DO title voting page.

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

There has been a lot of fuss about changing the designation so here's a change to vote on it. The page is pretty bare and if you're looking to lend a hand as an administrator PM me. I don't want this to turn into another MD vs DO squabble, it's not about that it's about communicating as a group where we want to go as a profession. I encourage the posting of published and well referenced articles. This can be a great consolidation of material for those considering the Osteopathic Profession and for the AOA to gauge what young DO's are thinking.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoca...45844652126484

Please post something here if there are any issues getting to the page.

-Tissot.

Ehh waste of time, this has been discussed to death and the people running the AOA are not going to budge. Somehow I dont think a facebook vote will change their minds.

Facebook and Twitter changed the Arab Spring, I wouldn't underestimate the influence of mass communication quite so quickly. I don't for a second equate the two. It's just an example.

Originally Posted by sylvanthus

Ehh waste of time, this has been discussed to death and the people running the AOA are not going to budge. Somehow I dont think a facebook vote will change their minds.

+1
DO = physician. Much bigger issues in healthcare to focus on instead of petty BS.

Originally Posted by Tissot

There has been a lot of fuss about changing the designation so here's a change to vote on it. The page is pretty bare and if you're looking to lend a hand as an administrator PM me. I don't want this to turn into another MD vs DO squabble, it's not about that it's about communicating as a group where we want to go as a profession. I encourage the posting of published and well referenced articles. This can be a great consolidation of material for those considering the Osteopathic Profession and for the AOA to gauge what young DO's are thinking.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoca...45844652126484

Please post something here if there are any issues getting to the page.

-Tissot.

Whereas, Osteopathic medical colleges award the D.O. degree and every single person who matriculates is fully aware of this fact, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That whoever doesn't want the D.O. degree should not apply/matriculate to an osteopathic medical college; and be it further

RESOLVED, That students enrolled in an osteopathic medicine program who do not wish to be D.O.s should immediately drop out and stop bi***ing about this on SDN for the nth million time; and be it further

RESOLVED, That Osteopathic physicians who don't want to be D.O.s can tear up their degrees and go find another profession; and be it further

RESOLVED, That people will leave our degree alone.

If you are so ashamed to be a DO, you probably shouldn't have gone DO.

Originally Posted by bala565

Whereas, Osteopathic medical colleges award the D.O. degree and every single person who matriculates is fully aware of this fact, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That whoever doesn't want the D.O. degree should not apply/matriculate to an osteopathic medical college; and be it further

RESOLVED, That students enrolled in an osteopathic medicine program who do not wish to be D.O.s should immediately drop out and stop bi***ing about this on SDN for the nth million time; and be it further

RESOLVED, That Osteopathic physicians who don't want to be D.O.s can tear up their degrees and go find another profession; and be it further

RESOLVED, That people will let our degree alone.

You are acting as if this is not a real or important issue. The fact is that the vast majority of the public doesn't even understand the role of a D.O., and the name itself is a misnomer. The proposed name change to MD/DO or MD,DO would keep the unique identity of osteopathic physicians intact while more accurately reflecting the role of the DO as a medical doctor.

I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but I can certainly see that there are some good arguments in favor of it, and that its a topic worthy of some discussion.

Not this again....

Originally Posted by TeeHeHe

You are acting as if this is not a real or important issue. The fact is that the vast majority of the public doesn't even understand the role of a D.O., and the name itself is a misnomer. The proposed name change to MD/DO or MD,DO would keep the unique identity of osteopathic physicians intact while more accurately reflecting the role of the DO as a medical doctor.

I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but I can certainly see that there are some good arguments in favor of it, and that its a topic worthy of some discussion.

Because it is NOT a real important issue. DOs have managed for 100+ years and we don't need a degree change.

The public also doesn't know the difference between DDS and DMD or DVM and VMD... But somehow manage to find a dentist/vet as they need it.... Also this is the same public that calls PAs and NPs doctors.

This issue has been discussed a gazillion times on SDN and at AOA. It ain't gonna happen. And just to help you out, if you have any problem with the degree you should immediately withdraw your acceptance so someone else can take your spot and more impotently you can be happy for the rest of your life and not end up posting this stuff like the OP.

And again, No one is forcing anyone to be a DO, if you don't want to be a DO, don't go to a DO school... It's really simple.... I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for people, especially on SDN.

I thought I'd check in, seems fairly supportive of not changing so far. Which is a bit of a surprise, but to each their own. Regardless of your position, please vote on the FB page. Out of 140 ish views it looks like 3 votes so far.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoca...45844652126484

Originally Posted by TeeHeHe

You are acting as if this is not a real or important issue. The fact is that the vast majority of the public doesn't even understand the role of a D.O., and the name itself is a misnomer. The proposed name change to MD/DO or MD,DO would keep the unique identity of osteopathic physicians intact while more accurately reflecting the role of the DO as a medical doctor.

I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but I can certainly see that there are some good arguments in favor of it, and that its a topic worthy of some discussion.

And I think you are overestimating the amount the public cares. 90% of patients call NPs, PAs, med students, house supervisors, anyone else a doctor. I worked as a patient transporter and wore a ridiculous orange uniform and people still called me doctor every once in awhile.

I was having a conversation with a patient from a very small town that my professor was living in and I said, "Oh do you know Dr. XX he is a physics professor at XX" and the patient responded with "Is he the one with the clinic on the corner?" If you are in a hospital and you say, "I am Dr. Frky" it is enough.

Seems to me that would confuse the issue with people who hold both DO and MD degrees.

Originally Posted by Tissot

I thought I'd check in, seems fairly supportive of not changing so far. Which is a bit of a surprise, but to each their own. Regardless of your position, please vote on the FB page. Out of 140 ish views it looks like 3 votes so far.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoca...45844652126484

No thanks.

This has been discussed before, with polls here on SDN even. The AOA has considered it and soundly defeated several measures to change the degree, even as recently as two or three years ago.

Originally Posted by FrkyBgStok

I worked as a patient transporter and wore a ridiculous orange uniform and people still called me doctor every once in awhile.

Hahaha! I used to be a transporter as well and we also had ridiculous uniforms that made us stick out like sore thumbs! Why do they do that to us? When I graduated to scrubs as a tech it was heaven... until someone's puke or poop ended up on them...

Originally Posted by bala565

Whereas, Osteopathic medical colleges award the D.O. degree and every single person who matriculates is fully aware of this fact, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That whoever doesn't want the D.O. degree should not apply/matriculate to an osteopathic medical college; and be it further

RESOLVED, That students enrolled in an osteopathic medicine program who do not wish to be D.O.s should immediately drop out and stop bi***ing about this on SDN for the nth million time; and be it further

RESOLVED, That Osteopathic physicians who don't want to be D.O.s can tear up their degrees and go find another profession; and be it further

RESOLVED, That people will leave our degree alone.

