%, but that's actually 2nd worst of the stats they provided stretching back to 2007...

[Intel21]

Any idea why the USMG match rate is so low even though they're considered CMGs?

[JohnGrisham]

Any idea why the USMG match rate is so low even though they're considered CMGs?

A quick search will show the same question being asked every year. Its a mix bag of people only applying to their most desirable programs(i.e. big cities or competitive specialties) and not ranking broadly, as they would rather match in the U.S to more desirable programs than at less desirable programs in Canada. 

 

I.e. A CMG would  typically apply to every IM program to ensure they match...whereas a US grad would probably only apply to IM programs that they would  actually want to attend in Toronto/YVR for example...but not rank places they don't want to go to, in favour of "better" places in the US match.   Canadian match happens before the US match.

 

That is just one simplified example. Another would be only applying to a surgical specialty program, but not backing up with anything...knowing that if you didn't match in Canada, you would likely match to a decent program in the US etc etc.

 

Small sample size problems really, and having US options to also consider when ranking.

[Anythingradiation]

The post-2nd iteration match rate was 98.3%, but that's actually 2nd worst of the stats they provided stretching back to 2007...

 

Its actually not though. CaRMS presented the data very poorly. Almost misleadingly so.

 

I assume that you are referring to this slide

 

What this slide is actually showing in yellow is the number of people who didn't match in the second round. It excludes the people who went unmatched in the first round but did not participate in the second round. 

 

This group is included in the 98.3% Match rate of current year CMG applicants. I went back and calculated the overall match rates for the past 5 years.

 

In 2015 97.7% of current year CMG applicants matched after both rounds.

 

In 2014 97.4% of current year CMG applicants matched after both rounds.

 

In 2013 97.6% of current year CMG applicants matched after both rounds.

 

In 2012 97.3% of current year CMG applicants matched after both rounds.

 

In 2011 98.4% of current year CMG applicants matched after both rounds.

 

I would argue that these rates are more useful than the rates CaRMS listed above. Some schools have polices requiring you to participate in the second round in order to receive further help from the school (addition electives). If a person does not want to do the second round they still register but don't rank any programs to get this help. I think absolute matched and unmatched matters more.

 

I'm slightly irritated that the data is being presented this way because frankly it is misleading. Maybe because of the residency cuts?

[ralk]

Its actually not though. CaRMS presented the data very poorly. Almost misleadingly so.

 

I assume that you are referring to this slide

 

What this slide is actually showing in yellow is the number of people who didn't match in the second round. It excludes the people who went unmatched in the first round but did not participate in the second round. 

 

This group is included in the 98.3% Match rate of current year CMG applicants. I went back and calculated the overall match rates for the past 5 years.

 

In 2015 97.7% of current year CMG applicants matched after both rounds.

 

In 2014 97.4% of current year CMG applicants matched after both rounds.

 

In 2013 97.6% of current year CMG applicants matched after both rounds.

 

In 2012 97.3% of current year CMG applicants matched after both rounds.

 

In 2011 98.4% of current year CMG applicants matched after both rounds.

 

I would argue that these rates are more useful than the rates CaRMS listed above. Some schools have polices requiring you to participate in the second round in order to receive further help from the school (addition electives). If a person does not want to do the second round they still register but don't rank any programs to get this help. I think absolute matched and unmatched matters more.

 

I'm slightly irritated that the data is being presented this way because frankly it is misleading. Maybe because of the residency cuts?

 

No, I'm referring to slide 49 where they straight-up give the percentage of unmatched students after the 2nd round. If you do the same calculation you did, where people who don't participate in the 2nd round at all are (rightfully) considered unmatched, the rate was 97.36% this year, on the lower side historically (though quite good overall). I agree, the rates you posted are more relevant than the ones they use - I'm not a fan of some of the stats CaRMS chooses to present either - but the point is that this was not a great year for the match overall, even if it wasn't a uniquely bad one either.

[mononoke]

Did they ever say the reasons for going unmatched? It had a slide with that question on it but it was listed as a discussion point and there was nothing else written afterwards

[Anythingradiation]

I'm almost positive that slide 49 is incorrect data and I'll explain why.

 

Slide 17 shows and explicitly says that the match rate for both iterations was 98.3%

 

Slide 49 looks exactly like the data that excludes the unmatched first rounders who sat out on page 50. Which is weird because the numbers are implied to be the total.

