2011 Match

[doc1107]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Ugh, hearing that makes me sick. This happens every year I'm sure. So sorry for those guys/gals.

To an extent, I feel like the students who only ranked one program because at the interview, some program told them they were their #1 choice, should blame themselves.

SERIOUSLY? And San Francisco's sidewalk is also still paved with AU (gold).

I think by the time an educated person is older than 25 and have gone through Pod school should know that anything not in writing does not count and should be taken as seriously as if someone passed gas during the interview.

(Not saying it's the integrity of the interviewer, but in the bureaucracy of Pod programs, things happen. )

 

[doc1107]

Dtrack and Darazon are first and second year students. They are not experts in anything except knowing their own schools. If you are going to rely on their opinion to use as your own in determining what schools are superior to others then you are more lost then you know.

Talking about objective data, etc etc etc is so over stated. I disagree entirely with some schools preparing others better for interviews. The school does not open your mouth to answer a question during a residency interview. You and only you are responsible for knowing the material you have been taught. Then again you shouldn't be just looking at the material you have been taught either. You should be staying up with the latest research articles, reading on your own, etc. This is the difference between a casual student and a serious one. Its not all about relying on the information that is handed out to you on a plate, its about how hungry you are to ask for more and to seek it out.

As future practicing podiatrists the learning does not end at graduation. You will continually need to attend conferences, workshops, etc to keep up with the latest information to become the best podiatrist you can be. This is what seperates bad or average pods from great ones.

Everything is always up to you and will always be up to you. Rely on no one.

Lastly, do you know how many stories I have heard about Feli and how brilliant he is? He didn't graduate from DMU, Scholl, AZPOD, Western, etc. He graduated from Barry which absolutely gets no respect on these boards. The guy is an animal. I heard they stopped doing daily quizzes/ pimping at St. John North Shores because he knows everything. Ever read some of his old posts? I have. How many times has he talked about reading up on the latest information and doing a lot of studying outside of school, residency training, etc? Multiple times. It's not all about the information that is initially provided to you by the schools. How can he be so good if Barry supposedly sucks so badly (I don't think Barry sucks by the way)?

Dr. Stephanie Wu is a brilliant podiatrist and researcher who works out of Scholl's CLEAR research facility. I'm sure Dr. Rogers can attest to the quality individual she is being that he did his fellowship through the CLEAR program when Dr. Armstrong was here at Scholl. Where did Dr. Wu attend podiatry school? Holy cow it's Barry again!

How the hell did Krabmas land a residency spot at INOVA if she wasn't even in the top 25% of her class at NYCPM (another institution which gets crapped on a lot on these boards)? Maybe because she is a God damn go-getter and impressed the residency directors with her work ethic? How could she have possessed the skills to do this if she attended NYCPM?

The objective data is meaningless in all three of the previous scenarios. Guess what? There are even more brilliant pods who didn't graduate from the supposed powerhouse podiatry schools either...we just don't know about them. The objective data is what it is...its random statistics. It doesn't account for that magnificient x-factor called "life skills". Having a good head on your shoulders, a good heart, being ethical, and using some freaking common sense will also get you far in life. Along with individual effort.

Can you please attach this objective data to the forum? I'd like to print it out and wipe my ass with it because I'm running out of toilet paper in North Chicago.

GREAT POINT! I have met so many Pods who have thriving practices and great skills who went to the "non-powerhouse" Pod schools ( if that even exists). You know what the funny part is? The one Pod doctor I met that only does clip and chip and has a one year residency was from Temple, whom they themselves claim as the "Harvard of Podiatry" to perspective students 🤣

 

[347932]

To an extent, I feel like the students who only ranked one program because at the interview, some program told them they were their #1 choice, should blame themselves.

SERIOUSLY? And San Francisco's sidewalk is also still paved with AU (gold).

I think by the time an educated person is older than 25 and have gone through Pod school should know that anything not in writing does not count and should be taken as seriously as if someone passed gas during the interview.

(Not saying it's the integrity of the interviewer, but in the bureaucracy of Pod programs, things happen. )

Although I somewhat agree, I remember the exhilaration of being told that I am the "#1" pick. The wash of relief that the search for a residency was over was an amazing feeling. I also remember the crushing realization that I had had the wool pulled over my eyes when I didn't match with those programs.

