Caribbean Match... am I missing something?

[DrFraud]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'll leave this debate with just one thought, because it is a waste of bandwidth to feed this troll: There are many MDs who peddle questionable treatments like DOs advocating sketchy manipulation treatments. If you need proof, just watch late night infomercials hawking the latest diet fad pill, or read up on Andrew Weil, MD, and his famous alternative therapies.

You bring up a good point but there is one major difference. Manipulation is integrated into the training of DO programs and is part of the training/evaluation of students per the AOA. Evidence for charging patients for this therapy is?
Evidence that a back rub from a DO is superior to the one I get from my message therapist is?

However, snake-oil type therapies like those types recommended by night-time infomercials are rarely part of the curriculum of Allopathic programs and are NOT sactioned by any Allopathic Medical Societies as far as I know....

One interesting difference between both MD and DO is how much of an effort DOs put forth to try and demonstrate to patients that they offer a superior apporach to medical care (more humanistic, more holistic, etc) vs. MDs.

http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/what-is-a-do/Pages/default.aspx

and I quote

The Osteopathic Approach


In addition, these modern-day pioneers practice on the cutting edge of medicine. DOs combine today's medical technology with their ears to listen caringly to their patients, with their eyes to see their patients as whole persons, and with their hands to diagnose and treat patients for injury and illness.

Claiming that care is equivilant to that of MDs while at the same time suggesting in a very subtle way that the care is somewhat superior is the type of two sided mouth speaking rhetoric that lead people to question the integrity of the profession and why many choose not to go into it. Why do I bring this up? Its the same type of thinking/logic that is also leading to false claims made by DO students on this thread about Allopathic MDs, and whether you like to hear it or not, it does affect the credibility of your profession.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Claiming that care is equivilant to that of MDs while at the same time suggesting in a very subtle way that the care is somewhat superior is the type of two sided mouth speaking rhetoric that lead people to question the integrity of the profession and why many choose not to go into it. Why do I bring this up? Its the same type of thinking/logic that is also leading to false claims made by DO students on this thread about Allopathic MDs, and whether you like to hear it or not, it does affect the credibility of your profession.

I have to agree that it seems like double talk and disingenuous. This is why at the beginning I was turned off from the profession. However, these are only some of the people in the osteopathic community, and as time passes, we see things change. Nevertheless, you must also agree that philosophy does affect the way patients are treated. I think osteopaths are better off saying "We can perform all the same treatments as MDs, but we have a philosophical focus on a holistic approach and on the musculoskeletal system."

 

[JaggerPlate]

Fraud,

You're pathetic ... and I can't believe you're even still trying here. I think a 20+ % difference in the ACGME match statistics demonstrates a clear difference in the ability of a US DO and US born -IMG to match and clearly removes any sort of inane conspiracy or other non-existent phenomenon you've dreamed up. Not only is it dangerous to ignore this fact, it completely voids your theory that US MD/DO students are the ones being dishonest and blind toward IMG education. Furthermore, you refuse to address any of these logical points, and instead, launch into hilarious rants regarding DOs which, ironically enough, are horrendously misinformed and fall into the same logical fallacies that you claim the 'other side' is using to judge Caribbean medical schools. You've truly made a fool of yourself, and any sane individual reading this thread realizes this. I find it shocking that you continue to even post and even more surprising that you feel like responding only to certain posters who you feel remotely share your viewpoint somehow makes your incoherent ramblings anymore valid.

Until you can address the following points, you have absolutely no business discussing ANYTHING related to the comparison between the two systems, nor is your activity on these forums anything besides reassuring yourself that you didn't make a mistake and trying to lure unsuspecting students into huge debt with little residency prospects:

-why DOs match at 71% (as a whole) into ACGME residencies and US-IMGs (as a WHOLE) match at 48%

-why Caribbean schools (as a whole) have much higher attrition rates compared to US MD/DO

-why residents, on these forums, involved with ACGME programs (ShyRem is at an AOA/ACGME program) state that they treat US-IMG candidates differently

-why the general consensus of the medical community states that foreign medical schools, of all kind, should be used as a strict backup when US based education fails them.

However, I'm sure that instead of addressing any of these concerns you'll either a. ignore this post (and instead look for some way to further propagate your skewed POV) or b. launch into a completely unrelated, misinformed, asinine rant about osteopathic medicine.

 

[VA1986]

.

 

[DrMom]

With more US MD and DO grads participating in the match over the next few years (as # of schools and class sizes have increased) without any increase in the # of residency spots, the match rate for all IMGs/FMGs, even US IMGs, will worsen. This needs to be taken into account by anyone considering going to a Caribbean school.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Until you can address the following points, you have absolutely no business discussing ANYTHING related to the comparison between the two systems, nor is your activity on these forums anything besides reassuring yourself that you didn't make a mistake and trying to lure unsuspecting students into huge debt with little residency prospects:

-why DOs match at 71% (as a whole) into ACGME residencies and US-IMGs (as a WHOLE) match at 48%

-why Caribbean schools (as a whole) have much higher attrition rates compared to US MD/DO

-why residents, on these forums, involved with ACGME programs (ShyRem is at an AOA/ACGME program) state that they treat US-IMG candidates differently

-why the general consensus of the medical community states that foreign medical schools, of all kind, should be used as a strict backup when US based education fails them.

However, I'm sure that instead of addressing any of these concerns you'll either a. ignore this post (and instead look for some way to further propagate your skewed POV) or b. launch into a completely unrelated, misinformed, asinine rant about osteopathic medicine.

While I agree with your overall points, there are some differences to note in these statistics that Fraud does (kinda) bring up. The difference in quality between different DO schools isn't as broad as the difference between Carribean schools. The gap between the worst and best DO school is miniscule in comparison to chasm that separates the worst and best Carribean school. So, the 48% match rate for the carribean includes those really terrible diploma mills. Schools like SGU have much higher match rates.

Despite the above, there still is a MUCH higher attrition rate. Even at a "good" school like Ross there is an enormous attrition rate that would not be tolerated in the States.

I think the choice between DO and Carribean should be taken on a case by case basis based on what schools you get into and what your goals are in the end. If you only got into RVU and SGU, I'd choose SGU in a heartbeat. If SGU and PCOM, I'd probably choose PCOM.

 

[StayOnTop]

While I agree with your overall points, there are some differences to note in these statistics that Fraud does (kinda) bring up. The difference in quality between different DO schools isn't as broad as the difference between Carribean schools. The gap between the worst and best DO school is miniscule in comparison to chasm that separates the worst and best Carribean school. So, the 48% match rate for the carribean includes those really terrible diploma mills. Schools like SGU have much higher match rates.

Despite the above, there still is a MUCH higher attrition rate. Even at a "good" school like Ross there is an enormous attrition rate that would not be tolerated in the States.

