ophtho match 2020

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
TCOM also had one at Ohio State this year and there one more at Brown university I cant remember which DO school tho
 
RVU matched an ophtho from what I hear as well. Not sure where though.
 
Dr.Bruh said:
Impressive! know any deets about their app (Board scores, research, connections etc)?
Click to expand...
I know them and they're just an overall great person, along with great board scores/class rank I'm sure. I believe he did a good amount of research, but I wouldn't know specifics.
 
jkdoctor said:
I heard that ICOM has 5 ophtho matches: University of Miami, Johns Hopkins University, UCLA, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary/Harvard University and Duke University Eye Center
Click to expand...
Hahahaha this is the best one yet
 
Dr.Bruh said:
Impressive! know any deets about their app (Board scores, research, connections etc)?
Click to expand...

Yeah, though I'm not in a position to state their stats without them knowing I've done so. Suffice to say, they were just as competitive on paper as the other MDs this year, but made wonderful connections through the state MD school and on the numerous sub-I's they performed. I spent my first 2 years doing ophtho research with this person (ended up switching to Uro), and can attest their research is most likely heads and shoulders above the vast majority of MD's applying, and with that comes strong LORs from well-respected ophthalmologists in the academic community. This person is incredibly fun to be around and that was ostensibly portrayed in their interviews. Board scores will get you interviews, but you don't necessarily need a 260 if you have big names going to bat for you. Of course a 260 never hurts...

TLDR: #1 Connections/Personality, #2 Outstanding Research, #3 Board scores, and #4 for all competitive specialties (regardless of MD/DO) a bit of luck.

Congrats to all who matched this year!
 
UNC optho from CUSOM as reported by my buddy at that school
 
Neopolymath said:
@sab3156 give us the deets bro.
Click to expand...

Report is out. Numbers are looking similar to previous years, when taking into account the fact that 5 (? - correct me if I'm wrong) seats of former AOA programs are, presumably, filling with DOs preferentially.

29 osteopathic seniors participated in the match. 55% match rate overall, but should realistically be thought of to be as low as 38% (consistent with what we've seen in previous years) if we consider that 5 of these were former AOA programs that participated in the SF Match and probably took osteopathic seniors preferentially.

Step 1 average increased by 1 point to 245 (back to 2018 level), which is something that my mentors were talking about during the interview cycle - applicants with higher step 1 scores and higher research quality than before were applying to their programs and they were pretty sure that the step 1 average would be increasing. They stated that they found it very difficult to utilize step 1 scores to rule out applicants, and that research quality and letters were even more valuable when scores were so high. Bottom line from these conversations seemed to be that connections/letters will continue to play an increasingly important role for applicants in general, and an even more important role for osteopathic applicants, as fields like ophthalmology become more and more competitive.

There is nothing in this report that shows any real changes for osteopathic seniors going forward, in my opinion. There are two striking things here, however:

1) There were fewer osteopathic participants in this year's match compared to last year (29 vs. 42), which is the opposite of what I expected. Probably a bit more self selection occurred this year due to the fact that some AOA programs are closing, and for that people may be going for other specialties they have a better chance in. Then again, the total of participants on the MD side was less than last year, as well - but the difference is miniscule (percentage-wise) compared to the difference on the osteopathic side.
2) After having match rates slightly below osteopathic seniors,international applicants actually did around the same or even better than osteopathic seniors (if we consider the fact that osteopathic seniors were able to preferentially match into former AOA programs). International applicant match rate (which reflects all types of international applicants, whether they are seniors or not) was 48%, which is around the same as osteopathic seniors, but likely better than osteopathic seniors if we consider that match rate of osteopathic seniors to be in a range between 38% and 55%. Some really exceptional matches from foreign schools, including at Duke and MEEI/Harvard (among others). Last year there was also a Wilmer/Hopkins match from Pakistan. We will not see this kind of quality on the osteopathic side.


1580322097861.png
 
Last edited:
sab3156 said:
Report is out. Numbers are looking more or less similar to previous years, when taking into account the fact that 5 (? - correct me if I'm wrong) seats of former AOA programs are, presumably, filling with DOs preferentially.

29 osteopathic seniors participated in the match. 55% match rate overall, but should realistically be thought of to be as low as 37% (consistent with what we've seen in previous years) if we consider that 5 of these were former AOA programs that participated in the SF Match and probably took osteopathic seniors preferentially. Allopathic senior match rate is around the same at 86% match rate.

