Is anesthesiology still DO friendly after this years data?
Started by SpideyMD
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
D
deleted1000960
I personally would not call it "DO friendly" but rather "DO accessible" (DOable hehe). With the right board scores and programs you apply to, you still have a shot at matching, but it is not "meet X requirements and you're in."
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Match rate for MDs is almost 90% for anesthesiology. DOs had a 66% match rate . Avg Step scores were almost identical for Step 1 and 2. This is a new phenomenon , where DOs were welcomed equally up until recently. I'd have to say it is less DO friendly than before.
Yes, average MD step I was 237 and step II was 248 while average DO step I was 234 and step II was 245. Overall anesthesiology is just becoming more competitive and based on these numbers the field isn't DO friendly, but that doesn't mean its not DOable if you have strong scores.
D
deleted898021
Its still DO friendly... its just that with more applicants the match % is lower... the match % percentage is also about 10% or so lower for MD's than from 2018... its just more competitive now
D
deleted898021
More underqualified DO's applied this cycle? People who jumped ship from say EM who didn't have the scores for anesthesia? the pandemic reducing away rotation opportunities and it just getting more competitive overall... way too many variables... highly doubt programs that previously took DO's in say anesthesia or rads would just say no to them now...
MDs had average step I of 237 and step II of 248 while DOs had a step I of 234 and step II of 245. So it seems the overall DO applicant pool wasn't as qualified especially when you consider there was 1500 MD applicants and 450 DO applicants. But there could be other variables at play as well.
Technically accurate, but I would consider the difference in scores to be minimal. 2 or 3 points.
Edit.
Ok I'll say it. Some DO bias still exists.
D
deleted898021
are those averages for people applying? or people matched to anesthesia? if so the bottom of that average could heavily skew the % for DO's
It was just for those who matched. After looking again, I think the unmatched numbers are more significant. Unmatched numbers for DOs were step I 226 and step II 236 while MDs were step I 221 and step II 231. So just shows there is still more bias and it's not a DO friendly field.
I wouldn’t call it DO friendly when it has a match rate that compares to Ortho for MDs. Of course you can still match but if this cycle wasn’t an anomaly, it is no longer DO friendly imho.
It definitely used to be both IMG and DO friendly. Probably a combination of EM implosion + receding fears of CRNA (salaries holding up well despite barrage of independent practice laws) had made it less friendly.
However, maybe the market will correct itself. Perhaps there will be less applications this cycle as some fear not matching
It definitely used to be both IMG and DO friendly. Probably a combination of EM implosion + receding fears of CRNA (salaries holding up well despite barrage of independent practice laws) had made it less friendly.
However, maybe the market will correct itself. Perhaps there will be less applications this cycle as some fear not matching
D
deleted898021
But by that logic, the DO averages for matched were lower? So they took more low scoring DO’s on average then lower scoring MD’s? All I am saying is the data is whack.. and objectively looking at match lists, most of the matches into gas from DO schools the past 2 years are at brand name academic places.. so while the data somewhat supports what your saying, the match lists don’t
Yeah it’s strange. From how I was approaching it is that the average DO applicant had lower stat’s so although some were accepted it would not make sense to accept a higher amount of students with lower scores. So this may explain why DO had 66% match and MD was 90%. But there are probably many more factors too like bias.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
D
deleted898021
Highly doubt a field that had no/little bias just a few years ago is suddenly very biased … same for like PMR.. again it’s much more than what the data shows. Covid is real thing too
D
deleted1066449
How did 4 US IMG matched plastic?
Zero plastic for DOs.
Zero plastic for DOs.
D
deleted898021
Very few DO Applicants
The unfortunate reality is that all fields still have some bias towards DOs. US MDs are the currency of the realm. But as the competitiveness of the applicant pool waxes and wanes so does the “DO friendliness” of the field. In times of famine (like a few years ago for gas), DOs match well and the specialty appears to have less bias. As interest of USMDs in a specialty increases the “DO friendless” goes down.
I think in fields like this it's less so that they are matching less DOs because they are DOs. It's much more likely in my opinion that the applicants from the middle-lower end of the pack are getting weeded out because of competition from fellow DOs. There is quite likely a cap the program directors put for the amount of DOs that can match in a given year. The number of MD applicants of course increase as well (and has a definite impact) because LCME is slowly realizing, hey we can make money off this cash cow too and force the hands of the government once needed. The advising at DO schools isn't the greatest and now being in one, I can see where some students may be led astray if they don't do their own research on what is competitive for this current environment.
Similar threads