I think the choice between DO and Carribean should be taken on a case by case basis based on what schools you get into and what your goals are in the end. If you only got into RVU and SGU, I'd choose SGU in a heartbeat. If SGU and PCOM, I'd probably choose PCOM.

You would choose SGU over RVU? Why?

 

[JaggerPlate]

While I agree with your overall points, there are some differences to note in these statistics that Fraud does (kinda) bring up. The difference in quality between different DO schools isn't as broad as the difference between Carribean schools. The gap between the worst and best DO school is miniscule in comparison to chasm that separates the worst and best Carribean school. So, the 48% match rate for the carribean includes those really terrible diploma mills. Schools like SGU have much higher match rates.

Despite the above, there still is a MUCH higher attrition rate. Even at a "good" school like Ross there is an enormous attrition rate that would not be tolerated in the States.

I think the choice between DO and Carribean should be taken on a case by case basis based on what schools you get into and what your goals are in the end. If you only got into RVU and SGU, I'd choose SGU in a heartbeat. If SGU and PCOM, I'd probably choose PCOM.

My points:

1. We can try to break down the "48%" number down until the cows come home, but the point is that a. not only is it the only piece of objective data we have and b. all other categories of schools (US MD and US DO) are not granted any special cases like Fraud is asking for SGU. By this logic, I should be able to pick out one DO school, like CCOM or KCOM for example, that had like a 85-90% match rate into ACGME specialties and claim that the DO number should be 90% all around (essentially making it nearly identical to US LCME). Because I can't do this and any attempt to do so just falls into fallacies and anecdotal opinions, SGU shouldn't be given any special circumstances. Furthermore, no one has attempted to even break down the SGU match data any further than 'nah, shouldn't be 48%.' Frankly, I don't think this data would impress anyone, even if it was higher than 48%.

2. You should never pick Caribbean over DO under any circumstances. Period. I don't care if you want nothing to do with the philosophy, hate OTM, etc (trust me ... I personally know a few), just STRICTLY based on your ability to match, rotation opportunities, etc, etc, etc, you should take any chance to stay in the US. People can assume new DO schools won't match well, and you could even state that a school like RVU has even more against it, but I stand by the fact that this PD bias would be far less (namely because it's new, still associated with programs that are strong) than it would be for the Caribbean schools where PDs have know for years to stay away from these students.

3. I absolutely cannot take anything Fraud says seriously past this point. He started off discussing the issue well and defending his education, but he devolved into some of the funniest logical fallacies and absurd non sequiturs I've ever experienced on SDN.

 

[StayOnTop]

I wish there was a statistic that showed what percentage of a medical school graduating class didn't end up with a residency spot for that year (ACGME, AOA). That's always been my concern with schools, since I'm simply planning on going into Internal Medicine, and I don't care if it's AOA or ACGME. Combining AOA and ACGME, what percentage of a DO graduating class ended up with a residency spot during that year, and what percentage didn't. I would think it would have to be close to or above 90%, right?

 

[JaggerPlate]

I wish there was a statistic that showed what percentage of a medical school graduating class didn't end up with a residency spot for that year (ACGME, AOA). That's always been my concern with schools, since I'm simply planning on going into Internal Medicine, and I don't care if it's AOA or ACGME. Combining AOA and ACGME, what percentage of a DO graduating class ended up with a residency spot during that year, and what percentage didn't. I would think it would have to be close to or above 90%, right?

IM, either going AOA or ACGME without being picky about location?? You'll be good. No need not to work as hard as you can obviously, but you should be fine.

 

[VA1986]

.

 

[StayOnTop]

IM, either going AOA or ACGME without being picky about location?? You'll be good. No need not to work as hard as you can obviously, but you should be fine.

Well, that's not totally true. I do want the residency to be in the Chicago-land area, but of course, I would go wherever, if I couldn't get one near or in Chicago.

 

[MightyMoose]

You would choose SGU over RVU? Why?

He's always trying to find a way to bash RVU.

RVU is a US medical school that is for-profit. The only one, thus far. Is this good for medicine or bad for medicine? This remains to be seen, but InStateWater believes this is bad for medicine, as do some others on this forum. But like any good debate, there are plenty of people out there who don't feel the same way, and plenty that don't care either way. I think only time will tell in this situation, but right now, given the option, I would prefer to go to RVU over SGU hands down. I think Dr. Mom's point is the largest concern facing IMG's, will there be any training spots for you once you graduate.

I would actually prefer to go to RVU over a number of the other DO schools out there, but that's just my personal preference.

 

[VA1986]

.

 

[JaggerPlate]

With more US MD and DO grads participating in the match over the next few years (as # of schools and class sizes have increased) without any increase in the # of residency spots, the match rate for all IMGs/FMGs, even US IMGs, will worsen. This needs to be taken into account by anyone considering going to a Caribbean school.

2nd resident opinion ... /thread

 

[DrMom]

I'm an attending now. 😀

 

[Skippygonenuts]

I wish there was a statistic that showed what percentage of a medical school graduating class didn't end up with a residency spot for that year (ACGME, AOA). That's always been my concern with schools, since I'm simply planning on going into Internal Medicine, and I don't care if it's AOA or ACGME. Combining AOA and ACGME, what percentage of a DO graduating class ended up with a residency spot during that year, and what percentage didn't. I would think it would have to be close to or above 90%, right?

theoretically, you can find that statistic yourself...

call up the school and ask them how big their class size was for a given year (say 2010)...and then check out the match list and see how many students matched...

i say theoretically because its been proven that many caribbean schools can be quite dishonest sometimes regarding info that makes the school look bad...and some other schools just may not remember the correct info

 

[JaggerPlate]

I'm an attending now. 😀

Hahah status read fail on my part.

Nice, by the way ... and only makes your opinion on the matter even more valid!

 

[DbDan]

theoretically, you can find that statistic yourself...

call up the school and ask them how big their class size was for a given year (say 2010)...and then check out the match list and see how many students matched...

i say theoretically because its been proven that many caribbean schools can be quite dishonest sometimes regarding info that makes the school look bad...and some other schools just may not remember the correct info

I was going to do this but then I started looking at stats online. SGU's self reported attrition based on failing out or not continuing after the first year is 8-10%. This is not factoring in the amount of students that "decel" after the first semester and essentially extend their basic sciences into 3 academic years instead of 2, thus adding additional tuition and time to their education. Everything I have read lists the amount of people that decel as anywhere from 20-35% of students.

People can believe what they want. If someone honestly is so anti-DO that the simple fact that they must learn OMM, not even use it as a tool once they are in the real world, deters them from becoming a recognized and practicing physician so be it. I'll gladly stick to my DO school in the states and worry less about my residency placements and rotations.

 

[Gavanshir]

I don't know what arguments everyone else was reading but DrFraud actually used common sense and logic while JaggerPlate was resorting to logical fallacies, false premises and personal attacks to make his points. Thanks Fraud for bringing in a different point of view into this thread despite a lot of the one-sided, biased and mostly uninformed opinions.

