Affected by DO-associated SDN negativity

[Mad Jack]

Sometimes I feel like the whole DO/MD thing will go like the AFL/NFL merger did

Same. It's just going to take time.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Dude, if you can't diagnose cholecystitis or a liver abscess with your magic DO hands, you weren't paying attention enough in OMM lab.

I hate to sound like the guy drinking the kool-aid, but seriously, I think people throw away OMT a little too soon. It's easy to do if you interact with people who don't use it or don't use it correctly, because you definitely don't get an idea of its usefulness in a lab full of young healthy people without MSK complaints. It also doesn't help when there are people who speak about OMT as a magical panacea without any logical, anatomic or physiologic basis.

In practice, with patients with clear pain, it can be very useful, and more importantly very helpful for patients. They can go back to carrying their newborn, working in the OR, or just doing their job without being in pain or popping NSAIDs. In fact, I still get surprised when something I learned in OMM lab (and may have thought was hocum at the time) ends up relieving pain and loosening musculature that I can actually feel.

I trust my physical exam skills for the abdomen far beyond some dips**t DO student who thinks their OMT classes made them a bone wizard.

You learn real physical exam skills on pathology, not by pretending you can feel cranial sutures move on your classmates.

I'm also going to fit physical exam skills into the context of modern medical practice and combine them with other appropriate modalities, not pretend I can differentiate cholecystitis from other biliary pathologies that would lead to a similar exam.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I trust my physical exam skills for the abdomen far beyond some dips**t DO student who thinks their OMT classes made them a bone wizard.

You learn real physical exam skills on pathology, not by pretending you can feel cranial sutures move on your classmates.

I'm also going to fit physical exam skills into the context of modern medical practice and combine them with other appropriate modalities, not pretend I can differentiate cholecystitis from other biliary pathologies that would lead to a similar exam.

I'm pretty sure he was joking about the gallbladder thing tbh.

And pretty much. PCM as a whole being taught in the context of healthy classmates is just kinda lame. I mean you can occasionally get to see a good anterior draw test on someone's torn ACL or etc, but that's about it.

Honestly though, I dislike OMT in many regards. But there are occasionally techniques that do work. It's only a pity that they're buried underpiles of crap and or stuff I really don't ever want to do or preform like ex. HVLA of the back. I'll have PTs do that for me.

 

[hallowmann]

I trust my physical exam skills for the abdomen far beyond some dips**t DO student who thinks their OMT classes made them a bone wizard.

You learn real physical exam skills on pathology, not by pretending you can feel cranial sutures move on your classmates.

I'm also going to fit physical exam skills into the context of modern medical practice and combine them with other appropriate modalities, not pretend I can differentiate cholecystitis from other biliary pathologies that would lead to a similar exam.

Haha, apparently my sarcasm wasn't nearly as obvious as I thought it was. I don't know if that says something about the DOs you've interacted with or about the difficulty of expressing sarcasm online in general. I hope it's the latter.

Yeah, I was definitely joking about the cholecystitis and liver abscess thing. I see OMT as useful for primarily MSK and, in very specific scenarios, neuropathic pain, which has already been worked up.

Unfortunately my bone wizardry is weak, and I don't see it as some sort of "magic cure for all that ails ya!"

 

[GUH]

Same. It's just going to take time.

It's been over 123 years and counting. Almost as old as some of the more impressive sdn necrobump threads.

 

[Dharma]

anyway, I'm pretty sure the MDs wont be too butt hurt about it

There are 2 or 3 who love these kind of threads that could use a hug.

 

[Goro]

Colleague, you are a DO, correct? I agree with your post, but want to make sure my memory is not failing.

I trust my physical exam skills for the abdomen far beyond some dips**t DO student who thinks their OMT classes made them a bone wizard.

You learn real physical exam skills on pathology, not by pretending you can feel cranial sutures move on your classmates.

I'm also going to fit physical exam skills into the context of modern medical practice and combine them with other appropriate modalities, not pretend I can differentiate cholecystitis from other biliary pathologies that would lead to a similar exam.

Hallowman, alas, sarcasm travels poorly over the electrons. So I'd cut SS some slack. There are ~10 people on SDN who I religiously follow; he's one of them.

Haha, apparently my sarcasm wasn't nearly as obvious as I thought it was. I don't know if that says something about the DOs you've interacted with or about the difficulty of expressing sarcasm online in general. I hope it's the latter.

Yups, this is happening slowly, right in front of our eyes. Medicine is an evolutionary process.

Sometimes I feel like the whole DO/MD thing will go like the AFL/NFL merger did
Same. It's just going to take time.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Colleague, you are a DO, correct? I agree with your post, but want to make sure my memory is not failing.

Me? No

 

[JustPlainBill]

I trust my physical exam skills for the abdomen far beyond some dips**t DO student who thinks their OMT classes made them a bone wizard.

You learn real physical exam skills on pathology, not by pretending you can feel cranial sutures move on your classmates.

I'm also going to fit physical exam skills into the context of modern medical practice and combine them with other appropriate modalities, not pretend I can differentiate cholecystitis from other biliary pathologies that would lead to a similar exam.

Oh, come on, my lad -- you mean you really don't believe ---

1) That you can palpate tension in the celiac ganglion (IIRC, the one that sits on the anterior aspect of the L-spine/sacral region) by placing ("lay your hands on the radio, friend") your fingers of both hands along the linea alba from the umbilicus to the xiphoid process and thusly relieve all sorts of intestinal complaints?

