Looks like General Surgery mostly a reach for DO's?

[SpecterGT260]

Did you not make up 2.3k?

No. I inflated my number by about 1700. Again, this was thinking each type of program had 1900 vs 1100 ish. I gave you that 1700 number immediately after your first boneheaded retort. You apparently were unable to catch it then and have since stuck to 2300. I'm not entirely sure why.... It is still irrelevant. Both mistakes are, actually. I was just trying to help you see the irony in your stubborn nonsensical complaint coupled with your own inflation of the numbers. See my edit for a breakdown on the number 4 and how it isn't truly as difficult as you are making it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NontradCA]

Very few DO spots, most places require completion of an intern year before applying, some require completion of an actual FM or IM or Peds residency first, some programs are completely unfunded, etc.

As for allopathic residencies, it's tough for DOs to get in but it does happen. I think Cleveland Clinic has some agreement where they accept one DO applicant yearly (or a rough equivalent), and every year you hear about one or two others who do make it.

I realize the winky face probably insinuated some sort of snarkiness or malice, but either way the above is what I know about DOs matching derm.

Cool thanks. No Malice, I just think Derm is a better example for this type of thread because its a true reach compared to General Surgery. I just think trolls like to make pre-meds think the sky is falling when it's really the limit.

 

[NontradCA]

No. I inflated my number by about 1700. Again, this was thinking each type of program had 1900 vs 1100 ish. I gave you that 1700 number immediately after your first boneheaded retort. You apparently were unable to catch it then and have since stuck to 2300. I'm not entirely sure why.... It is still irrelevant. Both mistakes are, actually. I was just trying to help you see the irony in your stubborn nonsensical complaint coupled with your own inflation of the numbers. See my edit for a breakdown on the number 4 and how it isn't truly as difficult as you are making it.

Ok 1700, like I said I just skimmed through your post and saw 2300-2500 with a face. I assumed 2300 and since its your error I left it to you to fix it. So ya 1700...quite the fallacy.

 

[SpecterGT260]

no one wants to comment to what seems to be a relatively big part of this thread. It looks like the match rate for ACGME gen surgery for MDs vs DOs is 85% vs 70%, roughly.

This doesn't include the AOA residency spots, if I understand correctly.


So, the idea that its such a reach for DOs to get gen surgery is an exaggerated, idea, to say the least

what it means is, that of the 5000 DO graduates, only 150 become surgeons. If you want to call it exaggerated you are banking pretty heavily on the assumption that relatively few DO grads want surgery, or would want it if they felt they had a good shot. The people arguing your side tend to be pre-meds. The people acknowledging the steeper degree of the climb tend to be medical students and those who have matched or tried to match. Just keep that in mind. Surgery isn't guaranteed for either camp, but the idea is that you do increase your ability to match programs like this as an MD. Exaggerated? I don't think so.... I think the statement of difficulty is exaggerated by the pre-meds reading it. example:

"It is more difficult for a DO to match surgery"
pre-med response: "It's impossible to match surgery? No it isnt!"

The numbers posted recently (70%ish and 85%ish) are completely in line with every time someone has said it is more difficult. It is. 70% represents more difficulty compared to 80%. It is the people who cannot wrap their heads around the nature of the word "more" and respond to everything as if it is either completely impossible or negligible, as if those are the only two possibilities, that are the problem here. These are the people exaggerating the statements.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Ok 1700, like I said I just skimmed through your post and saw 2300-2500 with a face. I assumed 2300 and since its your error I left it to you to fix it. So ya 1700...quite the fallacy.

I don't think you know what fallacy means either

 

[NontradCA]

I don't think you know what fallacy means either

Um you made an obvious incomplete comparison followed by red herring. Both fallacies.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Cool thanks. No Malice, I just think Derm is a better example for this type of thread because its a true reach compared to General Surgery. I just think trolls like to make pre-meds think the sky is falling when it's really the limit.

But this is the problem. "difficulty" occurs on a spectrum. There is no magical line at which it either exists or it doesnt. Derm is a great example of something that is a very tangible reach. This doesn't make surgery not a valid example. On the question of it being a reach: Well, you have 2 options. A severely limited AOA set of programs where there are roughly 100 spots total, or a much larger ACGME set of programs that are likely to hold a bias against you. Either way, the number of DO surgeons has been a pretty constant 150, give or take, for the last several years (see the NRMP match data and AOA match data documents I posted earlier). This makes 150 the total effective number of spots that a DO student is fighting fore, no matter how many spots actually exist. One should compare his ability to match, or the degree of "reach" based on this number. If you think only 150ish students total even want surgery then no... it isnt a reach. If you think it is closer to the 11%ish total of students as it is in the MD world this means you are fighting somewhere around 3 other people for every 1 seat likely to go to a DO student which would result in many of these people choosing to settle on other specialties or rank backup specialties (which, again, is supported in the data with such a low number of contiguous ranks in surgery. 4 ranks is absurdly low. This is a measure of "how many surgical programs did applicants list who successfully matched?". If they are only ranking 4, it is a safe bet to assume they ranked other specialties as well).

 

[SpecterGT260]

Um you made an obvious incomplete comparison followed by red herring. Both fallacies.

I did no such thing. I made an error with a remembered number, and then responded to your red herring with my own, only intending to highlight the irony of your complaint coupled with the absurdity of the entire argument all together. I said this explicitly a few times because it was obvious you were having difficulty following. You want to be a medical student, yes? Try to remember past the first step in a problem. You can't forget the context around what brought us here, broseph.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Really? I assumed he was an MD. Could've sworn I've seen him post in a Virginia MD thread a while back. But I could be totally mistaken.

Well he'd have to be pretty lame for posting in this thread seeing as he has no stake in it.

90% of people in this thread have no stake in it. It is up to the older people who have actually gone through the match to bring the pre-meds (on both sides) back in line with reality.

no one wants to comment to what seems to be a relatively big part of this thread. It looks like the match rate for ACGME gen surgery for MDs vs DOs is 85% vs 70%, roughly.

Are you referring to this post earlier in the thread?:
The more students matching into a certain specialty can be loosely correlated with more students applying for that specific specialty, which in turn can be loosely correlated with students having more of an interest in that specific specialty.
DO students estimated interest in a specialty:
19.8% DO students interested in IM
18.6% in FM
14.5% in Peds
7.3% in Psych
3% in Gen Surgery
Seems to follow the correct pattern for DO students in general.....

DO
Total # DO Match for both Categorical + Preliminary = 46
Total # DO Applicants = Total # Matched + Estimated # Unmatched = 46 + 19 = 65
Estimated Match Rate = 70.1%

This is circular reasoning. We are guessing on the unmatched people by using the number that match to figure out the match rate.

 

[playaodamonth]

no one wants to comment to what seems to be a relatively big part of this thread. It looks like the match rate for ACGME gen surgery for MDs vs DOs is 85% vs 70%, roughly.

This doesn't include the AOA residency spots, if I understand correctly.


