UQ-Ochsner 2014

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I apologize if I missed out on someone explaining this, but could someone possibly elaborate on the "accreditation" issue with California (and other states). Focussing particularly on eligibility to train in California versus licensure as a physician.

Is the medical degree you receive from UQO: a) not a University of Queensland medical degree? and/or b) is the UQO program not listed in FAIMER?

Just seeking clarification on the issue graduates of UQO would face (clerically) upon graduation in the US. A short and concise answer would suffice. Thanks.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I apologize if I missed out on someone explaining this, but could someone possibly elaborate on the "accreditation" issue with California (and other states). Focussing particularly on eligibility to train in California versus licensure as a physician.

Is the medical degree you receive from UQO: a) not a University of Queensland medical degree? and/or b) is the UQO program not listed in FAIMER?

Just seeking clarification on the issue graduates of UQO would face (clerically) upon graduation in the US. A short and concise answer would suffice. Thanks.


I've posted on this extensively elsewhere on SDN. Search for my posts and you will find more detail.

The short version is that the MBC has used their "discretion" to deem the UQO program specifically as separate from the UQ program. Since the UQO program is designed and intended to produce US interns from an offshore school it falls under section 1314(a)2 which means a special and separate review and approval is necessary. This does not at all impact UQ traditional students who are and still will be just fine.

So it is a UQ medical degree. The UQ program is listed in FAIMER and technically the UQO program is not a separate program, but the MBC is choosing to view it separately regardless of the legal and accreditation status as granted by the AMC.
 
Looks like UQO got it's California accreditation:

"We are very pleased to report that at the May 1 meeting of the Medical Board of California, The University of Queensland School of Medicine Ochsner Clinical School was unanimously approved for inclusion on California's list of recognized international schools. Graduates are now eligible for Residencies and Licensure in the state of California."

http://www.mededpath.org/cal_med_board_article.html

I'm not planning on applying or attending, but I got the announcement email from them and figured I'd share. I was looking into this program for a while last year, but decided it wasn't for me. Good luck to all those planning on applying in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Looks like UQO got it's California accreditation:

"We are very pleased to report that at the May 1 meeting of the Medical Board of California, The University of Queensland School of Medicine Ochsner Clinical School was unanimously approved for inclusion on California's list of recognized international schools. Graduates are now eligible for Residencies and Licensure in the state of California."

http://www.mededpath.org/cal_med_board_article.html

I'm not planning on applying or attending, but I got the announcement email from them and figured I'd share. I was looking into this program for a while last year, but decided it wasn't for me. Good luck to all those planning on applying in the future.

That's cool. Can I ask why you decided not to go? Better opportunities, or did this have some quality you found out about later? Just looking into this program now.
 
That's cool. Can I ask why you decided not to go? Better opportunities, or did this have some quality you found out about later? Just looking into this program now.

I decided to go the SMP route. I got into a program with decent matriculation rates into the host med school and figured I'd take my chances. The main thing that worried me about UQO was landing a US residency after the program. If I still can't land a US MD acceptance after my SMP, I'd consider looking into UQO and Carib again.
 
I decided to go the SMP route. I got into a program with decent matriculation rates into the host med school and figured I'd take my chances. The main thing that worried me about UQO was landing a US residency after the program. If I still can't land a US MD acceptance after my SMP, I'd consider looking into UQO and Carib again.
You'd consider going to an international school over a DO school?
 
I decided to go the SMP route. I got into a program with decent matriculation rates into the host med school and figured I'd take my chances. The main thing that worried me about UQO was landing a US residency after the program. If I still can't land a US MD acceptance after my SMP, I'd consider looking into UQO and Carib again.

A very good option and one that my friend did. Any chance this is the SMP over at RFUMS?

As for DO over international.... honestly a bit of a toss up. I definitely did NOT want to go to a DO program. Since then I've significantly softened my stance on it, but still equivocate because there is still that last vestige of quackery left in DO training that would drive me nuts (even though most DO's completely ignore it and never use it again after they graduate). Are your odds any better at getting a residency coming from DO or IMG? I've look at it many times, but the data simply don't exist to answer the question. For example opthalmology shows that the percentage of IMG and DO practicing opthals is pretty much the same. But the applicant match rate is vastly better for IMG's (22% vs 3% from this). But that is just a correlation, it can't demonstrate causation. There could be any number of reasons for the discrepancy that have nothing to do with IMG or DO status. And I know from my friend who just matched at UPitt Opthal that being an IMG is a complete non-starter for many programs. But then again so is being a DO.

As I've said before, if you have a very specific goals (field or location) that may warrant a decision one way or another. If you are open to fields and locations (which the vast majority of y'all should be before entering med school) then I think that the argument about getting a residency spot is a pretty weak one. Not ridiculous, not wrong, not unreasonable. Just weaker than many other reasons that should take the forefront in a decision making process. Especially considering this specific program in that you will have a much better chance at competitive residencies in-house than any other IMG anywhere else in the country.

Just my 2 cents.
 
A very good option and one that my friend did. Any chance this is the SMP over at RFUMS?

As for DO over international.... honestly a bit of a toss up. I definitely did NOT want to go to a DO program. Since then I've significantly softened my stance on it, but still equivocate because there is still that last vestige of quackery left in DO training that would drive me nuts (even though most DO's completely ignore it and never use it again after they graduate). Are your odds any better at getting a residency coming from DO or IMG? I've look at it many times, but the data simply don't exist to answer the question. For example opthalmology shows that the percentage of IMG and DO practicing opthals is pretty much the same. But the applicant match rate is vastly better for IMG's (22% vs 3% from this). But that is just a correlation, it can't demonstrate causation. There could be any number of reasons for the discrepancy that have nothing to do with IMG or DO status. And I know from my friend who just matched at UPitt Opthal that being an IMG is a complete non-starter for many programs. But then again so is being a DO.