The step 1 average increased by 1 point to 245 (back to 2018's average after dropping 1 point down to 244 in 2019), which is something that my mentors were talking about during the interview cycle - applicants with higher step 1 scores and higher research quality than before were applying to their programs and they were pretty sure that the step 1 average would be increasing. They stated that they found it very difficult to utilize step 1 scores to rule out applicants, and that research quality and letters were even more valuable when scores were so high. Botttom line from these conversations seemed to be that connections/letters will continue to play an increasingly important role for applicants in general, and an even more important role for osteopathic applicants, as fields like ophthalmology become more and more competitive.

There is nothing in this report that shows any real changes for osteopathic seniors going forward, in my opinion. There are two striking things here, however:

1) There were fewer osteopathic participants in this year's match compared to last year (29 vs. 42), which is the opposite of what I expected. Probably a bit more self selection occurred this year due to the fact that some AOA programs are closing, and for that people may be going for other specialties they have a better chance in. Then again, the total of participants on the MD side was less than last year, as well - but the difference is miniscule (percentage-wise) compared to the difference on the osteopathic side.
2) After having match rates slightly below osteopathic seniors, the international applicants actually did around the same or even better than osteopathic seniors (if we consider the fact that osteopathic seniors were able to preferentially match into former AOA programs). International applicant match rate was 48%, which is around the same as osteopathic seniors, but likely better than osteopathic seniors if we consider that match rate of osteopathic seniors to be in a range between 37% and 55%. Some really exceptional matches from foreign schools, including at Duke and MEEI/Harvard (among others). Last year there was also a Wilmer/Hopkins match from Pakistan. We will not see this kind of quality on the osteopathic side.


View attachment 294077
Click to expand...
So drop out and go to med school in Pakistan if going for optho! Got it bro!
 
sab3156 said:
Report is out. Numbers are looking more or less similar to previous years, when taking into account the fact that 5 (? - correct me if I'm wrong) seats of former AOA programs are, presumably, filling with DOs preferentially.

29 osteopathic seniors participated in the match. 55% match rate overall, but should realistically be thought of to be as low as 37% (consistent with what we've seen in previous years) if we consider that 5 of these were former AOA programs that participated in the SF Match and probably took osteopathic seniors preferentially. Allopathic senior match rate is around the same at 86% match rate.

The step 1 average increased by 1 point to 245 (back to 2018's average after dropping 1 point down to 244 in 2019), which is something that my mentors were talking about during the interview cycle - applicants with higher step 1 scores and higher research quality than before were applying to their programs and they were pretty sure that the step 1 average would be increasing. They stated that they found it very difficult to utilize step 1 scores to rule out applicants, and that research quality and letters were even more valuable when scores were so high. Botttom line from these conversations seemed to be that connections/letters will continue to play an increasingly important role for applicants in general, and an even more important role for osteopathic applicants, as fields like ophthalmology become more and more competitive.

There is nothing in this report that shows any real changes for osteopathic seniors going forward, in my opinion. There are two striking things here, however:

1) There were fewer osteopathic participants in this year's match compared to last year (29 vs. 42), which is the opposite of what I expected. Probably a bit more self selection occurred this year due to the fact that some AOA programs are closing, and for that people may be going for other specialties they have a better chance in. Then again, the total of participants on the MD side was less than last year, as well - but the difference is miniscule (percentage-wise) compared to the difference on the osteopathic side.
2) After having match rates slightly below osteopathic seniors, the international applicants actually did around the same or even better than osteopathic seniors (if we consider the fact that osteopathic seniors were able to preferentially match into former AOA programs). International applicant match rate was 48%, which is around the same as osteopathic seniors, but likely better than osteopathic seniors if we consider that match rate of osteopathic seniors to be in a range between 37% and 55%. Some really exceptional matches from foreign schools, including at Duke and MEEI/Harvard (among others). Last year there was also a Wilmer/Hopkins match from Pakistan. We will not see this kind of quality on the osteopathic side.


View attachment 294077
Click to expand...

1580350516966.png
 
sab3156 said:
Report is out. Numbers are looking more or less similar to previous years, when taking into account the fact that 5 (? - correct me if I'm wrong) seats of former AOA programs are, presumably, filling with DOs preferentially.

29 osteopathic seniors participated in the match. 55% match rate overall, but should realistically be thought of to be as low as 37% (consistent with what we've seen in previous years) if we consider that 5 of these were former AOA programs that participated in the SF Match and probably took osteopathic seniors preferentially. Allopathic senior match rate is around the same at 86% match rate.

