The Caribbean Residency Question

[apoptos]

I often hear that Caribbean students are at a greater disadvantage with regard to getting the more competitive residencies, and that therefore Caribbean schools should be considered a "last resort". Can anyone really quantify how much more difficult it is to get the residency of your choice coming from the Caribbean? I'm frustrated by the lack of feedback from Carribean students and grads - where are you? Too busy or frustrated to join SDN, settle the question once and for all, and make this post a sticky?


IF YOU ARE A CARIBBEAN GRAD:

1). Did you or any of your classmates end up with a residency that you didn't want? Are you subsequently practicing a form of medicine you find uninteresting?
2). Can you tell us any personal stories about the pitfalls or prejudice a Carribean student faces and how best to avoid it?
3). Do you think the situation for Caribbean students will improve at all in the coming years?
4). Do you regret your choice to attend a Caribbean school?

IF YOU ARE A CARIBBEAN STUDENT:

1). What do your profs and advisors tell you about how best to get the residency of your choice as a Caribbean student?
2). How tangible is the "worry" about this issue amongst your classmates?
3). Do you have any reason regret your choice to attend a Caribbean school instead of putting a few more years toward US MD/DO?

Naturally these questions are open to any adcoms and profs... please! Thanks in advance.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Shinken]

I often hear that Caribbean students are at a greater disadvantage with regard to getting the more competitive residencies, and that therefore Caribbean schools should be considered a "last resort". Can anyone really quantify how much more difficult it is to get the residency of your choice coming from the Caribbean?

The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates is the organization in the US that provides foreign medical graduates with certification needed in order to participate in the Match. According to their 2007 Fact Card, you have about a 46%-50% chance of matching as a foreign medical graduate.

In other words, flip a coin. Heads, you match. Tails, you scramble. If you're really good and lucky, you might get a position outside the match (not sure if those are reflected in the percentage reported by the ECFMG).

http://www.ecfmg.org/cert/factcard.pdf

 

[oldpro]

The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates is the organization in the US that provides foreign medical graduates with certification needed in order to participate in the Match. According to their 2007 Fact Card, you have about a 46%-50% chance of matching as a foreign medical graduate.

In other words, flip a coin. Heads, you match. Tails, you scramble. If you're really good and lucky, you might get a position outside the match (not sure if those are reflected in the percentage reported by the ECFMG).

http://www.ecfmg.org/cert/factcard.pdf

Well this is not 100% true, a Caribbean grad does not have to participate in the Match as it is required for a US Grad.

You can also get the Job, The Residency by interviewing outside the Match and up to 30% do this so that makes the Caribbean / FMG grads 70 to 80% possibility, there is no known stats on this. (Yes 80% may be a stretch but since there is not good study out there this is a guess and 20% is still a lot not to get a residency that means for every 1000 grads from all the Caribbean schools that 200 do not get a residency every year, so where are the 1000 plus grads from just the 5 years? why are they so silent? Common sense I think, tells you that most end up in some residency)

So, this is thrown around all the time and I have to tell you if thousands of FMG's / Caribbean grads could not get a residency where is the outcry? How come only these few keep coming on here and post these statements. (Honestly I think I have only read 3 posts from FMG/ Caribbean grads in the last 3 years who could not get a residency hardly such a large stat!) The ones who seem to post this stuff is US premeds and a few US medstudents


As far as do you get the residency you want, no you may not / be able to get it, but US grads do not always get what they want also.

 

[apoptos]

...................

 

[oldpro]

Now if you don't match - what does that mean? Does this mean you delay your residency and do nothing for year, then try again the following year?

Yes, some go around networking and trying for the outside the match residencies, I knew a few who did it last year. It's not as bad as posted at times. A few do give up but from what I hear it's not that bad.

I will admit this is anecdotal information I do not have all th proof I would like but I have a out of the match residency promise my self at the moment.

 

[Shinken]

Now if you don't match - what does that mean? Does this mean you delay your residency and do nothing for year, then try again the following year?

