One school only placed 91.91% of grads into residency

[Osminog]

I don't wanna name names or start speculatin' and whatnot, but William Carey.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[W19]

The placement rate is in link of the first post of this thread. Some could even argue that it is a direct topic of this thread. It is 98.11%.

Sorry! I missed it..... Still 92% is not horrific.

 

[W19]

It’s 92% including all the people who SOAP’ed, Scramble, and begged/borrowed/stole to get placed well after match week. In my class, that would be 24 students lol.

I know but it is still 92%... Not saying it is great!

 

[Cath Up]

AACOM's de-identified school numbers are a count in order for the 2016 list. Here is 2017's: https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-...ements-in-2017-matches.pdf?sfvrsn=cb502d97_10, which is not in order, like the 2018 list.

That means there could be 3 years of data for each de-identified school, so we could identify them. Maybe they change each COM's numerical assignment each year though. But I doubt it.

 

[Mrose85]

AACOM's de-identified school numbers are a count in order for the 2016 list. Here is 2017's: https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-...ements-in-2017-matches.pdf?sfvrsn=cb502d97_10, which is not in order, like the 2018 list.

That means there could be 3 years of data for each de-identified school, so we could identify them. Maybe they change each COM's numerical assignment each year though. But I doubt it.

Maybe if we call AACOM they'll tell us the secret code? Sadly, each of these reports was posted mid-April, so the numbers provided by schools on their websites might vary from what they initially send to AACOM around that time. Thoughts?

 

[radkat101]

Agree. For my class it would be something like TWENTY FIVE people not being placed(when historically it's been between zero and maybe two or three at worst). I know a couple of well-qualified people who went matchless this year and I can't even imagine what they're going through.

Agreed. An okay placement rate is still terrible. Sure it's better than having no job I guess, but even having to SOAP/scramble for a spot is devastating and more than enough to make most of those students regret going to medical school. I never had enough appreciation for how much it truly sucks until watching classmates go through it, and imagining myself having to do the same. 92% placement is seriously horrifying, and I'd find another career before taking that risk.

 

[el_duderino]

Isn't the placement rate 97% this year? So 92% is not great, but it's not horrific.

In a class of 150, that's a difference between 12 and 3 people not placing.

That's nine more people not matching from a single average-sized class. Or four times as many people failing to match. My school (which, to be fair, isn't DO) had one guy not match, and it was a shock. I can't even fathom twelve people from my class failing to place.

If you exclude the bottom 1-2 DO programs, it looks like the average placement rate is more like 99%, meaning that this program has eight times more students fail to match than the average class. For a class of 200, that's 16 failed placements compared to an average of 2.

 

[Cath Up]

Maybe if we call AACOM they'll tell us the secret code? Sadly, each of these reports was posted mid-April, so the numbers provided by schools on their websites might vary from what they initially send to AACOM around that time. Thoughts?

Maybe. I encourage anyone other than me to call them.

I can confirm with some confidence that COM numerical IDs stay the same across years. I'll hopefully be able to get a partial key going but it will take a lot of sleuthing. I have identified 1 school so far, and it is no the 92% school. Anyone else is welcome to beat me to the rest.

I have 2016 data for a COM, and their % matched/placed AOA adds up to the 2016 AACOM report. The 2016, 2017, and 2018 overall placement rate for that school are identical to what is on the AACOM reports 2016-2018.

 

[Meekor]

Maybe. I encourage anyone other than me to call them.

I can confirm with some confidence that COM numerical IDs stay the same across years. I'll hopefully be able to get a partial key going but it will take a lot of sleuthing. I have identified 1 school so far, and it is no the 92% school. Anyone else is welcome to beat me to the rest.

I have 2016 data for a COM, and their % matched/placed AOA adds up to the 2016 AACOM report. The 2016, 2017, and 2018 overall placement rate for that school are identical to #9 on the AACOM reports 2016-2018.

Goddamn I hope you’re a fourth year with too much time on their hands before residency starts lmao

 

[CoomassieBlue57]

Alright, I'm in. Is there a 2015? Or are we working with 2016-2018?

 

[Cath Up]

Goddamn I hope you’re a fourth year with too much time on their hands before residency starts lmao

Accepted but haven't started. Technically, I shouldn't even be in this thread.

