22 New Med School in 3 Years

[gettheleadout]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Yea, uh huh, sure. It costs SOOO much money to have people with doctoral degrees work at below minimum-wage levels.

To your second question, right now the number of residency slots is restricted by the government. The point was, that could change.

This smacks of ignorance.

 

[Dr Love]

Actually, it does. Read this thread to find out why.

The links on the thread have nothing to back up your claim. The comments on the thread make the same point that I am making - residents are cheap cheap labor.

If they weren't, why does the federal government need to restrict the number of residency positions available?

 

[gettheleadout]

The links on the thread have nothing to back up your claim. The comments on the thread make the same point that I am making - residents are cheap cheap labor.

If they weren't, why does the federal government need to restrict the number of residency positions available?

The government funds a limited number of positions because residents aren't as cheap as you make them out to be. If it didn't cost any significant amount to train residents, why weren't more residency positions increased before this point to keep up as nationwide medical school enrollment has been increasing? Keep in mind there weren't enough spots to fit all graduates in the last match.

 

[deleted307836]

The links on the thread have nothing to back up your claim. The comments on the thread make the same point that I am making - residents are cheap cheap labor.

If they weren't, why does the federal government need to restrict the number of residency positions available?

Sorry, I meant to read the content of the thread (specifically Law2Doc's posts), not the links posted in the thread.

The point is that there are a lot of direct and indirect costs that make residents much more expensive than their salary. Think -- liability, teaching responsibilities of the institution, and the inability to recoup the costs of these investments since residents often don't stay at their teaching institution once they are attendings. Law2Doc explained it very well on that thread, much better than I can.

 

[deleted307836]

The links on the thread have nothing to back up your claim. The comments on the thread make the same point that I am making - residents are cheap cheap labor.

If they weren't, why does the federal government need to restrict the number of residency positions available?

That was actually the point that was refuted on that thread... not backed up 😕.

 

[gettheleadout]

Sorry, I meant to read the content of the thread (specifically Law2Doc's posts), not the links posted in the thread.

The point is that there are a lot of direct and indirect costs that make residents much more expensive than their salary. Think -- liability, teaching responsibilities of the institution, and the inability to recoup the costs of these investments since residents often don't stay at their teaching institution once they are attendings. Law2Doc explained it very well on that thread, much better than I can.

This, and I'll pull out some more important information for you.

It costs around $100k per year to train a resident. Notice that this is significantly more than a resident's salary (cough: the additional cost to train is approximately equal to the amount paid to the resident, making the overall cost around double the amount you hear when resident salaries are discussed.) With every spot a hospital can add and fund on their own, they're committing between $300k-$700k. Half a million doesn't get dropped by individual hospitals often enough to keep up with the growth in nationwide medical school enrollment.

 

[Dr Love]

Sorry, I meant to read the content of the thread (specifically Law2Doc's posts), not the links posted in the thread.

The point is that there are a lot of direct and indirect costs that make residents much more expensive than their salary. Think -- liability, teaching responsibilities of the institution, and the inability to recoup the costs of these investments since residents often don't stay at their teaching institution once they are attendings. Law2Doc explained it very well on that thread, much better than I can.

I see your point. But when I meant the cost of having a resident, I was talking about the actual cost to the hospital, not the amount that the hospital bills Medicare, which is obviously inflated (and you're right, much more than the resident's salary).

 

[gettheleadout]

I see your point. But when I meant the cost of having a resident, I was talking about the actual cost to the hospital, not the amount that the hospital bills Medicare, which is obviously inflated (and you're right, much more than the resident's salary).

Hospitals don't "bill" Medicare for resident position funding the same way they do for patient care procedures, Medicare allots each hospital a certain amount per resident adjusted for a handful of factors (type of hospital, type of resident, etc...) Do you have any support for why this is "obviously inflated?"

Again, if it was such a small cost to a hospital, why haven't residency positions kept up with the increase medical school enrollment? I think you're backpedaling at this point.

 

[Dr Love]

Hospitals don't "bill" Medicare for resident position funding the same way they do for patient care procedures, Medicare allots each hospital a certain amount per resident adjusted for a handful of factors (type of hospital, type of resident, etc...) Do you have any support for why this is "obviously inflated?"

