Img Academy Application: Fill & Download for Free

Q. Is it possible to get placed in an orthopedic residency program after graduating with a DO as opposed to an MD?A. It is exceedingly rare for a graduate from an ostopathic medical school to match into an allopathic residency program in Orthopedic Surgery in 2017.Orthopedic Surgery is among the most competitive specialties, with the metric being the percentage of positions filled by US allopathic seniors. In 2017, that number was 91.9%.For the most recent match with available specialty specific summary statistics (2016), 622 US allopathic seniors matched, with 188 going unmatched. The match rate is 77%. Curiously, 12% of honor students (AOA members) went unmatched. Going through the specialties by states, four DO candidates did match in LA, MI, MN and NY.There is no statistic for the total number of DO applicants, hence the success rate cannot be calculated.Another category is the match rate for US and non-US International Medical Graduates (IMG). 6 US IMG were successful (22%). 8 non-US IMG were successful (33%). Bear in mind that successful non-US IMG tend to be accomplished with years of academic experience in their home countries. The USMLE Step 1 score for this group (237) is lower than for allopathic seniors (247) and US IMG (245).But DO candidates do have another option. While no MD candidates matched into DO residency programs, there are 450 residency slots in 40 American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics approved residency programs. These graduate in excess of 70 Osteopathic Orthopedic Surgeons a year.The distinction between MD and DO residency programs cease to exist after the merger in 2020. The future successful match rate for the different applicant groups is unclear.Residency Programs | OrthogatePress Release: 2017 NRMP Main Residency Match Largest Match on RecordMain Match Results by State and Specialty 2016Charting Outcomes IMGs 2016Allopathic seniors successful match rate of 77%Charting Outcomes IMGs 2016IMG US applicants 6 of 27 matched (22%)IMG non US applicants 8 of 24 matched (33%)Taking into account the positions offered to US allopathic seniors, IMG applicants and osteopathic seniors, the total offered in 2016 were 640. The 70 positions reserved for DO seniors serve a purpose.The data analyzed only reveals the PGY-1 positions offered through the Match. There are positions that may be filled outside the Match, or at higher PGY levels. Programs may also add additional training positions as funding becomes available, for already approved slots. These positions would not be reflected in the yearly Match data.Residency Programs - American Osteopathic Academy of OrthopedicsResidency Programs | OrthogateDoximity Residency NavigatorRelative Ranking of Orthopedic Surgery Residency Programs

While these answers aren’t exactly incorrect, there are still players technically going straight from high school to the NBA, but the process is a bit different.The most recent example is Darius Bazley, of the OKC Thunder. Bazley originally committed to Syracuse out of college, then de-comitted to try and play in the NBA G-League. In the end, he didn’t play any official basketball between high school and the NBA draft.Another recent example (and possibly more applicable) is Anfernee Simons, of the Portland Trail Blazers. Anfernee was drafted in the 2018 NBA draft straight out of IMG Prep Academy in Florida. He technically graduated high school in 2017, but reclassified to the class of 2018, meaning he was able to complete a “post-graduate” year at IMG, which is a high school.Other recent examples of this include Thon Maker and Satnam Singh Bhamara.

