Unmatched c/o 2013 by School

[shadesofgrey]

It makes me worry when some are so quick to suggestions such as trashing residency requirements or lowering requirements of residency. You have to step back and realize you are (will be) taking care of people. Patient care shouldn't take a back seat to letting everyone who just wants to be a doctor do so. These would be a huge step backwards for us as a profession that would take a long time (if ever) to recover from the damage.

It stinks that there are not enough spots but dtrack22 hit the nail on the head. Get out and show the programs that you should be chosen as their resident. In my opinion, the mentality of "residency entitlement" is way off. No where in the terms of matriculation does it say one is guaranteed a residency.

I am in favor of the three year residency requirement if they can provide enough of them. However, it is a new requirement, and I am not sure you can suggest that going back to multiple residencies will suddenly lower the level of patient care (how many current pods don't have a 3 year residency?). Also it may not have said that a residency is guaranteed, but it was in some ways implied. How many of the schools boasted 100% residency placement? Where in the APMA videos did it describe any of this? I understand that I need to earn my spot, but frankly there aren't enough spots period. Everyone could work as hard as possible and someone is still going to get screwed.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dtrack22]

CPME sets caps based on too many factors to list.

The profession has not turned its back on 86 students. The various professional organizations have done everything they can to increase seats. To me, turning their backs implies that they have done nothing, which isn't the case. And that's besides the fact that over 30 of those 86 had an empty seat chosen over them when the time came for programs to select residents.

I need to go to the allo and osteo forums and see what they are all talking about because there were a lot more than 50 graduates that didn't get any sort of training last year. And they don't have the luxury of being uncapped in terms of # of positions and funding.

When it comes to podiatry, kids will still continue getting accepted without having taken the MCAT. They will still continue to apply and get acceptances in April, May and even June prior to matriculating in August. We will still have a 15-20% attrition rate. And even with a million spot surplus we will still have kids who don't get residency programs. If you haven't figured it out by now...welcome to Podiatry.

 

[jonod1107]

I am in favor of the three year residency requirement if they can provide enough of them. However, it is a new requirement, and I am not sure you can suggest that going back to multiple residencies will suddenly lower the level of patient care (how many current pods don't have a 3 year residency?). Also it may not have said that a residency is guaranteed, but it was in some ways implied. How many of the schools boasted 100% residency placement? Where in the APMA videos did it describe any of this? I understand that I need to earn my spot, but frankly there aren't enough spots period. Everyone could work as hard as possible and someone is still going to get screwed.

NY and DMU are the only school to have 100% res. match (I am 100% sure about NY, but not as sure about DMU but someone there did say that). Several students at both schools did scramble though.

Actually, a good amount of pods have 3 year residencies. Before the switch to all 3 years, the majority of res. were 3 years.

I personally feel lthat if we go back to less than 3 years, it will make the profession look shaky to potential residency programs and we will end up with even less residency spots.

 

[dtrack22]

However, it is a new requirement, and I am not sure you can suggest that going back to multiple residencies will suddenly lower the level of patient care (how many current pods don't have a 3 year residency?)

Can someone explain to me how allowing 2 year programs will increase the number of residency spots at a faster rate than 3 year programs are being added?

 

[ldsrmdude]

Can someone explain to me how allowing 2 year programs will increase the number of residency spots at a faster rate than 3 year programs are being added?

Or why everyone thinks that making 3 year residencies is the sole problem here? I hate to tell you, it's not and this problem was brewing long before 3 years of residency was required.

 

[dtrack22]

Or why everyone thinks that making 3 year residencies is the sole problem here? I hate to tell you, it's not and this problem was brewing long before 3 years of residency was required.

 

[dyk343]

nm

 

[zdlamkin8195]

CPME sets caps based on too many factors to list.

The profession has not turned its back on 86 students. The various professional organizations have done everything they can to increase seats. To me, turning their backs implies that they have done nothing, which isn't the case. And that's besides the fact that over 30 of those 86 had an empty seat chosen over them when the time came for programs to select residents.

I need to go to the allo and osteo forums and see what they are all talking about because there were a lot more than 50 graduates that didn't get any sort of training last year. And they don't have the luxury of being uncapped in terms of # of positions and funding.

When it comes to podiatry, kids will still continue getting accepted without having taken the MCAT. They will still continue to apply and get acceptances in April, May and even June prior to matriculating in August. We will still have a 15-20% attrition rate. And even with a million spot surplus we will still have kids who don't get residency programs. If you haven't figured it out by now...welcome to Podiatry.

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

Can someone explain to me how allowing 2 year programs will increase the number of residency spots at a faster rate than 3 year programs are being added?

I'm not sure if you're serious or not, and I know this has been addressed, but obviously the rational thing to conclude from an outside perspective is that 2 year residencies are cheaper and can accept 50% more students per year for the same cost a 3 year residency can.

Im given to understand now though that this has funding implications for 3 year residencies. That being said, it doesn't make the 2 year residencies more expensive, it just hurts the 3 year residencies.

Also, not sure how relevant it is to compare residency rates between MD/DO and DPM - they can practice without residency.

When I say "turn their back on..." I'm by no means suggesting they don't deserve it. But, we have to admit that those 86 graduates will probably never receive formal training. The likelihood of them reapplying next year and getting a spot while taking into consideration the class of 2014 numbers, is practically 0. The way things are going, these people will NEVER be able to practice even though they have met minimum requirements (and tbqh probably are more qualified at graduation than some of the practicing pods - read PM News this morning for a guy that blames podiatry profession for the death of his friend. In my opinion, it was completely his friends fault, and he probably shouldn't have been practicing at all if he couldn't even pass licensing exams... But at least he could TRY without a residency). All this being said, I realize it is 99% the unmatched graduates' fault. But I still use "turn their back on" because the profession is looking at these "qualified" graduates and instead of doing anything substantial to help THEM we have already discounted them and are trying to ease the problem for the 2014 class. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's wrong, but you have to admit there is little actionable sympathy from the profession leadership (maybe there shouldn't be, idk)

 

[heeltoe]

CPME sets caps based on too many factors to list.

