ophtho match 2019

[km93]

most of the spreadsheet is unfilled, but happy to see several solid DO matches. Hope this is encouraging/helpful for any DO's interested in ophtho

UNT - match at Ohio State

KCU - match at Brown

Western- match at GWU

PCOM - match at Larkin x 3

Touro (CA) - match at Oregon HSU

DMU - match at SUNY Upstate

link to ophtho spread sheet:

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[theriverman]

VCOM Auburn - MCOG

 

[ItsGonnaRain]

All 3 positions at Larkin are PCOM grads

 

[Dr.Bruh]

According to the brown alumni list that KCU match appears to be the first DO to ever match in their ophtho program.

 

[Goro]

According to the brown alumni list that KCU match appears to be the first DO to ever match in their ophtho program.

Derm at Mayo, Ophtho at Brown...imagine that!

 

[DrRedstone]

This is really encouraging for the future. I'm excited to see next year's match.

 

[km93]

urology also has an early match (results released today, only a handful of self-reported matches so far).
notable matches:
DMU - Michigan (!)
TCOM - UTMB Galveston
KCU - SIU, Loma Linda, Sparrow
WVSOM - Albany
PCOM - Drexel
get it fam

 

[Dr.Bruh]

urology also has an early match (results released today, only a handful of self-reported matches so far).
notable matches:
DMU - Michigan (!)
TCOM - UTMB Galveston
KCU - SIU
WVSOM - Albany
LECOM - McLaren

get it fam

KCU has a brown match as well. I didn’t know we had a SIU match also? What’s the source on these?

 

[DrRedstone]

KCU has a brown match as well. I didn’t know we had a SIU match also? What’s the source on these?

I can confirm the SIU match, I'm facebook friends with her.

 

[Dr.Bruh]

I can confirm the SIU match, I'm facebook friends with her.

I’m sorry I thought those were ophtho matches not Uro my bad!

 

[Dr.Bruh]

KCU is killing is already already before the main match. Ophtho, Uro, Ortho (military) already. And I know 2 4th years applying ACGME Derm with about 8-10 interviews. If it works out for them this will be one of the more sub specialty heavy matches I think.

 

[Dr.Bruh]

urology also has an early match (results released today, only a handful of self-reported matches so far).
notable matches:
DMU - Michigan (!)
TCOM - UTMB Galveston
KCU - SIU
WVSOM - Albany
LECOM - McLaren

get it fam

Can confirm another KCU Uro match at Loma Linda

 

[DrRedstone]

Can confirm another KCU Uro match at Loma Linda

Dang. Rocking it this year.

 

[LemonLens]

According to the brown alumni list that KCU match appears to be the first DO to ever match in their ophtho program.

Derm at Mayo, Ophtho at Brown...imagine that!

You seem to be equating the reputation of Brown's undergraduate university with the reputation of their medical school and ophthalmology residency program. While Brown is a great undergraduate school, Brown's ophthalmology program is not prestigious - keep in mind that they have been plagued by ACGME probation and whatnot in recent years, so it is not surprising that a DO was able to match there.

It is always great whenever anyone (MD or DO) matches ophthalmology, so congratulations. But it is best to keep things in perspective. Things are very tough for DOs out there, and it is nice to see people make it. I know some DO ophthalmologists who are outstanding surgeons and great people. My program is a solid mid-tier program, and we did not interview any DOs this year despite receiving great applications. I think connections and prestigious letters play a big role in every DO match.

 

[Goro]

You seem to be equating the reputation of Brown's undergraduate university with the reputation of their medical school and ophthalmology residency program. While Brown is a great school, Brown's ophthalmology program is not prestigious - keep in mind that they have been plagued by ACGME probation and whatnot in recent years, so it is not surprising that a DO was able to match there.

It is always great whenever anyone (MD or DO) matches ophthalmology, so congratulations. Things are very tough for DOs out there, and it is nice to see people make it. I know some DO ophthalmologists who are outstanding surgeons and great people. My program is a solid mid-tier program, and we did not interview any DOs this year despite receiving great applications. I think connections and prestigious letters play a big role in every DO match.

10000% true for the bolded. My own grads have kicked open doors this way.