So again, although I somewhat agree, between the stresses of school, life and the residency search, I can see how some people get pulled into a bad situation without realizing it.

It's the same type of thing when you go out into practice. You're so relieved that something worked out for you work wise, that you sometimes overlook the basics. Then when (if) you get burned, you kick yourself in the ass for being so stupid.

 

[Feli]

Curious as to why none of the California programs scrambled. Is California that hot a place for residency?

There are some Beach Boys songs which should answer all your questions.

...In all seriousness, the Fla, Cali, Texas, Chi, etc programs get a lot of interest. The northern Det, Phila, NY, etc etc ones tend to be more fluctuant year to year (Motor City did well overall in 2011). Programs near pod schools are usually always in high demand with periodic exceptions of Phila and NYC, where there are just a ton of programs... and therefore, by the law of averages, some very mediocre training hospitals. Places like the northwest USA programs, Minn and Wisc, and some others are also usually highly sought after also... due to both quality training programs and a pretty limited number of spots due to other geographic areas.

In the end, the residency match (or pod school app strength) competition varies from year to year, program to program. If you apply yourself, work hard, remain personable, and "make your own luck," it will all work out for you in what I view as a fantastic profession. 👍

 

[DrGonz]

I heard that most NYCPM students get murdered in their first 3 years because Harlem is so unsafe. That must be why they did so well. Most of their students were killed off, resulting in a higher percentage matching.

This would only make sense the if ones who didn't get matched got killed. You have terrible logic.

 

[janV88]

Student #45 at DMU is in the bottom 10% of the class. That individual likely had similar matriculating stats and podiatry grades as the bottom 10% at, oh, lets say Ohio. So student #45 is the same as student #100 at Ohio (for comparisons sake). Yet student #45 at DMU passes his/her boards, part I and part II, the first time around. Student #45 also gets a residency program. The bottom 10% at one program is no different than the bottom 10% at another...

No. If we assume random assignment, the #45 ranked student at DMU is the same academically as the #45 ranked student at NYCPM, OCPM, Scholl, Temple, etc.

 

[dtrack22]

You can't assume random assignment when a school also receives the smallest % of applications. It would only work if all 9 schools received 100% of apps and had equal number of interviews and acceptances...then student #45 would be the same individual from one program to another.

 

[janV88]

You can't assume random assignment when a school also receives the smallest % of applications. It would only work if all 9 schools received 100% of apps and had equal number of interviews and acceptances...then student #45 would be the same individual from one program to another.

Then comparing the bottom 10% of students in each respective school is still a flawed comparison. We don't have random assignment and therefore too many confounding variables cannot be taken into account.

Fact is that the bottom 10% at one school might or might not be in the bottom 10% of their entire national graduating class. This is probably the reason why the bottom 10% of one school matches and the bottom at another school does not.

I am willing to bet that smaller schools have higher GPA and MCAT averages purely because they have less seats to fill. It's much easier to find 40 students with decent stats than 100 students with decent stats.

BTW, how many applicants does DMU get? I couldn't find that info on the website.

 

[dtrack22]

No way of measurement is perfect, I only use % because most schools claim to have similar matriculating data. If one school with 100 kids has an average GPA of 3.3 and MCAT of 25, and another has averages of 3.4 and 24 with 60 kids, I would assume that for the most part both sets of students fall along a similar bell curve (so to speak). If you don't believe that method to be slightly more accurate then you are saying you don't believe the 9 schools have similar enough entrance statistics...which would mean a couple of admissions depts are either manipulating their numbers or flat out lying.

But I agreed with you earlier on number of seats allowing for a little more selectivity, and that being the biggest reason for increased stats. Just trying to stir the pot, spring break was getting boring.

 

[janV88]

DMU doesn't believe in releasing any information about the school, and they also grant admission if you can beat one of the cafeteria ladies in arm wrestling. But if you tried the AACPM website you would have better luck. Western, of course, has the lowest number of applicants, followed by CSPM and DMU.