FINALLY!!! A resolution on the DO degree I actually agree with.

I second this resolution. My signature appears below to approve this.

- Shinken A. D.O.

Originally Posted by Shinken

FINALLY!!! A resolution on the DO degree I actually agree with.

I second this resolution. My signature appears below to approve this.

- Shinken A. D.O.

Agreed, it's about time people stopped complaining about it and just accept it. D.O. is a medical degree, if you do not want to be known as a D.O. then do not waste everyones time and a spot by applying.

Pardon my ignorance, but would DO schools be allowed to do this without LCME accreditation?

Originally Posted by poopyhead

Pardon my ignorance, but would DO schools be allowed to do this without LCME accreditation?

You don't need LCME accreditation (case in point: all foreign MDs). If such a resolution would ever pass, then you'd need each state to pass a law recognizing "MD, DO" degrees awarded by COCA-accredited schools.

However, as I've said previously, it ain't gonna happen and if you don't like it, don't go to a DO school!

Did each state pass a law to accommodate the degree change from Doctor of Osteopathy to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine?

If someone has a problem with not having MD beside their name they should just pay some med school in the Caribbean to transfer their credits and give them a fake degree.

Originally Posted by Tissot

Facebook and Twitter changed the Arab Spring, I wouldn't underestimate the influence of mass communication quite so quickly. I don't for a second equate the two. It's just an example.

For the love of all things that are holy, do NOT equate changing DO to DO,MD with the Arab Spring. It's insulting.

Originally Posted by Tissot

Did each state pass a law to accommodate the degree change from Doctor of Osteopathy to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine?

TISSOT = Troll Is Simply $hitting On Threads

sorry, had to do it...

So much negativity, geesh. I think that it's an interesting topic, pardon me. If that's not the majority opinion then so be it. There are lots of little surveys out there on this but I've yet to see anything with a significant number of votes. I was hoping this could draw a bigger audience than previous polls.

I would like to encourage folks to avoid the bickering and just cast a vote. Actual arguments are great but the direction of the thread seems to be circling the drain quickly.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoc...45844652126484

Originally Posted by Tissot

So much negativity, geesh. I think that it's an interesting topic, pardon me. If that's not the majority opinion then so be it. There are lots of little surveys out there on this but I've yet to see anything with a significant number of votes. I was hoping this could draw a bigger audience than previous polls.

I would like to encourage folks to avoid the bickering and just cast a vote. Actual arguments are great but the direction of the thread seems to be circling the drain quickly.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advoc...45844652126484

I was just playing with ya

But this topic is played out.

Originally Posted by Tissot

Did each state pass a law to accommodate the degree change from Doctor of Osteopathy to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine?

States don't pass laws regarding degrees. States pass laws about licensure. I can give you 20 MD degrees right now but they are worth nothing because the degree is not recognized by any state. Therefore, you can not advertise yourself as Tissot, MD even though you got a MD degree from Bala College of Medicine. That is why some foreign MD graduates can't get a residency/license even though they have the degree, because their schools are not recognized by any state or in some cases not recognized by some states (e.g. PTAL/California Letter, look it up). We also had this discussion in another thread where you were involved in defending a d-bag DO who got a fake MD degree from South America and was advertising himself as one.

To directly answer your question, in fact in many states legally speaking, D.O. still stands for Doctor of Osteopathy, even though the degree is Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. However, given that there is no difference in how one advertises and there is no conflict between Doctor of Osteopathy vs. Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and both use the initials D.O., Nobody cares.

On the other hand if you want to use the initials MD (referring to the license NOT the degree) then each state has to change their laws to recognize degrees from COCA-accredited schools (regardless of the name or initials of the degree) as eligible for obtaining a MD license.

In any event, if you are really an osteopathic medical student, then given your attitude and to some degree, ignorance about medicine and medical degrees/licensure as well as your obvious disdain for the profession, I strongly recommend that you drop out and apply to your favorite MD school and stop wasting everyone's time and more importantly make yourself happy.

Originally Posted by Tissot

So much negativity, geesh. I think that it's an interesting topic, pardon me. If that's not the majority opinion then so be it. There are lots of little surveys out there on this but I've yet to see anything with a significant number of votes. I was hoping this could draw a bigger audience than previous polls.

I would like to encourage folks to avoid the bickering and just cast a vote. Actual arguments are great but the direction of the thread seems to be circling the drain quickly.

Because, even though you think you are the first to come up with this idea, your idea/thread is not novel and someone creates such a ridiculous and pointless threads about once month on SDN and the conclusion is always the same!

Also what's your point? Even if everyone on SDN votes for it (which is not going to happen), do you think somehow the AOA will change its position? Or you can you use a Facebook/SDN poll for any meaningful purpose in the public/legal domain? Or the AMA would even allow it without dissolving the profession (e.g. the California experiment)? in which case do you think AOA would allow itself to be dissolved? Don't be ridiculous and just change schools/profession if you are so unhappy...

I'm going to optometry school after this to get my OD degree. 5 more years of schooling and I'll be thepoopologist, DO,OD

Despite some bashing "bala" you have introduced some solid discussion points, and for that I appreciate it.

I was going to avoid putting my own thoughts out there but I've reconsidered.

Here's where I'm coming from. This isn't just a name change debate and my views are much different now that I am in the profession. I am mostly concerned about the ethical implications of maintaining the separate paths for physicians. Is the name change important, no. Is it a stepping stone to serve the public in a better manner, yes. I would like to see a cultural change in our group. Holistic care and increased emphasis on non invasive therapy is the future of medicine. If you take a look at the heathcare policies developing in the EU as a result of the German Health System I think we can draw some very valuable conclusions for the future of modern medicine in the western world. As DO's we have a skill that can benefit the public in a very big way but we consistently under utilize our expertise. My interest in the degree change has to do with breaking down the barrier that exists between the MD and DO worlds. Consider it a starting point for further progress. I want us to make a commitment to the public that we are medical doctors and that we have something else to offer. I want us to not waste resources by maintaining two identical education systems that needlessly waste resources (specifically GME). I want MD's to be able to fellowship and earn the DO title and to spread the use of our techniques. If we continue to remain separate we continue to do a disservice to what would serve the public best. We are depriving them of doctors by matter of unfilled residency seats and by neglect by matter of not training our MD counterparts in treatments which can drastically improve the lives of so many. Just take for example back pain, most references list this as the 2nd most common office visit complaint. Manual medicine can help them and yet the DO community only comprises roughly 14% of the primary care community. This isn't about downregulating the DO degree it's about upregulating the use of holistic care models and manual medicine in order to better the lives of those that live in our communities. Our society bestows a great responsibility on physicians and we are trusted to regulate ourselves. I think we can do a better job. We have tried to increase our presence in the profession by increasing our medical school graduation rates, why stop there? Why not make decisions now that can pave the way to increase the number of overall physicians entering the workforce each year and increase the number of persons trained to provide OMM. I think it is our responsibility to take a look at the implications of continuing on a separate path. We can do better, and we should. If you want to roll over and say that it doesn't matter, then go for it. Health care in the US is on a rocky road and it's going to get worse before it gets better. By changing the title we're making a step in the direction towards coalescing doubled resources and toward the proliferation of DO treatment modalities so that they may better be distributed through the American Health System.

