Interview Offers to ACGME Programs

[D4C]

The methodology of the survey seems to be extremely flawed. Low response rate + the question asked doesn't seem to be equal with the conclusion that has been drawn.

I do believe it is harder to match as a DO, but I think the bias is not as bad as you are making it out to be. My roommate has 4 general surgery invites + 1 integrated CT invite. I've seen these and I can vouch that he isn't lying this time. I know its of marginal consequence to you because its just my word, but thats really all I or you have at this point.

I do admit that of all the fields in medicine, general surgery (as well as ENT) seem to be the most DO unfriendly field. With that said, its still very possible to match a solid mid-tier program if you are a mid-tier applicant. I'll concede that is probably not true for ENT.

While I don't think your trying to be malicious and I appreciate the knowledge, your n=1 is not really that helpful. I'd also like to add that with the prospect of the merger + changing of the guard (older generation retiring) I think we will see less and less bias every year.

If some of the bias evaporated, that would be grand and all. But he brings up a legitimate point. Some schools do seem to have problems with quality rotations. Just so happens that most of those schools are DO. And if the quality of rotations is low enough to have a negative effect on a individuals performance during their intern year, enough to where they might 'weigh the team down' in some manner. Then yes, that's a hell of a problem.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SLC]

If some of the bias evaporated, that would be grand and all. But he brings up a legitimate point. Some schools do seem to have problems with quality rotations. Just so happens that most of those schools are DO. And if the quality of rotations is low enough to have a negative effect on a individuals performance during their intern year, enough to where they might 'weigh the team down' in some manner. Then yes, that's a hell of a problem.

Being only an OMS-IV, I can't speak to this with any sort of authority...But I'd imagine the "weighing the team down due to poor performance" is more of an individual thing than a school thing. You can learn what you need to learn on even crappy rotations, if you have the mental toughness to put your head down and learn what you're there to learn regardless of the environment.

I think your comments reflect more on the laziness of the resident than the rotations he/she got as a DO student.

 

[D4C]

Being only an OMS-IV, I can't speak to this with any sort of authority...But I'd imagine the "weighing the team down due to poor performance" is more of an individual thing than a school thing. You can learn what you need to learn on even crappy rotations, if you have the mental toughness to put your head down and learn what you're there to learn regardless of the environment.

I think your comments reflect more on the laziness of the resident than the rotations he/she got as a DO student.

That's entirely possible, and probably the case for more than a few! I'm trying to get into some of these PDs heads and get some perspective on this beast.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

While I don't think your trying to be malicious and I appreciate the knowledge, your n=1 is not really that helpful. I'd also like to add that with the prospect of the merger + changing of the guard (older generation retiring) I think we will see less and less bias every year.

This is the kind of thing I mean.

Obviously you already have decided to dismiss my "n=1" perspective.

But it's the perspective of a general surgery resident, with an interest in surgical education, who goes annually to the big surgical education meetings, knows multiple PDs, and has colleagues who are residents and faculty at dozens of programs. I don't generally talk off my ass about these kinds of things. My advice to applicants is informed by not just my own experience. It is admittedly academically/old-school biased advice. But if I can't accurately give advice or it is outside my ken, I refrain from commenting.

My goal in contributing to these kinds of threads is to provide accurate information. Yours seems to be to argue against the world that the DO bias isn't that bad.

 

[W19]

The sad part out of this whole thing is that GS is not that competitive for US-MD applicants. I can't wrap my mind around why PD bias against DO applicants for GS is so bad...

 

[DopaDO]

This is the kind of thing I mean.

Obviously you already have decided to dismiss my "n=1" perspective.

But it's the perspective of a general surgery resident, with an interest in surgical education, who goes annually to the big surgical education meetings, knows multiple PDs, and has colleagues who are residents and faculty at dozens of programs. I don't generally talk off my ass about these kinds of things. My advice to applicants is informed by not just my own experience. It is admittedly academically/old-school biased advice. But if I can't accurately give advice or it is outside my ken, I refrain from commenting.

My goal in contributing to these kinds of threads is to provide accurate information. Yours seems to be to argue against the world that the DO bias isn't that bad.

While I am an only an MS4, it is also my goal to provide information as accurately as I can based on my experiences. I can tell you that I am applying for a competitive surgical subspecialty (it's pretty easy to figure out but I'd ask that you don't post what it is) and that I've seen minimal bias to this point. I can also say my roommate who is applying to your field has seen minimal bias as well.