The profession has not turned its back on 86 students. The various professional organizations have done everything they can to increase seats. To me, turning their backs implies that they have done nothing, which isn't the case. And that's besides the fact that over 30 of those 86 had an empty seat chosen over them when the time came for programs to select residents.

I need to go to the allo and osteo forums and see what they are all talking about because there were a lot more than 50 graduates that didn't get any sort of training last year. And they don't have the luxury of being uncapped in terms of # of positions and funding.

When it comes to podiatry, kids will still continue getting accepted without having taken the MCAT. They will still continue to apply and get acceptances in April, May and even June prior to matriculating in August. We will still have a 15-20% attrition rate. And even with a million spot surplus we will still have kids who don't get residency programs. If you haven't figured it out by now...welcome to Podiatry.

Can you explain about the 30 empty seats over the 86 unmatched? Any details on that are appreciated.

MD/DO have multiple options should they not get the residency of their choice. An unmatched student I know was told to go sell hot dogs or work at home depot. I feel ashmed to hear that treatment of one of my "colleagues". We all should (imo).

I am assuming that you are assuming that only lower tier students have gone unmatched which is simply not true. The entire spectrum of students have been affected. Once a student passes the requirements that are set out by the powers above there should be a residency spot waiting. If they are still considered "weak" then the requirements that are set out (school/boards) are the problem not the students. They went through the same system that everyone else did and passed just as everyone else did.

Going to a 2 year residency model (i am not in favor) would increase available spots as a result of fewer cases required per resident (if i understand correctly). Therefore essentially instantly increasing spots.

 

[shadesofgrey]

NY and DMU are the only school to have 100% res. match (I am 100% sure about NY, but not as sure about DMU but someone there did say that). Several students at both schools did scramble though.

Actually, a good amount of pods have 3 year residencies. Before the switch to all 3 years, the majority of res. were 3 years.

I personally feel lthat if we go back to less than 3 years, it will make the profession look shaky to potential residency programs and we will end up with even less residency spots.

Several schools, even after the final numbers were announced meaning they knew there would be a large shortage, claimed to have 100% residency placement (not just DMU or NY). However, I was trying to get across that the schools and the profession put fourth the impression that after school one gets a residency. Not that it becomes a tooth and nail fight to the death because 15% of the students are going to get the shaft.

Originally Posted by dtrack22
Can someone explain to me how allowing 2 year programs will increase the number of residency spots at a faster rate than 3 year programs are being added?

I am not saying it would. I am just responding to the common refrain that allowing a 2 year residency would be terrible for patients and that it would be a blow from which the profession could never recover. Clearly this is not true because the profession just made the switch...

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

You are probably under the impression I am an outspoken, ignorant fool - and perhaps you are right.

That being said however, I always think of the lurkers in SDN. There are a crap-ton of them. To be honest, 90% of the pre-pods are thinking exactly like I am. No one knows about GME funding or the difference between the APMA and the CPME and PMSR and any other 4-letter acronym. You can get excited at my posts or whatever you wanna call it, but at the end of the day you aren't just responding to me, you are responding to every pre-pod out there that searches "podiatry information" into Google. These pre-pods are coming to the fight with the same background knowledge I have (probably much less) and unless there is discussion about what solutions are occurring, etc etc, they are going to be immediately turned off by the field. That's the last thing I want: bright students not applying.

Personally, I probably couldnt
care less about this crisis. I'm a good student, I'm bright, I selected a good school, my mom tells me I'm handsome, and I realize that 99% of the reason those 86 unmatched didn't get a residency is their own fault. So, I'm not worried about this at all. But, I am worried about public perception of the field.

So basically I'm trying to say that my posts may be ignorant to those "in the know" but to the passerby, this crisis will be perceived differently. So you can complain about my fundamental lack of understanding on this issue, but realize that unless I or someone like me posts these things, no "accurate" information will be propagated to prospective students.

Posted using SDN Mobile

 

[dtrack22]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not, and I know this has been addressed, but obviously the rational thing to conclude from an outside perspective is that 2 year residencies are cheaper and can accept 50% more students per year for the same cost a 3 year residency can.

Im given to understand now though that this has funding implications for 3 year residencies. That being said, it doesn't make the 2 year residencies more expensive, it just hurts the 3 year residencies.

Sure, the up front cost for a single 2 year seat is (let's say) $200K and the 3 year program is $300K. But the hospital recoups that money once the first group graduates. Admin, Med ed, clinic/staff costs would be the same between the two models since they have to be in place for CPME approval. The reason Hospitals are saying "no" is not over the difference in up front costs of resident salary/benefits between 2 and 3 year programs. They are saying "no" to spending money on a new program, period. That $100K is not the deal breaker. And once you approve 2 year residencies, well over 500 seats just lost a significant chunk of funding for their programs. Nobody said 2 year programs wouldn't be less expensive, but the suggestion is that they'd solve the problem. So, my question stands. How would 2 year programs increase the number of spots at a faster rate than 3 year programs are currently being added?

Also, not sure how relevant it is to compare residency rates between MD/DO and DPM - they can practice without residency.

The MD state licensing boards require at least an internship year (1 year of residency), with many requiring more. You cannot be independently licensed without some sort of residency training. And last year there were graduates who did not even get a transitional year due to shortages in spots between the MD/DO graduates. So how is it not the same?