2) Gently hold your patient's head in your hands and determine "strain patterns" by palpating the cranial respiratory rhythm (alternately described as the "pumping mechanism" of CSF which occurs by the gentle rocking motion anterior/posterior of the sacrum around one of 3 lateral axes and the expansion/contraction of cranial bones OR the mitochondrial respiration that occurs at the cellular level)?

Hmmm, methinks thou art afflicted by the scientific method and have not been inculcated in "physician intent" that is very prominent in the cranio/sacral and chiropractic wing of "medicine" ---

Yeah, I got off the boat and split from the whole effin' program when they got to cranial at my school. I'm ok with certain things as long as you have the moral courage to admit "We haven't proven this but this is what we think/what older clinicians believed" -- but when I have a genius state that the reason CSF/interstitial fluid approximates seawater is because we evolved from fishes and he's held up as an icon in local D.O. circles as being taught by one of the "founders" of cranial -- yeah, not so much --

I went into osteopathy having been helped by manipulative medicine for MSK complaints -- really nothing more than a good PT could do -- and now that I look at the evidence, the outcome is the same with NSAIDS/flexeril vs manipulation vs doing nothing -- but I didn't know that then.....

Once I was in school, I saw enough idiocy to last me a lifetime and really do not participate in D.O. circles anymore. I do perform manipulation on family members for clear MSK complaints but usually tell them they need to see their doctor, ice/apply heat and use OTC analgesia until then.....

The ORC and OMM department existing at my school at the time was a major disappointment and lost me to that side of osteopathy and indeed osteopathy in general ---

 

[QueenJames]

I personally want to just add that I knew firsthand that DO would give me a chance to become a physician in the US.

I never have been interested in the super competitive fields and maybe that could change but I am realistic and know that my chances by attending a DO program will hamper my chances of getting into competitive residency programs.

However, please do not kid yourselves. This "seeing the patient as a whole" card is being played too much. I feel that is just being used as a "consolation prize" by saying "oh yeah.. we are better docs than MDs because we see the patient and not the numbers". Bull. Majority of students (I feel) which are using this propaganda or applauding it and are secretly butthurt or mad because they didn't get into MD and had to settle for the DO title. I'm not saying ALL DO students are doing this. I'm just saying you have a chance to practice medicine that has been proven as a successful alternative route to the MD route and you should be thankful... instead of trying to one up each other.

We all knew what we signed up for and the match rates to Psych, FM, IM, EM, and other stuff (excluding the super high competitive stuff) speak for themselves.

It has been said over and over again. US MD > US DO >>>> US IMG >>>> FMG.

The way I see it, I will be learning the same material as my MD brethren, but with extra time to OMM and holistic principles which I definitely feel I will may or may not use in my future. It's just another hoop to jump through for me, as is the COMLEX.

I may or may not agree with it but I will quietly smile, nod, and move on. Can't get caught up in the hype.

Would I love to attend MD programs? Yes. Did I apply? Nope. I knew I had no chance so I cut my losses and am really excited and happy to be accepted into DO programs that will give me a solid chance to practice medicine in the US. For that I am thankful. The initials do not mean jack poop to me. It is DOCTOR of osteopathy. MD is DOCTOR of medicine.

Bottom line.

 

[Goro]

Yeah, one of my DO colleagues was pulling the "DOs are different and special and holistic...blahblah blah" rant, and my first thought was "prove it".

The ideas may have been relevant 125 years ago, but things are different now. There may be different doctrines as to how to practice medicine, but they largely overlap.

 

[QueenJames]

Yeah, one of my DO colleagues was pulling the "DOs are different and special and holistic...blahblah blah" rant, and my first thought was "prove it".

The ideas may have been relevant 125 years ago, but things are different now. There may be different doctrines as to how to practice medicine, but they largely overlap.

You always keeps it real Goro!

 

[EmergDoc2B]

Only Jackwagons care about DO vs MD. If you want a super competitive specialty crush the boards, USMLE and COMLEX. There will be opportunities. The door is about to shut on this debate in the 5-10 years and Im looking forward to it.

 

[EmergDoc2B]

Yeah, one of my DO colleagues was pulling the "DOs are different and special and holistic...blahblah blah" rant, and my first thought was "prove it".

The ideas may have been relevant 125 years ago, but things are different now. There may be different doctrines as to how to practice medicine, but they largely overlap.

I whole heartedly agree with Goro. When I was applying to med school I kept reading that DO's treat patients like people and MD's treat them as diagnoses. I think that horse crap. Good physicians treat patients like people and bad physicians dont. The only real difference between DO's and MD's is the hours we (Im a DO student) put into learning OMT. Thats it.

 

[hallowmann]

...Good physicians treat patients like people and bad physicians dont...

This is pretty much it. Its nice that at least in mission DO schools inherently claim this to be the case for them, but the reality is this is and has been what medicine in general has been for quite some time now. I know plenty of bad DOs, just as I know plenty of bad MDs. The commonality is usually that they're not the best people in general, not their degree.

 

[QueenJames]

This is pretty much it. Its nice that at least in mission DO schools inherently claim this to be the case for them, but the reality is this is and has been what medicine in general has been for quite some time now. I know plenty of bad DOs, just as I know plenty of bad MDs. The commonality is usually that they're not the best people in general, not their degree.

Exactly.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Idk, I think as a whole it's just

Yeah, one of my DO colleagues was pulling the "DOs are different and special and holistic...blahblah blah" rant, and my first thought was "prove it".

The ideas may have been relevant 125 years ago, but things are different now. There may be different doctrines as to how to practice medicine, but they largely overlap.

We used to have one faculty member who was like this and it always irritated when he goes off and is like my patient had this issue that was hurting so bad and I fixed it with OMT or with my skills and my MD colleagues had absolutely no idea how to fix or deal with it.

