Combined Match cage rattling

fuegorama · May 19, 2005

So this topic has drifted to the bottom of the pile recently. As the year winds down and the big July meet/vote looms it is important to get onto your student gov. leaders to lobby FOR the combined match.

If you are new to this topic, please see the sticky above.

In new news...if you see your SOMA rep in the hall, do some public shaming! According to our reps, these wizards tabled discussion on the match until the Fall.

This will be after the July vote, and will basically shut out anyone in the classes of '07 and probably '08. This is the biggest political football in the osteopathic student world and they let it slide! I thought these people represented the STUDENTS! After all, this is a student driven proposal.

This summer is probably the last chance for the class of 2007. Please make some noise on your campus. Chat up your SGA prez., your state associations, and your administration. Let's get this thing going!

PACtoDOC · May 19, 2005

fuegorama said:
So this topic has drifted to the bottom of the pile recently. As the year winds down and the big July meet/vote looms it is important to get onto your student gov. leaders to lobby FOR the combined match.

If you are new to this topic, please see the sticky above.

In new news...if you see your SOMA rep in the hall, do some public shaming! According to our reps, these wizards tabled discussion on the match until the Fall. This will be after the July vote, and will basically shut out anyone in the classes of '07 and probably '08. This is the biggest political football in the osteopathic student world and they let it slide! I thought these people represented the STUDENTS! After all, this is a student driven proposal.

This summer is probably the last chance for the class of 2007. Please make some noise on your campus. Chat up your SGA prez., your state associations, and your administration. Let's get this thing going!

I think you can just forget it. Our state society shot it down, and we are needing the joint match more than any other state. SOMA for some reason let it die this year, and I have no idea why. ACOFP shot it down, barely, but still shot it down. And there is no resolution that I know of that is even going to make it to AOA in order to at least facilitate discussion. Right now I am considering my involvement in the AOA like a government bond. I do plan to get dually boarded and remain a member of the AOA, But I don't plan on getting involved with them until I hear them listening to the members. Right now they govern more like a communist party than a democratically run organization. I don't feel that they care a darn bit about what happens to us in states where AOA residencies are more scare than summer snowstorms.

NMH2001 · May 19, 2005

I totally agree that the ball needs to get rolling-but I seriously doubt it will. I personally am disgusted with how the "Osteopathic higher ups" fail to take care of students, then wave a finger of shame at us when over half of all graduating seniors take an allopathic residency. Maybe this is due to 2 years of built up frustration but personally I plan on divorcing the osteopathic world and mainstreaming into allopathic upon graduation.

Just my 2 cents

fuegorama · May 21, 2005

chiggadabizzump

Docgeorge · May 21, 2005

Dr. Thomas was Pissed after comming to DMU and gave the student rep a dressing down. I did'nt witness this, but was told about this by our SB pres. Dr. Thomas also apperantly stated that he thinks the students are having too much infulence over the board of trustees and that maby we shoul'nt have a student rep on there any more.

How Much longer do we have to "show respect" to the AOA leaders and not put issiues before the members of the AOA?

Sorry... I was Just venting...now back to the boards.

Docgeorge · May 21, 2005

NMH2001 said:
I totally agree that the ball needs to get rolling-but I seriously doubt it will. I personally am disgusted with how the "Osteopathic higher ups" fail to take care of students, then wave a finger of shame at us when over half of all graduating seniors take an allopathic residency. Maybe this is due to 2 years of built up frustration but personally I plan on divorcing the osteopathic world and mainstreaming into allopathic upon graduation.

Just my 2 cents

The only problem is that if we do that only the conformist will be around and the cycle will prepetuate its self over and over again....

Idiopathic · May 21, 2005

Why is this important to you? A combined match hurts the osteopathic training community and helps only a small subset of DO students. It helps the MD students who then wouldnt have to worry about DO's signing outside the match. Explain to me how a combined match could improve any aspect of your training. The only benefit is for students who have an allopathic goal as their number 1 choice, cant get a commitment from the program and are forced to choose between matches.

We have DO hospitals in trouble in several locations, they are not filling their programs, and people are fighting to instill a policy that could likely give the top candidates an opportunity to have an easier time of NOT going DO.

Just curious why.

Docgeorge · May 22, 2005

Idiopathic said:
Why is this important to you? A combined match hurts the osteopathic training community and helps only a small subset of DO students. It helps the MD students who then wouldnt have to worry about DO's signing outside the match. Explain to me how a combined match could improve any aspect of your training. The only benefit is for students who have an allopathic goal as their number 1 choice, cant get a commitment from the program and are forced to choose between matches.

We have DO hospitals in trouble in several locations, they are not filling their programs, and people are fighting to instill a policy that could likely give the top candidates an opportunity to have an easier time of NOT going DO.

Just curious why.

It would be a lenghty reply, and as I do not have time right now I will beg off untill after boards. Any body else want to anwser?

Aaron Earles · May 22, 2005

fuegorama said:
In new news...if you see your SOMA rep in the hall, do some public shaming! According to our reps, these wizards tabled discussion on the match until the Fall. This will be after the July vote, and will basically shut out anyone in the classes of '07 and probably '08. This is the biggest political football in the osteopathic student world and they let it slide! I thought these people represented the STUDENTS! After all, this is a student driven proposal.

hello fuegorama,

First off, I can understand your frustration about the matter. I was at the Spring SOMA convention and attended all the meetings. When time came to discuss the Joint Match, there were strong debates from both sides. The reason the SOMA board tabled the issue was because they wanted to research the topic more in depth before we voted on the National SOMA Board stance on the situation. All of the Osteopathic school representatives voted to table the issue until the fall convention in order to get more info on the subject. If my memory serves me correctly, not one person voted against postponing the issue till the fall convention.

To start the discussion, a person from each side of the debate presented reasons for and against the Joint Match. Our region trustee sent us a power point presentation that each presenter gave for us to distribute to our respective schools. Contact your SOMA President or NLO and see if they would give this info to you. If not, feel free to PM me and I will be happy to send the Power Points to you via email.

Some of the people against the Joint match that I have talked with say they feel this way because they are afraid that combining the two matches would kill osteopathy. I can to a certain degree understand where they are coming from. My opinion is that if someone is determined to go into an allopathic residency, nothing is going to prevent them from doing so, not even a Joint Match.

I wanted to comment because I dont want people to think that their school representatives are ignoring the issue. It is complex and frustrating issue to say the least.

fuegorama · May 22, 2005

Idiopathic said:
Why is this important to you?

Based on my infinite knowledge as an MSII

if I had to make up my ROL today and there was a combined match, it would look something like this:
1.MD
2.DO
3.MD
4.DO
5.DO
6.MD
In the real life of today's world, I couldn't risk missing on my #1 so my list would look like:
1.MD
2.MD
3.MD
4. you get the picture

Idiopathic said:
.A combined match hurts the osteopathic training community and helps only a small subset of DO students.

Sorry, but I gotta disagree. All of us would benefit. >95% of us supported a combined match according to the survey last Fall. Are we really that dumb? I have looked at the SOMA powerpoint against the combination and really can't figure where those stats come from. While greater than half of all DO students will enter the ACGME match, only ~65% actually matched last year. (NRMP site) Under the present system, if we stack all the eggs in that basket, then 1/3 of us will be scramblin' in mid March. Uder a combined match, those 2nd, 4th and 5th choices I listed would still be viable options for me. (and you)

Idiopathic said:
.It helps the MD students who then wouldnt have to worry about DO's signing outside the match.

!st-I don't think that signing outside the match scenario is as widespread as you might think. I'm really interested, do you have some stats?
2nd-This will probably ruffle some folks, but I would like to see MDs in osteopathic residencies. I would like to see MDs in NMM residencies. I dream of allopaths that pursue the "MD-O". This would consist of a special "bridge comlex", a year of OMM emphasized internship and an NMM residency. If you want osteopathy as a unique form of medicine to survive, we better start allowing the current to shift both ways.

Osteopathy is not a club. It is not some secret organization. It is a mode of medical philosophy that I feel serves patients and physicians well. I have met MDs that functioned as osteopaths, and I have worked with DOs that couldn't stand touching patients much less deal with their Body/Mind/Spirit continuum. It isn't the degree that makes us great docs. It's the training. We are witnessing the demise of DO GME training because perceived or real, it is not the name but the quality of the education. These programs will continue to die. They need to be taken off this forced match life support now. Only this way will the truly strong survive.

Idiopathic said:
.Explain to me how a combined match could improve any aspect of your training.

1. LocationLocation
2. I went to medical school to become an EM physician. The program that I am currently ranking number one has a high density of peds, dedicated EM run trauma, a multi-cultural patient census in a metropolitan area w/ easy access to outdoor activities. It sees >75,000 pts./yr. There is no DO program that even comes close.

