Does anyone else use the proportion of US MDs to DOs to IMGs in a program...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lord_Vader

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
193
Reaction score
158
to determine how to rank it? I find this being a useful strategy to judge the reputation of a program since many of the programs I've interviewed at so far are so similar and only a few have really stood out.
 
Yes I've found it to be a good rough estimation of quality after rotating a lot.
 
I used that ratio to determine if I would apply to the program. Also, the ratio of locals to outsiders. And the ratio of Ivy League to non-ivy.

My favorites were the programs full of med schools I have never heard of, like the Medical School of Eastern Mosul, Iraq. I'm sure it is a great school and all, but I'm looking for "fit" in my program.
 
Generally, yes. A place with no DOs/FMGs will generally be more prestigious than a program with only USMDs, in the same way that a program with residents from mostly top-tier med schools is likely more prestigious that the place with a bunch of non-name state schools.

A more pertinent question is, does it really matter? Above a certain point, I'd say probably not.
 
Generally, yes. A place with no DOs/FMGs will generally be more prestigious than a program with only USMDs, in the same way that a program with residents from mostly top-tier med schools is likely more prestigious that the place with a bunch of non-name state schools.

A more pertinent question is, does it really matter? Above a certain point, I'd say probably not.

I'd say that if you were looking to do primary care then no but if you're planning on doing fellowship then it certainly does matter imo.
 
Generally, yes. A place with no DOs/FMGs will generally be more prestigious than a program with only USMDs, in the same way that a program with residents from mostly top-tier med schools is likely more prestigious that the place with a bunch of non-name state schools.

A more pertinent question is, does it really matter? Above a certain point, I'd say probably not.
Where does one find this data?
 
I'd say that if you were looking to do primary care then no but if you're planning on doing fellowship then it certainly does matter imo.

What's way more important is how their fellowship match rates are and in what fields. Not perfect but just because a place takes DOs and FMGs doesn't mean they don't spit out folks who go to fellowships.

But in general, I think for IM/FM/Psych/Peds it's a reasonable decision process. If there's 1 DO in the program, however, I don't think it's inferior compared to a program with 0 DOs. There are some absolute rockstar DO candidates that break into historically MD only programs.
 
I think that it is a reasonable starting point when looking at residencies. But, like anything else, it is an imperfect/indirect measure of quality and I don't think that it really tells you much about a program that you wouldn't get from a cursory look/reputation. Trying to differentiate between 15% DO/IMG vs. 30% DO/IMG is pointless.
 
I am looking for residencies that have 100% IMG and I am a US student... Better chance to match IMO...
As my specialty gets more popular, I've seen more than one program where the 3rd and 4th years are foreign and the intern class is all US educated. Maybe you will catch this wave.
 
As my specialty gets more popular, I've seen more than one program where the 3rd and 4th years are foreign and the intern class is all US educated. Maybe you will catch this wave.
I've noticed that in a few specialties as of late in my area. It's gonna be real interesting to match in the near future.
 
What's way more important is how their fellowship match rates are and in what fields. Not perfect but just because a place takes DOs and FMGs doesn't mean they don't spit out folks who go to fellowships.

But in general, I think for IM/FM/Psych/Peds it's a reasonable decision process. If there's 1 DO in the program, however, I don't think it's inferior compared to a program with 0 DOs. There are some absolute rockstar DO candidates that break into historically MD only programs.

Not really good for peds. Only places I saw not open to dos were Boston/chop
 
I know someone who did this as a DO student when figuring out which MD places to apply for - would only apply if there was at least 1 DO in the entire residency class.
I have known programs who avoid DOs after 1 or 2 because they don't want to be known as the "DO/FMG" residency.
 
I know someone who did this as a DO student when figuring out which MD places to apply for - would only apply if there was at least 1 DO in the entire residency class.