Alright, I'm in. Is there a 2015? Or are we working with 2016-2018?

I only see the 2016,
https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/data-and-trends/2016-match-report.pdf?sfvrsn=c4f55f97_20
2017,
https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-...ements-in-2017-matches.pdf?sfvrsn=cb502d97_10
and 2018 https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-...rt-2018-final-apr162018.pdf?sfvrsn=5e1f2597_2
data.

 

[radkat101]

Goddamn I hope you’re a fourth year with too much time on their hands before residency starts lmao

Or a pre-med hoping it's not the school that just accepted them.

 

[Cath Up]

Or a pre-med hoping it's not the school that just accepted them.

Closer to reality but I know my acceptances hold good match rates and placements. I'm surprised no one else in that group is figuring it out because that is about the strongest incentive there is.

Mainly, this is a fun puzzle (who knows if I will feel up to it later though) and it feels nice to increase transparency.

 

[Lawpy]

Question: will DO expansion continue to occur even despite some schools having terrible placement rates?

 

[BorntobeDO?]

Question: will DO expansion continue to occur even despite some schools having terrible placement rates?

Lol you know the answer, if individual students are constantly blamed for any shortcoming, I am sure the same circular reasoning will be applied to the low colleges. "Oh I don't know what THOSE colleges have wrong with them, but I assure you our school is top notch and includes admins/deans who formerly worked at successful schools like RPC-COM of TBD"

 

[Stagg737]

I'm not nearly as savvy as some on here with this stuff but my initial impression is clearly DO students are clearly embracing the impending merger - good for them.

I wonder if some schools are still adamantly pushing their students to apply strictly AOA. I had an interview last year at a school where I brought up the topic to see what their thoughts were and how they were preparing students for the upcoming merger and they were repulsed at the fact that I brought it up - especially when I asked about their stance on COMLEX vs. USMLE. I won't say what school it was but they seemed pretty dug into their ways.

If a DO school is still advocating the AOA match to incoming students, that should be a huge red flag about the school right there since AOA programs won't be a thing by the time you're applying. Imo, DO schools should also be encouraging all of their students who they feel can pass USMLE to take it. Imo there are only two reasons to encourage only taking Level 1 to students. The first being if they are struggling so badly that they believe the student will fail. The second being if it's a mil-med student who knows they are only applying to the military match (as the military match has a strange point system that makes taking USMLE completely unnecessary and even detrimental to DO students).

Maybe Pikeville had it right giving their students time off for step 2 and PE after all.

There was a very good reason for that which I won't get into further, but I'm sure you can guess why they would need to do that...

MD student, but our school has a 98.7% match rate but I believe pre-SOAP it’s in the lower 90s or even upper 80s.

There are quite a few MD schools with match rates in the low 90's and 80's. Match rate =/= placement rate though (match rate is how many people actually match, placement rate is how many people land a residency position after SOAP), and a placement rate in the low 90s or 80s is a very bad sign.

Maybe it wasn’t a typo! Maybe it took so long because the residencies considered strangulation a red flag. It’s the 21st century ya know. Lay off the stranglers PD’s. I’m sure they make great pathologists.

FTFY

I’m a tad perplexed about KCU’s placement and list this year. There were some phenomenal matches don’t get me wrong, but this is the first time in awhile that the match list hasn’t been posted almost immediately after match day. Makes me wonder if they’re holding off to see if students could SOAP into spots before publishing the placement % or if something else is the reason...

I could 100% be wrong and they just haven’t gotten around to posting it, but has me wondering.

I'm hoping that it's the latter, but am also worried that we had a bad year. I personally know 4 people who didn't match in my class, but thankfully I also know that 3 of them found positions in the SOAP, 2 in the field they were trying to enter. Idk about the 4th because they're in a different part of the country, but I'm hoping they found a spot because knowing them pretty well they definitely deserve it. I haven't seen any actual statistics about our match yet this year, but I would be very shocked to find out our placement rate was below 95%.

I know but it is still 92%... Not saying it is great!

Agreed. An okay placement rate is still terrible. Sure it's better than having no job I guess, but even having to SOAP/scramble for a spot is devastating and more than enough to make most of those students regret going to medical school. I never had enough appreciation for how much it truly sucks until watching classmates go through it, and imagining myself having to do the same. 92% placement is seriously horrifying, and I'd find another career before taking that risk.

