DO vs Int'l MD Residency Prospects

[WingedOx]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Ya know, it would be nice if these threads didn't follow the same template every...single...time...

1. Premed: "Hey guys, I really need some advice I'm deciding between [School in Israel] and [Other US school]"
2. Forum: [loads of advice to go stay domestic]
3. Premed: (starts new thread...) "Hey guys, I'm looking for advice about choosing between [School in Israel] and [Other US School] [this time citing match lists]"
4. Forum: [points out issues with Israel school match lists and gives advice to stay domestic]
5. Premed: "yes, but what about [talking point that probably came from foreign school's admissions office]?"
6. Forum: "Are you looking for advice or for someone to tell you go to Israel?"

*somewhere between 3 and 6: Overly defensive Carib students: "Go IMG! DO are the SUXXORS!!!11!!!!1 [cites anecdotes and poorly constructed data]"

 

[lyla]

Full-disclosure: I am graduating with my D.O. degree in June, and I matched into an ACGME Psychiatry residency (ranked 9 programs, interviewed at 10 programs, turned down several interviews)

One thing to consider... I have never heard of D.O. students being advised or encouraged to apply to 100-200 residency programs in multiple specialties in order to boost their odds as much as possible to match, but I've heard stories of Caribbean students who have to do this. Can anyone (IMG carib or otherwise) chime in on this?

 

[MattSmith45]

This thread is a little appalling. It is filled with pro-DOs who are trying to justify against all means that going DO gives you better prospects in the IM match than does going FMG or IMG for that matter. I'm sorry but it does not. Has anyone looked at the data? According to NRMP PD survey, 85% of ACGME IM programs interview and rank US IMGs whereas 82% of programs will interview and rank DOs. That's why it is probably hard to find IM programs where DO>IMG, as the argus has asked us to. It's because programs that don't rank DOs, don't rank IMGs. Programs that do rank DOs, rank IMGs.

The Argus is correct in the statements he is making. People should accept this and move on. DOs do not have a monopoly on residencies over IMGs/FMGs as many pre meds fall in the trap of believing. Each speciality is different and this is IM we are talking about.

 

[notbobtrustme]

It is more like sackler which has match lists comparable to mid-low tier US MD schools.

Their match list isn't even close to a low tier MD school. Save for the optho placement, the Cornell IM and maybe the Cleveland Clinic Surgery (depending if it's prelim or not), the rest of the match list is at IMG mill programs. This is a poor match list by most measures.

For comparison, at RFUMS/CMS, we place kids into derm, rad-onc, neuro surg, ortho, and high tier IM every year. Our match rate into competitive specialties is at or better than the national average, without the need for extra years of research and without the need for nepotism.

 

[DocVapor]

This thread is a little appalling. It is filled with pro-DOs who are trying to justify against all means that going DO gives you better prospects in the IM match than does going FMG or IMG for that matter. I'm sorry but it does not. Has anyone looked at the data? According to NRMP PD survey, 85% of ACGME IM programs interview and rank US IMGs whereas 82% of programs will interview and rank DOs. That's why it is probably hard to find IM programs where DO>IMG, as the argus has asked us to. It's because programs that don't rank DOs, don't rank IMGs. Programs that do rank DOs, rank IMGs.

The Argus is correct in the statements he is making. People should accept this and move on. DOs do not have a monopoly on residencies over IMGs/FMGs as many pre meds fall in the trap of believing. Each speciality is different and this is IM we are talking about.

Lol.

 

[the argus]

Ya know, it would be nice if these threads didn't follow the same template every...single...time...

1. Premed: "Hey guys, I really need some advice I'm deciding between [School in Israel] and [Other US school]"
2. Forum: [loads of advice to go stay domestic]
3. Premed: (starts new thread...) "Hey guys, I'm looking for advice about choosing between [School in Israel] and [Other US School] [this time citing match lists]"
4. Forum: [points out issues with Israel school match lists and gives advice to stay domestic]
5. Premed: "yes, but what about [talking point that probably came from foreign school's admissions office]?"
6. Forum: "Are you looking for advice or for someone to tell you go to Israel?"

