The First DO-specific NRMP Charting Outcome!

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

---

Members do not see this ad.

EM & Gen Surgery seem to be pretty competitive matches for DOs.

Rads & Gas has enough community programs to essentially match plenty of DOs.

PM&R, Path, Psych have very weird data.

Some elaborations I've kinda made up using some anecodtal data.
1. COMLEX score is probably proportional to USMLE score and that those with under 500s are not likely taking USMLE.
2. Going off of 1 and completely pulling this out of my ass, but a 550 probably is proportional to a 220-225 on the usmle.
3. Probably over 50% of the people who applied have a USMLE. Ppl who matched have a higher rate of having USMLE scores.
4. Since the average Matched student has a 566 ( Avg that year was 520-530) they probably have on average a 220-230 on the usmle. The average unmatched is at 520 ( These students likely either have no USMLE or lower usmle than those who matched.
5. We can probably say a few things like for example EM as a specialty being very USMLE favoring. And that DOs with average comlex or no usmle will likely not have high success in matching.



In conclusion we pretty much learned nothing that we didn't already really know.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

80% of DOs did not match in the NRMP. Another 132 (~4%) got positions in the SOAP. The remaining 16% that didn't match into ACGME positions went back and filled all the unfilled AOA residency positions. DOs have an overall placement rate >98%, stemming from the overabundance of AOA residency positions.

Pretty much. However it's worth dissecting why they didn't match tbh. Was it poor ranking and low amount of interviews? Or was it lack of usmle or low comlex?
It's hard to really elaborate here.

But yah, the great thing is that most of these overabundant residencies are still going to be around though. The question from there though is whether the fusion of DO GME and MD GME is going to be enough to buffer major rises in competitiveness in the near future for DOs.

 

[Mad Jack]

I wish they supplied usmle data as well. Just showing comlex does nothing for the mass majority of us. What if that person with a 640 comlex got a 210 usmle? Or what if that person with a 550 comlex got a 235. I don't know, maybe I'm too cynical, but this really doesn't help us out any.

It's way better than what we had before. Being lumped in with IMGs and FMGs was worthless.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

It's way better than what we had before. Being lumped in with IMGs and FMGs was worthless.

I feel like this data was just merely confirmation of what we already have been saying on SDN for a long time though. I.e if you're not in the bottom 3rd of your class take the usmle, hit above a 220, apply to a lot of places, etc.

I'll also make a not so subtle inference that ppl in lower tier and new schools without good alumni networks or been around long enough at residency directors borderline recruit from them are shafted in the ACGME match.

 

[deleted564680]

They aren't going to release DO specific USMLE numbers because it would show that DOs need higher numbers on the same exact test.

This is the exact reason why.




Also, this document shows that specialties not on here - NSG, Ortho, Rad Onc, Plastics, etc. can't even be quantified because they don't take DOs or very few.

It also shows how much of a bias there is against DOs in general surgery with it taking the highest average COMLEX (and probably higher correlative USMLE) and only a 51% match rate. At least Rads and Anesthesia are being somewhat more fair 😛

 

[Mad Jack]

I feel like this data was just merely confirmation of what we already have been saying on SDN for a long time though. I.e if you're not in the bottom 3rd of your class take the usmle, hit above a 220, apply to a lot of places, etc.

I'll also make a not so subtle inference that ppl in lower tier and new schools without good alumni networks or been around long enough at residency directors borderline recruit from them are shafted in the ACGME match.

It's nice to have actual numbers instead of guessing and hyperbole though. They look exactly as we thought they would, which is awesome.

 

[Mad Jack]

They aren't going to release DO specific USMLE numbers because it would show that DOs need higher numbers on the same exact test.

Actually it's probably more due to the whole "every DO has a COMLEX score, so it's 100x easier to chart out the match tables" thing. They'd have to create an entire second set of tables that would be incomplete, it would suck.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

It's nice to have actual numbers instead of guessing and hyperbole though. They look exactly as we thought they would, which is awesome.

Well... in some respects. In psych the data seems a bit... difficult to believe or to agree with. I.e you need an entire std above the mean to have an 85% match rate? It basically shows that psych favors imgs over DOs where the average non-usmd senior has a 214. A 600 probably amounts to a 230 on the usmle....