There's a lot of hurdles and arguments that I am very sure will follow. This is an introduction of separate issues from the original goal of the survey; hopefully it will shed some light on my motive.

Originally Posted by Tissot

Despite some bashing "bala" you have introduced some solid discussion points, and for that I appreciate it.

I was going to avoid putting my own thoughts out there but I've reconsidered.

Here's where I'm coming from. This isn't just a name change debate and my views are much different now that I am in the profession. I am mostly concerned about the ethical implications of maintaining the separate paths for physicians. Is the name change important, no. Is it a stepping stone to serve the public in a better manner, yes. I would like to see a cultural change in our group. Holistic care and increased emphasis on non invasive therapy is the future of medicine. If you take a look at the heathcare policies developing in the EU as a result of the German Health System I think we can draw some very valuable conclusions for the future of modern medicine in the western world. As DO's we have a skill that can benefit the public in a very big way but we consistently under utilize our expertise. My interest in the degree change has to do with breaking down the barrier that exists between the MD and DO worlds. Consider it a starting point for further progress. I want us to make a commitment to the public that we are medical doctors and that we have something else to offer. I want us to not waste resources by maintaining two identical education systems that needlessly waste resources (specifically GME). I want MD's to be able to fellowship and earn the DO title and to spread the use of our techniques. If we continue to remain separate we continue to do a disservice to what would serve the public best. We are depriving them of doctors by matter of unfilled residency seats and by neglect by matter of not training our MD counterparts in treatments which can drastically improve the lives of so many. Just take for example back pain, most references list this as the 2nd most common office visit complaint. Manual medicine can help them and yet the DO community only comprises roughly 14% of the primary care community. This isn't about downregulating the DO degree it's about upregulating the use of holistic care models and manual medicine in order to better the lives of those that live in our communities. Our society bestows a great responsibility on physicians and we are trusted to regulate ourselves. I think we can do a better job. We have tried to increase our presence in the profession by increasing our medical school graduation rates, why stop there? Why not make decisions now that can pave the way to increase the number of overall physicians entering the workforce each year and increase the number of persons trained to provide OMM. I think it is our responsibility to take a look at the implications of continuing on a separate path. We can do better, and we should. If you want to roll over and say that it doesn't matter, then go for it. Health care in the US is on a rocky road and it's going to get worse before it gets better. By changing the title we're making a step in the direction towards coalescing doubled resources and toward the proliferation of DO treatment modalities so that they may better be distributed through the American Health System.

There's a lot of hurdles and arguments that I am very sure will follow. This is an introduction of separate issues from the original goal of the survey; hopefully it will shed some light on my motive.

You goals/desires are very admirable however, changing our degree will not address any of your goals.

1) Currently, MDs can enroll in OMM courses, be trained and bill for it, but the majority choose not to and changing our degree will not change their minds.

2) I don't know what wasted GME you are talking about? but based on your post history, If you are talking about unfilled spots and allowing FMGs to take them, they are mostly rotating internship spots, which even if we allow FMGs to take them will not get them licensed because FMG must have 3 year of PG training in most states as opposed to 1-2 years for US DO and MD. Also, unfilled spots don't get GME funding and if they go unfilled for 3 consecutive years, the spot is reallocated to another program, so there are no wasted federal resources. As far as US grads (DO and MD) almost everyone who wants a spot gets a spot, so again I'm not sure what you are talking about. Even disregarding all that, changing the name of our degree doesn't affect GME.

3) I don't know what you are trying to get at by stating that DOs comprise "only" 14% of Primary Care Community; We are roughly 7-8% of the entire physician community in this country, therefore 14% is considered over-represented by 100%... So we are doing more than our share for primary care. Either way still changing the degree doesn't address any of that.

Again, I respect your overall goals, but changing the degree doesn't address any of that and furthermore, it aint gonna happen (too much opposition on both sides). Also, reading your post, it seems that you are more interested in MDs changing their degree to DO than the other way around so maybe you should change your poll to reflect that.

I don't understand why some DO's are opposed to the MD, DO change. As I see it, it is a win-win situation. There's nothing to lose here at all. People that want the degree change, they get it. People that don't, still have "D.O." to be able to use. In the end, the worst thing that can happen is that you get recognition from mainstream America. Sure, people came in knowing that it was D.O., but so what?

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

I don't understand why some DO's are opposed to the MD, DO change. As I see it, it is a win-win situation. There's nothing to lose here at all. People that want the degree change, they get it. People that don't, still have "D.O." to be able to use. In the end, the worst thing that can happen is that you get recognition from mainstream America. Sure, people came in knowing that it was D.O., but so what?

The issue is that this sort of thing will never happen unless DOs give up something and AOA will not give up anything (neither should they). It requires every single state to amend their current law to accommodate such change and none of them will do that without AMA's blessing. AMA will never allow DOs to continue to exist while getting an additional MD (and why should they? I wouldn't if I was them). We don't live in a vacuum. If we did, I would say lets change DO to DO, MD, PhD, MBA, MPH, DVM, DDS. It is childish to think these sort of things unless your true motives are that you want a MD (for whatever reason/perception that you may have), in which case you should not have gone/go to a DO school.

There are much more crucial things that we can do as a profession to advocate for ourselves than waste time on the initials of our license/degree. Instead this poll should be about mandatory 10-fold increase in research at COMs or improvement in osteopathic GME or stoping the irrational expansion of COMs/class sizes than the initials of the degree that no one but bunch of SDN premeds/med students care about. You do those things and you become much more "recognized" than by changing your degree.