So, the idea that its such a reach for DOs to get gen surgery is an exaggerated, idea, to say the least

You are correct, my data was only for ACGME residency because I thought that was the main discussion, "how hard is it for DOs to get into an MD residency for Gen-Surgery". I was going to add in AOA match results to get a full view of the situation, but I fell asleep haha. But here it is:

Previous Estimated Statistics for General Surgery Match:
ACGME Only
MD = 85%
DO = 70%

2011 AOA Match Data for Gen-Surgery
Total # Positions Available = 104
Total # Applicants = 102
Total # Matched = 102, leaving 2 spots unfilled.
Match Rate = 100%

Factoring in 2011 AOA Match with 2011 ACGME Match for Gen-Surgery:
Total # DO Applicants = 46 (ACGME Match) + 19 (Estimated ACGME Unmatch) + 102 (AOA Match) + 0 (AOA Unmatch) = 167
Total # DO Match = 148
Match Rate = 88.6%

TOTAL US Match Rate (AOA & ACGME)
MD = 85.1%
DO = 88.6%

Conclusion:
Is it more difficult for DOs to match into a General-Surgery ACGME residency? Yes
Is it more difficult for DOs to match into a General-Surgery residency overall? No
Will this topic ever be let go? Absolutely Not

 

[NontradCA]

But this is the problem. "difficulty" occurs on a spectrum. There is no magical line at which it either exists or it doesnt. Derm is a great example of something that is a very tangible reach. This doesn't make surgery not a valid example. On the question of it being a reach: Well, you have 2 options. A severely limited AOA set of programs where there are roughly 100 spots total, or a much larger ACGME set of programs that are likely to hold a bias against you. Either way, the number of DO surgeons has been a pretty constant 150, give or take, for the last several years (see the NRMP match data and AOA match data documents I posted earlier). This makes 150 the total effective number of spots that a DO student is fighting fore, no matter how many spots actually exist. One should compare his ability to match, or the degree of "reach" based on this number. If you think only 150ish students total even want surgery then no... it isnt a reach. If you think it is closer to the 11%ish total of students as it is in the MD world this means you are fighting somewhere around 3 other people for every 1 seat likely to go to a DO student which would result in many of these people choosing to settle on other specialties or rank backup specialties (which, again, is supported in the data with such a low number of contiguous ranks in surgery. 4 ranks is absurdly low. This is a measure of "how many surgical programs did applicants list who successfully matched?". If they are only ranking 4, it is a safe bet to assume they ranked other specialties as well).

Read the OP's question. He's asking about DO matching, not MD v DO. Nice try troll

 

[NontradCA]

90% of people in this thread have no stake in it. It is up to the older people who have actually gone through the match to bring the pre-meds (on both sides) back in line with reality.



Are you referring to this post earlier in the thread?:
The more students matching into a certain specialty can be loosely correlated with more students applying for that specific specialty, which in turn can be loosely correlated with students having more of an interest in that specific specialty.
DO students estimated interest in a specialty:
19.8% DO students interested in IM
18.6% in FM
14.5% in Peds
7.3% in Psych
3% in Gen Surgery
Seems to follow the correct pattern for DO students in general.....

DO
Total # DO Match for both Categorical + Preliminary = 46
Total # DO Applicants = Total # Matched + Estimated # Unmatched = 46 + 19 = 65
Estimated Match Rate = 70.1%

This is circular reasoning. We are guessing on the unmatched people by using the number that match to figure out the match rate.

You did not got through the match as a DO, I don't see how your older experience fit in here at all. Are you a PD? No you're a resident.

 

[NontradCA]

I did no such thing. I made an error with a remembered number, and then responded to your red herring with my own, only intending to highlight the irony of your complaint coupled with the absurdity of the entire argument all together. I said this explicitly a few times because it was obvious you were having difficulty following. You want to be a medical student, yes? Try to remember past the first step in a problem. You can't forget the context around what brought us here, broseph.

Ya man I'm done with you.

 

[playaodamonth]

90% of people in this thread have no stake in it. It is up to the older people who have actually gone through the match to bring the pre-meds (on both sides) back in line with reality.



Are you referring to this post earlier in the thread?:
The more students matching into a certain specialty can be loosely correlated with more students applying for that specific specialty, which in turn can be loosely correlated with students having more of an interest in that specific specialty.
DO students estimated interest in a specialty:
19.8% DO students interested in IM
18.6% in FM
14.5% in Peds
7.3% in Psych
3% in Gen Surgery
Seems to follow the correct pattern for DO students in general.....

DO
Total # DO Match for both Categorical + Preliminary = 46
Total # DO Applicants = Total # Matched + Estimated # Unmatched = 46 + 19 = 65
Estimated Match Rate = 70.1%

This is circular reasoning. We are guessing on the unmatched people by using the number that match to figure out the match rate.

Its the best we could do with the little information we have. Better to be as objective as possible than to continue with subjective circular arguments.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Here, I will try to help you see how the last page of the thread evolved. It is important because you seem to be completely neglecting past posts and removing context of statements. i.e. calling my statement about your number a red herring... when your statement was itself a red herring. You are correct about mine if you completely ignore the point I was trying to make which was that you are being ironic in calling me out for a point of no consequence when you yourself are guilty of what you attempt to criticize me for. So let's take a journy

Agreed. They tend to talk with such certainty too.




These threads tend to spiral into one of 2 things:
1) The sky is the limit. There are no limitations to DOs
2) Doom and Gloom- you're going to end up in Iowa doing primary care despite wanting surgery

The reality is somewhere in between.

I assume you're a DO degree holder. Now you're at Hopkins judging from your pic. How much did you bust your ass and how much was luck?

Well he'd have to be pretty lame for posting in this thread seeing as he has no stake in it.

You state here that ISW's statement is reflective of his "stake" in the matter. "stake" indicates that which one is likely to gain or lose in the outcome of a decision. He has no stake, nor does the outcome of this discussion change reality. Rather, it is trying to illuminate reality, therefore the term "stake" is completely inappropriate.

"stake"?
answering a question is not about one's stake in the subject. His post wasnt an opinion piece. So often these threads have people in them who apparently think the world works like a children's book.... as if you believe it hard enough and maybe clap your hands it will come true.

I try to say that here, and mention that the only way one can reference "stake" is if they incorrectly perceive the outcome of the discussion as having an impact on the reality of the situation. The bias against DOs in the ACGME occurs completely independently of our own understanding of it, so a resident weighing in on the subject doesn't change said reality. To call it lame indicates you feel as if the bias is somehow proportional to the attitude seen on SDN - much like the hand clapping in peter pan affecting Tinkerbell's ability to continue being not dead

Really? Where in this thread do you see that?

see what? Him addressing a question? That would be the post I directly and explicitly referenced to

Well if he's an MD student I'd think he'd have little experience.

These posts further illuminate this problem. You also seem to indicate that you are not aware that residents (yes, often MD residents) play an active role in the interview and match process for prospective graduates. The PD isnt acting in a vacuum here. He likely has plenty of experience and plenty of ability to weigh in.

Where do you see people "clapping their hands"?

Allusion. Peter Pan reference, actually. The idea being that people here are treating statistical fact and/or interpretation like mere opinion. The question was "will surgery be harder for a DO to match in to as compared to an MD". The answer is yes. Listing off exceptions or stating that fewer DOs want non primary care anyways (a statement I have seen no real data on) does nothing to combat this reality. Then when you reference a resident weighing in based on his "stake" in the matter, it became quite obvious that you are treating this as if the winner of some debate will actually affect reality. It won't.

