DO v.s. IMG for pathology residency

[Future.miss.doctor]

Hello everyone,

As the post title suggests, I am debating whether going into a DO program versus studying medicine abroad- mostly likely in Ireland- would be more advantageous for securing a residency in pathology. I have heard mixed opinions on this issue. I am absolutely sure pathology is my career goal and I would greatly appreciate your insight!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

DO. Almost every path program (even many of the top ones) in the country considers DOs these days. With the residency disaster you'll be graduating into, you want every advantage you can get, so DO>>>>IMG.

 

[gbwillner]

I don't agree. You will not see many DO's at top programs but they all take IMGs. I have only known one DO pathologist but know many successful IMGs. YMMV.

 

[mlw03]

There's a difference between an American IMG versus a foreign IMG. If you're from Italy and go to an Italian med school, you're an IMG but that's what you're supposed to do. If you're an American and go to school in Ireland or the Caribbean, it's usually because the applicant wasn't able to get into an American MD program.

That said, I agree with the general advice to stay in the US and do a DO program. I will note that Canadians seem to have no clue what a DO is, as there are no programs here and I've yet to meet one in practice.

 

[jp123ok]

How programs rate DOs vs IMGs varies from program to program. As an example, when I trained the Hopkins program director said that he would not accept DOs into the residency program but he would accept IMGs with research backgrounds. By contrast, the University of Maryland program director told me that she rated DOs higher than IMGs

Don't choose a medical school based on your perception of their relative rank you should mainly consider which school will provide the better preparation for the USMLE exams. Your results on the USMLE exams will more than anything else decide where you end up matching.

 

[gbwillner]

There's a difference between an American IMG versus a foreign IMG. If you're from Italy and go to an Italian med school, you're an IMG but that's what you're supposed to do. If you're an American and go to school in Ireland or the Caribbean, it's usually because the applicant wasn't able to get into an American MD program.

...

And that's different than a DO applicant HOW exactly?

 

[Mad Jack]

I don't agree. You will not see many DO's at top programs but they all take IMGs. I have only known one DO pathologist but know many successful IMGs. YMMV.

There's just not a lot of DO applicants to path. I know that Columbia, Mayo, UCSF, Duke, and many other mid-to-upper tier programs have taken DOs in the past. Hell, the guy who teaches us path is a DO alum from our school that trained at Temple. Simple fact is there's just a lot more IMGs applying to path, historically, so you're going to see a lot more of them in path.

 

[Mad Jack]

And that's different than a DO applicant HOW exactly?

Well, in all fairness, there are some of us that never applied MD, so there's that. I mean, I had a 3.8/35 and a pretty decent app otherwise. Plenty of highly qualified kids in my school that only applied to it for geographic reasons as well, since it's the only medical school that lets you spend all four years in the state.

 

[gbwillner]

Well, in all fairness, there are some of us that never applied MD, so there's that. I mean, I had a 3.8/35 and a pretty decent app otherwise. Plenty of highly qualified kids in my school that only applied to it for geographic reasons as well, since it's the only medical school that lets you spend all four years in the state.

I hope you realize no one will see it that way. And, in all fairness, many IMGs regardless of nationality could say the same about their circumstances.

 

[Mad Jack]

I hope you realize no one will see it that way. And, in all fairness, many IMGs regardless of nationality could say the same about their circumstances.

Couldn't care less how people see it, just saying how it is.

Regardless, we do okay in the path match. It's regarded as a pretty DO friendly field, aside from a handful of places. You're far less limited than, say, rads or IM, both in regard to cracking the better programs and getting into better places geographically.

 

[deleted731525]

Based on this: http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/PD-Survey-Report-2014.pdf pg. 85

It seems even for Pathology.

 

[deleted314957]

Hello everyone,

As the post title suggests, I am debating whether going into a DO program versus studying medicine abroad- mostly likely in Ireland- would be more advantageous for securing a residency in pathology. I have heard mixed opinions on this issue. I am absolutely sure pathology is my career goal and I would greatly appreciate your insight!

I strongly recommend D.O.

 

[KeratinPearls]

Id strongly recommend DO. You just need to match in any program that has a sufficient surgical volume. IMGs that get into top programs are PhDs or were pathologists in their own country to begin with.

With DO, you get to stay in the US instead of having to be across the world. You can rotate at US academic centers. With a IMG background, you may have trouble getting into US academic hospitals for rotations, etc (which is important for showing your face to programs you will apply to). With the DO you can rotate at academic programs where you want to do your residency, while if you are an IMG, there will be more red tape to get through as an international student.

 

[Future.miss.doctor]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I will apply to a wide range of DO schools in this upcoming application cycle. I have a 3.6 GPA (with a strong upward trend from 2.6 in first year to 3.9 in the last three years) and a 31, 508 MCAT. I am not sure if it would be worth trying again with MD schools. Would it make my chances significantly higher at getting a pathology residency? It seems to me like it would not really be worth trying again with MD.