In a class of 150, that's a difference between 12 and 3 people not placing.

That's nine more people not matching from a single average-sized class. Or four times as many people failing to match. My school (which, to be fair, isn't DO) had one guy not match, and it was a shock. I can't even fathom twelve people from my class failing to place.

If you exclude the bottom 1-2 DO programs, it looks like the average placement rate is more like 99%, meaning that this program has eight times more students fail to match than the average class. For a class of 200, that's 16 failed placements compared to an average of 2.

I agree that 92% is not a good match rate, and it's a much worse placement rate. That being said, if it's a 1 year thing I could look past it. Anomalies happen and occasionally some schools just have bad years. Sometimes it's due to large number of people shooting for unrealistic matches, sometimes a class is just worse than is usual, and sometimes the stars align and people just get unlucky. It's when stats like that start occurring over 2-3 or more years that it's a genuine problem, which is unfortunately true for some schools. So if I saw that a school typically had a match rate of 96% and placement rate of 99%, I wouldn't think much about them having one year where they were 5-7% lower in each of those areas. If they're regularly only placing 92% of their students, that's a different story...

 

[CoomassieBlue57]

Accepted but haven't started. Technically, I shouldn't even be in this thread.


I only see the 2016,
https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/data-and-trends/2016-match-report.pdf?sfvrsn=c4f55f97_20
2017,
https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-...ements-in-2017-matches.pdf?sfvrsn=cb502d97_10
and 2018 https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-...rt-2018-final-apr162018.pdf?sfvrsn=5e1f2597_2
data.

I tried to correlate the COM #'s with the placement rate at my school (which left me with #5, #9, and #16), then went to the 2016 placements to find the % with the Military/Other Combined %, but it didn't add up to the COM # with what should have been my school. I also tried the % of AOA and NRMP and it still didn't come out to the % from my school, so I don't know if the COM # is consistent each year.

 

[BorntobeDO?]

I tried to correlate the COM #'s with the placement rate at my school (which left me with #5, #9, and #16), then went to the 2016 placements to find the % with the Military/Other Combined %, but it didn't add up to the COM # with what should have been my school. I also tried the % of AOA and NRMP and it still didn't come out to the % from my school, so I don't know if the COM # is consistent each year.

Did you adjust for new schools?

 

[Scrubs101]

Following because this is better than most murder mysteries i've ever read.

Who will end up being the 92% placement rate school???? tune in next time on Investigator SDN.

My guess? It'll be a total plot twist, always is, maybe aacom just makes up numbers and throws them at a wall and whatever sticks gets put in the data set.

 

[Goro]

Question: will DO expansion continue to occur even despite some schools having terrible placement rates?

Oh, you know it will!

AOA: "More DOs good!"

 

[Stagg737]

Being a 4th year med student who is basically done, figuring out which school correlated to which numbers was going to be my pet project for the next week, but I think I already cracked the code...


So the 2016 AACOMAS data sheet found here: https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/data-and-trends/2016-match-report.pdf?sfvrsn=c4f55f97_20

is a little more detailed than the later reports. What I mean is that they not only include the overall match/placement rate, they also include the breakdowns for AOA, military, and ACGME matches. So what? Right? Well, if you wander over to the NMS match website, you can find this nifty little page: AOA Match Statistics

If you click on the 2016 link next to "summary by college", you get the data for the 2016 NMS match which includes the military match rates and NMS match rates for every COM that participated in the match that year. So we basically now have a method to potentially identify each number by school in the 2016 match report by comparing the AOA and militray match rates between documents. Using RVU as a starting point (they had the highest percent of military matches in 2016, so the easiest starting point), I looked at the data on their website (41.7% in AOA match, 13.9% in mil match, and 44.4% in MD match) and compared it to the data from the 2016 report. Lo and behold, the school number 11 on the 2016 report (42.1% AOA, 11.2% mil, 46.7% MD) lines up pretty closely to the data on their website and both sources report a 100% placement rate. Furthermore, when we compare it to the NMS data I found, school 11 once again lines up far more accurately with RVU's data (44.3% AOA, 10.1 mil) than any other school.