 

[Gavanshir]

With more US MD and DO grads participating in the match over the next few years (as # of schools and class sizes have increased) without any increase in the # of residency spots, the match rate for all IMGs/FMGs, even US IMGs, will worsen. This needs to be taken into account by anyone considering going to a Caribbean school.

Yes, but this affects DOs just as well. AACOMAS is also worried about the 30% increase in allopathic class sizes and has expressed that this increase negatively affects both IMGs and DOs.

 

[gravitywave]

Yes, but this affects DOs just as well. AACOMAS is also worried about the 30% increase in allopathic class sizes and has expressed that this increase negatively affects both IMGs and DOs.

if this is true, then please explain the fact that while the match rate for US IMGs has steadily fallen the past five years (from lower than the osteo rate to even lower still), the ACGME match rate for osteo grads has remained steady despite a 30+% increase in the number of DOs entering the allo match?

you are silly.

 

[DocEspana]

I don't know what arguments everyone else was reading but DrFraud actually used common sense and logic while JaggerPlate was resorting to logical fallacies, false premises and personal attacks to make his points. Thanks Fraud for bringing in a different point of view into this thread despite a lot of the one-sided, biased and mostly uninformed opinions.

On the eve of the New York state vote on all this stuff I can tell you that some (I didn't read every comment) of Fraud's "logic" is patently false and other parts are optimistic to a point of misrepresentation. There is a portion (about half) that is totally true, but its the common sense half, not the impressive half of his comments. AKA: a residency prefers a highly qualified anything over a poorly qualified anything. Well duh. yea.

But when you actually look at facts. look at matriculation vs graduation. Look at match vs scramble. Look at primary care vs non-PC. Look at the actual number of those prelims that go into second year practice vs the same rate for US students. Look at the number of prelims in surgery who are not practicing surgery anywhere 365 days later (the fact that this even occurs at low rates is terrible). Look at the now numerous studies that show that the education in the caribbean does not train you for high success in ER or Surgery and these graduates have lower clinical outcomes when state of patient at admission is controlled for. (the only two studies I specifically know of. both are <1 year old).

Most of all, look at states like NY (still considered the Mecca of IMG training) where there are formal limitations to IMG training coming through both the medical societies and the state legislature that will be resisted strongly by the IMGs's law staff, but seem to have more than enough support among physicians and legislators to pass easily despite those complaints.

 

[DrFraud]

With more US MD and DO grads participating in the match over the next few years (as # of schools and class sizes have increased) without any increase in the # of residency spots, the match rate for all IMGs/FMGs, even US IMGs, will worsen. This needs to be taken into account by anyone considering going to a Caribbean school.

A few years ago, a couple of the larger well know Caribbean programs supersized their classes, and after the expansion, the match rate for these programs started to decrease. Some may argue the cause was increased competion from DOs, but others might suggest that the number of programs and hospitals that consider U.S. IMGs is fixed, so the applicants competed with themselves rather than with U.S students or DO.

Likewise, the allopathic programs and regions that consider DO students is relatively fixed. There have been recent increases in class size and programs for DO, and how this affects the Match 3-4 years from now will depend on whether the number of allopathic programs who take DO students and the number of spots at these respective programs increase, or if they stay fixed.

It is very difficult to predict what will happen 4 years from now, but looking at the numbers, DO student numbers are increasing at a much bigger rate than IMGs during the last year or so. If this trend continues, and it loos like it will, it is possible that DO students will begin to compete more and more with each other for the fixed number of spots, rather than with U.S. IMGs, as programs who historically have a preference for DO or MD do not often switch preferences.

It is argued that because of AOA, DO students essentially have 2 matches rather than 1 to apply, but again, while capacity has not been reached, it is possible that the point where AOA programs become completely filled will occur, in which case DO applicants will begin to experience the same problem that U.S. IMGs starte to experience a few years ago.

Very often, alternative Allopathic and Osteopathic students have one thing in common. They look for another group to kick aroud and they use cherry picked data, anacdotal 'stories' and suggestions of fear, uncertainty and doubt to bash others.

Strangly, two groups of students who do this the most are students from SGU in the Caribbean, and DO students. Both groups often visit the AUC forums on ValueMD, and quote cherry picked data, anacdotal stories, or fear.

Here is and SGU student: US MD > SGU > other Carib programs and DO
Here is a DO student: USMD > USDO > US IMG

A lot of this nonsence is more of a way to compensate for insecurity by finding another group to kick around and put down rather than to objectively look at data and try to identify a trend.

One could argue that the trends over the past few years suggest that DOs will have an advantage 4 years from now. On the other hand, if the number of DO allopathic residency spots do not significantly increase over the next 4 years to match the huge increases in DO students, it might be much harder for a DO student who is starting out today to match in comparison to a student attending an offshore MD program.

So can the argument that DOs increasing their numbers automatically sqeezes out U.S IMGs be made. Not necesarily, as programs that favor DOs will contiue to do so, and programs who favor US IMG and that do not cosider DO students will unlikely change rapidly, and there is no indication that the number of programs, and the number of spots availible to US IMGS will decrease at the expence of increasing enrollment at DO programs.

A more likely scenario is that for allopathic residency program who consider DO and US IMG, programs will become more selective, and in the case of DO, the unmatched DO allopathic applicants will be channeled into AOA until this reaches capacity, at which point you will then have weaker applicants of both DO students and US IMG students going unmatched, instead of the current situation where weaker DO applicants can still be channeled into AOA residency slots.

 

[DrFraud]

On the eve of the New York state vote on all this stuff I can tell you that some (I didn't read every comment) of Fraud's "logic" is patently false and other parts are optimistic to a point of misrepresentation. There is a portion (about half) that is totally true, but its the common sense half, not the impressive half of his comments. AKA: a residency prefers a highly qualified anything over a poorly qualified anything. Well duh. yea.

What's really funny about your comment is that whenever I talk about SGU's cherry picked data, misrepresentations, or boastful claims of supereriority over all others who do alternative routs, most DOs agree with me, and when I comment on DOs use of cherry picked data, misrepresentations, or boastful claims of superiority over all other alternatives, SGU students agree with me.

Yet what both groups fail to realize (those who are DO or those who attend SGU) is that the same insecurity, the same shame of going to an alternative pathway program goes into the need to find another group to try and put down in order to eleveate oneself and develop a sence of self-esteem exists on both sides.

Students and graduates from DO and SGU fight with themselves in a way that the JETS and SHARKs fought during West Side Story, but is was the same status of being immigrants in NY 40 years ago that students who go to alternative pathway programs experience, and they deal with it the same way as the JETS and SHARKS.