As I've said before, if you have a very specific goals (field or location) that may warrant a decision one way or another. If you are open to fields and locations (which the vast majority of y'all should be before entering med school) then I think that the argument about getting a residency spot is a pretty weak one. Not ridiculous, not wrong, not unreasonable. Just weaker than many other reasons that should take the forefront in a decision making process. Especially considering this specific program in that you will have a much better chance at competitive residencies in-house than any other IMG anywhere else in the country.

Just my 2 cents.

Indeed, it is BMS program at RFUMS. Unfortunately there's been some changes in the program (decreased matriculation rates into the host med school) that have scared off a few incoming BMS students. I'm currently still planning on attending, although I will say that I'm worried how our class will fare next year in terms of matriculation.

I agree with some of your stance on IMG's and DO's attaining residency spots, however. To be honest, I haven't looked at much data regarding the topic, so please forgive me if I'm analyzing this all wrong. Although I do agree that being an IMG/DO is a non-starter for some programs, past match statistics have definitely shown that DO's match into more residency spots in general than IMG's. Just looking at IMG performance in last years match here, around ~50% of US citizen IMG's were able to successfully match into first-year positions. Now although I haven't cited DO match statistics (frankly, because I don't want to spend the time digging through pages on Google) I am pretty sure more than ~50% of DO graduates were able to match into residencies.

Again, forgive me if I'm not approaching this in the correct way. I've done very little research regarding the topic, aside from a few web searches on general match statistics.
 
Indeed, it is BMS program at RFUMS. Unfortunately there's been some changes in the program (decreased matriculation rates into the host med school) that have scared off a few incoming BMS students. I'm currently still planning on attending, although I will say that I'm worried how our class will fare next year in terms of matriculation.

I agree with some of your stance on IMG's and DO's attaining residency spots, however. To be honest, I haven't looked at much data regarding the topic, so please forgive me if I'm analyzing this all wrong. Although I do agree that being an IMG/DO is a non-starter for some programs, past match statistics have definitely shown that DO's match into more residency spots in general than IMG's. Just looking at IMG performance in last years match here, around ~50% of US citizen IMG's were able to successfully match into first-year positions. Now although I haven't cited DO match statistics (frankly, because I don't want to spend the time digging through pages on Google) I am pretty sure more than ~50% of DO graduates were able to match into residencies.

Again, forgive me if I'm not approaching this in the correct way. I've done very little research regarding the topic, aside from a few web searches on general match statistics.


Yeah, that is the program that my friend just graduated from. He did the BMS and then got into RFUMS. For what it is worth, even back then it was pretty hard. He really busted his ass hard and basically had no life for that whole year. He made friends in the program along the way and most, but not all, who worked as hard as he did made it. Those who did not... well, didn't make it. I can't recall the exact numbers but overall I think something around 50% of his class made it in. The one nice part was that his M1 year was much easier since the BMS coursework counts towards M1 coursework.

As for the IMG vs DO stats - it is a little tough to compare. One has to realize that the population of applicants is different and so are their numbers and possible GME options. DO's do have their own residencies as well. About 3,000 DO's graduate each year. Roughly half go to AOA and half to ACGME residencies. This is compared with the roughly 6,000 ACGME spots that go to international grads (whether US or foreign born). For those, there are well over 12,000 people applying. Plus the reasons for, and qualifications of, people going to international programs is often rather different. Most of the programs that lead to US IMG's coming back to the states are known to be accepting of anyone that can pay the tuition (to some extent at least). Basically they stack their 1st year class with a bunch of people that simply won't succeed and whittle down to their 4th years by attrition. But that leaves some grads that are really at the very bottom end of qualifications.

None of these are excuses or really demonstrate anything particularly concrete except that there are other considerations one should take into account beyond just noting that nearly all DO's match and only half of IMG's match. The populations, available options (IMGs can't go to AOA residencies), and sheer numbers are different enough that a straight comparison is, IMHO, not possible.

And of course, not all IMG's are the same. There are programs that are straight up diploma mills and extremely poorly regarded (like a lot of the Eastern European ones), the Caribs which are more well regarded but the grads are very pigeon-holed and pre-judged, and then other programs that are typically well regarded (like serious universities such as Oxford, USyd, UMelb, and even UQ). In the latter category not many people go there to come back so the stats are hard to comment on, and within that UQ-O is unique because of how our program is structured. As I've said before it is too early to really say anything concrete about it, but preliminary evidence seems promising. Most of the issue we have been running into is that people don't yet know the program well and we are then lumped in with the (sub?) standard international programs. But in every case I have personally experienced, seen from watching board meetings online, and heard from everyone the response has been uniformly one of interest and praise. The CA medical board had a member flat out say in a meeting that she thought this was an innovative and great program and an excellent option for those who which to pursue medical education and not go to the Caribs.

All of this to say that I just don't think it is quite as easy a slam dunk to compare IMG to DO at all, and specifically UQ-O as an IMG. Without question US MD is the best option (my friend from RFUMS matched at UPitt opthal which he never would have been able to do as an IMG) from a purely general residency match standpoint. Beyond that, it becomes a little more specific as I have said before.
 
@nybgrus what fields do you think are difficult for img's match in? I thought I was informed about it but didn't know that opthal was that competitive. Thanks.
 
Yeah, that is the program that my friend just graduated from. He did the BMS and then got into RFUMS. For what it is worth, even back then it was pretty hard. He really busted his ass hard and basically had no life for that whole year. He made friends in the program along the way and most, but not all, who worked as hard as he did made it. Those who did not... well, didn't make it. I can't recall the exact numbers but overall I think something around 50% of his class made it in. The one nice part was that his M1 year was much easier since the BMS coursework counts towards M1 coursework.