Again, if it was such a small cost to a hospital, why haven't residency positions kept up with the increase medical school enrollment? I think you're backpedaling at this point.

Residency position haven't increased, because the ACGME restricts the number of residency positions, not because hospitals don't want more residents. Each hospital has a certain number of positions it is "allowed" in particular specialties.

As for the inflated figure, anyone who knows how these programs are run knows the numbers can't help but be inflated. For example, I was in a summer research training program supported by the NSF, where all I did was work in a lab. I was free labor for that lab. But again, the "cost" to the NSF of having me was more than twice my salary and included only god knows what.

 

[deleted307836]

I see your point. But when I meant the cost of having a resident, I was talking about the actual cost to the hospital, not the amount that the hospital bills Medicare, which is obviously inflated (and you're right, much more than the resident's salary).

Admittedly I haven't really read through this entire thread, but I think the important point is that it DOES cost a lot to fund residency training, whether that money is coming from hospitals or from Medicare, and this is why residency positions will never increase significantly in light of MAJOR reform.

Again, if it was such a small cost to a hospital, why haven't residency positions kept up with the increase medical school enrollment? I think you're backpedaling at this point.

Yep. Students pay much of their way through medical school, so it is relatively easy to increase enrollment. On the other hand... Medicare is going to be broke soon at its current rate of unsustainable spending. I'm sure there would be a huge lobbying effort to increase residency spots if residency competition got too fierce, but at this point and for the foreseeable future, the money just isn't there. And hospital admins can't be expected to readily pick up the tab.

 

[gettheleadout]

Residency position haven't increased, because the ACGME restricts the number of residency positions, not because hospitals don't want more residents. Each hospital has a certain number of positions it is "allowed" in particular specialties.

As for the inflated figure, anyone who knows how these programs are run knows the numbers can't help but be inflated. For example, I was in a summer research training program supported by the NSF, where all I did was work in a lab. I was free labor for that lab. But again, the "cost" to the NSF of having me was more than twice my salary and included only god knows what.

This is false. Resident positions are not "limited" by the ACGME in the manner you're suggesting, though they accredit residency programs overall. The limit in number of available positions in any given program is a result of limited funding, not some artificial limit imposed by an organization that represents the interests of residents. What purpose do you think such a limit would serve? If an accredited program wants to fund an additional position on their own, they are free to do so.

Also, from the thread CityLights linked:

In fact I know of a few places that added a resident despite it being a financial hit simply because they had someone good they wanted to keep and because the change of ACGME duty hour rules made it difficult to staff their shifts with the number of residents they already had.

However, this does not happen enough (also pointed out in the thread) to compensate for the increase in med school enrollment, as I've stated previously.

To summarize: The ACGME wants residents to be in quality programs, so they've established standards of accreditation. They also don't want American medical graduates to go to waste, so they accredit new programs that demonstrate they can provide quality training to said graduates. They have no reason to limit the number of positions available to an accredited program, and do not do so.

 

[motomed]

The pre-allo forum is filled with overcritical pre-med idiots who jump to criticize. This expansion is unprededented and will change medicine as we know it, whether you like it or not. Will it provide better health care for the general public? Most likely. However, with the exception of those who have the scores to get into competitive specialities, it will change things considerably. And the post-baby boomer argument is entirely valid. Think of it as a bell curve. We are preparing for the top of the curve, at which point supply will meet demand, but unless educational output is curtailed at its height, an eventuall excess will surely occur.







That is ridiculous. Look at ANY post on the pharm forums and it is clear. Huge demand in 2005, then a crash of sorts in 2009. It is not good. Here is just one of many threads on it http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=639184

Notice how in this thread a few mentioned it as a possibility in 2005, while others shot it down, 4 years later, BAM.

not a source.... BAM.

and either way, the many differences between the two fields would make any comparison meaningless even if you did have a source. POW!

 

[Ursa]

The increasing fat-assness of American society will make up for the baby boomers dying off.

Not to mention, the addictive, hypochondrial mind-f*ck mentality that America subscribes to will keep patients coming back.

