AOA/ACGME Merger & Assessing DO Schools

[Kardio]

Prior to the merger, I could have chosen any osteopathic program in the country and be confident in matching without a problem. My assessment is that DO students (or schools) on the wrong side of the bell curve may be negatively impacted by increased competition at historically-AOA programs.

Is it worth paying attention to the historical fraction of AOA and ACGME matches that a particular program lands?

Is it innapropriate to bring up this information in "Why our school?" secondary promps or interviews (i.e., "based on %ACGME placement, I am confident in your programs...")? I'm leaning against mentioning it, as I would risk a reader interpreting it as me seeing AOA residencies as "less" than ACGME residencies - opposed to me seeing their school as resilient to change.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DO2015CA]

No it is not appropriate to say that in an essay or interview.

Secondly, you mention confidence in matching prior to the merger compared to now. Well its going to depend on what you are trying to do. If it is just match any specialty, including FM, IM (community), peds, path, then your confidence shouldn't change. If it is match into specific competitive specialties then yes you should be less confident... But this would be with all DO programs. The ratio of DO students to competitive spots that are assessable to DOs is rising. If the school has home programs then your life becomes easier but not easy. In the ACGME world, a DO is still a DO is still a DO. Outside of regional reputation, an ACGME program isn't going to know your school. Thats why taking the USMLE matters because it shows your are competent through traceable trends to complete their program. The preferences should always be:

1.) State school
2.) Original 5
3.) Older schools
4.) Newer schools
5.) schools that haven't graduated a class yet

and then No attendance policy >>> attendance policy


If you look at the match lists this past year, even the schools that get a bad rep from SDN matched into competitive specialties. So if you are cream of the crop you will still rise no matter which school you attend. It just becomes easier in the order above. The schools with more support and residencies tend to be the state funded/older ones.

 

[Kardio]

No it is not appropriate to say that in an essay or interview.

Secondly, you mention confidence in matching prior to the merger compared to now. Well its going to depend on what you are trying to do. If it is just match any specialty, including FM, IM (community), peds, path, then your confidence shouldn't change. If it is match into specific competitive specialties then yes you should be less confident... But this would be with all DO programs. The ratio of DO students to competitive spots that are assessable to DOs is rising. If the school has home programs then your life becomes easier but not easy. In the ACGME world, a DO is still a DO is still a DO. Outside of regional reputation, an ACGME program isn't going to know your school. Thats why taking the USMLE matters because it shows your are competent through traceable trends to complete their program. The preferences should always be:

1.) State school
2.) Original 5
3.) Older schools
4.) Newer schools
5.) schools that haven't graduated a class yet

and then No attendance policy >>> attendance policy


If you look at the match lists this past year, even the schools that get a bad rep from SDN matched into competitive specialties. So if you are cream of the crop you will still rise no matter which school you attend. It just becomes easier in the order above. The schools with more support and residencies tend to be the state funded/older ones.

Thank you for writing a detailed response.

My understanding is as follows:
Because MD students will now be applying to historically-AOA programs, the program directors can now choose to rank both DO and MD students. The fraction that will continue to give preference to DOs is unkown, but I want to be prepared to not have the AOA safety net anymore - and therefor I prefer a DO program that has historic success matching students in the ACGME.

I understand that it is innapropriate to mention this to schools, but is there a flaw in my speculation?

 

[DO2015CA]

Thank you for writing a detailed response.

My understanding is as follows:
Because MD students will now be applying to historically-AOA programs, the program directors can now choose to rank both DO and MD students. The fraction that will continue to give preference to DOs is unkown, but I want to be prepared to not have the AOA safety net anymore - and therefor I prefer a DO program that has historic success matching students in the ACGME.

I understand that it is innapropriate to mention this to schools, but is there a flaw in my speculation?

You are correct about MDs applying to historic DO programs. This will mainly be affecting competitive specialties like Ortho, derm, etc. As for other specialties it doesn’t play as much of a role. Specialties like FM, community IM, peds, PMR, path, psych, neurology, and anesthesia have been accepting DOs into ACGME programs before the merger was even thought of. So their practices are unlikely to change. As I said before a DO is a DO to them, unless it’s a regionally recognizable school. These ACGME programs don’t really know the DO schools’ quality and so Michigan state grad vs. brand new DO school are lumped into the same category to them. They will go off board scores, lor, and if you did an elective rotation with them when making a decision on who to interview/rank. This is why it is important to be introspective on what type of specialty you’d like. If you want something more competitive but will be okay landing in one of those I listed above then go to the best DO school you can get into, but if you are ortho-or-bust then it is more fruitful to strengthen your application and apply MD.