 

[deleted564680]

Actually it's probably more due to the whole "every DO has a COMLEX score, so it's 100x easier to chart out the match tables" thing. They'd have to create an entire second set of tables that would be incomplete, it would suck.

Agree, but it would be useful for Anesthesia, Rads, and Gen. surg. where almost every DO is taking the USMLE.

 

[Mad Jack]

Well... in some respects. In psych the data seems a bit... difficult to believe or to agree with. I.e you need an entire std above the mean to have an 85% match rate? It basically shows that psych favors imgs over DOs where the average non-usmd senior has a 214. A 600 probably amounts to a 230 on the usmle....

There could be a lot of confounding variables though. A lot of the psych candidates could have COMLEX scores only, weaker applications overall, be more geographically limited, etc. They could also be applying to higher-tier programs than the typical FMG/IMG because they think they're more competitive overall. Who knows, basically.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

There could be a lot of confounding variables though. A lot of the psych candidates could have COMLEX scores only, weaker applications overall, be more geographically limited, etc. They could also be applying to higher-tier programs than the typical FMG/IMG because they think they're more competitive overall. Who knows, basically.

Indeed. However it is still somewhat of a shock.

Oh well, I'm going to go ahead and just a bit salty over the comlex existing for the time being.

 

[Rekt]

80% of DOs did not match in the NRMP. Another 132 (~4%) got positions in the SOAP. The remaining 16% that didn't match into ACGME positions went back and filled all the unfilled AOA residency positions. DOs have an overall placement rate >98%, stemming from the overabundance of AOA residency positions.

This still seems somewhat concerning to me.

What is the timeline like? I know AOA matches first. Wouldn't these particular people take the leftover spots if they couldn't match? The DO SOAP. So you're hoping your application is good enough for ACGME? Then if not, you try your luck on the MD SOAP. If you still don't match, then you turn to whatever residency spots are left from the AOA match and DO SOAP?

Is this correct?

 

[user3]

I am curious about cases where people rank 16+ programs but do not match. What is usually the reason?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I am curious about cases where people rank 16+ programs but do not match. What is usually the reason?

really really ****ty luck?

 

[Rekt]

I am curious about cases where people rank 16+ programs but do not match. What is usually the reason?

Really only seemed like a few people. Mainly for GS. Very obvious social deficits in the interview? Who knows

 

[the argus]

This still seems somewhat concerning to me.

What is the timeline like? I know AOA matches first. Wouldn't these particular people take the leftover spots if they couldn't match? The DO SOAP. So you're hoping your application is good enough for ACGME? Then if not, you try your luck on the MD SOAP. If you still don't match, then you turn to whatever residency spots are left from the AOA match and DO SOAP?

Is this correct?

not a DO, but yes I assume that is the thought process

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

Pretty much. However it's worth dissecting why they didn't match tbh. Was it poor ranking and low amount of interviews? Or was it lack of usmle or low comlex?
It's hard to really elaborate here.

But yah, the great thing is that most of these overabundant residencies are still going to be around though. The question from there though is whether the fusion of DO GME and MD GME is going to be enough to buffer major rises in competitiveness in the near future for DOs.

I am sorry, where is this 80% coming from? 80% of all DO's are not matching in the NRMP? Or 80% that attempted?

 

[acapnial]

I am curious about cases where people rank 16+ programs but do not match. What is usually the reason?

Everyone I know who didn't match either didn't use very good strategy for applying and ranking or they were in denial about their chances getting into a very competitive field (ortho but really poor board scores)

 

[67552931811]

from page ii of the report,

"A total of 2,982 U.S. osteopathic students/graduates submitted certified rank order lists in the 2016 Main Residency Match. After excluding the 14.3 percent of osteopathic medical students/graduates who did not give consent to participate in NRMP research, 2,555 osteopathic applicants were included in the final dataset. Missing data were found in number of research experiences (26.3%), number of abstracts, presentations, and publications (28.2%), number of work experiences (27.2%), number of volunteer experiences (27.8%), Ph.D. degree (16.9%), and other graduate degree (16.6%). Identity matching of all applicants was not possible due to insufficient information; therefore, 2.9 percent of COMLEX-USA scores were missing."