 

[shaggy alfresco]

And for the fiftieth time - increase in med school enrollment != increase in doctors.

The number of residency positions controls the number of doctors.

 

[Slack3r]

This thread is so full of misinformation it's hilarious. You can always count on DubaiFan to deliver!

 

[gettheleadout]

This thread is so full of misinformation it's hilarious. You can always count on DubaiFan to deliver!

Just as a general disclaimer, if I'm misinformed about anything I'd appreciate being enlightened. (Not that you were referring to me Slack, just saying.)

 

[FIREitUP]

Although the gov't pays a great deal to have residents train, I would not be surprised if they actually turn a profit by working them to death. Just because the gov't pays a set amount per resident, does not mean it actually costs hospitals that much to train them.

 

[Velocity]

In general, I think organizations like the AMA are harmful to the country. That said, now that I am accepted to medical school, I think we absolutely need to restrict the number of doctors and limit the role of other members of the medical profession. Shouldn't healthcare providers be the best and brightest? We are really looking after people's best interests in restricting the number of doctors, the observation that this increases physician salaries is irrelevant and pure coincidence.

The AMA is doing a good job.👍

My opinion (based on what I've seen at large, academic medical centers) is that physicians are cutting themselves out of the market. Everyone wants to specialize and few seem eager to take up the "dirty," difficult jobs that don't pay as much. Physician assistants, nurse practitioners, etc. are paid less and are filling in the void. The only thing preventing them from fully taking on doctors are laws that limit what they can do. Medical students like to say that nurses and PA's can't do as much due to less rigorous training and selection, but all workers in the health field make stupid mistakes and have moments where they don't know what they're doing - doctors included.

When the funding crunch comes (and it seems that it might be within reach), will the highly paid doctors be forced to slash their salaries, or will their high cost make them irrelevant to the "lower" positions?

As to limiting medicine to the "best and the brightest," how do you measure that? At present we're largely limiting it to the best test-takers, but these people aren't always the "best and the brightest." I'd take someone who was ethical, hard-working, and pleasant to their staff any day over someone who was able to score better on exams and was a bit worse on those other points that can't be quantitatively measured.

 

[Astarael]

My opinion (based on what I've seen at large, academic medical centers) is that physicians are cutting themselves out of the market. Everyone wants to specialize and few seem eager to take up the "dirty," difficult jobs that don't pay as much. Physician assistants, nurse practitioners, etc. are paid less and are filling in the void. The only thing preventing them from fully taking on doctors are laws that limit what they can do. Medical students like to say that nurses and PA's can't do as much due to less rigorous training and selection, but all workers in the health field make stupid mistakes and have moments where they don't know what they're doing - doctors included.

When the funding crunch comes (and it seems that it might be within reach), will the highly paid doctors be forced to slash their salaries, or will their high cost make them irrelevant to the "lower" positions?

As to limiting medicine to the "best and the brightest," how do you measure that? At present we're largely limiting it to the best test-takers, but these people aren't always the "best and the brightest." I'd take someone who was ethical, hard-working, and pleasant to their staff any day over someone who was able to score better on exams and was a bit worse on those other points that can't be quantitatively measured.

The bolded part is a major problem with what you're saying. If you've worked at academic medical centers, you're most likely not seeing doctors handling typical cases. Academic hospitals function as tertiary referral centers and get a larger proportion of tricky or difficult to handle cases. Community docs can and do handle all types of cases, right down to the most mundane things you can imagine.

As for nurse practitioners and physician assistants being compared to doctors, well, there's no comparison really. It isn't just laws keeping them from practicing like doctors, it's also an ability issue. Every specialty (except anything surgical) has its simple cases that can be handled by mid-level providers, but there is always going to be those really acute patients that cannot be handled without the experience of a doctor. If you don't believe me, I can dig up a recent publication by the AANP that showed NPs to have the same diagnostic capability as EM physicians-except they had to restrict it to simple cases and junior housestaff to get the numbers to work out right.

For measuring medical knowledge, how is a test not justified? You might say that you want someone hard working and polite, but the fact of the matter is that doctors need to have a ridiculously large body of knowledge in order to practice effectively. That's a pre-requisite. Yeah, it would be great if they are hard working and polite as well (and I think medical schools do a good job of selecting for those factors), but without the ability to retain and regurgitate information, you can't really be an effective physician.