*somewhere between 3 and 6: Overly defensive Carib students: "Go IMG! DO are the SUXXORS!!!11!!!!1 [cites anecdotes and poorly constructed data]"

Dude, if you actually read my posts, the first thing I wrote was that DOs have an advantage over IMGs. I have never once told someone to go IMG over DO, and I have never disparaged DOs.

The only thing I have ever done is challenge the notion that being an IMG is the worst thing ever in all possible situations, and then you guys pounce like I killed your dog.

Instead of just getting angry, show me some IM programs that have a significant percentage of DOs but no IMGs.

 

[235009]

Their match list isn't even close to a low tier MD school. Save for the optho placement, the Cornell IM and maybe the Cleveland Clinic Surgery (depending if it's prelim or not), the rest of the match list is at IMG mill programs. This is a poor match list by most measures.

For comparison, at RFUMS/CMS, we place kids into derm, rad-onc, neuro surg, ortho, and high tier IM every year. Our match rate into competitive specialties is at or better than the national average, without the need for extra years of research and without the need for nepotism.

your statement makes it obvious you don't know how to read a match list. I don't care what specialties people go into. I'm only looking at IM matches because that's all I know how to interpret. About half the matches are at university programs, the other half are mostly respectable community programs (of the ones I recognize). There's obviously a geographic bias toward NYC which is a difficult area to match at university programs. Maybe comparing it to mid-tier US MD was a bit of a stretch but where people go is comparable to a low-tier state school whose students have a strong geographic preference. Outcomes are certainly at least on par with DO schools which is why I'm baffled by the seemingly overwhelming consensus that DO is superior (which shows that all this "advice" is more bias than interpretation).

 

[the argus]

Outcomes are certainly at least on par with DO schools which is why I'm baffled by the seemingly overwhelming consensus that DO is superior (which shows that all this "advice" is more bias than interpretation).

 

[WingedOx]

The only thing I have ever done is challenge the notion that being an IMG is the worst thing ever in all possible situations, and then you guys pounce like I killed your dog.

Which is a strawman of what we're actually saying.... and really is an irrelevant point to the OP's thread.

The point: Despite the issues with the Touro schools (and they exist), Choosing to go to Sackler etc. over a domestic option is putting yourself in a disadvantaged situation.

Do my posts come across as angry? Must be the Rhino.

 

[WingedOx]

your statement makes it obvious you don't know how to read a match list. I don't care what specialties people go into. I'm only looking at IM matches because that's all I know how to interpret. About half the matches are at university programs, the other half are mostly respectable community programs (of the ones I recognize). There's obviously a geographic bias toward NYC which is a difficult area to match at university programs. Maybe comparing it to mid-tier US MD was a bit of a stretch but where people go is comparable to a low-tier state school whose students have a strong geographic preference. Outcomes are certainly at least on par with DO schools which is why I'm baffled by the seemingly overwhelming consensus that DO is superior (which shows that all this "advice" is more bias than interpretation).

Care to name examples of said low-tier US schools?

 

[cbrons]

I'm not reading the whole thread because: don't care.

Anyone who tells you anything but "DO is better" in this scenario is an idiot or smoking crack.

jdh 2 strong. ^ sign my stethoscope plz

 

[the argus]

Which is a strawman of what we're actually saying.... and really is an irrelevant point to the OP's thread.

Now you're calling me out for being irrelevant to the OP's thread after you just posted that fake conversation and put words in my mouth? Pot, meet kettle.

The point: Despite the issues with the Touro schools (and they exist), Choosing to go to Sackler etc. over a domestic option is putting yourself in a disadvantaged situation.

And I'll ask again, in terms of getting an ACGME internal medicine residency, what is your proof that this statement is true. The objective data does not support it.