The step 1 average increased by 1 point to 245 (back to 2018's average after dropping 1 point down to 244 in 2019), which is something that my mentors were talking about during the interview cycle - applicants with higher step 1 scores and higher research quality than before were applying to their programs and they were pretty sure that the step 1 average would be increasing. They stated that they found it very difficult to utilize step 1 scores to rule out applicants, and that research quality and letters were even more valuable when scores were so high.

There is nothing in this report that shows any real changes for osteopathic seniors going forward, in my opinion. There are two striking things here, however:

1) There were fewer osteopathic participants in this year's match compared to last year (29 vs. 42), which is the opposite of what I expected. Probably a bit more self selection occurred this year due to the fact that some AOA programs are closing, and for that people may be going for other specialties they have a better chance in. Then again, the total of participants on the MD side was less than last year, as well - but the difference is miniscule (percentage-wise) compared to the difference on the osteopathic side.
2) After having match rates slightly below osteopathic seniors, the international applicants actually did around the same or even better than osteopathic seniors (if we consider the fact that osteopathic seniors were able to preferentially match into former AOA programs). International applicant match rate was 48%, which is around the same as osteopathic seniors, but likely better than osteopathic seniors if we consider that match rate of osteopathic seniors to be in a range between 37% and 55%. Some really exceptional matches from foreign schools, including at Duke and MEEI/Harvard (among others). Last year there was also a Wilmer/Hopkins match from Pakistan. We will not see this kind of quality on the osteopathic side.


View attachment 294077
Click to expand...
Bro, the match rate went from 38% to 55% and you’re like “amazing matches from FMGs”. LOL
 
Dr.Bruh said:
Bro, the match rate went from 38% to 55% and you’re like “amazing matches from FMGs”. LOL
Click to expand...

I see what you're trying to say. But this has already been addressed in the post. In case you didn't read it, 5 of the 16 matches (~1/3) are going to former AOA programs that presumably preferred to take DOs this time around (and this is subject to change in the future). As I said, the match rate could realistically be seen as being as low as 38% (about the same as the average of previous years), unless you want to disregard the fact that a whopping ~1/3 (5 out of 16) matches have skewed the results here. That's a huge percentage of the matches going to former AOA programs. Ignore that at your own discretion if it makes things feel nicer - I choose not to, for the sake of objectivity.

The FMGs can actually be objectively said to have had a big bump in their match rate. This cannot be objectively stated about the osteopathic seniors (and in fact, comparing only the osteopathic seniors to the FMGs here is statistically inaccurate, as it seems "foreign applicants" in the SF Match Report reflects a pooled conglomerate of not only just FMG seniors - we could easily be more accurate by adding in the osteopathic graduates, which makes the FMG match look even better, but I didn't bother doing that as the numbers already speak for themselves even when comparing to just osteopathic seniors). Not sure why it's so comical to appreciate these facts. These points about foreign applicants matching with a better rate and to much better programs overall are worth bringing up when the conventional SDN wisdom has repeatedly stated otherwise.
 
Last edited:
sab3156 said:
I see what you're trying to say. But this has already been addressed in the post. In case you didn't read it, 5 of the 16 matches (a whopping ~1/3) are going to former AOA programs that presumably preferred to take DOs this time around (and this is subject to change in the future). As I said, the match rate could realistically be seen as being as low as 37% (about the same as the average of previous years), unless you want to disregard the fact that a whopping ~1/3 (5 out of 16) matches have skewed the results here. That's a huge percentage of the matches going to former AOA programs. Ignore that at your own discretion - I choose not to, for the sake of objectivity.

As for the FMG bit - not sure why it's so comical to recognize that FMGs matched not only with a better match rate than osteopathic seniors, but also to much better programs overall. It's worth bringing this up when the conventional SDN wisdom would say otherwise.

The FMGs can actually be objectively said to have had a big bump in their match rate. This cannot be objectively stated about the osteopathic seniors (and in fact, comparing only the osteopathic seniors to the FMGs here is statistically inaccurate, as the FMGs are a pool conglomerate of not only just FMG seniors - we could easily be more accurate by adding in the osteopathic graduates, which makes the FMG match look even better, but I didn't bother doing that as the numbers already speak for themselves even when comparing to just osteopathic seniors).
Click to expand...
So much silliness here. The results aren't skewed man...those former AOA programs are ACGME so to look at the 55% match rate as "actually" 37% is craziness. doesn't matter if they were former AOA, they aren't anymore and those spots could have gone to MDs, but they didn't. Now we can talk all day about how 55% is still a bad overall match rate for any group, but context matters my friend. And the context that pre-merger it was in the mid 30s and essentially everyone was anticipating WORSE match rates for DOs in competitive specialties with the merger this is a net positive bro. And no duh, FMGs with 5 years of practicing in their home country and 100 pubs are gunna match at better program that the person from the brand new DO that applied ophtho with no gap year.