Both goups (DO and SGU) use the same faulty logic to support their claims

 

[DocEspana]

There is a massive flaw in your logic. There is no such thing as a field that is MD-preferential (one glaring and random exception is general surgery. Not even specialty surgery. just general surgery. But DOs don't even fill up their own gen surg spots in the AOA. So not overly concerned). Every last field from top to bottom (including derm. check the stats) will show you that DOs are represented in ACGME fields at approximately the amount they make up of applicants (10%) and more in certain fields. Without any sign of any ACGME residency that is DO discriminatory, outside of a batty director here or there who makes up less than 1% of the total spots, your argument falls apart.

Add in that no one will argue the same is true for IMGs, that they dont face a bias in many residency fields and even more specific locations, and you get the entire idea of my response here. 15 years ago the opposite was true, where IMGs were often viewed as better than DOs everywhere except middle america. Now the paradigm has shifted. But its not something that prone to switching back as we haven't replaced IMGs. IMGs were always the "next best thing to an american-trained doc and good at what they do get into" . Their situation, including rates of entering residencies, has not changed all that much.

Which is a little surprising to me, but the stats do back it up. IMGs are exactly where they've always been. But now DO has proven itself to be a legitimate alternative to MD for those who have some flaw in their record. But its not viewed the way IMGs are where they are "a alternative" we are just plain viewed as american trained doctors. period. The only reason why a DO might have trouble getting into derm at "hard as hell university hospital" is the same reason why he went to NYCOM instead of NYU (sorry NYCOM, but its true). Same school, nearly the same rate of primary care residencies (59.9% vs 62.7%), but the fact of the matter is that the NYU kid has a more perfect academic record and likely could reach for the random crazy competitive one if they wanted to.

So can the DO. There isn't a bias. There is simply the fact that if they were that academically flawless they'd (probably) be in NYU. The offshore schools are actually looked at with a bias. It's not anecdote when the residency directors tell you "they are mostly for primary care and anesthesia".

And plus... the future (ideally) fracturing of the offshore control of prime NYC/NJ training sites will be a big issue for the offshore students. I don't ever doubt the qualifications of the offshore students, but they are in a system that is predatory to the weak and biased back on US soil against the otherwise well qualified.

 

[DocEspana]

What's really funny about your comment is that whenever I talk about SGU's cherry picked data, misrepresentations, or boastful claims of supereriority over all others who do alternative routs, most DOs agree with me, and when I comment on DOs use of cherry picked data, misrepresentations, or boastful claims of superiority over all other alternatives, SGU students agree with me.

Yet what both groups fail to realize (those who are DO or those who attend SGU) is that the same insecurity, the same shame of going to an alternative pathway program goes into the need to find another group to try and put down in order to eleveate oneself and develop a sence of self-esteem exists on both sides.

Students and graduates from DO and SGU fight with themselves in a way that the JETS and SHARKs fought during West Side Story, but is was the same status of being immigrants in NY 40 years ago that students who go to alternative pathway programs experience, and they deal with it the same way as the JETS and SHARKS.

Both goups (DO and SGU) use the same faulty logic to support their claims

You're missing the point with me. I'm a politician. I do this stuff in Albany. Did it before med school and am doing it now in med school. I know the actual facts and the SGU stats I present aren't cherry picked. They are the values given by independent educational contractors and the ministry of health of the countries. The data is out there and on legislator's desks. I'm the wrong person to accuse of bias. As much as I've made throwing back the curtain on these schools my personal specialty (and it has become personal, so my own thoughts and casual talk are indeed biased) But, I don't generally deal with the anecdotes and rumors anymore. I deal with stuff that I need to defend against lawyers who represent the IMGs and USIMGs. I just only wish

You've been misrepresenting the numbers. I just wanted to have that put out there. Everyone is allowed to let pride and a bit of self-protection make the edges of their 'facts' a little softer and fuzzier. Just don't suggest (which you did not explicitly) I am doing so when you are definitely doing so yourself, while me... not so much.

EDIT: most of my comment redacted cause I dont want to start an argument. i just wanted to point out that you were heavily misrepresenting the actual trends. But everyone does that. I just try not to do so often by merit of what I do day in and day out off the boards.

 

[DrFraud]

There is a massive flaw in your logic. There is no such thing as a field that is MD-preferential (one glaring and random exception is general surgery. Not even specialty surgery. just general surgery. But DOs don't even fill up their own gen surg spots in the AOA. So not overly concerned). Every last field from top to bottom (including derm. check the stats) will show you that DOs are represented in ACGME fields at approximately the amount they make up of applicants (10%) and more in certain fields. Without any sign of any ACGME residency that is DO discriminatory, outside of a batty director here or there who makes up less than 1% of the total spots, your argument falls apart.

Add in that no one will argue the same is true for IMGs, that they dont face a bias in many residency fields and even more specific locations, and you get the entire idea of my response here. 15 years ago the opposite was true, where IMGs were often viewed as better than DOs everywhere except middle america. Now the paradigm has shifted. But its not something that prone to switching back as we haven't replaced IMGs. IMGs were always the "next best thing to an american-trained doc and good at what they do get into" . Their situation, including rates of entering residencies, has not changed all that much.

Which is a little surprising to me, but the stats do back it up. IMGs are exactly where they've always been. But now DO has proven itself to be a legitimate alternative to MD for those who have some flaw in their record. But its not viewed the way IMGs are where they are "a alternative" we are just plain viewed as american trained doctors. period. The only reason why a DO might have trouble getting into derm at "hard as hell university hospital" is the same reason why he went to NYCOM instead of NYU (sorry NYCOM, but its true). Same school, nearly the same rate of primary care residencies (59.9% vs 62.7%), but the fact of the matter is that the NYU kid has a more perfect academic record and likely could reach for the random crazy competitive one if they wanted to

What is hard for you (and SGU students too) to realize that this 'competition' between both groups is much more than which is a more legitimate alternative, as both have some degree of legitimacy.

This is about the emotional need of students and graduates who attend alternative pathway programs to 'feel better' about their respective pathway by putting themselves above others who chose other 'alternative' pathways.

Whether you like it or not, there are still some programs who will consider gradutes from DO to be a live form that is just a little above pond scum, and likewise to grads from Carib. programs too.

How do you and others react to this after working so hard........?

Even though the pathways that DO and SGU students take are different, the emotional reactions are the exact same. In an effort to build self esteem, data is cherry pick, people who go to other programs are bashed, and falisies are perpetuated.

What is most disappointing about this arguement is that as Health care professionals (Both DO and SGU) you should be learning to look at data and information objectively, which is really what we all should be striving to do to optimize care for patients, and instead both groups use flawed logic, cherry picked data, and sweeping statements that do nothing but serve individual emotional needs to try and feel better about onesself.

Often, doctors are critical of their patients when they pop random supplements that are purchased over the internet instead of medications that have been studied and that are well understood, but in the end, as doctors and doctors in training, we can be much more like our patients than we like to admit and we use the same emotions to cherry pick info to believe what reinforces our self esteem.

 

[DrFraud]

You're missing the point with me. I'm a politician.

