Match Statistics - 1999

1999 APPIC Match Statistics

We are pleased to report that a total of 2,413 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions. Nearly half (46%) of all matched applicants received their top-ranked choice of internship site, two-thirds (66%) received one of their top two choices, and nearly 4-in-5 (78%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 510 applicants were not matched to an internship position, while 218 positions remained unfilled. In addition, 212 applicants withdrew from the Match or did not submit Ranks (we believe that some of these withdrawn applicants were rejected from all of their sites, and thus may also be considered "unplaced"). Comparing this data to previous years is difficult because of the limited prior data available. We hope that the more precise data provided by the Matching Program will contribute to the ongoing dialogue about Supply and Demand issues. APPIC will be conducting additional research on these issues, and data will be distributed in the coming weeks and months as it becomes available.

We invite you to review the Match statistics presented below. Some items designated with a "*" require cautious interpretation, and are followed by additional clarifying information.

APPIC Board of Directors
Greg Keilin, Ph.D., Match Committee Chair

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS

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 4-digit code number.

* NOTE: Please use caution when comparing this number to Clearinghouse data from previous years. It is likely that, in previous years, many positions that were unfilled on Uniform Notification Day were NOT registered with the APPIC Clearinghouse. For example, some positions were registered with the ACCTA Clearinghouse, while others were likely filled via non-Clearinghouse methods.

NOTE: No ranks were submitted for 8 positions, which remained unfilled.

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 6.0 Different Programs.

APPLICANTS

** NOTE: Please use caution when interpreting and reporting this number. While 510 participating applicants were not matched, remember that 218 available positions went unfilled (see above). In addition, it is likely that some of the 212 applicants who "withdrew or did not submit ranks" were rejected by all of their sites prior to the Rank Order List deadline, and thus may qualify as "unplaced." APPIC is currently researching this latter issue.

NOTE: Previous research has suggested that some unplaced applicants did not participate in the Clearinghouse. Beginning in 1998, the Clearinghouse stopped accepting data about the number of unplaced applicants, since there were more reliable sources for that data.

NOTE: Nearly half (46%) of all matched applicants received their top-ranked choice, two-thirds (66%) received one of their top two choices, and nearly 4-in-5 (78%) received one of their top three choices.

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 8.8 Applicants.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM RANKINGS

A number of internship sites requested 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.

To interpret this chart: of all positions that were filled in the Match, 38% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 25% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 63% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 79% were filled with "third choice" applicants or better.

Of course, comparing these numbers to applicants' Match statistics (distributed previously) should be done with extreme caution, given the significantly different ways in how "first choice", "second choice", etc. were defined in each analysis.