Also if you want to take away the 5 matches at former AOA spots that be a match rate of 45.8% (11/24) not 37%. You can't take away the 5 from the raw match number but keep then in the count of participants which I'm assuming you did bc 11/29 = 37.9%
 
Last edited:
sab3156 said:
I see what you're trying to say. This has already been addressed in the post, however. In case you didn't read it, 5 of the 16 matches (a whopping ~1/3) are going to former AOA programs that presumably preferred to take DOs this time around (and this is subject to change in the future). As I said, the match rate could realistically be seen as being as low as 37% (about the same as the average of previous years), unless you want to disregard the fact that a whopping ~1/3 (5 out of 16) matches have skewed the results here. That's 1/3 of the matches going to former AOA programs. Let's not ignore that.

As for the FMG bit - not sure why it's so comical to recognize that FMGs matched not only with a better match rate than osteopathic seniors for the first time in years, but to much better programs overall.

The FMGs can actually be objectively said to have had a big bump in their match rate. This cannot be objectively stated about the osteopathic seniors (and in fact, comparing only the osteopathic seniors to the FMGs here is statistically inaccurate, as the FMGs are a pool conglomerate of not only just FMG seniors - we could easily be more accurate by adding in the osteopathic graduates, which makes the FMG match look even better, but I didn't bother doing that as the numbers already speak for themselves even when comparing to just osteopathic seniors).
Click to expand...
Ok so your just being hysterical now, I get what your saying but I think you need some perspective, the way I see it from the numbers is that you can clearly see that 113 fmg’s and IMG’s registered form the match, this is the people who were originally were trying to go for optho, as compared to 37 DO’s, only 61 IMG/FMG’s even participated in the match and ranked a single program, that means that a WHOPPING 52 IMG/FMG didn’t even get a single interview, as compare to 29 out of 37 osteopathic seniors who had a ROL, also the fact that your just discounting 5 matches because you suppose they were at “former AOA” is just laughable, because your just assuming that ALL the former AOA prorgams took DO’s and that’s just an assumption nothing more, in reality they could have very well taken a few USMD’s or who knows even IMG/FMG. It’s very clear in my mind that you have some anti DO agenda because someone rubbed you the wrong way or some MD PD’s told you to take your sorry DO ass home. The match rate went from 38% to 55% and that’s concrete and you can’t say any if’s and but’s in that at all, I wouldn’t be surprised if the match rate is even higher next year but it truly doesn’t matter cause your literally talking about such a minuscule amount of people, 37 out or thousands in order to conclude that there’s a REAL bias against DO’s in the field overall. Sure Harvard may have a bias against the DO degree and take some Pakistani over a DO but the overall picture is nothing like your trying to paint here. BTW a DO matched into Brown’s optho program last year and someone matched into UNC’s program this year, Harvard or no Harvard I think most people on this forum would take take that any day.
 
Dr.Bruh said:
So much silliness here. The results aren't skewed man...those former AOA programs are ACGME so to look at the 55% match rate as "actually" 37% is craziness. doesn't matter if they were former AOA, they aren't anymore and those spot could have gone to Mrs, but they didn't. Now we can talk all day about how 55% is still a bad overall match rate for any group, but context matters my friend. And the context that pre-merger it was in the mid 30s and essentially everyone was anticipating WORSE match rates for DOs in competitive specialties with the merger this is a net positive bro.

Also if you want to take away the 5 matches at former AOA spots that be a match rate of 45.8% (11/24) not 37%. You can't take away the 5 from the raw match number but keep then in the count of participants which I'm assuming you did bc 11/29 = 37.9%
Click to expand...

If you read my post carefully, this is why I stated a range for the match rate (37% to 55%). It is very conceivable that the majority (or probably all) of the matches to the former AOA programs would have only matched AOA, if: (1) these applicants would have participated in both AOA and ACGME match, and (2) if these programs had not been part of the ACGME, considering that they are the among the least competitive programs in the current ACGME match and very obviously preferentially filled those seats with DOs. Hence why I gave a range to give at least some room for the benefit of the doubt, even though we're really stretching things when trying to look at the ACGME match rate for osteopathic seniors as being above 37.9% (thanks for pointing out that it's actually 38% if rounding - I will change that in my previous post).