No way of measurement is perfect, I only use % because most schools claim to have similar matriculating data. If one school with 100 kids has an average GPA of 3.3 and MCAT of 25, and another has averages of 3.4 and 24 with 60 kids, I would assume that for the most part both sets of students fall along a similar bell curve (so to speak). If you don't believe that method to be slightly more accurate then you are saying you don't believe the 9 schools have similar enough entrance statistics...which would mean a couple of admissions depts are either manipulating their numbers or flat out lying.

But I agreed with you earlier on number of seats allowing for a little more selectivity, and that being the biggest reason for increased stats. Just trying to stir the pot, spring break was getting boring.

We both know that some schools don't release that sort of info.

 

[Pod Girl]

Well, to date I heard OCPM NEVER EVER had 30 students unmatched this year. And today, the number of unmatched candidates for Residency is less than 10. This is a great accomplishment in a class of 100+ graduates!

 

[air bud]

DMU doesn't believe in releasing any information about the school, and they also grant admission if you can beat one of the cafeteria ladies in arm wrestling. But if you tried the AACPM website you would have better luck. Western, of course, has the lowest number of applicants, followed by CSPM and DMU.

No way of measurement is perfect, I only use % because most schools claim to have similar matriculating data. If one school with 100 kids has an average GPA of 3.3 and MCAT of 25, and another has averages of 3.4 and 24 with 60 kids, I would assume that for the most part both sets of students fall along a similar bell curve (so to speak). If you don't believe that method to be slightly more accurate then you are saying you don't believe the 9 schools have similar enough entrance statistics...which would mean a couple of admissions depts are either manipulating their numbers or flat out lying.

But I agreed with you earlier on number of seats allowing for a little more selectivity, and that being the biggest reason for increased stats. Just trying to stir the pot, spring break was getting boring.

Quit talking above our heads. Nobody said statistics were going to be involved here.

 

[dtrack22]

We both know that some schools don't release that sort of info.

I just wanted to hear someone else say it 😀

 

[Sig Savant]

I heard that most NYCPM students get murdered in their first 3 years because Harlem is so unsafe. That must be why they did so well. Most of their students were killed off, resulting in a higher percentage matching.

For those of you that aren't paying attention, HaimFeldman is simply trying to cause problems. Again, NYCPM has beat the field in a statistic, this time residency matching, and the only thing anyone can come back with is the safety of the neighborhood, as I outlined in my last string of posts here. To reiterate, the area is safe. Get something better to try to come back with next time.

 

[DrGonz]

For those of you that aren't paying attention, HaimFeldman is simply trying to cause problems. Again, NYCPM has beat the field in a statistic, this time residency matching, and the only thing anyone can come back with is the safety of the neighborhood, as I outlined in my last string of posts here. To reiterate, the area is safe. Get something better to try to come back with next time.

👍👍

 

[Sig Savant]

Speaking in the context of statistics:

School A has a sample size of say 120, n=120.

School B has a sample size of 30.

A larger sample size allows for a greater range of the average MCAT and GPA. For instance, a few students at School A could have an MCAT of 18, because those other 110 people with an MCAT around 24 still hold that average around 24. There's also a greater chance for outliers in the positive direction; a few people with an MCAT over 30 and those 18s are balanced at 24 again. School B taking less people cannot afford to take students with lower stats; all of their students have to be around the average. (Side note: if you have lower stats, this means you will have a much better chance of getting into a larger school because the stats will not be hurt as much)

While School A and B may boast the same entrance standards, there is the possibility for a larger range of quality of students.

This is all theoretical though. Because NYCPM matched their entire class except one that dropped out for personal reasons, does this mean their lower 10% of the class was stronger than any other school? Perhaps, or perhaps its because there are 63 different residency programs in NY. There are a vast number of unaccounted possibilities swaying this data, and each school will interpret the data in a way that makes them look good. Perhaps the best course to help you gain entrance to pod school is advanced statistics so you can see through all of the smoke screens, realize all of the data is garbage, and just go where you will be happy.

 

[Creflo]

Well, to date I heard OCPM NEVER EVER had 30 students unmatched this year. And today, the number of unmatched candidates for Residency is less than 10. This is a great accomplishment in a class of 100+ graduates!