The only thing that doesn't seem immediately promising with this is that RVU reported a 100% placement rate in 2017 as well, while school 11 dropped down to a 99.52% placement rate. This could be discrepancies in reporting among sources, errors, or it could mean the numbers used as school identifiers change each year. I will continue to do some research and see if this method actually pans out for 2016 and then see if it I can figure out if the numbers remain the same or change from year to year over the next few days. Stay tuned to find out if this actually pans out!

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

I love you all


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[BorntobeDO?]

Being a 4th year med student who is basically done, figuring out which school correlated to which numbers was going to be my pet project for the next week, but I think I already cracked the code...


So the 2016 AACOMAS data sheet found here: https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/data-and-trends/2016-match-report.pdf?sfvrsn=c4f55f97_20

is a little more detailed than the later reports. What I mean is that they not include the overall match/placement rate, they also include the breakdowns for AOA, military, and ACGME matches. So what? Right? Well, if you wander over to the NMS match website, you can find this nifty little page: AOA Match Statistics

If you click on the 2016 link next to "summary by college", you get the data for the 2016 NMS match which includes the military match rates and NMS match rates for every COM that participated in the match that year. So we basically now have a method to potentially identify each number by school in the 2016 match report by comparing the AOA and militray match rates between documents. Using RVU as a starting point (they had the highest percent of military matches in 2016, so the easiest starting point), I looked at the data on their website (41.7% in AOA match, 13.9% in mil match, and 44.4% in MD match) and compared it to the data from the 2016 report. Lo and behold, the school number 11 on the 2016 report (42.1% AOA, 11.2% mil, 46.7% MD) lines up pretty closely to the data on their website and both sources report a 100% placement rate. Furthermore, when we compare it to the NMS data I found, school 11 once again lines up far more accurately with RVU's data (44.3% AOA, 10.1 mil) than any other school.

The only thing that doesn't seem immediately promising with this is that RVU reported a 100% placement rate in 2017 as well, while school 11 dropped down to a 99.52% placement rate. This could be discrepancies in reporting among sources, errors, or it could mean the numbers used as school identifiers change each year. I will continue to do some research and see if this method actually pans out for 2016 and then see if it I can figure out if the numbers remain the same or change from year to year over the next few days. Stay tuned to find out if this actually pans out!

Don't forget the extra colleges (ignore some of the green ones, some of those divisions aren't actually separate):

 

[LasuniGobi]

I tried to correlate the COM #'s with the placement rate at my school (which left me with #5, #9, and #16), then went to the 2016 placements to find the % with the Military/Other Combined %, but it didn't add up to the COM # with what should have been my school. I also tried the % of AOA and NRMP and it still didn't come out to the % from my school, so I don't know if the COM # is consistent each year.

Lmu-dcom's aoa and nrmp are within 1% of the pdfs for 2016 & total for 2017. #21 if they don't re-assign each year.
Postgraduate Placement Information - Lincoln Memorial University
The pdfs use April data, but the 2016 says there's a fall survey which could account for the discrepancy.

 

[Stagg737]

Following because this is better than most murder mysteries i've ever read.

Who will end up being the 92% placement rate school???? tune in next time on Investigator SDN.

My guess? It'll be a total plot twist, always is, maybe aacom just makes up numbers and throws them at a wall and whatever sticks gets put in the data set.

It may end up being a huge plot twist. If the numbers remain consistent with each new report, then the school which had the 91.9% placement rate (school 7) also had 100% placement rate the previous 2 years (which was true of only 8 schools). Meaning it's actually pretty likely that it's one of the more well-regarded schools. I'll be examining those 8 schools first, so stay tuned for the next episode of SDN Investagor!

 

[IMApplicant18]

MD student, but our school has a 98.7% match rate but I believe pre-SOAP it’s in the lower 90s or even upper 80s.

MD school with a <90% match rate??? That is by far the lowest I have seen.

 

[BorntobeDO?]

Lmu-dcom's aoa and nrmp are within 1% of the pdfs for 2016 & total for 2017. #21 if they don't re-assign each year.
Postgraduate Placement Information - Lincoln Memorial University
The pdfs use April data, but the 2016 says there's a fall survey which could account for the discrepancy.

They had 100% in 2017, so #21 wouldn't work for that year. I thought it might be 25 cause it works for both '16 and '17 (and they were the 25th school started). But now I am not sure.