And no duh, FMGs with 5 years of practicing in their home country and 100 pubs are gunna match at better program that the person from the brand new DO that applied ophtho with no gap year.
Click to expand...

This is an unproven claim, and I know of numerous FMGs with zero practice in their country prior to matching in the U.S. to reputable and top programs. Sure, I will give your point some credit, as there are definitely cases similar to how you described (though maybe not as extreme). However, just as an example, I know of MEEI/Harvard matching FMGs without prior practice in their country - their research was outstanding, but consistent with the research of the US MDs that were matching at those same tier of institutions. So no, it is not typical for matched FMGs to have "5 years of practice" and "100 pubs", and practicing for years is going to have little to do with matching to top programs like Wilmer and MEEI. Point is, a DO with the same research pedigree (or even better, if that's possible) would not yield matches at those programs, as they do not consider DOs whatsoever. I highlighted an example not so long ago about this exact type of case.
 
Last edited:
I agree with @sab3156 's overall assessment minus the subtracting the DO program matches part. I would argue the match rate in any given year is probably going to wildly fluctuate from 20%-50%ish purely because of how few people apply and depending on what the apps look like as a whole. If this data means anything then it probably is just a sign that the merger won't really change much either way regarding applicants to ophtho, it's a very difficult match for DO's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
55% is the true match rate. End of story.

y’all tripping to diminish these people’s accomplishments.

I interviewed at multiple university “MD” Residencies for a similarly competitive speciality including a couple top 10 programs that will be ranked below some formerly “DO” programs due to priorities other than pleasing SDN with the prestige of my match. The people that matched DO could have ranked those over “MD” programs you never know.

gtfo with trying to say their matches don’t matter or count as much as because they aren’t MD. Those spots could have easily went to MD’s. My best buddy is at a high ranked MD school and didn’t match optho and he would give a limb for one of those “formerly DO” spots.
 
Last edited:
DNC127 said:
55% is the true match rate. End of story.

y’all tripping to diminish these people’s accomplishments.

I interviewed at multiple university “MD” Residencies for a similarly competitive speciality including a couple top 10 programs that will be ranked below some formerly “DO” programs due to priorities other than pleasing SDN with the prestige of my match. The people that matched DO could have ranked those over “MD” programs you never know.

gtfo with trying to say their matches don’t matter or count as much as because they aren’t MD. They could have easily went to MD’s. My best buddy is at a high ranked MD school and didn’t match optho and he would give a limb for one of those “formerly DO” spots.
Click to expand...

Thank you thank you thank you! My point all along. In competitive specialties the match rate/ match quality is not very indicative of the “bias” against DO and much more indicative of the individual candidates’ credentials and their personal choice for where they matched, many people rank DO prorgams higher than “better ranked” MD prorgams due to many reasons such as location, familiarity with the program,most people give a damn about a prorgam’s prestige when ranking, it’s such a petty thing to think about when worrying about where to train and spend the next 4 years of your life. You match where your a better fit and not because you won’t please Sab on sdn haha. Sab’s assessment discounts and ignores all those variables. Also like I said before, FMG’s even from top institutions from outside the US have a tough go at competitive specialties overall like optho, because you see 113 IMG/FMG, registered for the match but only 61 yes 61 even ranked and got a single interview and out of that only 29 matched, thats facts. The overall success rate as a DO is better then from any IMG school. Sab using one anecdotal reference of someone from Pakistan matching at Harvard doesn’t paint the whole picture, as I can easily point to DO’s matching at Brown last year and UNC this year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sab3156 has been consistently spreading his negativity throughout the SDN threads for the past few years. I am not sure why he puts so much efforts and time in putting people down and crushing their dreams. I guess he enjoys making people regret their decision for choosing DO profession lol

Anyway, try not to waste your time refuting Sab3156. It's not worth it. We can't change what he likes to believe.
 
jkdoctor said:
View attachment 294354


View attachment 294349

2015 Summary by Program Type

natmatch.com natmatch.com

View attachment 294352

View attachment 294351

So Premerger: 0-1 osteopathic grads matching in ACGME match and 18 grads getting ophthalmology spots in AOA match
Postmerger: 20 osteopathic grads matching in ACGME match
So DO graduates went from 5400 to 6900 from 2015-2020 and DO placement in ophthalmology residency went from 19 students to 20 students. Please explain how the merger has been such big win for DO students?