Now for historically AOA programs, they will be more familiar with DO schools so they will know the difference between MSU and McDO branch campus #4. But they also draw heavily from their own associated school. That is why I gave you a list above because the more established schools are the ones that took the time to create ortho, derm, ENT, gen surg, etc. spots. The newer schools aren’t opening many residencies that are outside of primary care.

Oh and it’s not kosher because it doesn’t sit well on the tongue. That question is asking what tangible things did the school do that you liked. Like it or not, matching is largely up to the student. So the school wants to hear things like “your modern curriculum is better for learning”, “the research opportunities the school fosters interest me”, “your clinical rotations are high quality with all of ___ blank exposure”, etc. those are all things that allow students to match better, but it is things the school really hand control of. No one wants to hear “I’m choosing you because you can get me this”. Although it may be true, it sounds self centered.

 

[Osminog]

Is it worth paying attention to the historical fraction of AOA and ACGME matches that a particular program lands?

No, it's not. The historical percentages of students at a given school who match AOA vs. ACGME are not necessarily indicative of how the school will perform in the post-merger match. If a DO student matches into an AOA program, that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have ended up matching into an ACGME program, nor does it reflect a deficiency in the school's ability to match students into ACGME programs.

 

[Kardio]

You are correct about MDs applying to historic DO programs. This will mainly be affecting competitive specialties like Ortho, derm, etc. As for other specialties it doesn’t play as much of a role. Specialties like FM, community IM, peds, PMR, path, psych, neurology, and anesthesia have been accepting DOs into ACGME programs before the merger was even thought of. So their practices are unlikely to change. As I said before a DO is a DO to them, unless it’s a regionally recognizable school. These ACGME programs don’t really know the DO schools’ quality and so Michigan state grad vs. brand new DO school are lumped into the same category to them. They will go off board scores, lor, and if you did an elective rotation with them when making a decision on who to interview/rank. This is why it is important to be introspective on what type of specialty you’d like. If you want something more competitive but will be okay landing in one of those I listed above then go to the best DO school you can get into, but if you are ortho-or-bust then it is more fruitful to strengthen your application and apply MD.

Now for historically AOA programs, they will be more familiar with DO schools so they will know the difference between MSU and McDO branch campus #4. But they also draw heavily from their own associated school. That is why I gave you a list above because the more established schools are the ones that took the time to create ortho, derm, ENT, gen surg, etc. spots. The newer schools aren’t opening many residencies that are outside of primary care.

Oh and it’s not kosher because it doesn’t sit well on the tongue. That question is asking what tangible things did the school do that you liked. Like it or not, matching is largely up to the student. So the school wants to hear things like “your modern curriculum is better for learning”, “the research opportunities the school fosters interest me”, “your clinical rotations are high quality with all of ___ blank exposure”, etc. those are all things that allow students to match better, but it is things the school really hand control of. No one wants to hear “I’m choosing you because you can get me this”. Although it may be true, it sounds self centered.

This is such a helpful response. I wish I could do more than "Love Emoji" it. Thank you for offering me this insight!

I am interested in IM subspecialties - as my username implies - but would be OK being a hospitalist.

I've always read that DOs get into IM pretty easily. However, I've only recently started considering the distinction between community and university IM programs.

I now appreciate that "match outcomes" is the wrong data point to fixate on. Instead, I should inspect and speak about the elements of a school that will make a successful match possible. It sounds like the same difference between "shadowing to check the box" and "shadowing because you enjoy it and can learn something."

 

[Goro]

Thank you for writing a detailed response.

My understanding is as follows:
Because MD students will now be applying to historically-AOA programs, the program directors can now choose to rank both DO and MD students. The fraction that will continue to give preference to DOs is unkown, but I want to be prepared to not have the AOA safety net anymore - and therefor I prefer a DO program that has historic success matching students in the ACGME.

I understand that it is innapropriate to mention this to schools, but is there a flaw in my speculation?

You can be politically correct and mention that the particular school you're applying to has good match rates and history.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I think you could mention it if the school actually had a good board pass rate and a good match rate. But I would feel better using @Goro s advice

 

[Kardio]

You can be politically correct and mention that the particular school you're applying to has good match rates and history.

I think you could mention it if the school actually had a good board pass rate and a good match rate. But I would feel better using @Goro s advice

Thanks guys. I think I'm going to play it safe and refrain from mentioning anything about their match record unless something exceptional stands out to me. I'll focus more on why I am a good fit for their program, our shared values and the opportunities there that appeal to me