I don't think the numbers are consistent year to year tho, it looks like the schools were numbered by their placement in 2016, whereas later years are sorted by their placement percentage.

 

[zero0]

CCOM = 100
NYITCOM > 99%
CUSOM = 100 (Campbell Medicine celebrates 2018 Residency Match | News | Campbell University)
LUCOM > 97.6% (Liberty University........College of Osteopathic Medicine holds 1st Match Day)
MUCOM = 97.4% (Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine students learn where they will begin their residencies)
RowanSOM > 97% (Graduating medical students celebrate Match Day)
DMU = 99.5% (Outcomes and Strategic Plans - Des Moines University)
ACOM = 99% (Alienman52)

Here's 8 so far. Please share if you have more.

Last I heard, everyone at LUCOM eventually found a spot except 2 people. They were offered intern spots but declined them for stupid/strange reasons.

LOL COCA doesn't care. Back when the overacceptance scandal happened Touro NY was put on probation for only 3 weeks. We got an email saying we were on probation and then, a month later, we were told the probation was lifted. Same thing will happen in this case if they even decide to do anything in the first place.

Sounds about right

 

[Mrose85]

Being a 4th year med student who is basically done, figuring out which school correlated to which numbers was going to be my pet project for the next week, but I think I already cracked the code...


So the 2016 AACOMAS data sheet found here: https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/data-and-trends/2016-match-report.pdf?sfvrsn=c4f55f97_20

is a little more detailed than the later reports. What I mean is that they not include the overall match/placement rate, they also include the breakdowns for AOA, military, and ACGME matches. So what? Right? Well, if you wander over to the NMS match website, you can find this nifty little page: AOA Match Statistics

If you click on the 2016 link next to "summary by college", you get the data for the 2016 NMS match which includes the military match rates and NMS match rates for every COM that participated in the match that year. So we basically now have a method to potentially identify each number by school in the 2016 match report by comparing the AOA and militray match rates between documents. Using RVU as a starting point (they had the highest percent of military matches in 2016, so the easiest starting point), I looked at the data on their website (41.7% in AOA match, 13.9% in mil match, and 44.4% in MD match) and compared it to the data from the 2016 report. Lo and behold, the school number 11 on the 2016 report (42.1% AOA, 11.2% mil, 46.7% MD) lines up pretty closely to the data on their website and both sources report a 100% placement rate. Furthermore, when we compare it to the NMS data I found, school 11 once again lines up far more accurately with RVU's data (44.3% AOA, 10.1 mil) than any other school.

The only thing that doesn't seem immediately promising with this is that RVU reported a 100% placement rate in 2017 as well, while school 11 dropped down to a 99.52% placement rate. This could be discrepancies in reporting among sources, errors, or it could mean the numbers used as school identifiers change each year. I will continue to do some research and see if this method actually pans out for 2016 and then see if it I can figure out if the numbers remain the same or change from year to year over the next few days. Stay tuned to find out if this actually pans out!

Amazing detective work...are you accounting for the fact that the Military Match placements are included in the Total Match from the above table?

 

[LasuniGobi]

They had 100% in 2017, so #21 wouldn't work for that year. And it looks like they were the 25th DO school according to my chart above.

I don't think the numbers are consisent year to year tho, it looks like the schools were numbered by their placement in 2016, whereas later years are sorted by their placement percentage.

True, but they put the 99.4% on the website vs 99.1% in 2016.

 

[BorntobeDO?]

True, but they put the 99.4% on the website vs 99.1% in 2016.

Website is updated as of August, all they had to do was find one more spot.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Seems like the sky isnt falling. Id be interested to see what those 11 students who didnt match picked as their placements. Prolly something unrealistic like Anesthesia, High powered IM, or any surgical specialty.

Seems like the schools that matched in the 95%+ had students going for Primary Care. Lots of FM and IM it looks like.

 

[Stagg737]

Lmu-dcom's aoa and nrmp are within 1% of the pdfs for 2016 & total for 2017. #21 if they don't re-assign each year.
Postgraduate Placement Information - Lincoln Memorial University
The pdfs use April data, but the 2016 says there's a fall survey which could account for the discrepancy.