I fully agree that if the OP said, "I don't know what specialty I want to do", that going DO is the better option. But they specifically said ACGME internal medicine residency program, and this idea that DOs match into better IM programs than IMGs is just false. Again, if someone actually shows some evidence to support this, I'll gladly admit I am wrong.

 

[cbrons]

This is not correct. The OP specifically asked about ACGME residency in internal medicine. What gives DOs the advantage over IMGs is that DOs can match into AOA residencies in the more competitive fields, effectively giving them more options for specialty than IMGs. I know ACGME and AOA are combining, but currently this is the way it is.

For ACGME residencies in internal medicine (as the OP stated), it is not such a clear cut answer. IM programs each have their preferences, some are DO=IMG, some are IMG>DO, and some DO>IMG.

I'm not trying to start a pissing war about DO vs IMG, but in this circumstance it is not such a black and white issue as you are making it out to be.

no its pretty black and white honestly. Look at charting the outcomes and let me know what % of imgs match. Compare that to match rate for DOs into acgme residencies. Not even close lol

 

[the argus]

no its pretty black and white honestly. Look at charting the outcomes and let me know what % of imgs match. Compare that to match rate for DOs into acgme residencies. Not even close lol

we're talking about internal medicine, or trying to at least

 

[notbobtrustme]

your statement makes it obvious you don't know how to read a match list. I don't care what specialties people go into. I'm only looking at IM matches because that's all I know how to interpret. About half the matches are at university programs, the other half are mostly respectable community programs (of the ones I recognize). There's obviously a geographic bias toward NYC which is a difficult area to match at university programs. Maybe comparing it to mid-tier US MD was a bit of a stretch but where people go is comparable to a low-tier state school whose students have a strong geographic preference. Outcomes are certainly at least on par with DO schools which is why I'm baffled by the seemingly overwhelming consensus that DO is superior (which shows that all this "advice" is more bias than interpretation).

Then make it clear to me, because looking at the intern profiles, none of these programs or programs similar to these in quality would get even a safety application from me.

Mt. Auburn -> community program with >50% IMGs. Fellowship match is mostly uncompetitive with a few heme/onc and cards. No GI.
Jewish Hospital -> community program, looks like ~50% IMGs/DOs but that's just an eyeball and being racist about it. No fellowship match data published, so no idea what happens to grads afterwards.
Cornell is Cornell.
St Lukes -> >50% IMGs, fellowship match list is a mess, but a decent mix of cards/gi/heme-onc.
Maimonides -> >50% MBBS, probably another 10-20% IMGs judging by names/skin color. Fellowship match unavailable.
Winthrop U -> no idea as there's no housestaff profile, but the chief resident is a AUC graduate. Maybe he's a stud, who knows. Fellowship match is extremely vague.
Barnabas -> no resident profiles, vague fellowship match with few cards/heme/GI.
Temple -> extremely vague.
University of Illinois -> no idea which campus, but 2/3 are IMG mills full of carib/indian/pakistani grads.


My inkling is that the medicine list is pretty bad unless your goal was any NYC residency. For example, a program I would consider mid-tier is LUC or Rush or UIC, which are >90% USMDs. LUC, for instance, has zero IMGs and zero DOs. I would consider this a solid mid-tier residency program.

 

[cbrons]

Because they don't list several community programs by their University program affiliations therefore it's safe to assume that when they give the name of the University program they mean it. Not to mention someone fact checked the cornell match and it was in fact true.

The Cornell mid tier program was the sole program that was comfirmed. I already wrote about how "University of Illinois" =\= UIC I.M. That list from technicion is completely obscure and prob list lots of very low tier spots.

Im a US md student so i dont care about this issue all that much but I very seriously doubt there are any programs out there who garbage can DO applications in favor of Technician applicants.

 

[235009]

The Cornell mid tier program was the sole program that was comfirmed. I already wrote about how "University of Illinois" =\= UIC I.M. That list from technicion is completely obscure and prob list lots of very low tier spots.