The comments about Brown are also a caveat for SDNers. The only way to know if a program is a good one is to ask our wise SDN attendings and residents. While on paper, a X.U. might have a great Anatomy PhD program, I can tell you otherwise. But I'd be lost trying to comment on any Physiology PhD program.

 

[sab3156]

This is really encouraging for the future. I'm excited to see next year's match.

Just curious - why is this encouraging? Check out the SF Match report: https://sfmatch.org/PDFFilesDisplay/Ophthalmology_Residency_Stats_2019.pdf

2019 shows us the same low match rate as previous years, basically almost exclusively into low tier programs. This year the match rate was essentially identical to last year's (42 osteopathic seniors participated, and only 16 matched - and this includes the 3 that matched into Larkin, which probably wasn't sought after by too many MDs and/or they preferred DOs for now). And many of these are strong applications from what my sources from several ACGME programs have told me, people who may have matched at great programs had they been coming from MD schools. Most programs simply don't interview DOs on the basis of their applications alone. It's the connections that get people in, as stated by @LemonLens. That isn't really encouraging, as most DO applicants just won't have the influential letters/calls to back up their application when they are in the match.

 

[NecrotizingFasciitis]

Just curious - why is this encouraging? Check out the SF Match report: https://sfmatch.org/PDFFilesDisplay/Ophthalmology_Residency_Stats_2019.pdf

2019 shows us the same low match rate as previous years, basically almost exclusively into low tier programs. This year the match rate was essentially identical to last year's (42 osteopathic seniors participated, and only 16 matched - and this includes the 3 that matched into Larkin, which probably wasn't sought after by too many MDs and/or they preferred DOs for now). And many of these are strong applications from what my sources from several ACGME programs have told me, people who may have matched at great programs had they been coming from MD schools. Most programs simply don't interview DOs on the basis of their applications alone. It's the connections that get people in, as stated by @LemonLens. That isn't really encouraging, as most DO applicants just won't have the influential letters/calls to back up their application when they are in the match.

We haven't discovered ophthalmologic OMT yet - cut us some slack. Just wait until we figure out how to HVLA the superior rectus m. It's only a matter of time before we run the MDs right outta ophthalmology.

 

[Chibucks15]

Just curious - why is this encouraging? Check out the SF Match report: https://sfmatch.org/PDFFilesDisplay/Ophthalmology_Residency_Stats_2019.pdf

2019 shows us the same low match rate as previous years, basically almost exclusively into low tier programs. This year the match rate was essentially identical to last year's (42 osteopathic seniors participated, and only 16 matched - and this includes the 3 that matched into Larkin, which probably wasn't sought after by too many MDs and/or they preferred DOs for now). And many of these are strong applications from what my sources from several ACGME programs have told me, people who may have matched at great programs had they been coming from MD schools. Most programs simply don't interview DOs on the basis of their applications alone. It's the connections that get people in, as stated by @LemonLens. That isn't really encouraging, as most DO applicants just won't have the influential letters/calls to back up their application when they are in the match.

Glad to have ya back sab!!

 

[sab3156]

Glad to have ya back sab!!

Missed you guys.

 

[Dr.Bruh]

Just curious - why is this encouraging? Check out the SF Match report: https://sfmatch.org/PDFFilesDisplay/Ophthalmology_Residency_Stats_2019.pdf

2019 shows us the same low match rate as previous years, basically almost exclusively into low tier programs. This year the match rate was essentially identical to last year's (42 osteopathic seniors participated, and only 16 matched - and this includes the 3 that matched into Larkin, which probably wasn't sought after by too many MDs and/or they preferred DOs for now). And many of these are strong applications from what my sources from several ACGME programs have told me, people who may have matched at great programs had they been coming from MD schools. Most programs simply don't interview DOs on the basis of their applications alone. It's the connections that get people in, as stated by @LemonLens. That isn't really encouraging, as most DO applicants just won't have the influential letters/calls to back up their application when they are in the match.

Still a net improvement. The match rate was higher than previous years with a number of applicant that was almost double- more than double than previous years. And who cares where they matched?? Who cares about the prestige of the program. An ophtho match is an ophtho match. The idea that DO applicant are even aiming for top programs in competitive fields is absurd. DOs applying to competitive speciality typically know what they are up against and are just trying to match at all. More ophtho matches than past years is a plus. Numbers are still pretty bad and I’d think twice about applying ophtho as a DO but the number of DOs matching will likely increase in the coming years.