Originally Posted by bala565

The issue is that this sort of thing will never happened unless DOs give up something and AOA will not give up anything (neither should they). It requires every single state to amend their current law to accommodate such change and none of them will do that without AMA's blessing. AMA will never allow DOs to continue to exist while getting an additional MD (and why should they? I wouldn't if I was them). We don't live in a vacuum. If we did, I would say lets change DO to DO, MD, PhD, MBA, MPH, DVM, DDS. It is childish to think these sort of things unless your true motives are that you want a MD (for whatever reason/perception that you may have), in which case you should not have gone/go to a DO school.

There are much more crucial things that we can do as a profession to advocate for ourselves than waste time on the initials of our license/degree. Instead this poll should be about mandatory 10-fold increase in research at COMs or improvement in osteopathic GME or stoping the irrational expansion of COMs/class sizes than the initials of the degree that no one but bunch of SDN premeds/med students care about. You do those things and you become much more "recognized" than by changing your degree.

You bring up a very good point. In terms of law, that seems really hard to do, but I think "what does the AMA think?" is something open to debate. They gave DO's MD's in California for a while, so I'm thinking more uniformity and greater possibility to obtain money from these schools and practitioners might motivate them to be agreeable.

I can understand some people secretly wanting an MD, and in that case, I think they shouldn't have gone to DO school. I am applying this coming cycle to MD and DO schools. Personally, I don't care about letters after my name. I'm applying to schools where I think I could be happy, and I do appreciate how Osteopathic medical schools give second opportunities to many, although I don't have a single course to substitute. At the same time, I can see how someone may want to be a part of the culture and schooling of Osteopathic Medicine AND not want to deal with stigma and what not, so that's why I don't see a degree change as a hindrance.

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

You bring up a very good point. In terms of law, that seems really hard to do, but I think "what does the AMA think?" is something open to debate. They gave DO's MD's in California for a while, so I'm thinking more uniformity and greater possibility to obtain money from these schools and practitioners might motivate them to be agreeable.

I can understand some people secretly wanting an MD, and in that case, I think they shouldn't have gone to DO school. I am applying this coming cycle to MD and DO schools. Personally, I don't care about letters after my name. I'm applying to schools where I think I could be happy, and I do appreciate how Osteopathic medical schools give second opportunities to many, although I don't have a single course to substitute. At the same time, I can see how someone may want to be a part of the culture and schooling of Osteopathic Medicine AND not want to deal with stigma and what not, so that's why I don't see a degree change as a hindrance.

The California disaster is a great example. They didn't just give DOs, MDs in California. What they did was that AMA came and abolished DO institutions in California, prevented DOs (who accepted the MD) from advertising themselves as DOs and they had to sign a contract that they won't go to other states and get licensed as DOs (effectively preventing them from getting licensed anywhere else besides California) and got rid of CA osteopathic association/board. They also took over California's Osteopathic medical school and converted it to an allopathic school (aka University of California - Irvine medical school).

So, as I said, it is not as simple as what people on SDN think. AMA wants nothing more than to get rid of DOs (nothing personal, it's in their financial/power interest); They are not in the business of making life easier for DOs.

There is nothing wrong with applying to DO and MD... and don't think that everyone that applies to DO, does so because of grade replacement.... I also didn't have a single grade replaced and in fact my MD sGPA was slightly higher than my DO sGPA due to what is and is not considered science by DO vs. MD.... Also nobody is here recruiting people... You should definitely go to whatever school that makes you happy... But to go to a DO school and then b*** about the degree is unacceptable/ungrateful (at least as far as I'm concerned)!

I like my DO degree. Saw a patient the other day, when she found out I was a DO, she spent 15 min talking about how she was really helped by a DO years ago and really liked the care we provide. Older DO's worked really hard to get us equal rights and treated their patients really well. Instead of wanting a MD after your name so people would instantly recognize you, work hard to make your DO degree known.

Originally Posted by Oxer45

I like my DO degree. Saw a patient the other day, when she found out I was a DO, she spent 15 min talking about how she was really helped by a DO years ago and really liked the care we provide. Older DO's worked really hard to get us equal rights and treated their patients really well. Instead of wanting a MD after your name so people would instantly recognize you, work hard to make your DO degree known.

+1

Originally Posted by bala565

The California disaster is a great example. They didn't just give DOs, MDs in California. What they did was that AMA came and abolished DO institutions in California, prevented DOs (who accepted the MD) from advertising themselves as DOs and they had to sign a contract that they won't go to other states and get licensed as DOs (effectively preventing them from getting licensed anywhere else besides California) and got rid of CA osteopathic association/board. They also took over California's Osteopathic medical school and converted it to an allopathic school (aka University of California - Irvine medical school).

So, as I said, it is not as simple as what people on SDN think. AMA wants nothing more than to get rid of DOs (nothing personal, it's in their financial/power interest); They are not in the business of making life easier for DOs.

There is nothing wrong with applying to DO and MD... and don't think that everyone that applies to DO, does so because of grade replacement.... I also didn't have a single grade replaced and in fact my MD sGPA was slightly higher than my DO sGPA due to what is and is not considered science by DO vs. MD.... Also nobody is here recruiting people... You should definitely go to whatever school that makes you happy... But to go to a DO school and then b*** about the degree is unacceptable/ungrateful (at least as far as I'm concerned)!

The grade replacement comment was to highlight that Osteopathic Medicine does take a holistic approach and gives a second opportunity to people that may have not had it. It allows talent that may have been lost an opportunity to succeed. I consider this a strong point and don't mean to say people apply just because of this. Like I said, I don't have a class to replace, but I can appreciate when a place believes in second chances. I also have a lower DO sGPA because they include Oceanography in their science :-(

Originally Posted by bala565

... This issue has been discussed a gazillion times on SDN and at AOA. It ain't gonna happened. ...

Originally Posted by bala565

However, as I've said previously, it ain't gonna happened and if you don't like it, don't go to a DO school!

Originally Posted by bala565

... Also what's your point? Even if everyone on SDN votes for it (which is not going to happened), do you think somehow the AOA will change its position? ...

Originally Posted by bala565

The issue is that this sort of thing will never happened unless DOs give up something and AOA will not give up anything (neither should they). …

Originally Posted by bala565

... Again, I respect your overall goals, but changing the degree doesn't address any of that and furthermore, it aint gonna happened (too much opposition on both sides). ...

First time I thought it was merely a typo/lack of proofreading. But, 5 times???

If I may offer a constructive suggestion, proofread your posts more carefully and review the proper usage of the word "happen." The persuasive force of any writing is undermined by the author's serial repetition of poor grammatical usage.

Originally Posted by koennen

First time I thought it was merely a typo/lack of proofreading. But, 5 times???