IMO it is better to be prepared for hurdles than to be blindsided by them. Preparedness also requires acknowledgement as a prerequisite

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

I agree with you on everything except I didn't see anyone say it wasn't harder. I think those people are listing those exceptions to show people it's not impossible.

You say this. and then this happens:

I'm not sure general surgery is more difficult for a DO to match in, compared to MD.

upon which I attempt to give some numbers to Halflistic to emphasize my point. Here is where I didn't have the documents handy and went from memory and brought up that pesky and ever so difficult number 4.

There are just under 4k general surgery spots in the ACGME (including transition years) for ~20k students so a little under 20% capacity. 104 spots in the AOA with ~5000 students yearly means we have 1/10th the relative number of spots within the AOA. I don't buy the story about MD and DOs wanting different specialties to a statistically significant degree, so this means there should be ~ 900 students wanting surgery that need to go ACGME or find something else (it will actually be a little lower as some surgery spots are taken by IMGs and match rates aren't 100%).

So if the demographics are similar, which I suspect they are, as a DO you have a ~90% chance of the AOA spots not being a viable option in the first place. All else being equal it is appropriate to assume somewhat taller hurdles going this route as a DO.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Do DOs have transitional spots? If not you shouldn't count those, and look at the categorical which is like 1400. You're also ignoring the fact that DOs match into ACGME surgery.

Where you tell me for some reason that the prelim spots shouldnt be considered simply because the AOA doesn't have prelim spots... nevermind that a substantial number of DOs go prelim rather than direct entry....

You absolutely cannot ignore the transitional spots. It is a [total surgical spots AOA] vs [total surgical spots ACGME] comparison. Arbitrarily hacking out half of the ACGME spots because the AOA doesn't have an equivalent is inappropriate in this comparison for a myriad of reasons. Please try to remember that the question is "I am a DO who wants surgery, what are my options?" Transition years are still valid options and are actually more likely according to the data.

Additionally, there are only 40-50 DOs who match surgery each year. This is out of ~2350 spots (I wrote the numbers last night from my phone while in bed. I couldnt look up specifics and thought they were about 1900 each). So this is closer to 11% of the total graduating class of MDs. A small % taken by IMGs and even smaller % taken by DOs. The DO representation is still significantly below this at 2%. So, to ammend my earlier post, if we assume similar numbers of interest, which I very much think we can, this leaves ~450 DOs vying for ACGME sport and 400 of those not matching surgery, according to this data.

I haven't been able to find this. If it is more than 104, it means that several go unmatched or (as their data suggests due to the low number of contiguous ranks) they rank other specialties as backups.


I absolutely am not dismissing it. I am saying that the reason it happens is due to difficulty matching more competitive ACGME specialties as a DO. Others say it is preference. I argue that, because the vast majority of "Pre-DOs" are in all actuality just Pre-meds who are pursuing the most likely option for them regardless of school type, that the "wants" of these students are indistinguishable from MD students. I would, however, entertain an argument that says due to the inconsistency of DO clerkships, specifically in the surgical areas, that DOs may be less likely to pursue it as these decisions often occur in the context of the experience one has while rotating through a department.

Here I address my mistake with nobody calling me out about it, and note that the conclusion remains the same

Ya don't mess up data like randomly making up 2.5k residency slots.

Here is your red herring


We then dissolve this conversation down into the meaningless crap that has been occuring with you apparently thinking my correction of your 2.5k is itself a red herring. It isn't. Not in the slightest. Because your thesis with this last quote was "your point is invalid because you gave incorrect numbers". An odd statement following the post with the correct numbers and the explanation for prior error, but whatever. Given this as your thesis, I call it ironic that you yourself are using wrong numbers and it took you almost a page of posts to figure out what I was getting at here. Therefore my post was not a red herring because it addressed the very substance of your point, and yours was as it was not only addressed previously but also has nothing to do with the argument I am making.

See how that works?

 

[SpecterGT260]

You did not got through the match as a DO, I don't see how your older experience fit in here at all. Are you a PD? No you're a resident.

Residents often have as much (if not more) impact on who gets ranked by a program. the PD has the final say in the matter, but relies very heavily in many cases on the input from his residents. You gotta drop this "us vs them" attitude. It has little to do with the way medicine actually works and leads you to make wild and incorrect claims in these subjects.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Read the OP's question. He's asking about DO matching, not MD v DO. Nice try troll

The MD system impacts a DOs ability to match very strongly. 1/3 of all DO surgeons are matching ACGME and this pool is already quite small in comparison to the total number of students. I can't tell if you just can't read clearly or if you are obstinately plugging your ears because you aren't hearing what you want. Everything I posted is in regards to a DO matching in a general sense. You keep asking us to ignore things in the MD world.... but that is outrageously inappropriate in this discussion because when Joe Schmoe DO decides he wants to be a surgeon, all of these things will impact his ability to follow through. It isn't a troll... I will add that word to the list of those you don't seem to fully understand.

Try to be less dismissive and douchy here, please. I'm getting tired of the tone and everything that I post, even when not addressed to you, is met with a solid chip on the shoulder, a snarky comeback, and a scant understanding of the data and workings of residency in general. A simple (and preemptively admitted to) numbers mistake doesn't negate this no matter how badly you want it to. I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just looking for a discussion that addresses the points (all of them, not just mine) without automatically turning it into a nonsensical pissing match. Address my points and my arguments and we will get along very nicely here

 

[playaodamonth]

Take home message:

I understand my "Estimated # DO Unmatched in ACGME" has its flaws as it doesn't account for a lot of variables, but hey, if you can think of a better way to estimate how many of the 617 DOs Unmatched applied for ACGME Gen-Surgery in 2011, I'm all ears. If you have nothing productive to say (i.e. how to better estimate the #), then your comment benefits no one. But I'll re-post all the data into one comment for ease of reading:


2011 ACGME NRMP Data:

Total # DO Applicants = 2,178
Total # DO Matched = 1,561
Total # DO Unmatched = 617

Student "interest" in specialty estimated by [#Matched into that specific specialty/Total #Matched]
Reasoning: the more students matching into a certain specialty can be loosely correlated with more students applying for that specific specialty, which in turn can be loosely correlated with students having more of an interest in that specific specialty.

DO students estimated interest in a specialty (I left out a few specialties for the sake of time).
19.8% for IM
18.6% for FM
14.5% for Peds
7.3% for Psych
3% for Gen Surgery
This seems to follow the general norm for DO students, as most tend to lean toward Primary Care.

Estimated # of Unmatched DOs applying for ACGME Gen Surgery = Total # Unmatched DOs * Likelihood of Gen-Surgery Interest = 617*.03 = approximately 19 students may have been interested in Gen-Surgery but did not match.

