Appealing to mid-tier programs

[DOapplicant]

I've now heard many people say that while research experience and publications play a critical role in gaining placement into top-tier programs, they play a minor role, at best, in making an applicant more attractive to the mid and low-tiered programs.

Is there a general agreement about this?

If not research/pubs, what are mid-tier programs (which presumably are the majority of programs) really looking for...high step1? face-time at their clinic? good personality? something else?

Since most of my focus will be given to the so-called mid and low-tiered programs this upcoming match, I am very much looking forward to any responses.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[idoc]

There have been many threads over the last 4 years on how to target yourself to "programs that suck". I know your question is a bit different, but matching into ophthalmology places you in an elite class. Most residents were in the top of their class, and even the ones that match into the less than stellar programs would likely match at the most competitive programs in other fields. This is important, especially when you think about becoming board certified after your training. The national fail rate is about 35%. So, my point is, you don't want to be in that 35%. I'm not saying you would be, because success is usually predicated on hard work more than anything else, but I am saying it is an intimidating group to try to compete with. This was something I did not even give a second thought when applying for ophthalmology residency.

To answer your question specifically, the mid-tier programs will interview people who they think they will have a good chance matching. So, if you want to go to a mid-tier program for family/location reasons, but you got 270 on step 1, you have to really let them know you are interested in them, or they will likely not give you an interview because they will assume you'll be going to wilmer, etc. That being said, every program has criteria they look at on your application by which they decide who to invite. Once you are at the interview stage, the ball is in your court. If you are an easy going, engaging, friendly person, that will go a long way because no one wants a difficult personality in their program no matter how smart they are. Hope that helps.

 

[4424]

i think once u get an interview, most programs want someone they feel comfortable working with and someone who will fit into their program. each program sort of has a different personality and they will look to some extent for someone who will fit in well with their program.

 

[Vballguy]

I've now heard many people say that while research experience and publications play a critical role in gaining placement into top-tier programs, they play a minor role, at best, in making an applicant more attractive to the mid and low-tiered programs.

Is there a general agreement about this?

If not research/pubs, what are mid-tier programs (which presumably are the majority of programs) really looking for...high step1? face-time at their clinic? good personality? something else?

Since most of my focus will be given to the so-called mid and low-tiered programs this upcoming match, I am very much looking forward to any responses.

Thanks!

Programs definitely have a sense as to what "caliber" applicant matches at their program (broad generalization, sorry). Programs do ask "Would you come here? What makes you so interested in our program?"

Your step1 score would likely meet cutoffs at all but the top tier programs. You have some research/pubs already (and this does impress people, no matter how 'academic' they are). Assuming your grades are also good enough to match, I would focus on the non-academic aspects of the application. That means also making sure 1 or 2 of your letters focus on your personality, ability to work with others, etc. Obviously doing away rotations at your favorite programs will help, but you can't do that many.

Then, I would apply broadly and know each program individually - who their PD and chair and coordinator are, where they are from, where they trained.

Many great programs suffer from things they can't control - locale for instance. Make a phone call and stress to them that you know they are an excellent program and would be happy to move to [blank], etc...

I don't know a lot about how being a DO will affect you - Find someone who knows which programs have taken DO's in the past.

Hope that helps you (and others applying).

 

[DOapplicant]

Thank you all for sharing your advise and insights.

Your points of making some kind of connection at smaller programs is well-taken.

idoc, I was completely unaware of the high fail rates. Thanks for shedding light, although, as stated by another poster, I doubt my step1 and osteopathic background will allow for serious consideration at the top programs (who presumably have the highest pass rates).

Thanks again. I can always count on my SDN peoples.

 

[sjkpark]

Your step1 score would likely meet cutoffs at all but the top tier programs. You have some research/pubs already (and this does impress people, no matter how 'academic' they are). Assuming your grades are also good enough to match, I would focus on the non-academic aspects of the application. That means also making sure 1 or 2 of your letters focus on your personality, ability to work with others, etc. Obviously doing away rotations at your favorite programs will help, but you can't do that many.

What's the cut-off at top programmes?
I got 244/99, but I am an IMG.
But from an English-speaking country with a good reputation and where most students are locals (unlike in some Aussie or Irish schools. Heck, I'm a local too.)

 

[GuP]

What's the cut-off at top programmes?
I got 244/99, but I am an IMG.
But from an English-speaking country with a good reputation and where most students are locals (unlike in some Aussie or Irish schools. Heck, I'm a local too.)

There is no firm cutoff are top programs but most will agree that 230 will get you in the door, granted you don't have any red flags. You have a good score but since you are an IMG, you will be at a great disadvantage. You most likely will not get an interview at the top programs unless you have an inside connection. What matters the most in your app are LORs and US clinical experience. Good luck!

 

[MedEye]

There is no firm cutoff are top programs but most will agree that 230 will get you in the door, granted you don't have any red flags. You have a good score but since you are an IMG, you will be at a great disadvantage. You most likely will not get an interview at the top programs unless you have an inside connection. What matters the most in your app are LORs and US clinical experience. Good luck!

I totally agree.

 

[sjkpark]

There is no firm cutoff are top programs but most will agree that 230 will get you in the door, granted you don't have any red flags. You have a good score but since you are an IMG, you will be at a great disadvantage. You most likely will not get an interview at the top programs unless you have an inside connection. What matters the most in your app are LORs and US clinical experience. Good luck!

I was wondering whether all IMG's are treated the same.
Say, are graduates from UK or Australia considered "superior" than somebody from non-English speaking countries or Caribbean schools?
Not to start a flame war, but just curious. Will delete if this offends anybody.

 

[DrEyeBall]

I think there are a few issues to consider:

The "top tier" programs often have many more faculty. That means you spend less time with each person. Therefore, numbers, scores, potenital to go onto fellowship, academic aspirations, etc probably mean more at these programs. If you are a great applicant but there are some questions about personality, ability to work with you, etc they are less likely to influence the process. Each individual attending would not have to deal with these potential issues all that much.

Programs in the lower tier tend to have less faculty. You spend much more time with each person. You may be with some of the faculty for months at a time or every week for the duration of your training. These programs are much more likely to look at you as a person adn whether or not they can work with you for 3 years.

Lastly, UK graduates are probably seen differently at many programs.

 

[GuP]

I was wondering whether all IMG's are treated the same.
Say, are graduates from UK or Australia considered "superior" than somebody from non-English speaking countries or Caribbean schools?
Not to start a flame war, but just curious. Will delete if this offends anybody.

Most of the IMGs are treated the same. The only exception that may be is if you graduated from Oxford or Cambridge or the likes (which others I am not sure of). It's an uphill battle but it can be done if you go about it with a well thought out plan. The match rate for FMGs every year hovers around 25% - so its not impossible. Best of luck.

 

[sjkpark]

I think there are a few issues to consider:

The "top tier" programs often have many more faculty. That means you spend less time with each person. Therefore, numbers, scores, potenital to go onto fellowship, academic aspirations, etc probably mean more at these programs. If you are a great applicant but there are some questions about personality, ability to work with you, etc they are less likely to influence the process. Each individual attending would not have to deal with these potential issues all that much.

Programs in the lower tier tend to have less faculty. You spend much more time with each person. You may be with some of the faculty for months at a time or every week for the duration of your training. These programs are much more likely to look at you as a person adn whether or not they can work with you for 3 years.

Lastly, UK graduates are probably seen differently at many programs.

Thanks! Answers a lot of questions.