 

[Longshanks]

When the baby boomers die and demand slows down? That doesn't make sense. Why would demand slow down when the baby boomers die?

People tend not to understand the concept of the "Echo Boom" (Gen Y) since it's not reported in the mainstream media.

yep. and perhaps fewer DO's getting allopathic spots.

There will still be DO's in allopathic residency positions due to the simple fact that there are not enough residencies through the AOA for all osteopathic medical graduates, while there is room in ACGME. IMG/FMGs will feel the most pressure due to this. One can argue DO's may enter less disreable positions in the ACGME match, due to an increase in MD graduates. Though they may actually fair better in the near future due to more integration LCME/ACGME world, following their acceptance into the electronic application system for away rotations and the reforms concerning scrambling and pre-matching.

Aren't residency positions in Primary Care (FP/IM/OB) supposed to increase in 2015 or 2016 due to the Affordable Health Care Act?

 

[Velocity]

The bolded part is a major problem with what you're saying.

Aye, I mentioned it up-front because I was aware that I was making a sweeping generalization based off of what I've seen, but know that the "current state of medicine" isn't the same all over... even at large academic medical centers.

As for nurse practitioners and physician assistants being compared to doctors, well, there's no comparison really. It isn't just laws keeping them from practicing like doctors, it's also an ability issue. Every specialty (except anything surgical) has its simple cases that can be handled by mid-level providers, but there is always going to be those really acute patients that cannot be handled without the experience of a doctor.

I don't disagree with the idea that specialists are useful and necessary. The issue is that the overwhelming majority of doctors want to specialize (at least on the MD side; I'm not sure about DO). If people don't opt for a specialized training area right out of medical school, then they try to get into specialized fellowships after residency. The reasons are fairly clear: it can make you more competitive in terms of obtaining a job (especially true for new, rare specialties), and your pay increases as you specialize.

What I'm afraid of is a future where doctors have over-specialized and over-priced themselves out of the market, requiring the other health care positions to take over. Specialists and super-specialists alone can't cover the majority of medical needs, and they are cost-ineffective to do so.

For measuring medical knowledge, how is a test not justified? You might say that you want someone hard working and polite, but the fact of the matter is that doctors need to have a ridiculously large body of knowledge in order to practice effectively. That's a pre-requisite. Yeah, it would be great if they are hard working and polite as well (and I think medical schools do a good job of selecting for those factors), but without the ability to retain and regurgitate information, you can't really be an effective physician.

Tell that to the doctors of my school's student clinic, who sit at a computer and scroll through UpToDate as you're in the room, looking over what could match the symptoms you're describing 😉

I'm partly jesting. I agree with the idea that doctors need to have a good memory and intelligence, being able to piece together bits of information with a large wealth of knowledge... but do class exams and the MCAT really represent those abilities? I can't tell you how many pre-medical students I encountered during my undergrad who proudly proclaimed to their friends, "I can recite nearly any passage from the book to you, but I can't explain what it means, and I'm going to forget it within ten seconds of turning in the final." Of course those were likely exaggerated statements, but the point is that such performance does not cleanly translate over to clinical ability. If you're utterly failing your coursework then it bodes poorly for your ability to get through medical school and function as a physician, but I disagree specifically with the notion that the current system is set up to take "the best and the brightest."

 

[KTownGT]

Gosh, I wonder if those 22 new school will increase enrollment enough to have any bearing on stats from the average matriculate.

 

[Astarael]

Aye, I mentioned it up-front because I was aware that I was making a sweeping generalization based off of what I've seen, but know that the "current state of medicine" isn't the same all over... even at large academic medical centers.

Yeah, that's a really good point (about the current state of medicine not being the same everywhere).

I don't disagree with the idea that specialists are useful and necessary. The issue is that the overwhelming majority of doctors want to specialize (at least on the MD side; I'm not sure about DO). If people don't opt for a specialized training area right out of medical school, then they try to get into specialized fellowships after residency. The reasons are fairly clear: it can make you more competitive in terms of obtaining a job (especially true for new, rare specialties), and your pay increases as you specialize.