Gen Surgery Data:
1437 total applicants (USMD + IA)
**IA = Independent Applicants (DO+IMG+FMG)

USMD
Total # Applicants = 945
Total # Matched = 804
Match Rate = 85.1%

DO
Total # DO Match for both Categorical + Preliminary = 46
Total # DO Applicants = Total # Matched + Estimated # Unmatched = 46 + 19 = 65
Estimated Match Rate = 70.1%

IA (subtracting DO)
Total # Match = 172 - 46 = 126
Total # Unmatched = 320 - 19 = 301
Total # FMG+IMG Applicants = 427
Estimated Match Rate for FMG & IMG = 29.5%

2011 AOA Match Data for Gen-Surgery
Total # Positions Available = 104
Total # Matched = 102, leaving 2 spots unfilled.
Total # 1st Choice Unmatched = approximately 23 (Of the 169 applicants, 13.54% designated 1st choice only, if unmatched, then no gen-surg. The remainder may have matched elsewhere with another surgery residency, or ACGME, too many variables to statistically incorporate, so only using the worse case scenario where 13.54% of the 169 did not match because they only designated their number 1 choice, we get about 23 students).
Total # Applicants = 125
Match Rate = 81.6%

Factoring in 2011 AOA Match with 2011 ACGME Match for Gen-Surgery:
Total # DO Applicants = 46 (ACGME Match) + 19 (Estimated ACGME Unmatch) + 102 (AOA Match) + 23 (Estimated AOA Unmatch) = 190
Total # DO Match = 148
Match Rate = 77.9%

ACGME Gen-Surgery Estimated Match Rate
MD = 85.1%
DO = 70.1%

Total US Estimated Match Rate (AOA & ACGME)
MD = 85.1%
DO = 77.9%

Updated! Thanks SpecterGT for the heads up, told you my math was shotty haha.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Take home message:

I understand my "Estimated # DO Unmatched in ACGME" has its flaws as it doesn't account for a lot of variables, but hey, if you can think of a better way to estimate how many of the 617 DOs Unmatched applied for ACGME Gen-Surgery in 2011, I'm all ears. If you have nothing productive to say (i.e. how to better estimate the #), then your comment benefits no one. But I'll re-post all the data into one comment for ease of reading:


2011 ACGME NRMP Data:

Total # DO Applicants = 2,178
Total # DO Matched = 1,561
Total # DO Unmatched = 617

Student "interest" in specialty estimated by [#Matched into that specific specialty/Total #Matched]
Reasoning: the more students matching into a certain specialty can be loosely correlated with more students applying for that specific specialty, which in turn can be loosely correlated with students having more of an interest in that specific specialty.

DO students estimated interest in a specialty (I left out a few specialties for the sake of time).
19.8% for IM
18.6% for FM
14.5% for Peds
7.3% for Psych
3% for Gen Surgery
This seems to follow the general norm for DO students, as most tend to lean toward Primary Care.

Estimated # of Unmatched DOs applying for ACGME Gen Surgery = Total # Unmatched DOs * Likelihood of Gen-Surgery Interest = 617*.03 = approximately 19 students may have been interested in Gen-Surgery but did not match.

Gen Surgery Data:
1437 total applicants (USMD + IA)
**IA = Independent Applicants (DO+IMG+FMG)

USMD
Total # Applicants = 945
Total # Matched = 804
Match Rate = 85.1%

DO
Total # DO Match for both Categorical + Preliminary = 46
Total # DO Applicants = Total # Matched + Estimated # Unmatched = 46 + 19 = 65
Estimated Match Rate = 70.1%

IA (subtracting DO)
Total # Match = 172 - 46 = 126
Total # Unmatched = 320 - 19 = 301
Total # FMG+IMG Applicants = 427
Estimated Match Rate for FMG & IMG = 29.5%

2011 AOA Match Data for Gen-Surgery
Total # Positions Available = 104
Total # Applicants = 102
Total # Matched = 102, leaving 2 spots unfilled.
Match Rate = 100%

Factoring in 2011 AOA Match with 2011 ACGME Match for Gen-Surgery:
Total # DO Applicants = 46 (ACGME Match) + 19 (Estimated ACGME Unmatch) + 102 (AOA Match) + 0 (AOA Unmatch) = 167
Total # DO Match = 148
Match Rate = 88.6%

ACGME Gen-Surgery Estimated Match Rate
MD = 85.1%
DO = 70.1%

Total US Estimated Match Rate (AOA & ACGME)
MD = 85.1%
DO = 88.6%

Now can we please move on to a more productive thread...like "Who's better, MD or DO?"

http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2011.pdf pg 83 is the start of the g-surg stuff. 86 has the probability of matching by contiguous ranks.

I think you are inflating the overall % for DOs as many people who rank AOA. Unless I misread, you seemed to just lump in the AOA positions at 100% success, but that isnt the case. According to this document http://data.aacom.org/media/DO_GME_match_2011.pdf there were 1.63 applicants per seat making the success rate within the AOA somewhere closer to 61% (page 5, 104 seats / 169 applicants, or you could go 102 seats filled... this indicates that there were those in the pool that either didn't apply correctly, or were excluded based on their own rankings via the algorithm or were too undesirable to match period. This, sadly, does happen, although infrequently, in both MD and DO camps).

Those who don't match in the AOA are able to join the ACGME match which occurs later (I think....) or they are required to SOAP and will likely go primary care. But this means there are about 65 DO students who failed to match surgery in the AOA alone. This is already greater than the entire number who match ACGME. But again, remember the low number of contiguous ranks, meaning that they likely had ranked non-surgical specialties as well and matched those. Another option is that they were gunning for a competitive AOA surgical specialty like ortho and listed surg as a backup. However if this were the norm you would still expect a higher number of contiguous ranks.

 

[Instatewaiter]

You did not got through the match as a DO, I don't see how your older experience fit in here at all. Are you a PD? No you're a resident.

My experience does fit for a few reasons. First, I did go through the match that most DOs strive for and that most DOs match through and the one you guys are talking about... which is more than every pre-med and non-matched med student on this thread can say.

My friends in med school had spouses in DO school and I saw how they were treated in the match and on the interview trail.

Finally I have been around here a long time and have seen more than a handful of years of DO students go through the ACGME match.

The older people on this board come here to help you jokers out and go through this process because we had older people guide us through the process as well. So take my advice if you want it. Don't if you don't. Quite frankly I don't give a damn.

 

[NontradCA]

You went through the match as an MD. I know plenty of DOs and my good friend is in a ACGME gen surgery right now. I don't really see any advice that you've offered on this thread other than matching gen surg as a DO is hard. How is that helpful?

 

[Instatewaiter]

You went through the match as an MD. I know plenty of DOs and my good friend is in a ACGME gen surgery right now. I don't really see any advice that you've offered on this thread other than matching gen surg as a DO is hard. How is that helpful?

Why are you so belligerant? Have I been aggressive toward you? I realize specter can rile some people up but I am not specter. Calm down a little.

Look, a potted plant could match into some general surgery program. That is very different than matching into the program you want or that will train you adequately. Especially in surgery, where you train matters. Small hospitals don't see or do complex and exciting cases.

Can you match ACGME surgery as a DO? most likely yes but that may mean moving your family across the country to a small, crappy program- if you aren't a superstar. Just because it's an ACGME program does not automatically mean it is a good program.

The options are broader for all specialties as an MD. It is just the way the residency selection process works currently. Go ahead and ask your friend. He/She will likely tell you with the same stats he/she would have probably moved a step up (community ACGME --> universtiy ACGME or mediocre ACGME--> strong ACGME). For something like Peds or medicine, if you are a half decent student and have a pulse, this difference is not that big. For more competitive things, that difference is markedly more palpable, so much so that the weaker applicants don't even match.

No reason to get butt-hurt about this. It is the way things are. Coming in prepared and knowing this will help you get the most out of whatever school and path you choose.

