2012 APPIC Match Statistics - Phase I

We are pleased to report that 2,968 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions in Phase I of the APPIC Match. Close to half (45%) of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, two-thirds (67%) received one of their top two choices, and nearly four-in-five (79%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 1,041 applicants were not matched to an internship position in Phase I, while 426 applicants withdrew or did not submit a Rank Order List. A total of 222 positions remained unfilled.

These results reflect the fact that the size of the applicant pool continues to increase at a faster rate than the number of positions offered in the Match. Compared to the 2011 Match, the number of registered applicants in 2012 increased by 236 (6%) to 4,435 applicants, while the number of internship positions increased by 24 (1%) to 3,190 positions.

Here is a summary of the relative differences in numbers of applicants and positions in 2012 as compared to the 2010 and 2011 APPIC Matches:

Following is a ten year comparison of the 2002 and 2012 Match statistics:

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS

NOTE: 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.

NOTE: 29 programs at 26 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 56 positions, which remained unfilled.

Non-accredited positions represented 79% of all unfilled positions.

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 4.8 Different Programs.

APPLICANTS

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 8.8 Applicants.

Summary of Program Rankings

The following report contains additional statistics on how successful programs were, on average, in matching with applicants during Phase I of the APPIC Match.

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.

PHASE I MATCH RESULTS BY STANDARDIZED RANK NUMBER ON INTERNSHIP PROGRAM LIST

(PERCENTAGES MAY NOT TOTAL TO 100 DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS)

To interpret this chart: Of all positions that were filled in Phase I of the Match, 37% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 27% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 64% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 81% 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.