Can you explain about the 30 empty seats over the 86 unmatched? Any details on that are appreciated.

Sure. Of those 86 students, 35 were not 2013 graduates. They went through the process when there was NOT a shortage. In previous years programs have left seats empty. Every single one of those individuals had the chance to match when there were enough seats for the graduating class and they still didn't get a spot. What would opening up 500 more spots do for them now?

I am assuming that you are assuming that only lower tier students have gone unmatched which is simply not true. The entire spectrum of students have been affected. Once a student passes the requirements that are set out by the powers above there should be a residency spot waiting. If they are still considered "weak" then the requirements that are set out (school/boards) are the problem not the students. They went through the same system that everyone else did and passed just as everyone else did.

The word "only" makes your statement true. But if I said, "the cast majority" are lower tier, I would be correct. I agree that there should be a residency spot available for every student. That needs to be fixed. But the "they met all of the requirements, they should get a residency" has never been and may never be true. When you don't accept really strong candidates, you have to live with the fact that individuals will scrape by academically, pass a board exam that is only testing minimal competency, and then be rejected by residency directors who have higher standards. The residency program does not care that you graduated and passed boards, they care whether or not they can trust you with their own patient's safety. The Directors are the gatekeepers due to substandard admission requirements/policies. Again, that's podiatry and if you are just realizing that, I don't know what to tell you.

Going to a 2 year residency model (i am not in favor) would increase available spots as a result of fewer cases required per resident (if i understand correctly). Therefore essentially instantly increasing spots.

The current MAVs are based on old 2 year models. So, no.

These pre-pods are coming to the fight with the same background knowledge I have (probably much less) and unless there is discussion about what solutions are occurring, etc etc, they are going to be immediately turned off by the field. That's the last thing I want: bright students not applying

These doom and gloom posts have been on SDN for years. They were worse several years ago when Whiskers roamed free. Yet application #'s have increased every year. Why is that? Could it be that, like I said, pre-pods don't care and just want to try their hand at being a doctor? If pre-anything actually cared about exam pass rates, job placements, etc. law school wouldn't exist...

But, I am worried about public perception of the field.

The general public does not know that as podiatrists we aren't MD's. Nor do they know that there are 51 students who didn't get a residency this year. Medical professionals who work with us are only finally starting to understand that we our good at our jobs thanks to increasing and finally uniform residency standards. They don't know or care that there is a shortage. What are you worried about?

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

If you could post information or links to assist pre-pods and current students learn more about the topics discussed in this thread I think that would be beneficial for everyone. I too would like to read and learn more. You two obviously know more than the rest of us because you are both APMSA delegates

Did we just agree on something...???

 

[pod101]

Did we just agree on something...???

Forget that! Let us focus on something more important...

So dtrack22 vacations in Vegas eh?

 

[dyk343]

Personally, I probably couldnt
care less about this crisis. I'm a good student, I'm bright, I selected a good school, my mom tells me I'm handsome, and I realize that 99% of the reason those 86 unmatched didn't get a residency is their own fault. So, I'm not worried about this at all. But, I am worried about public perception of the field.

Please stop. It's getting painful to read. You clearly have no idea what the quality of applicants left without a residency is like.

 

[jonod1107]

Please explain why students in the bottom 20% of their class are getting residencies over some people in the top 20%.

Do you not know how the match works?

Student A ranks program 3, 2, 1
Student B ranks program 1,2,3
student C ranks program 3,2,1
Student D ranks program 3,2,1

program 1 ranks A, B, C, D
program 2 ranks students C,A,B D
program 3 ranks students D, B, C, A

The lower the total number, the better the match. So:

program 1 gets student B because they matched. student B=1, Program 1=2, total =3. (student A=3, Program 1=1, total 4)
program 2 gets student C because they matched. student C=2, Program 2=1, total =3. (student A=2, Program 2=2, total 4)
program 3 gets student D because they matched. student D=1, Program 3=1, total =2. (student A=1, Program 3=4, total 5)

Student A is out of luck because of bad matching order that didn't match up despite that program 1 ranked Student A higher than students B, C, D and program 2 ranked student A higher than students B and D. Student A has higher GPA and just as qualified as the other students.

Now you may wonder, well if student A is better than student B, C and D then why did program 3 rank student A the lowest? Who knows, maybe program 3 has ties to the other student's schools more. Maybe the program didn't think Student A was going to rank them very high and didn't want to waste a high rank on someone who they don't think they will get ( similar to applying to early decision for undergraduate college, you know it will give you a better chance of getting in compared to regular admission, but do you do the safe thing and use that one early decision to apply to a reach school or do you risk it by using it to apply to Yale?).

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

Do you not know how the match works?

Student A ranks program 3, 2, 1
Student B ranks program 1,2,3
student C ranks program 3,2,1
Student D ranks program 3,2,1

program 1 ranks A, B, C, D
program 2 ranks students C,A,B D
program 3 ranks students D, B, C, A

The lower the total number, the better the match. So:

program 1 gets student B because they matched. student B=1, Program 1=2, total =3. (student A=3, Program 1=1, total 4)
program 2 gets student C because they matched. student C=2, Program 2=1, total =3. (student A=2, Program 2=2, total 4)
program 3 gets student D because they matched. student D=1, Program 3=1, total =2. (student A=1, Program 3=4, total 5)

Student A is out of luck because of bad matching order that didn't match up despite that program 1 ranked Student A higher than students B, C, D and program 2 ranked student A higher than students B and D. Student A has higher GPA and just as qualified as the other students.

So the fact that pretty much every individual school has consistent residency placement through the years is irrelevant...?

 

[jonod1107]

So the fact that pretty much every individual school has consistent residency placement through the years is irrelevant...?

