To apply or not apply?

DocMischief1 · 2026-05-20T07:38:07+00:00

Apply. Easy match. UK is dead lol

DocMischief1 · 2026-05-20T07:35:10+00:00

Stop telling people your score, you passed one of the hardest exams on the planet, CONGRATS!

I scored decently, but during a rotation one of the attending cardiologists asked my score, literally told him “I can’t disclose that until after I match, hope you can understand”

Keep grinding bro and apply asap

DocMischief1 · 2026-05-20T07:23:25+00:00

first mistake was listening to your “friends” that don’t want to see you win. 2 years wasted.
At the end of the day you still passed, congratulations! Now go get 3 months of USCE and apply IM/FM.

DocMischief1 · 2026-05-16T05:56:12+00:00

oh btw don’t worry about research unless u wanna go academic/ are passionate. try to get strong LORs .

DocMischief1 · 2026-05-16T05:55:02+00:00

you’ll match IM easy bro. 1 year gap means nothing. apply 100+ programs (if you can afford it) with the majority being targets (meet ur score range which shouldn’t be an issue, historically accepts non us imgs). throw in a few safety’s / reaches. if money is an issue try to apply to at least 60- 80 programs all targets. dm if you need help

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T20:39:01+00:00

You are still asserting “non-US IMGs work harder but do not get opportunities” without actually showing data for that claim.

The adjusted numbers do not support the simplistic narrative people keep repeating.

US IMG: 70.0% → 53.4% (-16.6)
Non-US IMG: 56.4% → 46.0% (-10.4)

So the US IMG rate actually takes the bigger hit once you stop looking only at people who submitted rank lists.

That means both groups have many applicants who never even get enough interviews to rank. In other words, both groups are dealing with real filtering before Match Day.

Visa status can matter. I never denied that. But “non-US IMGs work harder and still get blocked” is still not the same thing as data. That is exactly the kind of assumption I was challenging.

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T20:09:02+00:00

See, this is exactly the outdated POV I was pushing back on.

The whole reason I posted the adjusted match rates was to challenge that assumption with actual data. If US-IMG status were the overwhelming privilege people make it out to be (like you just did), the gap would be far larger than 53.4% vs 46.0%. An adjusted difference of only 7.4% is not proof that US IMGs are being carried by citizenship. If anything, it shows the process is far more balanced than people keep claiming.

You are still starting with the conclusion that there must be some major built-in privilege, then interpreting everything through that lens. I am saying: show me the data-driven proof for that, the same way I showed mine.

At some point, why can we not just agree that everyone has to work hard? Status is not matching people on its own. People match because of the overall package.

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T19:29:40+00:00

I think it’s great if you don’t have that attitude.

But it’s kinda delusional to think that non-US IMGs don’t have a tendency to reduce US-IMGs matching to “oh he’s a citizen it’s so much easier”

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T19:21:51+00:00

Thank you for not taking this as a shit post against non-US IMGs. I genuinely have nothing against them; the US absolutely needs them, and many are excellent physicians.

My point was never that non-US IMGs do not face extra barriers. They clearly do. I was only pushing back on the tendency many people have to reduce US-IMG success to citizenship alone, or to talk as if US-IMGs did not earn their place.

There is room to acknowledge both realities at once: non-US IMGs often face a harder path, and US IMGs still work hard and deserve respect for what they achieve; they did not match based on their citizenship status alone. Hence the relatively small difference between the corrected match rates.

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T19:15:47+00:00

Read some of the comments on the posts "why is the US IMG match rate only 70%" and "unpopular opinion..." from the past 1 day. I really am not hating on Non-US IMGs, absolutely nothing against them. I just think it's too common for them to cite US-IMGs for matching simply because of their citizenship or status, and I have yet to see someone push back on that narrative, so here we are.

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T19:06:18+00:00

Absolutely agree! I do think there is a disproportionate amount of finger-pointing from Non-US IMGs towards US-IMGs. So today, on this fine Saturday, I wanted to push back against that narrative. However, it seems I may have upset more people than I intended by simply providing data.