Yes, if you don't match you can scramble. If you're unsuccessful in the scramble then you have to try again the following year.

 

[Shinken]

Wait, I just got the latest issue of The New Physician from AMSA. On page 5 under "The Matching Game" they have another piece of information that you might find useful, apoptos. I quote:

"Even the most competitive specialties admitted well over half of their US applicants. Among US medical graduates, 61% of those who preferred dermatology matched in the specialty, while 99% of those preferring family medicine got in there. The numbers for independent applicants (graduates from non-US allopathic schools) were lower: 40% and 48%, respectively. Plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery were least likely to accept interested independent applicants."

More food for thought. Family medicine, considered to be the easiest, least competitive residency to match into only enjoyed 48% success for independent applicants such as IMGs.

I've provided data from the ECFMG and from AMSA (which got its data from the NRMP). You decide what to do. I encourage you to research your options on reputable websites such as the ECFMG, NRMP, AMA, etc. ValueMD and SDN, although useful many times, shouldn't be relied on for unbiased, truthful statistics and information.

 

[oldpro]

Wait, I just got the latest issue of The New Physician from AMSA. On page 5 under "The Matching Game" they have another piece of information that you might find useful, apoptos. I quote:

"Even the most competitive specialties admitted well over half of their US applicants. Among US medical graduates, 61% of those who preferred dermatology matched in the specialty, while 99% of those preferring family medicine got in there. The numbers for independent applicants (graduates from non-US allopathic schools) were lower: 40% and 48%, respectively. Plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery were least likely to accept interested independent applicants."

See this info is flawed, If only over half were US applicants then who are the other applicants? These sources seem to only get the info from the "MATCH" only and not from other sources, it seems to dig further the reality comes out that the programs do acquire residents from other sources then the Match. If not then the statement would say "over 90%", "most" or "All"("Even the most competitive specialties admitted well over half of their US applicants.")

 

[oldpro]

Yes, if you don't match you can scramble. If you're unsuccessful in the scramble then you have to try again the following year.

Yes this is true the Scramble, but theres outside the match too.

 

[oldpro]

IF YOU ARE A CARIBBEAN STUDENT:

1). What do your profs and advisors tell you about how best to get the residency of your choice as a Caribbean student?
2). How tangible is the "worry" about this issue amongst your classmates?
3). Do you have any reason regret your choice to attend a Caribbean school instead of putting a few more years toward US MD/DO?

Naturally these questions are open to any adcoms and profs... please! Thanks in advance.

No I do not regret, If I did not go to a Caribbean school I would not be in clinicals at the moment, I would have been studying for the MCAT now after struggling with undergrad/post bac combo to redo most of my old undergrad, (I'm an RN of 19 years so my undergrad was really too old without redo)

For me the Caribbean was a way to study medicine without redoing what had been done and not having a good way to pay for it with full time work. I did not have to take the MCAT for my school, the MCAT is not taken by anyone but US students anyway and is a pure gatekeeping test.
I was able to get loans for school and I did well. Not all will though and you have to understand this takes dedication.

 

[McGillGrad]

If you are worried about matching coming from a Carib school, then don't go because you do not have the confidence or fortitude necessary to make it.

You can always try to be a second rate physician's assistant (or the equivalent i.e. DO). DO schools accept just about anyone with a pulse, and since DO's do very badly on the USMLE, they have their own residencies to keep them afloat.

 

[McGillGrad]

1). You will get the residency you earn with your USMLE scores and LOR from your clinical rotations. The majority earn primary care and a minority earn competitive specialties. The same thing as most US med schools.

2). Those who worry are the ones who are failing out.

3). There are a few categories of students.

They are:

a). Those who should not be in med school
b). those who started med school later in life after another career
c). Those who belong in US med schools, but for some reason had no choice except Carib med school to get a MD

Unless you are sure that you are in the 3rd category, you should think long and hard before taking out $250,000 to start med school.