I think you can probably say that DOs are looking to specialize as well. I've only looked at their match numbers through the NRMP, but it seems like they match competitive specialties with some regularity (with the possible exception of the ridiculously competitive stuff like derm).

What I'm afraid of is a future where doctors have over-specialized and over-priced themselves out of the market, requiring the other health care positions to take over. Specialists and super-specialists alone can't cover the majority of medical needs, and they are cost-ineffective to do so.

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying here a little better than I understood your first post. I don't really disagree with you, I just think (hope, maybe) that when/if some sort of reform comes to the system as far as primary care goes, the solution won't end up being to hand it over to mid-level providers. My impression (based off my very limited interaction with the system so far) is that the role of physician extender is appropriate while autonomous practice is probably not.

Tell that to the doctors of my school's student clinic, who sit at a computer and scroll through UpToDate as you're in the room, looking over what could match the symptoms you're describing 😉

I'm partly jesting. I agree with the idea that doctors need to have a good memory and intelligence, being able to piece together bits of information with a large wealth of knowledge... but do class exams and the MCAT really represent those abilities? I can't tell you how many pre-medical students I encountered during my undergrad who proudly proclaimed to their friends, "I can recite nearly any passage from the book to you, but I can't explain what it means, and I'm going to forget it within ten seconds of turning in the final." Of course those were likely exaggerated statements, but the point is that such performance does not cleanly translate over to clinical ability. If you're utterly failing your coursework then it bodes poorly for your ability to get through medical school and function as a physician, but I disagree specifically with the notion that the current system is set up to take "the best and the brightest."

I got a good chuckle out of this section (not the content; I just found your descriptions of docs on UpToDate and pre-meds amusing ).

As for actually testing clinical ability, I can see how you would think that the undergraduate testing we do wouldn't really select for that (and I agree with you, it does not). On the other hand, the MCAT probably does do a good job of testing your ability to learn, and the USMLE seems to do a halfway decent job of making sure doctors are clinically competent. The system might not be set up to take all of the people who truly will be the best doctors, but I think this is a situation where you have to work with what you've got. I mean, it would be nice if other metrics could be developed and tested as to their ability to predict success as a doctor. I just don't see that happening anytime in the near future, mainly because I don't think it is really well understood what qualities make someone a good doctor in the first place.

Anyway, thanks for your well-thought-out response. I just re-read my last post and it might have come across a little abrupt; my goal was to politely disagree with some things you said in your first post, but after reading your reply it seems like we probably agree on more stuff than we disagree on.

 

[FuturePharm21]

I feel like California, NY, and FL need to stop expanding since they have more than enough MD programs for their residents, unless these schools are private, they only favor in-state residents.

IL is lacking and Chicago is the third most densely populated city in U.S.

 

[QQm]

.

 

[shaggy alfresco]

Gosh, I wonder if those 22 new school will increase enrollment enough to have any bearing on stats from the average matriculate.

Doubtful. Maybe the stats will stay the same for a year or two instead of going up, but I don't think they'll go down.

 

[tyler29028]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if I have overlooked a previous point, but a significant portion of U.S. residency programs are academically based, right? So, I think that if a new school would like to become accredited, it should negotiate with its clinical partners in order to create new affiliated residencies as well. That way they are sort of neutrally increasing the amount of doctors, and enriching the medical student‘s education. Though, this may not be very financially (or politically efficient).

 

[FIREitUP]

I feel like California, NY, and FL need to stop expanding since they have more than enough MD programs for their residents, unless these schools are private, they only favor in-state residents.

IL is lacking and Chicago is the third most densely populated city in U.S.

NY has not opened any new state schools. Hofstra is the only new one I know of. Florida is a big culprit and apparently Cali, but not NY.

 

[Frazier]

Doubtful. Maybe the stats will stay the same for a year or two instead of going up, but I don't think they'll go down.

+1

I would expect that the increased enrollment would be taken care of by cookie cutter EC, 3.7/32 applicants that tended to get over looked in the past.

...Not so much luck for the 3.4/27 applicant.