Not sure what you mean? Are you asking if a school's track record of residency placement doesn't matter? I'm not saying it doesn't matter, of course it matters. The example I used is that the match is based a bit on luck to have the match ranks add up. You can be in the top 50% of your class and do everything right but still slip through the crack. Now if in my example, there was a residency program 4, student A will still have a place to go.

 

[JEB88]

Not sure what you mean? Are you asking if a school's track record of residency placement doesn't matter? I'm not saying it doesn't matter, of course it matters. The example I used is that the match is based a bit on luck to have the match ranks add up. You can be in the top 50% of your class and do everything right but still slip through the crack. Now if in my example, there was a residency program 4, student A will still have a place to go.

Agreed! I know of a couple solid students who were in the middle to top half of their class and did not get a residency! You would have never guessed! A solid GPA and a great smile and clinical presence does not always equal residency...

 

[heeltoe]

The MD state licensing boards require at least an internship year (1 year of residency), with many requiring more. You cannot be independently licensed without some sort of residency training. And last year there were graduates who did not even get a transitional year due to shortages in spots between the MD/DO graduates. So how is it not the same?

Sure. Of those 86 students, 35 were not 2013 graduates. They went through the process when there was NOT a shortage. In previous years programs have left seats empty. Every single one of those individuals had the chance to match when there were enough seats for the graduating class and they still didn't get a spot. What would opening up 500 more spots do for them now?

The word "only" makes your statement true. But if I said, "the cast majority" are lower tier, I would be correct. I agree that there should be a residency spot available for every student. That needs to be fixed. But the "they met all of the requirements, they should get a residency" has never been and may never be true. When you don't accept really strong candidates, you have to live with the fact that individuals will scrape by academically, pass a board exam that is only testing minimal competency, and then be rejected by residency directors who have higher standards. The residency program does not care that you graduated and passed boards, they care whether or not they can trust you with their own patient's safety. The Directors are the gatekeepers due to substandard admission requirements/policies. Again, that's podiatry and if you are just realizing that, I don't know what to tell you.

The current MAVs are based on old 2 year models. So, no.

MD/Do have the option of research and pre-lim years among other options. Also I was under the impression that numerous spots went unfilled in specialties that are less desired. Perhaps I was misinformed. Regardless, their options seem a lot better than Home depot which is what our grads are being offered.

In regards to MAV I would assume that a 2 year model would drop the requirements even further. Neither of us is in support of this solution though.

You are assuming that the 35 students prior to 2013 were qualified or eligible to take a residency spot. If one had taken a year off for pregnancy for example or had failed boards they would not have been in the match prior to 2013. So opening 500 spots now would be of great benefit to them. For argument the more spots left open the better. I know a lot of people would have liked the variety of different programs to see what fit them best as opposed to getting whatever they can and being less than satisfied with the only training they could get. It puts the power back in the students hand which I am a fan of as opposed to the residency directors which is where it is now. I am also making assumptions here, but its important to note that.

Your assumptions continue, unless you have data that you are not sharing. I have met 4 unmatched individuals. One 4.0, two 3.0, and 1 2.0. In all honesty one of the 3.0 and the 2.0 should be able to get spots the other two (4.0 included) I have no problem seeing why they didnt get spots. From my tiny sample size these students cover the gpa range and not "cast majority" are bottom of the class. But perhaps you have a larger data sample from which you are basing your statements.

The job of the schools is to prepare the students they accept to become competent residents. This is what tuition is paid for. The board exams are to test the academic knowledge of the student to a standardized level. This is widely accepted and it is why we have these exams. If the schools are not doing that why are they in exsistance, why are they taking money, why are they allowed to continue? If the exams minimal competancy is a joke then again all of the above questions apply. We cant have these things, abide by them and then state they are substandard when it fits us best. It is unfair to take peoples money for 4 years "pass" them as being ready for residency and then say ooops sorry. I agree that residency directors should not take "weaker" candidates but the schools are massively at fault. A "Weaker" candidate should not ever pass clinical training through the college. Once the student goes through what is required they should have a spot somewhere. Period.

It is wrong when you or others say this is a job and hence it is the real world and not a given. That is simply not true. Residency training is required in order to get a job. Residency is not optional but rather a continuation of our education. I cant imagine passing "pod med 1" and then being told sorry you cant take "pod med 2" there arent enough seats in the class so you have to drop out as without pod med 2 you cant continue in the schooling process. That sounds absurd as does this residency = real world that people like to say. If residency was not required to practice then I would be in full agreement with you.

 

[heybrother]

I'm not saying Jonod is wrong, but I would be hesitant to put too much faith in anyone who isn't an expert on the topic of the match algorithm. If our match is anything like the NRMP match (http://www.nrmp.org/res_match/about_res/algorithms.html) then I'm not sure I would have drawn the same conclusion he drew. But again - I'm not an expert; however, we should all try and educate ourselves on how the mechanism works.

 

[shenanigans327]

MD/Do have the option of research and pre-lim years among other options. Also I was under the impression that numerous spots went unfilled in specialties that are less desired. Perhaps I was misinformed. Regardless, their options seem a lot better than Home depot which is what our grads are being offered.

In regards to MAV I would assume that a 2 year model would drop the requirements even further. Neither of us is in support of this solution though.

You are assuming that the 35 students prior to 2013 were qualified or eligible to take a residency spot. If one had taken a year off for pregnancy for example or had failed boards they would not have been in the match prior to 2013. So opening 500 spots now would be of great benefit to them. For argument the more spots left open the better. I know a lot of people would have liked the variety of different programs to see what fit them best as opposed to getting whatever they can and being less than satisfied with the only training they could get. It puts the power back in the students hand which I am a fan of as opposed to the residency directors which is where it is now. I am also making assumptions here, but its important to note that.

