Interview Offers to ACGME Programs

[BrooklynBulls]

/

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.

Anecdotally, I know this to be true. The top students interested in surgery at my school are going AOA exclusively. A few mid-tier applicants are applying both, because it gives them more chances. They are, ironically, using ACGME as a backup.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

They are, ironically, using ACGME as a backup.

The way the system is set up, this is the most logical way to do it.

 

[BrooklynBulls]

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

Judging who is best or brightest is really, really hard. How do you do it? Board scores? Those depend on how much time you had, how much emphasis your school places on board material, how good you are at taking tests, and doesn't test for a vast amount of necessary skills and abilities. Class rank? How do you compare a top applicant from a no-name school to a bottom applicant from Harvard? It's impossible. Publications? Dependent on the student's personal interest in research (not having an interest in research doesn't make you a worse candidate necessarily, if you do other things with that time), is also depending on the school's funding, dedication to research, etc.

There is no such thing as an apples to apples comparison in the match, and what ends up happening is that regional bias, school name, previous experiences of the PD, and sometimes, whimsy decide the selections. I know of an OBGYN program that does not take DO's and prefers student from specific international schools, because the PD feels those guys are "go-getters."

Each program receives hundreds if not thousands of applications, particularly now in the digital age, where there's no time cost associated with shotgunning applications. As a result, programs have gotten creative with filters. Some filter out international students, some DO's, some those that failed boards on their first attempt, some remove anybody that's not a senior, some have board score cutoffs. Are any of those inherently fair? Not really. But there's no point complaining. If you're really educated about what you're doing, you can optimize your odds to where these biases are not going to prevent your success in matching.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

There is no such thing as an apples to apples comparison in the match, and what ends up happening is that regional bias, school name, previous experiences of the PD, and sometimes, whimsy. I know of an OBGYN program that does not take DO's and prefers student from specific international schools, because the PD feels those guys are "go-getters."

One of our subspecialty PDs dislikes a certain top 20 school because (based on an n=1 experience, presumably) he thinks their grads lack "street smarts"

 

[demayette]

Judging who is best or brightest is really, really hard. How do you do it? Board scores? Those depend on how much time you had, how much emphasis your school places on board material, how good you are at taking tests, and doesn't test for a vast amount of necessary skills and abilities. Class rank? How do you compare a top applicant from a no-name school to a bottom applicant from Harvard? It's impossible. Publications? Dependent on the student's personal interest in research (not having an interest in research doesn't make you a worse candidate necessarily, if you do other things with that time), is also depending on the school's funding, dedication to research, etc.

There is no such thing as an apples to apples comparison in the match, and what ends up happening is that regional bias, school name, previous experiences of the PD, and sometimes, whimsy decide the selections. I know of an OBGYN program that does not take DO's and prefers student from specific international schools, because the PD feels those guys are "go-getters."

Each program receives hundreds if not thousands of applications, particularly now in the digital age, where there's no time cost associated with shotgunning applications. As a result, programs have gotten creative with filters. Some filter out international students, some DO's, some those that failed boards on their first attempt, some remove anybody that's not a senior, some have board score cutoffs. Are any of those inherently fair? Not really. But there's no point complaining. If you're really educated about what you're doing, you can optimize your odds to where these biases are not going to prevent your success in matching.

I don't mine about that OBGYN program taking IMG if that PD feels like these IMGs are better prepared than US students based on his/her experience... However, I think for PD to categorically reject applicants just because they are DO is unjust.

 

[BrooklynBulls]

I don't mine about that OBGYN program taking IMG if that PD feels like these IMGs are better prepared than US students based on his/her experience... However, I think for PD to categorically reject applicants just because they are DO is unjust.

It's unjust. Ok, now what? How do you fix that? Every application is a snowflake, but how are you going to expect programs to actually treat these applications? There's not enough time to really go through them in detail. You can't offer every qualified applicant an interview, either, there aren't enough slots. You have to rank candidates in SOME type of order, but how do you justify that order?

 

[gators21]

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.

Obviously not at crazy programs. I'm saying how many interviews would you consider safe, assuming at programs that have taken DOs in the past and you are competitive for? If your a DO student trying for Hopkins surgery then your an idiot.
Im not asking if you should not apply for aoa, what is the smartest way to audition, or how you would apply. Im asking at what point would you consider it safe for an applicant to reasonable assume they would have a shot at matching acgme?

 

[DopaDO]

I honestly have no problem with SouthernIMs PD and chair saying no to DO. I think many look at DO as being a little worse than a low tier MD school. The fact that his program also discriminates against non-top 50 programs makes that lime of thinking just imo.

Also this isn't racism. PDs need a way to slash the applicant pool. Some do it by board scores, some by school attended, and some by research (usual some combination). I take issue with the notion that many programs won't consider DOs when my roommate and I have seen that to not be the case.

From my experience, programs like southernIMs are few and far between.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Obviously not at crazy programs. I'm saying how many interviews would you consider safe, assuming at programs that have taken DOs in the past and you are competitive for? If your a DO student trying for Hopkins surgery then your an idiot.
Im not asking if you should not apply for aoa, what is the smartest way to audition, or how you would apply. Im asking at what point would you consider it safe for an applicant to reasonable assume they would have a shot at matching acgme?

I'm a pessimist by nature, so I'd probably say at the least 12 ranked programs.