Sorry, I have to disagree that any school with unmatched graduates this year will be a "great accomplishment." For any school to take a student's money for 4 years and pass the student and for that student to end up facing a situation where there are no available residency slots is a shame. Bottom line, the schools have taken more students than there are residencies. There are all sorts of excuses, but it shouldn't happen.

 

[PodunkUDPM]

Sorry, I have to disagree that any school with unmatched graduates this year will be a "great accomplishment." For any school to take a student's money for 4 years and pass the student and for that student to end up facing a situation where there are no available residency slots is a shame. Bottom line, the schools have taken more students than there are residencies. There are all sorts of excuses, but it shouldn't happen.

What's even more crazy is opening new schools. In a few more years Western will be in the mix and rumor is there's a school that's going to open in Calgary, although I'm not sure how that will effect us.

 

[347932]

Sorry, I have to disagree that any school with unmatched graduates this year will be a "great accomplishment." For any school to take a student's money for 4 years and pass the student and for that student to end up facing a situation where there are no available residency slots is a shame. Bottom line, the schools have taken more students than there are residencies. There are all sorts of excuses, but it shouldn't happen.

The schools can not attempt to anticipate the fluctuation in residencies positions. Several years ago there were mosre spots than students. By the time the new incoming class graduates that may be the case again. This topic has been discussed ad infinitum in other threads.

 

[dtrack22]

The schools can not attempt to anticipate the fluctuation in residencies positions.

You are right, they can't. But they can choose not to accept more students than their CPME cap. While it wasn't the sole creator of the residency issue, it certainly didn't help.

 

[janV88]

The schools can not attempt to anticipate the fluctuation in residencies positions. Several years ago there were mosre spots than students. By the time the new incoming class graduates that may be the case again. This topic has been discussed ad infinitum in other threads.

I would have to disagree. It doesn't take a genius to realize that you shouldn't be accepting 650+ students when there are only ~500 residency positions with no plans in place to add new residencies.

 

[podpal]

I would have to disagree. It doesn't take a genius to realize that you shouldn't be accepting 650+ students when there are only ~500 residency positions with no plans in place to add new residencies.

Perhaps the schools can assign a number to each incoming student. If there are 500 spots, then those holding numbers 1 - 500 get one and the remainder need to wait for an opening or get first dibbs on the next years placement. Then the next year if there are 20 left over people from the year before, the numbers start with 21. It seems fairer than the randomness of the current match system.

 

[air bud]

Perhaps the schools can assign a number to each incoming student. If there are 500 spots, then those holding numbers 1 - 500 get one and the remainder need to wait for an opening or get first dibbs on the next years placement. Then the next year if there are 20 left over people from the year before, the numbers start with 21. It seems fairer than the randomness of the current match system.

Can we get a little more communist in this approach? Not sorry to all those I offend here, but student 1 is NOT equal to student 501, regardless of how you distribute/calculate those numbers. This would also require some sort of standardization/transparency between schools, and we can keep dreaming in regards to that happening. Thanks for playing, next idea please.

 

[janV88]

Perhaps the schools can assign a number to each incoming student. If there are 500 spots, then those holding numbers 1 - 500 get one and the remainder need to wait for an opening or get first dibbs on the next years placement. Then the next year if there are 20 left over people from the year before, the numbers start with 21. It seems fairer than the randomness of the current match system.

Uhhhh...

The system you just described is the definition of random whereas the current system is not.😱

 

[347932]

Just to throw it out there. Let's say a program closes after the current incoming students are accepted. That means nothing to the 1st year students. So even if there happen to be the same number of 4th year students, but the program closes in the middle of their 4th year, how is the school supposed take that into account? What if it's a big program that has 12 residents.

Once again, it's impossible to anticipate this. Also realize that the schools have no control over attrition rates and no control over how many CPME position there are.

When there was an over abundance of programs, this number caused some position to be eliminated due to positions not being filled and losing Medicare funding for those positions. Now there is a shortage.

How much would you pay extra for tuition to have smaller class size to maintain quality? So if Temple took half as many students but told you tuition would $50K a year, would you go? If not, then we would lose a school, which would mean less people for residency positions, then unfilled positions get closed, and the cycle continues.