As for the IMG vs DO stats - it is a little tough to compare. One has to realize that the population of applicants is different and so are their numbers and possible GME options. DO's do have their own residencies as well. About 3,000 DO's graduate each year. Roughly half go to AOA and half to ACGME residencies. This is compared with the roughly 6,000 ACGME spots that go to international grads (whether US or foreign born). For those, there are well over 12,000 people applying. Plus the reasons for, and qualifications of, people going to international programs is often rather different. Most of the programs that lead to US IMG's coming back to the states are known to be accepting of anyone that can pay the tuition (to some extent at least). Basically they stack their 1st year class with a bunch of people that simply won't succeed and whittle down to their 4th years by attrition. But that leaves some grads that are really at the very bottom end of qualifications.

None of these are excuses or really demonstrate anything particularly concrete except that there are other considerations one should take into account beyond just noting that nearly all DO's match and only half of IMG's match. The populations, available options (IMGs can't go to AOA residencies), and sheer numbers are different enough that a straight comparison is, IMHO, not possible.

And of course, not all IMG's are the same. There are programs that are straight up diploma mills and extremely poorly regarded (like a lot of the Eastern European ones), the Caribs which are more well regarded but the grads are very pigeon-holed and pre-judged, and then other programs that are typically well regarded (like serious universities such as Oxford, USyd, UMelb, and even UQ). In the latter category not many people go there to come back so the stats are hard to comment on, and within that UQ-O is unique because of how our program is structured. As I've said before it is too early to really say anything concrete about it, but preliminary evidence seems promising. Most of the issue we have been running into is that people don't yet know the program well and we are then lumped in with the (sub?) standard international programs. But in every case I have personally experienced, seen from watching board meetings online, and heard from everyone the response has been uniformly one of interest and praise. The CA medical board had a member flat out say in a meeting that she thought this was an innovative and great program and an excellent option for those who which to pursue medical education and not go to the Caribs.

All of this to say that I just don't think it is quite as easy a slam dunk to compare IMG to DO at all, and specifically UQ-O as an IMG. Without question US MD is the best option (my friend from RFUMS matched at UPitt opthal which he never would have been able to do as an IMG) from a purely general residency match standpoint. Beyond that, it becomes a little more specific as I have said before.

Oxford is not in the same league as the australian unis. Especially because it does not accept many international students. The few it does every year are out of this world competitive. Oxford = Harvard, Penn, Hopkins, Stanford level. You should not try and put world names like Oxford and Cambridge or even schools like UCL, Edinburgh and Imperial + others into the IMG talk as there are few if any students from these schools applying to the US for residency every year. They don't partake in the IMG debate.
 
Last edited:
@nybgrus what fields do you think are difficult for img's match in? I thought I was informed about it but didn't know that opthal was that competitive. Thanks.

Just look at the charting outcomes. But in general Ortho and Opthal are the considered two of the hardest. Rads is traditionally hard but seeming to get easier. Derm is pretty tough. ENT is also one of the toughest. Opthal got really tough this year with a low match rate and an average Step 1 of (IIRC) 243.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Oxford is not in the same league as the australian unis. Especially because it does not accept many international students. The few it does every year are out of this world competitive. Oxford = Harvard, Penn, Hopkins, Stanford level. You should not try and put world names like Oxford and Cambridge or even schools like UCL, Edinburgh and Imperial + others into the IMG talk as there are few if any students from these schools applying to the US for residency every year. They don't partake in the IMG debate.

No of course they aren't. I've covered this before and I won't bother with it again. The point of my comment still stands.
 
Anything outside of primary care is relatively challenging for an IMG to match. The very most competitive specialties (derm, ophthal, almost any surgery subspecialty, etc.) are generally not accessible to IMGs unless you are an absolute rockstar. There was one UQ-O grad who did match ortho this year though, so it is possible. As an IMG you have to ask yourself earnestly if you are really a rockstar student. Usually IMGs are IMGs because they were not good enough to get into a domestic school. Yes, there are exceptions to this for sure and I personally know of a number of IMGs who are just as brilliant as the top domestic students. But the reality is that the vast majority of the time if you are an IMG you aren't rockstar material and your chances of matching something like derm or ophthalmology is pretty close to zero. Before deciding to accept a spot in med school as an IMG, I think its important to recognize and come to terms with the fact that statistically you will more than likely end up in primary care.

I only disagree a little with you in degree, but not in kind.

For example, internal medicine and its subspecialties are not inaccessible. One person in my class also matched in categorical gensurg (and I can assure you this person was not a rockstar). Surgical subspecialty will be a fellowship after and I don't know the data on it (or even if there is) but typically coming from a US gensurg residency will obviate a fair bit of the IMG stigma. Direct entry surg subspec, just like derm, opthal, and ortho I agree with you though. Extremely difficult and not something one should bank on. That said, I will put $100 on the line that one person in the next class matches in Ortho as well (he is a good friend of mine and a serious rockstar). We also had one guy in my class match in rads and another in gas and two in ED.

So yes, it is undeniably more difficult as an IMG. But I do think it is an incorrect characterization to say that anything outside of primary care is challenging to match in. At least, not appreciably more challenging than it is for a US grad to match.

You are correct that usually IMG's couldn't hack it in the states. But that is just because it is a bit of a self selecting group - there are a huge number of people that can't hack it and of those most will go IMG. But the real point is that I believe that the sentiment in the US is turning. Slowly and so far small, but I think that programs are starting to care less about IMG status and more about whether you are qualified and a good fit. That said, some programs (particularly really top end like MGH or UCSF or UCSD) are going to be nigh impossible for an IMG. But they are also stupidly competitive for US grads. I also would say to any US grad that if they wanted to get into those programs they better be freakin' rockstars as well.