IF YOU ARE A CARIBBEAN STUDENT:

1). What do your profs and advisors tell you about how best to get the residency of your choice as a Caribbean student?
2). How tangible is the "worry" about this issue amongst your classmates?
3). Do you have any reason regret your choice to attend a Caribbean school instead of putting a few more years toward US MD/DO?

Naturally these questions are open to any adcoms and profs... please! Thanks in advance.

 

[oldpro]

If you are worried about matching coming from a Carib school, then don't go because you do not have the confidence or fortitude necessary to make it.

You can always try to be a second rate physician's assistant (or the equivalent i.e. DO). DO schools accept just about anyone with a pulse, and since DO's do very badly on the USMLE, they have their own residencies to keep them afloat.

OMG McGill.................................

 

[McGillGrad]

OMG McGill.................................

Why the shock? I thought we were using arbitrary stats to slander, like Shinkle.

DO students do just as bad as all FMGs on the USMLE (statistically 73% and 68%, respectively).

http://www.usmle.org/Scores_Transcripts/performance/2006.html

 

[apoptos]

...................

 

[oldpro]

Why the shock? I thought we were using arbitrary stats to slander, like Shinkle.

DO students do just as bad as all FMGs on the USMLE (statistically 73% and 68%, respectively).

http://www.usmle.org/Scores_Transcripts/performance/2006.html

Oh ok watch it though he may put you on the ignor list too, so soon he will only read his own posts.

 

[oldpro]

Thanks for your help guys.

For the record I would fall into category b., 'those who started med school later in life after another career.'

Well its up to you, you are an intelligent person I would think, look at the info and use common sense and then go in the direction you think is best for you.

I did and for better or worse I do not regret it.

 

[tkim]

Why the shock? I thought we were using arbitrary stats to slander, like Shinkle.

DO students do just as bad as all FMGs on the USMLE (statistically 73% and 68%, respectively).

http://www.usmle.org/Scores_Transcripts/performance/2006.html

I'm looking at that site - where are you getting those numbers?

---

TABLE 1 - 2005-2006 STEP 1 ADMINISTRATIONS
Number Tested and Percent Passing
2005 2006*
#Tested %Passing #Tested %Passing
Examinees from US/Canadian Schools that Grant
MD Degree 18,290 92% 18,167 93%
1st Takers 16,799 94% 16,818 95%
Repeaters** 1,491 65% 1,349 67%
DO Degree 1,331 73% 1,325 76%
1st Takers 1,265 73% 1,258 77%
Repeaters** 66 53% 67 52%
Total US/Canadian 19,621 90% 19,492 92%
Examinees from Non-US/Canadian Schools
1st Takers 13,488 68% 14,585 71%
Repeaters** 5,911 39% 6,017 39%
Total non-US/Canadian 19,399 59% 20,602 61%
* Represents data for examinees tested in 2005 and reported through February 7, 2007.
** 'Repeaters' represents examinations given, not number of different examinees.

Step 2 CK

TABLE 2A - 2004-2006 STEP 2 CK ADMINISTRATIONS
Number Tested and Percent Passing
2004-2005* 2005-2006*
#Tested %Passing #Tested %Passing
Examinees from US/Canadian Schools that Grant
MD Degree 17,803 93% 17,714 93%
1st Takers 16,447 94% 16,493 95%
Repeaters** 1,356 69% 1,221 72%
DO Degree 399 85% 453 80%
1st Takers 386 85% 439 80%
Repeaters** 13 62% 14 57%
Total US/Canadian 18,202 92% 18,167 93%
Examinees from Non-US/Canadian Schools
1st Takers 10,355 77% 11,305 77%
Repeaters** 3,470 50% 3,557 71%
Total non-US/Canadian 13,825 71% 14,862 71%