 

[68PGunner]

I whole heartedly agree with Goro. When I was applying to med school I kept reading that DO's treat patients like people and MD's treat them as diagnoses. I think that horse crap. Good physicians treat patients like people and bad physicians dont. The only real difference between DO's and MD's is the hours we (Im a DO student) put into learning OMT. Thats it.

I'm going to be honest. I felt this way, and had the balls to straight up say this on my first interview. Let's just say that I didn't get accepted there. LOL.

 

[kenjixshadow]

I'm going to be honest. I felt this way, and had the balls to straight up say this on my first interview. Let's just say that I didn't get accepted there. LOL.

It was b/c you didn't say what they wanted to hear. I'm sick and tired of hearing how holistic and superior (OMM) of DOs are over MD - advertised by DO leaders. Most of those are nonsense. I rather wear my earplugs than listen to them talk.

 

[68PGunner]

It was b/c you didn't say what they wanted to hear. I'm sick and tired of hearing how holistic and superior (OMM) of DOs are over MD - advertised by DO leaders. Most of those are nonsense. I rather wear my earplugs than listen to them talk.

Naturally.

I straight up followed the company line of being holistic in later interviews and got accepted to all programs.

 

[QueenJames]

Lol yeah... for interviews you gotta sell that DO is the greatest thing since sliced bread. If you actually have DO shadowing... makes it 10X better cause then the adcom folks think you know what ur talking about lol Honestly, I didn't mention MD (one of my interviewers was a MD and let me know before I answered" and I gave him how the osteopathic philosophy applied to my life. Folks like it when you can chum up your stuff and give subjective feedback on it and tie it back to yourself.

 

[Oldenuff2nobetr]

As an m1, I've been flirting with the idea of stidying for step 1 now. I'm doing very well in my classes but wonder if I could do more. What would you recommend an m1 do for board prep at this point? We just started cardiovascular and respiratory system based learning this semester...

Good question, it depends on the demands of your program. I'm in a PBL program where all we are doing id focusing on boards so we have the time. I would squeeze in some Pre-test (vignette style questions) and maybe some q bank questions from the one you think is least high yield (save the best for closer to boards).

Also, I recommend annotating your First Aid or BRS (whichever you plan to use for boards) with high yield stuff now.

Finally, If you get a chance, the Kaplan review videos are good because they are really short and really high yield. We haven't gotten to pathology yet so I don't know what is good in that section yet.

 

[Medbound40]

For what it's worth, the DO/MD debate will fade in time. If you know you want to focus on a career in research or academics, MD would offer no obstacles, whereby your success or failure along the way will only be determined by your own drive. The same applies to DOs, with the exception of a few MDs with chips on their shoulders who want to judge them on a non-issue, their title. Whether MD or DO, the opportunities you get from it are on you, not a result of your title, period.

I have worked in health care for many years and I can tell you that there are both DOs and MDs working in the top hospitals in the country, and world, in specialties ranging from ob/gyn, orthopadics, cardiology, neurosurgery, etc.. DO is not predominately limited to primary care, that's nonsense. I have a friend who earned their DO, went on to become chief resident in an allopathic IM residency in NYC, followed by a fellowship at Duke in clinical infectious disease and then obtained a faculty position at a top tier MD program, in addition to their clinical practice and research. Their title didn't earn them that success, their hard work and dedication did. Likewise, an MD degree won't buy you a spot in a residency, your abilities and character will. Many DOs outperform their MD counterparts for prestigious residency matches at renowned institutions, there are just fewer in number due to ratio of MD/DO schools.

Bottom line, what you put in is what you'll get out. The title is primarily just a ghostly hand to stroke your ego. It comes down to people, what they are capable of and their actions, not titles. Both are legitimate; it is a good time to put the baseless speculation, hearsay and perpetuation of myths to rest--on both sides.

 

[68PGunner]

For what it's worth, the DO/MD debate will fade in time. If you know you want to focus on a career in research or academics, MD would offer no obstacles, whereby your success or failure along the way will only be determined by your own drive. The same applies to DOs, with the exception of a few MDs with chips on their shoulders who want to judge them on a non-issue, their title. Whether MD or DO, the opportunities you get from it are on you, not a result of your title, period.

I have worked in health care for many years and I can tell you that there are both DOs and MDs working in the top hospitals in the country, and world, in specialties ranging from ob/gyn, orthopadics, cardiology, neurosurgery, etc.. DO is not predominately limited to primary care, that's nonsense. I have a friend who earned their DO, went on to become chief resident in an allopathic IM residency in NYC, followed by a fellowship at Duke in clinical infectious disease and then obtained a faculty position at a top tier MD program, in addition to their clinical practice and research. Their title didn't earn them that success, their hard work and dedication did. Likewise, an MD degree won't buy you a spot in a residency, your abilities and character will. Many DOs outperform their MD counterparts for prestigious residency matches at renowned institutions, there are just fewer in number due to ratio of MD/DO schools.

Bottom line, what you put in is what you'll get out. The title is primarily just a ghostly hand to stroke your ego. It comes down to people, what they are capable of and their actions, not titles. Both are legitimate; it is a good time to put the baseless speculation, hearsay and perpetuation of myths to rest--on both sides.

Here's the thing. Most of the posters here have never worked a single day in their lives. It's ridiculous to think how your fate is already predetermined by your title. Hard work and perseverance will come a long way in the real world, in which success is mostly measured by money.