Your assumptions continue, unless you have data that you are not sharing. I have met 4 unmatched individuals. One 4.0, two 3.0, and 1 2.0. In all honesty one of the 3.0 and the 2.0 should be able to get spots the other two (4.0 included) I have no problem seeing why they didnt get spots. From my tiny sample size these students cover the gpa range and not "cast majority" are bottom of the class. But perhaps you have a larger data sample from which you are basing your statements.

The job of the schools is to prepare the students they accept to become competent residents. This is what tuition is paid for. The board exams are to test the academic knowledge of the student to a standardized level. This is widely accepted and it is why we have these exams. If the schools are not doing that why are they in exsistance, why are they taking money, why are they allowed to continue? If the exams minimal competancy is a joke then again all of the above questions apply. We cant have these things, abide by them and then state they are substandard when it fits us best. It is unfair to take peoples money for 4 years "pass" them as being ready for residency and then say ooops sorry. I agree that residency directors should not take "weaker" candidates but the schools are massively at fault. A "Weaker" candidate should not ever pass clinical training through the college. Once the student goes through what is required they should have a spot somewhere. Period.

It is wrong when you or others say this is a job and hence it is the real world and not a given. That is simply not true. Residency training is required in order to get a job. Residency is not optional but rather a continuation of our education. I cant imagine passing "pod med 1" and then being told sorry you cant take "pod med 2" there arent enough seats in the class so you have to drop out as without pod med 2 you cant continue in the schooling process. That sounds absurd as does this residency = real world that people like to say. If residency was not required to practice then I would be in full agreement with you.

 

[Snowman211]

I'm not saying Jonod is wrong, but I would be hesitant to put too much faith in anyone who isn't an expert on the topic of the match algorithm. If our match is anything like the NRMP match (http://www.nrmp.org/res_match/about_res/algorithms.html) then I'm not sure I would have drawn the same conclusion he drew. But again - I'm not an expert; however, we should all try and educate ourselves on how the mechanism works.

Have you seen this?

http://www.casprcrip.org/html/casprcrip/pdf/MatchExpl.pdf

 

[dtrack22]

First off, unless I misread, jonod's description of our match is incorrect. It works 100% in the students favor. If any program ranks you in their top (however many residents they take) and you rank them anywhere on your list, that's where you are going. If multiple programs rank you #1, for example, then whichever one you ranked highest is where you're going. The only way you scramble is if every program you rank has you below the students they end up getting. So if a program you ranked #1 has 2 spots, ranks you 4, and doesn't get their top 2, then it's yours as you just moved up into the top 2. If a program you rank #1 takes 3 kids, ranks you 4, and all of their top 3 rank that program #1, then you do not get that program. There is no point system or algorithm.

MD/Do have the option of research and pre-lim years among other options.

MD/DO had a shortage of transitional years. And a DPM could do research as well. I'm sorry one individual told your friend that Home depot was the only option. Your options are the same as an MD/DO who can't even get a transitional year. In fact, you might have more options because I don't know of a state that will grant you a medical license without 1 year of training, but there are states who will let you practice podiatry without residency training.

In regards to MAV I would assume that a 2 year model would drop the requirements even further. Neither of us is in support of this solution though.

No, the current requirements are the same as what was required in the old 2 year models.

You are assuming that the 35 students prior to 2013 were qualified or eligible to take a residency spot. If one had taken a year off for pregnancy for example or had failed boards they would not have been in the match prior to 2013.

Well, since the same number of students who didn't get a program in 2012 entered the 2013 match, I'm not assuming much. And if you decided to have a child and take a year off then you probably shouldn't have decided to have a child and take a year off. But hypotheticals really don't accomplish anything in this discussion.

Your assumptions continue, unless you have data that you are not sharing. I have met 4 unmatched individuals. One 4.0, two 3.0, and 1 2.0. In all honesty one of the 3.0 and the 2.0 should be able to get spots the other two (4.0 included) I have no problem seeing why they didnt get spots. From my tiny sample size these students cover the gpa range and not "cast majority" are bottom of the class. But perhaps you have a larger data sample from which you are basing your statements.

My assumptions aren't really assumptions. The data has not been officially compiled for this year, but the average GPA of these students is not going to be even a high "2 point" if it's ever released. Historically this is true as well. Because you all know a couple kids from your school who had good GPA's does not even come close to accurately representing all 51 students from 2013. The kids with high GPA's who didn't match more than likely had social/personality issues. Ldsrmdude can comment, but the biggest part of the externship process is getting along with the residents/attendings, having a strong work ethic, and showing that you are teachable. I have had residents tell me about students who basically had no shot at the program within the first day for those reasons.

The job of the schools is to prepare the students they accept to become competent residents. This is what tuition is paid for. The board exams are to test the academic knowledge of the student to a standardized level. This is widely accepted and it is why we have these exams. If the schools are not doing that why are they in exsistance, why are they taking money, why are they allowed to continue? If the exams minimal competancy is a joke then again all of the above questions apply. We cant have these things, abide by them and then state they are substandard when it fits us best. It is unfair to take peoples money for 4 years "pass" them as being ready for residency and then say ooops sorry. I agree that residency directors should not take "weaker" candidates but the schools are massively at fault. A "Weaker" candidate should not ever pass clinical training through the college. Once the student goes through what is required they should have a spot somewhere. Period.

I agree with you. The answer as to why schools continue to take substandard students that have a higher chance of failing boards multiple times and struggling on rotations is pretty simple. Tuition $. If you don't like it, don't go to school at the places with lower pass rates and placements. Simple as that. But again, as I've said many times. Pre-pods don't care. They will go wherever they can get in. 2013 was atypical because there was a shortage and I've never claimed that it was ok and those students wouldn't get a program anyways. But, if there was a surplus, there would still be students who don't get a residency program. You have to understand that point to realize why there will always be individuals who don't get residency training.