The advice I give our MD students is that you want at least a "2-8-2" rank list (2 "reach" programs, 8 programs that theoretically at least are in your wheelhouse, and 2 programs that should theoretically be a "safety"). For DOs it's a lot harder for me to predict since as I've said I just don't have enough experience.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Also this isn't racism. PDs need a way to slash the applicant pool. Some do it by board scores, some by school attended, and some by research (usual some combination).

Exactly

 

[DermViser]

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

By what? Step 1 score? The best and the brightest are already filtered to the med school you attend. You can't just walk into WashU's med school and demand to be admitted.

 

[hallowmann]

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.

I'm very curious about this as well. My guess is that a ton of very competitive DO applicants (especially in surgery and surgical subspecialties) don't even make it to the ACGME match, because they don't want to risk not applying AOA. I also think there is a subset of FM and IM applicants that go AOA because they wouldn't match ACGME.

In the end, its possible the average DO applicant match stats won't change much overall (except of course the addition of the % that will make AOA-focus programs) with a combined match, but I believe DOs would fair better in surgeries and surgical fields simply by the fact that competitive applicants will actually be applying and matching ACGME programs.

I'm a pessimist by nature, so I'd probably say at the least 12 ranked programs.

The advice I give our MD students is that you want at least a "2-8-2" rank list (2 "reach" programs, 8 programs that theoretically at least are in your wheelhouse, and 2 programs that should theoretically be a "safety"). For DOs it's a lot harder for me to predict since as I've said I just don't have enough experience.

This is good to know. Most people say >10 interviews for DOs usually equals a match, but like you I'd play it safe and say between 12-15.

 

[demayette]

By what? Step 1 score? The best and the brightest are already filtered to the med school you attend. You can't just walk into WashU's med school and demand to be admitted.

1-Board score (s)
2-Rotation grades
3-Class Ranking
4-Research
5-ECs
6-LORs etc...

I know there is no perfect formula, but rejecting someone automatically because of the school he/she attends does not make sense to me.

 

[DermViser]

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

 

[ChrisGriffen]

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)

There is a pretty big difference between hating and living in the real world my friend.

 

[DopaDO]

There is a pretty big difference between hating and living in the real world my friend.

Have you read my posts? Maybe try making a point instead of just unnecessary trolling?

 

[ChrisGriffen]

Have you read my posts? Maybe try making a point instead of just unnecessary trolling?

I have read them all. My favorite is the one where you made up a story about MGH surgery offering an interview.


I also like the one about how DOs "arent good applicants" but somehow that is of "marginal consequence".

There's nothing quite like a blatant contradiction

Being a DO is of marginal consequence in many specialties (even many of the surgical subspecialties). The reason more DOs don't get invites like this is bc they aren't good applicants.

 

[DopaDO]

I have read them all. My favorite is the one where you made up a story about MGH surgery offering an interview.


I also like the one about how DOs "arent good applicants" but somehow that is of "marginal consequence".

There's nothing quite like a blatant contradiction

If you want to crucify because my roommate lied to me then ok. I have no argument against that, but I came here and owned it.

I dont see how what I said is a contradiction - I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. The fact that someone is a DO is of marginal consequence aka the letters behind their name arent the reason you dont see DOs matching MD ortho. Its because many DO students don't do research, don't take the Steps (or do poorly), and get letters that may be good in language but are from nobodies. I stand by that statement and don't see that as a contradiction.

Still waiting on you to make your point instead of just blatantly attacking me.

 

[Mad Jack]

By what? Step 1 score? The best and the brightest are already filtered to the med school you attend. You can't just walk into WashU's med school and demand to be admitted.

This isn't necessarily true- some people don't apply to every school out there due to geographic preferences or limitations. Some people also don't care about prestige, believe it or not, and thus might choose less expensive state schools over more expensive and prestigious medical schools. While I agree that higher Step 1 scores are more indicative of good test prep and MCT taking abilities, I don't agree that what medical school you attend is necessarily a direct correlate to how strong your application was, nor how bright you were in undergrad. Also, some people that were bright undergraduate students make horrible medical students and physicians, so you can't necessarily say that a bright undergrad will be a stellar physician- there's a totally different set of skills at work in undergrad vs med school vs residency vs practice.

 

[demayette]

I like that people (@DermViser and @southernIM ) are defending PD even if they display blatant bias against some applicants based on the school they attend. I like to think a DO with with higher board score(s) and better application overall should not be passed on for a MD because of his/her degree. You are telling students no matter how much effort they put into their eduction, it probably won't matter at the end... These metrics are not perfect, but they are what we have now... Who am I anyway to want some fairness in the system? I am getting crucified here because I am speaking against what I perceive to be unfair; however, the same people who think that my arguments have no merit are the same ones who have been very vocal here about admitting minorities to medical school with lower stats is unfair to caucasians and asians... Please be consistent!

 

[BrooklynBulls]

I like that people (@DermViser and @southernIM ) are defending PD even if they display blatant bias against some applicants based on the school they attend. I like to think a DO with with higher board score(s) and better application overall should not be passed on for a MD because of his/her degree. You are telling students no matter how much effort they put into their eduction, it probably won't matter at the end... These metrics are not perfect, but they are what we have now... Who am I anyway to want some fairness in the system? I am getting crucified here because I am speaking against what I perceive to be unfair; however, the same people who think that my arguments have no merit are the same ones who have been very vocal here about admitting minorities to medical school with lower stats is unfair to caucasians and asians... Please be consistent!