The fact that you identify yourself as a politician instead of a Physican in training speaks volumes about how your perspective shapes your arguments. SGU students and grads have an alternative perspective and both both groups (DO and SGU) claim to hold the universal 'truth'. In the end, both sets of agruments are seriosly flawed and are based on the respective emotional needs to develop self esteem over the inablility to get into a US MD medical school rather than one group having the superior ability to objectively analyze and study the data that exists about both pathways.

 

[oar2386]

Fraud just admit you are wrong. You have provided no facts and completely ignored valid points. Now all your doing is changing your argument trying to say you are right all along.
Your trying to justify your entire argument on common knowledge, imgs and dos look down on eachother because they compete for similar spots. This has nothing to do with match rates, matriculation, or expanding class sizes.

 

[DocEspana]

What is hard for you (and SGU students too) to realize that this 'competition' between both groups is much more than which is a more legitimate alternative, as both have some degree of legitimacy.

This is about the emotional need of students and graduates who attend alternative pathway programs to 'feel better' about their respective pathway by putting themselves above others who chose other 'alternative' pathways.

Whether you like it or not, there are still some programs who will consider gradutes from DO to be a live form that is just a little above pond scum, and likewise to grads from Carib. programs too.

How do you and others react to this after working so hard........?

Even though the pathways that DO and SGU students take are different, the emotional reactions are the exact same. In an effort to build self esteem, data is cherry pick, people who go to other programs are bashed, and falisies are perpetuated.

What is most disappointing about this arguement is that as Health care professionals (Both DO and SGU) you should be learning to look at data and information objectively, which is really what we all should be striving to do to optimize care for patients, and instead both groups uses very flawed logic and cherry picked data to make sweeping statements that do nothing but serve your individual emotional needs to try and feel better about yourselves.

Doesn't exist. This is the flaw in your entire comment. I've worked side by side with the most prominent program directors (admittedly on political stuff) and ask them this ALL THE TIME. I'm insecure. Everyone is. They have all assured me that with exception of a few old coots in ACGME gen surg (and again, we dont even fill out own AOA gen surg) there is no such thing as a place that carries a DO bias.

If the best university hospitals in america are telling me this, I dont care if the exception is buttscratch community hospital. They're adamant about this. Anecdotal. Sure, it's anecdotal as hell. But I'm going to believe it from their elite program running mouths much more than an interpretation kicked around by any IMG or DO. Especially when I always hear the same answer, with the exact same single caveat of ACGME gen surg.

Which, mind you, doesn't take kindly to USIMGs either.

What they are also clear on is that there is rapidly becoming a LOT of studies showing that USIMGs have statistically poorer outcomes in all sorts of fields (ER, CHF, Surgery, Acceptance into specialty boards are four I'm citing on the floor this wekeend). The studies show that US trained MDs and DOs are entirely identical in these studies. Ironically, 3 of the four studies I just mentioned list non-US IMGs as the best performing of all of them, even above US-trained MDs (and one further differentiates that carib trained of any nationality falls statistically well below european, asian and african IMGs)

The residency directors have become extremely aware of these studies, as have multiple state boards of education. This is what they cite back to me as to why they are biasing against USIMGs. These studies are what made it possible for me to go up there and push for limitations on IMG training in the best US hospitals.

I'm defending my own degree only coincidentally. And I do so at the request of MDs, not fellow DOs (who, i agree, take solace in trying to turn IMGs into straw men.) I just do this based on empirical fact and statistical trend, not a need to feel safer. Okay, I know you'll have a counter argument, and it'll prob be good. But since you reiterate the same points repeatedly (no shame in that, I'm probably covering the same ground too) I'm calling it quits for now unless someone else quotes me.

 

[DocEspana]

Fraud just admit you are wrong. You have provided no facts and completely ignored valid points. Now all your doing is changing your argument trying to say you are right all along.
Your trying to justify your entire argument on common knowledge, imgs and dos look down on eachother because they compete for similar spots.

I knew I had another point. This is conjecture here, but it is backed up a bit by the fact that IMGs have not changed in percentage or (general) residency positions in 11+ years. The USIMGs and the DOs don't really compete for spots at all except at Mayo and Cleveland Clinic, where we both compete for pre-matching anesthesia.

Since USIMGs are >50% carib trained (they are) and carib trained students are >50% USIMG, lets just treat the whole category of carib trained as 100% USIMG for a moment (this is a conjecture, so i dont need exact math). The rate of carib/USIMG matching is unchanging year after year. The DO rate in the ACGME is growing every year. Since USMDs are also growing, something must be shrinking, right?

It's the foreign trained doctors (FMGs or Non-USIMG) which are shrinking. And right now the sheer numbers are FMGs >> USIMGs > DOs in the ACGME. (though that is about to change at the 2 and 3 spot). We're not competing with the USIMGs, we're competing with the foreign trained doctors, or rather, taking their spots. It's the only thing that seems to make sense

Here is the huge flaw though. the FMGs are the best performing doctors out there and everyone knows it. So how the hell anyone takes there spots makes no sense to me. But I am just throwing out conjecture here in this post. Take of it what you will.

 

[DrFraud]

The residency directors have become extremely aware of these studies, as have multiple state boards of education. This is what they cite back to me as to why they are biasing against USIMGs. These studies are what made it possible for me to go up there and push for limitations on IMG training in the best US hospitals.

What you are saying doesn't make sence. If residency directors believe the studies and are biasing against US IMGs, then there should be no need to legislate for limitations in IMG training, as the Directors own knowledge and preferences will affect residency training without the need for legislative intervention.

The only reason why I could imagine that you would want to seek legislative intervention is to force program directors who are favoring IMG MDs to instead have to consider DOs first, which completely contradicts your sweeping claim.

This is the same old typical fear mongering that goes on at these type of message boards. Use fear to discourage applicants from making objective decisions. Politicials are very good at using fear to shape voting and preferences too.

 

[DrFraud]

I'm defending my own degree only coincidentally.

This is just soooo clasic. Every one defends their own pathway/degree. This is NO COINCIDENCE. You are very much in denial of your own need to build self esteem by trying to push IMGS out.

You are exactly like SGU graduates. Why is this so difficult for you to acknowledge.

 

[DocEspana]

What you are saying doesn't make sence. If residency directors believe the studies and are biasing against US IMGs, then there should be no need to legislate for limitations in IMG training, as their own knowledge and preferences will affect residency training without the need for legislative intervention.

The only reason why I could imagine that you would want to seek legislative intervention is to force program directors who are favoring IMG MDs to instead have to consider DOs first, which completely contradicts your sweeping claim.

This is the same old typical fear mongering that goes on at these type of message boards. Use fear to discourage applicants from making objective decisions. Politicials are very good at using fear to shape voting and preferences too.