That's pretty much my plan. I'll probably apply to a few without DOs because it's worth a shot, but I know I don't have glass-ceiling-shattering credentials so it makes sense to focus my energy on hospitals more likely to look at my application.
 
An excellent strategy. Another trick is to target places that your school's grads have gone to. Widening the cracked-open door, so to speak.

I know someone who did this as a DO student when figuring out which MD places to apply for - would only apply if there was at least 1 DO in the entire residency class.
 
The most competitive residency programs will likely have few or no IMG's. However, that does not mean that they're any better, and it also is not always the case. The decision on who gets into a residency program ultimately comes down to a single person - the PD. If that person happens to be an IMG, or has worked with many of them, they'll likely take them into the program. If they have a bias against IMG's (which many do), then they're not getting in.

The original PD of my program was a US grad (from Hopkins, actually), but she was more concerned with getting the best applicant than where they graduated from. So, we wound up with a lot of IMG's (about half). However, she eventually moved on and the new PD interviewed almost no IMG's, and I don't think he ranked any of them.

In general, the most competitive programs typically don't have many IMG's. However, this is a pretty bad marker of the quality/strength of the program overall. If that's what you're resorting to to determine the best place for you, you have a lot more research to do.
 
The most competitive residency programs will likely have few or no IMG's. However, that does not mean that they're any better, and it also is not always the case. The decision on who gets into a residency program ultimately comes down to a single person - the PD. If that person happens to be an IMG, or has worked with many of them, they'll likely take them into the program. If they have a bias against IMG's (which many do), then they're not getting in.

The original PD of my program was a US grad (from Hopkins, actually), but she was more concerned with getting the best applicant than where they graduated from. So, we wound up with a lot of IMG's (about half). However, she eventually moved on and the new PD interviewed almost no IMG's, and I don't think he ranked any of them.

In general, the most competitive programs typically don't have many IMG's. However, this is a pretty bad marker of the quality/strength of the program overall. If that's what you're resorting to to determine the best place for you, you have a lot more research to do.

I think they lean as an initial screening tool.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
As a DO, this thread and attitude in it strikes me as 50 shades of f**ked up.

So when you assess the prestige of a residency, your primary concern isn't "will they get me the fellowship I want?" It's not "will it make me a good doctor?" It's not "Will my peers challenge me intellectually?" It's not even "will this residency ultimately help me make more money?"

Nope, it's clear that the important thing for determining the prestige of a residency is "Does this program make sure to exclude those who got their equivalent training from a lesser-known school?"
 
As a DO, this thread and attitude in it strikes me as 50 shades of f**ked up.

So when you assess the prestige of a residency, your primary concern isn't "will they get me the fellowship I want?" It's not "will it make me a good doctor?" It's not "Will my peers challenge me intellectually?" It's not even "will this residency ultimately help me make more money?"

Nope, it's clear that the important thing for determining the prestige of a residency is "Does this program make sure to exclude those who got their equivalent training from a lesser-known school?"

As it's hard to discern the subtleties between the first 3 or 4 questions (hell even the first question is difficult to fully answer and that should be the easiest one), the main thing that IS easily assessable is whether there is a significant proportion of DO students present within the program. I give a program more credit if they have DOs over mostly IMGs. And there IS a correlation between programs that don't take DOs in larger numbers (primarily more academic programs) doing better in terms of fellowship placement than community programs.

You can rah-rah about how bad of people all allopathic medical students are, but it's the only thing they have sometimes.
 
As a DO, this thread and attitude in it strikes me as 50 shades of f**ked up.

So when you assess the prestige of a residency, your primary concern isn't "will they get me the fellowship I want?" It's not "will it make me a good doctor?" It's not "Will my peers challenge me intellectually?" It's not even "will this residency ultimately help me make more money?"

Nope, it's clear that the important thing for determining the prestige of a residency is "Does this program make sure to exclude those who got their equivalent training from a lesser-known school?"

U mad bro?
 