SDN worried me a great deal due to people over hyping the DO bias. My roommate and I have been extremely proactive in talking to PDs, dept chairs, residents etc. While we are not involved in residency education yet, the overwhelming consensus from the around 100 educators we have spoken to is a resounding "we don't care if your a DO or MD - we just want good residents." I am of the opinion that many DO students have much poorer CVs and applications overall than the average MD student which makes it difficult for us to compete. My roommate and I worked hard to make our CVs competitive and we are reaping the benefits now.

This won't go anywhere as it's your word against mine. I can only testify as to what I have seen and experienced. I truly believe DO bias os very over hyped, but that is not a pass to slack off.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

While I am an only an MS4, it is also my goal to provide information as accurately as I can based on my experiences. I can tell you that I am applying for a competitive surgical subspecialty (it's pretty easy to figure out but I'd ask that you don't post what it is) and that I've seen minimal bias to this point. I can also say my roommate who is applying to your field has seen minimal bias as well.

Except you've yet to go on a single interview, much less match. And your roommate has already proven himself less than trustworthy.

 

[DopaDO]

Except you've yet to go on a single interview, much less match. And your roommate has already proven himself less than trustworthy.

I'll vouch for my roommate this time as Ive seen the invites. It's your word against mine at this point.

I'm not sure what going on interviews has to do with it. Programs aren't going to waste their time with me if they don't consider me a serious applicant.

I guess my advice to DO students would be don't let all the sdn hate get to you. In my n=2 I've seen most of it to be false, provided your a good applicant.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I'm not sure what going on interviews has to do with it. Programs aren't going to waste their time with me if they don't consider me a serious applicant.

I'd advise you to look at the charting outcomes in the match.

Independent applicants have a much lower likelihood of matching at any given # of contiguous ranked programs.

Which suggests that even if they get an interview, it is still not equal footing to US MD applicants.

This means that DO applicants need to work on maximizing their interview yield to try and maximize odds of matching ACGME.

 

[DermViser]

I'm not sure what going on interviews has to do with it. Programs aren't going to waste their time with me if they don't consider me a serious applicant.

Except the goal of program directors is to get the best of the bunch with respect to their interview pool. Programs are known to call people last minute to fly for an interview when people drop their interviews near the end of the season. They are many people who felt so "loved" on interview day, but don't end up matching. There is a lot of wasted time on both sides.

 

[DopaDO]

Except the goal of program directors is to get the best of the bunch with respect to their interview pool. Programs are known to call people last minute to fly for an interview when people drop their interviews near the end of the season. They are many people who felt so "loved" on interview day, but don't end up matching. There is a lot of wasted time on both sides.

While I generally agree with what you are saying, that wasn't the point I was making. There are plenty enough qualified candidates that programs dont need to invite DOs to interview if they won't consider/ potentially rank them highly. I'm simply saying that being invited means they consider you a serious applicant.

 

[DermViser]

While I generally agree with what you are saying, that wasn't the point I was making. There are plenty enough qualified candidates that programs dont need to invite DOs to interview if they won't consider/ potentially rank them highly. I'm simply saying that being invited means they consider you a serious applicant.

Depends very much on the specialty. Programs don't want to go to low on their list. Being invited just means a program wants to increase it's yield and would be ok with you up to this point being in their program, based on what they've seen on paper.

 

[DopaDO]

Depends very much on the specialty. Programs don't want to go to low on their list. Being invited just means a program wants to increase it's yield and would be ok with you up to this point being in their program, based on what they've seen on paper.

Once again agreed, but my point is simply that they could be inviting an MD for that spot.

 

[D4C]

I'll vouch for my roommate this time as Ive seen the invites. It's your word against mine at this point.

I'm not sure what going on interviews has to do with it. Programs aren't going to waste their time with me if they don't consider me a serious applicant.

I guess my advice to DO students would be don't let all the sdn hate get to you. In my n=2 I've seen most of it to be false, provided your a good applicant.

It's funny, someone very close to me (DO grad) matched their #1 in a competitive specialty. Like you, he feels all the hype is just that, hype. Oh course from the outside looking in he might see it a little differently. The charting outcomes data isn't insignificant.

 

[hallowmann]

I'd advise you to look at the charting outcomes in the match.

Independent applicants have a much lower likelihood of matching at any given # of contiguous ranked programs.

Which suggests that even if they get an interview, it is still not equal footing to US MD applicants.

This means that DO applicants need to work on maximizing their interview yield to try and maximize odds of matching ACGME.