It's not because of the number of DOs matching into specialties not included in the report as someone said above. The number of DOs matching into specialties not in this report is minimal, certainly not ~400. Also from page ii of the report,

"Specialties that offered 50 or more positions and had at least 7 matched or unmatched applicants preferring the specialty in the 2016 Main Residency Match are included in this report.."

Gracias brother from another mother. I should of looked more closely before posting. Appreciate it!

 

[67552931811]

It's way better than what we had before. Being lumped in with IMGs and FMGs was worthless.

While I see your point, we still have no idea what usmle score is needed for X% chance at matching. It's not like those in the data set only took the comlex. What % of the 2600 took step? 95%? 65%? People are going to see that 501-550 breakdown and think they have a great shot at acgme gas when the more likely reality is that these people also took/ focused on step.

The only value I see in it is everything besides board scores, which is what I think a lot of us were really interested in (I could be wrong). But, the info on contiguous ranks I found particularly helpful. Only because the specialities I'm interested had hardly anyone not match with more than 6-7 ranks lol

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

While I see your point, we still have no idea what usmle score is needed for X% chance at matching. It's not like those in the data set only took the comlex. What % of the 2600 took step? 95%? 65%? People are going to see that 501-550 breakdown and think they have a great shot at acgme gas when the more likely reality is that these people also took/ focused on step.

The only value I see in it is everything besides board scores, which is what I think a lot of us were really interested in (I could be wrong). But, the info on contiguous ranks I found particularly helpful. Only because the specialities I'm interested had hardly anyone not match with more than 6-7 ranks lol

I think my analysis is probably close to what is happening.

 

[Yadster101]

5. We can probably say a few things like for example EM as a specialty being very USMLE favoring. And that DOs with average comlex or no usmle will likely not have high success in matching.



In conclusion we pretty much learned nothing that we didn't already really know.

Are you saying dos interested in EM likely won't have succes if they have avg comlex or no usmle? Or are you talking about all residencies like psych, fm, peds etc?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Are you saying dos interested in EM likely won't have succes if they have avg comlex or no usmle? Or are you talking about all residencies like psych, fm, peds etc?

Specifically for EM.

I think Peds and FM are probably pretty safe for ppl who have no usmle if they're applying to midwestern programs.

But as a whole this data just shows that DOs who can may want to really consider taking the USMLE.

And that as a whole the COMLEX continues to be a weight in the process of merging.

 

[Rekt]

Are you saying dos interested in EM likely won't have succes if they have avg comlex or no usmle? Or are you talking about all residencies like psych, fm, peds etc?

If you're applying ACGME EM, it's almost guaranteed you need Step 1. I think they even like to see Step 2, but that's not as set in stone.

 

[hallowmann]

Can you explain what the 80% means? Are you saying 80% of DOs match? So 20% of DOs dont end up getting residencies? I know I must be misunderstanding that. Right?

80% is the NRMP match rate for all DOs (seniors and graduates). I've already calculated the DO senior match rate as between 86% and 89%. Its basically guaranteed to be in that range with the data we have. For those that don't match, a portion of them (~5%) SOAP, and the rest scramble into open AOA spots. Placement rate into GME is ~99.6% at this time.

I feel like this data was just merely confirmation of what we already have been saying on SDN for a long time though. I.e if you're not in the bottom 3rd of your class take the usmle, hit above a 220, apply to a lot of places, etc.

I'll also make a not so subtle inference that ppl in lower tier and new schools without good alumni networks or been around long enough at residency directors borderline recruit from them are shafted in the ACGME match.

Yeah, but to be honest its good to have real confirmation. There has been plenty of speculation and trash talking about DOs not matching well, being seen as barely higher than US IMGs, in the match, etc. Its good to see that actually almost across the board match rates are pretty close to the average and above 50% even for GS (which is bad, but not too bad).

This is the exact reason why.

Also, this document shows that specialties not on here - NSG, Ortho, Rad Onc, Plastics, etc. can't even be quantified because they don't take DOs or very few.