Additionally, part of the point of UQ-O is to generate a different perception of it than other IMG programs. The Caribs are pigeon holed as the place where "good but not good enough" kids go, with the knowledge that a lot of them are crap. UQ and Ochsner are actively making it a point to "win the beauty pageant" as we've said from time to time. Programs realize that while most IMGs went elsewhere because they couldn't hack it, some of them couldn't hack it not because they weren't just as good but because the competition is so fierce. In other words, it is common knowledge that perfectly qualified candidates get turned away from US schools and go outside the country. The problem is that from a program's perspective they don't have a reliable means by which to differentiate those. The active goal of UQ-O and its PR dept is to position the program as that reliable means by which to differentiate. It isn't there yet, no question. But it is getting there. Pinsky, head of Ochsner, is on the ACGME and obviously talks up the program. The Cali Medical Board unanimously voted to approve the program and during the meetings said that this was one of the best and most innovative programs for allowing precisely those well qualified students who get turned away in the US an opportunity to become excellent physicians back in the US. And so on. And obviously, as we interview, get residency spots around the country, and show our stuff, that image we are intentionally trying to project (from the top all the way down) will become more noticed, more respected, and more acknowledged.

For example, end of last year there was a two-day meeting of which I was a part that invited ~50 undergrad pre-med advisors from universities around the country (incl places like Yale and Stanford) to come talk to us and get our perspective and see what the program was all about. Their response was uniformly positive.

Point being, there are active attempts on multiple fronts and at multiple levels to create a different image for UQ-O than the "standard" IMG program. No doubt it isn't "there" yet, but progress is being made and things are only looking up as of right now. And as of right now, it ain't so terrible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Another good and informative post for prospective up-comers. Yes I am aware the IM subspecialties are not out of reach for IMGs, but that is fellowship training we're talking about now. As far as residency training goes, IM and EM still fall under that primary care umbrella!

Thanks. Just trying to add some nuance and depth to the conversation.

As for IM and EM... not really. FM is hands down primary care. IM can be, but usually is not. And, to my knowledge and experience, is not treated as such. EM is "primary care" in the trivial sense that they see a lot of patients first, but is actually more competitive than FM or IM.

But if you want to define the umbrella of primary care that way, sure. I don't think it is unreasonable. I just think that unqualified many (perhaps most) people will get a different impression than you intended. I certainly did.

And yes, fellowship is fellowship. And the vast majority of surgical sub-specialties are fellowships.
 
no offense to @nybgrus but we have to keep in mind that he does have a strong bias towards UQ Ochsner and therefore take some of his statements with a healthy pinch of salt. That is not to say he is deceitful or a liar, which I don't believe he is. However he may twist things in favor of UQ-O.

First of all, US DO graduates do have a higher chance of matching into a residency (ACGME or AOA) than a UQ-O graduate, period. As @nybgrus pointed out, US DO graduates have access to AOA residencies that UQ Ochsner graduates do not have access to. Also keep in mind, that DO graduates do have a higher chance of matching into more competitive residencies than IMG grads. DO grads have matched into Mayo and Yale and Stanford, look up the stats. The reputation of the DO degree has increased steadily over the past 10 years.

Furthermore, with the upcoming residency crunch, IMGs including UQ-O grads will be at a significant disadvantage. Ochsner is not obligated to provide residencies to all UQ-O grads and it simply won't do that. Now if you have to absolutely go IMG, I would recommend UQ Ochsner over a Carib or Eastern European program. However always choose a MD/DO school over any overseas medical school, period. Especially with the upcoming residency crunch.
 
No offense taken. It would be absolutely ludicrous of me to deny that I have a bias towards UQ-O. That said, I think I can safely argue I do not have a strong bias towards them. I've been duly critical in the past and have experienced my own share of significant negatives from being in this program as well (many of which, thankfully, I think future cohorts will be spared).

That said, I think you are also twisting things a bit. Ultimately the point is that it is difficult to compare. You wish to argue that DO's have a better chance of matching because they have access to AOA residencies that we don't. Well, their numbers are also incredibly small (both total DO grads and AOA spots). How it cuts is not clear - half of all DO's go to AOA spots. That leaves a small absolute number that need to match into a system that is nearly 9 times larger than the total DO graduating class and 18 times larger than the remaining half of DO grads. If you want to just talk how many spots above US grads, that still amounts to over twice the total DO grads and 4 times the remaining half. I'm not necessarily arguing that it is wrong to look at it the way you are - I'm just saying that it isn't clear cut.

I also don't think that simply stating that DO's match to Yale and Mayo means all that much. IMG's match there too. And when I looked at actual numbers for ophthal there are more IMGs than DOs. There could be any number of reasons for that - it is a correlation, not a causation. The point being is that a blanket statement cannot be made. Which is precisely why I have consistently said that for specific regions, programs, or programs one can evaluate whether it is "better" to be DO or IMG. But as a blanket statement of "where will I have a better chance of matching" it simply is not that clear cut. It can be argued either way. Which has been entirely my point when people ask "Is it better to do DO or IMG?"

All that said, I still think I have good reason to say that of all the IMG programs UQ-O is the most promising. Enough so that for an undifferentiated applicant the decision can hinge on many more factors than just "Will I have a better chance to match as DO or UQ-O".