But the school you attend IS based on merit. It's not like it's a genetic trait. If you attended a no-name school that a PD has never heard of, SHOULDNT that count against you? Does that not cast doubt on the quality of the applicant? Shouldn't the fact that an applicant got into Harvard be a positive in his application, and shouldn't that be considered more impressive than a DO acceptance? I'm a DO, and I certainly think it should be.

If you're saying a DO shouldn't be passed over for an MD, if the DO has a stronger application otherwise, I would for the most part agree, but ask you HOW much stronger the DO application should be. I'd prefer a DO with a stellar record and a 250 over an Ivy League MD with 210 and straight C's. But I honestly don't think most programs that discriminate against DO's are making that choice. Their discrimination likely comes from a place of privilege. Just as the average for SouthernIM's surgery program is >250, they don't have any DOs. Because with such stellar applicants, they can AFFORD to discriminate based on school name. Places that cannot afford to do so, probably will not do so. Some may, just because they truly detest DO's.
And I'm against that, as I'm sure most reasonable people would be. But I hardly think its the majority of cases. NYU IM doesn't take DO's, but they don't need to. They can get as specific as they want, and they will still have an abundance of stellar applicants to choose from. It's just reality.

 

[PatsyStone]

I like to think a DO with with higher board score(s) and better application overall should not be passed on for a MD because of his/her degree. You are telling students no matter how much effort they put into their eduction, it probably won't matter at the end... These metrics are not perfect, but they are what we have now... Who am I anyway to want some fairness in the system? I am getting crucified here because I am speaking against what I perceive to be unfair

I don't think anyone would disagree that the current system is unfair, however, neither is life. Unfortunately, a DO may be passed over for an MD with lower board scores, and you know what, someone from SLU may get passed over for someone from Standford who has lower scores, and someone from UCSF may get passed over for an MD/PhD from VCU who has lower board scores.

I want you to imagine you are a GS program director: you received 500 applications for 6 spots. Since it's a pain in the butt to have to hold multiple interview days, your goal is to hold 4 interview days and to invite 15 people per interview. So, how do you whittle down the 500 to 60? You could divide the applications and give equal numbers to, say, 8 other faculty members in the department who normally assist with the application process. Do you think a busy attending wants to review 40 applications? Probably not. So, in order to avoid pissing the other faculty members off, you need to find a way to slim-down the applicant pool. Maybe you screen out anyone who is not from an LCME school, or maybe you screen based on Step 1 score, or maybe you screen based on publications of AOA status. However you do it, you need to narrow the pool so that faculty members are not inundated with a large stack of applications.

FWIW, in dermatology, there are programs that screen based on AOA status (or at least their websites used to claim this, or they have never matched a non-AOA applicants in recent history). Is this fair? Not necessarily because AOA is highly subjective at some schools, and there are likely highly qualified, well-rounded applicants who did not get AOA. However, you have to make a cut somewhere. Since there is a finite number of spots, unfortunately some people who would make great dermatologists have to get cut.

 

[AMEHigh]

Obviously not at crazy programs. I'm saying how many interviews would you consider safe, assuming at programs that have taken DOs in the past and you are competitive for? If your a DO student trying for Hopkins surgery then your an idiot.
Im not asking if you should not apply for aoa, what is the smartest way to audition, or how you would apply. Im asking at what point would you consider it safe for an applicant to reasonable assume they would have a shot at matching acgme?

Outside of Derm, ENT, Ophtho, Ortho and Neurosurgery, isn't it pretty reasonable to say that if you have good board scores as a DO you can match in to ACGME IM, FM, Family, Obgyn, EM, Psych, Neuro, Peds, Anesthesia, Surgery, PMR, Rads, and Pathology? And I was just recently looking at my schools match list and there are Ophtho acgme matches. But for the later specialties I listed, which is the majority of specialties, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to think you can match acgme.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I want you to imagine you are a GS program director: you received 500 applications for 6 spots. Since it's a pain in the butt to have to hold multiple interview days, your goal is to hold 4 interview days and to invite 15 people per interview. So, how do you whittle down the 500 to 60? You could divide the applications and give equal numbers to, say, 8 other faculty members in the department who normally assist with the application process. Do you think a busy attending wants to review 40 applications? Probably not. So, in order to avoid pissing the other faculty members off, you need to find a way to slim-down the applicant pool. Maybe you screen out anyone who is not from an LCME school, or maybe you screen based on Step 1 score, or maybe you screen based on publications of AOA status. However you do it, you need to narrow the pool so that faculty members are not inundated with a large stack of applications.

More like 2000+ apps for 6 spots.

Plus you have to consider that you are under a time crunch - if you don't get interview invitations out ASAP, you will lose out on quality applicants due to scheduling conflicts (unless you are MGH or Hopkins for whom applicants will cancel their previously scheduled interviews).

But your points are otherwise spot on. This is exactly what programs do - they use filters to narrow the pool. If they don't find enough quality applicants to invite based on their initial screening, they will broaden the pool to fill their interview spots.

 

[demayette]

But the school you attend IS based on merit. It's not like it's a genetic trait. If you attended a no-name school that a PD has never heard of, SHOULDNT that count against you? Does that not cast doubt on the quality of the applicant? Shouldn't the fact that an applicant got into Harvard be a positive in his application, and shouldn't that be considered more impressive than a DO acceptance? I'm a DO, and I certainly think it should be.

