Match Results

[DO3]

---

Members do not see this ad.

http://www.natmatch.com/aoairp/schltot.htm

1. MSU-COM 67.1%
2. LMU-DCOM 52.8%
3. PCOM 51.7%
4. WVSOM 50.7%
4. LECOM 50.7%
5. OSU-COM 50.5%

The percentages represent the percent of each class that matched in the DO match. Keep in mind that many people choose to only participate in the MD match.

List of the Slots Filled and Unfilled: http://www.osteopathic.org/inside-a...g/match-program/Pages/2011-match-results.aspx

 

[JaggerPlate]

Thanks for sharing, but just wanted to reiterate that these numbers pertain only to DOs applying in the AOA match, they do not indicate a total % of students matched.

 

[Dissected]

Thanks for sharing, but just wanted to reiterate that these numbers pertain only to DOs applying in the AOA match, they do not indicate a total % of students matched.

In addition, those percentages are out of the total # of students in each class. They really only tell us what percentage of the entire class at these schools matched into an AOA residency. They do not depict the "success rate" of each school in the match. That, you have to calculate yourself from the information provided in the link.

 

[koan]

So all of the Non-Participants are only ranking the ACGME match? Interesting to see the variance in that number, probably not very meaningful though.

 

[DrMom]

So all of the Non-Participants are only ranking the ACGME match?

Or the military match or San Francisco match

Interesting to see the variance in that number, probably not very meaningful though.

Not meaningful at all, really. Virtually every graduate from each school will be in a residency somewhere come July 1. And there are always a few folks each year who choose to not start a residency.

 

[Sinfest]

Or the military match or San Francisco match

Would somebody mind explaining what this is? 🙂

 

[Badgers326]

Would somebody mind explaining what this is? 🙂

It's a separate match for certain specialities and subspecialties

http://www.sfmatch.org/

 

[wolverine1]

anyone know the password so we can access the match list for specific schools?

 

[SoulinNeed]

About a quarter of all positions (not counting transitional openings) went unfilled. If you include transitional years, it's greater than a third.

 

[DrMom]

The spots are unmatched, but many of them will be filled in the DO scramble and after the MD match.

 

[DocEspana]

Or the military match or San Francisco match

If I read it right, I'm pretty sure the military match is included within the AOA matched numbers. Beyond saying so on the chart the natmatch.org released (haha. the east way), I did number crunching for Touro and we were a few (i assume seven but i forget) short on the specific site match list released compared to the number reported to on the website and the # matched. I figure the seven military matches must make it up.

As for the match numbers: here is the most relevant stat i could find. It is the number of people who matched AOA out of the total AOA applicants from the school. This of course comes with all the caveats and cautions that everyone demands i give. Basically "people do crazy **** on their AOA application so take that into account"

UNECOM – 86%
MSU – 84.3%
ATSU – 84%
WVSOM – 83.9%
MWU-CCOM – 83.3%
PCOM – 82.9%
LECOM-BRAD – 80.2%
LMU-DCOM – 79.3%
OSU – 79.3%
TouroNY - 78.8% (first class to match. wooo. good showing)
KCOM – 78.3%
LECOM – 77.7%
OUCOM – 77%
NSU – 75.6%
VCOM – 75.5%
KCUMB – 75%
MWU-AZCOM – 75%
UMDNJ – 75%
DMU – 74.5%
UNTHSCT – 73.1%
NYCOM – 72.5%
GAPCOM – 65.8%
TouroNV – 64.9%
WESTUCOMP – 61.9%
TouroCA – 60%

 

[wolverine1]

So once I get to here: http://www.natmatch.com/aoairp/sklunaxs.htm

does anyone know how to access the match list for each school, or do we have to wait till the school publishes this info?

 

[cliquesh]

You have to wait. Lists probably won't come out until after the ACGME match.

 

[AsFateHasIt]

forgive me if my question reflects my lack of understanding...but is there an allopathic residency match-list for DO applicants?

 

[DocEspana]

forgive me if my question reflects my lack of understanding...but is there an allopathic residency match-list for DO applicants?

Allopathic match is march 14th. So the DOs who applied to the ACGME find out their results that day.

 

[zac16125]

The spots are unmatched, but many of them will be filled in the DO scramble and after the MD match.

Do you have to participate in the DO match to scramble into it? ie if you only do the allo match and fail to match can you then scramble into a DO program?

 

[NYEMMED]

Do you have to participate in the DO match to scramble into it? ie if you only do the allo match and fail to match can you then scramble into a DO program?

Not really... You can put yourself into the system and not choose any programs, then if you do not get into any residencies in the allopathic match, then you can scramble for DO spots. Im pretty sure you need to fill everything out except for any program information.

 

[prone2xl]

does this mean that if a school has a lower percentage that you listed above, that they didn't do so well in the match? i'm looking at GA-PCOM for instance.