As for the upcoming residency crunch - I disagree. There are over 6,000 ACGME spots in excess of US grads. 1,500 go to DO's. That leaves 4,500 spots. With the new schools opening that is ballpark of roughly maximum 1,500 new US grads leaving 3,000 spots for IMGs. We aren't competing for those 3,000 spots with US grads. We are competing with other IMGs. And I believe I've made the case why it is reasonable to think that we can outcompete them. And for the seriously tough residencies like ortho, ophthal, derm, ENT the crunch isn't going to change a danged thing. We are only vying for 120 of those 3,000 spots. And still have access to the remainder so it never really will be 120/3000 that we are competing for (though sure, close enough to it).

I will agree on one thing though - if you have the option, always choose MD over UQ-O unless you really have a desire for global medicine stuff. But if your goal, or likely goal is to come back stateside, US MD hands down. DO.... I still just say not quite as clear cut. I think in 3-4 years time the landscape will present itself more and the niche of UQ-O vs DO in the ACGME market will become more apparent and then it can be differentiated better. For right now, there are many legit reasons to choose DO over UQ-O, but just undifferentiated concern over residency match rates is not a clearcut one, IMHO
 
Sorry tired. repeated myself on programs. Should be " specific regions, programs, or specialties."
 
2014 International Medical School rankings just came out and Queensland made the top 200, far outranking many US schools. If the quality of education the US students get is as good as the natives, this should be a great program!
 
2014 International Medical School rankings just came out and Queensland made the top 200, far outranking many US schools. If the quality of education the US students get is as good as the natives, this should be a great program!

Link the rankings please?
 
(sorry to double post but I couldn't see an edit function anywhere...)

Interestingly it looks like most Australian medical schools have dropped a little in ranking, notably Melbourne and Sydney (although not by a huge amount). I would like to take a moment to blame this on Tony Abbott being PM.

edit: just found that edit function. awkward.
 
Last edited:
(sorry to double post but I couldn't see an edit function anywhere...)

Interestingly it looks like most Australian medical schools have dropped a little in ranking, notably Melbourne and Sydney (although not by a huge amount). I would like to take a moment to blame this on Tony Abbott being PM.

edit: just found that edit function. awkward.

Believe me, no one really looks at international rankings when determining quality. I wouldn't care much about these at all honestly.
 
The link: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2012/medicine
Shows that Queensland outranks Tufts and UC Davis and USC. Americans can be very provincial. We ought to get over it.

That's fine and all but let's be honest--even the worst medical school in the continental US, or in even Puerto Rico, is harder to get into than the most selective med school in Australia.

UQ may 'rank higher' than UC Davis and USC but no one actually thinks it's tougher to get into-median MCAT at Davis is a 34 (a figure which includes both minorities and women and thus the score for white males is probably close to 40), and I doubt that more than a handful of Australian domestic students could even score above a 30.
 
Given that Australian domestic students don't prepare for, or take, the MCAT, it doesn't make much sense guessing what they would be scoring.

Domestic students take their own exam, and for UQ with the GAMSAT, score as a percentile much higher than what's needed on MCAT for pretty much any US school (the GAMSAT *cutoff* alone is higher than the MCAT mean of those accepted for any US school, after all).

But agreed, rankings mean little beyond what they're actually measuring (for that list, some combo of reputation and publication citations).
 
Last edited:
Given that Australian domestic students don't prepare for, or take, the MCAT, it doesn't make much sense guessing what they would be scoring.

Domestic students take their own exam, and for UQ with the GAMSAT, score as a percentile much higher than what's needed on MCAT for pretty much any US school (the GAMSAT *cutoff* alone is higher than the MCAT mean of those accepted for any US school, after all).

But agreed, rankings mean little beyond what they're actually measuring (for that list, some combo of reputation and publication citations).

Two completely different test-taking populations and the GAMSAT is like a children's version of the MCAT.

A 30 is about the 77 percentile of all US medical matriculants and that wouldn't even get you an application, much less an interview, at USC or UC Davis.

Australian education is very vocational (upwards of 70% of med students here have a degree in 'Medical Studies') and the sort of linear-thinking taught and developed does not prepare one for the MCAT well.
 
...and I doubt that more than a handful of Australian domestic students could even score above a 30.
Your attempt to compare difficulty of entry in this way is not valid.

You are making rather bold assumptions about the abilities of domestic students. To look only at MCAT score, and specifically at the approximate average for accepted int'l students, is oddly one-sided and convoluted. Obviously the average score is lower here for int'ls than for US med schools. We haven't seen average GAMSAT scores of Australians accepted to US schools, though that also would be useless for the comparison sought.

The Australian domestic students you are characterizing belong to a wholly different population of applicants in a wholly different system. True, there are many differences between the US and Australian educational systems, but that says nothing of the 'toughness' of getting into a US school as an American compared to getting in to an Australian school as an Australian, let alone of an Australian getting into an American school based on MCAT or an American into an Australian one based on GAMSAT.

While I agree that the focus on tertiary education here is far more vocational and less theoretical or liberal arts oriented, there is no objective reason to believe that Australians would do any worse on the MCAT if they were expected to take the pre-requisite science courses and study for that exam, nor that Americans would do any better on the GAMSAT (95%ile just to make the UQ cutoff), which is no more a "children's" version of the MCAT than any aptitude test can be said to be a children's version of an achievement test (while I have no idea what your trying to say by claiming that Australian education promotes "linear-thinking" -- the MCAT tests very specific scientific knowledge for the most part).

The point remains that in an attempt to compare performance on two very different exams testing very different things that neither of the other group prepares for, the only objective comparator available is percentile score sufficient for entry for the two different populations, and those stats do not support what you are attempting to claim.
 
Last edited:
One again you have confused correlation with causation.
 
That's fine and all but let's be honest--even the worst medical school in the continental US, or in even Puerto Rico, is harder to get into than the most selective med school in Australia.
UQ may 'rank higher' than UC Davis and USC but no one actually thinks it's tougher to get into-median MCAT at Davis is a 34 (a figure which includes both minorities and women and thus the score for white males is probably close to 40), and I doubt that more than a handful of Australian domestic students could even score above a 30.