If I may offer a constructive suggestion, proofread your posts more carefully and review the proper usage of the word "happen." The persuasive force of any writing is undermined by the author's serial repetition of poor grammatical usage.

My bad.... Blame it on Mac auto-correct and posting after my bedtime.... I'm going to go ahead and correct them all so my message is not undermined....

referencing arab spring was ludicrous.

Originally Posted by River Rat

referencing arab spring was ludicrous.

yeah so when does the shooting start? I don't want a degree change THAT bad...

This came up this weekend for me. My buddy goes to KCUMB and I went to visit him for the weekend. We got to talking about OMT and how he hates it for the most part. We also talked about how the curriculum is essentially the same for both schools.

My position - the degree thing is absurd. DO is not an MD+ degree as has been implied in other instances. I don't say this to bash on DO's or imply that practicing DOs are somehow the retarded younger cousin of MD's (I reserve that for PA's and will change that once they hit a positive/negative outcome ration >1 in my own personal anecdotal experience). If I were in a DO school (and I did apply to a few, so please don't mistake my pragmatism for DO hating) I would see the motion as disingenuous and insulting. Two separate but functionally equal degrees do not need "re-branding". To do so strikes me as a compensatory or defense mechanism by people who are reacting to insecurities.

DO as a degree denotes a separate tract with separate measures of success to MD. The fact that they are largely similar does not change the fact that they are distinct. Nor is it unusual for degrees (espeically in healthcare) to overlap. The implication of MD/DO for someone graduating from an osteopathic school are no different than the DPN introducing themselves as Dr. whoever.

DO's inception and growing stature is, IMO, a result of physician shortage and an increased pool of people granted an additional opportunity to become physicians in a limited MD class size. The lower mcat scores and grades are indicative of a "second chance" system. and since this has blown up in other cases - this does not mean that DO's as a whole are less capable than MD's and a little piece of me dies every time I have to reiterate that in anticipation of the people who get immediately offended. I don't know the numbers but I think any student would be lying to themselves if they didnt admit that the DO student body was made up of a mix of people who

• Truly ascribe to the DO philosophy and would go DO even with a 4.0 and 45mcat
• Did well in school but came to medicine late and dont have the token MDapps resume
• Had a few extenuating circumstances in school or in tests and whose ability is not well indicated by their scores
• people who struggled in undergrad compared to other applicants and this is reflected in their scores
• People who did not fare well by MD AdComs and are going DO because u just cant put baby in a corn... er.... cant keep them down
• those who anticipated not faring well in MD admissions and cut their losses and went DO
• and those who were rightfully excluded by MD schools and will likely not fare well in DO school either

Most of these types of people will be in allopathic schools as well (where applicable). And again, none of this list indicates that DO students are less capable as a result of being DO student (OUCH! my little piece of me!....) These statements are on averages, and if you understand averages and the concept of standard deviation you'd see there is nothing offensive in there about DO students.

The point that I have brought up in these sorts of threads is that it strikes me as completely nonsensical to say the MD+ or other such arguments (the PA student who insisted their curriculum was just as deep but done in shorter order than physicians for example). But this logical progression works for anything including commercial jobs.... really it can be applied to anything people compete over
1. Two schools select a different average range of applicants. one higher one lower (i.e. scores)
2. The school who selects lower has a component of its curriculum to lend distinction from the other.
3. Students in the school with higher selection are pushed and taxed to a median limit of their abilities.
4. the school with the lower selection claims to provide the training of the higher selective school with additional skill sets.

These statements cannot all be true and coexist. We have a conflict that says decreased selection yield increased results. We have to make an assumption for all of these to be true. (and remember.... the point addressed is not MD>DO. the point being made is that DO>MD is false.... and there went another piece... SND diet plan anyone?)
One of these must be true:
1. GPA and MCAT have no bearing on academic ability across a large sample size - resolving the conflict between selection and outcome. if these numbers are in reality a crapshoot then any comparison is bunk. if they have any predictive value however.... see below

(ive already addressed the subset with extenuating circumstances or situations - I know several people doing DO school that didn't do so hot on either one of these and I would have no problem letting them be my doctor some day.)

2. The additional curricular component serves as a bridge in the differences in the programs - resolving the conflict of selection and outcome again (claims 2 and 4). This is to say that OMT is worth 4-6MCAT points or .3GPA. This is ridiculous, but hey, we are just going over every option in a logical progression

3. The lower school does not provide the same rigor as the higher school - thus negating part of claim 4 and resolving the conflict between selection and outcome. If this were true, not that it is, it would explain a difference in incoming selection criteria with an absence of difference in exit statistics

4. both schools provide the same gruel, but the lower school has a higher fail or unmatch rate - resolving the conflict of selection and outcome, claims 1, 2, and 4, and making it possible that the OMT component does constitute an addition.

Again, i dont know if any of these things are true.. I am just saying that we need to boil down some simple truths here and extrapolate.


All of this is to address the OP: a combined MD/DO degree is ridiculous. It is no different than my self getting an MD/PA degree. Overlap in curriculum is not sufficient to bestow a new degree.

HOWEVER: if we did want to entertain this idea in a manner that is not stroking a bruised ego or serving as masturbatory material for someone with insecurities:

Let's say we do it - Then we need to standardize certification. COMLEX alone will not be sufficient. In addition, if we say that the core curriculum of DO and MD are similar enough to give an additional designation via OMT to DO, then we are VASTLY reducing the importance of a DO-only degree. It basically becomes the equivalent of an undergrad int phys major with a "focus" in something random. nobody cares that you took 2 extra classes to "focus"..

(if anyone was butthurt by the above please read below and it should clarify the points and my actual position here)

So in short, I am actually open to the idea on the condition that DO schools and MD schools become indistinguishable in terms of regulation, selection, certification, ect... (do DO schools increase stats to meet MD? do we drift towards the middle? Do some schools go up while others down? i'm not suggesting we implement some sort of 29 minimum mcat rule unless you are URM)

The OMT distinction between MD and DO is antiquated at best. Most DO's do not use OMT in their practice and it has largely become a token to keep people happy who provide funding and accreditation - monetary pressure is not a good reason to adhere to a system. Given the comments by many of the DO students, I don't think many of you would be too upset if all of a sudden some higherup dictated that ALL DO students are going to get an MD at the end of training and OMT is optional and carries a gold star in your file but nothing more.