Idiopathic said:
.We have DO hospitals in trouble in several locations, they are not filling their programs, and people are fighting to instill a policy that could likely give the top candidates an opportunity to have an easier time of NOT going DO.

An even better reason to open these slots to MD grads.
Look the good ones will fill and will stay alive. The stinkers will slowly die from lack 'o love.

(I need to follow DocGeorges' example and get back to boards, or I'll be ranking that Jeebus tech slot #1)
I hope this gives you some answers.
F

fuegorama · May 22, 2005

Aaron Earles said:
hello fuegorama,

First off, I can understand your frustration about the matter. I was at the Spring SOMA convention and attended all the meetings. When time came to discuss the Joint Match, there were strong debates from both sides. The reason the SOMA board tabled the issue was because they wanted to research the topic more in depth before we voted on the National SOMA Board stance on the situation. All of the Osteopathic school representatives voted to table the issue until the fall convention in order to get more info on the subject. If my memory serves me correctly, not one person voted against postponing the issue till the fall convention.

To start the discussion, a person from each side of the debate presented reasons for and against the Joint Match. Our region trustee sent us a power point presentation that each presenter gave for us to distribute to our respective schools. Contact your SOMA President or NLO and see if they would give this info to you. If not, feel free to PM me and I will be happy to send the Power Points to you via email.

Some of the people against the Joint match that I have talked with say they feel this way because they are afraid that combining the two matches would kill osteopathy. I can to a certain degree understand where they are coming from. My opinion is that if someone is determined to go into an allopathic residency, nothing is going to prevent them from doing so, not even a Joint Match.

I wanted to comment because I dont want people to think that their school representatives are ignoring the issue. It is complex and frustrating issue to say the least.

Thanks for the reply Aaron. I understand the depth of feeling around this issue, but I resent SOMA for not dedicating more time when it counted. The inaction of our STUDENT ORGANIZATION is one more nail in the combo-match coffin. By tabling, SOMA has acquiesced to the Chicago stagnation and has essentially shut out the class of '07 from a combined match.
I think this is a disservice to all DO students and is an unfortunate turn.
Thanks again-
F

Aaron Earles · May 22, 2005

fuegorama said:
Thanks for the reply Aaron. I understand the depth of feeling around this issue, but I resent SOMA for not dedicating more time when it counted. The inaction of our STUDENT ORGANIZATION is one more nail in the combo-match coffin. By tabling, SOMA has acquiesced to the Chicago stagnation and has essentially shut out the class of '07 from a combined match.
I think this is a disservice to all DO students and is an unfortunate turn.
Thanks again-
F

Thanks for replyin fuegorama.

I read your previous post and I think you have a couple of good statements. I see you want to be a EM doc. A lot of my classmates are going into that field as well and it seems that quite a few of them are going the allopathic route as well.

If you dont mind me asking, what is the reason for ranking an allopathic residency #1 on your ROL? Do you feel that this is the best program in the country? Is it a location issue? The reason I ask is this seems to be a lot of the reasonings behind residents choosing to go to allopathic residencies.

As I stated earlier, there are a lot of passionate pleas both for and against the Joint Match. I love being an osteopathic student and I love treating with OMT. Personally, I will more than likely apply for an osteopathic residency so I can continue to use OMT during my residency and in my practice. I am one of the lucky individuals that lives in a part of the country that has a lot of osteopathic residency spots within a few hour drive. Not everyone is so lucky. I think this actually deters a lot of people from applying for an osteopathic residency.

Anyway, I hope that everything works out well for you all.

Portier · May 22, 2005

Don't matter how you feel about this.

The current legislative bodies manned by 1960's trained DO's care more about preserving the profession, and less about "catering to students whim's."

The Joint Match isn't going to get off the ground (like my last six date requests :laugh:

) until we get leadership that didn't practice in the 1970's-1980's.

The people who lived through the DO Civil Right's era will not seriously consider this...ever...

Make sure you join the AOA after you finish your ACGME residency and move to a position of power in your state organization. Then you can help the DO students in 2020 or 2030....

macman · May 22, 2005

It is too bad that most national student leadership is composed of 1st/2nd and some 3rd years (A few fourth years at the very top or so). These students are in the poor position of not only being inexperienced in the match process but also they are naturally concerned about their future and are reluctant to alienate AOA leaders. (a letter of rec. from Dr. Thomas or similar is helpful) Do not translate this to mean I think this students are not well intentioned and doing the best they can with the info they have.

With response to the post above about Dr. Thomas's visit to DMU, if he left mad, or felt things went badly, he only had himself to blame. Every student I spoke to that was there was unhappy with his attitude and lack of respect for students. In addition, I spoke to faculty who could not believe this guy is the AOA pres.

I agree with above that we responsible to take over the AOA by hostile takeover and fix things up.

With regard to claims above that a combined match will destroy osteopathy, is this to say that it will be worse than what's being done already??? I would also like someone to provide evidence, if even an anecdote as to how this would occur. As a graduate in one week, EVERY student who is going DO would have done so regardless (by choice or necessity) and MOST going MD would have loved to ranked DO programs in their NRMP.

For me, I would now be a DO intern if we had a combined match, as would one of my fellow OMM fellows. Alas we are not. I'd be curious to see how this small sampling would pan out nationally.

I find it interesting that rather than focusing on improving DO programs we are more concerned about continuing our protectionism.

Whewwww......that felt good!

unk_fxn · May 22, 2005

Portier said:
Don't matter how you feel about this.

The current legislative bodies manned by 1960's trained DO's care more about preserving the profession, and less about "catering to students whim's."

The Joint Match isn't going to get off the ground (like my last six date requests ) until we get leadership that didn't practice in the 1970's-1980's.

The people who lived through the DO Civil Right's era will not seriously consider this...ever...

Make sure you join the AOA after you finish your ACGME residency and move to a position of power in your state organization. Then you can help the DO students in 2020 or 2030....

The problem here is that after most of the best and brightest go on to finish their ACGME residencies, no one will care anymore. The people who are passionate about this are the ones with a personal interest - the current students. The rest of us recognize that the AOA leadership doesnt really care much about our needs and will continue to vote with our feet going to ACGME programs and not participating in the AOA.

macman · May 22, 2005

unk_fxn said:
The problem here is that after most of the best and brightest go on to finish their ACGME residencies, no one will care anymore. The people who are passionate about this are the ones with a personal interest - the current students. The rest of us recognize that the AOA leadership doesnt really care much about our needs and will continue to vote with our feet going to ACGME programs and not participating in the AOA.

another argument for the combined match increasing DO residents and strengthening the profession.....

BklynWill · May 23, 2005

Dr. Thomas got aggravated at us at PCOM too, but we didn't care. We kept pressing the issue and he kept saying "Go the allopathic route if you want. No one is stopping you. Where's the road block??"

After berating us on our lack of experience and skewed perspective, he refused to speak to the troubling trend that DO graduates are running to allopathic residencies now more than ever.

Dr. Shettle, the new AOA president, seems to be more receptive of students opinions, but I fear that he is cut from the same mold as Dr. Thomas and will not support us in the joint-match fight.

unk_fxn · May 23, 2005

macman said:
another argument for the combined match increasing DO residents and strengthening the profession.....

Absolutely. I do not see how any informed student can be against this.

I think the real issues here are another smelly elephant in the osteopathic living room. The AOA knows that many of the AOA residencies are sub-par, and the leadership is afraid that AOA programs wont be able to compete on an equal basis with ACGME programs. So they keep the matches separate and the AOA match first, knowing that many people wont have the confidence to committ to the NRMP - in fact, I believe the AOA exploits student anxiety and actively incites these fears - as they so often to remind us, it was an AOA school that accepted you, so you owe it to us... the unspoken message here is that the AOA is calling its students second rate.

The whole thing just makes me sick.

The other big issue here is money. Once they get you into an AOA internship, chances are they have you for a residency - the majority of ACGME programs will not give you credit for an AOA intern year. Once you do an AOA residency, they have you on the hook for life. You are now eligdible only for the AOA Board Certification, and for every Osteopathic Board, it is a requirement to be an AOA member in order to keep your certification - in fact the AOA actually charges more membership dues to certified members.

It is interesting since the AOA is obviously not interested in or accountable to the students, and since the majority of members have no choice but to pay their dues, they dont seem to have any incentive to be accountable to them either.

Who is the AOA actually representing?

