 |
General
Information | Questions
about the Match | Match
Statistics | Travel
Links and Discounts | Info
for Non-APPIC Member Programs
2007 APPIC Match Statistics
Match Report from the APPIC Board of Directors
February 26, 2007
We are pleased to report that 2,588 applicants were
successfully matched to internship positions. A total of 45% of all
matched applicants received their top-ranked choice of internship
site, approximately two-thirds (67%) received one of their top two
choices, and four-in-five (80%) received one of their
top three choices.
A total of 842 applicants were not matched to an internship position,
while 296 positions remained unfilled.
Following are the changes in numbers of applicants and positions as compared to the 2006 APPIC Match:
| Applicants: |
Registered for the Match |
+219 |
| |
Withdrew or did not submit ranks |
-1 |
| |
Matched |
+109 |
| |
Unmatched |
+111 |
| |
|
|
| Positions: |
Offered in the Match |
+105 |
| |
Filled |
+109 |
| |
Unfilled |
-4 |
Following is a five year comparison of the 2002 and 2007 Match statistics:
| |
2002 |
2007 |
|
| Participating Sites |
610 |
640 |
+30 (+5%) |
| Positions Offered |
2,752 |
2,884 |
+132 (+5%) |
| Positions Filled |
2,410 |
2,588 |
+178 (+7%) |
| Positions Unfilled |
342 |
296 |
-46 (-13%) |
| |
|
|
|
| Registered Applicants |
3,073 |
3,698 |
+625 (+20%) |
| Withdrawn Applicants |
231 |
268 |
+37 (+16%) |
| Matched Applicants |
2,410 |
2,588 |
+178 ( +7%) |
Unmatched Applicants |
432 |
842 |
+410 (+95%) |
INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS
| PARTICIPATION |
| Training Sites Participating in the Match |
640 |
| Programs Participating in the Match |
1,048 |
| Positions Offered in the Match |
2,884 |
NOTE: Remember that a "training site" can offer more than one "program" in the Match. Each "program" was identified in the Match by a separate 6-digit code number.
| MATCH RESULTS |
|
Positions: |
| Filled in the Match |
2,588 |
(90%) |
| Remaining Unfilled |
296 |
(10%) |
|
Programs: |
| Filled in the Match |
898 |
(86%) |
| With Unfilled Positions |
150 |
(14%) |
NOTE: 24 programs at 23 sites submitted fewer ranks
than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks
were submitted for 46 positions, which remained unfilled.
| RANKINGS |
|
Average Number of Applicants Ranked Per Position Offered for Each Program: |
| Programs Filling All Positions |
8.1 |
| Programs With Unfilled Positions |
3.0 |
| All Programs |
7.3 |
Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average
of 5.0 Different Programs.
APPLICANTS
| PARTICIPATION |
| Applicants Registered in the Match |
3,698 |
| Applicants Who Withdrew or Did Not Submit Ranks |
268 |
Applicants Participating in the Match
(includes 40 individuals who participated in the Match as
20 "couples") |
3,430 |
| MATCH RESULTS |
| Applicants Matched |
2,588 |
(75%) |
| Participating Applicants Not Matched |
842 |
(25%) |
MATCH RESULTS BY RANK NUMBER ON APPLICANT'S LIST
(PERCENTAGES MAY NOT TOTAL TO 100 DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS):
|
Rank |
Number of Applicants |
| 1 |
1,170 |
(45%) |
| 2 |
556 |
(21%) |
| 3 |
338 |
(13%) |
| 4 |
197 |
( 8%) |
| 5 |
128 |
( 5%) |
| 6 |
61 |
( 2%) |
| 7 |
39 |
( 2%) |
| 8 |
39 |
( 2%) |
| 9 |
15 |
( 1%) |
| 10 or higher |
45 |
( 2%) |
| Total |
2,588 |
(100%) |
| RANKINGS |
|
Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant: |
| Matched Applicants |
7.6 |
| Unmatched Applicants |
4.4 |
| Overall |
6.8 |
Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 8.1 Applicants.
Summary of Program Rankings
The following report contains additional statistics on how successful programs were, on average, in matching with applicants.
There are several important issues that must be considered in attempting to analyze program success based on the rank numbers of matched applicants.
DEFINITIONAL PROBLEMS: Because each applicant submitted a single Rank Order List in order to match to a single position, it is easy to identify his or her "first choice," "second choice," etc. However, for an internship program, determining first or second choice applicants is a far more difficult and complex task. First, many programs attempt to fill several positions; if a program has three positions to fill, an applicant ranked third by that program can in effect be considered a "first choice" for purposes of the Match. Furthermore, a significant number of sites submitted multiple Rank Order Lists for a single program, sometimes ranking the same applicant on different Lists with different rank numbers. Also, the reversion of unfilled positions between lists adds a further complication to this analysis.
We worked closely with National Matching Services in an attempt to resolve these difficulties and to develop a reasonable method of presenting this data.
STANDARDIZED RANKINGS: For the purposes of this analysis, we converted each site's rankings to a "standardized rank." This is best explained by example: if the number of positions to be filled from a Rank Order List was three, then the first three applicants on this List were considered to be "first choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 1. The next three applicants on that List were defined as "second choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 2. And so on.
MATCH RESULTS BY STANDARDIZED RANK NUMBER ON INTERNSHIP PROGRAM LIST (PERCENTAGES MAY NOT TOTAL TO 100 DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS):
|
Standardized Rank |
# of Applicants Matched |
| 1 |
989 |
(38%) |
| 2 |
732 |
(28%) |
| 3 |
420 |
(16%) |
| 4 |
219 |
(8%) |
| 5 |
102 |
(4%) |
| 6 |
65 |
(3%) |
| 7 |
31 |
(1%) |
| 8 |
11 |
(0%) |
| 9 |
6 |
(0%) |
| 10 or higher |
13 |
(1%) |
| Total |
2,588 |
(100%) |
To interpret this chart: of all positions that were filled in
the Match, 38% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as
defined above), 28% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.
Furthermore, 66% were filled with "first" or "second" choice
applicants, while 83% were filled with "third choice" applicants
or better.
Of course, comparing these numbers to applicants' Match statistics should be done with extreme caution, given the significantly different ways in how "first choice", "second choice", etc. were defined in each analysis.
26 February 2007
| |