 

[HalfListic]

Take home message:

I understand my "Estimated # DO Unmatched in ACGME" has its flaws as it doesn't account for a lot of variables, but hey, if you can think of a better way to estimate how many of the 617 DOs Unmatched applied for ACGME Gen-Surgery in 2011, I'm all ears. If you have nothing productive to say (i.e. how to better estimate the #), then your comment benefits no one. But I'll re-post all the data into one comment for ease of reading:


2011 ACGME NRMP Data:

Total # DO Applicants = 2,178
Total # DO Matched = 1,561
Total # DO Unmatched = 617

Student "interest" in specialty estimated by [#Matched into that specific specialty/Total #Matched]
Reasoning: the more students matching into a certain specialty can be loosely correlated with more students applying for that specific specialty, which in turn can be loosely correlated with students having more of an interest in that specific specialty.

DO students estimated interest in a specialty (I left out a few specialties for the sake of time).
19.8% for IM
18.6% for FM
14.5% for Peds
7.3% for Psych
3% for Gen Surgery
This seems to follow the general norm for DO students, as most tend to lean toward Primary Care.

Estimated # of Unmatched DOs applying for ACGME Gen Surgery = Total # Unmatched DOs * Likelihood of Gen-Surgery Interest = 617*.03 = approximately 19 students may have been interested in Gen-Surgery but did not match.

Gen Surgery Data:
1437 total applicants (USMD + IA)
**IA = Independent Applicants (DO+IMG+FMG)

USMD
Total # Applicants = 945
Total # Matched = 804
Match Rate = 85.1%

DO
Total # DO Match for both Categorical + Preliminary = 46
Total # DO Applicants = Total # Matched + Estimated # Unmatched = 46 + 19 = 65
Estimated Match Rate = 70.1%

IA (subtracting DO)
Total # Match = 172 - 46 = 126
Total # Unmatched = 320 - 19 = 301
Total # FMG+IMG Applicants = 427
Estimated Match Rate for FMG & IMG = 29.5%

2011 AOA Match Data for Gen-Surgery
Total # Positions Available = 104
Total # Applicants = 102
Total # Matched = 102, leaving 2 spots unfilled.
Match Rate = 100%

Factoring in 2011 AOA Match with 2011 ACGME Match for Gen-Surgery:
Total # DO Applicants = 46 (ACGME Match) + 19 (Estimated ACGME Unmatch) + 102 (AOA Match) + 0 (AOA Unmatch) = 167
Total # DO Match = 148
Match Rate = 88.6%

ACGME Gen-Surgery Estimated Match Rate
MD = 85.1%
DO = 70.1%

Total US Estimated Match Rate (AOA & ACGME)
MD = 85.1%
DO = 88.6%

Now can we please move on to a more productive thread...like "Who's better, MD or DO?"

Thanks for taking the time to show this. I feel like most people who look into it, realizes this conceptually, which makes it that much sillier for some people to spend time trying to prove its significantly different. Seeing the numbers, even estimated, just confirm what everyone knows:

DOs can match general surgery just fine.

It's a simple statement that carries no offense, or malice to any one or group...I wonder why some people find it difficult to swallow.


PS again, the main point of this post above and this thread in general is NOT to compare ACGME vs AOA GME programs. That can be done, but it's a tangent to this main discussion and isn't usually a productive conversation anyway. Everyone knows that the "best" programs are ACGME, but that doesn't mean that there aren't great AOA programs put there as well...of course there are.

This was a fair conclusion:

"Conclusion:
Is it more difficult for DOs to match into a General-Surgery ACGME residency? Yes
Is it more difficult for DOs to match into a General-Surgery residency overall? No
Will this topic ever be let go? Absolutely Not"

 

[SurgeDO]

Take home message:

I understand my "Estimated # DO Unmatched in ACGME" has its flaws as it doesn't account for a lot of variables, but hey, if you can think of a better way to estimate how many of the 617 DOs Unmatched applied for ACGME Gen-Surgery in 2011, I'm all ears. If you have nothing productive to say (i.e. how to better estimate the #), then your comment benefits no one. But I'll re-post all the data into one comment for ease of reading:


2011 ACGME NRMP Data:

Total # DO Applicants = 2,178
Total # DO Matched = 1,561
Total # DO Unmatched = 617

Student "interest" in specialty estimated by [#Matched into that specific specialty/Total #Matched]
Reasoning: the more students matching into a certain specialty can be loosely correlated with more students applying for that specific specialty, which in turn can be loosely correlated with students having more of an interest in that specific specialty.

DO students estimated interest in a specialty (I left out a few specialties for the sake of time).
19.8% for IM
18.6% for FM
14.5% for Peds
7.3% for Psych
3% for Gen Surgery
This seems to follow the general norm for DO students, as most tend to lean toward Primary Care.

Estimated # of Unmatched DOs applying for ACGME Gen Surgery = Total # Unmatched DOs * Likelihood of Gen-Surgery Interest = 617*.03 = approximately 19 students may have been interested in Gen-Surgery but did not match.

Gen Surgery Data:
1437 total applicants (USMD + IA)
**IA = Independent Applicants (DO+IMG+FMG)

USMD
Total # Applicants = 945
Total # Matched = 804
Match Rate = 85.1%

DO
Total # DO Match for both Categorical + Preliminary = 46
Total # DO Applicants = Total # Matched + Estimated # Unmatched = 46 + 19 = 65
Estimated Match Rate = 70.1%

IA (subtracting DO)
Total # Match = 172 - 46 = 126
Total # Unmatched = 320 - 19 = 301
Total # FMG+IMG Applicants = 427
Estimated Match Rate for FMG & IMG = 29.5%

2011 AOA Match Data for Gen-Surgery
Total # Positions Available = 104
Total # Applicants = 102
Total # Matched = 102, leaving 2 spots unfilled.
Match Rate = 100%

Factoring in 2011 AOA Match with 2011 ACGME Match for Gen-Surgery:
Total # DO Applicants = 46 (ACGME Match) + 19 (Estimated ACGME Unmatch) + 102 (AOA Match) + 0 (AOA Unmatch) = 167
Total # DO Match = 148
Match Rate = 88.6%

ACGME Gen-Surgery Estimated Match Rate
MD = 85.1%
DO = 70.1%

Total US Estimated Match Rate (AOA & ACGME)
MD = 85.1%
DO = 88.6%

Now can we please move on to a more productive thread...like "Who's better, MD or DO?"

Can you translate this into a pie chart?

Seriously though, this is great information for somebody entering medical school interested in surgery.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You went through the match as an MD. I know plenty of DOs and my good friend is in a ACGME gen surgery right now. I don't really see any advice that you've offered on this thread other than matching gen surg as a DO is hard. How is that helpful?

How is it helpful? riddle me this: how is it helpful to pretend it isn't?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[SpecterGT260]

Thanks for taking the time to show this. I feel like most people who look into it, realizes this conceptually, which makes it that much sillier for some people to spend time trying to prove its significantly different. Seeing the numbers, even estimated, just confirm what everyone knows:

DOs can match general surgery just fine.

It's a simple statement that carries no offense, or malice to any one or group...I wonder why some people find it difficult to swallow.


PS again, the main point of this post above and this thread in general is NOT to compare ACGME vs AOA GME programs. That can be done, but it's a tangent to this main discussion and isn't usually a productive conversation anyway. Everyone knows that the "best" programs are ACGME, but that doesn't mean that there aren't great AOA programs put there as well...of course there are.