TABLE 2B - 2004-2006 STEP 2 CS ADMINISTRATIONS
Number Tested and Percent Passing
2004-2005* 2005-2006**
#Tested %Passing #Tested %Passing
Examinees from US/Canadian Schools that Grant
MD Degree 16,124 96% 16,936 98%
1st Takers 15,814 96% 16,611 98%
Repeaters† 310 96% 325 97%
DO Degree 31 87% 28 89%
1st Takers 31 87% 27 89%
Repeaters† 0 N/A 1 ***
Total US/Canadian 16,155 96% 16,964 98%
Examinees from Non-US/Canadian Schools
1st Takers 12,708 83% 13,235 85%
Repeaters† 973 83% 1,875 81%
Total non-US/Canadian 13,681 83% 15,110 84%

TABLE 3 - 2005-2006 STEP 3 ADMINISTRATIONS
Number Tested and Percent Passing
2005 2006*
#Tested %Passing #Tested %Passing
Examinees from US/Canadian Schools that Grant
MD Degree 16,934 94% 17,427 94%
1st Takers 15,868 96% 16,395 96%
Repeaters** 1,066 69% 1,032 70%
DO Degree 58 95% 34 97%
1st Takers 54 94% 32 97%
Repeaters** 4 † 2 †
Total US/Canadian 16,992 94% 17,461 94%
Examinees from Non-US/Canadian Schools
1st Takers 8,307 75% 9,003 75%
Repeaters** 3,712 52% 3,471 56%
Total non-US/Canadian 12,019 68% 12,474 70%

---

Several points: the sample size for DO test-takers get smaller with each step, which could explain why there was a higher percentage of passing scores for Step III takers - compared to even USMD takers.

That rationale can also go with USDO versus non USMD, since it lumps all non-USMD - not just carib USIMGs.

 

[McGillGrad]

The 2005 data that I linked you.

This is for first time takers of step 1 in 2005.

I'm looking at that site - where are you getting those numbers?

---

 

[tkim]

The 2005 data that I linked you.

This is for first time takers of step 1 in 2005.
---

Okay, I see it now. Just curious why you picked those specific stats, as they are now two years old, and not the most recent.

 

[Meatwad]

See this info is flawed, If only over half were US applicants then who are the other applicants? These sources seem to only get the info from the "MATCH" only and not from other sources, it seems to dig further the reality comes out that the programs do acquire residents from other sources then the Match. If not then the statement would say "over 90%", "most" or "All"("Even the most competitive specialties admitted well over half of their US applicants.")

What do you mean by this? By saying derm only admits 50% of the US grads that apply, it just means it's hard to get into, not that 50% are US MD and 50% are IMG/DO. It is most likely that there are 300 spots, for example, with 600 US MDs applying; 50%, or 300 US MDs, get in and fill all those spots (with a few IMGs/DOs getting spots as well). Or did you mean something else

 

[McGillGrad]

Okay, I see it now. Just curious why you picked those specific stats, as they are now two years old, and not the most recent.

Okay, take the 2006 numbers. They are 77% and 71% for DO and IMG, respectively. Once again, not significantly different statistically speaking.

 

[tkim]

Okay, take the 2006 numbers. They are 77% and 71% for DO and IMG, respectively. Once again, not significantly different statistically speaking.

I'm sorry, but since I'm not a stats-minded person, could you explain to me how you determined that the 6% difference in passing rate was or was not 'significantly different statistically speaking'?

 

[McGillGrad]

Using the US MD score and the two others to create a mean, the standard deviation is roughly 12 points. So unless the DO score was 12 points or above, it is not statistically significant.

Yes, it is a ghetto method, but the numbers have not varied that much over the years and using more examples would yield a similar result.

I'm sorry, but since I'm not a stats-minded person, could you explain to me how you determined that the 6% difference in passing rate was or was not 'significantly different statistically speaking'?

 

[tkim]

Using the US MD score and the two others to create a mean, the standard deviation is roughly 12 points. So unless the DO score was 12 points or above, it is not statistically significant.

Yes, it is a ghetto method, but the numbers have not varied that much over the years and using more examples would yield a similar result.