Im a US md student so i dont care about this issue all that much but I very seriously doubt there are any programs out there who garbage can DO applications in favor of Technician applicants.

I'm also a US MD graduate so I only argue this topic for sport. Ironically you actually named a program that does in fact trash DO applications in favor of technician applications in your post: Cornell! Mt Sinai, among others, trashes DO applications in favor of Sackler applicants.

It just bothers me that pure bias gets passed off as advice on this board.

As for the guy above who went through the IM match list program by program: not saying your assessment is sound, it's obvious you haven't gone through the match yet, but just consider that at least half the DOs at any given school match into AOA programs which are arguably worse than any of those programs you are badmouthing.

 

[jdh71]

I'm also a US MD graduate so I only argue this topic for sport. Ironically you actually named a program that does in fact trash DO applications in favor of technician applications in your post: Cornell! Mt Sinai, among others, trashes DO applications in favor of Sackler applicants.

It just bothers me that pure bias gets passed off as advice on this board.

As for the guy above who went through the IM match list program by program: not saying your assessment is sound, it's obvious you haven't gone through the match yet, but just consider that at least half the DOs at any given school match into AOA programs which are arguably worse than any of those programs you are badmouthing.

Says the guy who has been giving lots or garbage advice for years in IM. lol.

 

[the argus]

For example, a program I would consider mid-tier is LUC or Rush or UIC, which are >90% USMDs. LUC, for instance, has zero IMGs and zero DOs. I would consider this a solid mid-tier residency program.

Except for the fact that LUC (Loyola University Chicago?), has both IMGs (including caribbean) and DOs.

Oh yea, and none of those programs have >90% USMDs

Rush - 89% USMD, 8% IMG, 3% DO
LUC - 82% USMD, 6% IMG, 12 & DO
UIC - 84% USMD, 3%, IMG, 13% DO

But hey, don't let any facts get in the way of your half-cocked argument.

 

[jdh71]

You know what people roll your dice.

I heard you can get rich playing the lottery but I don't recommend it.

OP stop by the IM forum come fourth year. We'll do our best to help you. I specialize on interesting cases and lost causes. I've been watching this stuff play out for the last few years and it is becoming harder and harder for an IMG to find a match to any program any kind of note in IM, while I've seen DOs matching at better and better programs.

Buy that lotto ticket. Scratch!! Good luck.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Except for the fact that LUC (Loyola University Chicago?), has both IMGs (including caribbean) and DOs.

Oh yea, and none of those programs have >90% USMDs

Rush - 89% USMD, 8% IMG, 3% DO
LUC - 82% USMD, 6% IMG, 12 & DO
UIC - 84% USMD, 3%, IMG, 13% DO

But hey, don't let any facts get in the way of your half-cocked argument.

hey, I just eyeballed it from the intern class profile. The intern profile for Loyola is 100% USMD as far as I can tell.
And honestly, the difference between mid-80s and 90% from an eyeball glance is minuscule.

 

[Goro]

Never once have our Clinical Deans suggested this to my students either. My kids have no trouble matching into ACGME residencies.

One thing to consider... I have never heard of D.O. students being advised or encouraged to apply to 100-200 residency programs in multiple specialties in order to boost their odds as much as possible to match, but I've heard stories of Caribbean students who have to do this. Can anyone (IMG carib or otherwise) chime in on this?[/QUOTE]

 

[WingedOx]

People also aren't looking at things from the perspectives of the programs making the rank lists. If your program is in a position where you "need" to rank the additional one fifth of students coming from osteopathic schools, you're not in a position to be choosy. If you've got an ACGME program with a oversized percentage of DOs who isn't willing to rank some IMGs, you've got a program willing to take their chances in the SOAP... which if you talk to any PD, isn't something they want to ever have to go through.

Just because a program has IMGs in it, doesn't mean they were particularly desired by that program. Not IM, but my own program interviewed a Sackler grad and a few carib grads this year. They're basically what I'd call "SOAP Buffers" in case our recruitment doesn't go well.

