Skip to content

NRMP-like market: match

Run this market yourself

A saved run of the simulator: everyone who opens it sees this same market. Simulated from the assumptions in the parameters; not a prediction of any real applicant's or program's match.

The match

Match rate
92.2%
886 of 961 applicants with a rank order list
Positions filled
95.7%
40 unfilled, in 21 programs
Matched to their first choice
41.4%
of matched applicants; 85.0% to one of their top 3
Checks
Passed
0 blocking pairs: the match is stable

Applicant-proposing deferred acceptance, the mechanism of the NRMP. The match rate counts the applicants who submitted a rank order list, as NRMP reports do; 39 applicants had no interview and so no list.

Which choice did applicants match to?

Which choice did applicants match to?

Matched applicants by where they had ranked their program on their own rank order list: first choice, second, and so on, with every choice after the tenth counted together. Each bar is a share of the matched applicants; a tall first bar means most got their first choice. Hover a bar for the number of applicants. Choices are places on the list the applicant submitted, which holds only programs they interviewed at: a first choice here is not always the program they wanted most before interviews. Applicants who did not match are not shown.

Learn more in the help

Of 886 matched applicants, 367 (41.4%) matched to their first choice and 753 (85.0%) to one of their first three.

The numbers
ChoiceApplicantsShare of matched
1st choice36741.4%
2nd choice25929.2%
3rd choice12714.3%
4th choice677.6%
5th choice384.3%
6th choice171.9%
7th choice91.0%
8th choice20.2%
9th choice00.0%
10th choice00.0%
11th choice or lower00.0%

Rank order lists

Mean list length, matched applicants
9.07
Mean list length, unmatched applicants
2.28
Applicants with a list
961 of 1,000
Does a longer rank order list help?

Does a longer rank order list help?

Applicants with a rank order list, by the number of programs on it, and in each group the share who matched. Each bar is all the applicants whose list has that many programs; the green part matched. As in the real Match, the share usually climbs steeply over the first few programs ranked and then levels off. Hover a bar for the numbers. A longer list is a sign of a stronger application, not only a cause of matching: a list is as long as the applicant's interviews, and strong applicants get more of them. A bar that stands for a handful of applicants can be far off. Applicants without a list are left out.

Learn more in the help

Of 961 applicants with a rank order list, 886 matched (92.2%): 41.7% of the 60 who ranked 1 program, and 99.6% of the 450 who ranked 12 programs.

The numbers
Programs rankedApplicantsMatched Not matchedMatch rate
1 program 60 25 35 41.7%
2 programs 52 37 15 71.2%
3 programs 56 42 14 75.0%
4 programs 48 42 6 87.5%
5 programs 52 50 2 96.2%
6 programs 48 47 1 97.9%
7 programs 41 41 0 100.0%
8 programs 46 46 0 100.0%
9 programs 38 38 0 100.0%
10 programs 36 36 0 100.0%
11 programs 34 34 0 100.0%
12 programs 450 448 2 99.6%
How this match was checked
CheckResult
Blocking pairs: an applicant and a program that rank each other above their match 0
Programs matched to more applicants than they have positions 0
Matches that are not on both rank order lists 0
List entries without an interview 0
Rank order lists whose ranks are not exactly 1, 2, ..., k 0
Applicant list entries beyond rank 300 (the NRMP limit) 0
Both proposing sides match the same applicants and fill each program equally (rural hospitals) not run
No applicant prefers the program-proposing result (applicant optimality) not run

The last two checks run when Compare both sides proposing is on in the match settings. The engine is also checked on hundreds of random markets against an independent solver (docs/VALIDATION.md).

Who matched where

Do stronger applicants match to better programs?

Do stronger applicants match to better programs?

Applicants in five groups by strength percentile (the rows, the top 20% at the top) and where each group ended up (the columns): not matched, or matched to a program in each fifth of the programs by quality, from the bottom 20% to the top 20%. Each cell is its share of the row's applicants, darker for more: blue for matches, grey for not matched. Read along a row: it adds up to 100%. In a perfectly sorted market the dark cells run along the diagonal, from the weakest applicants, unmatched or at the lowest programs, to the strongest at the best programs; the more a row spreads out, the less strength decides where its applicants match. Sorting, in the summary, is the rank correlation between an applicant's strength and the quality of the program they matched to (close to 1 when the strongest applicants are at the best programs, in order; 0 = no relation). Hover a cell for its number of applicants. Applicants do not rank programs by quality alone: with tastes of their own (agreement below 1) a market that works well is still not perfectly sorted. Strength and quality are the latent values, which the other side sees only through its own noisy view. The fifths of programs hold equal numbers of programs, not of positions. Sorting cannot quite reach 1, because the applicants of one program share its quality: the fewer and larger the programs, the lower its ceiling (0.99 with 8 programs of 6 positions).