Pikevillemedstudent · May 23, 2005

I think everyone has their own hidden agenda on this issue. The AOA is looking out for osteopathy's "uniqueness" and want to force students into the AOA match early in a futile attempt to increase DO's in osteo GME programs, while many students interested in AOA residency as a back up plan want to pass the joint resolution as quickly as possible for their own self serving reasons(notice that nearly everyone wanting the joint match is going to rank an ACGME program as their #1). However, I see nothing wrong with SOMA or any other organization tabling a complex issue to further research all the possible benefits and problems with the joint match proposal to ensure they will recommend what is best for osteopathic students now and in the future.

Personally, I have yet to form an opinion on this issue because it is more complex than anyone on here has previously described. I don't think anyone truly understands what will result if a joint match is approved. The arguments for each side are not based on fact but pure speculation (all the DO residencies will close or everyone who matched MD said they would rank a DO program if given the chance). I don't think either side has proven their point well so therefore we will end up stuck in status quo which is unfortunate.

doctorperez · May 23, 2005

Pikevillemedstudent said:
I think everyone has their own hidden agenda on this issue. The AOA is looking out for osteopathy's "uniqueness" and want to force students into the AOA match early in a futile attempt to increase DO's in osteo GME programs, while many students interested in AOA residency as a back up plan want to pass the joint resolution as quickly as possible for their own self serving reasons(notice that nearly everyone wanting the joint match is going to rank an ACGME program as their #1). However, I see nothing wrong with SOMA or any other organization tabling a complex issue to further research all the possible benefits and problems with the joint match proposal to ensure they will recommend what is best for osteopathic students now and in the future.

Personally, I have yet to form an opinion on this issue because it is more complex than anyone on here has previously described. I don't think anyone truly understands what will result if a joint match is approved. The arguments for each side are not based on fact but pure speculation (all the DO residencies will close or everyone who matched MD said they would rank a DO program if given the chance). I don't think either side has proven their point well so therefore we will end up stuck in status quo which is unfortunate.

This is exactly my position, and I suspect this is the position of the majority of the osteopathic student medical community. Thanks, well put.

fuegorama · May 23, 2005

Pikevillemedstudent said:
However, I see nothing wrong with SOMA or any other organization tabling a complex issue to further research all the possible benefits and problems with the joint match proposal to ensure they will recommend what is best for osteopathic students now and in the future.

How long do you need? This is the 3rd (4th perhaps?) time this issue has been pushed in the last six years. This is the third consecutive year it has been floated before the decision making body of the AOA. This was a topic at my interview almost 3 years ago!
I agree that there are complexities here, the effects of which won't be clear until a move is made.
The one definite that we know is that under the current system, I will be one of many students that will not risk going to what I perceive as an inferior program by participating in the osteo. match. (please note the qualifier)

As an individual, what else really matters?

However, as a member of the MEDICAL profession, don't you want to see docs w/ the best training they can attain? I believe competition will generate better quality in AOA programs. As I said earlier, it's the quality of the training, not the identity that counts.

Portier · May 23, 2005

macman said:
It is too bad that most national student leadership is composed of 1st/2nd and some 3rd years (A few fourth years at the very top or so). These students are in the poor position of not only being inexperienced in the match process but also they are naturally concerned about their future and are reluctant to alienate AOA leaders. (a letter of rec. from Dr. Thomas or similar is helpful) Do not translate this to mean I think this students are not well intentioned and doing the best they can with the info they have.

With response to the post above about Dr. Thomas's visit to DMU, if he left mad, or felt things went badly, he only had himself to blame. Every student I spoke to that was there was unhappy with his attitude and lack of respect for students. In addition, I spoke to faculty who could not believe this guy is the AOA pres.

I agree with above that we responsible to take over the AOA by hostile takeover and fix things up.

With regard to claims above that a combined match will destroy osteopathy, is this to say that it will be worse than what's being done already??? I would also like someone to provide evidence, if even an anecdote as to how this would occur. As a graduate in one week, EVERY student who is going DO would have done so regardless (by choice or necessity) and MOST going MD would have loved to ranked DO programs in their NRMP.

For me, I would now be a DO intern if we had a combined match, as would one of my fellow OMM fellows. Alas we are not. I'd be curious to see how this small sampling would pan out nationally.

I find it interesting that rather than focusing on improving DO programs we are more concerned about continuing our protectionism.

Whewwww......that felt good!

For my edification, can you go back over your statement to Dr T again?
I remember hearing it, but not all the details.

Thanks!

PACtoDOC · May 23, 2005

Personally, I don't really care to train in a DO only institution. I mean outside of DO schools and the few DO hospitals, we all end up practicing real world medicine which is with MD's and DO's. I want my residency life to mirror what my real practice life is going to be, and thus a dually accredited integrated system of medicine is in my opinion the wave of the future. This truly will be our joint match in family medicine in the next few years, and then hopefully the other specialties will get onboard and go dual.

I can't remember who said it a few posts ago, but you are smoking crack if you think that going to a DO residency ensures that you will be able to practice manip. The DO residencies we have in my city all basically shun manipulation, while several of the ACGME residencies I am looking at encourage and are teaching manip now. Check out ETSU in Kingsport, Tn.

And Idiopathic, I think you left your PC logged in while you went on a bathroom break, because I can't imagine you would say what you did. How could you go against 95% of the students who feel the opposite way? And I would bet my left gonad that you are not going to an exclusively AOA program. Are you really more concerned with helping programs survive, or with encouraging programs to compete? I can show you 80 residents here in Texas who thought their program was stable right before the hospital closed last year. Stability is the first thing I question when I visit a program, and a lot of DO programs are not stable because they are in poorly managed hospitals. Maybe some of these programs and the hospitals they are in just need to die so that we can all go about our lives and stop worrying about them. DO isolationism is a thing of the past, and the only way the profession is going to survive is to slip into the mainstream like we are doing now. DO only hospitals and DO only residencies simply do not reflect the real world.

Pikevillemedstudent · May 23, 2005

fuegorama said:
How long do you need? This is the 3rd (4th perhaps?) time this issue has been pushed in the last six years. This is the third consecutive year it has been floated before the decision making body of the AOA. This was a topic at my interview almost 3 years ago!
I agree that there are complexities here, the effects of which won't be clear until a move is made.
The one definite that we know is that under the current system, I will be one of many students that will not risk going to what I perceive as an inferior program by participating in the osteo. match. (please note the qualifier)

As an individual, what else really matters?

However, as a member of the MEDICAL profession, don't you want to see docs w/ the best training they can attain? I believe competition will generate better quality in AOA programs. As I said earlier, it's the quality of the training, not the identity that counts.

3rd or 4th time in last six years? I haven't heard of this until this past year. I have been to most of the past conventions, I never saw the proposals then. I saw no mention on SDN until someone (Dr.Mom maybe?) started a thread a few months or more ago. The past proposals must have died very early.

I agree with quality over identity. But identity can be important especially when you consider the benefits identity provides. Find me the same number of ACGME programs that will accept DO's into fields such as ortho, ENT, Neurosurg, Derm etc. as osteo GME programs do and then I will agree that identity may not matter at all. Truth is, without osteo GME, DO's would have decreased access to certain specialties due to MD residency preference for US MD grads into their own programs(which makes sense, they take care of their own). Look at all the categorical surgery residency programs that have ZERO DO's. No one wants to lose these subspecialty programs but the joint match MAY threaten them.

BTW, the joint match IMO will not cause those esp. poor DO residencies(mainly primary care) to close because these same programs are already chronically unfilled and no one has pulled the plug yet. DO residencies close due to financial reasons at the hospital not quality unfortunately.

And where are these DO only hospitals? I have been to most of the major osteopathic hospitals in MI and OH and have seen plenty of MD's at each, practicing and teaching. As for DO only residencies, well in case you didn't notice, there are plenty of MD only residencies(unofficially) esp. in surgery and surgery subs at many allopathic hospitals.

I certainly don't see the benefit of rushing into the joint match proposal. This decision could greatly change osteopathic GME, for better or worse. Students are already upset that the AOA does not provide enough GME positions yet some students what to rush into the joint match proposal which may potentially decrease osteopathic GME even more. Counterproductive?

unk_fxn · May 24, 2005

Pikevillemedstudent said:
I agree with quality over identity. But identity can be important especially when you consider the benefits identity provides. Find me the same number of ACGME programs that will accept DO's into fields such as ortho, ENT, Neurosurg, Derm etc. as osteo GME programs do and then I will agree that identity may not matter at all. Truth is, without osteo GME, DO's would have decreased access to certain specialties due to MD residency preference for US MD grads into their own programs(which makes sense, they take care of their own). Look at all the categorical surgery residency programs that have ZERO DO's. No one wants to lose these subspecialty programs but the joint match MAY threaten them.

BTW, the joint match IMO will not cause those esp. poor DO residencies(mainly primary care) to close because these same programs are already chronically unfilled and no one has pulled the plug yet. DO residencies close due to financial reasons at the hospital not quality unfortunately.

