2001 APPIC Match Statistics
Match Report from the APPIC Board of Directors
February 26, 2001
We are pleased to report that a total of 2,427 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions. Nearly half (48%) of all matched applicants received their top-ranked choice of internship site, two-thirds (69%) received one of their top two choices, and more than 4-in-5 (82%) received one of their top three choices.
A total of 520 applicants were not matched to an internship position, while 336 positions remained unfilled. Compared to the 2000 APPIC Match, the number of unmatched applicants decreased by 8 while the number of unfilled positions increased by 52.
INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS
| PARTICIPATION |
| Training Sites Participating in the Matching Program | 618 |
| Programs Participating in the Matching Program | 1,014 |
| Positions Offered in the Matching Program | 2,763 |
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.
| MATCH RESULTS |
| Positions |
| Filled in the Match | 2,427 | (88%) |
| Remaining Unfilled | 336 | (12%) |
| Programs |
| Filled in the Match | 821 | (81%) |
| With Unfilled Positions | 193 | (19%) |
NOTE: 41 programs at 31 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 70 positions, which remained unfilled.
| RANKINGS |
| Average Number of Applicants Ranked Per Position Offered for Each Program: |
| Programs Filling All Positions | 7.9 |
| Programs With Unfilled Positions | 3.0 |
| All Programs | 7.0 |
Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 5.5 Different Programs.
APPLICANTS
| PARTICIPATION |
| Applicants Registered in the Matching Program | 3,204 |
| Applicants Who Withdrew or Did Not Submit Ranks | 257 |
Applicants Participating in the Match
(includes 44 individuals who participated in the Match as 22 "couples") | 2,947 |
| MATCH RESULTS |
| Applicants Matched | 2,427 | (82%) |
| Participating Applicants Not Matched | 520 | (18%) |
MATCH RESULTS BY RANK NUMBER ON APPLICANT'S LIST
(PERCENTAGES DO NOT TOTAL 100 DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS) |
| Rank | Number of Applicants |
| 1 | 1,177 | (48%) |
| 2 | 504 | (21%) |
| 3 | 310 | (13%) |
| 4 | 154 | ( 6%) |
| 5 | 100 | ( 4%) |
| 6 | 60 | ( 2%) |
| 7 | 40 | ( 2%) |
| 8 | 17 | ( 1%) |
| 9 | 9 | ( 0%) |
| 10 or higher | 56 | ( 2%) |
| Total | 2,427 | (100%) |
| RANKINGS |
| Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant: |
| Matched Applicants | 7.7 |
| Unmatched Applicants | 4.3 |
| Overall | 7.1 |
Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 7.6 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 DO NOT TOTAL 100 DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS) |
| Standardized Rank | # of Applicants Matched |
| 1 | 878 | (36%) |
| 2 | 610 | (25%) |
| 3 | 409 | (17%) |
| 4 | 246 | (10%) |
| 5 | 120 | (5%) |
| 6 | 69 | (3%) |
| 7 | 41 | (2%) |
| 8 | 16 | (1%) |
| 9 | 7 | (0%) |
| 10 or higher | 31 | (1%) |
| Total | 2,427 | (100%) |
To interpret this chart: of all positions that were filled in the Match, 36% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 25% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.
Furthermore, 61% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 78% 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.