It appears that the likelihood of a DO student getting an ophthalmology residency position has gone from 19/5400=0.35% (3.5 per 1000 grads) to 20/6900=0.28%.(2.8 per 1000 grads) since 2015.
Click to expand...
More like the percentage portion out of all DOs that year went into optho, not likelihood. Not all 5400 or 6900 DOs were gunning for optho.
 
jkdoctor said:
The actual data shows there has been no real increase in the placement of DOs into ophtho residencies since the merger.
Click to expand...

I think it's more telling that the match rates to programs that have always been ACGME is essentially unchanged for the past several years, and this means that the bias in the field has no indication of getting better for DOs. That much is true and undeniable, and is a valuable marker for anyone applying ophthalmology as a DO.

@LemonLens , did your program end up interviewing any DOs? Interested to hear about what you think about the match this year - my mentors said it was extremely competitive this year and that letters/connections/research played a big role in their rank list due to the fact that everyone was applying with sky high numbers.

Also, what is your opinion on the huge increase in FMG matches and the fact that they are matching to very strong programs compared to osteopathic seniors? It seems that the bias against FMGs in ophthalmology is far below the bias against DOs. What do you make of this?
 
Last edited:
sab3156 said:
I think it's more telling that the match rates to programs that have always been ACGME is essentially unchanged for the past several years, and this means that the bias in the field has no indication of getting better for DOs. That much is true and undeniable, and is a valuable marker for anyone applying ophthalmology as a DO.

@LemonLens , did your program end up interviewing any DOs? Interested to hear about what you think about the match this year - my mentors said it was extremely competitive this year and that letters/connections/research played a big role in their rank list due to the fact that everyone was applying with sky high numbers.

Also, what is your opinion on the huge increase in FMG matches and the fact that they are matching to very strong programs compared to osteopathic seniors? It seems that the bias against FMGs in ophthalmology is far below the bias against DOs. What do you make of this?
Click to expand...
Sorry but 29 matches out of 113 people who applied and only 61 interviews reeks of bias to me... (or are you going to conveniently ignore the real numbers?) a former DO program is still an ACGME accredited program and eligible to MD’s and this program still lets you become an ophthalmologist, also who gets to decide what a strong program is? Some of the lesser known programs might still be stronger and more desirable due to location etc, until there is a clear and concrete way to say that one program is “stronger” then this isn’t an argument you can have. There’s impressive matches on the DO side too, in fact any optho match is impressive but if we are going to talk about names then UNC, loma Linda and SLU are a few places that DO’s matched at this year that were traditional MD programs what makes these programs or matches not impressive?
 
Alot of nonsense sensationalism. There are/have been DO ophthos at OHSU, Oklahoma, USC, Ohio State and LLU.

sab3156 said:
Report is out. Numbers are looking similar to previous years, when taking into account the fact that 5 (? - correct me if I'm wrong) seats of former AOA programs are, presumably, filling with DOs preferentially.

29 osteopathic seniors participated in the match. 55% match rate overall, but should realistically be thought of to be as low as 38% (consistent with what we've seen in previous years) if we consider that 5 of these were former AOA programs that participated in the SF Match and probably took osteopathic seniors preferentially.

Step 1 average increased by 1 point to 245 (back to 2018 level), which is something that my mentors were talking about during the interview cycle - applicants with higher step 1 scores and higher research quality than before were applying to their programs and they were pretty sure that the step 1 average would be increasing. They stated that they found it very difficult to utilize step 1 scores to rule out applicants, and that research quality and letters were even more valuable when scores were so high. Bottom line from these conversations seemed to be that connections/letters will continue to play an increasingly important role for applicants in general, and an even more important role for osteopathic applicants, as fields like ophthalmology become more and more competitive.

There is nothing in this report that shows any real changes for osteopathic seniors going forward, in my opinion. There are two striking things here, however:

1) There were fewer osteopathic participants in this year's match compared to last year (29 vs. 42), which is the opposite of what I expected. Probably a bit more self selection occurred this year due to the fact that some AOA programs are closing, and for that people may be going for other specialties they have a better chance in. Then again, the total of participants on the MD side was less than last year, as well - but the difference is miniscule (percentage-wise) compared to the difference on the osteopathic side.
2) After having match rates slightly below osteopathic seniors,international applicants actually did around the same or even better than osteopathic seniors (if we consider the fact that osteopathic seniors were able to preferentially match into former AOA programs). International applicant match rate (which reflects all types of international applicants, whether they are seniors or not) was 48%, which is around the same as osteopathic seniors, but likely better than osteopathic seniors if we consider that match rate of osteopathic seniors to be in a range between 38% and 55%. Some really exceptional matches from foreign schools, including at Duke and MEEI/Harvard (among others). Last year there was also a Wilmer/Hopkins match from Pakistan. We will not see this kind of quality on the osteopathic side.