Yes, but the LMU data from 2016 doesn't align with the 2016 NMS match data at all, which has made me realize a huge flaw in my method: The NMS data includes AOA match data while the AACOMAS report includes AOA match and placement data. So if someone applied to the ACGME match but ended up SOAPing into an AOA program, it would be included as AOA on the the AACOMAS reports but not the NMS reports. So I believe that invalidates my previous method. Code uncracked, back to more investigating...

MD school with a <90% match rate??? That is by far the lowest I have seen.

Then you're not looking very hard. Look at the bottom of page 7, under the topic "Today" in the following link. Howard reported that they had a 90% graduation rate and an 89% match rate and it literally took me 30 seconds to find that data: https://www.harrisandassociates.com/web/pdf/Howard_COM_Dean_profile_306.pdf

They had 100% in 2017, so #21 wouldn't work for that year. 25 is pretty close tho...

This is working under the assumption that the numbers remain the same from year to year (which I currently believe they do).

However, I think we're overthinking the numbers too much. For 2016, part of the ordering is obvious. It's ordered by rank percentages, this is obvious when looking at schools 19-29. The question is how did they determine the schools to be assigned numbers 1-18 which all had 100% placement. My guess is that it's just alphabetical. If we look at it that way and assume RVU is number 11, that means that means 7 of the 11 schools which come after RVU in the alphabet had a 100% rate while 10 of the 18 before it alphabetically had a 100% rate. Glancing at the schools that fall on each side I think that could be a very reasonable assumption. For 2017, it seems that the numbers may have stayed the same and that the new schools just got assigned numbers 30-32 based on their placement percentile (as 30 had a higher rate than 31 which had a higher rate than 32). 2018 gets weird and tricky, as they added numbers 33-37, but they don't have any discernable order (school 35 had the best placement percentage of the new schools).

So I think we can easily figure out which schools are 30-32 as well as 33-37 as they were the ones added that year (assuming the numbers don't change).

Id be interested to see what those 11 students who didnt match picked as their placements.

Typically whatever gets offered to them in their field if they get an offer in the first 2 days. Otherwise whatever they can get.

Edit: @Mrose85 , I did. I actually thought I had figured out a separate concrete rule to help determine data points, but the inclusion of military matches into that rate foiled that rule (didn't work for RVU or SOMA, both of which I think I've figured out).

 

[GypsyHummus]

I remember back in 2013 when about 20% of Pod students didnt get a residency, it led to the increase of residencies, and they put a moratorium on class size and new schools. I wonder if they same thing has to happen for DO schools to slow down growth.

 

[BorntobeDO?]

ATSU-KCOM is #10 on 2016 I think based on three year rolling average and military match: https://www.atsu.edu/kcom/prospective_students/documents/PostgraduatePositions2016.pdf
GA-PCOM is 13 in 2016 based on 0% milmatch and 'close' AOA (especially if you remove previous graduates) 2016 Summary by College

Anyone else notice that the current 'graduates' on the AOA page doesn't match with the schools 'eligible graduates.' Plus the whole previous graduate thing is very interesting. Makes it hard to translate the data.

For instances the 2018 summary by college lists 6644 'current graduates' 2018 Summary by College
but this page only lists 6350, https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-...rt-2018-final-apr162018.pdf?sfvrsn=5e1f2597_2
Are that many people getting rolled over each year?

 

[ButterButter]

Trying to catch up on this thread and thinking everyone’s gone manic.

 

[Cath Up]

ATSU-KCOM is #10 on 2016 I think based on three year rolling average and military match: https://www.atsu.edu/kcom/prospective_students/documents/PostgraduatePositions2016.pdf
GA-PCOM is 13 in 2016 based on 0% milmatch and 'close' AOA (especially if you remove previous graduates) 2016 Summary by College

Anyone else notice that the current 'graduates' on the AOA page doesn't match with the schools 'eligible graduates.' Plus the whole previous graduate thing is very interesting. Makes it hard to translate the data.

For instances the 2018 summary by college lists 6644 'current graduates' 2018 Summary by College
but this page only lists 6350, https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-...rt-2018-final-apr162018.pdf?sfvrsn=5e1f2597_2
Are that many people getting rolled over each year?