It is wrong when you or others say this is a job and hence it is the real world and not a given. That is simply not true. Residency training is required in order to get a job.

For the class of 2013, this was true. There should be a seat for every student. The job comment is usually directed at those individuals who talk about students "deserving" a residency. You "deserve" to have a seat available to you, and that needs to be fixed. But in our profession you are not and should not be "guaranteed" a seat.

 

[dtrack22]

Please explain why students in the bottom 20% of their class are getting residencies over some people in the top 20%.

The kid in the bottom 20% externed at programs that don't have strict (if any) GPA cutoffs and the program liked them. They worked hard, they were teachable, and they got along with the residents. The program figured, "I can work with and train this kid for the next 3 years."

The students in the top 20% externed at a bunch of big name programs where there was a lot of competition with other bright students. They showed up late, played on their phone, couldn't hold a conversation with residents or attendings, made inappropriate comments, argued with residents or attendings, were annoying/unlikable, the list goes on...

There are plenty of reasons why a 4.0 doesn't match and someone with a lower GPA does. There are way too many variables to pinpoint a single reason in every case. But it's pretty much common sense and in many cases very obvious why certain individuals don't get programs.

 

[dyk343]

Please explain why students in the bottom 20% of their class are getting residencies over some people in the top 20%.

Dtrack pretty much nailed it.

I truly believe once you get the clerkship it's how you get along with the residents after that. Walk in with a chip on your shoulder about how badass you are and you will sink fast. Confidence is a good trait to have, but confidence is not the same as being cocky.

With that said I know some who are real head scratchers in why they did not match. Nice, helpful to underclassmen/role models, incredibly intelligent, easy going... yet... no program.

Is it because they shot for the stars and only applied to top programs? Top programs are very competitive with limited spots. Did they put all their eggs in one basket and lose the bet?

Or were they just cocky?

I dont know.

 

[dyk343]

If any program ranks you in their top (however many residents they take) and you rank them anywhere on your list, that's where you are going.

This statement confuses me. I was under the impression that if a program ranks you #1, then they wait until you match? If you rank them #5, then the program has to wait for your first 4 programs to fill their spots before they get the you (assuming you do not match at your first 4 programs)?

 

[dtrack22]

This statement confuses me. I was under the impression that if a program ranks you #1, then they wait until you match? If you rank them #5, then the program has to wait for your first 4 programs to fill their spots before they get the you (assuming you do not match at your first 4 programs)?

You are exactly right. I oversimplified the process. But like Ankle Breaker said, the match always favors the student. The CASPR page linked is a very good (although detailed) description of how the process works

 

[pipetman]

this topic is getting way off track.

you can debate for years why students dont match, but there is always the scramble. there were not enough spots to scramble into. thats the problem.

 

[pipetman]

lastly, there was not a traditional year shortage for MDs. i dont know who keeps saying that, check the AMA stats. there is a primary care shortage (projected) and md students who dont get thier specialty get IM transitional year (paid) and then can go on to residency.

different for IMGs but the odds are better for an MD grad than a DPM.

 

[dtrack22]

lastly, there was not a traditional year shortage for MDs. i dont know who keeps saying that, check the AMA stats. there is a primary care shortage (projected) and md students who dont get thier specialty get IM transitional year (paid) and then can go on to residency.

different for IMGs but the odds are better for an MD grad than a DPM.

Here are the stats

http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2013.pdf

Over 25,000 US seniors entered the match. 16K were matched. 410 spots remained. 10 of which were transitional year programs. Even if US seniors filled every single positions left over after the match, there was a shortage. They then enter the group of almost 27,000 people looking for ACGME approved programs the following year.

 

[pipetman]

Here are the stats

http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2013.pdf

Over 25,000 US seniors entered the match. 16K were matched. 410 spots remained. 10 of which were transitional year programs. Even if US seniors filled every single positions left over after the match, there was a shortage. They then enter the group of almost 27,000 people looking for ACGME approved programs the following year.

looked through it,but there is still a transitional year.

if the point is we have parity with MDs that goes all the way down to the shortage, you win. but we are not MDs, MDs fair better ( even previous graduates) in getting a residency and this has nothing to do with the current crisis. like this thread.


we need more spots and i bristle at blaming the students and the schools and being confident that you only get one shot, and if you have yr DPM and boards passed even then "some people dont deserve / will never get residency training". basically this thread is a big ----to the class of 2013. and i guess the year before.

i respect you highly dtrack, even if I disagree with you. thanks for the link.

 

[ftankle surgeon]

Qualified: a student/graduate is qualified for an entry level position if they have their DPM and passed parts one and two. There is no stipulation based on GPAS, class rank or how many times you took the exams. They could change the language now, but legally for , those that came before it won't apply. So whether anyone likes it or not, past graduates still can "earn" a spot. You can't just tell these graduates to stop applying and give up. they are still a part of the equation and how to handle that, no one knows. Yes, residency directors can not take them, but its only a matter of time before someone seeks litigation based on...I don't know, labor laws and discrimination. No one likes to hear that, but think about it.

APMA: can they fund residency positions? No. They could take their "emergency funds" and lobby to congress like the AMA are doing, or fund the PPM preceptership program, or use some of the funds to entice podiatrists to start up the process and pay for their travel etc to go to hospitals to start a program. Or, even better, instead of relying on volunteers to spear head the residency genesis, PAY someone that will handle the phone calls, the paperwork, the questions prospective residency directors have. No one wants to go through red tape if they are dealing with their own staff, making a living, etc. Remember, podiatrists that sit on these committees are doing it on their own time, they are not getting paid. Again, I haven't heard that mentioned either.