This was a fair conclusion:

"Conclusion:
Is it more difficult for DOs to match into a General-Surgery ACGME residency? Yes
Is it more difficult for DOs to match into a General-Surgery residency overall? No
Will this topic ever be let go? Absolutely Not"

http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2011.pdf pg 83 is the start of the g-surg stuff. 86 has the probability of matching by contiguous ranks.

I think you are inflating the overall % for DOs as many people who rank AOA. Unless I misread, you seemed to just lump in the AOA positions at 100% success, but that isnt the case. According to this document http://data.aacom.org/media/DO_GME_match_2011.pdf there were 1.63 applicants per seat making the success rate within the AOA somewhere closer to 61% (page 5, 104 seats / 169 applicants, or you could go 102 seats filled... this indicates that there were those in the pool that either didn't apply correctly, or were excluded based on their own rankings via the algorithm or were too undesirable to match period. This, sadly, does happen, although infrequently, in both MD and DO camps).

Those who don't match in the AOA are able to join the ACGME match which occurs later (I think....) or they are required to SOAP and will likely go primary care. But this means there are about 65 DO students who failed to match surgery in the AOA alone. This is already greater than the entire number who match ACGME. But again, remember the low number of contiguous ranks, meaning that they likely had ranked non-surgical specialties as well and matched those. Another option is that they were gunning for a competitive AOA surgical specialty like ortho and listed surg as a backup. However if this were the norm you would still expect a higher number of contiguous ranks.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[SLC]

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

I can't believe you're still posting here, give it up man! How and why you feel compelled to overwhelm every thread that tries to compare MD and DO is beyond me.

I think it's a sign of insecurity, USMLE prep not going as well as you'd like?

 

[NontradCA]

Why are you so belligerant? Have I been aggressive toward you? I realize specter can rile some people up but I am not specter. Calm down a little.

Look, a potted plant could match into some general surgery program. That is very different than matching into the program you want or that will train you adequately. Especially in surgery, where you train matters. Small hospitals don't see or do complex and exciting cases.

Can you match ACGME surgery as a DO? most likely yes but that may mean moving your family across the country to a small, crappy program- if you aren't a superstar. Just because it's an ACGME program does not automatically mean it is a good program.

The options are broader for all specialties as an MD. It is just the way the residency selection process works currently. Go ahead and ask your friend. He/She will likely tell you with the same stats he/she would have probably moved a step up (community ACGME --> universtiy ACGME or mediocre ACGME--> strong ACGME). For something like Peds or medicine, if you are a half decent student and have a pulse, this difference is not that big. For more competitive things, that difference is markedly more palpable, so much so that the weaker applicants don't even match.

No reason to get butt-hurt about this. It is the way things are. Coming in prepared and knowing this will help you get the most out of whatever school and path you choose.

If you don't want to get lumped in with Specter, don't post in the same manner? I'm not belligerent, but I'm responding in an appropriate manner to the nonsense that is being spewed here. I don't care about surgery, 0 percent interest in it.

But thanks for the rest of your post. However, I don't think it's relevant to this forum much. Most of us first have to worry about getting into medical school. Also, what would be unfit infinitely better would be DO surg applicants writing reviews of the programs similarly what you see on the specialty boards.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I can't believe you're still posting here, give it up man! How and why you feel compelled to overwhelm every thread that tries to compare MD and DO is beyond me.

I think it's a sign of insecurity, USMLE prep not going as well as you'd like?

This is ironic as hell. How and why? How about discussion of a topic where people are obviously doing mental gymnastics to avoid reality? How about an attempt, even if not well received, to help someone out who may very well get blindsided due to their own forced ignorance? Now, why would someone have such an issue with the things I'm saying? THAT screams insecurity, rather than weighing in on a subject in an honest and data driven manner. So bite me

And boards prep is going quite well, actually. Thanks for asking

 

[SpecterGT260]

If you don't want to get lumped in with Specter,

You still haven't realized how little your opinion matters

 

[SurgeDO]

Can we please, please, please keep this thread limited to discussing surgery instead of bickering about stupid ****? This is one of the very few threads on here that has actually been informative. Let's use the ignore button and keep it going instead of turning it into an MD vs. DO debate. Playaodamonth has provided the data--not the ****ty, probably made-up anecdote--that suggests DOs are capable of matching g-surg.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to build a resume for surgery? I have read that research is important as well as board scores (obviously). Anyone have any experience working in the OR during M1 and M2?

 

[SLC]

This is ironic as hell. How and why? How about discussion of a topic where people are obviously doing mental gymnastics to avoid reality? How about an attempt, even if not well received, to help someone out who may very well get blindsided due to their own forced ignorance? Now, why would someone have such an issue with the things I'm saying? THAT screams insecurity, rather than weighing in on a subject in an honest and data driven manner. So bite me

And boards prep is going quite well, actually. Thanks for asking

The thing is, you've made an assumption that people are doing mental gymnastics to avoid reality, without knowing if in-fact that's the case.

For all you know people are willing to work with the odds of matching General Surgery that a DO degree can provide? I know that idea doesn't compute in your mind but it happens whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Face-it Spectre, not everyone thinks the way you do. Not everyone cares about the things you care about. And not everyone feels the need to post endlessly in threads that give them the opportunity to spread their smug sense of superiority all over the place.

Your posts are offensive, and not because of what you think is a sense of insecurity on our part, but rather because everytime one of these threads pops up you lock on and absolutely innundate it with condescension. I mean, the questions at hand barely get answered before you and people like you completely derail them. I for one am sick of seeing so many threads in Pre-DO devolve into a pile of crap where you pretty much post every-other post and argue round and round till it either gets closed or people finally get bored of going back and forth with you. One thing is for sure, we don't get a lot of These types of threads that remain productive for long, usually because of a few specific folks, with you as the main figure in that.

So take your obvious sense of insecurity elsewhere, it really is super obvious and we're all sick of it. I challenge you to go a month without posting in Pre-DO, I'd bet good money you can't do it. You don't see me, or anyone else on here that I'm aware of posting in Pre-Allo or Allo trying to convince anyone of anything, because we're confident in what we're doing and we have better things to worry about than what some narcissistic big-shot thinks about our educational endeavors. Call that insecurity if you want, I'm not the one constantly trying to assert myself all over the message boards. (Just something to think about)

Despite what you may have convinced yourself to believe, it's not your calling in life to put Pre-DO and DO students in their place.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Face-it Spectre, not everyone thinks the way you do. Not everyone cares about the things you care about. And not everyone feels the need to post endlessly in threads that give them the opportunity to spread their smug sense of superiority all over the place.

But some do. And those are the ones I respond to. Halflistic and I agree on many things and disagree on many. Regardless, we get along very well and often have great conversations that leave us both thinking in the end. The fact that you inserted yourself into that discussion to bitch relentlessly about posting in a forum (as if that wasn't its purpose....) is just..... wow, dude. Yep. Im definitely the insecure one.