 

I went and looked through the past match reports. For the 2015 match there were 64 unmatched people. I actually tweeted to carms and clarified this number there response was:

 

@Twitter handles The 64 is ppl unmatched in 2nd iteration (39) plus unmatched in 1st who didn't take part in 2nd (25).

 

If you subtract the 64 people from the total number of participants you and divided over it too get the percentage. I also double checked by dividing the number of matched applicants by the number of people who participated.

 

I invite you to double check my work. The carms match reports clearly state the number of current year participants and the number of current year matches from both iterations.

 

 

I'm on mobile otherwise I would post photos.

[ralk]

I'm almost positive that slide 49 is incorrect data and I'll explain why.

 

Slide 17 shows and explicitly says that the match rate for both iterations was 98.3%

 

Slide 49 looks exactly like the data that excludes the unmatched first rounders who sat out on page 50. Which is weird because the numbers are implied to be the total.

 

I went and looked through the past match reports. For the 2015 match there were 64 unmatched people. I actually tweeted to carms and clarified this number there response was:

 

@Twitter handles The 64 is ppl unmatched in 2nd iteration (39) plus unmatched in 1st who didn't take part in 2nd (25).

 

If you subtract the 64 people from the total number of participants you and divided over it too get the percentage. I also double checked by dividing the number of matched applicants by the number of people who participated.

 

I invite you to double check my work. The carms match reports clearly state the number of current year participants and the number of current year matches from both iterations.

 

 

I'm on mobile otherwise I would post photos.

 

I'm not doubting your calculations on the previous years, what I'm saying is that you haven't done an equivalent calculation on the current year.

 

Slide 17 appears to have the incorrect data. I mean, 151 current CMGs went unmatched in the 1st iteration, and only 96 CMGs total matched 2nd iteration, leaving at least 55 unmatched current year CMGs. That number should be higher, given previous years' grads would have matched in the 2nd iteration as well. With 2761 individuals total matching, if a minimum of 55 individuals went unmatched, that'd be a total match rate of 98.0%, maximum. That 98.3% figure works if you only look at the 48 people who both participated and failed to match in the 2nd iteration, while ignoring those who didn't participate in the 2nd iteration at all, as was done in slide 49. Slide 49 is an apples-to-apples comparison, even if it is a rather useless one.

 

The preliminary report doesn't actually list the total number of current year CMGs who participated in the match in 2016. It does list the number of current year grads (2836, hence my claim of 97,3% total match rate), though from previous years' reports, it's not a certainty that all graduates will participate in the match. We'll have to wait to see the final numbers, because firm ones aren't in this report, but the overall match rate across both iterations wasn't 98.3%.

[Anythingradiation]

I'm not doubting your calculations on the previous years, what I'm saying is that you haven't done an equivalent calculation on the current year.

 

Slide 17 appears to have the incorrect data. I mean, 151 current CMGs went unmatched in the 1st iteration, and only 96 CMGs total matched 2nd iteration, leaving at least 55 unmatched current year CMGs. That number should be higher, given previous years' grads would have matched in the 2nd iteration as well. With 2761 individuals total matching, if a minimum of 55 individuals went unmatched, that'd be a total match rate of 98.0%, maximum. That 98.3% figure works if you only look at the 48 people who both participated and failed to match in the 2nd iteration, while ignoring those who didn't participate in the 2nd iteration at all, as was done in slide 49. Slide 49 is an apples-to-apples comparison, even if it is a rather useless one.

 

The preliminary report doesn't actually list the total number of current year CMGs who participated in the match in 2016. It does list the number of current year grads (2836, hence my claim of 97,3% total match rate), though from previous years' reports, it's not a certainty that all graduates will participate in the match. We'll have to wait to see the final numbers, because firm ones aren't in this report, but the overall match rate across both iterations wasn't 98.3%.

 

I see it now. Thanks I appreciate the rebuttal. I took the 98.3 value without looking at the details. Good catch.

 

In any case, There is some incorrect information in the slideshow or at least very poorly presented data.

[ralk]

I see it now. Thanks I appreciate the rebuttal. I took the 98.3 value without looking at the details. Good catch.

 

In any case, There is some incorrect information in the slideshow or at least very poorly presented data.

 

Yeah, that seems to be standard for CaRMS. Their main job is conducting the match, not putting out the data, so I'm not too upset, but considering it's the most useful dataset on physician human resources we have, it tends to contain an unhelpful number of errors...

[Vanguard]

Updated for 2016