Er, for us (i.e domestic Australian students) it is actually very hard to get into medical school, and UQ is the hardest to get into (unless you are a rural student but that is another issue..). The cut off to get into UQ this year for a domestic non rural student was a GAMSAT score in ~94th percentile. And your assertion about GAMSAT being a child's version of MCAT is utter nonsense.
 
One again you have confused correlation with causation.
Say what? I make no argument for causation here. If anything I'm denying one. You are projecting.
 
'While I agree that the focus on tertiary education here is far more vocational and less theoretical or liberal arts oriented, there is no objective reason to believe that Australians would do any worse on the MCAT if they were expected to take the pre-requisite science courses and study for that exam, nor that Americans would do any better on the GAMSAT (95%ile just to make the UQ cutoff), which is no more a "children's" version of the MCAT than any aptitude test can be said to be a children's version of an achievement test (while I have no idea what your trying to say by claiming that Australian education promotes "linear-thinking" -- the MCAT tests very specific scientific knowledge for the most part).'

100 remedial student take an exam and the highest 5% of scorers gain entry
100 neuroscience phds take an exam and the highest 5% of scorers gain entry

I'm not saying this is the distinction between US vs Australia but it clearly explains the point.

Do you not know what linear thinking means?
 
100 remedial student take an exam and the highest 5% of scorers gain entry
100 neuroscience phds take an exam and the highest 5% of scorers gain entry

I'm not saying this is the distinction between US vs Australia but it clearly explains the point.

Do you not know what linear thinking means?
Actually, your example is the same in kind if not in degree as your elitist argument above.

As I explained, I am not attempting to prove equivalency but am showing that your conclusion that there isn't equivalency (that Australian schools are easier to get into, and that Australians couldn't get into American schools) is groundless, your arguments invalid and silly. You have offered no objective reason for anyone to believe that Australians, in similar circumstances as Americans, would score any differently on the MCAT if pressed to prepare for it, or even that it makes sense to claim that the achievement test that is the MCAT is "tougher" than the aptitude test that is the GAMSAT, particularly when there is no meaningful overlap of test-takers. The only objective data at hand -- percentile scores for the two distinct groups -- certainly does not support your contention. If there is a difference in pertinent abilities between the populations, you have not shown it, wishfully relying on some inference about claimed academic "linearity".

I on the other hand do not use metaphors in an attempt to explain education theory outcome differences, because they're metaphors, imprecise at that. Nonetheless, as I hinted, if one were to use this term "linear" in the way that education theory dilettantes do, then you would instead be arguing against your own point given that the MCAT is more of an achievement test. This "linearity" was your one justification for claiming that Australians couldn't do as well on the MCAT.

Ergo, I am countering a flawed assertion, not claiming some elitism or other causation of the sort that you allude to -- you have made no valid argument that Australian schools, UQ in particular, are easier to get into for domestic students than American, including Puerto Rican, schools, or that Australian medical students could not have gotten into American schools. Instead, you have projected a claim of false causality onto me, absent even a meaningful correlation to fall back on.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
As usual Pitman handles himself with alacrity.

QLDking... I'd think that after our last tussle, after you got your behind handed to you so incredibly hard and painfully obviously, you'd had learned to stop spouting the noxious effluvium you normally do. Especially since you didn't even have the chutzpah to admit you were demonstrably wrong on every count and instead disappeared into the rat's nest from whence you came.

But no, you rather come back here, again trying to assert that you have some special insight, some knowledge to impart, something useful for others to read and falling flat on your face yet again. But that is why the internet is the haven of the troll - the palpable sting of such repeated embarrassment is easily ignored, even as your digital nose is bleeding.

Perhaps in the meantime, if you can take a break from your cutting edge sociological research proving that Australians simply cannot perform as well as Americans on the MCAT and thus cannot possibly get into UC Davis or USC, thus demonstrating US medical schools are "harder" to get into than Australian schools, perhaps you'd care to address all your previous assertions about how many of my class would match and into what specialties, as well as how many of my class went back to Australia for internships?

The point, folks, for anyone who hasn't been around and is reading QLDtroll's posts for the first time is that he is (for some unknown reason(s)) quite embittered at his education and his career choice, along with a baseline level of anger, hubris, and a topping off with a sprinkle of some light misogyny. He spent quite a number of months lambasting everything and declaring quite confidently that UQOCS grads would not match well, would not match into competitive fields, and would not be able to get intern spots in Australia. This based on his deeply thought out, thoroughly reasoned, and well researched understanding of the situation. Well, besides the fact that Pitman and I showed him many times to be completely wrong on the first part, it also turned out that 22/24 of my class matched, including matches into orthopedics, gen surg, radiology, and at places like OHSU and about 4 of my class are currently interns in Australia.

So forgive me, QLDtroll, if I find your current analysis of the competitiveness of schools and extrapolated abilities of candidates to be nothing more than fodder to be laughed at. Just grow a sense of shame already and accept that you are simply not at all good at or useful in your piffle. You'd do well to heed my mother's advice: "It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than open your mouth and prove it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I've found all of the arguments/points made here helpful, but do they matter? As mentioned above this year 22/24 students matched. Meaning 2/24 students didn't match ~ 8.3%. Is this number high compared to DO school average? Most of the DO schools I have looked up have near 100% match success. I don't necessarily feel like match percentage tells the whole story but isn't that the ultimate goal for anyone trying to become a physician in the US. What do these 2/24 students do after failing to match? I would hate to put in 4 years of hard work and not match my first year out. Also with the cohort of students at UQ-O increasing, can students expect this number to change? I feel like it's a gamble at this point. Why have such drawn out discussions when there are so many factors that are involved and the success rates of two years can only be accounted for.
 