And where are these DO only hospitals? I have been to most of the major osteopathic hospitals in MI and OH and have seen plenty of MD's at each, practicing and teaching. As for DO only residencies, well in case you didn't notice, there are plenty of MD only residencies(unofficially) esp. in surgery and surgery subs at many allopathic hospitals.

I certainly don't see the benefit of rushing into the joint match proposal. This decision could greatly change osteopathic GME, for better or worse. Students are already upset that the AOA does not provide enough GME positions yet some students what to rush into the joint match proposal which may potentially decrease osteopathic GME even more. Counterproductive?

You are ignorant.

macman · May 24, 2005

Portier said:
For my edification, can you go back over your statement to Dr T again?
I remember hearing it, but not all the details.

Thanks!

Thanks for bringing that up-it was a real classic moment! Dr. Thomas stated during his powerpoint that "it is the current and FUTURE [my emphasis] of the AOA that there never be a combined match"

During the Q&A I really keyed in on this statement and asked him if that is the way decisions are made in medicine, that we don't decide on future policies/procudres given that evidence can change our minds. (i.e. we do not give mercury as medicine anymore) I pressed him on this. He evntually admitted that given certain evidence the policy could change.

I was amazed at his stubbornness. Current DMUers can breathe a sigh of relief-this is exactly what our old dean was like. Thank goodness for Dr. Reed (who carried the mike around so we could all be heard) (and I think he nodded at me a couple times in support)

Pikevillemedstudent · May 24, 2005

unk_fxn said:
You are ignorant.

Hey thanks alot!! Great job of discrediting me :laugh:

I think you just showed everyone who the ignorant one is in this thread.

unk_fxn · May 24, 2005

Pikevillemedstudent said:
Hey thanks alot!! Great job of discrediting me

I think you just showed everyone who the ignorant one is in this thread.

Touchy, Touchy...

oh, come on PMS, you are what, a second year?

When the time comes for you to apply for residencies, what you are going to see is that multiple matches suck. AOA, San Fran, whatever. It add an exponential level of complexity, anxiety, worry and bother to your life. The only thing that a combined match would do is just make the match process easier for the students.

macman · May 24, 2005

unk_fxn said:
Touchy, Touchy...

oh, come on PMS, you are what, a second year?

When the time comes for you to apply for residencies, what you are going to see is that multiple matches suck. AOA, San Fran, whatever. It add an exponential level of complexity, anxiety, worry and bother to your life. The only thing that a combined match would do is just make the match process easier for the students.

you were harsh on PMS.

otherwise-what you say above rings very true. When they are in our shoes they will see the insanity of it.

unk_fxn · May 24, 2005

macman said:
you were harsh on PMS.

I know but it felt good. I think I have walking pneumonia and adenovirus so every little bit helps right now.

I guess I just dont understand it when students dont get behind this. It just makes your life easier. The "high elders" at the AOA are very invested in the glory days of fighting the evil MDs who hate us so much; I can almost understand the resistance from them, but students...

Buster Douglas · May 24, 2005

unk_fxn said:
Touchy, Touchy...

oh, come on PMS, you are what, a second year?

When the time comes for you to apply for residencies, what you are going to see is that multiple matches suck. AOA, San Fran, whatever. It add an exponential level of complexity, anxiety, worry and bother to your life. The only thing that a combined match would do is just make the match process easier for the students.

dude... he's in the class ahead of you. he's a doctor.

Pikevillemedstudent · May 24, 2005

unk_fxn said:
Touchy, Touchy...

oh, come on PMS, you are what, a second year?

When the time comes for you to apply for residencies, what you are going to see is that multiple matches suck. AOA, San Fran, whatever. It add an exponential level of complexity, anxiety, worry and bother to your life. The only thing that a combined match would do is just make the match process easier for the students.

Second year?
I just graduated last week. Don't let the username fool you. I joined back in 2000. I know a thing or two about the match process. I have been through it already.

I definitely understand the benefits of a combined match. I am just pointing out that everything might not be as rosy as many tend to portray. Sorry if that is not what you want to hear from me, but it is true.

Again, I am undecided on this issue. I see the positives and negatives of a joint match. This issue certainly affects me because my spouse is a current second year student. A joint match would further allow her to rank programs near my residency. So don't think I am an AOA trustee wannabe or a recent graduate who has no interest at stake, quite the opposite actually.

unk_fxn · May 24, 2005

HAHA we are in the same class I feel like a ******* now.

AHAHHAAHA

Pikevillemedstudent said:
Second year?
I just graduated last week. Don't let the username fool you. I joined back in 2000. I know a thing or two about the match process. I have been through it already.

I definitely understand the benefits of a combined match. I am just pointing out that everything might not be as rosy as many tend to portray. Sorry if that is not what you want to hear from me, but it is true.

Again, I am undecided on this issue. I see the positives and negatives of a joint match. This issue certainly affects me because my spouse is a current second year student. A joint match would further allow her to rank programs near my residency. So don't think I am an AOA trustee wannabe or a recent graduate who has no interest at stake, quite the opposite actually.

Docgeorge · May 24, 2005

unk_fxn said:
I know but it felt good. I think I have walking pneumonia and adenovirus so every little bit helps right now.

I guess I just dont understand it when students dont get behind this. It just makes your life easier. The "high elders" at the AOA are very invested in the glory days of fighting the evil MDs who hate us so much; I can almost understand the resistance from them, but students...

There is with any new idea or procedure an gaussian distrabution of how people react to it.

The first subset is called the innovaors, these are usullay instramental in developing the idea. These are usually called heratics and shunned by the , some of these people persist and go on to the next distrabuton, most of the people in this group however go to the third group.

The second group are the early adaptors, they dont come up with the idea or procedure, however they see thst there might be some fesabillity, praticallity, and benifits of said Idea and quickly adopt them, with the intrest of evaluation irregardless of the fellings of and protests of the majority. This subset usually go about researching and refining the Idea eventually embracing and passing with their seal of approval or dissregarding because it failed to bear fruit.

The third subset consists of the Avg folk. They initally dont see the benifts of a new Idea, however, because it goes against the status que they tend to disregard it and cast it in a sinister note. However as the Early adopoters through research and positive outcomes show the feasability and benifts of said Idea, the masses slowly start adopting it.

The 4th subset are the late adopters, usually are very faithfull to the old way of doing things or thinking not only because of thats what they were taught, but also because they have some sort of connection with the old way thinking or doing something. Their mentor was the origionator of it, or the old method had brought them social or financial success and are rather adverse to go against it. However with overwelming pressure of data and adapotation my the masses of the new Idea or procedure and due to fear of being left behind, they adopt the Idea or procedure.

The 5th and last subset is usually* the the group that had power under the old Idea or procedure. They were instramental in developing the old idea and working to get the old Idea acceptced. These people are usually people who were in subset 1 or 2 in with the old pradgrim. They are considered the current authority or expert and are loath to give it up. Most of these people will go to their grave espousing the Ideology that they brought to life and help define is the only way.

*some people in group 5 are true visionaries and philosaphers they see the new idea for what it is and will become part of the people who develop the new idea.

There are a lot of new ideas that develop and never go anywhere because they cannot get passed the 2nd subset. Getting the approval of the 1st subset is not gurantee in it's self to the successfull adoptation of the new thought. For it to really become vialbe, the 3rd subset the majority must adopt it.

The combined match as with any new idea or product must go through all these sages and undoubtly there will be people around from all the subsets.

Pikevillemedstudent · May 24, 2005

unk_fxn said:
HAHA we are in the same class I feel like a ******* now.

AHAHHAAHA

BTW, I actually thought the PMS comment was pretty good. I need to change my username now. :laugh:

Also, of course we are in the same class, who else would be on SDN at 2AM except lame duck grads dreading July 1st? PCSOM rocks!

unk_fxn · May 24, 2005

Pikevillemedstudent said:
BTW, I actually thought the PMS comment was pretty good. I need to change my username now.

Also, of course we are in the same class, who else would be on SDN at 2AM except lame duck grads dreading July 1st? PCSOM rocks!

Totally. Yeah I think the second years are studying for step 1.

I am sitting in my apartment staring at about 2/3 of all my crap in boxes, getting ready to move this week. That and I have dyspnea on exertion and chest tightness. It really sucks.

Did you check out that website for those gift certificates we got? They had some CHEAP wireless routers and some other cool stuff I want.

Oh, and July 1 - I wish! How does 8am June 16 grab you?

Pikevillemedstudent · May 24, 2005

Docgeorge said:
There is with any new idea or procedure an gaussian distrabution of how people react to it.

The first subset is called the innovaors, these are usullay instramental in developing the idea. These are usually called heratics and shunned by the , some of these people persist and go on to the next distrabuton, most of the people in this group however go to the third group.