View attachment 294077
Click to expand...
 
sab3156 said:
@LemonLens , did your program end up interviewing any DOs? Interested to hear about what you think about the match this year - my mentors said it was extremely competitive this year and that letters/connections/research played a big role in their rank list due to the fact that everyone was applying with sky high numbers.

Also, what is your opinion on the huge increase in FMG matches and the fact that they are matching to very strong programs compared to osteopathic seniors? It seems that the bias against FMGs in ophthalmology is far below the bias against DOs. What do you make of this?
Click to expand...

No, we did not. I think I mentioned before that our program does not interview Dos under any circumstances. The match was very competitive this year. Our program received a record number of apps, as far as I know. Lots of great board scores and research. If the trend continues, the numbers will just keep going up and up.

As for the bias against DOs, it's as real as you say. FMGs might have it easier if they have the right names on their letters, but it's really hard to say. There are many programs (mine included) that will interview FMGs but will not interview DOs. We have had FMGs graduate from our residency program, but I don't think any DOs. I have a hunch that there are more FMG-friendly ophtho programs than DO-friendly ones, especially the top programs.

FutureDoctor5000 said:
Sorry but 29 matches out of 113 people who applied and only 61 interviews reeks of bias to me... (or are you going to conveniently ignore the real numbers?) a former DO program is still an ACGME accredited program and eligible to MD’s and this program still lets you become an ophthalmologist, also who gets to decide what a strong program is? Some of the lesser known programs might still be stronger and more desirable due to location etc, until there is a clear and concrete way to say that one program is “stronger” then this isn’t an argument you can have. There’s impressive matches on the DO side too, in fact any optho match is impressive but if we are going to talk about names then UNC, loma Linda and SLU are a few places that DO’s matched at this year that were traditional MD programs what makes these programs or matches not impressive?
Click to expand...
Xe13phys said:
Alot of nonsense sensationalism. There are/have been DO ophthos at OHSU, Oklahoma, USC, Ohio State and LLU.
Click to expand...

These programs are very different from programs like Wilmer and MEEI. I didn't even receive interviews to Wilmer or MEEI despite having board scores far above the ophtho average, and I was coming from a middle of the pack MD school. Those programs are in a very different league than programs like Brown, LL, and SLU, which don't have great reputations as residency training programs. Brown was on ACGME probation recently, and I discussed this here not too long ago. I would say FMGs match into great programs comparatively.

For anyone interested in ophtho, especially DOs, I just give the general advice of getting plugged in to a program as early on in your medical school career as you can.
 
LemonLens said:
No, we did not. I think I mentioned before that our program does not interview Dos under any circumstances. The match was very competitive this year. Our program received a record number of apps, as far as I know. Lots of great board scores and research. If the trend continues, the numbers will just keep going up and up.

As for the bias against DOs, it's as real as you say. FMGs might have it easier if they have the right names on their letters, but it's really hard to say. There are many programs (mine included) that will interview FMGs but will not interview DOs. We have had FMGs graduate from our residency program, but I don't think any DOs. I have a hunch that there are more FMG-friendly ophtho programs than DO-friendly ones, especially the top programs.




These programs are very different from programs like Wilmer and MEEI. I didn't even receive interviews to Wilmer or MEEI despite having board scores far above the ophtho average, and I was coming from a middle of the pack MD school. Those programs are in a very different league than programs like Brown, LL, and SLU, which don't have great reputations as residency training programs. Brown was on ACGME probation recently, and I discussed this here not too long ago. I would say FMGs match into great programs comparatively.

For anyone interested in ophtho, especially DOs, I just give the general advice of getting plugged in to a program as early on in your medical school career as you can.
Click to expand...

the bolded goes for any competitive specialty. if your DO school doesn’t afford you these opprtunities and you are dead set on something competitive don’t go DO. Simple as that. Even then it’s sketchy
 
LemonLens said:
No, we did not. I think I mentioned before that our program does not interview Dos under any circumstances. The match was very competitive this year. Our program received a record number of apps, as far as I know. Lots of great board scores and research. If the trend continues, the numbers will just keep going up and up.