Actually, your example is the same in kind if not in degree as your elitist argument above.

As I explained, I am not attempting to prove equivalency but am showing that your conclusion that there isn't equivalency (that Australian schools are easier to get into, and that Australians couldn't get into American schools) is groundless, your arguments invalid and silly. You have offered no objective reason for anyone to believe that Australians, in similar circumstances as Americans, would score any differently on the MCAT if pressed to prepare for it, or even that it makes sense to claim that the achievement test that is the MCAT is "tougher" than the aptitude test that is the GAMSAT, particularly when there is no meaningful overlap of test-takers. The only objective data at hand -- percentile scores for the two distinct groups -- certainly does not support your contention. If there is a difference in pertinent abilities between the populations, you have not shown it, wishfully relying on some inference about claimed academic "linearity".

I on the other hand do not use metaphors in an attempt to explain education theory outcome differences, because they're metaphors, imprecise at that. Nonetheless, as I hinted, if one were to use this term "linear" in the way that education theory dilettantes do, then you would instead be arguing against your own point given that the MCAT is more of an achievement test. This "linearity" was your one justification for claiming that Australians couldn't do as well on the MCAT.

Ergo, I am countering a flawed assertion, not claiming some elitism or other causation of the sort that you allude to -- you have made no valid argument that Australian schools, UQ in particular, are easier to get into for domestic students than American, including Puerto Rican, schools, or that Australian medical students could not have gotten into American schools. Instead, you have projected a claim of false causality onto me, absent even a meaningful correlation to fall back on.

And how many matched into California?

They fact you of all people is disagreeing with me just helps me know I am on the right path here.
 
And how many matched into California?
Are you seriously asking, and using as some sort of measure of quality, how many Australian students who sat the GAMSAT, trained to work in the Australian medical system and want to work in Australia, matched into California? None? Why would they? Or have you lost track of what you're arguing about?
 
Are you seriously asking, and using as some sort of measure of quality, how many Australian students who sat the GAMSAT, trained to work in the Australian medical system and want to work in Australia, matched into California? None? Why would they? Or have you lost track of what you're arguing about?

No, we are talking about Ochsner...
 
I've found all of the arguments/points made here helpful, but do they matter? As mentioned above this year 22/24 students matched. Meaning 2/24 students didn't match ~ 8.3%. Is this number high compared to DO school average? Most of the DO schools I have looked up have near 100% match success. I don't necessarily feel like match percentage tells the whole story but isn't that the ultimate goal for anyone trying to become a physician in the US. What do these 2/24 students do after failing to match? I would hate to put in 4 years of hard work and not match my first year out. Also with the cohort of students at UQ-O increasing, can students expect this number to change? I feel like it's a gamble at this point. Why have such drawn out discussions when there are so many factors that are involved and the success rates of two years can only be accounted for.

As I have said many times - there isn't enough data to make any solid conclusions yet. The numbers are just too small. But that cuts both ways. saying 8.3% didn't match is deceptive. If that is 8.3% over the course of 5 years with 700 students matriculating that is a much bigger deal than 1 year and 24 students. Because small things can make a big swing. The first year class was 11 and all of them matched. Is a 100% match rate now stunning? Or is a combined 5.7% unmatched rate now suddenly so much better?

The point is you can't point at the numbers and say that they demonstrate clearly one thing or another. You can say that we are not guaranteed to match. And you can also say that the vast majority of us do. Now, the one bit of information I can add is simply this: I am not in the least bit surprised that those specific two that didn't match. As for what they did... I know at least one of them managed to score a late-start residency in Australia. I can provide much more detail, but in the interest of trying to maintain some privacy I'll leave it at that. Suffice it to say, whether you decide to believe me or not, I would not take those 2 not matching as any indicator of the program itself.

If you wish to try and take this data and compare it to a DO match rate, that's your prerogative. But for a few solid reasons that is comparing apples to oranges. Of course, if you feel like it is too much of a gamble, then that is a perfectly good reason for you not to pursue the program regardless of anything else.
 
Maybe you have the wrong thread qldking because you've been talking about (and just quoted directly above your California comment) MCAT vs GAMSAT and how you think that relates to the quality of American or Australian medical schools.
But I apologize if I just misunderstood your comment.
 
Last edited:
And how many matched into California?

They fact you of all people is disagreeing with me just helps me know I am on the right path here.

The Medical Board of California issued its unconditional approval of the program after Match Day. Therefore, nobody could have matched in California because the bureaucracy of the medical board. We did have 5 students who interviewed in CA, including myself. That is no longer an issue for any UQ-O students.

Oh, and actually one of my class, through a very incredibly fortunate twist of luck is starting residency at Kaiser Los Angeles in pediatrics.

So, how many times do you want to try and keep digging for something and falling flat on your face?
 
I'm happy people are matching. You make it seem like I am on some crusade to prove that no one should be able to match or cannot match.

My whole point here has been that the school is a money grab, and I stand firm by that conviction.

I don't understand how someone will ever get out of the red as a pediatrician in California nowadays.
 
Maybe you have the wrong thread qldking because you've been talking about (and just quoted directly above your California comment) MCAT vs GAMSAT and how you think that relates to the quality of American or Australian medical schools.

No, QLDtroll is just desperately digging to try and throw anything at the wall and hope it sticks. Every turn he makes he is confronted with how wrong or how poorly thought out his disparaging comments are. First it was that none of us would get Aussie intern spots. That was demonstrably false. Second it was that none of us would match into any competitive spots. That was also proved false. Next it was that Aussie schools are "easier to get into" than US schools. Now it is that none of us matched in CA.