 

[km93]

eh.. i mean you can look at it with a glass half full or empty. go check out the ophtho unmatched tab if you don't believe there are plenty of superstar MDs who would've loved to match period (nonetheless at an ohio state, brown, gw etc). in such small fields, simply matching is an achievement.

 

[LemonLens]

Still a net improvement. The match rate was higher than previous years with a number of applicant that was almost double- more than double than previous years. And who cares where they matched?? Who cares about the prestige of the program. An ophtho match is an ophtho match. The idea that DO applicant are even aiming for top programs in competitive fields is absurd. DOs applying to competitive speciality typically know what they are up against and are just trying to match at all. More ophtho matches than past years is a plus. Numbers are still pretty bad and I’d think twice about applying ophtho as a DO but the number of DOs matching will likely increase in the coming years.

The number of applicants is always going to be increasing. The match rate, however, fluctuates considerably in the DO pool. If you look back at previous years, you will see both higher match rates and much lower match rates for DOs. It is still a small pool of DOs applying, and increasing by even a small number of applicants means a huge percentage increase, so I do not think that is a very important metric here, and I definitely wouldn't think of the 2019 match as an improvement or indication that things will be easier in the future for osteopathic students interested in ophthalmology.

 

[DrRedstone]

What I see is a higher raw number of DOs matching, meaning more programs will now have the ability to see what a DOs training amounts to in clinical practice. We are still a small subset of practicing physicians and not every program will have had direct exposure to a freshly minted DO. There is still a notion that our training is significantly worse than that of our MD counterparts. The best way to overcome the negative view many programs have of DOs is to get one superstar through the door, and that has been done at new programs this year. That is why I'm hopeful.

 

[LemonLens]

What I see is a higher raw number of DOs matching, meaning more programs will now have the ability to see what a DOs training amounts to in clinical practice. We are still a small subset of practicing physicians and not every program will have had direct exposure to a freshly minted DO. There is still a notion that our training is significantly worse than that of our MD counterparts. The best way to overcome the negative view many programs have of DOs is to get one superstar through the door, and that has been done at new programs this year. That is why I'm hopeful.

That is not the only or main reason for the bias. Programs may just simply not want to risk their prestige or reputation by taking DOs, no matter the perceived quality of their training. When a DO does make it into a program for the first time, it doesn't mean that program will continue taking DOs in the future and it definitely doesn't mean that people will begin to see osteopathic students as competitive as MDs. A good example would be my program - they took a DO a long time ago. Since then, there is a new chief and PD, both of whom outright refuse to take DOs not just due to their own personal reasons but also because the hospital board that oversees the residency programs will not allow them to do it again. Not saying I necessarily agree with it, but that is the kind of thing that happens. The number of programs willing to take a well-connected DO continue to change year after year.

 

[sab3156]

What I see is a higher raw number of DOs matching, meaning more programs will now have the ability to see what a DOs training amounts to in clinical practice. We are still a small subset of practicing physicians and not every program will have had direct exposure to a freshly minted DO. There is still a notion that our training is significantly worse than that of our MD counterparts. The best way to overcome the negative view many programs have of DOs is to get one superstar through the door, and that has been done at new programs this year. That is why I'm hopeful.

If you have been around ACGME programs and spoken to people involved in this process, you would know how naive this sort of thinking is. No one cares about discussing how competent or incompetent DOs are - do you really think ACGME faculty are sitting around talking about how clinically competent the new DOs are and how they need to get rid of these biases now? They just don't want DOs to harm their reputation. Sure, some may also cite their feelings that DOs are absolutely incompetent and their schools are trash, but at the end of the day it comes down to brand name. This is a prestige issue, not a clinical competency issue.

 

[Black Coffee 24/7]

That is not the only or main reason for the bias. Programs may just simply not want to risk their prestige or reputation by taking DOs, no matter the perceived quality of their training. When a DO does make it into a program for the first time, it doesn't mean that program will continue taking DOs in the future and it definitely doesn't mean that people will begin to see osteopathic students as competitive as MDs. A good example would be my program - they took a DO a long time ago. Since then, there is a new chief and PD, both of whom outright refuse to take DOs not just due to their own personal reasons but also because the hospital board that oversees the residency programs will not allow them to do it again. Not saying I necessarily agree with it, but that is the kind of thing that happens. The number of programs willing to take a well-connected DO continue to change year after year.