As for the bias against DOs, it's as real as you say. FMGs might have it easier if they have the right names on their letters, but it's really hard to say. There are many programs (mine included) that will interview FMGs but will not interview DOs. We have had FMGs graduate from our residency program, but I don't think any DOs. I have a hunch that there are more FMG-friendly ophtho programs than DO-friendly ones, especially the top programs.




These programs are very different from programs like Wilmer and MEEI. I didn't even receive interviews to Wilmer or MEEI despite having board scores far above the ophtho average, and I was coming from a middle of the pack MD school. Those programs are in a very different league than programs like Brown, LL, and SLU, which don't have great reputations as residency training programs. Brown was on ACGME probation recently, and I discussed this here not too long ago. I would say FMGs match into great programs comparatively.

For anyone interested in ophtho, especially DOs, I just give the general advice of getting plugged in to a program as early on in your medical school career as you can.
Click to expand...
Your analysis holds true for the very very top programs, let’s not act like MCG, UNC, ohio state aren’t quality optho programs, plus say what you want the former AOA programs are now ACGME accreditated and can take anyone, thus generally speaking DO’s have an easier match then FMG’s and the real numbers show this, like I said before 113 FMG’s registered/applied for the match meaning they sent in apps, only 61 even received a single interview, and only 29 of those matched, now there may be a few of those FMG matches at top programs that don’t interview DO’s and have an inherent DO bias but the VAST majority of very qualified FMG’s don’t even get a single interview. We also must take into account( like it has been said on this thread earlier) that DO applicants may have received “top” interviews and may have ranked former AOA or another lower “ranked” program higher on thier list due to various reasons and it has nothing to do with the prestige of the prorgam like @DNC127 said he did in his competitive field.
 
There are multiple DO attendings at Wills and many DOs that have done fellowship at Iowa, Wills, and Miami. My advice to DOs is to not feel bad if you ”miss out” on biased and bigoted programs that hilariously interview FMGs but not DOs.
OHSU, Oklahoma and Ohio State are all top tier ophtho. USC is top 10 It is also hilarious to think there are “average” ortho, derm or ophtho programs. This level of nitpicking is outrageous and clearly agenda filled.


LemonLens said:
No, we did not. I think I mentioned before that our program does not interview Dos under any circumstances. The match was very competitive this year. Our program received a record number of apps, as far as I know. Lots of great board scores and research. If the trend continues, the numbers will just keep going up and up.

As for the bias against DOs, it's as real as you say. FMGs might have it easier if they have the right names on their letters, but it's really hard to say. There are many programs (mine included) that will interview FMGs but will not interview DOs. We have had FMGs graduate from our residency program, but I don't think any DOs. I have a hunch that there are more FMG-friendly ophtho programs than DO-friendly ones, especially the top programs.




These programs are very different from programs like Wilmer and MEEI. I didn't even receive interviews to Wilmer or MEEI despite having board scores far above the ophtho average, and I was coming from a middle of the pack MD school. Those programs are in a very different league than programs like Brown, LL, and SLU, which don't have great reputations as residency training programs. Brown was on ACGME probation recently, and I discussed this here not too long ago. I would say FMGs match into great programs comparatively.

For anyone interested in ophtho, especially DOs, I just give the general advice of getting plugged in to a program as early on in your medical school career as you can.
Click to expand...
 
Got some news for you guys.

The academic phallus measuring contest ends at the residency level, unless you're entering IM. If you're fine with being a hospitalist, life is good. Otherwise, you better be prepared for more IM fellowship academic phallus measurements.

I'm on an ophthalmology rotation, working with two former AOA ophthalmologists right now. They work Mon-Fri, 8 AM to 5 PM, and gross about 1 M per year take home by working in a small rural community 2h drive away from a major metropolitan area and seeing about 50-60 pts a day. As former AOAs, these guys have their pick of academic ophthalmology programs. Instead, both of them opt for community programs.

So, kids. Chill on this academic talk. Any ophthalmology match is awesome. The ones that try to stratify ophthalmology matches are insecure folks that need to go outside and get laid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Melo00
Chances for Match
Replies
2
Views
1K
DO2015CA
DO2015CA
R
Question about ERAS couples match indication
Replies
0
Views
353
roofmailer
R
wysdoc
Official 2025 Osteopathic Match Lists
2
Replies
69
Views
78K
tofubowl1225
T
Y
DO General Surgery Post Match Stats
Replies
1
Views
1K
DOVinciRobot
DOVinciRobot
D
match day
Replies
1
Views
1K
ToKingdomCome
T
Top