 

[shaggy alfresco]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if I have overlooked a previous point, but a significant portion of U.S. residency programs are academically based, right? So, I think that if a new school would like to become accredited, it should negotiate with its clinical partners in order to create new affiliated residencies as well. That way they are sort of neutrally increasing the amount of doctors, and enriching the medical student‘s education. Though, this may not be very financially (or politically efficient).

Good luck convincing medicare to fund more residencies at the time of current budget cuts.

 

[KTownGT]

Doubtful. Maybe the stats will stay the same for a year or two instead of going up, but I don't think they'll go down.

Good point. I was just considering the "new" factor many of these schools will have to deal with. Especially if they are wanting to enroll large classes right off the bat.

+1

I would expect that the increased enrollment would be taken care of by cookie cutter EC, 3.7/32 applicants that tended to get over looked in the past.

...Not so much luck for the 3.4/27 applicant.

*Fuuuuuu*

 

[Astarael]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if I have overlooked a previous point, but a significant portion of U.S. residency programs are academically based, right? So, I think that if a new school would like to become accredited, it should negotiate with its clinical partners in order to create new affiliated residencies as well. That way they are sort of neutrally increasing the amount of doctors, and enriching the medical student‘s education. Though, this may not be very financially (or politically efficient).

There are two issues with this. The first issue (that I think you already touched on) is that funding for a residency comes from Medicare, so it is Medicare that you would have to convince in order to get new residency slots created. The second issue is that there are already more residency slots in the U.S. than graduates. Unless I'm way off the mark, no new U.S. school is going to care that they are displacing foreign grads from U.S. residencies. Until the number of U.S. graduates actually catches up to the number of residencies, there's not going to be much incentive to create new ones.

 

[Frazier]

*Fuuuuuu*

No worries broski, your ish doesn't look cookie cutter. Pass Go, collect 200$ and med school acceptance.

 

[Slack3r]

I feel like California, NY, and FL need to stop expanding since they have more than enough MD programs for their residents, unless these schools are private, they only favor in-state residents.

IL is lacking and Chicago is the third most densely populated city in U.S.

Umm, IL has 12.9 million people and 8 medical schools. That's 1.6 million people per school. CA, on the other hand, has 36 million people and 10 medical schools (3.6 million/school). FL has 18.5 million people with 9 medical schools (~2 million/school).

Like I said, the amount of misinformation is staggering.

Edit: Of those 8 schools in IL, 7 are in the Chicago-metro area. Do you really think Chi-town needs more schools?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

that's why it's futurepharm...

 

[45408]

I don't get it. Why increase the number of medical schools under the pretense of 'getting more doctors' when in fact the number of doctors will remain the same due to residency spots? Seems incredibly stupid to me. Maybe I am missing something?

This will basically close the borders, if you will. It means that more of our physicians will have trained in the US. I have nothing against physicians trained elsewhere, as long as they are competent, but it really doesn't make sense to have a system that relies on foreign graduates to fill all of our slots. We should have had an equal number of med school graduates as residency slots all along.

True. I imagine the natural progression would be to increase residency spots though.

However, I imagine with this many new schools opening that residency spots will increase at some point. Calling something unfounded and then hurling insults while provinding no logic for your reasoning just makes you look foolish.

You're just providing conjecture, which really isn't any better. And it is unfounded.

 

[Lccjblu]

oohweee 4 new med schools coming to cali.. i knew about UCR, but UCM too?? damn if only i were younger

 

[45408]

For anyone who's curious, my salary plus benefits (mostly health insurance) totals about $75,000. I also have an educational fund and frequent teaching conferences. I also have malpractice coverage. We've also got a full-time program coordinator, offices, access to some pretty expensive library resources, etc. I couldn't believe how much it cost to get access to things like UpToDate, AccessMedicine, AccessSurgery, and journals. Think big.

 

[tabascosauce]

wtf?

im from the old school. you from the new school. my old school costs more than your new school. lol!!!

 

[FIREitUP]

For anyone who's curious, my salary plus benefits (mostly health insurance) totals about $75,000. I also have an educational fund and frequent teaching conferences. I also have malpractice coverage. We've also got a full-time program coordinator, offices, access to some pretty expensive library resources, etc. I couldn't believe how much it cost to get access to things like UpToDate, AccessMedicine, AccessSurgery, and journals. Think big.