The second group are the early adaptors, they dont come up with the idea or procedure, however they see thst there might be some fesabillity, praticallity, and benifits of said Idea and quickly adopt them, with the intrest of evaluation irregardless of the fellings of and protests of the majority. This subset usually go about researching and refining the Idea eventually embracing and passing with their seal of approval or dissregarding because it failed to bear fruit.

The third subset consists of the Avg folk. They initally dont see the benifts of a new Idea, however, because it goes against the status que they tend to disregard it and cast it in a sinister note. However as the Early adopoters through research and positive outcomes show the feasability and benifts of said Idea, the masses slowly start adopting it.

The 4th subset are the late adopters, usually are very faithfull to the old way of doing things or thinking not only because of thats what they were taught, but also because they have some sort of connection with the old way thinking or doing something. Their mentor was the origionator of it, or the old method had brought them social or financial success and are rather adverse to go against it. However with overwelming pressure of data and adapotation my the masses of the new Idea or procedure and due to fear of being left behind, they adopt the Idea or procedure.

The 5th and last subset is usually* the the group that had power under the old Idea or procedure. They were instramental in developing the old idea and working to get the old Idea acceptced. These people are usually people who were in subset 1 or 2 in with the old pradgrim. They are considered the current authority or expert and are loath to give it up. Most of these people will go to their grave espousing the Ideology that they brought to life and help define is the only way.

*some people in group 5 are true visionaries and philosaphers they see the new idea for what it is and will become part of the people who develop the new idea.

There are a lot of new ideas that develop and never go anywhere because they cannot get passed the 2nd subset. Getting the approval of the 1st subset is not gurantee in it's self to the successfull adoptation of the new thought. For it to really become vialbe, the 3rd subset the majority must adopt it.

The combined match as with any new idea or product must go through all these sages and undoubtly there will be people around from all the subsets.

You may not believe me but I am in the second group. I certainly see the feasibility of a joint match.

"go about researching and refining the Idea eventually embracing and passing with their seal of approval or dissregarding because it failed to bear fruit."

This is exactly why I thought SOMA did the right thing delaying discussion of the joint match.

FYI, psych is wide open for DO's. You don't really need the joint match.

j/k

unk_fxn,
Yeah I went to that website. The damn Treo 650's aren't available for cingular. I don't really know what I am going to do with mine.

fuegorama · May 24, 2005

Pikevillemedstudent said:
You may not believe me but I am in the second group. I certainly see the feasibility of a joint match.

"go about researching and refining the Idea eventually embracing and passing with their seal of approval or dissregarding because it failed to bear fruit."

This is exactly why I thought SOMA did the right thing delaying discussion of the joint match.

FYI, psych is wide open for DO's. You don't really need the joint match. j/k

unk_fxn,
Yeah I went to that website. The damn Treo 650's aren't available for cingular. I don't really know what I am going to do with mine.

I'm probably w/ you in the second group as well. The difference b/t us is that i'm still at the table while you have cashed in and are heading to the next casino. I've got a pretty good set of cards and want to see them played for maximum return.
The dealer makes the rules of the hand. By acting RIGHT NOW! I can possibly swing things just a little in my favor. Looking at the folks lining up to get at this table, I really do not see the harm in the rules I want. In fact, this kind of poker looks really great for all these poor, voluntary victims of the house. I see a lot of lost chips if I keep playing w/ the house rules.
(note- self, 4:30 am analogies s/p 90 minutes of FA don't translate)

Portier · May 24, 2005

macman said:
Thanks for bringing that up-it was a real classic moment! Dr. Thomas stated during his powerpoint that "it is the current and FUTURE [my emphasis] of the AOA that there never be a combined match"

During the Q&A I really keyed in on this statement and asked him if that is the way decisions are made in medicine, that we don't decide on future policies/procudres given that evidence can change our minds. (i.e. we do not give mercury as medicine anymore) I pressed him on this. He evntually admitted that given certain evidence the policy could change.

I was amazed at his stubbornness. Current DMUers can breathe a sigh of relief-this is exactly what our old dean was like. Thank goodness for Dr. Reed (who carried the mike around so we could all be heard) (and I think he nodded at me a couple times in support)

Thanks, mac....

I also want to hear about the logistics of your internship and PMR residency.....why a combined match would have helped you stay DO...

Portier · May 24, 2005

Docgeorge said:
There is with any new idea or procedure an gaussian distrabution of how people react to it.

The first subset is called the innovaors, these are usullay instramental in developing the idea. These are usually called heratics and shunned by the , some of these people persist and go on to the next distrabuton, most of the people in this group however go to the third group.

The second group are the early adaptors, they dont come up with the idea or procedure, however they see thst there might be some fesabillity, praticallity, and benifits of said Idea and quickly adopt them, with the intrest of evaluation irregardless of the fellings of and protests of the majority. This subset usually go about researching and refining the Idea eventually embracing and passing with their seal of approval or dissregarding because it failed to bear fruit.

The third subset consists of the Avg folk. They initally dont see the benifts of a new Idea, however, because it goes against the status que they tend to disregard it and cast it in a sinister note. However as the Early adopoters through research and positive outcomes show the feasability and benifts of said Idea, the masses slowly start adopting it.

The 4th subset are the late adopters, usually are very faithfull to the old way of doing things or thinking not only because of thats what they were taught, but also because they have some sort of connection with the old way thinking or doing something. Their mentor was the origionator of it, or the old method had brought them social or financial success and are rather adverse to go against it. However with overwelming pressure of data and adapotation my the masses of the new Idea or procedure and due to fear of being left behind, they adopt the Idea or procedure.

The 5th and last subset is usually* the the group that had power under the old Idea or procedure. They were instramental in developing the old idea and working to get the old Idea acceptced. These people are usually people who were in subset 1 or 2 in with the old pradgrim. They are considered the current authority or expert and are loath to give it up. Most of these people will go to their grave espousing the Ideology that they brought to life and help define is the only way.

*some people in group 5 are true visionaries and philosaphers they see the new idea for what it is and will become part of the people who develop the new idea.

There are a lot of new ideas that develop and never go anywhere because they cannot get passed the 2nd subset. Getting the approval of the 1st subset is not gurantee in it's self to the successfull adoptation of the new thought. For it to really become vialbe, the 3rd subset the majority must adopt it.

The combined match as with any new idea or product must go through all these sages and undoubtly there will be people around from all the subsets.

Is there a subset of people who don't do much work, leave early for lunch, come back late, and hang around all afternoon chatting up 20 year old nurse's aides?

If not, can we invent a subset for me and docgeorge to be in?

Docgeorge · May 24, 2005

Portier said:
Is there a subset of people who don't do much work, leave early for lunch, come back late, and hang around all afternoon chatting up 20 year old nurse's aides?

If not, can we invent a subset for me and docgeorge to be in?

It's there, but it's a secreat substet (call it subset 69-FU). It does however not discriminate based on the occupation of said 20yro as long they're hot and sufficiently impressed by the title "student doctor" as to disrobe rapidly and assume the proper positions. :laugh:

macman · May 24, 2005

Portier said:
Thanks, mac....

I also want to hear about the logistics of your internship and PMR residency.....why a combined match would have helped you stay DO...

(Warning: this post turns into a rant at the end a la Dennis Miller

)

Here is the logical sequence that Dr. Thomas could not quite understand. PM&R and many other specialties have programs which do not begin until your PGY-2 year (for me my residency does not begin until summer of 2006). These specialties include radiology, anesthesia, neurology, and others. Some of these programs offer some of their spots linked to doing your internship at their hospital rather than going somewhere else.

Example: I applied to the XYZ medical center and they have 8 PM&R spots, 4 of those may begin in 2006 and 4 of them may begin in 2005 with your internship at XYZ as part of the deal.

Here was my dilemma: PM&R will make my career, not an internship, and PM&R is very competitive. So d/t seperate matches, I had to chose to withdraw from the AOA match to make myself competitive for those spots which are linked to internship positions. My PREFERENCE was to do a AOA internship, then begin PM&R in PGY-2, and with a combined match I would have ranked a AOA spot #1 for internship in the 'combined match'. But as things transpired I now am in a AMA internship because I could not rank an AOA internship in the AMA match.

HERE IS THE KICKER! I'm sure some people are saying "hey why not rank the one AOA PM&R program and see if you get in there first". or at the WORST, give up your chance at many PM&R spots and rank a AOA internship. Well guess what folks-Your rank list for the NRMP is due BEFORE the AOA match results come out. So that a adds the additional problem of trying to put your internship and residency in the same state. What a cluster f___!