It's a pendulum. It shifts one way or the other, but it will swing.

 

[janV88]

Just to throw it out there. Let's say a program closes after the current incoming students are accepted. That means nothing to the 1st year students. So even if there happen to be the same number of 4th year students, but the program closes in the middle of their 4th year, how is the school supposed take that into account? What if it's a big program that has 12 residents.

I am talking about a difference of ~150 spots...that's a difference of 30%. You can't tell me that the schools didn't see that the number of students they were accepting came no where close to the number of residency positions.

And no program takes 12 residents/year. You probably mean 12 residents over 3 years but if a program like that closes that doesn't mean a particular graduating class loses 12 spots since it's spread over 3 years.

How much would you pay extra for tuition to have smaller class size to maintain quality? So if Temple took half as many students but told you tuition would $50K a year, would you go? If not, then we would lose a school, which would mean less people for residency positions, then unfilled positions get closed, and the cycle continues.

It wasn't too long ago that DMU took ~30 students, Scholl took ~70-80 students, etc. and tuition was not $50k for them. Western and AZPod are able to have comparable tuition even though they have small class sizes.


The higher ups are FINALLY doing something about the problem even though so many out there saw this problem. I remember 2 years ago when I asked a 3rd year resident about the upcoming residency shortage. She acknowledged that the problem existed. It was known but the higher ups ignored it.

 

[347932]

And no program takes 12 residents/year. You probably mean 12 residents over 3 years but if a program like that closes that doesn't mean a particular graduating class loses 12 spots since it's spread over 3 years.

You are correct. My apologies.

 

[347932]

The higher ups are FINALLY doing something about the problem even though so many out there saw this problem. I remember 2 years ago when I asked a 3rd year resident about the upcoming residency shortage. She acknowledged that the problem existed. It was known but the higher ups ignored it.

It wasn't ignored, it takes time to generate positions. Now it is catching up.

 

[PodunkUDPM]

Now they are addressing the issue and they are putting caps on schools. Especially schools that have large class sizes.

There has always been caps. Some schools caps might have been lowered and some schools voluntarily agreed to take less students.

 

[PodunkUDPM]

I thought schools already having caps was understood. Schools don't volunteer to do anything. They are regulated. You really think schools would take in less students for the good of the profession?

Yes, recently OCPM was approved to take 125 students again by the CPME, but next year they are taking less than that voluntarily.

 

[Podfather]

The higher-ups did ignore this issue. If they didn't then they should have been at least smart enough to put a cap on each school's incoming classes 2-3 years ago. They didn't...

Now they are addressing the issue and they are putting caps on schools. Especially schools that have large class sizes.

It does take time to generate residency programs. No one is arguing that point. BUT they could have minimized the damage by putting caps on schools 2-3 years ago.

I am a firm believer this issue could have been solved once and for all years ago. It's simple math. Total approved residency positions from a historical 3 year average with a small increase to account for student attrition sets the cap for the next years accepted students. If you lose a program or two then we only need residency genesis to cover those lost residency positions rather than a mad scramble to increase significant numbers of residency spots with no thought into what that creates (a reactionary fix). The CPME approached our program to double our spots which in my 25+ years would have meant taking a very good program and turning it into a weak one. They also approached local DPMs at local hospitals where we already provided OR coverage and tried to get them to start new programs which would have meant even more dilution of cases. They should only be working on starting quality (not quantity) residencies in areas where a volume of patients exist AND there is not currently a residency program providing care. Taking programs that had positions approved by them (CPME) and then in the drop of a hat saying you can take 50-100% more next year is a recipe for disaster. Plus the hospitals have little interest in significant class size increases since Medicare will not cover the costs only a rolling average.

Trust the schools? Please. We all see and admit they take applicants that should have never been accepted and then blame everyone else when they fail part 1 or 2, don't match a residency, eventually fail their surgical boards, and perhaps default on student loans. CPME does some good but constantly chase their own tails. Simple fact, regardless of how many DPMs we predict the nation will need by studies and anecdotal rhetoric, if we do not have enough quality applicants or programs to train the graduates then we need to ask ourselves why and in a deliberate fashion solve the problems.