That's a good point. Lord only knows how much your malpractice insurance is as a general surgery resident.

 

[FuturePharm21]

to clear up my statement:

basically, all the IL schools are private except UIC so they accept all applicants all over U.S. unlike Cali and FL which include multiple state schools that take only in-state residents...thus chances of an IL resident at their programs is significantly worse than their chances at getting into Chicago....Granted UIC accepts a lot of students with their branches but in the end it is still harder for Chicago students to get into medical school compared to FL and CA which take a lot more in-state students...

that's what I meant.

 

[Slack3r]

to clear up my statement:

basically, all the IL schools are private except UIC so they accept all applicants all over U.S. unlike Cali and FL which include multiple state schools that take only in-state residents...thus chances of an IL resident at their programs is significantly worse than their chances at getting into Chicago....Granted UIC accepts a lot of students with their branches but in the end it is still harder for Chicago students to get into medical school compared to FL and CA which take a lot more in-state students...

that's what I meant.

There are two public schools in IL, first of all.

But, ignoring that fact, let's look at the "less-prestigious" schools in Chicago that supposedly accept "a lot of OOS" students...

Rosalind Franklin: ~21% of IS students received an interview, compared to the ~4% of OOS students offered an interview.
Loyola: ~15% IS interviewed, compared to ~4% for OOS
Rush: ~17% IS interviewed, compared to ~2% for OOS

CA has 5/10 schools public. However, their public schools receive FAR more applicants than IL's public schools.

For example, UCLA received >5000 in-state applications for slightly over 600 interview spots (~11%). UC Irvine received nearly 4000 in-state applications for 460 interview spots (~12% interview rate). Compare that to UIC's 1500 IS applications for nearly 600 interview spots (35% interview rate for in-state students).

So no, being an IL resident is in no way, shape, or form a disadvantage compared to a CA resident.

 

[motomed]

not to mention the other IL school only takes IS applicants unless you're doing a dual degree program. combine that with the two schools in STL, iowa city, madison, and milwaukee all being basically on the border, and IL is doing alright.

 

[just one]

I didnt read all the posts so I don't know if this was mentioned, but the list on wiki is not even accurate. This is a good example of not trusting wiki for everything. It shows OU-TU as a new school, but in fact is has been around for a while and it is just a different track in our curriculum. It is third and fourth year only at a different location with an emphasis on community health. So it does not change the number of graduates.

 

[45408]

Loyola: ~15% IS interviewed, compared to ~4% for OOS
Rush: ~17% IS interviewed, compared to ~2% for OOS

Two facts that eluded me when I was applying for med school. Ask me how I know...

 

[Barcu]

Two facts that eluded me when I was applying for med school. Ask me how I know...

I know too!

I actually did get an interview at RFU, and it was me, a Cali kid, and a everyone else was from IL.

People from IL got it alright. The only thing is they may have to pay more because they pretty much get IS status at a number of private schools.

Also, isn't SIU a state school? Though I heard if you're from Chicago or northern IL, it's tough to get in. But still, that would be another state school.

 

[luckys]

I looked for a face palm gif/jpeg to sum up my reaction to this thread but as it turns out nothing exists that could possibly do justice to the amount of face-palmage that this thread has inspired within me.

👍

 

[mauberley]

Two facts that eluded me when I was applying for med school. Ask me how I know...

"How do you know, TheProwler?"

 

[45408]

"How do you know, TheProwler?"

Because I looked at their GPA/MCAT stats, noted their status as private schools, and I applied away.


I'm sure they appreciated my donation.

 

[pfaction]

source? anecdotally, I'm calling BS. I know a half dozen pharmacists who have recently graduated or will do so in the next few weeks. all of them have jobs lined up.

Hi.

I'm a source. In NY, jobs are beyond saturated. Between St. John's pumping out 200 students/year, and LIU doing the same, you're looking at around 1000 new graduates per year.

There's not enough hospital, retail or other jobs to accomodate 1000 people looking for 100k+ salaries PER YEAR.

I have 2 years left. My future is very, very grim.