Is it really that simple? I thought in order for something to be statistically significant, a p value of <0.5 had to be achieved. In addition, that a hypothesis and null hypothesis had to be stated, an alpha level calculated, then a chi or T-test applied to the data.

I'm no statistics whiz, which is why I'm trying to learn more about it, but your methodology seems too simplistic - I say this because I can actually follow it.

There's got to be more to it than that.

 

[McGillGrad]

Yeah, I'm not about to break out a chart to prove something that is logically apparent to anyone who can do basic math. But if someone wants to prove me wrong, please go ahead because I am not saying that I am 100% right.

If US MDs score in the mid 90 percentiles consistently, then people who score in the 60s-70s are significantly inferior. That is a range of about 20-25 points. Obviously, 5-7 points is within error range if 20-25 points is the reference point.

Is it really that simple? I thought in order for something to be statistically significant, a p value of <0.5 had to be achieved. In addition, that a hypothesis and null hypothesis had to be stated, an alpha level calculated, then a chi or T-test applied to the data.

I'm no statistics whiz, which is why I'm trying to learn more about it, but your methodology seems too simplistic - I say this because I can actually follow it.

There's got to be more to it than that.

 

[apoptos]

Putting aside DOs for a minute to ask:

Given that their curriculum is the same, why do FMGs have lower passing rates than US MDs at all?

 

[oldpro]

Putting aside DOs for a minute to ask:

Given that their curriculum is the same, why do FMGs have lower passing rates than US MDs at all?

Oh my this has been answered 1000 times over,

In a way its simply down to 3 things

1. They are not as prepared at times as they should be for the test.
2. They went to school, passed by either the school or cheating
3. Some, english is not the first language

 

[McGillGrad]

You are looking at the stats for ALL FMGs. This includes all foreign medical graduates around the world. Caribbean FMGs, are mostly US and Canadian citizens who were educated in the US or Canada. Not only that, but Caribbean FMGs are usually trained in US hospitals. The match rate for the Caribbean FMGs is definitely not as low as other FMGs. In fact, I would wager that they are hovering around the 70-80% mark. Somewhat similar to DO students.

On the other hand, the rest of the FMGs study medicine in non-English countries where there is zero focus on the USMLE. In addition, these people are trained in foreign hospitals and are usually older applicants. So, in review, when you have a non-USMLE focused education in a non-English country and you are older, it is obvious that you will probably not do as well as younger people, who go to school in the US or Canada and are trained in US hospitals.

Putting aside DOs for a minute to ask:

Given that their curriculum is the same, why do FMGs have lower passing rates than US MDs at all?

 

[tkim]

Yeah, I'm not about to break out a chart to prove something that is logically apparent to anyone who can do basic math. But if someone wants to prove me wrong, please go ahead because I am not saying that I am 100% right.

Insult aside, it is *not* logically apparent, and your non-response to my asking about p value, alpha, and chi and t-test simply demonstrate that you are out of your depth. It's really up to no one to prove that you are wrong, since it's your claim that the 6% difference is not 'statistically significant'. If you want to use terms like that you better back it up with more than calculating a mean from three variables and using one standard deviation. That's like writing your thesis in crayon and telling people that you aren't going to explain how to color. Absolute BS.

Besides, you gave yourself the intellectually dishonest out - 'I am not saying that I am 100% right.' What does that mean - that you might only be partially right? Are you right or not?

If US MDs score in the mid 90 percentiles consistently, then people who score in the 60s-70s are significantly inferior. That is a range of about 20-25 points. Obviously, 5-7 points is within error range if 20-25 points is the reference point.

If you still refering to the USMLE passing rates, make note that it isn't individuals or group that score in the 90's, 60's,and 70's - they're passage rates. In other words, passing by at least the minimum score. You knew that - right?

 

[Shinken]

I'm sorry, but since I'm not a stats-minded person, could you explain to me how you determined that the 6% difference in passing rate was or was not 'significantly different statistically speaking'?