In all fairness, I don't think anyone on this thread is remotely suggesting that. The truth is DOs do have an uphill battle. The question that DopaDO and you are trying to answer is the degree of this, and that's tough to gauge.

Lots of DOs don't have great CVs. Half don't even take the USMLE. Given the utter lack of research at most DO schools (save a handful) compared to the research that is practically integrated into the curriculum at most MD schools, the average DO tends not to have those kinds of experiences as well. The ones who do had to go out of their way for it. Add to it the self selection that people have for rural med. The fact that <3000 DOs apply ACGME, compared to ~12000 IMGs and ~20000 US MDs, and what I mentioned above makes it pretty hard to identify exactly what DO chances are in certain fields. Its clear that they are better off than IMGs, but its also pretty clear that there is discrimination, and they aren't accepted the way US MDs are even with the same stats.

The problem comes in when there are discrepancies with anecdotal accounts. There certainly are DOs that do well, but there are also programs that just don't take them.

I know full well that in a couple years some programs will not even look at my app because I'm a DO student. I'm OK with that.

When I applied to med school, I applied broadly to MD, DO and even carib schools, knowing that my GPA would hold me back. When I didn't get pulled off of the MD waitlists, I was happy with the school that accepted me and I wasn't going to waste what was left of my 20s on something that wasn't guaranteed. I don't plan on aiming low for residencies either, and you better believe I'll have backups, just like I had SGU a couple years ago.

If you guys care about the advice you give, why not give that? Aim high, but be prepared for some discrimination and have a backup.

 

[BrooklynBulls]

I'd advise you to look at the charting outcomes in the match.

Independent applicants have a much lower likelihood of matching at any given # of contiguous ranked programs.

Which suggests that even if they get an interview, it is still not equal footing to US MD applicants.

This means that DO applicants need to work on maximizing their interview yield to try and maximize odds of matching ACGME.

Quite frankly this is VERY difficult to determine, because DO-specific statistics have not been published by any NRMP data I've found. Match rates for DO's have risen yearly, I think from 70% to 77% over the past 4 years (off of memory).

Furthermore the data is confounded by over 20% of those entering the match dropping out of it, likely due to matching Osteopathic residencies-- which biases the data (probably FEWER would match if they stayed in the match, as a majority of Osteopathic residencies are considered less competitive than ACGME, but this cannot be said definitively as there is no data that I'm aware of to substantiate this claim).

I'll add another layer of complexity, as the match rate only measures PGY-1, but many residencies require a transitional or preliminary year-- which many DO applicants get outside of the ACGME match-- therefore they would be considered unmatched by this tool, but actually get an advanced position (of which there are 2700 in the match currently, not an insignificant amount).

The "Independent" applicant is not representative of DO's whatsoever because they make up such a small part of that pool. 2.7K DO's in the ACGME match last year, while a total of 16.8K total independent applicants were in last years match. DO's only made up 16.2%-- a low enough rate to indicate that the match rates and number of contiguous ranks to match just cannot be extrapolated to decently represent DO's.

In terms of actual ranks-- the data shows that Independent applicants are mostly at a disadvantage at GETTING interviews. There is a stark contrast in contiguous matches in both the matched and unmatched groups in terms of US Seniors vs. Independents. US seniors, for nearly all specialties, rank double the contiguous matches.

But, and here's where it's interesting. In the rarer cases that Independent applicants do get a ton of contiguous ranks-- they match. Almost as well as their US Senior counterparts. Take as an example (purely because its the largest residency), Internal Medicine. US Seniors matched routinely, with thousands of them ranking 10 or more contiguous ranks. The odds of not matching with 10 ranks or more, was <1%. But what about the independent applicants? Well if they had 10 or more ranks? 93% chance of matching.

And again, this is not really generalizable to DO's, specifically. Although a reasonable inference to draw is if the DO match rate is MUCH better than the other independent applicants (and it is, by over 30%), then they're on much more level footing with US Seniors, once an interview has been conducted. Perhaps not level, but probably not very far off.

Where the rub lies is that they may get fewer interviews, period. And I think it's pretty well known that more than a few locations simply do not interview and/or rank DO (or other independent) applicants, particularly at prestigious or academic programs.

In my (for selfish, please-let-me-match reasons) research, I've concluded that, in general, enough interviews means you're going to match. Probably because programs are not going to interview you if they're not interested in having you be a resident, and enough ranks means even if you're low on their list, one of the programs you've interviewed at will have to get that low. I suspect that with all else being equal, many programs will take the US Senior over the DO-- but the analysis I've done indicates that DO's are not as far off as a cursory glance at the statistics may suggest.