Your posts are offensive, and not because of what you think is a sense of insecurity on our part, but rather because everytime one of these threads pops up you lock on and absolutely innundate it with condescension. I mean, the questions at hand barely get answered before you and people like you completely derail them. I for one am sick of seeing so many threads in Pre-DO devolve into a pile of crap where you pretty much post every-other post and argue round and round till it either gets closed or people finally get bored of going back and forth with you. One thing is for sure, we don't get a lot of These types of threads that remain productive for long, usually because of a few specific folks, with you as the main figure in that.

So your complaint is that someone with a different point of view (i.e. not keen on patting your precious poor little pooper every time a DO thread comes up and telling you that you are still mommy's special angel regardless of your own perceived shortcomings) is weighing in on a topic? Get over yourself, man. You should be embarrassed... If you don't like my posts feel free to put me on ignore. Several others, DO students included, get along with me just fine. I'm not actually the common denominator in your issue. So grow up and deal

 

[SpecterGT260]

Can we please, please, please keep this thread limited to discussing surgery instead of bickering about stupid ****? This is one of the very few threads on here that has actually been informative. Let's use the ignore button and keep it going instead of turning it into an MD vs. DO debate. Playaodamonth has provided the data--not the ****ty, probably made-up anecdote--that suggests DOs are capable of matching g-surg.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to build a resume for surgery? I have read that research is important as well as board scores (obviously). Anyone have any experience working in the OR during M1 and M2?

Thank you

 

[HalfListic]

The thing is, you've made an assumption that people are doing mental gymnastics to avoid reality, without knowing if in-fact that's the case.

For all you know people are willing to work with the odds of matching General Surgery that a DO degree can provide? I know that idea doesn't compute in your mind but it happens whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Face-it Spectre, not everyone thinks the way you do. Not everyone cares about the things you care about. And not everyone feels the need to post endlessly in threads that give them the opportunity to spread their smug sense of superiority all over the place.

Your posts are offensive, and not because of what you think is a sense of insecurity on our part, but rather because everytime one of these threads pops up you lock on and absolutely innundate it with condescension. I mean, the questions at hand barely get answered before you and people like you completely derail them. I for one am sick of seeing so many threads in Pre-DO devolve into a pile of crap where you pretty much post every-other post and argue round and round till it either gets closed or people finally get bored of going back and forth with you. One thing is for sure, we don't get a lot of These types of threads that remain productive for long, usually because of a few specific folks, with you as the main figure in that.

So take your obvious sense of insecurity elsewhere, it really is super obvious and we're all sick of it. I challenge you to go a month without posting in Pre-DO, I'd bet good money you can't do it. You don't see me, or anyone else on here that I'm aware of posting in Pre-Allo or Allo trying to convince anyone of anything, because we're confident in what we're doing and we have better things to worry about than what some narcissistic big-shot thinks about our educational endeavors. Call that insecurity if you want, I'm not the one constantly trying to assert myself all over the message boards. (Just something to think about)

Despite what you may have convinced yourself to believe, it's not your calling in life to put Pre-DO and DO students in their place.

SLC makes a good point with this post.

Specter knows I enjoy a good debate, but the tone and condescending of some of your remarks are more earmarks of insecurity, or an inferiority complex, than does SLC's pointing out that you seem like a bully who just wants to poke pre-med's in the eye.

Some of your arguments are good, and you are nowhere near as awful as JohnnyDrama was, but I think sometimes people use the works "reality" and "advice from elders" as a way to strong arm their own subjective perceptions.




Anyway, in the end, its probably good for Pre-DOs to deal with these type of arguments early on so that we can sharpen our diplomacy in this fake world in order to help change the real world a bit at a time.

 

[HalfListic]

i think the title of this thread begs argument, rather than discussion. Most new DOs that comes will be on the defensive...perhaps moving the conversation over to the other thread?


http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=999347

 

[SpecterGT260]

SLC makes a good point with this post.

Specter knows I enjoy a good debate, but the tone and condescending of some of your remarks are more earmarks of insecurity, or an inferiority complex, than does SLC's pointing out that you seem like a bully who just wants to poke pre-med's in the eye.

Some of your arguments are good, and you are nowhere near as awful as JohnnyDrama was, but I think sometimes people use the works "reality" and "advice from elders" as a way to strong arm their own subjective perceptions.




Anyway, in the end, its probably good for Pre-DOs to deal with these type of arguments early on so that we can sharpen our diplomacy in this fake world in order to help change the real world a bit at a time.

I think you misunderstand me. I get condescending with people who start acting like *******s only because they don't like the opinions of others. I find that stance to be offensive, both personally and intellectually. The reason I don't get condescending with you is that you have an open mind and don't take alternative viewpoints personally. Therefore we tend to have great conversations. SLC is pissed off about a thumbs up. Let that sink in for a second....

 

[SpecterGT260]

i think the title of this thread begs argument, rather than discussion. Most new DOs that comes will be on the defensive...perhaps moving the conversation over to the other thread?


http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=999347

I would still say the inclusion of my other post is warranted for those who want an accurate picture. The AOA match rate is not 100% even if it is 100% DO occupied. So much about the similarity in that post is based on the assumption of 100% success in AOA (the 0 unmatched). It's highly skewed.

 

[HalfListic]

I think you misunderstand me. I get condescending with people who start acting like *******s only because they don't like the opinions of others. I find that stance to be offensive, both personally and intellectually. The reason I don't get condescending with you is that you have an open mind and don't take alternative viewpoints personally. Therefore we tend to have great conversations. SLC is pissed off about a thumbs up. Let that sink in for a second....

fair enough. I think you do get lumped in with the random trolls sometimes, which probably isn't fair.

But, I aint cryin for ya haha

 

[SpecterGT260]

fair enough. I think you do get lumped in with the random trolls sometimes, which probably isn't fair.

But, I aint cryin for ya haha

I agree. Nontrad already called me a troll (may have been a different thread. Not scrolling up to see ) simply for not agreeing with him. But but but.... please cry a little bit for me? It will help with my rampant insecurity.

 

[HalfListic]

I agree. Nontrad already called me a troll (may have been a different thread. Not scrolling up to see ) simply for not agreeing with him. But but but.... please cry a little bit for me? It will help with my rampant insecurity.

haha, fine.

I mean as a future DO, I can't help but to empathize. Its sort of our thing.

 

[SpecterGT260]

haha, fine.

I mean as a future DO, I can't help but to empathize. Its sort of our thing.

empathy? Touché

 

[SLC]

So your complaint is that someone with a different point of view (i.e. not keen on patting your precious poor little pooper every time a DO thread comes up and telling you that you are still mommy's special angel regardless of your own perceived shortcomings) is weighing in on a topic? Get over yourself, man. You should be embarrassed... If you don't like my posts feel free to put me on ignore. Several others, DO students included, get along with me just fine. I'm not actually the common denominator in your issue. So grow up and deal

Wow, just wow. Way to prove my point!. My percieved shortcomings? What exactly would those be? Believe me Spectre, you don't know me, you don't know the first thig about me, and if you think I'm concerned about my "shortcomings", well I just don't know what to tell you about that.

Thing is, I'm completely content with myself, my education, and how things are shaping up. I hand picked my school long before I even applied. I wanted to be here, and I made it here. I don't care if you or anyone else thinks that because it's a DO that I must have some sort of "shortcoming" because honestly, you're the only one who's worried about that. Things have worked out exactly as planned for me, for which I'm very fortunate. I don't need your stamp of approval on that, and you can spare your retort if you like because it doesn't really matter to me.