If you're saying a DO shouldn't be passed over for an MD, if the DO has a stronger application otherwise, I would for the most part agree, but ask you HOW much stronger the DO application should be. I'd prefer a DO with a stellar record and a 250 over an Ivy League MD with 210 and straight C's. But I honestly don't think most programs that discriminate against DO's are making that choice. Their discrimination likely comes from a place of privilege. Just as the average for SouthernIM's surgery program is >250, they don't have any DOs. Because with such stellar applicants, they can AFFORD to discriminate based on school name. Places that cannot afford to do so, probably will not do so. Some may, just because they truly detest DO's.
And I'm against that, as I'm sure most reasonable people would be. But I hardly think its the majority of cases. NYU IM doesn't take DO's, but they don't need to. They can get as specific as they want, and they will still have an abundance of stellar applicants to choose from. It's just reality.

I am not sure you got my point when I was comparing minorities acceptance to med school vs. PD passing over a good applicant from a lower tier school for a 'not so good' applicant from a top 10... My point was that PD wrongly give the latter the benefit of the doubt by virtue that he/she is from a good school in the same manner adcoms might give minorities applicant a break by virtue that they are minorities.

I don't think medical school stops when someone is admitted to WashU... We all go thru 4 year of this process to prove that we learn the materials and we will do whatever it takes to become excellent physicians, so I don't understand why someone who does everything the right way should not be given a chance to accomplish his/her dreams.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I am not sure you got my point when I was comparing minorities acceptance to med school vs. PD passing over a good applicant from a lower tier school for a 'not so good' applicant from a top 10... My point was that PD wrongly give the latter the benefit of the doubt by virtue that he/she is from a good school in the same manner adcoms might give minorities applicant a break by virtue that they are minorities.

To the bolded: You're making a very artificial distinction, much along the lines of the naive pre-allo crowd. No program out there is choosing a marginal candidate from a top XX school over a solid DO candidate. More like they are choosing from hundreds well qualified MD candidates for only 100 interview slots.

And it's a purely subjective call to say that PDs are "wrongly" giving the benefit of the doubt to applicants from good schools. It may well be that they are giving those applicants the benefit of the doubt because they have significant experience with those good schools and feel comfortable with the quality of their graduates on average, whereas another less familiar school is a risk to them that they don't need to take.

 

[demayette]

To the bolded: You're making a very artificial distinction, much along the lines of the naive pre-allo crowd. No program out there is choosing a marginal candidate from a top XX school over a solid DO candidate. More like they are choosing from hundreds well qualified MD candidates for only 100 interview slots.

And it's a purely subjective call to say that PDs are "wrongly" giving the benefit of the doubt to applicants from good schools. It may well be that they are giving those applicants the benefit of the doubt because they have significant experience with those good schools and feel comfortable with the quality of their graduates on average, whereas another less familiar school is a risk to them that they don't need to take.

I understand what you are saying there... However, I remember seeing in a website of an IM program in NY that blatantly says: 'We do NOT accept DO'. I think this madness! So a DO applicant with 260+ step 1&2, top of his class, honor his/her rotations, multiple publications won't even pass a screening while an average MD will have his/her application get looked at because of his/her degree.

 

[D4C]

I understand what you are saying there... However, I remember seeing in a website of an IM program in NY that blatantly says: 'We do NOT accept DO'. I think this madness! So a DO applicant with 260+ step 1&2, top of his class, honor his/her rotations, multiple publications won't even pass a screening while an average MD will have his/her application get looked at because of his/her degree.

It's their choice, and their loss. Move on.

 

[user3]

"low tier MD" can't really be auto-filtered out, or explicitly told not to apply to certain programs, the way DO students can be. Can we at least admit that?

 

[TwinsFan]

"low tier MD" can't really be auto-filtered out, or explicitly told not to apply to certain programs, the way DO students can be. Can we at least admit that?

Yes, this is true.
But we can we also admit, save for a couple PR schools and the HB schools, there is a fair gap between the average student from a "low tier" MD and the average DO student?

 

[TwinsFan]

1-Board score (s)
2-Rotation grades
3-Class Ranking
4-Research
5-ECs
6-LORs etc...

I know there is no perfect formula, but rejecting someone automatically because of the school he/she attends does not make sense to me.

This sounds good in theory but in reality isn't as objective as you think.

1- Some schools teach to boards/allow more time to study for boards/put a bigger emphasis on boards, especially when their own reputation carries little weight, that said it is a somewhat level playing field to compare students
2- Not all rotations are even close to equal, many place hand out Hs/As like candy and have questionable teaching (nurse preceptors!?), clinical education with a good/great reputation is worth way more than an H from a random community program that hands them out to half the students.
3- This is also extremely uneven, getting top quartile in a class of 3.5/27 students is VASTLY different than top quartile in a group of 3.8/33+ students. At a number of schools, the bottom quartile of academic stats coming in is significantly higher than the average at any osteo program in the country.
4- A bit of a wash as you seem to get out what you put in on average... Bigger and better opportunities are available in correlation to reputation but there are many more people pursuing/competing for them
5- not super important other than demonstrating you're not a robot
6- seem to be a decent way to evaluate with no obvious winner (big names but more competing for letters at big name places, less competition and you may really get to know (and a good letter from) a preceptor at a community program

Placing some weight on a known entity (school reputation), especially a PDs experience with residents from a given school, seems to be a reasonable factor given all the variability above. It sucks to hear the farther down the totem pole you are, but it's true.

 

[demayette]

This sounds good in theory but in reality isn't as adjective as you think.