As it's hard to discern the subtleties between the first 3 or 4 questions (hell even the first question is difficult to fully answer and that should be the easiest one), the main thing that IS easily assessable is whether there is a significant proportion of DO students present within the program. I give a program more credit if they have DOs over mostly IMGs. And there IS a correlation between programs that don't take DOs in larger numbers (primarily more academic programs) doing better in terms of fellowship placement than community programs.

You can rah-rah about how bad of people all allopathic medical students are, but it's the only thing they have sometimes.

It's a toxic attitude. It's not even an MD thing. DOs are just as bad, if not worse sometimes. We may not be at the top of the prestige food chain, but we're not at the bottom, either. We still love to s**t on IMGs and "low tier" DOs, because at the end of the day, we're still medical students. Beneath our noble exterior of caring for people's health is a disgusting, festering blend of unjustified elitism, paranoia, one-upsmanship, and brutal judgment of our peers. It's not entirely out fault - the system was built this way, and we need to work within it's confines.

I'm no better. I tell myself that I'd have full trust in the abilities of an IMG who passed his boards. After all, at the med school level it's all the same. But I'm still going to be silently gloating to myself that I went to an American medical school.

I don't fault a US MD for thinking he has some sort of vague, undefined inner quality that makes him better than me, justified by his admittance into an MD-granting school. He doesn't know my story. Would he even care if he knew? If it were me, would I even care? I don't know.

The problem is when we go about our business and don't even address that this is a problem. When we don't aspire to being any better, and become content and complacent with our prejudices. I'm personally an elitist, a classist, I'm even a rascist. But I don't want to be, and I aspire to be better and not to let it dictate my actions.

This is the problem I see in this thread. It's medical elitism laid bare, a toxic attitude stripped all all pretense of pragmatism. Hell, what you said about USMD-only programs and fellowships is totally true and valid. It's a damn good point. It's pragmatic, and in my opinion, slightly less toxic. But this thread, and a lot of SDN, just takes it for granted that "that's the way it is." This thread isn't about fellowships, or quality of education - it's about prestige, our worst qualities start pouring out- and no one says a goddamn thing about it.
 
Last edited:
As a DO, this thread and attitude in it strikes me as 50 shades of f**ked up.

So when you assess the prestige of a residency, your primary concern isn't "will they get me the fellowship I want?" It's not "will it make me a good doctor?" It's not "Will my peers challenge me intellectually?" It's not even "will this residency ultimately help me make more money?"

Nope, it's clear that the important thing for determining the prestige of a residency is "Does this program make sure to exclude those who got their equivalent training from a lesser-known school?"

It's more like. "Holy crap I'm tired of reviewing websites. I need some sort of ballpark metric to use, however inaccurate it may be." My top choice FM program has DO's and Caribbean residents. I'm still leaving my state to attend that program if they'll have me.
 
So you didn't interview at John's Hopkins or MGH's anesthesia programs?
Sweet burn bro, except you obviously haven't ever looked at those residency rosters. From my count on their websites,

JHU: 7/81 (8.6%) are DO.
MGH: 1/98 (1.0%) are DO

I think most people would characterize those as "basically MD only"
 
Sweet burn bro, except you obviously haven't ever looked at those residency rosters. From my count on their websites,

JHU: 7/81 (8.6%) are DO.
MGH: 1/98 (1.0%) are DO

I think most people would characterize those as "basically MD only"
I wouldn't call 9% MD only. That's as good as I've seen for top tier programs in terms of taking DOs.
 
Sweet burn bro, except you obviously haven't ever looked at those residency rosters. From my count on their websites,

JHU: 7/81 (8.6%) are DO.
MGH: 1/98 (1.0%) are DO

I think most people would characterize those as "basically MD only"

I knew someone would counter with this. I'll give you MGH, but not JHU (had multiple years of DOs, even during the late 2000s when it was more competitive)
 
Last edited:
In doing several SUB-is, I've found that FMGs (not US FMGs i.e. carrib trained, I mean actual FMGs) are almost always a lot better than US-educated residents. The reason has a lot to do with the fact that many FMGs come to the U.S. with significant training and experience under their belt already, with many having been physicians in their home countries.