I have been told of the same things by PDs and Chiefs, the only two people that medical students even have access to who will be in the room when discussing applicants' prospects.

 

[fldoctorgirl]

If you have been around ACGME programs and spoken to people involved in this process, you would know how naive this sort of thinking is. No one cares about discussing how competent or incompetent DOs are - do you really think ACGME faculty are sitting around talking about how clinically competent the new DOs are and how they need to get rid of these biases now? They just don't want DOs to harm their reputation. Sure, some may also cite their feelings that DOs are absolutely incompetent and their schools are trash, but at the end of the day it comes down to brand name. This is a prestige issue, not a clinical competency issue.

Sab's back!!

Logically, this makes the most sense, and I think anyone who tries to deny it is just fooling themselves. At the end of the day, when you look at the roster of a program's residents, you know we all think "oh, they have a couple DOs and a bunch of IMGs.....must not be that great of a program". It sucks but inherent bias exists and we all feel it, and anyone who says otherwise is trying really hard to keep a positive outlook...but it's not that realistic. A lot of programs won't take DOs because they don't want people to think their program wasn't that good and they had to settle for filling their spots with a DO, even if that DO is actually a superstar. I have heard this exact sentiment directly from PDs.

 

[NecrotizingFasciitis]

I definitely agree it’s a prestige issue with the hyper-competitive fields. Because they are competitive fields they are inherently all prestigious in a way and none of them want to risk looking any worse than the others; especially since there aren’t as many programs in the hyper-competitive fields.

Makes ya think about how important high-quality/novel research experience really is for those wanting to get into fields like ophthalmology. DO schools need to do a better job at emphasizing research expansion at their institutions to make fields like ophthalmology less of a pipe dream and more of an attainable - but still admittedly very difficult- reality.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[km93]

this post is derailing. my intention was to provide a resource (the ophtho and urology spreadsheets) as well as to promote the matches of DO students. rarely do we get insight into the applications/scores/interviews/aways of our superstar applicants or feedback on individual programs from rotators. simply restating the bias (which everyone is aware of) is not necessary. no one is claiming the bias isn’t there. for the DO’s out there thinking of applying to these fields, this is a solid resource and provides a point of reference for future DO applicants. hopefully it helps someone out there apply more intelligently or connects them to someone willing to help out down the road. Mods, please close.
2

 

[Rekt]

this post is derailing. my intention was to provide a resource (the ophtho and urology spreadsheets) as well as to promote the matches of DO students. rarely do we get insight into the applications/scores/interviews/aways of our superstar applicants or feedback on individual programs from rotators. simply restating the bias (which everyone is aware of) is not necessary. no one is claiming the bias isn’t there. for the DO’s out there thinking of applying to these fields, this is a solid resource and provides a point of reference for future DO applicants. hopefully it helps someone out there apply more intelligently or connects them to someone willing to help out down the road. Mods, please close.
2

It's honestly as pointless as the Match List threads. Everyone points out a couple superb matches and they all turn into saying how DOs are amazing and breaking down doors when really all it does is make everyone look like fools and set in stone the massive obvious bias against DOs.

 

[deleted950463]

this post is derailing. my intention was to provide a resource (the ophtho and urology spreadsheets) as well as to promote the matches of DO students. rarely do we get insight into the applications/scores/interviews/aways of our superstar applicants or feedback on individual programs from rotators. simply restating the bias (which everyone is aware of) is not necessary. no one is claiming the bias isn’t there. for the DO’s out there thinking of applying to these fields, this is a solid resource and provides a point of reference for future DO applicants. hopefully it helps someone out there apply more intelligently or connects them to someone willing to help out down the road. Mods, please close.
2

I think this thread is generating useful and insightful discussion.

 

[Goro]

It's honestly as pointless as the Match List threads. Everyone points out a couple superb matches and they all turn into saying how DOs are amazing and breaking down doors when really all it does is make everyone look like fools and set in stone the massive obvious bias against DOs.