By the way, I am not sure why people keep on posting that before 2013, there were excess of spots so every qualified applicant had matched. That is simply not true. There were qualified applicants who graduated in 2012 that did not match!

 

[that1guyfromFL]

Or, even better, instead of relying on volunteers to spear head the residency genesis, PAY someone that will handle the phone calls, the paperwork, the questions prospective residency directors have. No one wants to go through red tape if they are dealing with their own staff, making a living, etc. Remember, podiatrists that sit on these committees are doing it on their own time, they are not getting paid. Again, I haven't heard that mentioned either.

Maybe you haven't heard it mentioned here because most everyone is familiar with Dr. Edwin Wolf, the National Residency Facilitator for the AACPM.

What you just described is a part of what he does day to day.

 

[that1guyfromFL]

By the way, I am not sure why people keep on posting that before 2013, there were excess of spots so every qualified applicant had matched. That is simply not true. There were qualified applicants who graduated in 2012 that did not match!

There often was a seat here and there unfilled, but I think the main point being made was slightly different. I'll try to explain it below.

A few qualified applicants from the class of 2012 did not match, however there were enough available spots for the entire graduating class.

The match rate for previous applicants in that cycle was high, right at 50%, which means those new grads did not get a program because a residency director chose a re-applicant over them.

The case in 2013 was different because there were never enough available spots for the total qualified new graduating applicants participating in the match.

 

[hotdawg]

this:
http://www.apmsa.org/presidents-address/


it makes sense to me now why some of the APMSA delegates that post here say what they say about not every qualified graduate should obtain residency or being okay with directors letting seats sit unfilled than take the qualified students who are left. residency for them is such a given they dont address it , and for everyone else "too bad". if our student delegates dont care or address it its not a problem right?

 

[RockyIV]

this:
http://www.apmsa.org/presidents-address/


it makes sense to me now why some of the APMSA delegates that post here say what they say about not every qualified graduate should obtain residency or being okay with directors letting seats sit unfilled than take the qualified students who are left. residency for them is such a given they dont address it , and for everyone else "too bad". if our student delegates dont care or address it its not a problem right?

I knew that name sounded familiar. The President also wrote a letter to PMnews (I don't know why I still read it either). That letter seemed to generate more responses and discussion than any other I can remember. I mean, people were replying to the letter itself or replying to replies in late June. I know it also got posted on a Temple school page on facebook.
PMnews


And since hotdawg is being such a weiner, I decided to look around on the APMSA website. Seems like the same President also addresses the shortage here:
Link

hotdawg's post is like NBC doctoring 911 calls. Just pick the piece that fits your argument. Either way, I met a handful of students in my 3 years as a resident who should not have gotten a spot. Blame the schools, blame the boards, blame the students, but you can't blame us for protecting our program and our patients.

 

[PatchAdamsFan]

you can't blame us for protecting our program and our patients.

That sounds admirable, truly, but there are many practitioners who are too self-involved to pay it forward and open up spots to fresh graduates regardless of their worth or talent (of lack thereof). Blame is surely justified in that respect.

 

[hotdawg]

I knew that name sounded familiar. The President also wrote a letter to PMnews (I don't know why I still read it either). That letter seemed to generate more responses and discussion than any other I can remember. I mean, people were replying to the letter itself or replying to replies in late June. I know it also got posted on a Temple school page on facebook.
PMnews


And since hotdawg is being such a weiner, I decided to look around on the APMSA website. Seems like the same President also addresses the shortage here:
Link

hotdawg's post is like NBC doctoring 911 calls. Just pick the piece that fits your argument. Either way, I met a handful of students in my 3 years as a resident who should not have gotten a spot. Blame the schools, blame the boards, blame the students, but you can't blame us for protecting our program and our patients.

I apologize if my concerns or that letter offended you. I wasnt attacking the president in the letter. I just felt the matter did not get the attention we deserve as students from those who are supposed to represent us (which if you are an attending does not affect you).

again, my apologies.

 

[pipetman]

I apologize if my concerns or that letter offended you. I wasnt attacking the president in the letter. I just felt the matter did not get the attention we deserve as students from those who are supposed to represent us (which if you are an attending does not affect you).

again, my apologies.

hotdawg is a student expressing a concern. i think asking questions about what his elected apmsa "leaders" are doing is valid but perhaps needed a seperate thread.


this thread is way off topic. mods?

 

[hematosis]

Great news from APMA today. Looks like there is progress being made.

"
Together, We Are Eliminating the Residency Shortage
APMA, CPME, and the American Association of Colleges of Podiatric Medicine (AACPM) are pleased to report ongoing progress in eliminating the shortage of available podiatric residency training positions.

As of today:
Since May 1, CPME has approved eight new entry-level positions;
CPME is evaluating five new programs with a total of seven positions that could be available as early as later this summer or early this fall;
Five new programs have indicated that applications will be submitted for an additional eight entry-level positions to be reviewed by the AACPM Residency Facilitation Project before submission to CPME by the end of August;
24 prospective programs are working on applications to CPME, representing 30 (conservatively) to 75 (optimistically) new positions for the 2014–2015 training year;
83 individuals interested in serving as directors of prospective new residency programs are working toward approval from their institutions to begin the CPME application process; and
CPME has notified 77 eligible existing residency programs of the ability to add 114 additional positions, and 11 of those positions have been formally accepted.
Of the 80 eligible students currently seeking a residency position, as many as 15–20 likely will be able to secure a position by this fall, and those programs will be able to participate in the 2014 match, as well. Although much work remains to be done, together, the profession is making positive progress toward eliminating the shortage. “We all have a sense of urgency, and we are making progress,” said Edwin Wolf, DPM, national residency facilitator with AACPM.

