Program Director Musings
Breaking Down the Match Data (24-25)
The SF Match published its summary data for the 2024–2025 cycle (Match Data). There’s a lot of information, and I won’t pretend we’re going to go through every table, but I do think trying to make sense of some of it here might be helpful.
If you’re an M-4, you’ve probably already finalized your plans for the year. If you’re an M-3, you’ll have the 2025–2026 match data to digest next year. And if you’re an M-1 or M-2… this may just be more data to be anxious about. Either way, I hope this breakdown helps someone.
The number of applicants continues to climb, with 958 applying last year, a 4% increase from 2024 and a 30% (!) increase since 2020. The overall match rate was 65%, continuing a downward trend as applicant numbers rise faster than program openings.
When looking at the medical school/graduation status of applicants, it’s tempting to dive into Tables B and C. But if you want to know the percentage of a specific group that matched, Table H is the one to look at:
- 72% of US MD seniors
- 60% of US MD graduates
- 34% of DO seniors
- 36% of DO graduates
- 21% of international graduates
Keep in mind that Tables B and C show how much of the matched pool came from each group, not the match rate within each group. Clear as mud, right?
Step 1, Step 2 Scores
The ophthalmology world is still adjusting to a single USMLE score rather than two. As an applicant, I’m sure you have mixed feelings about whether you’d prefer one or two shots at a strong test performance… but that’s a discussion for another time.
For US MD seniors, the average Step 2 score was 258 among those who matched, versus 245 among those who didn’t. If we round those to percentiles, that’s about the 76th vs. 37th percentile. Still, the wide range of scores shows that a strong application can make up for a lower score.
Did I Do Enough Research? Am I Going to Be AO(k)A(y)?
Unfortunately, the way the data are presented means you’ll need to do a bit of math to calculate match rates for AOA members. Fortunately, I’ve done some of it for you using Table E:
- AOA member: 142/157 → 90% match rate
- Not elected: 86/155 → 55%
- Not yet determined or not available (grouped together): (70+88)/(97+120) → 73%
- No response: 131/252 → 52%
This demonstrates a clear advantage for AOA members in the match process.
Tables F and I include information on publications and research experience. Interestingly, the average number of publications between matched and unmatched applicants is quite similar. Research might matter more at some programs than others, something to keep in mind.
Send Me A Signal
There’s a lot of information in this report about preference signals, and this will likely continue to evolve as both applicants and programs gain more experience with the system.
The biggest takeaway: 65% of applicants matched at a program they signaled, while 35% matched at one they didn’t. That number is probably an underestimate, since many programs asked their home students or away rotators not to signal them.
URIM
The URIM (Underrepresented in Medicine) data are also presented in a way that takes a bit of effort to interpret. If I’m reading it correctly:
- URIM applicants: 77/144 → 53% match rate
- Non-URIM applicants: 447/668 → 67% match rate
URIM applicants made up 15% of matched candidates and 23% of unmatched candidates.
Major legal and political changes in the past year may affect these numbers moving forward. Regardless, we can’t overstate the importance of having a wide variety of backgrounds and life experiences among the ophthalmologists we train.
Long Story Long
I remember combing through this same report a few years ago when I was an applicant. The way they’re presented can be hard to navigate, but I really commend the AUPO for releasing the most comprehensive match data ophthalmology has seen to date and taking steps to make the data easier to interpret.
Of course, every applicant is unique, and every program is different. Everyone applying to ophthalmology has something valuable to offer, it’s just a matter of finding the right fit for both the program and the individual.
If you find any errors in my math or have questions about how to interpret the data, feel free to email me at gtob222@uky.edu. I’m also happy to hear suggestions for future blog topics!
- Garrett Oberst, MD
Dr. Oberst has served as the Associate Residency Program Director since July 2025