It also shows how much of a bias there is against DOs in general surgery with it taking the highest average COMLEX (and probably higher correlative USMLE) and only a 51% match rate. At least Rads and Anesthesia are being somewhat mo😛re fair

Its not just if they don't take many DOs, its also if very few applied/ranked in the first place.

This still seems somewhat concerning to me.

What is the timeline like? I know AOA matches first. Wouldn't these particular people take the leftover spots if they couldn't match? The DO SOAP. So you're hoping your application is good enough for ACGME? Then if not, you try your luck on the MD SOAP. If you still don't match, then you turn to whatever residency spots are left from the AOA match and DO SOAP?

Is this correct?

Its not a DO SOAP, its a DO scramble. Basically its a free-for-all, where programs have all the power. You just get a list of open spots, then you apply and they choose to offer you or not offer you the spot on whatever timeline they want. The SOAP is a little more organized, it was the solution to the MD scramble that used to take place.

There's a few different groups, one that skips the AOA match, fails to match ACGME and doesn't participate in the SOAP, but rather just scrambles AOA. Then there's a group that participates in the SOAP. Then there's the group that participates in the AOA match, fails to match, then scrambles AOA. Then there's the group that participates in the AOA match, fails to match, tries the ACGME match, fails to match and then tries the SOAP/scramble.

It'll all depend on which matches your top programs are participating in.

Everyone I know who didn't match either didn't use very good strategy for applying and ranking or they were in denial about their chances getting into a very competitive field (ortho but really poor board scores)

This is also what I've seen. Remember to be realistic, even if you want to reach for some top fields/programs, always have a backup.

 

[zero0]

Wow, GS does NOT like DOs. Welp, at least that dispels any lingering thoughts I still had about surgery.

Sure would be helpful if this data didn't leave so much to the imagination...

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Wow, GS does NOT like DOs. Welp, at least that dispels any lingering thoughts I still had about surgery.

Sure would be helpful if this data didn't leave so much to the imagination...

That's actually a major problem in this information packet. It validated a lot of things we already guessed on SDN but also produced a lot of other questions.

It's main significance it smashes the notion that the COMLEX is enough.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Actually it's probably more due to the whole "every DO has a COMLEX score, so it's 100x easier to chart out the match tables" thing. They'd have to create an entire second set of tables that would be incomplete, it would suck.

It wouldn't be that difficult. They just need to put another match to no match bar and say "no USMLE taken" or "score unknown" like they did for IA in the pervious charting outcomes. Yes there would be confounding even then.

 

[zero0]

That's actually a major problem in this information packet. It validated a lot of things we already guessed on SDN but also produced a lot of other questions.

It's main significance it smashes the notion that the COMLEX is enough.

Yes, hooray for learning things we already know.

From what I gather, surgery is tough but everything else is attainable, although don’t count on matching at a quality program. Still, it’s relatively safe to say from looking at this that if you want radiology and have the COMLEX for it, you’ll be a radiologist… Or maybe not because as it’s been said, this data is completely useless without telling us if they at least took the USMLE, much less the score.

Whatever I’m just glad DOs were included, but somebody really should tell them all this labor basically amounts to no meaningful conclusions whatsoever without USMLE data behind it.

 

[IslandStyle808]

EM & Gen Surgery seem to be pretty competitive matches for DOs.

Rads & Gas has enough community programs to essentially match plenty of DOs.

PM&R, Path, Psych have very weird data.

Some elaborations I've kinda made up using some anecodtal data.
1. COMLEX score is probably proportional to USMLE score and that those with under 500s are not likely taking USMLE.
2. Going off of 1 and completely pulling this out of my ass, but a 550 probably is proportional to a 220-225 on the usmle.
3. Probably over 50% of the people who applied have a USMLE. Ppl who matched have a higher rate of having USMLE scores.
4. Since the average Matched student has a 566 ( Avg that year was 520-530) they probably have on average a 220-230 on the usmle. The average unmatched is at 520 ( These students likely either have no USMLE or lower usmle than those who matched.
5. We can probably say a few things like for example EM as a specialty being very USMLE favoring. And that DOs with average comlex or no usmle will likely not have high success in matching.