Edit: I hope you understand I was speaking generally and cannot begin to comment on your field specifically, since I know less than nothing about it. FWIW, there are a lot of GS spots in the AOA match, although they too are highly competitive. Although participating in both matches would definitely increase the likelihood of matching, even if there is a GS-specific anti-DO bias.

 

[hallowmann]

Quite frankly this is VERY difficult to determine, because DO-specific statistics have not been published by any NRMP data I've found. Match rates for DO's have risen yearly, I think from 70% to 77% over the past 4 years (off of memory).

Furthermore the data is confounded by over 20% of those entering the match dropping out of it, likely due to matching Osteopathic residencies-- which biases the data (probably FEWER would match if they stayed in the match, as a majority of Osteopathic residencies are considered less competitive than ACGME, but this cannot be said definitively as there is no data that I'm aware of to substantiate this claim).

I'll add another layer of complexity, as the match rate only measures PGY-1, but many residencies require a transitional or preliminary year-- which many DO applicants get outside of the ACGME match-- therefore they would be considered unmatched by this tool, but actually get an advanced position (of which there are 2700 in the match currently, not an insignificant amount).

The "Independent" applicant is not representative of DO's whatsoever because they make up such a small part of that pool. 2.7K DO's in the ACGME match last year, while a total of 16.8K total independent applicants were in last years match. DO's only made up 16.2%-- a low enough rate to indicate that the match rates and number of contiguous ranks to match just cannot be extrapolated to decently represent DO's.

In terms of actual ranks-- the data shows that Independent applicants are mostly at a disadvantage at GETTING interviews. There is a stark contrast in contiguous matches in both the matched and unmatched groups in terms of US Seniors vs. Independents. US seniors, for nearly all specialties, rank double the contiguous matches.

But, and here's where it's interesting. In the rarer cases that Independent applicants do get a ton of contiguous ranks-- they match. Almost as well as their US Senior counterparts. Take as an example (purely because its the largest residency), Internal Medicine. US Seniors matched routinely, with thousands of them ranking 10 or more contiguous ranks. The odds of not matching with 10 ranks or more, was <1%. But what about the independent applicants? Well if they had 10 or more ranks? 93% chance of matching.

And again, this is not really generalizable to DO's, specifically. Although a reasonable inference to draw is if the DO match rate is MUCH better than the other independent applicants (and it is, by over 30%), then they're on much more level footing with US Seniors, once an interview has been conducted. Perhaps not level, but probably not very far off.

Where the rub lies is that they may get fewer interviews, period. And I think it's pretty well known that more than a few locations simply do not interview DO (or other independent) applicants.

In my (for selfish reasons) studies, I've come to find that in general the rule holds true: they're probably not going to interview you if they're not interested in having you be a resident. And how you do on the interview probably DOES matter more than if you're a DO or MD. I suspect that with all else being equal, many programs will take the US Senior over the DO.

I'm feelin those analytical skills bro. I'm curious to see what will happen in the combined match when we'll actually have good statistical data on the whole population of DOs. Too bad all of us will be in residency (hopefully) by the time that happens.

 

[user3]

nevermind

 

[BrooklynBulls]

I'm feelin those analytical skills bro. I'm curious to see what will happen in the combined match when we'll actually have good statistical data on the whole population of DOs. Too bad all of us will be in residency (hopefully) by the time that happens.

Thanks. The combined match will be quite interesting. We've got our own little cabal of hypercompetitive specialties like Dermatology, Orthopedic Surgery, ENT, Optho, Neurosurg, Urology. There's probably 200 spots that would be highly, highly desirable to MD candidates, but due to our rather cloistered environment (and bizarre if-you-dont-audition-here-we-wont-interview-you culture), I suspect that at least for a little while, those spots will be DO-havens. Which I suppose would be a little bit of turnabout is fair play.

 

[hallowmann]

imagine the outrage if low tier MD schools such as CMS or even PR LCME schools were added to that group. There would be more than enough non-PR or non-CMS applicants to fill these programs, yet I'm positive people would be up in arms if there was an explicit ban against these students. Meanwhile, explicitly banning DO applicants (ie NYU IM) is perfectly fine...

Pretty sure this already happens at least to some degree. I guess I could do without the blatant banning...