I consider a program with lots of FMGs to be suspect though, because it makes me wonder why so few US grads want to go there.

An even bigger red flag is when it's a university program with almost no residents from the home medical school. That really makes me wonder why those students, who likely had ample contact with the program via their clerkships and rotations, don't want to go there.
 
A thing many of you don't understand about D.O. issue...

There are many M.D. schools (particularly poor state M.D. schools, i.e. not Columbia or Stanford etc.) that are legitimately lower quality medical schools than the top D.O. schools (i.e. CCOM, PCOM, etc.).
Ehhhhhhhhh. Many? How about non zero. You mean it terms of caliber of students or quality of rotations?
 
Ehhhhhhhhh. Many? How about non zero. You mean it terms of caliber of students or quality of rotations?
Quality of pre-clinical and clinical education.
Caliber of students is higher generally at M.D. schools, but the "low tier" MD school caliber students are often lower (sometimes significantly) than the bigger well-known DO schools. Typically the students who get into those low tier MD progs get in via some acceptance gimmick (i.e. "URM" or rural medicine or whatever).
 
Hahaha although I totally understand the metric, and that sometimes it's all people have to judge the "prestige," of a certain residency, the tone is just god awful.
"This place has DOs and IMGs, must stink!"
Ooooo boy...
 
It's a toxic attitude. It's not even an MD thing. DOs are just as bad, if not worse sometimes. We may not be at the top of the prestige food chain, but we're not at the bottom, either. We still love to s**t on IMGs and "low tier" DOs, because at the end of the day, we're still medical students. Beneath our noble exterior of caring for people's health is a disgusting, festering blend of unjustified elitism, paranoia, one-upsmanship, and brutal judgment of our peers. It's not entirely out fault - the system was built this way, and we need to work within it's confines.

I'm no better. I tell myself that I'd have full trust in the abilities of an IMG who passed his boards. After all, at the med school level it's all the same. But I'm still going to be silently gloating to myself that I went to an American medical school.

I don't fault a US MD for thinking he has some sort of vague, undefined inner quality that makes him better than me, justified by his admittance into an MD-granting school. He doesn't know my story. Would he even care if he knew? If it were me, would I even care? I don't know.

The problem is when we go about our business and don't even address that this is a problem. When we don't aspire to being any better, and become content and complacent with our prejudices. I'm personally an elitist, a classist, I'm even a rascist. But I don't want to be, and I aspire to be better and not to let it dictate my actions.

This is the problem I see in this thread. It's medical elitism laid bare, a toxic attitude stripped all all pretense of pragmatism. Hell, what you said about USMD-only programs and fellowships is totally true and valid. It's a damn good point. It's pragmatic, and in my opinion, slightly less toxic. But this thread, and a lot of SDN, just takes it for granted that "that's the way it is." This thread isn't about fellowships, or quality of education - it's about prestige, our worst qualities start pouring out- and no one says a goddamn thing about it.
So basically you would be the same way and do the same thing if you went to an MD school.
 
Quality of pre-clinical and clinical education.
Caliber of students is higher generally at M.D. schools, but the "low tier" MD school caliber students are often lower (sometimes significantly) than the bigger well-known DO schools. Typically the students who get into those low tier MD progs get in via some acceptance gimmick (i.e. "URM" or rural medicine or whatever).
TIL being black or wanting to do rural medicine is an acceptance gimmick
 
It absolutely is. Do the people taking advantage care? Nope, and they shouldn't. Why would a rational human being turn down an easier way into a great profession.

If it's so utterly easy, why do most medical school classes have like FIVE black med students out of like 115?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top