CaRMS Stats

[jpc43]

Originally Posted by japlanet

Yeah I've heard 20 plus 4 from regional campuses for a total of 24, over 10% of our class.

Lots of people applied to competitive subspecialities and didn't hedge their bets. We were also one of the youngest classes ever, so much less interest in family med than traditional for McMaster.

Still lots of rads/derm/optho matches. The sticking point for many of the unmatched was plastics.

geez, any idea how many ppl applied to plastics?!

[rmorelan]

Originally Posted by battleford

Good point!
Someone else mentioned Mac had record number in competitive specialties.

Some schools make all students backup (like ottawa which means high match)

How could they make an applicant do anything? Isn't the entire process confidential after all?

[justletmein]

Originally Posted by rmorelan

How could they make an applicant do anything? Isn't the entire process confidential after all?

Yes, people make their own carms decisions.

The statement is a major generalization.

It is true, however, that some schools will use scare tactics to "strongly encourage" their students to back up, thereby limiting their number of unmatched applicants.

[lostintime]

Every school does scare tactics to make people back up....no school likes unmatched stats, but really match rate isn't that indicative of anything. You have to see what people WANTED and the competitiveness of what people were going for/matched to.

I would say a school where most people are UNHAPPY with their choices is generally not a good thing.

[battleford]

Originally Posted by rmorelan

How could they make an applicant do anything? Isn't the entire process confidential after all?

I think you're taking it too literally. They can't MAKE you do anything. But some schools are quite good at sitting students down and encouraging applying to multiple specialties and hedging bets with family medicine. Some schools aren't.

[battleford]

Originally Posted by abcwxyz

a lot......

that must have been a super ambitious class

[1234]

Originally Posted by abcwxyz

Yes the figure is entirely reflective of what the class applied to.

The match rate is really a stupid statistic because it doesn't account for what people are actually applying to. It also doesn't account for people who matched but are very unhappy with where they have ended up.

It's funny that I paid heed to the match rate before medical school but now realize that this is an entirely irrelevant statistic.

Still, the McMaster figure is really an embarrassment. I hope that it will evoke change in student counselling, promotion of backup choices & promotion of non-lucrative specialties. I think someone should really repeatedly tell people in year 1 - ophthalmology, radiology, and plastics make a lot of money, but there is a very very real chance you will not match to these specialties. I remember one of my preceptors once told me.. we are part of the 90's generation - 90% of us think we are above average. I probably should have been beat down and put in my place early on in med school - instead I had an overinflated sense of self worth and assumed I could do anything. My specialty interests were initially completely out of my own capabilities. Fortunately, I eventually found my passion which also fit my skillset.

The ignorance doesn't lie with the statistics themselves, but those who interpret them. Information is valuable, provided you take it within context. General match rate is only one of a hundred statistical values we are provided by Carms. Taken within context, this provides students with A LOT of information that can assist in their decision-making process. Don't discount data simply because you are unable to utilize it to your advantage.

Why is the match rate an "embarrassment"? For who? The school? The student? This is the real world - not matching is a hurdle, not an epic failure that cannot be overcome. It's time to get past the superficiality that is "image" and "perception". People are making life changing career decisions - most of us have transcended image to what is most important: happiness. It might be time to do the same.

"I hope that it will evoke change in student counselling, promotion of backup choices & promotion of non-lucrative specialties." - There is so much ignorance in this statement. The match rate is a product of resident selection process itself, not McMaster's ability to counsel patients or "promote backup choices". Despite the promotion of elective diversification, those that pursue more competitive specialties are ultimately required to focus electives on one specific field - backing up is a tougher and tougher process, whether it be related to elective experience, acquisition of field-specific reference letters, etc.

Why should the school promote backups? Believe it or not, medical students are relatively intelligent. Students know whether they are pursuing a competitive specialty. They know the risk of being unsuccessful. Every school recommends backing up - EVERY SCHOOL. No need to mandate backing up or threatening students that they aren't going to match. Students have the information and make choices. Ultimately, students will match to something and wind their way to happiness. Other than to protect their own statistics, I see zero value in schools promoting backups more than they already do.