Let's be real here. Most of the so called prestigious fields are competitive due to the amount of money. To be successful in the real world, you will need more than a certain type of specialty.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Here's the thing. Most of the posters here have never worked a single day in their lives. It's ridiculous to think how your fate is already predetermined by your title. Hard work and perseverance will come a long way in the real world, in which success is mostly measured by money.

Let's be real here. Most of the so called prestigious fields are competitive due to the amount of money. To be successful in the real world, you will need more than a certain type of specialty.

This is honestly so sad. Society just naturally assumes that being smart = Derm at Harvard and completely neglects the guy (or girl) who went DO for location, knew he wanted FM so he didn't kill himself in med school, went to some rural residency because that was what he wanted and now practices in a small town where he might be one of only a handful of docs. Society would say that guy failed, but I can almost guarantee his female patient who had an emergency delivery that he took care of is more grateful than some patient who had a cosmetic procedure done by the Harvard Derm. (Just using this as an example, I know Harvard derms do important things too) success should be defined by the level of happiness of the individual, not by their prestige or paycheck.

 

[costales]

This is honestly so sad. Society just naturally assumes that being smart = Derm at Harvard and completely neglects the guy (or girl) who went DO for location, knew he wanted FM so he didn't kill himself in med school, went to some rural residency because that was what he wanted and now practices in a small town where he might be one of only a handful of docs. Society would say that guy failed, but I can almost guarantee his female patient who had an emergency delivery that he took care of is more grateful than some patient who had a cosmetic procedure done by the Harvard Derm.

Sheldon: And, Emily, I'm sorry for saying dermatologists aren't real doctors. And I'm sure you're tired of hearing that.
Emily: Do you honestly think I hear that a lot?
Sheldon: Well, I would imagine when your job is popping zits and squirting Botox into old ladies' faces.

 

[Psai]

People who are hard working and dedicated generally end up in md schools. You guys are living in a fantasy world. MD is not a title, it's a degree. Almost no one goes to a do school for location, it's almost always because they couldn't get into an md school. Any assertions otherwise is disingenuous at best. You guys are engaging in hardcore rationalization in here

 

[costales]

People who are hard working and dedicated generally end up in md schools.

I just wanted to save that statement for posterity.

 

[TheBoneDoctah]

People who are hard working and dedicated generally end up in md schools. You guys are living in a fantasy world. MD is not a title, it's a degree. Almost no one goes to a do school for location, it's almost always because they couldn't get into an md school. Any assertions otherwise is disingenuous at best. You guys are engaging in hardcore rationalization in here

Seriously?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Mad Jack]

For what it's worth, the DO/MD debate will fade in time. If you know you want to focus on a career in research or academics, MD would offer no obstacles, whereby your success or failure along the way will only be determined by your own drive. The same applies to DOs, with the exception of a few MDs with chips on their shoulders who want to judge them on a non-issue, their title. Whether MD or DO, the opportunities you get from it are on you, not a result of your title, period.

I have worked in health care for many years and I can tell you that there are both DOs and MDs working in the top hospitals in the country, and world, in specialties ranging from ob/gyn, orthopadics, cardiology, neurosurgery, etc.. DO is not predominately limited to primary care, that's nonsense. I have a friend who earned their DO, went on to become chief resident in an allopathic IM residency in NYC, followed by a fellowship at Duke in clinical infectious disease and then obtained a faculty position at a top tier MD program, in addition to their clinical practice and research. Their title didn't earn them that success, their hard work and dedication did. Likewise, an MD degree won't buy you a spot in a residency, your abilities and character will. Many DOs outperform their MD counterparts for prestigious residency matches at renowned institutions, there are just fewer in number due to ratio of MD/DO schools.

Bottom line, what you put in is what you'll get out. The title is primarily just a ghostly hand to stroke your ego. It comes down to people, what they are capable of and their actions, not titles. Both are legitimate; it is a good time to put the baseless speculation, hearsay and perpetuation of myths to rest--on both sides.

The bias in hiring and residency selection still exists. I mean, your friend got an ID position because it's ****ing ID, the bottom of the barrel in competitiveness in regard to IM subspecialties (personally I'm thinking about going into ID, but that doesn't change the facts). And what about those fields that require an extremely competitive residency to get into? Many PDs in plastics, neurosurg, and vascular filter out DO apps from the start. Hard to get a fellowship when you can't even get a residency in your field of choice.

Here's the thing. Most of the posters here have never worked a single day in their lives. It's ridiculous to think how your fate is already predetermined by your title. Hard work and perseverance will come a long way in the real world, in which success is mostly measured by money.

Let's be real here. Most of the so called prestigious fields are competitive due to the amount of money. To be successful in the real world, you will need more than a certain type of specialty.

Money=/=success. Anyone can make a lot of money from any field, but success is a more intangible thing. For many, success is linked to prestige, and prestige often comes with a pay cut (big city academics, for instance).

This is honestly so sad. Society just naturally assumes that being smart = Derm at Harvard and completely neglects the guy (or girl) who went DO for location, knew he wanted FM so he didn't kill himself in med school, went to some rural residency because that was what he wanted and now practices in a small town where he might be one of only a handful of docs. Society would say that guy failed, but I can almost guarantee his female patient who had an emergency delivery that he took care of is more grateful than some patient who had a cosmetic procedure done by the Harvard Derm. (Just using this as an example, I know Harvard derms do important things too) success should be defined by the level of happiness of the individual, not by their prestige or paycheck.

Small town physicians typically out-earn their big city counterparts, so they get the happiness and the cash. Plus no one outside of medicine looks down upon family doctors as failures lol, they just aren't as awestruck with them as they are with surgeons and the like. Hell, the average person doesn't really respect dermies on any level higher than a FP, but we've got a different view of things because we know how hard it is to become one.