Another way that I like to use to "analyze" the numbers in a non-statistical way is to look at the actual number of people.

For the 2005-2006 USMLE pool: 1,258 DOs had a pass rate of 77%. For non-US takers, 14,585 FMGs had a pass rate of 71%.

So, basically about 3/4 of 1,200 DOs passed, but slightly less than 3/4 of 14,500 FMGs did. Someone not paying attention to the number of people taking the test might look at it as a small difference of 5 or 6% points, but that difference would truly be small if the pool of test takers was the same, but it isn't. FMG test takers were roughly 12x the number of DO test takers.

OK, my head hurts now. If I'm not making sense I apologize.

 

[McGillGrad]

Or how about considering that DO's must be really bad at the USMLE because FMGs who speak English as a second language managed only a few points less than American citizens on an English exam. Says a lot about the intelligence of DOs.

Another way that I like to use to "analyze" the numbers in a non-statistical way is to look at the actual number of people.

For the 2005-2006 USMLE pool: 1,258 DOs had a pass rate of 77%. For non-US takers, 14,585 FMGs had a pass rate of 71%.

So, basically about 3/4 of 1,200 DOs passed, but slightly less than 3/4 of 14,500 FMGs did. Someone not paying attention to the number of people taking the test might look at it as a small difference of 5 or 6% points, but that difference would truly be small if the pool of test takers was the same, but it isn't. FMG test takers were roughly 12x the number of DO test takers.

 

[McGillGrad]

Insult aside, it is *not* logically apparent, and your non-response to my asking about p value, alpha, and chi and t-test simply demonstrate that you are out of your depth. It's really up to no one to prove that you are wrong, since it's your claim that the 6% difference is not 'statistically significant'. If you want to use terms like that you better back it up with more than calculating a mean from three variables and using one standard deviation. That's like writing your thesis in crayon and telling people that you aren't going to explain how to color. Absolute BS.

It is only an insult if you assumed that I was talking to you, which says a lot about how you see yourself. I was speaking in generalities.

Please refrain from throwing around loaded phrases such as "out of depth" because you are the one has yet to use statistical analysis to prove my statement wrong/right.

I used the formula for standard deviation to prove my statement. If you're not happy with that then use another formula, but do not have the gall to tell me that I cannot use a standard formula to prove my statement without countering it with your own statistical formulae.

Besides, you gave yourself the intellectually dishonest out - 'I am not saying that I am 100% right.' What does that mean - that you might only be partially right? Are you right or not?

It means that as far as I know, I am right. Nothing is ever 100% or did you miss that day in statistics, too?

If you still refering to the USMLE passing rates, make note that it isn't individuals or group that score in the 90's, 60's,and 70's - they're passage rates. In other words, passing by at least the minimum score. You knew that - right?

You can try to erect strawmen all you want, but you are better off sticking to the point of this discussion.

 

[Shinken]

Putting aside DOs for a minute to ask:

Given that their curriculum is the same, why do FMGs have lower passing rates than US MDs at all?

I think the answer to that question coming from anyone would be mainly based on conjecture and opinion.

 

[Shah_Patel_PT]

If you are worried about matching coming from a Carib school, then don't go because you do not have the confidence or fortitude necessary to make it.

You can always try to be a second rate physician's assistant (or the equivalent i.e. DO). DO schools accept just about anyone with a pulse, and since DO's do very badly on the USMLE, they have their own residencies to keep them afloat.

 

[tkim]

It is only an insult if you assumed that I was talking to you, which says a lot about how you see yourself. I was speaking in generalities.

Please refrain from throwing around loaded phrases such as "out of depth" because you are the one has yet to use statistical analysis to prove my statement wrong/right.

I used the formula for standard deviation to prove my statement. If you're not happy with that then use another formula, but do not have the gall to tell me that I cannot use a standard formula to prove my statement without countering it with your own statistical formulae.