I'm sorry that you feel threatened by DO's matching to ACGME residencies (that's what seems to get you going most often in my observation). I'm sorry you seem to have this obsession with asserting yourself online to all these folks you've never met and probably never will. And I'm sorry you can't seem to see the forest for the trees when it comes to what most everyone wants from medical school which is to learn to be a doctor and get out there and practice medicine.

My challenge still stands; try not posting in Pre-Osteo for a month, see if your life doesn't improve some. I think you'll find that once you distance yourself from this percieved threat, you'll find yourself feeling less and less worried about it.

Someday you're going to have to work with DO's, and if you want to make friends as a professional you're going to have to drop the attitude. There's nothing special or superior about you and your training, the sooner you realize that, the better.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Im saying I can't think of another reason someone would be so offput by someone posting data on a subject. You're obviously taking it personally. And projecting, to boot. Percieved threat? In addition to correcting some of the data that has been posted, I routinely give advice on how to be successful given the relatively decreased odds. But you, in your overwhelmingly not insecure way ( ) don't seem to see those posts. hmmmm.....

 

[SpecterGT260]

This message is hidden because SLC is on your ignore list.

Here you go champ. I'll make this easy for you. I suggest you follow suit. This thread has plenty of good data, opinions, and discussion happening without butthurts like you and nontrad blowing it up over projected insecurity. Let's let this thread carry on.

 

[username456789]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: sometimes you need someone to be a dick.

Strip away all the feelings and whatever and you'll realize that there is benefit to being "warned" about some very real issues that have been brought up, even if (in one's opinion) they have been done so in an aggressive or dismissive manner.

In 5 or 10 years you will absolutely not give a **** who I am or who Specter is or anyone else on this forum. What you will care about is your career trajectory, your paycheck, and your satisfaction with the sum total of choices you've made. It does no good to bury your head in the sand now to protect whatever feelings or views you have. If you can strip the emotion away from what people are saying and you are still not swayed in even the littlest bit, then that's great. But don't make the mistake of ignoring important information when making decisions simply because it was delivered in an ugly box.

 

[SLC]

Im saying I can't think of another reason someone would be so offput by someone posting data on a subject. You're obviously taking it personally. And projecting, to boot. Percieved threat? In addition to correcting some of the data that has been posted, I routinely give advice on how to be successful given the relatively decreased odds. But you, in your overwhelmingly not insecure way ( ) don't seem to see those posts. hmmmm.....

Nope, I don't read into stats about General Surgery etc. it's the very last thing I'm interested in.

What I am interested in, and what I do notice is that usually when I see a thread that might seem to contain content comparing MD to DO in any way; without fail I can count on 20-30% of the posts at minimum to be from you. And I can alway predict exactly what you're going to be saying. I'm not saying you should pad anyone's ego, nobody needs that (except you apparently), but man o man do you know how to kick up a fuss with the way you express yourself and your biases. I'm just saying it gets old seeing so many of what could be really productive threads, where those of us who are actually going through the OMS thing could share our experiences with those coming up under us, get derailed by you; someone who has no experience as an Osteopathic Student. I mean, what's your stake in this part of the forum? Why do you care so much if someone is excited about gettig into medical school and optimistic about the future? Why on earth does that bother you so bad?

So are you going to accept my challenge or not? I'll bet you can't!

Here you go champ. I'll make this easy for you. I suggest you follow suit. This thread has plenty of good data, opinions, and discussion happening without butthurts like you and nontrad blowing it up over projected insecurity. Let's let this thread carry on.

Naah, ignoring is the Internet version of taking your ball and leaving the playground. It's immature and childish and just shows you can't handle being challenged.

You call it projected insecurity, I call it a desire to protect a part of the forum I really enjoy and learned a lot from. Like I said, you don't see me getting into the actual discussion of DO vs MD, just trying to do my part to clean up the mess it causes when I can.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: sometimes you need someone to be a dick.

Strip away all the feelings and whatever and you'll realize that there is benefit to being "warned" about some very real issues that have been brought up, even if (in one's opinion) they have been done so in an aggressive or dismissive manner.

In 5 or 10 years you will absolutely not give a **** who I am or who Specter is or anyone else on this forum. What you will care about is your career trajectory, your paycheck, and your satisfaction with the sum total of choices you've made. It does no good to bury your head in the sand now to protect whatever feelings or views you have. If you can strip the emotion away from what people are saying and you are still not swayed in even the littlest bit, then that's great. But don't make the mistake of ignoring important information when making decisions simply because it was delivered in an ugly box.

I want to have my granny cross stitch this into a cloth and hang it above my fireplace in a stained pine frame.

Yes, that level of detail was necessary.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[HalfListic]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: sometimes you need someone to be a dick.

Strip away all the feelings and whatever and you'll realize that there is benefit to being "warned" about some very real issues that have been brought up, even if (in one's opinion) they have been done so in an aggressive or dismissive manner.

In 5 or 10 years you will absolutely not give a **** who I am or who Specter is or anyone else on this forum. What you will care about is your career trajectory, your paycheck, and your satisfaction with the sum total of choices you've made. It does no good to bury your head in the sand now to protect whatever feelings or views you have. If you can strip the emotion away from what people are saying and you are still not swayed in even the littlest bit, then that's great. But don't make the mistake of ignoring important information when making decisions simply because it was delivered in an ugly box.

This is very true, and good advice, since there will always be those who share information in that manner. Some even feel its the most effective teaching strategy, because it certainly can produce results and toughen skin.


But, I also think that people are slowly beginning to realize that a rational thought, delivered without too much emotion, can be a more persuasive strategy in many situations. Even the military has cut back on harsh language and belittling. Not because they care about feelings, but that they have found their harsh atmosphere to be counter productive.

Obviously, you don't need to say please in an OR, or choose your words with a med student under your care who could be causing harm or distraction from teaching.


But, in most situations, (like an online forum) I think a level headed exchange of ideas would be the most effective. Harsh truths speak for themselves, without any added malice or condescension.

Or at least thats what I think...

 

[username456789]

Nope, I don't read into stats about General Surgery etc. it's the very last thing I'm interested in.

What I am interested in, and what I do notice is that usually when I see a thread that might seem to contain content comparing MD to DO in any way; without fail I can count on 20-30% of the posts at minimum to be from you. And I can alway predict exactly what you're going to be saying. I'm not saying you should pad anyone's ego, nobody needs that (except you apparently), but man o man do you know how to kick up a fuss with the way you express yourself and your biases. I'm just saying it gets old seeing so many of what could be really productive threads, where those of us who are actually going through the OMS thing could share our experiences with those coming up under us, get derailed by you; someone who has no experience as an Osteopathic Student. I mean, what's your stake in this part of the forum? Why do you care so much if someone is excited about gettig into medical school and optimistic about the future? Why on earth does that bother you so bad?

So are you going to accept my challenge or not? I'll bet you can't!




Naah, ignoring is the Internet version of taking your ball and leaving the playground. It's immature and childish and just shows you can't handle being challenged.

You call it projected insecurity, I call it a desire to protect a part of the forum I really enjoy and learned a lot from. Like I said, you don't see me getting into the actual discussion of DO vs MD, just trying to do my part to clean up the mess when I can.

This is a perfect example of how to completely ignore information because you inexplicably decide to make it personal instead.