One of my fellow OMM fellows was in the same boat with anesthesia. It is only logical that having a combined match is good for the profession. I asked in an earlier post for someone to provide evidence, even an anecdote why that may be untrue. Nothing.

I say open up AOA programs to MDs! Crazy, right? Maybe then these programs would actually provide OMM training and we could become the gold standard for spinal manipulation rather than being looked down on by MDs and chiros. We are hypocrites! Did you know the AOA suppressed a study done by a member of the IRC which found that there was little to none OPP/OMT being taught at AOA programs. Maybe we should have another task force and think about it for a while.......

The bottom line is we end up flushing many of the best and brightest out of the AOA and the profession. And why not recruit intersested MDs into AOA training and the AOA????

Lets make our profession attractive rather than having a shotgun wedding for our grads.

you were warned about the rant.....

fuegorama · May 24, 2005

macman said:
(Warning: this post turns into a rant at the end a la Dennis Miller )

Here is the logical sequence that Dr. Thomas could not quite understand. PM&R and many other specialties have programs which do not begin until your PGY-2 year (for me my residency does not begin until summer of 2006). These specialties include radiology, anesthesia, neurology, and others. Some of these programs offer some of their spots linked to doing your internship at their hospital rather than going somewhere else.

Example: I applied to the XYZ medical center and they have 8 PM&R spots, 4 of those may begin in 2006 and 4 of them may begin in 2005 with your internship at XYZ as part of the deal.

Here was my dilemma: PM&R will make my career, not an internship, and PM&R is very competitive. So d/t seperate matches, I had to chose to withdraw from the AOA match to make myself competitive for those spots which are linked to internship positions. My PREFERENCE was to do a AOA internship, then begin PM&R in PGY-2, and with a combined match I would have ranked a AOA spot #1 for internship in the 'combined match'. But as things transpired I now am in a AMA internship because I could not rank an AOA internship in the AMA match.

HERE IS THE KICKER! I'm sure some people are saying "hey why not rank the one AOA PM&R program and see if you get in there first". or at the WORST, give up your chance at many PM&R spots and rank a AOA internship. Well guess what folks-Your rank list for the NRMP is due BEFORE the AOA match results come out. So that a adds the additional problem of trying to put your internship and residency in the same state. What a cluster f___!

One of my fellow OMM fellows was in the same boat with anesthesia. It is only logical that having a combined match is good for the profession. I asked in an earlier post for someone to provide evidence, even an anecdote why that may be untrue. Nothing.

I say open up AOA programs to MDs! Crazy, right? Maybe then these programs would actually provide OMM training and we could become the gold standard for spinal manipulation rather than being looked down on by MDs and chiros. We are hypocrites! Did you know the AOA suppressed a study done by a member of the IRC which found that there was little to none OPP/OMT being taught at AOA programs. Maybe we should have another task force and think about it for a while.......

The bottom line is we end up flushing many of the best and brightest out of the AOA and the profession. And why not recruit intersested MDs into AOA training and the AOA????

Lets make our profession attractive rather than having a shotgun wedding for our grads.

you were warned about the rant.....

That was beautiful...(sobsobsniffle)...just beautiful.

Pikevillemedstudent · May 26, 2005

macman said:
(Warning: this post turns into a rant at the end a la Dennis Miller )

Here is the logical sequence that Dr. Thomas could not quite understand. PM&R and many other specialties have programs which do not begin until your PGY-2 year (for me my residency does not begin until summer of 2006). These specialties include radiology, anesthesia, neurology, and others. Some of these programs offer some of their spots linked to doing your internship at their hospital rather than going somewhere else.

Example: I applied to the XYZ medical center and they have 8 PM&R spots, 4 of those may begin in 2006 and 4 of them may begin in 2005 with your internship at XYZ as part of the deal.

Here was my dilemma: PM&R will make my career, not an internship, and PM&R is very competitive. So d/t seperate matches, I had to chose to withdraw from the AOA match to make myself competitive for those spots which are linked to internship positions. My PREFERENCE was to do a AOA internship, then begin PM&R in PGY-2, and with a combined match I would have ranked a AOA spot #1 for internship in the 'combined match'. But as things transpired I now am in a AMA internship because I could not rank an AOA internship in the AMA match.

HERE IS THE KICKER! I'm sure some people are saying "hey why not rank the one AOA PM&R program and see if you get in there first". or at the WORST, give up your chance at many PM&R spots and rank a AOA internship. Well guess what folks-Your rank list for the NRMP is due BEFORE the AOA match results come out. So that a adds the additional problem of trying to put your internship and residency in the same state. What a cluster f___!

One of my fellow OMM fellows was in the same boat with anesthesia. It is only logical that having a combined match is good for the profession. I asked in an earlier post for someone to provide evidence, even an anecdote why that may be untrue. Nothing.

I say open up AOA programs to MDs! Crazy, right? Maybe then these programs would actually provide OMM training and we could become the gold standard for spinal manipulation rather than being looked down on by MDs and chiros. We are hypocrites! Did you know the AOA suppressed a study done by a member of the IRC which found that there was little to none OPP/OMT being taught at AOA programs. Maybe we should have another task force and think about it for a while.......

The bottom line is we end up flushing many of the best and brightest out of the AOA and the profession. And why not recruit intersested MDs into AOA training and the AOA????

Lets make our profession attractive rather than having a shotgun wedding for our grads.

you were warned about the rant.....

Well, I see some of your points but I also see some misinformation.

First, PM&R is not and never has been a comp. match. Several unfilled programs every year. However, your situation/preference may have limited you geographically and you may have applied/interviewed/ranked some of the better PM&R programs which may change things somewhat, maybe. That being said, the overwhelming majority of PM&R positions are wide open and anyone who truly wanted an AOA internship first and a PGY-2 spot can get it, assuming their application is around the average for PM&R.

I certainly agree with you on the point about the two different matches being a cluster. It is certainly a hassle for students and it sucks that some have to decide between the two matches.

Will changing to a joint match result in increased ranking of AOA programs? I am not sure, but I suspect that your situation is in the minority. Most DO students in the NRMP are not ranking fields like PM&R that require an internship. They are ranking IM, peds, FP, Ob/Gyn and EM. Will changing to a joint match result in increased ranking of ACGME programs? I am not sure, but I think most likely yes, if for no other reason than geography. ACGME programs are better distributed throughout the US. The most likely result MAY be a mass exodus of osteo GME, but no one really knows.

As for evidence, I think I wrote a few reasons in my earlier posts why a joint match could potentially not be beneficial. Please re-read. Also, here's some anecdote for you, a PCSOM grad last year matched AOA internship and Ivy League anesthesia, so you don't have to drop out of the AOA match, but I do understand your reasons for dropping out and I may have done the same if I was in your situation.

MD's in AOA programs? In theory, it sounds great, but in reality, it will most likely result in a mass influx of FMG's to AOA programs. I am not saying anything bad about FMG's, I just think that's not the type of MD you were thinking about. But on the plus side, all the AOA programs would fill

Wait maybe that's the solution. It saves osteo GME and allows for the joint match!!!

macman · May 26, 2005

Pikevillemedstudent said:
Well, I see some of your points but I also see some misinformation.

First, PM&R is not and never has been a comp. match. Several unfilled programs every year. However, your situation/preference may have limited you geographically and you may have applied/interviewed/ranked some of the better PM&R programs which may change things somewhat, maybe. That being said, the overwhelming majority of PM&R positions are wide open and anyone who truly wanted an AOA internship first and a PGY-2 spot can get it, assuming their application is around the average for PM&R.

I certainly agree with you on the point about the two different matches being a cluster. It is certainly a hassle for students and it sucks that some have to decide between the two matches.

Will changing to a joint match result in increased ranking of AOA programs? I am not sure, but I suspect that your situation is in the minority. Most DO students in the NRMP are not ranking fields like PM&R that require an internship. They are ranking IM, peds, FP, Ob/Gyn and EM. Will changing to a joint match result in increased ranking of ACGME programs? I am not sure, but I think most likely yes, if for no other reason than geography. ACGME programs are better distributed throughout the US. The most likely result MAY be a mass exodus of osteo GME, but no one really knows.

As for evidence, I think I wrote a few reasons in my earlier posts why a joint match could potentially not be beneficial. Please re-read. Also, here's some anecdote for you, a PCSOM grad last year matched AOA internship and Ivy League anesthesia, so you don't have to drop out of the AOA match, but I do understand your reasons for dropping out and I may have done the same if I was in your situation.

MD's in AOA programs? In theory, it sounds great, but in reality, it will most likely result in a mass influx of FMG's to AOA programs. I am not saying anything bad about FMG's, I just think that's not the type of MD you were thinking about. But on the plus side, all the AOA programs would fill Wait maybe that's the solution. It saves osteo GME and allows for the joint match!!!

whoa-you are making me regret I stuck up for you earlier....