“I am sorry that any qualified student is suffering due to the inability to secure a residency position,” said APMA Executive Director and CEO Glenn B. Gastwirth, DPM, “and the APMA Board of Trustees and members and staff of the council feel the same. Our residency shortage is a problem we are solving together as a profession.”

APMA, CPME, and AACPM have made a significant, long-term commitment to that effort in the years since we identified the potential residency shortage. APMA partially funds the AACPM national residency facilitation project, and CPME has expedited its review of new programs. The council also has engaged in long-term efforts since 2009 to identify programs with the capacity to increase their residency positions, resulting so far in 94 new positions. APMA is exploring the possibility of funding mechanisms for new positions. Our commitment extends not only to 2014 graduates but also to those qualified students from 2013 and previous years who have not yet attained a residency position.

 

[heeltoe]

^ thats certainly positive news. Although with all the complaining by attendings about the CPME it will be interesting to see how many of these programs that have applied and are being "considered" actually come to light. A little rosey on the figures about the additional spots approved. Those spots have been approved for a long time but obviously programs are hesitating or outright refusing accepting extra residents at the cost of reducing the numbers (i assume) for their current residents. That also doesnt mention all the programs that are closing. People have already mentioned Interfaith and Sacred Heart but there are numerous others that are closing or in danger of closing before the 2014 match.

I see Dr. Wolf mentioned quite often. I wish there was a way to evaluate what he has managed to accomplish as the director of residency genesis. What I have seen is the closing of his own program reducing 12 spots (4 entry) from the total pool. Now I also notice that his new program at Mt. Sinai seems to be "incomplete" on CASPR. I can only hope that is temporary and not another 3 entry level spots gone. Certainly not what I want to see from the guy in charge of creating spots. As I mentioned though I have no idea how many slots he has directly helped create.

 

[Telekinesis]

Anyone hear any news regarding the unmatched?

 

[Moose A Moose]

Bump.

 

[apollofx]

Silence across the board, which I hate to say I am not surprised to see! I wouldn't be surprised if they held back numbers until the day before match just like last year. Be ready for a very large number! That being said, I would like to be proven wrong.

 

[dtrack22]

Silence across the board, which I hate to say I am not surprised to see! I wouldn't be surprised if they held back numbers until the day before match just like last year. Be ready for a very large number! That being said, I would like to be proven wrong.

Some of us just have a life...

Most recent numbers, as far as I know they are public through the AACPM (Oct 31):

652 CASPR applicants
560 are class of 2014 (obviously does not take into account part II failures)
92 are from previous years (approximately 50 are class of 2013 who passed boards last year and didn't get a spot)

215 current programs (with at least 4 scheduled to open up prior to July, 2014)

551 residency positions currently available


If things go back to normal in terms of historic part II pass rates, there will be more than enough spots for the class of 2014 and almost all of the students who didn't get a spot last year from the class of 2013. If the pass rates are as high as they were last year then there will be just enough seats for the class of 2014.

You always have to remember that the re-applicants traditionally didn't get a program because they failed boards twice prior to graduating or a program would rather go empty than take said student. Of the 92 re-applicants, not all of them have passed Part II yet and only a little over half of them are 2013 grads. So both the re-applicant number and the class of 2014 number will shrink prior to the match. Unless something completely unpredictable happens, the shortage is much smaller than last year and boards could make it almost non-existent.

 

[PeaJay]

Some of us just have a life...

Most recent numbers, as far as I know they are public through the AACPM (Oct 31):

652 CASPR applicants
560 are class of 2014 (obviously does not take into account part II failures)
92 are from previous years (approximately 50 are class of 2013 who passed boards last year and didn't get a spot)

215 current programs (with at least 4 scheduled to open up prior to July, 2014)

551 residency positions currently available


If things go back to normal in terms of historic part II pass rates, there will be more than enough spots for the class of 2014 and almost all of the students who didn't get a spot last year from the class of 2013. If the pass rates are as high as they were last year then there will be just enough seats for the class of 2014.

You always have to remember that the re-applicants traditionally didn't get a program because they failed boards twice prior to graduating or a program would rather go empty than take said student. Of the 92 re-applicants, not all of them have passed Part II yet and only a little over half of them are 2013 grads. So both the re-applicant number and the class of 2014 number will shrink prior to the match. Unless something completely unpredictable happens, the shortage is much smaller than last year and boards could make it almost non-existent.

As much as it pains me to root against people, I hope that the pass rate for boards part two falls in line with historical averages. It is horrible that it people have to fail to lessen the eligible pool, but it would be nice to see enough positions for new grads and have some room left for the unfortunate souls from last year.

 

[apollofx]

I think your estimate and analysis PeaJay was performed with rose colored glasses. I hate to be the pessimistic type but you have to keep in mind that we have no reason to believe the pass rate will return to that of previous years because in my opinion I believe that very class shows better preparation and education than the one before it. In addition, due to the previous high pass rate almost all returning 2013 applicants will indeed be eligible and the assumption that the unmatched had difficulty passing boards is an old notion when, without the shortage, this was the case. This is not the case and I know two unmatched graduates that passed part one and two on the first time both times. I also am personally aware of two programs with a total of 4 positions that I know are enduring some financial issues and may not exist come match, if I am aware of that many positions at risk I would be willing to bet a few more exist that are in jeopardy as well as we roll into a new year and new health care landscape. I predict a much larger shortage than last year but as I have said before on here, I would be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

I don't know how well part I and part II pass rates correlate, but part I hasn't really spiked in recent years...