.... no... this bill is from the New York County Medical society and the entire medical students of the medical society of the state of new york. So count the number of medical schools in new york state. And imagine the likely MD/DO breakdown of New York County. And realize it is my job to write and support the legislation put forward by medical schools from NY. The fact that I'm a DO student couldn't have less relevance to this issue, which is almost exclusively one of MD students. They are losing their university hospitals to offshore students and can't afford to try to outbid them. Example: Downstate lost its OBGYN and Peds rotation in their own university hospital to Ross. Every university hospital has the same story now. Thats what I was asked to remedy, and I was asked because it's my job. Like the short order cook is asked to make a hamburger. That's his job.

The rest has been redacted because. Hell. This is getting silly.

 

[DrFraud]

.... no... this bill is from the New York County Medical society and the entire medical students of the medical society of the state of new york. Me being a DO student was a coincidence. I watched a similar bill get defeated and rewrote it, submitted it with the backing of every NYC medical school. Offshore medical students are displacing everyone. example: SUNY Downstate as of last year (cannot confirm it for the current 2013 class) did not have OBGYN or peds at their own university hospital because of Ross students literally purchasing every spot. This sort of stuff has happened at pretty much every hospital worth going to in New York City and many of the more desirable spots upstate.................................


IDK why I'm posting this. There is clearly some creedance to your thought that me introducing myself as a politician means a lot about who I am. Plenty of people say they want to save lives, I just want to also be able to do it at the personal level as well as the organizational level. Better healthcare itself can save lives. (same way doctors who go into research can save lives too. Just don't tell AT Still I'm not all for bone setting and cranial manipulation all day )

What you fail to realize is that off shore medical students are often U.S. Medical students who go abroad to get educated because the U.S. allopathic medical schools historically have for a variety of reasons not met the demand for the number of residency spots that exist, especially in New York.

The students who go to off shore programs are often as American as Apple Pie, and your suggestion that a New Yorker who goes to St. Martin for two years of basic sciences training, and then returns to a New York inner city hospital for clinical training, passes their USMLE 1,2, 3 in the process, and then selects a family practice residency in NYC in comparison to a New Yorker who goes to Downstate, rotates at an inner city hospital, and selects an Anesthesiology or Dermatology residency somhow threatens the health care of New Yorkers is blatenly preposterous.

 

[DocEspana]

What you fail to realize is that off shore medical students are often U.S. Medical students who go abroad to get educated because the U.S. allopathic medical schools historically have for a variety of reasons not met the demand for the number of residency spots that exist, especially in New York.

The students who go to off shore programs are often as American as Apple Pie, and your suggestion that a New Yorker who goes to St. Martin for two years of basic sciences training, and then returns to a New York inner city hospital for clinical training, passes their USMLE 1,2, 3 in the process, and then selects a family practice residency in NYC in comparison to a New Yorker who goes to Downstate, rotates at an inner city hospital, and selects an Anesthesiology or Dermatology residency somhow threatens the health care of New Yorkers is blatenly preposterous.

1) SGU+Ross (I cant get data for just one sadly) students in NYC currently are 41% US citizens. That's *not* apple pie. That's not even 50% apple pie. This is one of the reasons that the enrollment data from SGU+Ross (lumping them together) blows my mind because their combined intake of US students is MUCH above 41%.

2) Primary care rate of SGU in 2011: 65.5%. Ross in 2011: 66.4%. NYU in 2010: 59.9%. NYCOM in 2010: 62.8%. That, my friend, is called a statistically insignificant difference. Downstate is in the very high 50's as well. Indicative of every NY school? No. But proof that there are well respected schools putting out just as many primary care docs.

(I may be using you as a warm up for the arguments I'll be hearing in testimomy. So thank you. Honestly. Not even being condescending. I need to know what a well spoken opponent would say)

 

[DrFraud]

1) SGU+Ross (I cant get data for just one sadly) students in NYC currently are 41% US citizens. That's *not* apple pie.

what's really disingenuous about your use of stats is that when data is more favorable looking at individual Carib. programs such as looking at match data, those who advocate for DO argue to look at data in aggragate, so that all Carib. program data is lumped together so that the data from the better schools is buried with the lesser quality programs, but then when you have a situation like this where slicing data up makes caribean programs look bad, instead of being consistant and trying to use aggrage data you instead use data from individual schools.

So its ok to use the Citizen breakdown from individual Carib. schools but it's not ok to use Match data from individual schools.

The only thing that is consistant in your logic is the same as that from students from SGU - Cherry pick data, make sweeping staments and generalizations, to support your claim so that you can build up your own self-esteem at the expense of others. You are not being honest, either with people who read this forum, or yourself if you believe that your arguments are objective.

You are just replaying the Jets vs the Sharks. At least West Side Story had better lyrics............

 

[gravitywave]

A few years ago, a couple of the larger well know Caribbean programs supersized their classes, and after the expansion, the match rate for these programs started to decrease. Some may argue the cause was increased competion from DOs, but others might suggest that the number of programs and hospitals that consider U.S. IMGs is fixed, so the applicants competed with themselves rather than with U.S students or DO.

Likewise, the allopathic programs and regions that consider DO students is relatively fixed. There have been recent increases in class size and programs for DO, and how this affects the Match 3-4 years from now will depend on whether the number of allopathic programs who take DO students and the number of spots at these respective programs increase, or if they stay fixed.

*snip

and those "some" would be the ones making the silly arguments. the number of DOs matching ACGME PGY-1 has increased 41% since 2006. the number of US IMGs matching ACGME PGY-1 over the same period, 42%. the increase in the number of ACGME PGY-1 slots in this time frame: 5%. clearly the number of programs willing to consider DOs and IMGs both are increasing, likely because of the steadily rising caliber of the students from both.

the fact is that the attrition rate even for a Carib school such as SGU is unacceptably high compared to any DO school. the people matriculating at any DO school obtain board certification and full US medical licensure at a much, much higher rate than do those matriculating at any Carib school. for this reason alone, Carib is the worse investment to make for any prospective med student. the rest of your arguments are smoke and mirrors for this fact, i'm afraid.

 

[HockeyDr09]

what's really disingenuous about your use of stats is that when data is more favorable looking at individual Carib. programs such as looking at match data, those who advocate for DO argue to look at data in aggragate, so that all Carib. program data is lumped together so that the data from the better schools is buried with the lesser quality programs, but then when you have a situation like this where slicing data up makes caribean programs look bad, instead of being consistant and trying to use aggrage data you instead use data from individual schools.

So its ok to use the Citizen breakdown from individual Carib. schools but it's not ok to use Match data from individual schools.

The only thing that is consistant in your logic is the same as that from students from SGU - Cherry pick data, make sweeping staments and generalizations, to support your claim so that you can build up your own self-esteem at the expense of others. You are not being honest, either with people who read this forum, or yourself if you believe that your arguments are objective.

You are just replaying the Jets vs the Sharks. At least West Side Story had better lyrics............