The saddest part is that you'd expect at least some of the effluvium he is throwing to stick. It's only through a combination of how incredibly bad he is at this and some stunning luck on the other side that he is batting 0.001 (at best).

There is no question that there are drawbacks to any international program, to UQ specifically, to UQ-O specifically, and that for some people this program specifically is not a great choice. But that is simply true of any program anywhere. I've discussed the actual problems and issues with UQ before and that is perfectly reasonable to do. QLDtroll is just digging for anything to make it a completely unredeemable program. But it isn't. For a lot of people this program is genuinely a great option. For many it is a good option. For some it is a bad option. Once again, just like any program.
 
I'm happy people are matching. You make it seem like I am on some crusade to prove that no one should be able to match or cannot match.

My whole point here has been that the school is a money grab, and I stand firm by that conviction.

I don't understand how someone will ever get out of the red as a pediatrician in California nowadays.

Every program is a money grab. You are trying to act as if somehow UQ is special in that regard. It isn't. And you aren't just arguing that. You are arguing a lot more. And all of that "more" you are just completely off the mark.

Now you are trying to move some goalposts again. What a ridiculously stupid comment about getting out of the red as a pediatrician in CA. I thought you just had a serious axe to grind for some reason. Now I am wondering if you really are even capable of having a reasoned and intelligent thought.
 
Every program is a money grab. You are trying to act as if somehow UQ is special in that regard. It isn't. And you aren't just arguing that. You are arguing a lot more. And all of that "more" you are just completely off the mark.

Now you are trying to move some goalposts again. What a ridiculously stupid comment about getting out of the red as a pediatrician in CA. I thought you just had a serious axe to grind for some reason. Now I am wondering if you really are even capable of having a reasoned and intelligent thought.

No I am making very relevant and pertinent points---as in, someone presumably in over 300k debt and working 4-5 years for 45k and then 150k max as a pediatrician is going to struggle.

You have this idea that everyone needs to agree with you on your points because you're the school's mouthpiece--now most will want to agree with you as they are going through the same process--all I want to do is keep us grounded in reality so that we know what to expect.
 
No I am making very relevant and pertinent points---as in, someone presumably in over 300k debt and working 4-5 years for 45k and then 150k max as a pediatrician is going to struggle.

You have this idea that everyone needs to agree with you on your points because you're the school's mouthpiece--now most will want to agree with you as they are going through the same process--all I want to do is keep us grounded in reality so that we know what to expect.

That's fine. Except it really isn't what you are actually trying to do and you are saying nothing at all even remotely interesting or exciting. You do realize, for example, that Tulane medical school pays more than UQ-O students do in tuition? And that some of their students go into pediatrics as well? Or that Chicago Medical School (where my friend graduated) pays around $6-8k less per year than UQ-O? And that some of their students also go into pediatrics.

So.... what is your point? Yes, the program is expensive. Yes there are also plenty of other programs in the US that are expensive. Yes, pediatrics is one of the lower paid specialties. Peds residents come from just about every program anyways. Cost is a perfectly good reason not to attend a school - regardless of whether it is UQ-O, Tulane, or CMS (or even Harvard, which is even more expensive and still produces pediatricians). But it is also a trivially obvious point that is nothing more than a byline to consider. You are trying to obfuscate your real trollery by trying to hide behind "keeping us grounded in reality." Bollocks.
 
I'm not trying to conceal anything. Follow my posts. The narrative has always been consistent.

You just want to launch the gestapo any time someone doesn't completely agree with all that you have to say. There's quite a bit to dislike about the manner in which UQ runs its model. And I am sure (in fact, I know) that US schools are no different. But the fact is that these topics are about UQ and I am allowed to share my opinion on the school as I see fit. Whether you decide to go onto another one of your generic pretentious, poorly worded rants is your own decision, and one that I honestly don't give a damn about.
 
Follow my posts. The narrative has always been consistent.

You have lost the plot, qldking. Call it a day.

...even the worst medical school in the continental US, or in even Puerto Rico, is harder to get into than the most selective med school in Australia.
...no one actually thinks it's tougher to get into-median MCAT at Davis is a 34..., and I doubt that more than a handful of Australian domestic students could even score above a 30.
No, we are talking about Ochsner...
GAMSAT is like a children's version of the MCAT.
But the fact is that these topics are about UQ...
I am making very relevant and pertinent points---as in, someone presumably in over 300k debt and working 4-5 years for 45k and then 150k max as a pediatrician is going to struggle.
...all I want to do is keep us grounded in reality so that we know what to expect.
My whole point here has been that the school is a money grab, and I stand firm by that conviction.
I'm happy people are matching.
...
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to conceal anything. Follow my posts. The narrative has always been consistent.

You just want to launch the gestapo any time someone doesn't completely agree with all that you have to say. There's quite a bit to dislike about the manner in which UQ runs its model. And I am sure (in fact, I know) that US schools are no different. But the fact is that these topics are about UQ and I am allowed to share my opinion on the school as I see fit. Whether you decide to go onto another one of your generic pretentious, poorly worded rants is your own decision, and one that I honestly don't give a damn about.

I know you aren't trying to conceal anything. Least of all the fact that you really should just be keeping your "opinions" to yourself. But you are the glutton for embarrassment so, whatever floats your boat.

So you know that US schools are no different (despite, of course, claiming the are in fact different earlier in your "entirely consistent narrative") and so you think that it is pertinent to raise issues common to any program a person here may be going into to say... what exactly? Don't go into medicine at all? There are plenty of reasons to argue that which are perfectly valid. All of them are entirely irrelevant to the topic and purpose of this thread.

And my rants are only poorly worded to you because you can't understand most of the words.
 
Top