I disagree, the match list threads are, in fact, enlightening, because over time we see who is going where. We get a valuable gestalt of the entire pool of grads.

Yes, you have to know the field to know if it's a good residency or not, but over time, the pattern emerging is more and more DOs are matching into ACGME university programs that the insiders consider good ones.

Even if we are seeing Lotto winners, I can't help escape the feeling that we're seeing more and more of them over time. I definitely see this for my grads.

 

[sab3156]

Yes, you have to know the field to know if it's a good residency or not, but over time, the pattern emerging is more and more DOs are matching into ACGME university programs that the insiders consider good ones.

This is a completely unfounded claim.

 

[Dr.Bruh]

This is a completely unfounded claim.

It literally is not. The raw number of DOs participating in the ACGME match (which is where the majority of all university programs are) every year. The number of DOs who matched ACGMe last year went up by nearly 1000 compared to the year before. It would be absurd to assume every singe one was a community program match. How can you be so oblivious to that?

 

[sab3156]

It literally is not. The raw number of DOs participating in the ACGME match (which is where the majority of all university programs are) every year. The number of DOs who matched ACGMe last year went up by nearly 1000 compared to the year before. It would be absurd to assume every singe one was a community program match. How can you be so oblivious to that?

He specifically said "good ones". Using ophtho as an example, people are going nuts about Brown, which means DOs don't know the difference between strong and low tier programs. I am surprised you guys even pay so much attention to these threads. You have people in this thread dreaming about how ophtho programs are now going to suddenly believe that DOs have exceptional clinical training, not realizing how DOs even match into ophtho in the first place, even at low tier programs. Much of the increase in ACGME matches was definitely in uncompetitive specialties and programs.

It's honestly as pointless as the Match List threads. Everyone points out a couple superb matches and they all turn into saying how DOs are amazing and breaking down doors when really all it does is make everyone look like fools and set in stone the massive obvious bias against DOs.

This is exactly why these threads are so painful to read.

 

[km93]

He specifically said "good ones". Using ophtho as an example, people are going nuts about Brown, which means DOs don't know the difference between strong and low tier programs. I am surprised you guys even pay so much attention to these threads. You have people in this thread dreaming about how ophtho programs are now going to suddenly believe that DOs have exceptional clinical training, not realizing how DOs even match into ophtho in the first place, even at low tier programs. Much of the increase in ACGME matches was definitely in uncompetitive specialties and programs.



This is exactly why these threads are so painful to read.

bruh, the grass is greener where you water it. we all know there are limitations when you attend a DO school. Certain things will be out of reach for reasons outside our control.

The point is to focus on what we can control. Everybody knows the gist - board scores, research, letters, aways. But applying intelligently is also a big thing and definitely an area where DO students are not as savvy. The point of this thread is to bring everybody up and make us better.

You sound a little bitter. Again, I would direct you to the ophtho unmatched tab. Lots of people who would’ve loved to match period. It’s all about perspective. Have a nice day

 

[sab3156]

The point is to focus on what we can control. Everybody knows the gist - board scores, research, letters, aways. But applying intelligently is also a big thing and definitely an area where DO students are not as savvy. The point of this thread is to bring everybody up and make us better.

Again, this isn't entirely an issue of not applying intelligently - I agree this could be just a small part of it (this is also MD applicants, too). But just look at what residents/fellows/attendings in ophtho say - assuming a good application and good list of programs. It's all about whose name is on your letters and where they can get you in for an interview. It's not about the application for a DO in the same way it is for MDs. There is a resident commenting in this thread who is saying the same thing.

You sound a little bitter. Again, I would direct you to the ophtho unmatched tab. Lots of people who would’ve loved to match period. It’s all about perspective. Have a nice day

Most of those people with high stats and high research probably had significant red flags, to be quite honest. There are people with high stats who don't match in every specialty. This is pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[DrRedstone]

Most of those people with high stats and high research probably had significant red flags, to be quite honest.

I think you said it best:

This is a completely unfounded claim.

 

[sab3156]

I think you said it best:

I can't take you seriously if you have never discussed with actual PDs/chiefs who run residency programs. Also, it was a completely irrelevant point to discuss in the first place.