You criticize DocEspana for making "sweeping statements and generalizations" and you have not provided a shred of evidence to support any of your claims (aside from the ever accurate quackwatch.com, of course.) Don't you think you're being a little hypocritical? As gravitywave mentioned, don't you think the attrition rates at Caribbean schools should at least be considered when making your arguments?

 

[whatbout2morrow]

In all fairness, in terms of US-born foreign educated doctors, the average match percentage will include the match rate of those who attended offshore schools which would accept anyone with a pulse and a seven figure bank balance and failed to match. This will effectively bring down the average of the overall match rate of US-born foreign educated doctors.

Though while I have heard of students who turned down DO acceptances to attend SGU so that may achieve the title "MD", and that each PD will have a different opinion of offshore graduates, I do believe that a large number of PDs regard Offshore grads as "those who could not get themselves into a US MD or DO school."

However, there is no sure-fire way of knowing each individual PD's opinion at any given point of time. All of us can only make educated guesses. However, as a Useless Member, I have the option of bypassing "educated" and just making guesses 😀😉.

 

[DocEspana]

So this is fresh off the floor of delegation and debate. The new New York state position on offshore schools is as follow (I admit the wording may be slightly different, i dont have a copy of the final wording, so I'm using my original submitted wording):

"...medical students from LCME/COCA accredited medical schools should be provided preference in allocation of clinical clerkship opportunities in appropriate, and whenever possible, local hospitals before inviting international students or dual-campus students to serve regardless of other incentives"

Boom goes the dynamite. Now what sort of laws come from this policy? we shall see.

 

[kcin]

Jebus Christ. Fraud, just go back to your carib forums, bro.

 

[jp104]

So this is fresh off the floor of delegation and debate. The new New York state position on offshore schools is as follow (I admit the wording may be slightly different, i dont have a copy of the final wording, so I'm using my original submitted wording):

"...medical students from LCME/COCA accredited medical schools should be provided preference in allocation of clinical clerkship opportunities in appropriate, and whenever possible, local hospitals before inviting international students or dual-campus students to serve regardless of other incentives"

Boom goes the dynamite. Now what sort of laws come from this policy? we shall see.

Got a link for this? I'm curious to read the actual wording. Thanks!

 

[oar2386]

So this is fresh off the floor of delegation and debate. The new New York state position on offshore schools is as follow (I admit the wording may be slightly different, i dont have a copy of the final wording, so I'm using my original submitted wording):

"...medical students from LCME/COCA accredited medical schools should be provided preference in allocation of clinical clerkship opportunities in appropriate, and whenever possible, local hospitals before inviting international students or dual-campus students to serve regardless of other incentives"

Boom goes the dynamite. Now what sort of laws come from this policy? we shall see.

by dual campus, does this include branch campuses like pcom ga and lecom b? Im just confused by the wording.
And Fraud, you just got pwnd.

 

[Instatewaiter]

There is a massive flaw in your logic. There is no such thing as a field that is MD-preferential (one glaring and random exception is general surgery. Not even specialty surgery. just general surgery. But DOs don't even fill up their own gen surg spots in the AOA. So not overly concerned). Every last field from top to bottom (including derm. check the stats) will show you that DOs are represented in ACGME fields at approximately the amount they make up of applicants (10%) and more in certain fields. Without any sign of any ACGME residency that is DO discriminatory, outside of a batty director here or there who makes up less than 1% of the total spots, your argument falls apart.

So let's actually look at the data, shall we?
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2010.pdf

There were just over 2000 DO applicants and just under 10,000 IMGs. So, you should expect roughly 5x as many IMGs

Derm- there are a total of 360 PGY 1 and PGY 2 positions
DOs took 1, IMGs took 9. So DOs make up 0.2%, IMGs make up 9 times that (2.25%).

Therefore, neither are even close to appropriately represented but IMGs are closer

Ortho- 653 filled. 3 by osteo (0.4%), 15 by IMG (2.2%)

ENT- 279 spots- 1 DO (0.35%), 5 IMG (1.8%)

Neurosurg- 188 spots 1 DO 7 IMG

Plastics -69 spots, 0 DOs, 3 IMG

The data shows that DOs are not appropriately represented, or even close... neither are IMGs. There is a very obvious bias against DOs as anyone who has actually gone through the match will tell you.

[a bias] Doesn't exist. This is the flaw in your entire comment. I've worked side by side with the most prominent program directors (admittedly on political stuff) and ask them this ALL THE TIME.

If the best university hospitals in america are telling me this, They're adamant about this. Anecdotal. Sure, it's anecdotal as hell. But I'm going to believe it from their elite program running mouths much more than an interpretation kicked around by any IMG or DO. Especially when I always hear the same answer, with the exact same single caveat of ACGME gen surg.

First, I doubt the DO bias ever came up and second they wouldn't tell you straight to your face even if it did.

Since actions speak louder than words let's look at the residency class make up at some of these places. Let's pick a non-competitive specialty like IM and look at some of the well known programs.

Johns Hopkins Hospital, MGH, Brigham and Womens, BIDMC, Duke, Penn, UCSF, OHSU, Stanford, UVA, Columbia, Mt Sinai, Wash U, Michigan, Yale, Vandy

I guarantee I can find a student from even the lowest tier MD school in these programs but you can't find a single DO student. You however do see some IMGs (for instance JHH has 3 that I know of). I am not saying that there is no IMG bias because there is. But, were there no DO bias you would expect over 150 DOs to be in these programs alone. There are none.

Even places like Penn, that have a DO school blocks away, have 0 DO students in their IM program. They do have students from both Jeff and Temple though.

I am not saying this to start a war. But to say that there is no DO bias when there obviously is and to say that program directors told you they have no bias when they don't take a single DO seems funny.

 

[Gavanshir]

So let's actually look at the data, shall we?
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2010.pdf

There were just over 2000 DO applicants and just under 10,000 IMGs. So, you should expect roughly 5x as many IMGs

Derm- there are a total of 360 PGY 1 and PGY 2 positions
DOs took 1, IMGs took 9. So DOs make up 0.2%, IMGs make up 9 times that (2.25%).

Therefore, neither are even close to appropriately represented but IMGs are closer

Ortho- 653 filled. 3 by osteo (0.4%), 15 by IMG (2.2%)

ENT- 279 spots- 1 DO (0.35%), 5 IMG (1.8%)

Neurosurg- 188 spots 1 DO 7 IMG

Plastics -69 spots, 0 DOs, 3 IMG

The data shows that DOs are not appropriately represented, or even close... neither are IMGs. There is a very obvious bias against DOs as anyone who has actually gone through the match will tell you.




First, I doubt the DO bias ever came up and second they wouldn't tell you straight to your face even if it did.

Since actions speak louder than words let's look at the residency class make up at some of these places. Let's pick a non-competitive specialty like IM and look at some of the well known programs.