 

[user3]

Pretty sure this already happens at least to some degree.

but find me a program's site that clearly states "We do not accept PR students" the way NYU's states "We do not accept DO students".

 

[meliora27]

but find me a program's site that clearly states "We do not accept PR students" the way NYU's states "We do not accept DO students".

I would love if AACOM or the AOA or even COSGP would send an official letter to the NYU IM PD and CC the dept chair asking for an explanation - just to see if they would go on the record to explain their rationale, whatever it may be.

 

[meliora27]

In an effort to pay it forward, once match day is over, it would be nice if we would compile a list by speciality of ACGME programs that interviewed us DO's this year. May help future classes out in picking programs.

 

[AlteredScale]

Sorry if I come off naive but how will match stats/results change once the merger comes into play fully?

 

[hallowmann]

Sorry if I come off naive but how will match stats/results change once the merger comes into play fully?

All DOs & MDs will be in one match in the future (right now DOs are split between two separate, unconnected matches). The actual match stats will be easier to differentiate at that point, and DOs will likely be a big enough group for the NRMP to publish applicant specific match data.

In an effort to pay it forward, once match day is over, it would be nice if we would compile a list by speciality of ACGME programs that interviewed us DO's this year. May help future classes out in picking programs.

A compiled list like this would honestly be amazing.

 

[BrooklynBulls]

In an effort to pay it forward, once match day is over, it would be nice if we would compile a list by speciality of ACGME programs that interviewed us DO's this year. May help future classes out in picking programs.

For Radiology, at a site that is not SDN, this was done, and was a big help. Perhaps I will try to do such a thing this year as well, maybe on SDN. I shall see. Although I think for Radiology, the tide is turning, and more and more places are interviewing DO's, it seems. Or at least I hope. It's what I'm going for.

 

[user3]

For Radiology, at a site that is not SDN, this was done, and was a big help. Perhaps I will try to do such a thing this year as well, maybe on SDN. I shall see. Although I think for Radiology, the tide is turning, and more and more places are interviewing DO's, it seems. Or at least I hope. It's what I'm going for.

from my understanding, poor job market has made radiology far less competitive than it once was.

 

[W19]

imagine the outrage if low tier MD schools such as CMS or even PR LCME schools were added to that group. There would be more than enough non-PR or non-CMS applicants to fill these programs, yet I'm positive people would be up in arms if there was an explicit ban against these students. Meanwhile, explicitly banning DO applicants (ie NYU IM) is perfectly fine...

I know PR applicants who matched into a good Neurosurgery/Ortho programs in the mainland with average step1 (low 240s)... It seems like the bias of these surgical specialties against DO is more about the DO degree and less about school...

 

[D4C]

I know PR applicants who matched into a good Neurosurgery/Ortho programs in the mainland with average step1 (low 240s)... It seems like the bias of these surgical specialties against DO is more about the DO degree and less about school...

DOs have matched acgme neurosurg and ortho as well. It's far from common though, oh so far.

 

[acapnial]

Pretty sure this already happens at least to some degree. I guess I could do without the blatant banning...

The NYU IM ban is annoying, but at least they tell us not to waste our time with them. The places that would never accept a DO and don't tell us are even worse.

 

[SLC]

In an effort to pay it forward, once match day is over, it would be nice if we would compile a list by speciality of ACGME programs that interviewed us DO's this year. May help future classes out in picking programs.

I'd be down to contribute...I only applied ACGME and have quite a few invites so far. Of course I'm doing FM so that's probably not unusual.

 

[meliora27]

I'd be down to contribute...I only applied ACGME and have quite a few invites so far. Of course I'm doing FM so that's probably not unusual.

Likewise. However I only applied to ACGME IM programs.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

If you guys care about the advice you give, why not give that? Aim high, but be prepared for some discrimination and have a backup.

I'd say that does just about sum up my advice.

Quite frankly this is VERY difficult to determine, because DO-specific statistics have not been published by any NRMP data I've found. Match rates for DO's have risen yearly, I think from 70% to 77% over the past 4 years (off of memory).

Furthermore the data is confounded by over 20% of those entering the match dropping out of it, likely due to matching Osteopathic residencies-- which biases the data (probably FEWER would match if they stayed in the match, as a majority of Osteopathic residencies are considered less competitive than ACGME, but this cannot be said definitively as there is no data that I'm aware of to substantiate this claim).

I'll add another layer of complexity, as the match rate only measures PGY-1, but many residencies require a transitional or preliminary year-- which many DO applicants get outside of the ACGME match-- therefore they would be considered unmatched by this tool, but actually get an advanced position (of which there are 2700 in the match currently, not an insignificant amount).