The irony of this situation is what is really implied by the proposition of an MD/DO combined degree. By suggesting it the proponents admit a back-door component to the discipline and selection process. I would find this offensive if I were a DO student. If we accept equal clinical relevance of both degrees in the current system, any talk of mixing is a result of an inferiority complex getting out and i cannot think of anything else that might motivate such talk. On the flip side... OMT, from my understanding, gets mixed in with other clinical courses with a lab a couple times a week. Would anyone here feel comfortable with me claiming MD/DO after graduating md school if I went and took a few dedicated OMT courses?

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

My position - the degree thing is absurd. DO is not an MD+ degree as has been implied in other instances. I don't say this to bash on DO's or imply that practicing DOs are somehow the retarded younger cousin of MD's (I reserve that for PA's and will change that once they hit a positive/negative outcome ration >1 in my own personal anecdotal experience). If I were in a DO school (and I did apply to a few, so please don't mistake my pragmatism for DO hating) I would see the motion as disingenuous and insulting. Two separate but functionally equal degrees do not need "re-branding". To do so strikes me as a compensatory or defense mechanism by people who are reacting to insecurities.

All of this is to address the OP: a combined MD/DO degree is ridiculous. It is no different than my self getting an MD/PA degree. Overlap in curriculum is not sufficient to bestow a new degree.

Couldn't agree more....

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

DO as a degree denotes a separate tract with separate measures of success to MD. The fact that they are largely similar does not change the fact that they are distinct. Nor is it unusual for degrees (espeically in healthcare) to overlap. The implication of MD/DO for someone graduating from an osteopathic school are no different than the DPN introducing themselves as Dr. whoever.

Don't push it....

The argument is not about degree but the initials for the LICENSE. Legally speaking, both DO and MD are equal physicians (at least by definition in the eye of US law) therefore, there is no element of deception... On the other hand the DPN introducing themselves as Dr. without further qualification is unethical because the patient may be deceived into believing that they are physicians which legally they are not.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

DO's inception and growing stature is, IMO, a result of physician shortage and an increased pool of people granted an additional opportunity to become physicians in a limited MD class size. The lower mcat scores and grades are indicative of a "second chance" system. and since this has blown up in other cases - this does not mean that DO's as a whole are less capable than MD's and a little piece of me dies every time I have to reiterate that in anticipation of the people who get immediately offended. I don't know the numbers but I think any student would be lying to themselves if they didnt admit that the DO student body was made up of a mix of people who

Now that's just wrong.... Osteopathy started 100+ years ago because some guy (namely Dr. Still) thought it was ridiculous to prescribe arsenic for common cold, which was the standard of care by the medical community. It grew because DOs after him did a good job and got political grounds. This whole physician shortage stuff started 10-15 years ago. At the time DO started and gained licensure in all 50 states, they never used the physician shortage BS/excuse and AMA was out there telling everyone that we have surplus of physicians.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

One of these must be true:
1. GPA and MCAT have no bearing on academic ability across a large sample size - resolving the conflict between selection and outcome. if these numbers are in reality a crapshoot then any comparison is bunk. if they have any predictive value however.... see below

(ive already addressed the subset with extenuating circumstances or situations - I know several people doing DO school that didn't do so hot on either one of these and I would have no problem letting them be my doctor some day.)

2. The additional curricular component serves as a bridge in the differences in the programs - resolving the conflict of selection and outcome again (claims 2 and 4). This is to say that OMT is worth 4-6MCAT points or .3GPA. This is ridiculous, but hey, we are just going over every option in a logical progression

3. The lower school does not provide the same rigor as the higher school - thus negating part of claim 4 and resolving the conflict between selection and outcome. If this were true, not that it is, it would explain a difference in incoming selection criteria with an absence of difference in exit statistics

4. both schools provide the same gruel, but the lower school has a higher fail or unmatch rate - resolving the conflict of selection and outcome, claims 1, 2, and 4, and making it possible that the OMT component does constitute an addition.

Out of the given options, I'd go with option 1 not because 1 is absolutely true but because the other 3 are absolutely false..

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

Would anyone here feel comfortable with me claiming MD/DO after graduating md school if I went and took a few dedicated OMT courses?

MDs are allowed to take OMT courses (there is one at Harvard) and then bill for it in some circumstances; None of us have any objections as long the breadth and depth is equal to what we take.

Specter, I don't think most DO's think that it's MD+, but it's true that you do receive the same education and OMT on top of it. Is that not true? Are DO's not in the same residencies as many MD's? Is that because they aren't trained equivalently? I don't think OMT makes the DO an MD+, but your argument is also a bit disingenuous too.

I don't think DO's have an "inferiority complex" as a reason to want to re-brand to MD. It's simply because it's a matter of being practical and not wanting to deal with the BS associated to having an alternative degree. Even you admit to being practical about what degree to get. Why do others have to have an inferiority complex and you be labelled practical for the exact same thing? I bet you right now if they changed the new doctor letters for XYZ and it meant not having to deal with BS, even the MD students would want re-branding for practical reasons.

And yes, go ahead and become MD, DO too. Matters nothing to me and probably anyone else.

Originally Posted by bala565

Couldn't agree more....



Don't push it....

The argument is not about degree but the initials for the LICENSE. Legally speaking, both DO and MD are equal physicians (at least by definition in the eye of US law) therefore, there is no element of deception... On the other hand the DPN introducing themselves as Dr. without further qualification is unethical because the patient may be deceived into believing that they are physicians which legally they are not.

I disagree with your conclusion here.

A DPN has received a doctorate in nursing. Technically they are correct to say Dr. XXX without any further explanation. The problem is in the implication. Same is true of someone saying MD/DO with no training beyond what a current DO gets. There is an implication there that is unnecessary.... and if I see something unnecessary I usually assume it is put there to make someone feel better lol. Operation on simple logic and rationality leaves little room for fluff.

Unless I am missing something - do DO students stand to gain anything from this change other than perceptions or pride?

Now that's just wrong.... Osteopathy started 100+ years ago because some guy (namely Dr. Still) thought it was ridiculous to prescribe arsenic for common cold, which was the standard of care by the medical community. It grew because DOs after him did a good job and got political grounds. This whole physician shortage stuff started 10-15 years ago. At the time DO started and gained licensure in all 50 states, they never used the physician shortage BS/excuse and AMA was out there telling everyone that we have surplus of physicians.

all ancient history aside, how would you explain the lower admissions requirements? I mean... honestly I've always said "you gotta pay to play" with this stuff. If the scores arent there you have other options but expect to pay through the nose for it.