There are four reasons I can identify.I. Programming Languages ImproveThe first is that we are constantly innovating in programming languages. New features are invented and explored in fringe languages and, if they turn out to be useful, gradually brought into languages closer and closer to the mainstream. Sometimes they're grafted onto older languages, but they tend to be a poor fit there, and some features (like improved type systems) are very difficult to add to a language after the fact. It's better if new languages are designed with those features from the get-go.So you want a standardized programming language. How long ago do you imagine it should have been invented? Judging by the most popular languages of the era...2005: It probably wouldn't have generics or closures.1995: It probably wouldn't have automatic memory management, interfaces, or modern concurrency primitives.1985: It probably wouldn't have objects, and would most likely prefer 16-bit integers over 32- or 64-bit.1975: It probably would have required you to use GOTO for important parts of your code.1965: It probably wouldn't have block-structured code at all (think BASIC's "IF CONDITION GOTO 10" nonsense) and might not support recursion.1955: People were still not sure if compiled languages were the right decision at all.(Different programmers might move some of these milestones, but I'm sure you get the idea.)Nor do I think that 2015's mainstream languages encompass everything we need to know about language design. There are still too many preventable bugs in our code, particularly surrounding concurrency. Type systems still aren't sophisticated enough to express all of the constraints on our programs' state. There's still a whole world of insight from functional languages that have barely been integrated into mainstream ones. If we will ever be "done" discovering new things about programming languages, that day is still decades away.II. Different Tasks Have Different NeedsHere is a partial list of things people write code for:Fulfilling orders at an online store, where orders should always be correct but a delay is no big deal.Directing calls around a telephone network, where one dropped call is no big deal but a completely crashed switch is completely unacceptable.Cooking food in a microwave, where an incorrect dose is no big deal.Administering radiation therapy to cancer patients, where an overdose could kill (and has).Rendering a highly realistic simulation of a World War II battle for a shoot-'em-up game.Rendering a highly realistic simulation of a World War II battle for a movie with a $200 million budget.Rendering a highly realistic simulation of a World War II battle for a military academy's coursework.Driving a little R/C car around on a street.Driving a full-size car with people in it around on a street.Driving a rover around Mars, millions of miles from the nearest technicians who could fix a glitch.Replacing a bunch of <h5> tags with <p> tags.Converting scans of paper books into e-books.Distributing court documents to lawyers and the public.Trying to reduce the amount of spam in someone's inbox.Trying to spam someone's inbox.Directing airplanes as part of a fun iPad game.Directing airplanes full of hundreds of real people as part of a stressful job.Crunching numbers from a science experiment to discover new things about physics.Crunching numbers from the stock market to make (or lose) millions of dollars.Crunching numbers from a football league to rank fantasy football teams.Each of these applications has different requirements. Some of them must be written quickly; others can take years. Some have extreme constraints on the amount of processing time they can use; others can take all the processing time they need. Some can tolerate bugs; others can tolerate certain kinds of bugs but not others; still others can cause very costly failures; and some will literally kill people if there's a bug.People use different languages to help them match these different requirements. An aerospace system which can't tolerate failures might use a language like Ada which imposes strict validity checks on all of your code and data. A telecom system that allows small glitches but no catastrophic crashes might use Erlang, which forces you to break up your system into lots of independent, cooperating components, any one of which can crash and be automatically restarted. A game or a mechanical equipment controller with strict timing requirements might use a language like C++ which imposes very little overhead so they can meet their timing requirements. And a system that will see lots of ongoing attention and tweaking from programmers, or a one-off program that will be run once and then thrown away, might use a dynamic language like Ruby or Python that wastes computer resources and allows sloppy code, but frees programmers to work quickly and get a lot of stuff done.III. Languages Have Domain-Specific FeaturesOne of the first languages I learned was Perl. Back in the day, I wrote hundreds or thousands of lines of Perl to create dynamic websites. Nowadays I use Ruby for the same task—but I still end up writing a little Perl every couple of weeks.Why would I still use this old language when I've moved on for most of my work? It's because Perl's text manipulation features are second to none.See, every few weeks, I run into some task where I have to rip information out of some text file and either analyze or rewrite it. And Perl builds dozens of features to do exactly that right into the language. Those features mean that a program that might take ten or fifteen lines in another language can be put right on the command line in Perl:brent@Brents-MacBook-Pro Lily.tsbook> perl -nE '$tags{lc $1}++ while /<(\w+)/g; END { say "$_: $tags{$_}" for sort keys %tags }' *.htmla: 101b: 97body: 71br: 126div: 3h1: 72h2: 3h3: 1head: 71hr: 95html: 71i: 327img: 43meta: 71p: 4131small: 6style: 71title: 71u: 16No standard, universal language is going to make it that easy to do some quick-and-dirty analysis of a text file. And it shouldn't! Most systems have no need for these features. But when you run across a problem that needs these tools, it's really handy to have a whole language built around them.It's not just about these kinds of specialized tools. Smalltalk, for example, is object-oriented to the core. Every datum is an object—even an integer, a class, a block of code, or a stack frame—and every action is a method—even adding numbers, invoking a code block, doing an if/else statement, or defining a new class. This costs you some speed, but creates a uniquely flexible environment. By contrast, in a functional language like Haskell, no variable can be changed once it's created and there's no distinction between a value and a function that calculates that value. This requires you to structure your code in radically different ways, but lays bare a lot of hidden bugs and allows the compiler to apply massive optimizations. These two approaches so completely upend typical language designs that they couldn't even be incorporated into a more ordinary language—let alone the same language as each other—without diluting them so much that you'd lose most of their benefits.IV. Languages Are a Matter of TasteEven if you could surmount all of these problems, there's one last barrier: people don't agree on what a language should be like.First, the cosmetic issues: Should blocks be delimited with curly braces, keywords, or indentation? Should you use underscores or capital letters to separate words? Should identifiers be prefixed? Should parameters be labeled? And studies have shown that the most popular choices are often the ones most difficult for new programmers to learn—but really, is the goal here to make a language that's easy to learn or easy to use by professionals?But let's leave that aside, because if you just picked one, people would grumble but they could adjust.How are you going to handle memory management? Garbage collectors are popular, sure, but they're not good for everything—iOS doesn't use them because they can cause choppy animations and scrolling, and you certainly don't want something like that on a Mars rover.How are you going to handle text? The full Unicode semantics for determining what a "character" is are hideously complicated, require you to consult enormous tables to determine which characters combine with which, and sometimes depend on the language the text is in. So really handling Unicode properly is very slow; some people aren't willing to pay the price. They might want to ignore combining characters...or use UTF-16 codepoints instead of characters...or use UTF-8 bytes. And then you think about the fact that not all text is in Unicode...Do you support higher-order functions? They're "a really powerful way of solving problems", but "I haven't had occasion to use [them] once. Instead, I just use 'for' loops. You shouldn't use [them] either." Do you support generics? You need them to "find[] bugs in compile time", but they cause "insidious lurking bugs". Even recursion is banned in some memory-constrained or high-reliability environments.You just can't please everybody. So instead, we have a lot of languages, each of which pleases some people.(Except Javascript. Nobody likes Javascript.)