 

[LemonLens]

I think you said it best:

Actually, I would say the claim is largely correct. Sometimes people just apply poorly, or they interview poorly, or they have some red flags on their application (such as research in another field entirely, strange letters, etc.). I personally find it very difficult to believe that someone with stellar stats would go unmatched unless it was one or a combination of the above. We sometimes saw problematic applications this cycle and did not extend interviews, despite outstanding numbers.

 

[Goro]

bruh, the grass is greener where you water it. we all know there are limitations when you attend a DO school. Certain things will be out of reach for reasons outside our control.

The point is to focus on what we can control. Everybody knows the gist - board scores, research, letters, aways. But applying intelligently is also a big thing and definitely an area where DO students are not as savvy. The point of this thread is to bring everybody up and make us better.

You sound a little bitter. Again, I would direct you to the ophtho unmatched tab. Lots of people who would’ve loved to match period. It’s all about perspective. Have a nice day

While it's 100% important to be practical about limitations, you'd be surprised how much self-hating DOs are only too happy to take a dump on their colleagues successes and achievements. You'll see this again once match results are announced.

 

[Dr.Bruh]

I can't take you seriously if you have never discussed with actual PDs/chiefs who run residency programs. Also, it was a completely irrelevant point to discuss in the first place.

This is a common trope you love to use as if it holds any meaningful weight. We get you’ve talked to a few PDs (I’m assuming at competitive programs). Even if you’ve spoken to 10 PDs that does not at all constitute any representative consensus. Also if these PDs are at elite programs than no **** they don’t take DOs. Context matters. DOs don’t give a damn by in large about matching at prestigious program. They just want to match in the specialty they want. You keep reiterating that DOs have no shot at top programs like any DO cares. We know. We knew when we signed up for this and most of us were ok with that which is why we don’t care.

 

[LemonLens]

This is a common trope you love to use as if it holds any meaningful weight. We get you’ve talked to a few PDs (I’m assuming at competitive programs). Even if you’ve spoken to 10 PDs that does not at all constitute any representative consensus. Also if these PDs are at elite programs than no **** they don’t take DOs. Context matters. DOs don’t give a damn by in large about matching at prestigious program. They just want to match in the specialty they want. You keep reiterating that DOs have no shot at top programs like any DO cares. We know. We knew when we signed up for this and most of us were ok with that which is why we don’t care.

I'm not sure where the issue of elite programs came up, but I believe that the original discussion was about matching in general. I would agree with previous posts (as harsh as they may sound) that most ophthalmology residency programs (whether they are low tier or top tier, or in between somewhere) would be very unlikely to pursue an osteopathic applicant with even a stellar application, unless they had some sort of connection to the program or letters from well known ophthalmologists. I did say before that my program is a mid tier ophthalmology program, but does not extend interviews to even outstanding DOs. This is just an unwritten institutional policy that has no solution. I would say this is the norm in ophthalmology rather than the exception. In other words, my program isn't unique in that regard, and for reasons like this I would say that matching ophthalmology is a very difficult road for DOs.

I see that there are some DO students interested in ophthalmology here, and I think that this information is important for any DOs trying to match in the future: If you truly desire ophthalmology, I recommend getting involved early and making friends (important faculty, residents) in programs that you are interested in. I think without this, the chances that you will go unmatched are very high even with the best stats. Even then, the programs open to the idea of taking a qualified DO are few in number each year, as can be seen by the very low match rate despite (as far as I could see this year) good osteopathic applications. Also, just because a program has taken a DO in the past doesn't mean it will ever take a DO again in the future - my program being an example.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

 

[DO2015CA]

Glad to have ya back sab!!

Lol is it though? Self deprecating DO students get old after a while.

 

[Chibucks15]

eh I rarely agree with him but hey it keeps ya on your toes to spar every once in a while and blow off some steam haha

 

[sab3156]

Lol is it though? Self deprecating DO students get old after a while.

Nothing in this thread is self-deprecating.

 

[Dr.Bruh]

Nothing in this thread is self-deprecating.

The lack of introspection is astounding.

 

[sab3156]

The lack of introspection is astounding.

I really don't have any reason to argue with you. There is a resident in here that confirmed everything I said (not to mention the countless faculty, PDs, chiefs, and residents/fellows I have had the privilege of working with for the past several years). Good luck.