"I probably should have been beat down and put in my place early on in med school - instead I had an overinflated sense of self worth and assumed I could do anything. My specialty interests were initially completely out of my own capabilities. Fortunately, I eventually found my passion which also fit my skillset."

Believe it or not, unless you have a physical impairment that doesn't allow you to operate, there is no skillset that cannot be developed. This isn't the Olympics, where innate ability/talent is required for you to be successful. This is medicine - pattern recognition and practice leads to competence and success. Innate talent may make it easier, but it is definitely not a requirement.

[lostintime]

Actually for some of the specialties that are super super competitive, it's not really just about whether someone can do the job. Actually many people can. But because it's SO competitive, people have to be super-humans and excel in all sorts of other ways to get in. Sure, some people get in by fluke, but really you can't bet that you will be a fluke and put your career on the line.

So no, I don't agree that ANYONE can develop the skills required and be "good enough" or competitive enough for those specialties. Simply put, some people are brighter than others, better at networking, and hence come out more competitive as an applicant. The same reason not everyone will make it in Hollywood and not everyone will be the best in their field for many reasons not only based on talent and hard work alone.

Same with the idea that many pre-meds who do not get into med school might be just as good as some people who are in and may have matched better than some of the people in med school now had they been given the chance to go through.

Then again, who said life is fair? Meh. I think you just everything your best shot and that way you have no regrets. And yes, if you're willing to take risks, then you live with the consequences of those risks too.

[1234]

Originally Posted by lostintime

Actually for some of the specialties that are super super competitive, it's not really just about whether someone can do the job. Actually many people can. But because it's SO competitive, people have to be super-humans and excel in all sorts of other ways to get in. Sure, some people get in by fluke, but really you can't bet that you will be a fluke and put your career on the line.

So no, I don't agree that ANYONE can develop the skills required and be "good enough" or competitive enough for those specialties. Simply put, some people are brighter than others, better at networking, and hence come out more competitive as an applicant. The same reason not everyone will make it in Hollywood and not everyone will be the best in their field for many reasons not only based on talent and hard work alone.

Same with the idea that many pre-meds who do not get into med school might be just as good as some people who are in and may have matched better than some of the people in med school now had they been given the chance to go through.

Then again, who said life is fair? Meh. I think you just everything your best shot and that way you have no regrets. And yes, if you're willing to take risks, then you live with the consequences of those risks too.

Skillset to be competent in a specialty, and, the ability to acquire a position, are two completely seperate concepts. You can't somehow push those two concepts together to make your argument valid.

Anyone can do the job. The question is, will they be given the opportunity - and that question is too complicated for anyone to pre-emptively state that they won't be given an opportunity, that is why people try. One seemingly random connection with an influential clinician on the residency admission panel anywhere and a spot could be yours. This is especially true for residency admission in Canada, where, for the most part, there are few to no objective values for admission panels to go by.

[mavrik13]

Originally Posted by 1234

Why is the match rate an "embarrassment"? For who? The school? The student? This is the real world - not matching is a hurdle, not an epic failure that cannot be overcome.

An embarrassment for both, really. Sure, it is easy to say not matching can be overcome... but to me, it really shows that Mac didn't emphasize the importance of having a GOOD backup plan. Ultimately, instead of having a decent backup plan, they are now left scrambling for one of very few desirable, English speaking 2nd round spots.

Originally Posted by 1234

"I hope that it will evoke change in student counselling, promotion of backup choices & promotion of non-lucrative specialties." - There is so much ignorance in this statement. The match rate is a product of resident selection process itself, not McMaster's ability to counsel patients or "promote backup choices". Despite the promotion of elective diversification, those that pursue more competitive specialties are ultimately required to focus electives on one specific field - backing up is a tougher and tougher process, whether it be related to elective experience, acquisition of field-specific reference letters, etc.

This high % of students going unmatched (over 10% by some accounts) indicates that students should have applied a) to more specialties, and/or b) to more locations. Gunning for a competitive specialty is not an excuse for not having a backup plan - it shows to me that the applicants weren't thoroughly informed of the risks of not matching, or they chose to ignore those risks. I'm sure that many of those who didn't match would have been happier doing Gen Surg, or Internal Med, instead of scrambling for a rural family med or pathology spot.