which brings another question, why are we judged by simply board scores. i have lots more experience and i was in residency before and all they want is high board scores. some of these countries are corrupt and accept bribes to have the test seen before they take it so they can score 99. i have seen proof of this on another forum, a person admittedly bribed someone to see the test ahead of time. not to mention,a lot have already done residency in their own country. is that fair to someone that hasn't? residency is training, you aren't supposed to be expected to know anything about it. they're just abusing visas to get cheap labor who they can fire and throw away easily as they please. i wholeheartedly disagree with both of you. I went to a west indies (near the caribbean) medical school and learned exactly the same thing as an AMG. most of my collegues are attendings....ahem.
i think high board score criteria for IMGs are a cult. you don't see AMG's having to have high board scores, and many don't. its just another hoop for IMG"s. and since that's the case an AMG can be considered mediocrity, they may not know squat, but they're still accepted. also why should an AMG be entitled either? not to mention why should board scores be entitled too? that's not a true measure of anything. what if they cheated or took the test way past medical school when they already know everything and more mature way after med school and training, when i had to take my test when i was dumb (before clinicals for step 1 and during my 4th year of med school for step 2) and naieve and heart broken from a parental divorce. is it fair? i think not! they don't take that into consideration, which isn't right.
I'm afraid I'm only sorry for your situation to a certain extent. However (respectfully), your general ideas seem to have more heart than sense to them.
First, you seem to think the criteria for selection is simply scores, which any program director (and really, anyone) would certainly point out is blatantly false. If this were so, many more FMGs would get in because, frankly, so many people overseas (west and eastbound) seem to think it's all about sitting down and studying for the exams for 2+yrs (and getting 260+, boohoo).
Inveresely, people with rather low scores get into their residencies of choice. How? with great CVs, clinical experience, the works. So I'm sorry but regardless of the fact that most of your colleagues are attendings (which, mind you, is the case for plenty other FMGs as well), that doesn't make you an attending or a solid candidate for that matter. Furthermore, since you say you learnt the same as AMGs, and seemingly were unvafoured by comparison you only make further proof to my point on how the system (already) favors AMGs.
Additionally, it is naive at the very least (and rather hipocritical) to suppose others are those "corrupt countries" and try and make light of some fraudulent applicants (which arise, geographically, everywhere) to imply these are the rule abroad, rather than the exception. And precisely so, in light of any minor occurence of such infraction, PDs more than certainly don't choose applicants solely based on board scores. In fact, sir, with much displeasure I ought to point out caribbean schools are sometimes just as much (fairly or unfairly) cast aside for reasons (or rather allegations) I'm sure you're familiar with.
That being said, it should be worth mentioning that, when you get applicants in the thousands, the only logic would be to have some sort of objective criteria to filter out until reaching an eligible pool of applicants. supposing the USMLE isn't the proper method to standardise (and therefore compare) applicants, thus begs the question: which method *is*, and why hasn't any discipline set it in place? you have to take GREs and GMATs for other disciplines. you have to land TOEFL scores way above the failure cutoff to be able to get ahead in any.single.career. To your dismay, these rules of the game apply for all.
Second, as you yourself point out that scores for IMGs are a cult, and not the requirement for AMGs, you simply deepen the obvious contradiction: board scores don't matter as much as you figure, and that's why AMGs are favoured in the match (almost) every time.
Furthermore you mention AMGs may be mediocre and know squat, but still be accepted. This brings two thoughts to mind:
-You may believe you learnt the exact same thing as AMGs, but only can the system guarantee the quality of medical education (theoretical and practical, via the ACGME, etc) in the US, not foreign ("corrupt", if you wish) countries; therefore the quality, and not the quantity (I may say, I went to a 6-yr long medical school) are defining factors. not just the USMLE, or "USCE" anywhere.
-This way of entitlement bothers you, but it doesn't bother you to promote entitlement on the basis of your passport. As we'd say over here, "the bad thing about the elite is not being part of it".
Finally, your closing remarks are, unfortunately, passionate and apologetic. You seem to think parental divorce is unique to your circumstances and that you were the first person on earth to take step 1 before clinicals. I invite you to tour around this (and other forums) to realize such (and many worse) misfortunes are not exclusively yours, and many people going through them outperformed you (and I) considerably. While I'm sorry and empathise with you to a point, I simply cannot agree with you, thinking you could've simply postponed, if such distressing times were affecting your performance.