1- Some schools teach to boards/allow more time to study for boards/put a bigger emphasis on boards, especially when their own reputation carries little weight, that said it is a somewhat level playing field to compare students
2- Not all rotations are even close to equal, many place hand out Hs/As like candy and have questionable teaching (nurse preceptors!?), clinical education with a good/great reputation is worth way more than an H from a random community program that hands them out to half the students.
3- This is also extremely uneven, getting top quartile in a class of 3.5/27 students is VASTLY different than top quartile in a group of 3.8/33+ students. At a number of schools, the bottom quartile of academic stats coming in is significantly higher than the average at any osteo program in the country.
4- A bit of a wash as you seem to get out what you put in on average... Bigger and better opportunities are available in correlation to reputation but there are many more people pursuing/competing for them
5- not super important other than demonstrating you're not a robot
6- seem to be a decent way to evaluate with no obvious winner (big names but more competing for letters at big name places, less competition and you may really get to know (and a good letter from) a preceptor at a community program

Placing some weight on a known entity (school reputation), especially a PDs experience with residents from a given school, seems to be a reasonable factor given all the variability above. It sucks to hear the farther down the totem pole you are, but it's true.

Do you really think an applicant who got admitted to WashU then decide to slack off in med school--get chosen over another outstanding applicant for a particular residency because of the WashU name is more objective than my criteria?

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

"low tier MD" can't really be auto-filtered out, or explicitly told not to apply to certain programs, the way DO students can be. Can we at least admit that?

Yes they can. You can set filters in eras to only include certain schools - make a "top 10" or "top xxx" filter persay if you want to

 

[D4C]

This sounds good in theory but in reality isn't as adjective as you think.

1- Some schools teach to boards/allow more time to study for boards/put a bigger emphasis on boards, especially when their own reputation carries little weight, that said it is a somewhat level playing field to compare students
2- Not all rotations are even close to equal, many place hand out Hs/As like candy and have questionable teaching (nurse preceptors!?), clinical education with a good/great reputation is worth way more than an H from a random community program that hands them out to half the students.
3- This is also extremely uneven, getting top quartile in a class of 3.5/27 students is VASTLY different than top quartile in a group of 3.8/33+ students. At a number of schools, the bottom quartile of academic stats coming in is significantly higher than the average at any osteo program in the country.
4- A bit of a wash as you seem to get out what you put in on average... Bigger and better opportunities are available in correlation to reputation but there are many more people pursuing/competing for them
5- not super important other than demonstrating you're not a robot
6- seem to be a decent way to evaluate with no obvious winner (big names but more competing for letters at big name places, less competition and you may really get to know (and a good letter from) a preceptor at a community program

Placing some weight on a known entity (school reputation), especially a PDs experience with residents from a given school, seems to be a reasonable factor given all the variability above. It sucks to hear the farther down the totem pole you are, but it's true.

Got some numbers to back up those numbers? Or is that just your hunch?

 

[Student DO c]

The ironic thing of this all is, I know for a fact that some students that will come out of my COM and train at a "lesser" program will be far better doctors then the MD that trains at the academic mega center that everyone raves about.

Theres also something to be said about some of these smaller community hospitals where you as a resident arent competing wtih 25 other residency programs for procedures.

 

[DermViser]

The ironic thing of this all is, I know for a fact that some students that will come out of my COM and train at a "lesser" program will be far better doctors then the MD that trains at the academic mega center that everyone raves about.

Proof?

 

[TwinsFan]

Do you really think an applicant who got admitted to WashU then decide to slack off in med school--get chosen over another outstanding applicant for a particular residency because of the WashU name is more objective than my criteria?

The hypothetical "slacking off" student at WashU is just that, hypothetical. I bet it would be tough to find even a single one who isn't working pretty hard considering I haven't found one yet where I attend.

And no student should be selected on name alone, but given two somewhat similar candidates it makes sense to give some weight to a known commodity (graduates of school X).

 

[TwinsFan]

Got some numbers to back up those numbers? Or is that just your hunch?

I am not trying to disrespect anyone here but we all have to take a better look at things.

Bottom quartile of the class where I attend can be easily deduced from the histograms they hand out to interviewees.
last years class it was ~3.6/30 average for bottom quartile with a threshold (25th percentile) of ~3.7/31 for matriculating students, accepted was higher, MSAR median was ~3.9/35
some top DO numbers: DMU 3.6/28, TCOM 3.6/28, Western 3.6/28 (all from their respective websites)
Other numbers: from interview days at TCOM and DMU the average step score was quoted 215-219 depending on the year, it is high 230s here depending on the year (~1 std dev difference and profs here are adamant about "not teaching to the boards")

Easily accessible numbers:
Since I'm sure some will come in quoting accepted student stats, simply compare these to MSAR stats for top schools (10th percentile threshold is 30+/3.6+) and the 10th percentile is well below the bottom quartile threshold.

The point is that we should all start taking our heads out of the sand and...
1- realize that not all med schools or med students are equal
2- reputation does and should matter, but not be the only or primary factor
3- go and swim in a bigger and tougher pond than you are used to some time, it may just blow your mind...
IMO I have been nothing but impressed with my classmates as they are very hardworking and an exceptionally smart bunch. It is humbling to take the same tests with so many superstars. And I'm sure that it would be even be more humbling at Harvard or Hopkins.

 

[DermViser]

The hypothetical "slacking off" student at WashU is just that, hypothetical. I bet it would be tough to find even a single one who isn't working pretty hard considering I haven't found one yet where I attend.