It means that as far as I know, I am right. Nothing is ever 100% or did you miss that day in statistics, too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Could you point out where it mentions standard deviation in the calculation of 'statistical significance'?

That's the definition of statistical significance. It's an accepted model, with standard calculations. Please show me where calculating the mean of three values and deriving a standard deviation is *anywhere* equivalent. It's not. The fact that you can continue to hold such a simple and quite honestly non-relevant numbers, shows me how dishonest you are with yourself. I have no idea how to go about calculating statistical significance, I'm honest enough with myself to admit that. But I know that to call something statistically significant or not requires at the very least, a p-value. Do you have one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

Could you point out where it mentions standard deviation in the calculation of 'statistical significance'?

You can try to erect strawmen all you want, but you are better off sticking to the point of this discussion.

I would ask that you do the same. Your statement:

If US MDs score in the mid 90 percentiles consistently, then people who score in the 60s-70s are significantly inferior. That is a range of about 20-25 points. Obviously, 5-7 points is within error range if 20-25 points is the reference point.

What does this have to do with the passage rates we are discussing?

 

[tkim]

Oh my this has been answered 1000 times over,

In a way its simply down to 3 things

1. They are not as prepared at times as they should be for the test.
2. They went to school, passed by either the school or cheating
3. Some, english is not the first language

On the other hand, the rest of the FMGs study medicine in non-English countries where there is zero focus on the USMLE. In addition, these people are trained in foreign hospitals and are usually older applicants. So, in review, when you have a non-USMLE focused education in a non-English country and you are older, it is obvious that you will probably not do as well as younger people, who go to school in the US or Canada and are trained in US hospitals.

Or how about considering that DO's must be really bad at the USMLE because FMGs who speak English as a second language managed only a few points less than American citizens on an English exam. Says a lot about the intelligence of DOs.

http://www.usmle.org/Scores_Transcripts/performance/2002.html

TABLE 1 - 2001-2002 STEP 1 ADMINISTRATIONS
Number Tested and Percent Passing
2001 2002*
#Tested %Passing #Tested %Passing
Examinees from US/Canadian Schools that Grant
MD Degree 18,380 88% 18,505 88%
1st Takers 16,368 91% 16,420 92%
Repeaters** 2,012 58% 2,085 59%
DO Degree 774 69% 949 67%
1st Takers 723 72% 892 70%

http://www.naahp.org/resources_ForeignMed_Article.htm

Interestingly, U.S. citizens who registered with the ECFMG actually had lower USMLE pass rates, 42% for Step1 and 68% for Step 2, than non-citizens, 59% for Step 1 and a 75% for Step 2.

http://www.ecfmg.org/annuals/2002/certmse.html#ex1

 

[oldpro]

You want to discuss 2002 data? this is 2007, that was 5 years ago.

 

[tkim]

You want to discuss 2002 data? this is 2007, that was 5 years ago.

It's the only data set available on the ECFMG website. Can you provide more recent data?

 

[McGillGrad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Could you point out where it mentions standard deviation in the calculation of 'statistical significance'?

Statistically significant means that it is not random. If the standard deviation (meaning, measure of randomness) is more than the difference between two values then it is random and is not necessarily a proven pattern. I don't know how to simplify that further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

Could you point out where it mentions standard deviation in the calculation of 'statistical significance'?

"Standard deviation may serve as a measure of uncertainty. In physical science for example, the reported standard deviation of a group of repeated measurements should give the precision of those measurements. When deciding whether measurements agree with a theoretical prediction, the standard deviation of those measurements is of crucial importance: if the mean of the measurements is too far away from the prediction (with the distance measured in standard deviations), then we consider the measurements as contradicting the prediction. This makes sense since they fall outside the range of values that could reasonably be expected to occur if the prediction were correct and the standard deviation appropriately quantified. "

What does this have to do with the passage rates we are discussing?

It is apparent that you are avoiding the issue and nitpicking superfluous details. We are discussing the first time pass rates of each population. What do YOU think we are discussing?