Learn more in the help

Sorting is 0.73: the rank correlation between an applicant's strength and the quality of the program they matched to (close to 1 when the strongest applicants are at the best programs, in order; 0 = no relation). Of the top 20% of applicants by strength, 49.0% matched to a program in the top 20% by quality and 4.0% did not match; of the bottom 20%, 49.5% matched to a program in the bottom 20% and 32.0% did not match.

The numbers
Applicants by strength Applicants Not matched Matched to a program, by its quality percentile
0–2020–4040–6060–8080–100
Top 20% 200 8 (4.0%)1 (0.5%)8 (4.0%)21 (10.5%)64 (32.0%)98 (49.0%)
60th–80th percentile 200 9 (4.5%)5 (2.5%)31 (15.5%)49 (24.5%)53 (26.5%)53 (26.5%)
40th–60th percentile 200 17 (8.5%)14 (7.0%)55 (27.5%)59 (29.5%)39 (19.5%)16 (8.0%)
20th–40th percentile 200 16 (8.0%)57 (28.5%)69 (34.5%)38 (19.0%)15 (7.5%)5 (2.5%)
Bottom 20% 200 64 (32.0%)99 (49.5%)25 (12.5%)10 (5.0%)2 (1.0%)0 (0.0%)
Which programs fill their positions?

Which programs fill their positions?

The positions of the programs in each fifth by quality, from the bottom 20% of programs to the top 20%, and the share of them the match filled. Each bar is all the positions of its group; the green part is filled. A bar with grey at the top has unfilled positions: hover it for the positions, how many were filled, and how many of the group's programs have an unfilled position. In the real Match, unfilled positions go to the scramble after the match (SOAP), which is not simulated.

Learn more in the help

The match filled 886 of 926 positions (95.7%). Programs in the bottom 20% by quality filled 92.1% of their positions and those in the top 20% 98.9%; 21 of 142 programs have an unfilled position.

The numbers
Programs by qualityProgramsPositions FilledUnfilledShare filled Programs with an unfilled position
Bottom 20% 28 191 176 15 92.1% 8
20th–40th percentile 29 198 188 10 94.9% 5
40th–60th percentile 28 187 177 10 94.7% 5
60th–80th percentile 29 176 173 3 98.3% 1
Top 20% 28 174 172 2 98.9% 2

Who matched

Do stronger applicants match more often?

Do stronger applicants match more often?

Applicants in ten groups by strength (deciles: 1 is the weakest tenth, 10 the strongest) and, in each, the share who matched, who submitted a rank order list but did not match, and who had no list (no interview, or no program they would rank). Each bar is all the applicants of its decile; the green part matched. Hover a bar for the numbers and for the match rate among applicants with a list, the rate NRMP reports use and the one in the table below. Strength is the applicant's latent strength, which each program sees only through its own noisy view.

Learn more in the help

Of the weakest tenth of applicants by strength, 56.0% matched; of the strongest tenth, 95.0%. Of all 1,000 applicants, 886 matched (88.6%) and 39 had no rank order list.

The numbers
Strength decileApplicantsMatched Not matchedNo rank order list Share matchedMatch rate with a list
1 100 56 28 16 56.0% 66.7%
2 100 80 13 7 80.0% 86.0%
3 100 89 9 2 89.0% 90.8%
4 100 95 4 1 95.0% 96.0%
5 100 88 8 4 88.0% 91.7%
6 100 95 4 1 95.0% 96.0%
7 100 96 3 1 96.0% 97.0%
8 100 95 2 3 95.0% 97.9%
9 100 97 1 2 97.0% 99.0%
10 100 95 3 2 95.0% 96.9%
By applicant group
Group Applicants With a list Match rate Mean choice matched Interviews (mean)
us_md 440 430 96.3% 2.04 9.08
us_do 180 176 97.2% 2.06 9.55
us_img 90 87 85.1% 2.47 6.70
non_us_img 250 230 83.5% 2.32 6.26
other 40 38 92.1% 2.29 8.05
By strength decile
Decile Applicants With a list Match rate Mean choice matched Interviews (mean)
1 100 84 66.7% 2.80 3.77
2 100 93 86.0% 2.39 6.34
3 100 98 90.8% 2.42 7.23
4 100 99 96.0% 2.15 8.37
5 100 96 91.7% 2.07 8.57
6 100 99 96.0% 2.18 9.14
7 100 99 97.0% 2.18 9.46
8 100 97 97.9% 1.88 9.24
9 100 98 99.0% 1.99 9.68
10 100 98 96.9% 1.77 10.23

Strength deciles group applicants by their latent strength: 1 is the weakest tenth, 10 the strongest.