One final thought: Next time any of us start to believe we are indispensible or absolutely invaluable ask yourself this: How is it the rest of the world, rural communities, small/midsized towns survive without a DPM? We do a lot of good, are the best at what we do, and once people are exposed to a good DPM realize what they have been missing. However, many have never seen, will see, or know what a podiatrist does and live happy productive lives. My point is quit telling everyone about the shortage that is coming and how the US will suffer unless we take more below average students. Accept only viable/quality students, guarantee them quality residency training, and the rest will take care of itself.

 

[janV88]

I am a firm believer this issue could have been solved once and for all years ago. It's simple math.......Accept only viable/quality students, guarantee them quality residency training, and the rest will take care of itself.

👍 Well said.

 

[air bud]

I am a firm believer this issue could have been solved once and for all years ago. It's simple math. Total approved residency positions from a historical 3 year average with a small increase to account for student attrition sets the cap for the next years accepted students. If you lose a program or two then we only need residency genesis to cover those lost residency positions rather than a mad scramble to increase significant numbers of residency spots with no thought into what that creates (a reactionary fix). The CPME approached our program to double our spots which in my 25+ years would have meant taking a very good program and turning it into a weak one. They also approached local DPMs at local hospitals where we already provided OR coverage and tried to get them to start new programs which would have meant even more dilution of cases. They should only be working on starting quality (not quantity) residencies in areas where a volume of patients exist AND there is not currently a residency program providing care. Taking programs that had positions approved by them (CPME) and then in the drop of a hat saying you can take 50-100% more next year is a recipe for disaster. Plus the hospitals have little interest in significant class size increases since Medicare will not cover the costs only a rolling average.

Trust the schools? Please. We all see and admit they take applicants that should have never been accepted and then blame everyone else when they fail part 1 or 2, don't match a residency, eventually fail their surgical boards, and perhaps default on student loans. CPME does some good but constantly chase their own tails. Simple fact, regardless of how many DPMs we predict the nation will need by studies and anecdotal rhetoric, if we do not have enough quality applicants or programs to train the graduates then we need to ask ourselves why and in a deliberate fashion solve the problems.

One final thought: Next time any of us start to believe we are indispensible or absolutely invaluable ask yourself this: How is it the rest of the world, rural communities, small/midsized towns survive without a DPM? We do a lot of good, are the best at what we do, and once people are exposed to a good DPM realize what they have been missing. However, many have never seen, will see, or know what a podiatrist does and live happy productive lives. My point is quit telling everyone about the shortage that is coming and how the US will suffer unless we take more below average students. Accept only viable/quality students, guarantee them quality residency training, and the rest will take care of itself.

👍
From my understanding, one of the problems with the CPME is that it has no real authority when it comes to the schools. It can make suggestions, but that is about it. Case in point---why do some schools accept the DAT/GRE?

 

[Podman23]

if the number of students that scrambled is around 120 and theres 8 podiatry schools, and 120/8 = 15, THEN 15 would be the average number of student who scrambled IF all of the schools had the same class size. Since theres 60 spots/8 schools then the average per school of unmatched students would be 7.5.

Obviously none of these "reported" stats are off.

SChools definitely aren't all the same size.

I would really like to see the real numbers for the match/scramble.

 

[Creflo]

I know for a fact that one program took more students than they were approved for in a recent year, and took a chance on facing any ramifications from the approval organization. And this was at a time when everyone knew of the looming residency shortage.

I can understand that our profession faces challenges from outside the profession, but when we self inflict our own wounds this way, well lets just say I'm glad its being talked about on SDN so we can work to correct it, because I believe there are solutions.

 

[dtrack22]

I know for a fact that one program took more students than they were approved for in a recent year, and took a chance on facing any ramifications from the approval organization. And this was at a time when everyone knew of the looming residency shortage.

I can understand that our profession faces challenges from outside the profession, but when we self inflict our own wounds this way, well lets just say I'm glad its being talked about on SDN so we can work to correct it, because I believe there are solutions.

