While the overall message of applying 2 cycles of USMD/DO admissions before considering the caribbean is valid, I would caution everyone to take the numbers being thrown around in this thread with a grain of salt.
I'm not interested in getting into the same old arguments with the same old posters, but I'll just explain a few easy ways that the numbers and fancy tables above are just pure nonsense based on faulty logic and poor interpretation of the data.
Yea, except that 67% totally doesn't represent the "match rate." When people say "match rate" they mean fresh grads applying for the first time. That 67% includes all graduates of SGU, regardless of year of graduation, i.e. it includes all the (poor) applicants from previous years that failed to match and are applying again. Look at that NRMP report you are citing, this one
http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uplo...tional-Medical-Graduates-Revised.PDF-File.pdf
scroll to page 5. You can clearly see that the mean number of years since graduation for
unmatched US-IMGs is
5.7 years. The majority of those unmatched applicants (the 33%) aren't fresh grads, they are repeat poor applicants from previous years. Presenting that as the "match rate" is simply wrong and a poor interpretation of the data. Furthermore, comparing it to "the 93% they claim" is clearly wrong as SGU is talking about fresh grads applying for the first time.
Nope. Wrong and a poor interpretation of data.
http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Main-Match-Results-and-Data-2016.pdf
ACGME Data Resource Book
Residency and Fellowship Match
In 2016 (most recent we have data), 6638 (2869 US + 3769 foreign) IMGs got positions through NRMP, 172 through SOAP, and 13 in ophtho through San Fran match (plastics isn't broken down). Thats
6823 total, but surprisingly
7218 IMGs started residency that year (page 79 of most recent ACGME data resource book), a difference of
~400. Yes, not much in the grand scheme of things, but it again exemplifies how error-ridden this poster's "data" is. And add a couple hundred of those spots to SGU numbers and it could absolutely beef up their numbers to get to the percentages they state.