PM&R not competitive-where have you been lately? Do you know anything about it? You do not. Maybe 10 years ago you could have said that. To match at a good program in PM&R is now EXTREMELY difficult. Please research before making such sweeping statements. You are reminding me of Dr. Thomas by making such dogmatic statements based on little to no facts.

maybe next you'll tell me derm or ortho is not competitive.

Example (notice the use of stats, not assumptions): I had a letter from one program this year telling me they would not even READ my application because they had 300 apps for 4 spots and were cutting it iff there. Does that sound "wide open" to you?

Pikevillemedstudent · May 26, 2005

macman said:
whoa-you are making me regret I stuck up for you earlier....

PM&R not competitive-where have you been lately? Do you know anything about it? You do not. Maybe 10 years ago you could have said that. To match at a good program in PM&R is now EXTREMELY difficult. Please research before making such sweeping statements. You are reminding me of Dr. Thomas by making such dogmatic statements based on little to no facts.

maybe next you'll tell me derm or ortho is not competitive.

Example (notice the use of stats, not assumptions): I had a letter from one program this year telling me they would not even READ my application because they had 300 apps for 4 spots and were cutting it iff there. Does that sound "wide open" to you?

I didn't mean to make you mad nor do I mean any disrespect to PM&R. I gave several reasons why your situation may have been different as to competitiveness, however, I stand by my statement that PM&R is not a competitive match, it's not as easy as pysch and primary care, but it is also no where near derm, ortho, ENT, plastics, Rads, Rad Onc, etc.

Source: http://residency.wustl.edu/medadmin/resweb.nsf/L/2A20A564B2ED7D2C86256F8F00747A45?OpenDocument

Competitveness is listed as intermediate. Any spec. with a 90% match rate is not "very competitve" as you previously stated. That does not mean it is not a great field with alot of great applicants, I am sure it is. Maybe I shouldn't have said "wide open" but it is still not "very competitive".

Dr. Thomas is a tool. He probably only did an internship and really knows nothing about GME. All my statements are based on facts.

The part about this whole discussion that bothers me is that no one seems to even try to refute my posts about the possible bad effects of a combined match. Most only reply "it's easier for students and here's an anecdotal evidence about why". Make me believe in the joint match. I want to see it as an overall positive, but just can't commit to the idea, yet.

macman · May 26, 2005

Pikevillemedstudent said:
I didn't mean to make you mad nor do I mean any disrespect to PM&R. I gave several reasons why your situation may have been different as to competitiveness, however, I stand by my statement that PM&R is not a competitive match, it's not as easy as pysch and primary care, but it is also no where near derm, ortho, ENT, plastics, Rads, Rad Onc, etc.

Source: http://residency.wustl.edu/medadmin/resweb.nsf/L/2A20A564B2ED7D2C86256F8F00747A45?OpenDocument

Competitveness is listed as intermediate. Any spec. with a 90% match rate is not "very competitve" as you previously stated. That does not mean it is not a great field with alot of great applicants, I am sure it is. Maybe I shouldn't have said "wide open" but it is still not "very competitive".

Dr. Thomas is a tool. He probably only did an internship and really knows nothing about GME. All my statements are based on facts.

The part about this whole discussion that bothers me is that no one seems to even try to refute my posts about the possible bad effects of a combined match. Most only reply "it's easier for students and here's an anecdotal evidence about why". Make me believe in the joint match. I want to see it as an overall positive, but just can't commit to the idea, yet.

I checked out that link.....the problem with looking at PM&R fill/unfilled is that its such a small field that if you have just a few programs that do not fill (bottom feeder programs, and/or programs that are in a non-desirable location) it quickly pulls down the percentage. E.G. take a look at this years match stats, there were zero unfilled spots for the western US in PM&R, how many other specialites can claim that??? I was on the trail, saw the competition, talked to PDs, etc. It is very competitive for the GOOD programs. That was why I had to do what I did. The combined match makes sense and solves a lot of problems.

I will reread your old posts and respond further later-thanks

macman · May 27, 2005

Pikevillemedstudent said:
I didn't mean to make you mad nor do I mean any disrespect to PM&R. I gave several reasons why your situation may have been different as to competitiveness, however, I stand by my statement that PM&R is not a competitive match, it's not as easy as pysch and primary care, but it is also no where near derm, ortho, ENT, plastics, Rads, Rad Onc, etc.

Source: http://residency.wustl.edu/medadmin/resweb.nsf/L/2A20A564B2ED7D2C86256F8F00747A45?OpenDocument

Competitveness is listed as intermediate. Any spec. with a 90% match rate is not "very competitve" as you previously stated. That does not mean it is not a great field with alot of great applicants, I am sure it is. Maybe I shouldn't have said "wide open" but it is still not "very competitive".

Dr. Thomas is a tool. He probably only did an internship and really knows nothing about GME. All my statements are based on facts.

The part about this whole discussion that bothers me is that no one seems to even try to refute my posts about the possible bad effects of a combined match. Most only reply "it's easier for students and here's an anecdotal evidence about why". Make me believe in the joint match. I want to see it as an overall positive, but just can't commit to the idea, yet.

PMS, well-you wanted your posts refuted and I will give it a shot-I really do not see your logic and I'll explain below: (your words in quotes)

post: "The AOA is looking out for osteopathy's "uniqueness" and want to force students into the AOA match early in a futile attempt to increase DO's in osteo GME programs"

response: So you see the current system as being "futile"-why the indecision-so you think it will get worse? Read on and your quote below indicates that even if fill rates get worse programs won't close.

post: "Find me the same number of ACGME programs that will accept DO's into fields such as ortho, ENT, Neurosurg, Derm etc. as osteo GME programs do and then I will agree that identity may not matter at all. Truth is, without osteo GME, DO's would have decreased access to certain specialties due to MD residency preference for US MD grads into their own programs(which makes sense, they take care of their own). Look at all the categorical surgery residency programs that have ZERO DO's. No one wants to lose these subspecialty programs but the joint match MAY threaten them."

Again-you are only making statements that argue in favor of the joint match (why don't you see it?). If MD programs in the fields you mention above are closed to DOs, then those AOA programs will have no trouble filling even in a joint match.

"BTW, the joint match IMO will not cause those esp. poor DO residencies(mainly primary care) to close because these same programs are already chronically unfilled and no one has pulled the plug yet. DO residencies close due to financial reasons at the hospital not quality unfortunately."

Exactly!!! DO primary care programs, esp. internships, have a hard time filling now, yet they do not close as you point out. Whats the downside again???? Maybe they will realize its time to improve quality since they have to compete for students???

"This decision could greatly change osteopathic GME, for better or worse."

In your own words, apparently for the better.

"Again, I am undecided on this issue. I see the positives and negatives of a joint match."

Haven't see you point out a solid negatives

I think its an issue that is a lot simpler than we are making it out to be.

#1 Those who are deadset on DO programs will still go DO

#2 Those who are deadset on MD training will go MD

#3 A great number of other students will maximize their options and rank both and DO programs will get a influx of talent as a result.

You stated in an early post that nobody who is on the thread/forum for the joint match wants to do a DO program as their #1. Thats plain wrong, I clearly state that I would have ranked an intetrnship, actually 3 DO internships first before the pre-lim year I'm doing. I know many other students in the same boat. Also-you state in an earlier post that not many DOs go into fields that have a PGY-2 start, again you are incorrect. Have you heard of anesthesia??? That is very popular among DO students!

btw-this thread has been great for getting out my anger-thanks!

Pikevillemedstudent · May 27, 2005

macman said:
PMS, well-you wanted your posts refuted and I will give it a shot-I really do not see your logic and I'll explain below: (your words in quotes)

post: "The AOA is looking out for osteopathy's "uniqueness" and want to force students into the AOA match early in a futile attempt to increase DO's in osteo GME programs"

response: So you see the current system as being "futile"-why the indecision-so you think it will get worse? Read on and your quote below indicates that even if fill rates get worse programs won't close.

post: "Find me the same number of ACGME programs that will accept DO's into fields such as ortho, ENT, Neurosurg, Derm etc. as osteo GME programs do and then I will agree that identity may not matter at all. Truth is, without osteo GME, DO's would have decreased access to certain specialties due to MD residency preference for US MD grads into their own programs(which makes sense, they take care of their own). Look at all the categorical surgery residency programs that have ZERO DO's. No one wants to lose these subspecialty programs but the joint match MAY threaten them."

Again-you are only making statements that argue in favor of the joint match (why don't you see it?). If MD programs in the fields you mention above are closed to DOs, then those AOA programs will have no trouble filling even in a joint match.