👍

 

[Sig Savant]

I remember 2 years ago when I asked a 3rd year resident about the upcoming residency shortage. She acknowledged that the problem existed. It was known but the higher ups ignored it.

Two years ago for the 2010 cycle for for 2011? In order for it to really make a difference, we would have to know SIX years ahead of the shortage so that a cap could be placed on the schools for the upcoming year so they could limit their incoming year of applicants.

Shortage in May 2011? That class matriculated in Sept 2007. A cap would have to be in place by Sept 2006 (applications opened then). There would need to be meetings and decisions in place for CPME to put a cap/lower a cap. That would have to start around Sept 2005, if not earlier.

Kidsfeet is DEAD ON. It is a pendulum. Limit applications in 2012 for the 2016 cycle? Who knows what will happen in the next few years, if we will have more spots than now. If we open more spots, and limit applicants, there will be a surplus again in 2016, programs will close, and then there will be another shortage down the road.

 

[Podfather]

Two years ago for the 2010 cycle for for 2011? In order for it to really make a difference, we would have to know SIX years ahead of the shortage so that a cap could be placed on the schools for the upcoming year so they could limit their incoming year of applicants.

Shortage in May 2011? That class matriculated in Sept 2007. A cap would have to be in place by Sept 2006 (applications opened then). There would need to be meetings and decisions in place for CPME to put a cap/lower a cap. That would have to start around Sept 2005, if not earlier.

Kidsfeet is DEAD ON. It is a pendulum. Limit applications in 2012 for the 2016 cycle? Who knows what will happen in the next few years, if we will have more spots than now. If we open more spots, and limit applicants, there will be a surplus again in 2016, programs will close, and then there will be another shortage down the road.

Its only a pendulum because we let it be one. Let's start today. Take the number of residency programs that exist today, last year, and the year before. Create an average use that number for next year ( and repeat for subsequent years) and then add 3% attrition (or a number based upon a 3 year average of attrition) to kick in in four years and those are your caps. Yes we may see some non matching students in the early years (we can still try to create NEEDED QUALITY programs) but attrition will help over the next 4 years (since it wasn't factored in) and in four we should be close. Is it possible that there may be a residency surplus? Yes but that is a more attractive problem to have.

The pendulum exists because the schools (even the non-profit ones) benefit by larger enrollments, repeat students to cover their budget. Perhaps if the number permitted was set mathmatically then a school wouldn't consider opening if they couldn't meet fixed/variable costs with 25-50 students. Then those students could go to an existing school and help their bottom lines. The enrollment would be post graduate placement driven and emphasis could be placed on systematically increasing quality residency programs. As the positions increased the schools would have the opportunity to increase enrollment. Perhaps like many medical schools they could approach teaching hospitals throughout the country to permit externships and develop a residency program. It would behoove them to do so they could increase enrollment and thus their bottomlines.

With lower numbers of students accepted competition would go up and weaker students should not be accepted. They sometimes drive the system and are a source of many of the problems discussed. NBPME 1 and 2 pass rates, residency placement rates, and ABPS qual pass rates should all curve up.

 

[347932]

Its only a pendulum because we let it be one. Let's start today. Take the number of residency programs that exist today, last year, and the year before. Create an average use that number for next year ( and repeat for subsequent years) and then add 3% attrition (or a number based upon a 3 year average of attrition) to kick in in four years and those are your caps. Yes we may see some non matching students in the early years (we can still try to create NEEDED QUALITY programs) but attrition will help over the next 4 years (since it wasn't factored in) and in four we should be close. Is it possible that there may be a residency surplus? Yes but that is a more attractive problem to have.

The pendulum exists because the schools (even the non-profit ones) benefit by larger enrollments, repeat students to cover their budget. Perhaps if the number permitted was set mathmatically then a school wouldn't consider opening if they couldn't meet fixed/variable costs with 25-50 students. Then those students could go to an existing school and help their bottom lines. The enrollment would be post graduate placement driven and emphasis could be placed on systematically increasing quality residency programs. As the positions increased the schools would have the opportunity to increase enrollment. Perhaps like many medical schools they could approach teaching hospitals throughout the country to permit externships and develop a residency program. It would behoove them to do so they could increase enrollment and thus their bottomlines.