The "Independent" applicant is not representative of DO's whatsoever because they make up such a small part of that pool. 2.7K DO's in the ACGME match last year, while a total of 16.8K total independent applicants were in last years match. DO's only made up 16.2%-- a low enough rate to indicate that the match rates and number of contiguous ranks to match just cannot be extrapolated to decently represent DO's.

In terms of actual ranks-- the data shows that Independent applicants are mostly at a disadvantage at GETTING interviews. There is a stark contrast in contiguous matches in both the matched and unmatched groups in terms of US Seniors vs. Independents. US seniors, for nearly all specialties, rank double the contiguous matches.

But, and here's where it's interesting. In the rarer cases that Independent applicants do get a ton of contiguous ranks-- they match. Almost as well as their US Senior counterparts. Take as an example (purely because its the largest residency), Internal Medicine. US Seniors matched routinely, with thousands of them ranking 10 or more contiguous ranks. The odds of not matching with 10 ranks or more, was <1%. But what about the independent applicants? Well if they had 10 or more ranks? 93% chance of matching.

And again, this is not really generalizable to DO's, specifically. Although a reasonable inference to draw is if the DO match rate is MUCH better than the other independent applicants (and it is, by over 30%), then they're on much more level footing with US Seniors, once an interview has been conducted. Perhaps not level, but probably not very far off.

Where the rub lies is that they may get fewer interviews, period. And I think it's pretty well known that more than a few locations simply do not interview and/or rank DO (or other independent) applicants, particularly at prestigious or academic programs.

In my (for selfish, please-let-me-match reasons) research, I've concluded that, in general, enough interviews means you're going to match. Probably because programs are not going to interview you if they're not interested in having you be a resident, and enough ranks means even if you're low on their list, one of the programs you've interviewed at will have to get that low. I suspect that with all else being equal, many programs will take the US Senior over the DO-- but the analysis I've done indicates that DO's are not as far off as a cursory glance at the statistics may suggest.

Edit: I hope you understand I was speaking generally and cannot begin to comment on your field specifically, since I know less than nothing about it. FWIW, there are a lot of GS spots in the AOA match, although they too are highly competitive. Although participating in both matches would definitely increase the likelihood of matching, even if there is a GS-specific anti-DO bias.

I'm aware of all the incomplete aspects of the charting outcomes data. It is, unfortunately, all we have at the moment (outside of individual experiences). I tend to look at all the data through the lens of general surgery, which is why I said the stuff about contiguous ranks - independent applicants who rank 10-12 programs still have only a ~50-60% match rate, whereas MDs with 10-12 ranks have a greater than 90% match rate. Now I know this includes several other baskets besides DOs - but that discrepancy suggests to me at least that even when you get the interview you are ending up on the lower side of the rank list. The reason this is probably less of an issue in medicine as you mentioned is that forecasting the rank list is much harder since it's often nearly ten times as many slots to fill as a surgery program - so even someone on the low end of a match list has a decent shot of making it in somewhere as the programs often have to dip much further down their lists.

imagine the outrage if low tier MD schools such as CMS or even PR LCME schools were added to that group. There would be more than enough non-PR or non-CMS applicants to fill these programs, yet I'm positive people would be up in arms if there was an explicit ban against these students. Meanwhile, explicitly banning DO applicants (ie NYU IM) is perfectly fine...

I don't really think people would be up in arms or outraged. Lower tier students face similar obstacles at prestigious programs. We've never interviewed a PR LCME student to my knowledge either. While their application might get initially reviewed if they made it through our other screens, they still would get evaluated based on the perceived quality of their school.

I think the reason some people (@DermViser) roll their eyes when people get up in arms about "DO discrimination" is that it's a little hollow to call it discrimination. In every phase of academics from undergrad to med school to residency to hiring attendings, school prestige is used in making admissions/hiring decisions. The admissions dean at my med school used to joke that the adcom had a bad case of "HYP" disease (Harvard, Yale, Princeton). Coming from a less prestigious school doesn't equate coming from a protected class.

 

[ChrisGriffen]

With that said, he has received 5 mid tier academic surgery program invites. The truth is probably somewhere between your extreme and mine.

Hahaha I miss living in blissful ignorance

 

[DermViser]

I don't really think people would be up in arms or outraged. Lower tier students face similar obstacles at prestigious programs. We've never interviewed a PR LCME student to my knowledge either. While their application might get initially reviewed if they made it through our other screens, they still would get evaluated based on the perceived quality of their school.