 

[DrMom]

It doesn't mean anything useful. This is one of 4 matches (DO, MD, San Francisco, military). Virtually everyone who graduates medical school gets a residency spot, the vast majority of those in the specialty they want. Some of those who don't start residency do so on purpose (didn't like clinical medicine, working on another degree, family issues).

 

[DocEspana]

It doesn't mean anything useful. This is one of 4 matches (DO, MD, San Francisco, military). Virtually everyone who graduates medical school gets a residency spot, the vast majority of those in the specialty they want. Some of those who don't start residency do so on purpose (didn't like clinical medicine, working on another degree, family issues).

While I am going to agree with you that the numbers aren't everything here... these are the best numbers we can pull from the AOA since only a portion of the students participate and apparently there is some gamesmanship. I dont think that gamesmanship explains enough to be taken seriously. I imagine the % who do that is pretty even across all schools, thus rather irrelevant. especially since the match rate for the AOA, which supposedly people game on, is very close to the numbers for the match for the ACGME, which everyone takes very seriously.

Also, the military match is included in those numbers, so they dont effect the unmatched rate, their matches are treated as AOA matches. and the SF match only has <1500 applications a year. Given we're about 11% of the applicant population, thats about 150 DOs applications to that. Its not irrelevant, but it is a very small number when divided out. about 6 per school (if the application rate is even. I honestly dont know if they are).

the numbers listed are the best we can do. It has faults cause it cant account for gamesmanship and some schools are very ACGME oriented (touro-CA comes to mind). But I dont think the SF match has any real impact on the numbers i posted and the military match definitely doesnt as its pre-measured in the match numbers.

giving credit though: people also choose not to match at all. IDK at what rate, but im sure it happens. Still though, this has to be the best stats we can make. You can make an excuse for anything, but at some point you just need to go 'the numbers arent perfect but they are what we have'

 

[Dissected]

giving credit though: people also choose not to match at all. IDK at what rate, but im sure it happens. Still though, this has to be the best stats we can make. You can make an excuse for anything, but at some point you just need to go 'the numbers arent perfect but they are what we have'

I feel like we should wait and evaluate the 'performance' of each school until after the allopathic match. It's too hard to tell what these numbers mean given that there are two main matches.

 

[DocEspana]

I feel like we should wait and evaluate the 'performance' of each school until after the allopathic match. It's too hard to tell what these numbers mean given that there are two main matches.

let me fix my statement by saying that I love to crunch numbers and without an allopathic match this is the best stat we can make. It has some meaning, but i dont disagree with anyone who wants to put 1-to-a-thousand caveats into it. Im aware that it is *solely* a measurement of the 2011 AOA-only performance. but I'm too impatient to not crunch some numbers between now and march 14th.

 

[Dissected]

let me fix my statement by saying that I love to crunch numbers and without an allopathic match this is the best stat we can make. It has some meaning, but i dont disagree with anyone who wants to put 1-to-a-thousand caveats into it. Im aware that it is *solely* a measurement of the 2011 AOA-only performance. but I'm too impatient to not crunch some numbers between now and march 14th.

I guess I can't blame you... I think most medical students (including myself ) are impatient about things like this. Which is probably a big reason I can only spend so much time around my classmates 😀. I am also pretty anxious to see how the matches play out this year.

 

[MightyMoose]

does this mean that if a school has a lower percentage that you listed above, that they didn't do so well in the match? i'm looking at GA-PCOM for instance.

I think you should evaluate all of the data, not just matched.


The way I look at these numbers are:

Matched: % that choose to match into AOA and matched into one (This is fairly straightforward).

Non-Matched: % that either ranked a program and did not get it, or that competed their application, but did not rank any programs.

Non-Participants: % that choose to wait for ACGME match and not applying to AOA programs. There are also probably a few that are not going to participate in the match this year at all for one reason or another.

So, overall, this data tells you how many people are interested/potentially interested in AOA programs (match and non-match), and those that are choosing to wait until the ACGME match, non-participants (or those not interested in matching, but this is probably going to be a very small number).

So, the lower the % matched, the more likely that a school or students at a program are swayed towards ACGME residencies.

 

[Sinfest]

I think you should evaluate all of the data, not just matched.


The way I look at these numbers are:

Matched: % that choose to match into AOA and matched into one (This is fairly straightforward).

Non-Matched: % that either ranked a program and did not get it, or that competed their application, but did not rank any programs.

Non-Participants: % that choose to wait for ACGME match and not applying to AOA programs. There are also probably a few that are not going to participate in the match this year at all for one reason or another.

So, overall, this data tells you how many people are interested/potentially interested in AOA programs (match and non-match), and those that are choosing to wait until the ACGME match, non-participants (or those not interested in matching, but this is probably going to be a very small number).

So, the lower the % matched, the more likely that a school or students at a program are swayed towards ACGME residencies.