People who are hard working and dedicated generally end up in md schools. You guys are living in a fantasy world. MD is not a title, it's a degree. Almost no one goes to a do school for location, it's almost always because they couldn't get into an md school. Any assertions otherwise is disingenuous at best. You guys are engaging in hardcore rationalization in here

Says the guy with a lower MCAT and GPA than I had Imma crush you on the boards too

 

[68PGunner]

People who are hard working and dedicated generally end up in md schools. You guys are living in a fantasy world. MD is not a title, it's a degree. Almost no one goes to a do school for location, it's almost always because they couldn't get into an md school. Any assertions otherwise is disingenuous at best. You guys are engaging in hardcore rationalization in here

I'm going to disagree here. With the way medical school acceptance is going nowadays, MD students are generally traditional applicants whereas DO students are generally nontraditional.

 

[68PGunner]

Money=/=success. Anyone can make a lot of money from any field, but success is a more intangible thing. For many, success is linked to prestige, and prestige often comes with a pay cut (big city academics, for instance).

Prestige equals higher pay. I guarantee you that if the hourly wage for derm, ortho, and neurosurgery equals to that of primary care, those fields will not be competitive. Personally, I don't care about prestige. As long as I'm making good money in my field and investments, I could give a damn about the prestige or specialty.

Let's be real about these prestigious specialties. At most in term of hourly wage, the best specialty like derm only has an hourly wage that's like 1.7-1.8x that of primary care. If you're good with business, people, and investment, you can generate income that's like 4-6x the money of primary care. What's my point? If you solely care about quality of lifestyle and money, you need to gun for other tangible skills than just the specialty.

 

[deleted731525]

People who are hard working and dedicated generally end up in md schools. You guys are living in a fantasy world. MD is not a title, it's a degree. Almost no one goes to a do school for location, it's almost always because they couldn't get into an md school. Any assertions otherwise is disingenuous at best. You guys are engaging in hardcore rationalization in here

Eh its a bit more complicated than that. Im sure there are a significant amount of borderline applicants that apply to both, get into DO only that then have the choice of taking that acceptance or reapplying. They probably could go MD if they were cool with losing a year with no guarantee of acceptance but in the end choose the safer route. This is a common issue that comes up towards the end of every application cycle.

 

[68PGunner]

People who are hard working and dedicated generally end up in md schools. You guys are living in a fantasy world. MD is not a title, it's a degree. Almost no one goes to a do school for location, it's almost always because they couldn't get into an md school. Any assertions otherwise is disingenuous at best. You guys are engaging in hardcore rationalization in here

I made over six figures last year. For the month of January, I made 22K. I'm looking at another 10K for the month of February. I graduated from an Ivy League undergrad, if you actually care. Are you seriously telling me that I'm intellectually inferior than your MD classmates? Most of you guys wish you have 50% of my abilities.

 

[deleted731525]

I made over six figures last year. For the month of January, I made 22K. I'm looking at another 10K for the month of February. I graduated from an Ivy League undergrad, if you actually care. Are you seriously telling me that I'm intellectually inferior than your MD classmates? Most of you guys wish you have 50% of my abilities.

I mean Kim Kardashian probably makes more than everyone in this thread combined. Lets not counter dumb arguments with other dumb arguments.

 

[68PGunner]

I mean Kim Kardashian probably makes more than everyone in this thread combined. Lets not counter dumb arguments with other dumb arguments.

And she's probably hardworking at her craft. 90% of the MDs out there wish that they are Kim Kardashians. My point is that the whole debate over the DO/MD is due to the prestige which comes with higher pay. I'm saying that it's extremely overrated considering that you need more than just a MD title and the specialty in order to make a lot of money while working minimal hours.

 

[Mad Jack]

Prestige equals higher pay. I guarantee you that if the hourly wage for derm, ortho, and neurosurgery equals to that of primary care, those fields will not be competitive. Personally, I don't care about prestige. As long as I'm making good money in my field and investments, I could give a damn about the prestige or specialty.

Let's be real about these prestigious specialties. At most in term of hourly wage, the best specialty like derm only has an hourly wage that's like 1.7-1.8x that of primary care. If you're good with business, people, and investment, you can generate income that's like 4-6x the money of primary care. What's my point? If you solely care about quality of lifestyle and money, you need to gun for other tangible skills than just the specialty.

Lol- nah, prestige is a mix of things, not just cash. If it was just about the money, then a FP in Arkansas (where they average 330k a year) would be more prestigious than a big city academic radiologist that's pulling 250k/year. And seriously, the public doesn't know the difference between a nephrologist, cardiologist, pulmonologist, and gastroenterologist. They just know you're some kind of specialist doc, and will, for the most part, view surgeons as more prestigious (despite the fact that general surgeons earl less than a couple of the specialists). Anesthesiology is a field that virtually no one respects, and yet they make piles of cash- it's a field for the cash loving but prestige averse.

Now, the competitiveness of a specialty, that's something that is affected by the income. But even there, lifestyle comes into play- derm was actually both a low-earning, low-prestige field until it became known for the lifestyle it could afford. Conversely, radiology, a traditionally competitive field that had high earnings, has seen competitiveness decline substantially as the lifestyle has worsened and the job market has tightened. Earnings are still high, but competitiveness is down. And it's also another field where you really don't get a whole hell of a lot of respect or prestige from those outside the know.