I think the reason some people (@DermViser) roll their eyes when people get up in arms about "DO discrimination" is that it's a little hollow to call it discrimination. In every phase of academics from undergrad to med school to residency to hiring attendings, school prestige is used in making admissions/hiring decisions. The admissions dean at my med school used to joke that the adcom had a bad case of "HYP" disease (Harvard, Yale, Princeton). Coming from a less prestigious school doesn't equate coming from a protected class.

It also delegitimizes REAL incidents of discrimination and prejudice due to race, sex, etc. Just ask Dr. Christian Head at UCLA. Every field: medicine, engineering, law, dentistry, business, etc. your school's pedigree affects the next adjacent step as far as the schools you can get into or the spectrum of jobs you are able to get.

I realize the layman's adage is that all American MD schools are the same, but if you've been on SDN long enough, you realize that it's a little bit more nuanced than that (the real question is how much of a difference would it make and whether the difference is worth the price tag). Certain med schools have better resources, better technology (In 2014, there are still some LCME med schools who don't videotape lectures in the first 2 years), better faculty, better teaching, better research opportunities (which their students take part in and are able to set themselves apart on their ERAS application which jumps out at you). You don't have a "right" to an interview or to match at Brigham and Women's, NYU, UCSF, etc. or any other institution.

 

[DopaDO]

Hahaha I miss living in blissful ignorance

Care to elaborate? Not really sure what I said that gave you the feeling of "blissful ignorance" ... sounds like you're just a DO hater (seem to recall you hating on previous posts)

 

[demayette]

I'd say that does just about sum up my advice.



I'm aware of all the incomplete aspects of the charting outcomes data. It is, unfortunately, all we have at the moment (outside of individual experiences). I tend to look at all the data through the lens of general surgery, which is why I said the stuff about contiguous ranks - independent applicants who rank 10-12 programs still have only a ~50-60% match rate, whereas MDs with 10-12 ranks have a greater than 90% match rate. Now I know this includes several other baskets besides DOs - but that discrepancy suggests to me at least that even when you get the interview you are ending up on the lower side of the rank list. The reason this is probably less of an issue in medicine as you mentioned is that forecasting the rank list is much harder since it's often nearly ten times as many slots to fill as a surgery program - so even someone on the low end of a match list has a decent shot of making it in somewhere as the programs often have to dip much further down their lists.



I don't really think people would be up in arms or outraged. Lower tier students face similar obstacles at prestigious programs. We've never interviewed a PR LCME student to my knowledge either. While their application might get initially reviewed if they made it through our other screens, they still would get evaluated based on the perceived quality of their school.

I think the reason some people (@DermViser) roll their eyes when people get up in arms about "DO discrimination" is that it's a little hollow to call it discrimination. In every phase of academics from undergrad to med school to residency to hiring attendings, school prestige is used in making admissions/hiring decisions. The admissions dean at my med school used to joke that the adcom had a bad case of "HYP" disease (Harvard, Yale, Princeton). Coming from a less prestigious school doesn't equate coming from a protected class.

Your program director and chairman are [insert]... For god sake, it is GS--not derm/ent/ortho/plastics.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Your program director and chairman are [insert]... For god sake, it is GS--not derm/ent/ortho/plastics.

But this is what I think a lot of students don't understand about the competitiveness of residency programs.

My program may be "just" general surgery.

But we haven't gone below #15 on our rank list to fill our slots since I've been here.

Our program's step one average is over 250.

Many of our interns' bibliographies are longer than junior faculty candidates.

I love my chair and PD. They are both fantastic teachers who have invested a lot in my personal development.

They are very picky about who comes to our program. I don't really blame them for that. I'm just still confused as to why they let me in.

 

[demayette]

It also delegitimizes REAL incidents of discrimination and prejudice due to race, sex, etc. Just ask Dr. Christian Head at UCLA. Every field: medicine, engineering, law, dentistry, business, etc. your school's pedigree affects the next adjacent step as far as the schools you can get into or the spectrum of jobs you are able to get.

I realize the layman's adage is that all American MD schools are the same, but if you've been on SDN long enough, you realize that it's a little bit more nuanced than that (the real question is how much of a difference would it make and whether the difference is worth the price tag). Certain med schools have better resources, better technology (In 2014, there are still some LCME med schools who don't videotape lectures in the first 2 years), better faculty, better teaching, better research opportunities (which their students take part in and are able to set themselves apart on their ERAS application which jumps out at you). You don't have a "right" to an interview or to match at Brigham and Women's, NYU, UCSF, etc. or any other institution.