In conclusion we pretty much learned nothing that we didn't already really know.

Right, but now people on SDN will not equate competitiveness to selectivity (in terms of DO bias) as much as they used to. I kind of got sick of people grouping PM&R, Path, and Psych into the "DO friendly category."

Even though PM&R, Psych, and Path have a 77%, 77%, and 82% percent match rate. In terms of DO preference it is still PM&R (97%) > Psych (68%) > Path (67%) when looking at the often ranked category. The data is a bit weird, but now if you see DOs being "often ranked" but with a first desired speciality match rate on the "low side," there is a strong preference for DOs. Well, of course this is not a definite method for detecting DO bias, but it is something.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Right, but now people on SDN will not equate competitiveness to selectivity (in terms of DO bias) as much as they used to. I kind of got sick of people grouping PM&R, Path, and Psych into the "DO friendly category."

Even though PM&R, Psych, and Path have a 77%, 77%, and 82% percent match rate. In terms of DO preference it is still PM&R (97%) > Psych (68%) > Path (67%) when looking at the often ranked category. The data is a bit weird, but now if you see DOs being "often ranked" but with a first desired speciality match rate on the "low side," there is a strong preference for DOs. Well, of course this is not a definite method for detecting DO bias, but it is something.

Competitiveness of who and selectivity of what?

.... what? elaborate more on this.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Competitiveness of who and selectivity of what?

.... what? elaborate more on this.

If I were to put it more simply:

Competitiveness = the amount of spots per applicants

Selectivity (in term of DO preference) = the amount of programs that look at DOs strongly


The first desired speciality shows how competitive it is, but alone it doesn't necessarily show how DO friendly a field is. PM&R has a match rate of 77%, so most people would think it is not friendly to DOs. However, 97% of programs often rank DOs. So yes it is DO friendly but it is just tough to match into. Psych has a match rate of 77% also, and a person could mistakenly think this means it is just as DO friendly as PM&R. However, only 67% of programs often rank DOs. This means that PM&R is more DO friendly than Psych because even though they have the same match rate, they don't have the same percentage of consideration between program.

Now if Psych's match rate stay the same (77%) but the programs that often rank DOs goes up to 80%. This means that psych has become more DO friendly. This is what I mean (there will be confounders).

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

If I were to put it more simply:

Competitiveness = the amount of spots per applicants

Selectivity (in term of DO preference) = the amount of programs that look at DOs strongly


The first desired speciality shows how competitive it is, but alone it doesn't necessarily show how DO friendly a field is. PM&R has a match rate of 77%, so most people would think it is not friendly to DOs. However, 97% of programs often rank DOs. So yes it is DO friendly but it is just tough to match into. Psych has a match rate of 77% also, and a person could mistakenly think this means it is just as DO friendly as PM&R. However, only 67% of programs often rank DOs. This means that PM&R is more DO friendly than Psych because even though they have the same match rate, they don't have the same percentage of consideration between program.

Now if Psych's match rate stay the same (77%) but the program that often rank DOs goes up to 80%. This means that psych has become more DO friendly. This is what I mean (there will be confounders).

This makes more sense, thank you. I'm still somewhat confounded at seemingly an almost preference for IMGs over DOs in psych though if this data is to be viewed as lacking confounds.

 

[IslandStyle808]

This makes more sense, thank you. I'm still somewhat confounded at seemingly an almost preference for IMGs over DOs in psych though if this data is to be viewed as lacking confounds.

You have a point. Based on the PD survey and the charting outcome, we seem kind of even in Psych (there this big balancing act going on in my head). Although DOs are more often ranked, this "consideration" is most likely due to the fact that DOs have better applications than U.S. foreign graduates.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

You have a point. Based on the PD survey and the charting outcome, we seem kind of even in Psych (there this big balancing act going on in my head). Although DOs are more often ranked, this "consideration" is most likely due to the fact that DOs have better applications than U.S. foreign graduates.

Shrugs, I guess it explains why even the people in the psych forum aren't too sure about matching for DOs. In either case I'm curious how many people soaped into psych tho.