 

[Mad Jack]

And she's probably hardworking at her craft. 90% of the MDs out there wish that they are Kim Kardashians. My point is that the whole debate over the DO/MD is due to the prestige which comes with higher pay. I'm saying that it's extremely overrated considering that you need more than just a MD title and the specialty in order to make a lot of money while working minimal hours.

Again, you're confusing prestige with income. Academic medicine is far more prestigious than private practice, and yet pays much less. What planet do you live on?

 

[68PGunner]

Again, you're confusing prestige with income. Academic medicine is far more prestigious than private practice, and yet pays much less. What planet do you live on?

I honestly don't care about the prestige factor if that's your definition. However, the prestige of a specialty is usually connected competitiveness which is measured by the lifestyle and money.

Yes, ortho and derm used to be considered terrible fields. Every specialty goes in cycles. I pity the fool that goes into a field just for the money especially if things turn for the worst when the person becomes a bc doc.

 

[Medbound40]

The bias in hiring and residency selection still exists. I mean, your friend got an ID position because it's ****ing ID, the bottom of the barrel in competitiveness in regard to IM subspecialties (personally I'm thinking about going into ID, but that doesn't change the facts). And what about those fields that require an extremely competitive residency to get into? Many PDs in plastics, neurosurg, and vascular filter out DO apps from the start. Hard to get a fellowship when you can't even get a residency in your field of choice.

I agree with some of your other points, to a degree. And yes, the bias still exists due to some MDs with chips on their shoulders. Yet in terms of the above, this person outperformed MD counterparts who couldn't make it at the "bottom of the barrel", despite their supposedly superior MD degree. They didn't achieve their success because it was less competitive. Whether or not this is an accurate assessment, they were still a DO who out-competed other MD applicants, which goes to show that it is the individual that must prove their worth through action, not their degree. What you said kind of suggests that a top tier MD school hired an inferior DO physician to teach their MD students because their sub-specialty is sub-par. Maybe I'm reading too far into it, so my apologies if that is not what you intended. That would be concerning for MD students though, if it were the truth, but I highly doubt that is the case. The artificial barriers are breaking down, slowly but surely, making it more about merit than title.

Regardless of competitiveness of the specialty, they earned their place against other MD and DO applicants. It doesn't really have anything to do with being an MD/DO or competitiveness. They didn't achieve it because it was less competitive; they achieved it by working hard and proving their abilities as a trained physician. In fact, they were the first DO to be admitted to Duke's clinical ID fellowship program (this was some years ago now), which is an indication of the slowly dissolving bias. I can also say they were actively met with doubt by their peers based solely on their credential, until their MD colleagues saw what they were capable of. The MDs ended up commenting that they were kicking some butt, which is a start at recognition and breaking down the stigma. Some residencies, such as PM&R, regularly accept DO applicants due to their generally superior training in musculoskeletal medicine. Top PM&R residencies, such as Stanford's, regularly accept DO applicants for very few spots.

I would guess that due to the misinformed bias, DOs probably have to work harder than their MD counterparts to prove themselves in any specialty, even in the absence of any apparent shortcomings. I think it will raise the bar for everyone, which is a good thing. Nowadays, application to medical schools, MD and DO alike, is so competitive that the caliber of candidates is rising all around. People with stats that would have landed them in MD programs 20-years ago are now being denied simply due to the sheer volume of applicants vs. seats available. Even the average stats for matriculating students at some DO schools are higher than several of the MD programs out there. Times are changing, so we need to get past the argument of MD vs. DO because its premise is losing validity.

 

[Mad Jack]

I agree with some of your other points, to a degree. And yes, the bias still exists due to some MDs with chips on their shoulders. Yet in terms of the above, this person outperformed MD counterparts who couldn't make it at the "bottom of the barrel", despite their supposedly superior MD degree. They didn't achieve their success because it was less competitive. Whether or not this is an accurate assessment, they were still a DO who out-competed other MD applicants, which goes to show that it is the individual that must prove their worth through action, not their degree. What you said kind of suggests that a top tier MD school hired an inferior DO physician to teach their MD students because their sub-specialty is sub-par. Maybe I'm reading too far into it, so my apologies if that is not what you intended. That would be concerning for MD students though, if it were the truth, but I highly doubt that is the case. The artificial barriers are breaking down, slowly but surely, making it more about merit than title.

Regardless of competitiveness of the specialty, they earned their place against other MD and DO applicants. It doesn't really have anything to do with being an MD/DO or competitiveness. They didn't achieve it because it was less competitive; they achieved it by working hard and proving their abilities as a trained physician. In fact, they were the first DO to be admitted to Duke's clinical ID fellowship program (this was some years ago now), which is an indication of the slowly dissolving bias. I can also say they were actively met with doubt by their peers based solely on their credential, until their MD colleagues saw what they were capable of. The MDs ended up commenting that they were kicking some butt, which is a start at recognition and breaking down the stigma. Some residencies, such as PM&R, regularly accept DO applicants due to their generally superior training in musculoskeletal medicine. Top PM&R residencies, such as Stanford's, regularly accept DO applicants for very few spots.

I would guess that due to the misinformed bias, DOs probably have to work harder than their MD counterparts to prove themselves in any specialty, even in the absence of any apparent shortcomings. I think it will raise the bar for everyone, which is a good thing. Nowadays, application to medical schools, MD and DO alike, is so competitive that the caliber of candidates is rising all around. People with stats that would have landed them in MD programs 20-years ago are now being denied simply due to the sheer volume of applicants vs. seats available. Even the average stats for matriculating students at some DO schools are higher than several of the MD programs out there. Times are changing, so we need to get past the argument of MD vs. DO because its premise is losing validity.

Until DO schools have rotations that are up to LCME standards, the argument will always hold water.