And no student should be selected on name alone, but given two somewhat similar candidates it makes sense to give some weight to a known commodity (graduates of school X).

Exactly. If you met the type of student Wash U recruits - slacker would hardly be a used to define them. They continue their achievements thru med school.

 

[D4C]

I am not trying to disrespect anyone here but we all have to take a better look at things.

Bottom quartile of the class where I attend can be easily deduced from the histograms they hand out to interviewees.
last years class it was ~3.6/30 average for bottom quartile with a threshold (25th percentile) of ~3.7/31 for matriculating students, accepted was higher, MSAR median was ~3.9/35
some top DO numbers: DMU 3.6/28, TCOM 3.6/28, Western 3.6/28 (all from their respective websites)
Other numbers: from interview days at TCOM and DMU the average step score was quoted 215-219 depending on the year, it is high 230s here depending on the year (~1 std dev difference and profs here are adamant about "not teaching to the boards")

Easily accessible numbers:
Since I'm sure some will come in quoting accepted student stats, simply compare these to MSAR stats for top schools (10th percentile threshold is 30+/3.6+) and the 10th percentile is well below the bottom quartile threshold.

The point is that we should all start taking our heads out of the sand and...
1- realize that not all med schools or med students are equal
2- reputation does and should matter, but not be the only or primary factor
3- go and swim in a bigger and tougher pond than you are used to some time, it may just blow your mind...
IMO I have been nothing but impressed with my classmates as they are very hardworking and an exceptionally smart bunch. It is humbling to take the same tests with so many superstars. And I'm sure that it would be even be more humbling at Harvard or Hopkins.

Thanks for quoting entry statistics. I know, I know, you're a tough and smart guy.
But to your quote "3- This is also extremely uneven, getting top quartile in a class of 3.5/27 students is VASTLY different than top quartile in a group of 3.8/33+ students. At a number of schools, the bottom quartile of academic stats coming in is significantly higher than the average at any osteo program in the country."

Who's to say that those same 3.5/27 individuals scoring in the top 25% in med school not college would not also score in the same range as the 3.9/35 (or whatever your top 25% is) group on the same test in med school. I understand where you're coming from, the whole "better performance in undergrad is a good predictor of medical school competence/intelligence". That's just it, you're playing a numbers game, but not using the right set. And to the bolded, yes that's probably true for the top 20 MD programs. There are far more, my state MD school included, that have a 10% (don't have 25% numbers, sorry) around 3.0/25, than there are those top schools. Yes, not all medical students are equal, and thank god. Some interact better with patients than they do a scantron, some are lucky and are the whole package. I'd rather not be swimming in a sea of ostentatious individuals.

 

[user3]

Yes they can. You can set filters in eras to only include certain schools - make a "top 10" or "top xxx" filter persay if you want to

still, "tiers" of MD schools is pretty subjective- don't you agree? "DO" brings an instant stigma of second-tier-medical-school and can handily be grouped and categorized out as such.

and what exactly makes up "low tier MD"? HBC's and PR? CMS and Drexel? Less competitive state schools? It has to be harder to group these schools together and "filter" them, compared to DO schools.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

still, "tiers" of MD schools is pretty subjective- don't you agree? "DO" brings an instant stigma of second-tier-medical-school and can handily be grouped and categorized out as such.

and what exactly makes up "low tier MD"? HBC's and PR? CMS and Drexel? Less competitive state schools? It has to be harder to group these schools together and "filter" them, compared to DO schools.

My point was that you can set up whatever filters you want. And programs do set up extremely complex filters - top 20 MD schools with >240 step one plus AOA. Whatever combos they want. They can even make them more complex in the new system this year

 

[TwinsFan]

Thanks for quoting entry statistics. I know, I know, you're a tough and smart guy.
But to your quote "3- This is also extremely uneven, getting top quartile in a class of 3.5/27 students is VASTLY different than top quartile in a group of 3.8/33+ students. At a number of schools, the bottom quartile of academic stats coming in is significantly higher than the average at any osteo program in the country."

1 Who's to say that those same 3.5/27 individuals scoring in the top 25% in med school not college would not also score in the same range as the 3.9/35 (or 2 whatever your top 25% is) group on the same test in med school. I understand where you're coming from, the whole "better performance in undergrad is a good predictor of medical school competence/intelligence". That's just it, you're playing a numbers game, but not using the right set. And to the bolded, yes that's probably true for the top 20 MD programs. There are far more, my state MD school included, that have a 10% (don't have 25% numbers, sorry) around 3.0/25 3, than there are those top schools. Yes, not all medical students are equal, and thank god. 4 Some interact better with patients than they do a scantron, some are lucky and are the whole package. I'd rather not be swimming in a sea of ostentatious individuals.

Easy, I'm not wanting or trying to come off as some know-it-all tough guy.

I am trying to spread an alternate perspective, as before med school I thought quite a bit closer to you and after experiencing it I have changed somewhat. Also, I am talking in terms of averages or the bulk of the class. Usually there will be some outliers, better and worse.