 

[songl4a]

rip do acgme gs aspirations.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

My take on the data from this report is:

1) The DO route is much safer than attending a foreign medical school if you want to match practice in the US
2) It is very clear that going the DO route puts you at a great disadvantage for matching surgical subspecialties. Therefore, if you are a surgery-or-bust pre-med, you should do whatever it takes to attend a USMD school.
3) The majority of DO applicants that participated in the NRMP match have above average COMLEX score. The two-match system is still causing a lot of DOs (especially those with sub 500 COMLEX) to settle for AOA spots instead of risking their chance of matching by participating in the NRMP match.
4) More interviews = higher chance at matching. This is very obvious from looking at the contiguous ranks curve. However, in order to have more interviews, one needs to apply widely and wisely. I don't care how impressive your resume is, you still need to apply to good number of safety-net programs to ensure that you match.
5) Despite of what people say, board scores remain the number one factor that determine your likelihood of matching. Look at the data for GS. Although the overall match rate is 50%, having a score above 600 on COMLEX will give you 74% chance of matching. That's a 50% increase of odds purely based on COMLEX-1 score.
6) There's almost no correlation between having research/publications/volunteering/etc... and matching. Remember, the places that heavily emphasis research are places that aren't DO-friendly. I'm not saying don't do research; it's always better to have that box checked on your application than not. However, don't spread yourself too thin. Passing your courses and getting a good boards score should be your priority.
7) Don't apply to fields you are not genuinely interested in pursuing. There's a reason why DOs are matching Radiology and Anesthesiology at higher rates than Psychiatry and PMR.

 

[jonpalnile]

Could you guys comment on the number of research experiences? I thought that research wasnt important in specialties like EM, but according to the data (pg 40) only 38 people that matched into EM has 0 research experience...?

Also, I thought that volunteering in med school wasn't a big deal, but it seems that most specialties have an average of ~4 volunteering experiences?

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

My take on the data from this report is:

1) The DO route is much safer than attending a foreign medical school if you want to match practice in the US
2) It is very clear that going the DO route puts you at a great disadvantage for matching surgical subspecialties. Therefore, if you are a surgery-or-bust pre-med, you should do whatever it takes to attend a USMD school.
3) The majority of DO applicants that participated in the NRMP match have above average COMLEX score. The two-match system is still causing a lot of DOs (especially those with sub 500 COMLEX) to settle for AOA spots instead of risking their chance of matching by participating in the NRMP match.
4) More interviews = higher chance at matching. This is very obvious from looking at the contiguous ranks curve. However, in order to have more interviews, one needs to apply widely and wisely. I don't care how impressive your resume is, you still need to apply to good number of safety-net programs to ensure that you match.
5) Despite of what people say, board scores remain the number one factor that determine your likelihood of matching. Look at the data for GS. Although the overall match rate is 50%, having a score above 600 on COMLEX will give you 74% chance of matching. That's a 50% increase of odds purely based on COMLEX-1 score.
6) There's almost no correlation between having research/publications/volunteering/etc... and matching. Remember, the places that heavily emphasis research are places that aren't DO-friendly. I'm not saying don't do research; it's always better to have that box checked on your application than not. However, don't spread yourself too thin. Passing your courses and getting a good boards score should be your priority.
7) Don't apply to fields you are not genuinely interested in pursuing. There's a reason why DOs are matching Radiology and Anesthesiology at higher rates than Psychiatry and PMR.

Is it not possible that many DOs were aiming for an AOA spot (perhaps competitive) and did not interview at many ACGME programs? It seems like a lot of the reason for not matching stems from having 4 or less contiguous ranks. Perhaps these were applicants who were using these programs as back ups anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Postictal Raiden]

Could you guys comment on the number of research experiences? I thought that research wasnt important in specialties like EM, but according to the data (pg 40) only 38 people that matched into EM has 0 research experience...?

Also, I thought that volunteering in med school wasn't a big deal, but it seems that most specialties have an average of ~4 volunteering experiences?