Johns Hopkins Hospital, MGH, Brigham and Womens, BIDMC, Duke, Penn, UCSF, OHSU, Stanford, UVA, Columbia, Mt Sinai, Wash U, Michigan, Yale, Vandy

I guarantee I can find a student from even the lowest tier MD school in these programs but you can't find a single DO student. You however do see some IMGs (for instance JHH has 3 that I know of). I am not saying that there is no IMG bias because there is. But, were there no DO bias you would expect over 150 DOs to be in these programs alone. There are none.

Even places like Penn, that have a DO school blocks away, have 0 DO students in their IM program. They do have students from both Jeff and Temple though.

I am not saying this to start a war. But to say that there is no DO bias when there obviously is and to say that program directors told you they have no bias when they don't take a single DO seems funny.

Thank you. 👍

 

[Revilla]

So let's actually look at the data, shall we?
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2010.pdf

There were just over 2000 DO applicants and just under 10,000 IMGs. So, you should expect roughly 5x as many IMGs

Derm- there are a total of 360 PGY 1 and PGY 2 positions
DOs took 1, IMGs took 9. So DOs make up 0.2%, IMGs make up 9 times that (2.25%).

Therefore, neither are even close to appropriately represented but IMGs are closer

Ortho- 653 filled. 3 by osteo (0.4%), 15 by IMG (2.2%)

ENT- 279 spots- 1 DO (0.35%), 5 IMG (1.8%)

Neurosurg- 188 spots 1 DO 7 IMG

Plastics -69 spots, 0 DOs, 3 IMG

Your numbers are extremely flawed. You picked the most competitive specialties and then lumped IMGs and DOs together, forgetting the fact that the vast majority of DOs don't apply to the ACGME match for competitive specialties. For instance, I would bet no more than 5 DOs nationwide applied solely for ACGME neurosurgery because DOs have their own neurosurg programs. If they match into a DO neurosurgery program, they're withdrawn from ACGME. So of the 5 who stayed in the ACGME match for neurosurgery, 1 matched. By the same token, 7 IMGs matched. But IMGs only have one match available to them -- ACGME. So how many actually applied? If 50 applied and only 7 matched, those are worse odds than 5 DOs with one match.

Like I said, your numbers are flawed.

 

[HockeyDr09]

So let's actually look at the data, shall we?
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2010.pdf

There were just over 2000 DO applicants and just under 10,000 IMGs. So, you should expect roughly 5x as many IMGs

Derm- there are a total of 360 PGY 1 and PGY 2 positions
DOs took 1, IMGs took 9. So DOs make up 0.2%, IMGs make up 9 times that (2.25%).

Therefore, neither are even close to appropriately represented but IMGs are closer

Ortho- 653 filled. 3 by osteo (0.4%), 3 by US- IMG

ENT- 279 spots- 1 DO (0.35%), 1 US- IMG

Neurosurg- 188 spots 1 DO 3 US- IMG

Plastics -69 spots, 0 DOs, 0US- IMG

The data shows that DOs are not appropriately represented, or even close... neither are IMGs. There is a very obvious bias against DOs as anyone who has actually gone through the match will tell you.




First, I doubt the DO bias ever came up and second they wouldn't tell you straight to your face even if it did.

Since actions speak louder than words let's look at the residency class make up at some of these places. Let's pick a non-competitive specialty like IM and look at some of the well known programs.

Johns Hopkins Hospital, MGH, Brigham and Womens, BIDMC, Duke, Penn, UCSF, OHSU, Stanford, UVA, Columbia, Mt Sinai, Wash U, Michigan, Yale, Vandy

I guarantee I can find a student from even the lowest tier MD school in these programs but you can't find a single DO student. You however do see some IMGs (for instance JHH has 3 that I know of). I am not saying that there is no IMG bias because there is. But, were there no DO bias you would expect over 150 DOs to be in these programs alone. There are none.

Even places like Penn, that have a DO school blocks away, have 0 DO students in their IM program. They do have students from both Jeff and Temple though.

I am not saying this to start a war. But to say that there is no DO bias when there obviously is and to say that program directors told you they have no bias when they don't take a single DO seems funny.

Fixed that for you.

If I remember correctly, DocEspana was referring mostly to US IMG's which makes most of your data incorrect. I'm not going to argue which is "better", because everyone has different opinions. Just making sure the stats listed are actually accurate.

You also "cherry picked" specific fields. Take a look at all fields. Consider that D.O's have the osteo match and I'm not really sure where the debate is coming from. The statistics speak for themselves. I personally will agree that it seems like there is a bias against D.O's in the M.D match though. I wish it wasn't so, it just seems like it based on these numbers.

 

[DocEspana]

So let's actually look at the data, shall we?
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2010.pdf

There were just over 2000 DO applicants and just under 10,000 IMGs. So, you should expect roughly 5x as many IMGs

Derm- there are a total of 360 PGY 1 and PGY 2 positions
DOs took 1, IMGs took 9. So DOs make up 0.2%, IMGs make up 9 times that (2.25%).

Therefore, neither are even close to appropriately represented but IMGs are closer

Ortho- 653 filled. 3 by osteo (0.4%), 15 by IMG (2.2%)

ENT- 279 spots- 1 DO (0.35%), 5 IMG (1.8%)

Neurosurg- 188 spots 1 DO 7 IMG

Plastics -69 spots, 0 DOs, 3 IMG

The data shows that DOs are not appropriately represented, or even close... neither are IMGs. There is a very obvious bias against DOs as anyone who has actually gone through the match will tell you.




First, I doubt the DO bias ever came up and second they wouldn't tell you straight to your face even if it did.

Since actions speak louder than words let's look at the residency class make up at some of these places. Let's pick a non-competitive specialty like IM and look at some of the well known programs.

Johns Hopkins Hospital, MGH, Brigham and Womens, BIDMC, Duke, Penn, UCSF, OHSU, Stanford, UVA, Columbia, Mt Sinai, Wash U, Michigan, Yale, Vandy

I guarantee I can find a student from even the lowest tier MD school in these programs but you can't find a single DO student. You however do see some IMGs (for instance JHH has 3 that I know of). I am not saying that there is no IMG bias because there is. But, were there no DO bias you would expect over 150 DOs to be in these programs alone. There are none.

Even places like Penn, that have a DO school blocks away, have 0 DO students in their IM program. They do have students from both Jeff and Temple though.

I am not saying this to start a war. But to say that there is no DO bias when there obviously is and to say that program directors told you they have no bias when they don't take a single DO seems funny.

My school has matches at columbia, mt sinai and yale (and not in FM, but two IM and one specialty.... so yeaaaa. That point wasn't even slightly researched since I can just point to my own school. And this is our first ever graduating class.

also I definitely goofed when I said ACGME representation would be equal. I meant residency representation would be equal. We make up the correct percent when AOA is matched in. I completely misspoke by using "ACGME" when I meant just generally "residency".