The word "backup" has a negative connotation on it that I don't think is appropriate.... but I dont know a better word. There are a substantial number of students who go DO simply because they don't think their scores stack well on the MD scene.
This comes up over and over, but I think it is important. The underlying assumptions here being discussed are whether the MCAT and someone's GPA are indicative of their ability to succeed in med school. We get caught up in ranges and errors... but it comes down to this, either there is literally no correlation i.e. someone with a 3 on the MCAT is just as likely to excel in medschool as someone with a 45, OR there is some discernible trend - at the extreme a direct correlation. Somewhere in the middle says that your score indicates the ability of most people with that score, but for you the individual, there are error bars.... +/-2 points? +/- 9 points? it doesnt really matter because the sample size will eventually wash out the error. What it means is that if you, Premed Joe, score a 25 on the mcat, we know that the majority of people with that score have a given ability. Your specific ability lies somewhere between a 23-27 or a 16-34 depending on what theoretical and arbitrary error numbers we want to use without real data. But the point is we cannot have it both ways, either it does or it does not on a large scale. If you do not accept that someone with a 1/1/1 is just as LIKELY to succeed as someone with a 15/15/15 then you must accept every relationship along this spectrum.

we've talked clinical significance... and that is moot. Practicing DOs are indistinguishable from MDs. but all of these points are only to support the argument that something doesnt make sense.

Out of the given options, I'd go with option 1 not because 1 is absolutely true but because the other 3 are absolutely false..



MDs are allowed to take OMT courses (there is one at Harvard) and then bill for it in some circumstances; None of us have any objections as long the breadth and depth is equal to what we take.

didnt know about the OMT thing so..... ok fine

But then this:
https://www.aamc.org/download/102346...aibvol7no2.pdf

overall attrition rates by year on page 2. unfortunately i cant find new data for overall.

However this:
http://www.aacom.org/data/Documents/...on-Summary.pdf

The AACOM data includes leaves of absense, but the AAMC data for the same 4 years is significantly lower. These arent all hard fast rules by any means. There is a standard downward trend in the AACOM data which ends up being very close to the AAMC data for 4th year. There isnt any real trend across time so hopefully the mid 90s data from AAMC is comparable. but the AAMC showed an upward trend over 4 years.
3rd year seems to be the most successful year for the AACOM data which is odd.... because 4th year is largely used to take some electives but many 4th years have somewhat easy-street in MD schools... not sure what is up there.

a few assumptions: leave of absense is pretty standard across the years. The reasons i can think of for needing a leave are independent of curriculum, or if they are curriculum reasons then they can be functionally treated as dismissals. and it looks like the AAMC data is additive... otherwise I cannot make sense of the whole 10 year thing. but if the old AAMC data is still valid, we have 1.5% of students dropping out by 4th year and AACOM data saying 1.5% PER year. So accounting for the leave of absenses... AACOM data shows a relatively heavy weedout period in the pre-clinical years.

If those assumptions are correct it supports the theory that MCAT IS indicative of performance, and that DO schools ARE as rigorous as MD schools. Basically all it is saying is that the people in the DO schools who squeaked by the lower cutoff stand a higher chance of academic problems than MD students who squeaked by their lower cutoff. I don't think this is all that controversial of logic. I wonder if anyone has published attrition rate by MCAT score... I may go look here quick


The same logic gets used by both MD and DO students when talking about carib schools.... Higher dropout rates due to similar rigor with lower admissions standards.... there have been 3 threads on that since i came along lol. Id suspect that carib schools show a similar trend with amplified curves.

This still isnt intrinsically offensive material.... Honestly, for anyone in roughly their third year of DO school you can confidently say that the systemic selection has proven that you are one of the people whose abilities were underestimated by the MCAT. after all... its only an estimator....

Originally Posted by TriagePreMed

Specter, I don't think most DO's think that it's MD+, but it's true that you do receive the same education and OMT on top of it. Is that not true? Are DO's not in the same residencies as many MD's? Is that because they aren't trained equivalently? I don't think OMT makes the DO an MD+, but your argument is also a bit disingenuous too.

I don't think DO's have an "inferiority complex" as a reason to want to re-brand to MD. It's simply because it's a matter of being practical and not wanting to deal with the BS associated to having an alternative degree. Even you admit to being practical about what degree to get. Why do others have to have an inferiority complex and you be labelled practical for the exact same thing? I bet you right now if they changed the new doctor letters for XYZ and it meant not having to deal with BS, even the MD students would want re-branding for practical reasons.

And yes, go ahead and become MD, DO too. Matters nothing to me and probably anyone else.

If that were true it would be DO -> MD rather than DO -> MD/DO. this proposal keeps the BS of alternate degrees... IMO amplifies the BS

https://www.aamc.org/download/165418...9_no11.pdf.pdf

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

If that were true it would be DO -> MD rather than DO -> MD/DO. this proposal keeps the BS of alternate degrees... IMO amplifies the BS

Don't be disingenuous here. The majority of people pushing for "MD, DO" are using it as a compromise to appease those that simply want "DO." I bet you the large majority of them won't even care to add the "DO" in their credentials if the name changes. Either way, the degree is supposed to read "Doctor of Medicine, Diplomate in Osteopathy," so it's not even double doctorate or something people that go to allopathic schools can't earn.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

If those assumptions are correct it supports the theory that MCAT IS indicative of performance

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

https://www.aamc.org/download/165418...9_no11.pdf.pdf

"but our findings show Low SES students are more likely to leave medical school in the first two years of enrollment, regardless of MCAT score"

Okay, thanks for disproving yourself.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I disagree with your conclusion here.

A DPN has received a doctorate in nursing. Technically they are correct to say Dr. XXX without any further explanation. The problem is in the implication. Same is true of someone saying MD/DO with no training beyond what a current DO gets. There is an implication there that is unnecessary.... and if I see something unnecessary I usually assume it is put there to make someone feel better lol. Operation on simple logic and rationality leaves little room for fluff.

First of all, if you read my posts, you'll see that I'm 100% against MD/DO or any combination or any change to my DO degree and I'm willing to fight it on SDN and in court any day.

The problem with the DPNs introducing themselves as Dr. without further qualifications is that there is an element of deception where the patient may think s/he is physician (i.e. higher level of care) (same as someone with a PhD in physics introducing him/her self as Dr. in a healthcare setting without further qualifications). Therefore, invalidating the informed consent (the burden is on the practitioner to make sure the consent is truly an informed consent). On the other hand, if there was a change and the degree became MD/DO vs DO, there is no difference in level of care as far as the US law is concerned (MDs can argue MDs provide better care and DOs can argue DOs provide better care until they are blue in the face, but the law is clear DO = MD+OMM). Therefore, the informed consent is not violated.