I think you are misinterpreting the data. Yes, it is true than only 38 people matched EM had zero research, but only 44 applicants had no research. So 38/44 = 86%. Compare that to those applicants with 5+ research (38/60 = 63%). You can clearly see that there's no correlation.

 

[Rekt]

Could you guys comment on the number of research experiences? I thought that research wasnt important in specialties like EM, but according to the data (pg 40) only 38 people that matched into EM has 0 research experience...?

Also, I thought that volunteering in med school wasn't a big deal, but it seems that most specialties have an average of ~4 volunteering experiences?

Most importantly, from the Allo thread, they said these numbers are self-reported. So it asks for you to tally them.

Remember that it says research "experiences". Maybe someone does a single poster, but presents at 2-3 conferences, that would be 3-4 experiences. Or maybe someone does an abstract, then presents it as a poster at multiple places, that's easily 4-5, etc.

As for volunteering. People are probably including the time they sprayed the homeless guy down with a hose.

 

[AMEHigh]

Could you guys comment on the number of research experiences? I thought that research wasnt important in specialties like EM, but according to the data (pg 40) only 38 people that matched into EM has 0 research experience...?

Also, I thought that volunteering in med school wasn't a big deal, but it seems that most specialties have an average of ~4 volunteering experiences?

Not everything that everyone does is for a check box in to bettering your resume or applying to residency program.

I did a lot of volunteering during med school (and continue to do so now as a resident) because I enjoy it and like to do things outside of the hospital.

The same goes for research. Many people don't know which specific specialty they want to do first year but they still do some sort of research because they enjoy it and hope it will be helpful in the future.

Just because something isn't the top reason you will get in to a residency program doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue that activity.

 

[zero0]

Not everything that everyone does is for a check box in to bettering your resume or applying to residency program.

I did a lot of volunteering during med school (and continue to do so now as a resident) because I enjoy it and like to do things outside of the hospital.

The same goes for research. Many people don't know which specific specialty they want to do first year but they still do some sort of research because they enjoy it and hope it will be helpful in the future.

Just because something isn't the top reason you will get in to a residency program doesn't mean you shouldn't pursue that activity.

Aren't a lot of these self-reported volunteering, research, and work experiences from undergrad/gap years anyway? I find it hard to believe that people are finding time in med school to have multiple work experiences.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

Is it not possible that many DOs were aiming for an AOA spot (perhaps competitive) and did not interview at many ACGME programs? It seems like a lot of the reason for not matching stems from having 4 or less contiguous ranks. Perhaps these were applicants who were using these programs as back ups anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Yeah, that's possible too. That's why I feel the two-match system is doing more damage than good. Competitive DO applicants apply for, say AOA ortho, and ACGME EM as their "back up". If they don't match AOA ortho, and hadn't put sufficient planning and energy into the ACGME EM application, they end up being at a great risk of not matching EM either.

 

[Brorthopedic]

Yeah I don't get it either, I barely have time to take a **** let alone work

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Yeah, that's possible too. That's why I feel the two-match system is doing more damage than good. Competitive DO applicants apply for, say AOA ortho, and ACGME EM as their "back up". If they don't match AOA ortho, and hadn't put sufficient planning and energy into the ACGME EM application, they end up being at a great risk of not matching EM either.

There are honestly just a lot of issues with DO matchings. Whether it's poor advisors which are at newer schools and have no idea about ACGME matching, to school leaders or AOA leaders telling you to just take the COMLEX, or in general the fact that we have a disadvantageous system that basically makes it fundamentally harder for DOs to match ( Whether internal or external) it just ends up making DOs do a lot worse than they would otherwise if they were in MD programs.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

There are honestly just a lot of issues with DO matchings. Whether it's poor advisors which are at newer schools and have no idea about ACGME matching, to school leaders or AOA leaders telling you to just take the COMLEX, or in general the fact that we have a disadvantageous system that basically makes it fundamentally harder for DOs to match ( Whether internal or external) it just ends up making DOs do a lot worse than they would otherwise if they were in MD programs.

Totally agree. An advisor at some DO school told my friend that his average USMLE and COMLEX scores weren't good enough for Neuro or Psych and that his only safe options were Path or FM. Another advisor said that having a barely passing USMLE score (as low as 193) is better than having an average COMLEX score without a USMLE score.