A program can only take the students who rank the program high enough, and in IM especially, LCME grads in particular have a lot of options, which leaves low to mid-tier academic programs quite less selective. I can tell you from my own contacts that one of the "mid-tier academic programs" listed above in this thread has had some serious instability the last two years. They still filled all of their class with US grads this year IIRC.

 

[the argus]

Hey kids, it's time for a another edition of SDN choose your own adventure game.

SCENARIO: You've been arguing about a subject you know nothing about. You are being dismissive, insulting, and are putting words in other people's mouth. Despite this, your friends are still liking your posts and you feel good. You finally take the time to look at the facts and data, and realize that you have been wrong the entire time. What do you do?

OPTION 1: Be an adult. Swallow your pride, admit that you were wrong, and move on.

OPTION 2: Dig in and move the goalposts. Change the subject, but keep it close enough the original subject to make it seem relevant.

OK, lets see what our contestant did.

People also aren't looking at things from the perspectives of the programs making the rank lists. If your program is in a position where you "need" to rank the additional one fifth of students coming from osteopathic schools, you're not in a position to be choosy. If you've got an ACGME program with a oversized percentage of DOs who isn't willing to rank some IMGs, you've got a program willing to take their chances in the SOAP... which if you talk to any PD, isn't something they want to ever have to go through.

Just because a program has IMGs in it, doesn't mean they were particularly desired by that program. Not IM, but my own program interviewed a Sackler grad and a few carib grads this year. They're basically what I'd call "SOAP Buffers" in case our recruitment doesn't go well.

A program can only take the students who rank the program high enough, and in IM especially, LCME grads in particular have a lot of options, which leaves low to mid-tier academic programs quite less selective. I can tell you from my own contacts that one of the "mid-tier academic programs" listed above in this thread has had some serious instability the last two years. They still filled all of their class with US grads this year IIRC.

Our contestant went with option 2 folks! And continued to be dismissive and insulting, and his friends still like it!

This epiphany you came to in the 3rd paragraph is something everyone already knows. This is something we, the people who actually know something about ACGME internal medicine residency programs, were assuming was common knowledge.

Every residency program, regardless of specialty, would prefer to take graduates of Harvard, JHU, UCSF, and Stanford. But, obviously, mid-tier IM programs don't have that luxury.

The fact of the matter is, ACGME internal medicine residency programs do not favor DOs over IMGs. End of story. There might be some preference within an individual program, but this is not a blanket rule.

In most other specialties DOs have a clear advantage over IMGs. Internal medicine is not one of those specialties.

 

[MyNameHere22]

The Argus.... It seems like your basing you claim on the percent of IMGs vs DOs in a given program. There are a few things you are not considering. For example, there are WAY less DO graduates every year applying for the match than there are IMGs. The higher prevalence of IMGs in programs could be related to the number of IMGs applying and not because the program prefers the letters "MD."

The number of DOs applying further decreases because they have a separate match that occurs earlier. So that would drive DO numbers down even more.

In order to really say that IMG > DO in any program (or DO > IMG for that matter), you would have to have rank lists for all these programs and students, and you would need to find their ultimate placement.

In any case - the match rate for DOs > IMGs. And with the residency merger happening, I think you'll be hard pressed to find any real data that would support that being an IMG is better than a DO for (any) matching purposes.

 

[WingedOx]

In order to really say that IMG > DO in any program (or DO > IMG for that matter), you would have to have rank lists for all these programs and students, and you would need to find their ultimate placement.

bingo.

I don't know whose ability to analyze data is worse. The pro-Carib/IMG posters here or the DOs over in the osteo forum trying to cite journal evidence for the efficacy of OMM.

 

[jdh71]

I brought up page one that DOs graduate about a fourth the number of American MDs

The temerity of then suggesting someone wasn't any good at analyzing data many many posts later is . . . Priceless.

 

[FutureMDiA]

US MD > DO > Caribbean med schools