So what do you call what his PD/chairman are doing then?

 

[demayette]

But this is what I think a lot of students don't understand about the competitiveness of residency programs.

My program may be "just" general surgery.

But we haven't gone below #15 on our rank list to fill our slots since I've been here.

Our program's step one average is over 250.

Many of our interns' bibliographies are longer than junior faculty candidates.

I love my chair and PD. They are both fantastic teachers who have invested a lot in my personal development.

They are very picky about who comes to our program. I don't really blame them for that.

I am sure there are other university programs out there that might be as good as yours and have no problem with DO... Your program is what it is wrong with this freaking system. How do freaking judge students from X or Y schools when there is so much subjectivity in med school eval? They just assume that everyone that come from a top school is inherently better on paper than a bottom tier school...

 

[DermViser]

So what do you call what his PD/chairman are doing then?

Filtering people based on the institutions of higher education they attend is NOT, I repeat, NOT discrimination. Why you believe medicine should have some equal protection clause no matter what institution they attend, that no other profession has when they filter applicants for jobs is beyond me.

 

[DermViser]

I am sure there are other university programs out there that might be as good as yours and have no problem with DO... Your program is what it is wrong with this freaking system. How do freaking judge students from X or Y schools when there is so much subjectivity in med school eval? They just assume that everyone that come from a top school is inherently better on paper than a bottom tier school...

Yes, med school evaluations are subjective (welcome to the real world all your friends joined right after college). From MS-3 forward, for the rest of your career till you stop practicing, your promotion from 1 year to the next will be based on those subjective evaluations. The time for being evaluated only on your ability to fill in Scantron bubbles is over.

 

[demayette]

Filtering people based on the institutions of higher education they attend is NOT, I repeat, NOT discrimination. Why you believe medicine should have some equal protection clause no matter what institution they attend, that no other profession has when they filter applicants for jobs is beyond me.

Shouldn't we reward the best and the brightest regardless of the school they attend?

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I am sure there are other university programs out there that might be as good as yours and have no problem with DO... Your program is what it is wrong with this freaking system. How do freaking judge a student when there is so much subjectivity in med school eval? They just assume that everyone that come from a top school is inherently better on paper than a bottom tier school...

As I've said previously, I'm not trying to defend their choices. I don't even fully understand them, as I've said. But I take offense to someone calling them a [insert] since they are actually great educators and I have a ton of respect for them.

 

[demayette]

As I've said previously, I'm not trying to defend their choices. I don't even fully understand them, as I've said. But I take offense to someone calling them a [insert] since they are actually great educators and I have a ton of respect for them.

I could careless if they are great educators when they are morally wrong in their decision making...

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I could careless if they are great educators when they are morally wrong in their decision making...

This is where I (and DV) can't help but roll my eyes.

 

[gators21]

How many acgme interviews in GS would yall think be safe enough to forgo the DO match? Especially with this "bias"

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

How many acgme interviews in GS would yall think be safe enough to forgo the DO match? Especially with this "bias"

I don't think I could provide one simple "rule" to answer this question. I'd want to know how many you have and the range of programs to give more helpful information.

 

[BrooklynBulls]

How many acgme interviews in GS would yall think be safe enough to forgo the DO match? Especially with this "bias"

If you're dead-set on GS, I think smart money would be applying (and doing audition rotations) at as many AOA GS spots as you'd be willing to go based on training quality and geographic preferences, then applying to the ACGME match in case you fail to match DO. For GS, I don't think it makes much sense at all to forgo the AOA match-- there's a lot of spots and some are high quality. If you're dead-set on ACGME, just know that only 44 Osteopaths ended up matching that way. While 130+ did it the AOA way.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

If you're dead-set on GS, I think smart money would be applying (and doing audition rotations) at as many AOA GS spots as you'd be willing to go based on training quality and geographic preferences, then applying to the ACGME match in case you fail to match DO. For GS, I don't think it makes much sense at all to forgo the AOA match-- there's a lot of spots and some are high quality. If you're dead-set on ACGME, just know that only 44 Osteopaths ended up matching that way. While 130+ did it the AOA way.

This is why I think it will be interesting to see what happens after the merger. If a lot of good DO applicants are taking themselves out of the game by going AOA match, it certainly skews the ACGME results.