 

[Mad Jack]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I will apply to a wide range of DO schools in this upcoming application cycle. I have a 3.6 GPA (with a strong upward trend from 2.6 in first year to 3.9 in the last three years) and a 31, 508 MCAT. I am not sure if it would be worth trying again with MD schools. Would it make my chances significantly higher at getting a pathology residency? It seems to me like it would not really be worth trying again with MD.

You should stand a chance of getting into MD schools if you apply broadly. Your stats are actually good, especially given that you started off so far behind. Boost your ECs if you can (clinical experience etc) and throw on a mix of MD and DO schools to your app. You will definitely get into a DO school, but I really wouldn't sell yourself short on the MD side of things. Look for EC flaws or areas of improvement before outright giving up. And if it doesn't work out, like I said, you'll definitely get into a DO school.

As to your chances- you probably stand a good chance either way, but you will open up the door to a handful of better programs on the MD side of things, and won't have to fight as hard to get into the best programs that take DOs. Plus you might change your mind and not want to do path down the line, in which case MD opens up more options.

 

[KeratinPearls]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I will apply to a wide range of DO schools in this upcoming application cycle. I have a 3.6 GPA (with a strong upward trend from 2.6 in first year to 3.9 in the last three years) and a 31, 508 MCAT. I am not sure if it would be worth trying again with MD schools. Would it make my chances significantly higher at getting a pathology residency? It seems to me like it would not really be worth trying again with MD.

If you couldnt get into allopathic, I dont know how they will accept you the next time around unless you have something significantly new to add to your application. I guess one thing you can do is call the medical school admissions and ask if you would be considered for an interview based on your stats. Ive met DO medical students on the interview trail and had DO residents and coresidents who got into good residencies and fellowships. They all did a fellowship in the area they wanted.

 

[coroner]

I don't agree. You will not see many DO's at top programs but they all take IMGs. I have only known one DO pathologist but know many successful IMGs. YMMV.

As an example, when I trained the Hopkins program director said that he would not accept DOs into the residency program but he would accept IMGs with research backgrounds.

Agree. Top programs like MGH, JHU, and Stanford historically don't take DO's. There may be a someone who gets in every once in awhile, but generally speaking, they don't at these places. IMGs are have a much better track record of getting accepted here and other top programs vs DO's. Also, I've had the acquaintance of several eminent pathologists, trained under one or two, and have heard many different ones speak at national conferences over the years. Many of them are IMGs, almost none are DO's. Not to sound anti-DO, just the facts...

There's just not a lot of DO applicants to path...Simple fact is there's just a lot more IMGs applying to path, historically, so you're going to see a lot more of them in path.

Well, there's a lot more IMG's than DO's overall, so you're going to see a lot more of them in almost every field, not just Path.

*************************
To answer the op, I actually vote DO if you just want to get into pathology or for that matter any residency. But for the top programs, IMGs definitely have a much stronger history of getting in vs DO's. But as jp123 said earlier, your USMLE scores have as big an impact as anything, especially if you're not a USMD. Just get decent scores and you'll land somewhere, Path is not that competitive...

 

[jupiterianvibe]

Neither. Any reason to block a path application is a good one.

 

[icpshootyz]

Agree. Top programs like MGH, JHU, and Stanford historically don't take DO's. There may be a someone who gets in every once in awhile, but generally speaking, they don't at these places. IMGs are have a much better track record of getting accepted here and other top programs vs DO's. Also, I've had the acquaintance of several eminent pathologists, trained under one or two, and have heard many different ones speak at national conferences over the years. Many of them are IMGs, almost none are DO's. Not to sound anti-DO, just the facts...



Well, there's a lot more IMG's than DO's overall, so you're going to see a lot more of them in almost every field, not just Path.

*************************
To answer the op, I actually vote DO if you just want to get into pathology or for that matter any residency. But for the top programs, IMGs definitely have a much stronger history of getting in vs DO's. But as jp123 said earlier, your USMLE scores have as big an impact as anything, especially if you're not a USMD. Just get decent scores and you'll land somewhere, Path is not that competitive...

The IMG's getting in at top programs were often rock stars or prior MD's from their home countries, not US citizens that went to a med school in the Caribbean or Ireland. Not the same thing at all. If you're from the US, I'd go DO before going to some sub-standard med school overseas.

 

[AlteredScale]

Stanford just accepted their first DO into their pathology residency. Idk what it means except there may be an inkling of a chance there if this current DO excess the expectations of the residency program (which would probably mean decent research output in strong journals).


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[postbacpremed87]

A wise man once told me that a 230 USMLE Step 1 would suffice for a solid Pathology program if you are an American grad (MD or DO). Given the state of affairs with the Pathology job market and residency situation, is that still the case?

 

[coroner]

Yes, that's sufficient for a "solid" program. Usually the "top" programs want a little more (P.h. D's, extensive research/pubs, etc.). The job market hasn't affected the competitiveness of Path in the last 5-10 yrs. If anything, the oversupply has made it bottom out. There's nowhere to go but up. And, in order for that kind of change to take effect, half the programs would need to be slashed and the 55-65 y.o. generation would have to retire at proper retirement age (which has it's own arbitrarily high average in this field). The first will not happen anytime soon, and the second will eventually, but won't be enough to offset the lack of statistical impact in the absence of the first.