"BTW, the joint match IMO will not cause those esp. poor DO residencies(mainly primary care) to close because these same programs are already chronically unfilled and no one has pulled the plug yet. DO residencies close due to financial reasons at the hospital not quality unfortunately."

Exactly!!! DO primary care programs, esp. internships, have a hard time filling now, yet they do not close as you point out. Whats the downside again???? Maybe they will realize its time to improve quality since they have to compete for students???

"This decision could greatly change osteopathic GME, for better or worse."

In your own words, apparently for the better.

"Again, I am undecided on this issue. I see the positives and negatives of a joint match."

Haven't see you point out a solid negatives

I think its an issue that is a lot simpler than we are making it out to be.

#1 Those who are deadset on DO programs will still go DO

#2 Those who are deadset on MD training will go MD

#3 A great number of other students will maximize their options and rank both and DO programs will get a influx of talent as a result.

You stated in an early post that nobody who is on the thread/forum for the joint match wants to do a DO program as their #1. Thats plain wrong, I clearly state that I would have ranked an intetrnship, actually 3 DO internships first before the pre-lim year I'm doing. I know many other students in the same boat. Also-you state in an earlier post that not many DOs go into fields that have a PGY-2 start, again you are incorrect. Have you heard of anesthesia??? That is very popular among DO students!

btw-this thread has been great for getting out my anger-thanks!

I am afraid you have not really proven anything. We may have to agree to disagree on this one

MY post: "Find me the same number of ACGME programs that will accept DO's into fields such as ortho, ENT, Neurosurg, Derm etc. as osteo GME programs do and then I will agree that identity may not matter at all. Truth is, without osteo GME, DO's would have decreased access to certain specialties due to MD residency preference for US MD grads into their own programs(which makes sense, they take care of their own). Look at all the categorical surgery residency programs that have ZERO DO's. No one wants to lose these subspecialty programs but the joint match MAY threaten them."

Your response: Again-you are only making statements that argue in favor of the joint match (why don't you see it?). If MD programs in the fields you mention above are closed to DOs, then those AOA programs will have no trouble filling even in a joint match.

Maybe I should have explained more. Of course the fields listed would never have trouble matching even in a joint match. The problem arises when these hospitals may have a decrease in the number of residents in other fields at the same hospital like IM, EM, FP, and Ob/Gyn. These hospitals may lose important GME funding. Truth is, fields like ENT, ortho, and derm are very expensive for the hospitals to run and they need all the extra funding they can get. That's a risk I would not be willing to take.

My post: "BTW, the joint match IMO will not cause those esp. poor DO residencies(mainly primary care) to close because these same programs are already chronically unfilled and no one has pulled the plug yet. DO residencies close due to financial reasons at the hospital not quality unfortunately."

Your response: Exactly!!! DO primary care programs, esp. internships, have a hard time filling now, yet they do not close as you point out. Whats the downside again???? Maybe they will realize its time to improve quality since they have to compete for students???

My fear of the joint match has nothing to do with these few poor primary care programs. I was only making the point that a joint match will not cause these poor programs to close as someone else had argued. IMO the poor programs are at the smaller hospitals (not the ones with a large number of training programs) and therefore does nothing to settle my fears.

Your post:
I think its an issue that is a lot simpler than we are making it out to be.

#1 Those who are deadset on DO programs will still go DO

#2 Those who are deadset on MD training will go MD

#3 A great number of other students will maximize their options and rank both and DO programs will get a influx of talent as a result.

I disagree and here is why from my earlier post.
Will changing to a joint match result in increased ranking of AOA programs? I am not sure, but I suspect that your situation is in the minority. Most DO students in the NRMP are not ranking fields like PM&R that require an internship. They are ranking IM, peds, FP, Ob/Gyn and EM. Will changing to a joint match result in increased ranking of ACGME programs? I am not sure, but I think most likely yes, if for no other reason than geography. ACGME programs are better distributed throughout the US. The most likely result MAY be a mass exodus of osteo GME, but no one really knows

Your post:You stated in an early post that nobody who is on the thread/forum for the joint match wants to do a DO program as their #1. Thats plain wrong, I clearly state that I would have ranked an intetrnship, actually 3 DO internships first before the pre-lim year I'm doing. I know many other students in the same boat. Also-you state in an earlier post that not many DOs go into fields that have a PGY-2 start, again you are incorrect. Have you heard of anesthesia??? That is very popular among DO students!

I still think you and your friends are the exception. Everyone on PCSOM's match list except 3 going to allopathic programs were going into fields that do not require an internship. The overwhelming majority were entering IM, FP, Peds, Ob/Gyn, or ER.
A quick look at AZCOM's match list shows 79 students entering an ACGME program that does not require an internship. While 14 did enter an ACGME program that requires an internship. Of those 14, 5 are still entering an AOA internship. (BTW I included Psych in the 14 requiring an internship, I am not sure if that is right since friends of mine said psych programs won't allow you to do an AOA internship. If that's true the numbers change to 83 without internship requirement and 10 with internship requirement respectively) Therefore, at AZCOM 9(or 4 depending on psych) students may have been able to enter an AOA internship with a joint match. No where near a majority. Also, I suspect most would not want to move again and would rather finish all their training in one area.

I would have done the same for DMU but your match list is deactivated.

You also made no mention of my comments regarding MD into AOA programs which would result in a mass influx of FMG's.

Bottomline: The joint match could potentially be harmful. That's all I am trying to say.

PACtoDOC · May 27, 2005

I think it is actually much simpler than everyone is making it out to be. It all comes down to convenience for the applicant, and really nothing to do with closing DO programs. I mean who are we kidding, do you think that there is going to be some mad flux of DO's to MD land? Md residencies take basically the same percentage and numbers of DO's across all specialties each year, and that is not going to change because you make it easier to apply to the MD programs. MD programs still by and large will want to fill their spots with MD's (or top DO or FMG applicants), and average DO's and FMG's next. Its like saying that if you open up NFL training camp to anyone that wants to try out, that there will be an efflux of players from the CFL and the CFL will be done for. I mean lets not kid ourselves again and think that average or beloiw average DO students are now all of a sudden going to get their pick in the MD residencies because it becomes easier for them to apply. In the end, a few primary care DO residencies that suck will have to close or compete. Oh well, life goes on, and they should probably have lost their accreditation anyway. I mean go to scutwork.com and check out some of the FP and IM DO residencies and read what the residents have said about them. Some say things about how their hospital is lucky to have an average daily census of 6 patients!!!

But the specialty DO residencies will not see anything but an improvement in the competition among applicants for their programs. For instance, there are a several people in each class per year that want to do ortho, ENT, Derm, Ophtho, or Neurosurg, and probably right now 5-10% of them will be lucky enough to an MD spot. If you open up all the MD and DO residencies and make them all available to these applicants in one match, my guess is that you will end up simply shifting a few applicants around, but in the end you will end up with the same number going MD as before.

It says a lot about the confidence of the DO programs when they without any facts basically state on record that they feel a joint match would do them in. They must know that something is bad about their program I guess. If you look at the way the ACGME programs use the internet to attract applicants, you will see what I mean. Go to AAFP.com and see how awesome the residency search program works, and see how incredible the websites are for each program. Then go to ACOFP.org and see how crappy their website (though improving) is. Most programs have dead links, or worse than that, the link takes you to some hospital's page but has no real information on the residency. Times have changed, and people no longer rely so much on the interview to choose a program. Smart candidates have spent months researching programs on the internet, using these great websites to contact residents from those programs and unearth great info. If the AOA wants to compete, it needs to take an active role and do the same thing. Go to AOA's website and simply try to find a link to the specialty organizations and their residencies. For some specialties the best you will find is a list, and then you have to go back to the tricks of the early 90's and actually have to call and "request a packet". Who the hell wants to go through that crap?

If the AOA wants to compete, then it should start with things like this!!

Combined Match cage rattling

Senior Member

1K Member

Ferret Momma

Senior Member

Bent Over and Violated

Bent Over and Violated

Newly Minted

Bent Over and Violated

Full Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Full Member

DO me....

Senior Member

Booze in the Blender

Senior Member

EM Attending

Booze in the Blender

Bengals Fan

Jesus was a dissident

Senior Member

DO me....

1K Member

Bengals Fan

Booze in the Blender

Senior Member

Bengals Fan

Booze in the Blender

Senior Member

Booze in the Blender

Unregistered User

Bengals Fan

Booze in the Blender

Bent Over and Violated

Bengals Fan

Booze in the Blender

Bengals Fan

Senior Member

DO me....

DO me....

Bent Over and Violated

Senior Member

Senior Member

Bengals Fan

Senior Member

Bengals Fan

Senior Member

Senior Member

Bengals Fan

1K Member

Similar threads