PNWU is #9 on the 2016 list based on the AOA match in their 2016 GME report: http://www.pnwu.edu/files/3814/9504/5554/PNWU_GME_Accountability_Report_AY2015-16.pdf

 

[deleted407021]

I’m too tired with boards to keep up. When someone figures it out, please just post it in bolded max font. Thx

 

[Solodyn]

The premise of attending an US-based Medical School is an implied promise that there will be a residency position available for you as a graduate, as long as you are not picky on the location/specialty/prestige. The selection priority of US residency programs runs like USMD>USDO>USIMG (Carribean) >FIMG. The government funding supports the preference for USMD and USDO.

This holds true because in the past there are lot more residency position than # of USMD grad and the excess was enough to accommodate the USDO and good portion of USIMG and some FIMGs. In addition, USDO get another ~3k positions in AOA Residencies, protected from USMD/USIMG/FIMG.

Now the ACGME "Merger" (read: Takeover) will shift 2k of AOA spot to ACGME and shut down 1K, this makes graduating DOs in precarious position. If a COM right now can place only 92% grad into residency, imagine the days the he USMD+USDO > Total residency slots in US.... being a DO Grad is really going o hurt then.

Right now it is looking like: Total Residency Positions in US - (USMD +USDO) = ~3000. In about 5 years of expansion, I venture to say that we will have "DO Apocalypse" (TM) (I am coining this term... it's mine!) That is when Being a DO Grad no longer can guarantee you a placement in a residency position simply because there is no longer enough. With USIMG and FIMG in the mix plus all the re-applicants... the "DO Apocalypse" (TM) may even be sooner than that!

When I was in medical school, the old joke that was passed around was "What Do They Call the Person Who Graduates Last in Medical School? A Doctor" That may no longer be the case if you are a DO. We have COCA to thank for that. But the AOA were able to escape from that responsibility by agreeing the ACGME merger. This allows for COCA to approve more school with impunity.

 

[Solodyn]

Sky is falling!!!!! Sky is falling !!!!

(There... I just pre-mocked myself to save you all the trouble)

 

[Stagg737]

ATSU-KCOM is #10 on 2016 I think based on three year rolling average and military match: https://www.atsu.edu/kcom/prospective_students/documents/PostgraduatePositions2016.pdf
GA-PCOM is 13 in 2016 based on 0% milmatch and 'close' AOA (especially if you remove previous graduates) 2016 Summary by College

I had them as either #28 or 29 when comparing the data from their website to the reports. Per their website, they had a 97% placement rate in 2016 and a 100% rate in 2017. The only schools that fit those numbers are 28 and 29. Also, Touro apparently also had 0 mil matches and their numbers are closer to number 13 than PCOM-GA. I honestly dk how accurate any of this data is anymore.

 

[Cath Up]

I don't think the identifiers are the same year to year. For example, LUCOM's first match was this year, and as far as I can tell their placement rate was 124/126, 98.41%. This corresponds to schools 28 or 20 on the 2018 list, which wouldn't make sense because LUCOM didn't produce a match in 2016 or 2017. That makes it more difficult.

 

[Alienman52]

CCOM = 100
NYITCOM > 99%
CUSOM = 100 (Campbell Medicine celebrates 2018 Residency Match | News | Campbell University)
LUCOM > 97.6% (Liberty University........College of Osteopathic Medicine holds 1st Match Day)
MUCOM = 97.4% (Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine students learn where they will begin their residencies)
RowanSOM > 97% (Graduating medical students celebrate Match Day)
DMU = 99.5% (Outcomes and Strategic Plans - Des Moines University)
ACOM = 99% (Alienman52)

Here's 8 so far. Please share if you have more.

Of course this is what our superiors have given us in terms of data. I can only go off of the data we were given. If anyone finds a more reliable source for ACOM, please do share.

 

[BorntobeDO?]

I don't think the identifiers are the same year to year. For example, LUCOM's first match was this year, and as far as I can tell their placement rate was 124/126, 98.41%. This corresponds to schools 28 or 20 on the 2018 list, which wouldn't make sense because LUCOM didn't produce a match in 2016 or 2017. That makes it more difficult.

I have concluded this as well. And as they say in stats, garbage in, garbage out. I think we would have a better chance of getting the names by emailing that guy in the top of the report at this point or going thru press release to see who doesn't brag. We can't even get 2016 for sure, and we have a lot more to go on there.

 

[BorntobeDO?]

Of course this is what our superiors have given us in terms of data. I can only go off of the data we were given. If anyone finds a more reliable source for ACOM, please do share.