 

[Medbound40]

People who are hard working and dedicated generally end up in md schools. You guys are living in a fantasy world. MD is not a title, it's a degree. Almost no one goes to a do school for location, it's almost always because they couldn't get into an md school. Any assertions otherwise is disingenuous at best. You guys are engaging in hardcore rationalization in here

The first statement here is quite silly... . Regarding the second assertion, I am a non-traditional and location for my family and I is a huge part of the decision. I also recognize that you get out what you put in, and where you go to med school is less important than what you do after it. And sure, certain schools will afford some unique opportunities or make them more accessible, but it doesn't entirely limit someone. Plenty of people with great capabilities move on from low- or mid-tier schools to land residencies in competitive fields at John's Hopkins and the like--and their competitors were facing the same odds. The question is, are looking to skate by on the name of your institution or degree, or are you going to chase after every opportunity and show what you're capable of?

 

[68PGunner]

People who are hard working and dedicated generally end up in md schools. You guys are living in a fantasy world. MD is not a title, it's a degree. Almost no one goes to a do school for location, it's almost always because they couldn't get into an md school. Any assertions otherwise is disingenuous at best. You guys are engaging in hardcore rationalization in here

A final reply to this post. I'll also graduate from medical school with zero debt. I'm not the one living in fantasy land. My thoughts and logics are very real quantified by income, debt, and lifestyle. If we're talking about academic medicine, you can keep it.

 

[Medbound40]

Until DO schools have rotations that are up to LCME standards, the argument will always hold water.

So the DO I was referring to had sub-par rotations, yet landed an allopathic residency, a fellowship at an allopathic institution and an academic position at an allopathic school. What suggests to you that their rotations were inferior?

I might also add that many sites for DO rotations are shared with MDs. In fact a soon to be added MD program at UNT/HSC in Texas will be doing rotations at the same hospitals and facilities as the current DO students.

Such a thing needs to be individually assessed by school, not by MD vs. DO.

 

[Mad Jack]

So the DO I was referring to had sub-par rotations, yet landed an allopathic residency, a fellowship at an allopathic institution and an academic position at an allopathic school. What suggests to you that their rotations were inferior?

I might also add that many sites for DO rotations are shared with MDs. In fact a soon to be added MD program at UNT/HSC in Texas will be doing rotations at the same hospitals and facilities as the current DO students.

Such a thing needs to be individually assessed by school, not by MD vs. DO.

Quality control is a big deal. With DOs, you never know what you're getting. Most schools have multiple rotation sites, some far, far better than others. It's up to the profession as a whole to step up our standards, so that that factor doesn't exist. The simple fact is, subpar rotations shouldn't be a thing. Until they no longer are, MD residencies will still continue to view DO training as inferior to MD training, and thus pick MDs over DOs when things are more or less equal, the vast majority of the time.

There's plenty of nightmare stories out there of DOs that had never done an inpatient IM rotation, that did their FM rotations at places that used only OMM (which left them unprepared for FM electives in fourth year), that never did inpatient peds, etc etc. That makes it damn near impossible to function once you're doing a university rotation that's inpatient for the first time ever, and means that you've got substantially less inpatient time overall before starting internship (which is a big deal). I'm not saying all schools are like this, but it isn't the PDs job to research every damn school that all of their thousands of applicants came from, and the sites at which they rotated. When you've got to pick 100 people out of 3,000 to interview, you don't have time for that- you paint with broad strokes.

Now I'm not saying that this bias can't be done away with. But it certainly can't be done away with if things continue along their current trajectory- we need a change in standards, so that our minimums are in line with LCME norms.

 

[anktheonc]

I've always known about the DO bias and always thought nothing of it because I've done my research and know what I'm getting into. But I have never really experienced the DO bias until yesterday; aside from comments from my parents about how bad DO school is blah blah blah. I've educated them on it fairly well and they've changed their minds a little.

I'm on a waitlist for a school and I asked my PI at my research lab to write me a LOR to help possibly move me off (anything can help at this point). And he flat out said he would not write me a letter for a DO school, but happily write me one for MD. He is one of the most respected surgical oncologists in the world, a fairly educated man. I was pretty shocked honestly.

 

[TheBoneDoctah]

I've always known about the DO bias and always thought nothing of it because I've done my research and know what I'm getting into. But I have never really experienced the DO bias until yesterday; aside from comments from my parents about how bad DO school is blah blah blah. I've educated them on it fairly well and they've changed their minds a little.

I'm on a waitlist for a school and I asked my PI at my research lab to write me a LOR to help possibly move me off (anything can help at this point). And he flat out said he would not write me a letter for a DO school, but happily write me one for MD. He is one of the most respected surgical oncologists in the world, a fairly educated man. I was pretty shocked honestly.

thats pathetic

 

[Medbound40]

Quality control is a big deal. With DOs, you never know what you're getting. Most schools have multiple rotation sites, some far, far better than others. It's up to the profession as a whole to step up our standards, so that that factor doesn't exist. The simple fact is, subpar rotations shouldn't be a thing. Until they no longer are, MD residencies will still continue to view DO training as inferior to MD training, and thus pick MDs over DOs when things are more or less equal, the vast majority of the time.

There's plenty of nightmare stories out there of DOs that had never done an inpatient IM rotation, that did their FM rotations at places that used only OMM (which left them unprepared for FM electives in fourth year), that never did inpatient peds, etc etc. That makes it damn near impossible to function once you're doing a university rotation that's inpatient for the first time ever, and means that you've got substantially less inpatient time overall before starting internship (which is a big deal). I'm not saying all schools are like this, but it isn't the PDs job to research every damn school that all of their thousands of applicants came from, and the sites at which they rotated. When you've got to pick 100 people out of 3,000 to interview, you don't have time for that- you paint with broad strokes.