1- From my observation of some stats and anecdotally over the last 3-4 years I would say not for but a very FEW outliers will the top 25% overlap between a top school and an average osteo school. And here's why I think that (it is not some elitist BS propaganda):
A- average STEP 1 for the best DO schools (215-219) is well under national MD average (mid 220s), let alone top school average (low 230s to low 240s)
B- highest regular (not just 1 person or someone who knows someone nonsense) DO scores I have heard of from a top DO school who places the most nationally in ACGME programs is 240s (rare) typically with 230s being considered "outstanding/excellent", the vast majority of our class gets 230+ and ~1/3 gets 240+ (and there are other schools that score higher)
C- many of our exams have been similar to a 5 choice MCAT so far with complex conceptual integration on 2/3rd order Qs, and as someone who basically aced (100+) everything in recent past and had a solid MCAT I can say they are pretty ridiculous, and compared to exams I have discussed with students at other schools the questions are confirmed as tough
D- people who come from stronger backgrounds here are doing better, those from weak backgrounds are almost drowning
E- most of the high scorers in our classes are putting in serious hours and studying about as much as anyone can and stay sane (and they come in with credentials that tend to indicate high academic potential)

2- Our top 25% average would be 38/4.0 (~20% class had a 4.0), the 3.9/35 was the median quoted from the MSAR for accuracy's sake. The point is that there are nearly entire classes made up of superstars out there, which sounds kinda unbelievable, but it's true.

3- 3.0/25 isn't right except for SD/PR etc., 10th percentile for most lower tier med schools is 3.3-3.5/26-29 (keep in mind this includes the early admission programs and everything else that skews the low end. Bottom quartile for most lower tier should be about a 3.5/29.

4- I also bought into this nonsense prior to school, but other than a VERY few I haven't seen it. Everybody is smart and outgoing/interesting/friendly. It is comforting to think those who have the academic metrics are "bad with patients" or awkward but, there are a ton of people out there with basically the whole package. And if you want a top program/specialty these are who we are all compared to.

 

[D4C]

Easy, I'm not wanting or trying to come off as some know-it-all tough guy.

I am trying to spread an alternate perspective, as before med school I thought quite a bit closer to you and after experiencing it I have changed somewhat. Also, I am talking in terms of averages or the bulk of the class. Usually there will be some outliers, better and worse.

1- From my observation of some stats and anecdotally over the last 3-4 years I would say not for but a very FEW outliers will the top 25% overlap between a top school and an average osteo school. And here's why I think that (it is not some elitist BS propaganda):
A- average STEP 1 for the best DO schools (215-219) is well under national MD average (mid 220s), let alone top school average (low 230s to low 240s)
B- highest regular (not just 1 person or someone who knows someone nonsense) DO scores I have heard of from a top DO school who places the most nationally in ACGME programs is 240s (rare) typically with 230s being considered "outstanding/excellent", the vast majority of our class gets 230+ and ~1/3 gets 240+ (and there are other schools that score higher)
C- many of our exams have been similar to a 5 choice MCAT so far with complex conceptual integration on 2/3rd order Qs, and as someone who basically aced (100+) everything in recent past and had a solid MCAT I can say they are pretty ridiculous, and compared to exams I have discussed with students at other schools the questions are confirmed as tough
D- people who come from stronger backgrounds here are doing better, those from weak backgrounds are almost drowning
E- most of the high scorers in our classes are putting in serious hours and studying about as much as anyone can and stay sane (and they come in with credentials that tend to indicate high academic potential)

2- Our top 25% average would be 38/4.0 (~20% class had a 4.0), the 3.9/35 was the median quoted from the MSAR for accuracy's sake. The point is that there are nearly entire classes made up of superstars out there, which sounds kinda unbelievable, but it's true.

3- 3.0/25 isn't right except for SD/PR etc., 10th percentile for most lower tier med schools is 3.3-3.5/26-29 (keep in mind this includes the early admission programs and everything else that skews the low end. Bottom quartile for most lower tier should be about a 3.5/29.

4- I also bought into this nonsense prior to school, but other than a VERY few I haven't seen it. Everybody is smart and outgoing/interesting/friendly. It is comforting to think those who have the academic metrics are "bad with patients" or awkward but, there are a ton of people out there with basically the whole package. And if you want a top program/specialty these are who we are all compared to.

I came off a little strong with that last post, my apologies. You've got a well laid out argument, and there's not much I feel like saying that wouldn't involve splitting hairs.

SO...

to you sir...

I say the twins stink

 

[Doctor Bob]

Exactly. If you met the type of student Wash U recruits - slacker would hardly be a used to define them.

What about the types of docs that WashU recruits for GME?

Just wondering.

Sincerely,
Doctor Bob
WashU CCM

 

[DermViser]

What about the types of docs that WashU recruits for GME?

Just wondering.

Sincerely,
Doctor Bob
WashU CCM

I was referring to the medical school. Depends on the specialty -- the type of docs WashuU recruits for PM&R is quite different than for IM.

 

[Doctor Bob]

I was referring to the medical school. Depends on the specialty -- the type of docs WashuU recruits for PM&R is quite different than for IM.

Aww... here I thought I was all special

 

[DermViser]

Aww... here I thought I was all special

Well IM is over there. Say hi to Dr. DeFer and Dr. Wren.

 

[hallowmann]

...And no student should be selected on name alone, but given two somewhat similar candidates it makes sense to give some weight to a known commodity (graduates of school X).

I don't really think anyone has (or should have) an issue with this idea, I certainly don't. Its things like that that make local ACGME programs more willing to take students from my COM as opposed to COMs halfway across the country. Here's the thing though, we aren't talking about comparing people with the same stats and choosing the one from the school you know, we're talking about not even looking at an app based on the school someone goes to alone.