Also, the problem with medical degree is that the initials for the degree and license are the same. The solution (if one assumes that there is a problem to begin with which I personally don't), is to change the LICENSE initials to some random letters (e.g. XYZ) such that XYZ meant physician for everyone regardless of DEGREE. For instance, licensed engineers get PEs regardless of what type of engineer they are or which degree they got (BS vs MS vs PhD).

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

all ancient history aside, how would you explain the lower admissions requirements? I mean... honestly I've always said "you gotta pay to play" with this stuff. If the scores arent there you have other options but expect to pay through the nose for it.

What is this "pay to play" stuff you have mentioned multiple times now and I keep hearing on SDN.... I went to a DO school, had a great education and was very satisfied with my experience while being in an environment that not everything was a competition like some other schools. So, I'm not sure what you are referring to but I'm sure you'll explain!

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

The word "backup" has a negative connotation on it that I don't think is appropriate.... but I dont know a better word. There are a substantial number of students who go DO simply because they don't think their scores stack well on the MD scene.
This comes up over and over, but I think it is important. The underlying assumptions here being discussed are whether the MCAT and someone's GPA are indicative of their ability to succeed in med school. We get caught up in ranges and errors... but it comes down to this, either there is literally no correlation i.e. someone with a 3 on the MCAT is just as likely to excel in medschool as someone with a 45, OR there is some discernible trend - at the extreme a direct correlation. Somewhere in the middle says that your score indicates the ability of most people with that score, but for you the individual, there are error bars.... +/-2 points? +/- 9 points? it doesnt really matter because the sample size will eventually wash out the error. What it means is that if you, Premed Joe, score a 25 on the mcat, we know that the majority of people with that score have a given ability. Your specific ability lies somewhere between a 23-27 or a 16-34 depending on what theoretical and arbitrary error numbers we want to use without real data. But the point is we cannot have it both ways, either it does or it does not on a large scale. If you do not accept that someone with a 1/1/1 is just as LIKELY to succeed as someone with a 15/15/15 then you must accept every relationship along this spectrum. .

Given the option (almost) everyone wants to go to Hopkins and Harvard. But not everyone does. Following your logic I can argue that your school was a backup for you and therefore your abilities are not the same as someone who went to Hopkins (I don't know you, it may be true, it may be false). However, the only thing we can deduce is that your MCAT taking abilities are not up to par with someone who went to Hopkins. Whether or not that translates into you (or people with your score) becoming a good physician or not can't be deduced from MCAT scores.

What you are missing is that there is a score at which point a higher score doesn't necessarily translate into higher success rates or higher intellectual abilities for the purposes of becoming a physician (i.e. there is a plateau in the graph). None of us know for a fact what that magic number is. You can argue 35 and I can argue 20. What we know for sure is that a 45 is good enough to be a physician and a 3 is not. Anything else is speculations.

Let me give you an example which will hopefully illustrate this: Let's say we are hiring janitors; I would argue that anyone with a IQ of 85 or higher is smart enough to be a janitor. Now if your IQ is 85 vs 100 vs 125 vs 180, it makes no difference; You have what it takes (in the IQ department at least) to be a janitor. Same argument applies here. Now if you have data to show that there is a magic number (based on quality of care or competence to practice medicine) I'd love to see it. Otherwise, it's irrelevant.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

But then this:
https://www.aamc.org/download/102346...aibvol7no2.pdf

overall attrition rates by year on page 2. unfortunately i cant find new data for overall.

However this:
http://www.aacom.org/data/Documents/...on-Summary.pdf

The AACOM data includes leaves of absense, but the AAMC data for the same 4 years is significantly lower. These arent all hard fast rules by any means. There is a standard downward trend in the AACOM data which ends up being very close to the AAMC data for 4th year. There isnt any real trend across time so hopefully the mid 90s data from AAMC is comparable. but the AAMC showed an upward trend over 4 years.
3rd year seems to be the most successful year for the AACOM data which is odd.... because 4th year is largely used to take some electives but many 4th years have somewhat easy-street in MD schools... not sure what is up there.

a few assumptions: leave of absense is pretty standard across the years. The reasons i can think of for needing a leave are independent of curriculum, or if they are curriculum reasons then they can be functionally treated as dismissals. and it looks like the AAMC data is additive... otherwise I cannot make sense of the whole 10 year thing. but if the old AAMC data is still valid, we have 1.5% of students dropping out by 4th year and AACOM data saying 1.5% PER year. So accounting for the leave of absenses... AACOM data shows a relatively heavy weedout period in the pre-clinical years.

If those assumptions are correct it supports the theory that MCAT IS indicative of performance, and that DO schools ARE as rigorous as MD schools. Basically all it is saying is that the people in the DO schools who squeaked by the lower cutoff stand a higher chance of academic problems than MD students who squeaked by their lower cutoff. I don't think this is all that controversial of logic. I wonder if anyone has published attrition rate by MCAT score... I may go look here quick


The same logic gets used by both MD and DO students when talking about carib schools.... Higher dropout rates due to similar rigor with lower admissions standards.... there have been 3 threads on that since i came along lol. Id suspect that carib schools show a similar trend with amplified curves.

This still isnt intrinsically offensive material.... Honestly, for anyone in roughly their third year of DO school you can confidently say that the systemic selection has proven that you are one of the people whose abilities were underestimated by the MCAT. after all... its only an estimator....

What are you talking about? The AAMC data ONLY includes academic reasons while the AACOM data includes Withdrawals and Leave of absences in addition to dismissals. All three could be due to non-academic reasons and the first two are almost always due to non-academic reasons, which AAMC data doesn't reflect. Also leave of absences are NOT necessarily permanent and those people may come back.

Non-academic reasons: Professionalism, Death, Serious accident/injury/disability, Change your mind about medical school, Family needs, etc.

Let's keep the discussion objective. You can't compare apples and oranges. AACOM data and AAMC data are not comparable as they report different things. Comparing those two figures is no different than comparing two random numbers and then drawing conclusions regarding such comparison. Neither you nor I have any idea what the attrition rate only due to academic reasons are at DO schools except that they are lower than the AACOM reported data as they are only a subset of the reported data. However, I can tell you that at my school (n=1), there is usually 0-2 dismissals due to academic reasons out of a class of 120+ (all 4 yrs) which boils down to 1% (all 4 yrs). So, this part of your post is misleading at best.

To compare DO attrition rate of (<10% over 4 years) with carib attrition rate of ~50% over 4 years is just absurd. Also, I would restate that based on your data we don't know the REAL attrition rate at US MD schools.

Now since your assumption is incorrect, I'm not going to address the rest of your post which was based on that assumption.