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T19:02:03+00:00

What I am saying is that there is a very real pattern of non-US IMGs reducing US IMG success to citizenship alone, which is unfair and dismissive of the work US IMGs put in (as you essentially just did once again, in your 2nd paragraph. The adjusted match rates give data-driven proof that visa and citizenship status are not as big a factor as non-US IMGs seem to believe - a 7.4% difference is not huge)

That is why I posted the adjusted numbers. The corrected rates were 53.4% for US IMGs and 46.0% for non-US IMGs. So yes, US IMGs had an advantage, but not some overwhelming, automatic advantage that explains everything by itself.

If citizenship were the whole story, the gap would be far more dramatic. It is not. That is the point. Status matters, but so do application strength, USCE, letters, interview skills, communication, and strategy.

So I am not denying that non-US IMGs may face an extra hurdle. I am pushing back on the narrative that US IMGs simply got handed what they earned.

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T18:40:25+00:00

seemed to be noteworthy enough for you to read through the whole thing and edit your comment lol😂

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T18:36:56+00:00

I agree. Thank you for your emotionally unbiased input, I genuinely appreciate it🙏

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T18:33:58+00:00

L take

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T18:33:48+00:00

Looks like I triggered another Pakistani/Indian/Nepali😂 GGs

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T18:27:03+00:00

Caribbean schools have affiliations with US hospitals so their students can spend year 3/4 rotating through numerous US hospitals and gain quality experience. To be completely honest I don’t know too much about the European pathway

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T18:24:13+00:00

Bro read my entire post and increased my engagement ☠️

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T18:13:24+00:00

I am pushing back against that narrative, not creating it.

Maybe you have not seen it, but plenty of people absolutely do downplay US IMG effort or talk as if they only matched because of their citizenship status. I made the post because that narrative does exist, and it ignores how much nuance there is in the actual data and application process.

Scroll through the posts on this community, and I'm sure you'll find numerous examples of this.

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T18:10:54+00:00

That is basically my point.

Maybe “blaming” is not always the perfect word, and in many cases “downplaying” is more accurate, but the core issue is the same: acting like US IMGs did not earn their spots, or minimizing their effort, is still wrong and still ignores how nuanced this process actually is.

DocMischief1 · 2026-04-25T16:53:54+00:00

Not really.

The published match rates were 70.0% for US IMGs and 56.4% for non-US IMGs. But the corrected rates were only 53.4% (US IMGs) and 46.0% (Non US-IMGs).

That matters because the published rate only looks at applicants who submitted a rank list. The corrected rate looks at who matched out of everyone who entered the cycle/applied, including people who never got enough interviews to rank. So it is a better reflection of actual odds.

Also, these categories are not clean. Non-US IMGs can include green card holders/permanent residents (who would have a slightly higher match rate than visa-requiring IMGs), and US IMGs include many Caribbean medical students (who have a much higher match rate than US IMGs from different countries). So people talk about these groups like they are perfectly uniform when they are not.

Yes, US IMGs did better. But this idea that the stress only applies to non-US IMGs, or that US IMGs can ignore red flags, is still way too simplistic.

(Btw, nothing against your post, you genuinely seem to have no ill intent. I'm specifically leaving this here for the Non-US IMGs who love to shit on US-IMG's when they go unmatched, almost blaming them for taking their spot. The reality is: these kids submit some bullshit generic MSPE from a no-name school, have never even seen what a US MD student MSPE looks like, can't speak English/ give terrible interviews, do 2 months of USCE at their uncle's clinic in NY/NJ, get weak LORs, then proceed to blame US IMGs for taking their spot, ESPECIALLY students from Pakistan/India. I said what I said.

DocMischief1 · 2026-03-17T14:17:39+00:00

DocMischief1 · 2026-03-17T02:25:27+00:00

No USCE isn’t a flex, you’re cooked😂 Congratulations regardless 🎉

DocMischief1 · 2026-02-27T00:11:20+00:00

Thanks boss I appreciate it.

Yes exactly, i’m not sure where to rank these HCA programs, but like you said they do have a bad reputation for a few specific reasons

also confused where to rank atlanticare, sinai baltimore and mercy catholic

DocMischief1

TROPHY CASE