If PDs want to prefer certain schools over others that's their prerogative, but we're talking about a situation where PDs refuse to interview or rank any DOs solely because they're DOs. In that situation, it doesn't matter how much better the CV is of the DO (hypothetically), they still won't be interviewed. I'm against an official policy like that because it excludes people who may have achieved more in medical school for people who may have achieved less.

That said, I accept that this is the way things are, and its up to the PD to do this, just don't try to argue that it makes perfect sense.

I am not trying to disrespect anyone here but we all have to take a better look at things.

Bottom quartile of the class where I attend can be easily deduced from the histograms they hand out to interviewees.
last years class it was ~3.6/30 average for bottom quartile with a threshold (25th percentile) of ~3.7/31 for matriculating students, accepted was higher, MSAR median was ~3.9/35
some top DO numbers: DMU 3.6/28, TCOM 3.6/28, Western 3.6/28 (all from their respective websites)
Other numbers: from interview days at TCOM and DMU the average step score was quoted 215-219 depending on the year, it is high 230s here depending on the year (~1 std dev difference and profs here are adamant about "not teaching to the boards")

Easily accessible numbers:
Since I'm sure some will come in quoting accepted student stats, simply compare these to MSAR stats for top schools (10th percentile threshold is 30+/3.6+) and the 10th percentile is well below the bottom quartile threshold.

The point is that we should all start taking our heads out of the sand and...
1- realize that not all med schools or med students are equal
2- reputation does and should matter, but not be the only or primary factor
3- go and swim in a bigger and tougher pond than you are used to some time, it may just blow your mind...
IMO I have been nothing but impressed with my classmates as they are very hardworking and an exceptionally smart bunch. It is humbling to take the same tests with so many superstars. And I'm sure that it would be even be more humbling at Harvard or Hopkins.

Easy, I'm not wanting or trying to come off as some know-it-all tough guy.

I am trying to spread an alternate perspective, as before med school I thought quite a bit closer to you and after experiencing it I have changed somewhat. Also, I am talking in terms of averages or the bulk of the class. Usually there will be some outliers, better and worse.

1- From my observation of some stats and anecdotally over the last 3-4 years I would say not for but a very FEW outliers will the top 25% overlap between a top school and an average osteo school. And here's why I think that (it is not some elitist BS propaganda):
A- average STEP 1 for the best DO schools (215-219) is well under national MD average (mid 220s), let alone top school average (low 230s to low 240s)
B- highest regular (not just 1 person or someone who knows someone nonsense) DO scores I have heard of from a top DO school who places the most nationally in ACGME programs is 240s (rare) typically with 230s being considered "outstanding/excellent", the vast majority of our class gets 230+ and ~1/3 gets 240+ (and there are other schools that score higher)
C- many of our exams have been similar to a 5 choice MCAT so far with complex conceptual integration on 2/3rd order Qs, and as someone who basically aced (100+) everything in recent past and had a solid MCAT I can say they are pretty ridiculous, and compared to exams I have discussed with students at other schools the questions are confirmed as tough
D- people who come from stronger backgrounds here are doing better, those from weak backgrounds are almost drowning
E- most of the high scorers in our classes are putting in serious hours and studying about as much as anyone can and stay sane (and they come in with credentials that tend to indicate high academic potential)

2- Our top 25% average would be 38/4.0 (~20% class had a 4.0), the 3.9/35 was the median quoted from the MSAR for accuracy's sake. The point is that there are nearly entire classes made up of superstars out there, which sounds kinda unbelievable, but it's true.

3- 3.0/25 isn't right except for SD/PR etc., 10th percentile for most lower tier med schools is 3.3-3.5/26-29 (keep in mind this includes the early admission programs and everything else that skews the low end. Bottom quartile for most lower tier should be about a 3.5/29.

4- I also bought into this nonsense prior to school, but other than a VERY few I haven't seen it. Everybody is smart and outgoing/interesting/friendly. It is comforting to think those who have the academic metrics are "bad with patients" or awkward but, there are a ton of people out there with basically the whole package. And if you want a top program/specialty these are who we are all compared to.

Honestly, I don't think anyone is comparing DO schools to top 10 or 20 MD schools. As you said there is no comparison. In addition, I don't think anyone is particularly offended by top tier residencies not taking DOs, because they are just as picky when it comes to picking the pedigree they want from MD schools.

That said, there are MD schools with averages around 3.5/29 and 3.6/30 (lower tier and newer schools). Comparing the lower quartile of those schools to the averages at many (not just the top 3) DO schools will likely show a lot of overlap. Even the national average for MD matriculants of 3.69/31 isn't that far off from the upper quartile of DO school matriculants, especially those at the higher tier DO schools.

Generally speaking, average DO school matriculant stats (3.51/27) are essentially 1 SD below average US MD school matriculant stats (3.69/31).

The truth is if many DOs lived in states that had mediocre or slightly lower public MD schools, they'd be MDs. This fact makes it hard to justify say a mediocre or middle tier IM program's complete exclusion of DOs when they regularly accept lower tier MDs.

Now, we certainly aren't talking about all DOs, and there are also many that would have never made it into a US MD school, but you are the one that brought up lower quartile MD to average DO. Let's not exaggerate the difference to justify the outdated practices of a handful of PDs.

 

[TwinsFan]

I came off a little strong with that last post, my apologies. You've got a well laid out argument, and there's not much I feel like saying that wouldn't involve splitting hairs.

SO...

to you sir...

I say the twins stink

this is true...
but at least a new manager is on the way