Now I'm not saying that this bias can't be done away with. But it certainly can't be done away with if things continue along their current trajectory- we need a change in standards, so that our minimums are in line with LCME norms.

I agree, it is needed and it can change. In reference to the particular DO we were speaking about, this was not an issue. So my point was simply that they did not succeed because of lower competition or expectations of their specialty, but because they were equally prepared and capable, out-competing their MD counterparts. Point being, DOs are not inherently inferior, individuals are, depending on what they put into their education and the experiences they seek out. I think the uniformity among standards is still lacking in some places, but on the rise. It is no longer a valid argument to suggest DOs on the whole are less than MDs, because this simply isn't true. The sooner we stop perpetuating old ideas from a different time, the sooner those MDs screening applications will stop showing bias and consider applicants on merit.

The cycle of bias is self-perpetuating. It starts with the pre-med who is told that DOs are inferior--who then go on to MD programs and look down on DO counterparts doing rotations alongside them--and then go on to becoming MDs who land a job in academia or whereby they are screening applicants for residency and then impart their long-standing premature bias by excluding DOs for consideration without warrant, based on the degree alone--and the cycle continues unchecked.

I think the reality is changing and there are fewer MDs with such bias, but it won't stop until many components of the equation change. One such change needs to happen here on SDN by ending the slanderous remarks directed toward those considering the DO route, or the professional designation as a whole. Consider that the audience receiving this information are young and naive pre-meds who mostly have no idea beyond what they are told. So when they hear an MD student say that DOs are inferior and for those who don't work hard enough, they believe it. I would like to see the changes you mention. I would also like to see more respect given to each designation when it is deserved. There are many reputable DO programs with excellent clinical rotations. For this reason, I think we need to paint with smaller brushes to more accurately distinguish the short-comings by program, rather than the degree. I'm just think the bickering is tiresome and unproductive. Putting others down is not becoming of people on track to be a physician. But it happens too much on SDN on the topic of MD vs DO.

 

[Medbound40]

I've always known about the DO bias and always thought nothing of it because I've done my research and know what I'm getting into. But I have never really experienced the DO bias until yesterday; aside from comments from my parents about how bad DO school is blah blah blah. I've educated them on it fairly well and they've changed their minds a little.

I'm on a waitlist for a school and I asked my PI at my research lab to write me a LOR to help possibly move me off (anything can help at this point). And he flat out said he would not write me a letter for a DO school, but happily write me one for MD. He is one of the most respected surgical oncologists in the world, a fairly educated man. I was pretty shocked honestly.

Not only is that pathetic, but it is unfortunate. This is exactly the type of ignorance that I am referring to.

 

[Mad Jack]

I agree, it is needed and it can change. In reference to the particular DO we were speaking about, this was not an issue. So my point was simply that they did not succeed because of lower competition or expectations of their specialty, but because they were equally prepared and capable, out-competing their MD counterparts. Point being, DOs are not inherently inferior, individuals are, depending on what they put into their education and the experiences they seek out. I think the uniformity among standards is still lacking in some places, but on the rise. It is no longer a valid argument to suggest DOs on the whole are less than MDs, because this simply isn't true. The sooner we stop perpetuating old ideas from a different time, the sooner those MDs screening applications will stop showing bias and consider applicants on merit.

The cycle of bias is self-perpetuating. It starts with the pre-med who is told that DOs are inferior--who then go on to MD programs and look down on DO counterparts doing rotations alongside them--and then go on to becoming MDs who land a job in academia or whereby they are screening applicants for residency and then impart their long-standing premature bias by excluding DOs for consideration without warrant, based on the degree alone--and the cycle continues unchecked.

I think the reality is changing and there are fewer MDs with such bias, but it won't stop until many components of the equation change. One such change needs to happen here on SDN by ending the slanderous remarks directed toward those considering the DO route, or the professional designation as a whole. Consider that the audience receiving this information are young and naive pre-meds who mostly have no idea beyond what they are told. So when they hear an MD student say that DOs are inferior and for those who don't work hard enough, they believe it. I would like to see the changes you mention. I would also like to see more respect given to each designation when it is deserved. There are many reputable DO programs with excellent clinical rotations. For this reason, I think we need to paint with smaller brushes to more accurately distinguish the short-comings by program, rather than the degree. I'm just think the bickering is tiresome and unproductive. Putting others down is not becoming of people on track to be a physician. But it happens too much on SDN on the topic of MD vs DO.

You can't just ignore reality and say DOs get equivalent third year training to MDs, because it simply isn't true. Some of them do, many of them don't. No amount of motivation can teach you how to function in an inpatient environment when you're only doing outpatient, it just isn't ****ing possible. Does that mean you can't succeed with bad rotations? No. Does it mean your performance is likely to be inferior to your MD counterparts come auditions and electives fourth year? Hell yes.

This issue is talked about because it needs to be. This isn't discrimination or hate, this is the truth. Ignoring it doesn't fix it. The COCA won't tighten up standards unless their students start going unmatched because DO education is viewed as inferior to MD education in regard to third year. No amount of burying your head in the sand will fix things, nor will your self-interested desire to quash such conversation serve the profession well in any way whatsoever. Being a DO is a wonderful thing, and I'm damn proud of my education. Saying that it is not up to LCME standards is simply a fact, however, and one that I would like to rectify in the future precisely because I care about my profession. Calling for an end of conversation on the issue will result in it never being resolved.