With lower numbers of students accepted competition would go up and weaker students should not be accepted. They sometimes drive the system and are a source of many of the problems discussed. NBPME 1 and 2 pass rates, residency placement rates, and ABPS qual pass rates should all curve up.

Although I think that you're on to something, this would only really work if we were starting a bunch of schools from scratch and there weren't the "older" schools. Then we could custom tailor the schools with numbers in mind. Hmmmm...maybe that's not a bad idea really. Either spread out the numbers geographically to have a larger number of schools with smaller class sizes or have 3-4 big schools. Interesting. Temple has to stay, though 😀.

 

[Podfather]

Although I think that you're on to something, this would only really work if we were starting a bunch of schools from scratch and there weren't the "older" schools. Then we could custom tailor the schools with numbers in mind. Hmmmm...maybe that's not a bad idea really. Either spread out the numbers geographically to have a larger number of schools with smaller class sizes or have 3-4 big schools. Interesting. Temple has to stay, though 😀.

It may force some of the last holdout schools who are not part of an MD/DO school to reconsider if they dropped from a 100 to 50 students or whatever number is reduced. Let's see who is associated with an MD/DO school: Temple 😀 Scholl🙂 DMU😀 Western🙄, Midwestern🙂

 

[air bud]

Its only a pendulum because we let it be one. Let's start today. Take the number of residency programs that exist today, last year, and the year before. Create an average use that number for next year ( and repeat for subsequent years) and then add 3% attrition (or a number based upon a 3 year average of attrition) to kick in in four years and those are your caps. Yes we may see some non matching students in the early years (we can still try to create NEEDED QUALITY programs) but attrition will help over the next 4 years (since it wasn't factored in) and in four we should be close. Is it possible that there may be a residency surplus? Yes but that is a more attractive problem to have.

The pendulum exists because the schools (even the non-profit ones) benefit by larger enrollments, repeat students to cover their budget. Perhaps if the number permitted was set mathmatically then a school wouldn't consider opening if they couldn't meet fixed/variable costs with 25-50 students. Then those students could go to an existing school and help their bottom lines. The enrollment would be post graduate placement driven and emphasis could be placed on systematically increasing quality residency programs. As the positions increased the schools would have the opportunity to increase enrollment. Perhaps like many medical schools they could approach teaching hospitals throughout the country to permit externships and develop a residency program. It would behoove them to do so they could increase enrollment and thus their bottomlines.

With lower numbers of students accepted competition would go up and weaker students should not be accepted. They sometimes drive the system and are a source of many of the problems discussed. NBPME 1 and 2 pass rates, residency placement rates, and ABPS qual pass rates should all curve up.

Like most things in life, I think the rule of 3 applies here.

 

[Sig Savant]

Let's see who is associated with an MD/DO school

What aspects make it better to be associated?

 

[Podman23]

What aspects make it better to be associated?

Obviously for the schools it makes sense financially

 

[Sig Savant]

I'm missing the obviousness

 

[Podfather]

I'm missing the obviousness

The infrastructure is there, shared faculty/staff/facilities, so this lowers the bottomline. Now that is the financial side. Scores of educational reasons.

 

[Sig Savant]

It doesn't make sense though for an independent school to join a med school, at least not from the people raking in the money. It makes sense to everyone else though. Still, at NY, most of our faculty come from Mt. Sinai or Columbia, so I don't feel that there are too many differences to an individual student

PS I feel like this thread has been a rollercoaster of every topic ever on SDN

 

[347932]

It doesn't make sense though for an independent school to join a med school, at least not from the people raking in the money.

Umm this happened in 1998 when Temple absorbed the Podiatry school in Philly. Seemed to have worked out pretty well, no?

 

[PodunkUDPM]

Umm this happened in 1998 when Temple absorbed the Podiatry school in Philly. Seemed to have worked out pretty well, no?

Well considering they are no longer "the Harvard of podiatry", i don't know...

 

[347932]

Well considering they are no longer "the Harvard of podiatry", i don't know...

They aren't?!

 

[Podfather]

Well considering they are no longer "the Harvard of podiatry", i don't know...

Isn't Harvard the Scholl of Medicine?