 

[McGillGrad]

It's the only data set available on the ECFMG website. Can you provide more recent data?

Here is the 2005, 2006 and 2007 match data for IMGs. Also the Step pass levels.

Took me 1 minute to find.

http://www.ecfmg.org/cert/factcard.pdf

 

[McGillGrad]

You want to discuss 2002 data? this is 2007, that was 5 years ago.

It's 70% for 2006.

This should quiet the peanut gallery.

 

[tkim]

It's 70% for 2006.

This should quiet the peanut gallery.

Doesn't break it down by US versus non-US test-takers, last data avail was 2002, which was the point. Unless you have that, the only complete data we have is from 2002 which shows that the order of passing rates was DO > non-US FMG > US FMG.

I'm sure things have changed in the past 5 years, we just don't know how. Do you?

 

[McGillGrad]

Doesn't break it down by US versus non-US test-takers, last data avail was 2002, which was the point. Unless you have that, the only complete data we have is from 2002 which shows that the order of passing rates was DO > non-US FMG > US FMG.

I'm sure things have changed in the past 5 years, we just don't know how. Do you?

What is the point that you are trying to make? Do you want to hear that DO's consistently have higher rates of passing? Obviously, that is the case. Do DO students have an advantage when it comes to the Match? Yes, they do.

Would I go to a DO school if I were American? No.

FMG pass rates are not the same as Top-4 Caribbean school pass rates so there is no way to compare.

 

[tkim]

What is the point that you are trying to make?

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=5786328&postcount=37

Just refuting some of the meaner things you say. That's all. When you make those offhand and derogatory comments, I try to provide info contrary. Simple.

 

[McGillGrad]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=5786328&postcount=37

Just refuting some of the meaner things you say. That's all. When you make those offhand and derogatory comments, I try to provide info contrary. Simple.

If you couldn't tell that I was being facetious, then you need to grow a funny bone.

People say that Carib students are somehow inferior. The same thing is said about DO students. The DO students are some of the worst when it comes to busting on Carib students. Its like the DO's are the dirt-poor redneck and the Carib students are the black people. The mindset is as follows: no matter how much crap the DO gets in life, at least he isn't a Carib student.

I don't care because I don't define myself by MD or DO or where I went to school. I just like to mess with people that actually do care

 

[JoeNamaMD]

If you are worried about matching coming from a Carib school, then don't go because you do not have the confidence or fortitude necessary to make it.

You can always try to be a second rate physician's assistant (or the equivalent i.e. DO). DO schools accept just about anyone with a pulse, and since DO's do very badly on the USMLE, they have their own residencies to keep them afloat.

Absolute nonsense, DO schools have real admission standards, and are backed by real universities. Virtually every DO school is a part of a major research school and they all have plenty of applications. The Federal loan limit for DOs is double that for the three Caribbean schools that qualify for Stafford loans.

 

[McGillGrad]

Sweetheart, read all of the posts before you bust your load all over the computer screen.

I have never seen any work as hard as you to look like an assclown.

Absolute nonsense, DO schools have real admission standards, and are backed by real universities. Virtually every DO school is a part of a major research school and they all have plenty of applications. The Federal loan limit for DOs is double that for the three Caribbean schools that qualify for Stafford loans.

 

[Shah_Patel_PT]

Absolute nonsense, DO schools have real admission standards, and are backed by real universities. Virtually every DO school is a part of a major research school and they all have plenty of applications. The Federal loan limit for DOs is double that for the three Caribbean schools that qualify for Stafford loans.

Loan limits have nothing to do with academics...it's entirely a political/financial issue.

 

[oldpro]

Loan limits have nothing to do with academics...it's entirely a political/financial issue.

How Much are they talking about? 60k a year? How much because if the loans are double then does it cost 300k to go DO then? I would like to know because I have never heard of this? I thought the Federal loan limits where the same once approved for such.

YES this so off topic the topic was residencies.