I have noticed that the numbers I am told do not always match the numbers on the website, I am sure you have noticed this phenomena as well. As far as I can tell, match percentage reporting is not required. Which means the data we get from the schools is probably questionable. See my question earlier on 'eligible graduates.' Even the guy writing that report says he can't predict how many were eligible as numbers are fudged.

I am done with this for now, someone smarter than me can figure it out. Back to making up my own match percentages for RPC-COM. Did I mentioned we have prematched 100% of our students for the first 5 classes? Apply now!

 

[BorntobeDO?]

I had them as either #28 or 29 when comparing the data from their website to the reports. Per their website, they had a 97% placement rate in 2016 and a 100% rate in 2017. The only schools that fit those numbers are 28 and 29. Also, Touro apparently also had 0 mil matches and their numbers are closer to number 13 than PCOM-GA. I honestly dk how accurate any of this data is anymore.

It appears to be neither accurate nor precise. I saw the thing with Touro, I didn't have the answer there either. The whole AOA have different numbers of 'current' graduates has made this quite difficult. My principle on GA PCOM is that the AOA match was in the ballpark of possible for 2016, I couldn't find the overall match rate on them, so if you got that you did better than me.

ATSU-KCOM I am pretty sure is right, but only for 16. They actually brought their three year average up from 99.4 the prior year (2015) to 99.6 (2016), so I had to assume they got 100% in 2016. But they also didn't improve in 17, so it had to be near the 3 year average.

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

The premise of attending an US-based Medical School is an implied promise that there will be a residency position available for you as a graduate, as long as you are not picky on the location/specialty/prestige. The selection priority of US residency programs runs like USMD>USDO>USIMG (Carribean) >FIMG. The government funding supports the preference for USMD and USDO.

This holds true because in the past there are lot more residency position than # of USMD grad and the excess was enough to accommodate the USDO and good portion of USIMG and some FIMGs. In addition, USDO get another ~3k positions in AOA Residencies, protected from USMD/USIMG/FIMG.

Now the ACGME "Merger" (read: Takeover) will shift 2k of AOA spot to ACGME and shut down 1K, this makes graduating DOs in precarious position. If a COM right now can place only 92% grad into residency, imagine the days the he USMD+USDO > Total residency slots in US.... being a DO Grad is really going o hurt then.

Right now it is looking like: Total Residency Positions in US - (USMD +USDO) = ~3000. In about 5 years of expansion, I venture to say that we will have "DO Apocalypse" (TM) (I am coining this term... it's mine!) That is when Being a DO Grad no longer can guarantee you a placement in a residency position simply because there is no longer enough. With USIMG and FIMG in the mix plus all the re-applicants... the "DO Apocalypse" (TM) may even be sooner than that!

When I was in medical school, the old joke that was passed around was "What Do They Call the Person Who Graduates Last in Medical School? A Doctor" That may no longer be the case if you are a DO. We have COCA to thank for that. But the AOA were able to escape from that responsibility by agreeing the ACGME merger. This allows for COCA to approve more school with impunity.

Sadly, I believe this isn't 'the sky is falling' mentality, but simple deduction. Coin me a pessimist, but numbers and patterns don't lie. I plan on seeing DO match rates in the low 80's % starting 2020. Placement--who knows. But DOs sure as hell aren't going to be matching into the NRMP at anything higher than low 80s with all of these negative factors adding up. Time to accept the truth and work your ass off, essentially.

 

[ZezKaiEll]

Sadly, I believe this isn't 'the sky is falling' mentality, but simple deduction. Coin me a pessimist, but numbers and patterns don't lie. I plan on seeing DO match rates in the low 80's % starting 2020 2016. Placement--who knows. But DOs sure as hell aren't going to be matching into the NRMP at anything higher than low 80s with all of these negative factors adding up. Time to accept the truth and work your ass off, essentially.

FTFY.

 

[shadowlightfox]

Sorry! I missed it..... Still 92% is not horrific.

If you got a 85 on the exam, but the average was a 97, you can't claim you did well on the exam, even if 85 is not a horrific score.

 

[TattedMed]

If you got a 85 on the exam, but the average was a 97, you can't claim you did well on the exam, even if 85 is not a horrific score.

Uh.....wat...?