This statement is supported by how Touro-CA and Western have the lowest AOA match percentage out of all osteopathic medical schools. It's not that they're bad schools, it's probably because CA has a huge allopathic presence and a large number of ACGME residency spots.

 

[DrMom]

Still though, this has to be the best stats we can make. You can make an excuse for anything, but at some point you just need to go 'the numbers arent perfect but they are what we have'

My point is that the only match #s that really matter is the full end result. Looking at any single match alone isn't all that useful.

 

[DocEspana]

My point is that the only match #s that really matter is the full end result. Looking at any single match alone isn't all that useful.

True, but people have asked (or at least i understood them as asking) for some interpretation of the results. Everyone else is making it quite clear that the numbers are full of caveats, but if people understand its just one of multiple matches, then they can accept it for what it is. Simply a measure of the performance in the AOA match. I agree, nothing is complete until the ACGME match stats come in because i'm currently only dealing with 30-50% of each class depending on school.

@Might Moose: well I listed the straight forward one of the percent matched that applied. I feel like that is the only number in there that isnt heavily influenced by gamesmanship and speculation. We can go back after the ACGME match and interpret the rest, but until then, only the stats I pulled out have any concrete value. Now this is an opinion, but all the other stuff you suggested to look at serves as just speculative value until the ACGME match provides a deeper level to it.

Plus, i'd be careful what you assume. If you check last years AOA match you'll see both TouroCA and Western had nearly identical applicant amounts as they do this year, but both of them had significantly (75% ans 73%) better match rates than they do this year. I am not drawing a conclusion from this. You can't tell a 'weak year' (and if it was the case, thats all it would be) from a class that largely chose the 'unrealistic application' method.

But as said before, I just dont buy, on a personal level, the idea behind that false AOA application since you dont need the AOA application to scramble into an AOA spot. And for that matter the number of new AOA spots opening after 30 days of the remainder being picked at is very low by my cousin's estimate who deals with natmatch stuff professionally. And I 100% understand applying to unlikely programs. I have no but there. If you are willing to pay for the application fees, thats a pretty cool plan. So you got one from me there. The long and short of it is that the numbers i list have relevancy only as far as assessing the AOA match in 2011. It isnt indicative of the school in any way except for that.

 

[marke]

let's not forget some schools have a tendency of producing non-primary care docs..

so those schools w/ more applicants applying for a certain specialties (which has limited spots in AOA) will most likely have more unmatched students (not that they aren't qualified, just the for the mere reason that there's very few spots) who will now go through ACGME match...

all said, i do feel it's more objective if we look at ALL match results!

 

[DocEspana]

all said, i do feel it's more objective if we look at ALL match results!

agree 100%. But right now all we have is the Military and AOA match. So i compiled them. You can't expect me to show patience when there are numbers that could be crunched!

 

[VVSHT]

so let me get this straight. Do the people who fill out the AOA applications but do not actually apply to any programs count as AOA "participants" or "non-participants"?

Also why would people not fill out the AOA at all and directly apply to ACGME residencies. Isn't this extremely risky. It is my understanding that it is really hard to get allopathic residencies as a DO. If you don't get into ACGME, and didn't fill out AOA, are you screwed?

Im sorry if this sounds daft. I am just a pre med and don't really know much about the process.

 

[MightyMoose]

so let me get this straight. Do the people who fill out the AOA applications but do not actually apply to any programs count as AOA "participants" or "non-participants"?

Also why would people not fill out the AOA at all and directly apply to ACGME residencies. Isn't this extremely risky. It is my understanding that it is really hard to get allopathic residencies as a DO. If you don't get into ACGME, and didn't fill out AOA, are you screwed?

Im sorry if this sounds daft. I am just a pre med and don't really know much about the process.

I had heard that in order to be considered for AOA programs you need to fill out the AOA application, but as DocEspana has stated, that might not be the case (at least for the scramble).

In terms of the ACGME programs as a DO, ~%60 of DO's match into ACGME residencies, so while it can be difficult to match some specialties/programs, or if you don't have the numbers, it's certainly not out of the norm to match ACGME. The AOA doesn't have enough spots to match all of the DO grads, which is a problem in it and of itself.

 

[DocEspana]

so let me get this straight. Do the people who fill out the AOA applications but do not actually apply to any programs count as AOA "participants" or "non-participants"?

Also why would people not fill out the AOA at all and directly apply to ACGME residencies. Isn't this extremely risky. It is my understanding that it is really hard to get allopathic residencies as a DO. If you don't get into ACGME, and didn't fill out AOA, are you screwed?

Im sorry if this sounds daft. I am just a pre med and don't really know much about the process.

If you fill out your info and submit without posting any "matches", aka the blank application, you count as a 'participant'. And as the guy above me said, it may be harder to match ACGME, but its more likely than not that you do match. Just be realistic with your ACGME application and you shouldn't run into too many problems.

 

[SoulinNeed]

Just for reference sake, DOs had a 71% match rate in the ACGME match last year (not including scramble).