 

[hallowmann]

My take on the data from this report is:

1) The DO route is much safer than attending a foreign medical school if you want to match practice in the US
2) It is very clear that going the DO route puts you at a great disadvantage for matching surgical subspecialties. Therefore, if you are a surgery-or-bust pre-med, you should do whatever it takes to attend a USMD school.
3) The majority of DO applicants that participated in the NRMP match have above average COMLEX score. The two-match system is still causing a lot of DOs (especially those with sub 500 COMLEX) to settle for AOA spots instead of risking their chance of matching by participating in the NRMP match.
4) More interviews = higher chance at matching. This is very obvious from looking at the contiguous ranks curve. However, in order to have more interviews, one needs to apply widely and wisely. I don't care how impressive your resume is, you still need to apply to good number of safety-net programs to ensure that you match.
5) Despite of what people say, board scores remain the number one factor that determine your likelihood of matching. Look at the data for GS. Although the overall match rate is 50%, having a score above 600 on COMLEX will give you 74% chance of matching. That's a 50% increase of odds purely based on COMLEX-1 score.
6) There's almost no correlation between having research/publications/volunteering/etc... and matching. Remember, the places that heavily emphasis research are places that aren't DO-friendly. I'm not saying don't do research; it's always better to have that box checked on your application than not. However, don't spread yourself too thin. Passing your courses and getting a good boards score should be your priority.
7) Don't apply to fields you are not genuinely interested in pursuing. There's a reason why DOs are matching Radiology and Anesthesiology at higher rates than Psychiatry and PMR.

By far the most accurate conclusions from the data.

Aren't a lot of these self-reported volunteering, research, and work experiences from undergrad/gap years anyway? I find it hard to believe that people are finding time in med school to have multiple work experiences.

Yeah, this is usually all experiences on the ERAS, which includes undergrad and since. I have a ton of experiences in mine because I'm a non-trad and did a lot in between. I only have 3 or 4 experiences from med school, all either volunteering or research.

Totally agree. An advisor at some DO school told my friend that his average USMLE and COMLEX scores weren't good enough for Neuro or Psych and that his only safe options were Path or FM. Another advisor said that having a barely passing USMLE score (as low as 193) is better than having an average COMLEX score without a USMLE score.

We have terrible career advising from the school. Sometimes it's from people who were never in the match or haven't been in it for decades. Its also not standardized and almost impossible to get real advice.

All my friends at MD schools actually have excellent advising, they're matched with mentors, they meet with their home specialty PDs and go through their apps one by one, are told definitely apply to X, Y, Z program, these ones will give you interviews, etc.

 

[IslandStyle808]

There are honestly just a lot of issues with DO matchings. Whether it's poor advisors which are at newer schools and have no idea about ACGME matching, to school leaders or AOA leaders telling you to just take the COMLEX, or in general the fact that we have a disadvantageous system that basically makes it fundamentally harder for DOs to match ( Whether internal or external) it just ends up making DOs do a lot worse than they would otherwise if they were in MD programs.

Can't really make that conclusion. There are also poor advisors at older schools. I attend a newer school and my advisor was perviously faculty member of a school 10+ years old (yes this school matched well). Really depends on the faculty member and how much time they took to understand the process.

 

[AMEHigh]

Aren't a lot of these self-reported volunteering, research, and work experiences from undergrad/gap years anyway? I find it hard to believe that people are finding time in med school to have multiple work experiences.

Yes everything you put on ERAS is self reported, just like a resume, except for your grades and board scores. So of course people could lie, but we were advised to put things on ERAS like you would on a resume that were from medical school. It would be kind of laughable if someone put they volunteered in a hospital when they were an undergraduate student.

Sure school takes up a lot of time, but it really isn't that difficult to get in some research and volunteering over 3 years before submitting ERAS. If you literally have zero free time then you're probably doing studying wrong and need to get a mentor to help you out. I personally enjoyed doing things outside of school and continue to do so during residency. It's all about a balance for me (and my friends who also were involved in extracurricular activities throughout med school).