Yes, they are proud of the 100% match rate. I don't think it is unreasonable to be happy, but particularly MedEdPath overplays the meaning of the results. As I have cautioned from long before the first class even matched, it is a joyous occasion... that doesn't really tell us anything. The N is too small and half matched to Ochsner. Granted I know that 3 of them actually looked to Ochsner as a first choice (and truth be told I may well be matching at Ochsner myself, because of other considerations I am taking into account), but the point stands that no real data can be drawn from a single sampling of only 9 individuals. I've further been trying to urge caution in interpretation because we as humans tend to focus on the edges of a bell curve too much. If a couple from my class don't match, that also doesn't tell us much. Quite frankly there are a couple in my class whom I would not be at all surprised if they didn't match and it would have absolutely nothing to do with the program.
And, as I've always said, we will always achieve a 100% match rate if people are brutally honest with their self assessment of how competitive they are and are willing to apply to and go to any program instead of focusing on very desirable programs/locations. In other words, people who failed the Step 1 the first time and only apply to ophthal programs are going to be unhappy individuals. If those same people apply to family medicine in Podunk, Alabama they will match (though their happiness will be indeterminate without actually speaking to them). So one can see how matching is actually a surrogate marker of what people really want to know - how will I fare in the match, assuming I do well and apply to the field and location of my choice? It is a good surrogate marker, don't get me wrong, but still within limitations. That is why a few unmatched students don't really tell you much and a 100% match of a small batch of students doesn't tell you much either. What will give you information is a large sample size which allows for a wide variety of matches. You'll want to see something like a minimum 80-85% match rate overall (obviously here, the higher the better, but 95% is realistically where I would predict the program would be in order to call it "very good"), with students matching all over the country, in a wide variety of specialties (including a small percentage of the tougher ones), and at a wide variety of programs (including the tougher ones). If, after 100+ students go through we find a higher unmatched rate, with an obviously skewed distribution of matches, that will give rise to some reasonable concern. But looking at 9 (or even after my class 39ish) data points across two match seasons and trying to claim it can actually inform any sort of data driven rational decision is, well, a symptom of why stats is so important to understand ;-)
As for the DO degree distinction... that is a whole different topic, but suffice it to say in most cases it is almost identical. The manipulations aspect of osteopathy is the last remaining vestige of the rank quackery upon which the field was founded. In most of the world - Australia included - osteopaths are still rank quacks, right up there with homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists, etc. In the US the field became decidedly more science based which is why they have been welcomed into the ranks of legitimate medical professionals and can participate in ACGME (not just AOA) residencies (and most of them do). I am sure that there is variation in how much time is spent in each school on OM, but it is, for the most part, pretty minimal (and actually some of it has an evidence base along the lines of physiotherapists). If chiropractors actually made the same move - towards a scientific basis for practice - they could have had an analogous relationship to physiotherapists (many of whom receive doctorate level education as DPTs). But, they like their quackery too much.
And of course, the general disdain for DO's is almost entirely cultural rather than rational and scientific (same as the disdain for IMGs). And for DO's it is very regional as well - the East Coast has many more DO's and people are pretty used to it and there is less discrimination based on that, the West Coast not so much. Which is why I say that the question is not really answerable since the basis for the discrimination is not scientific or rational but purely cultural. So it all depends on where that culture is present and strong, which can (and does) change and is hard to quantify.
As for the whole Aboriginal/social determinants of health... yeah, I think GreenMachine is pretty well spot on. I wholeheartedly agree that such knowledge is the only way to truly excel at being a physician - you need to have that at the forefront of your mind as your practice in order to consistently apply it. But it is practically unnecessary from a functional sense. You can still function as a good doctor (but not a great one, for a qualitative description to illustrate the point) without considering these things. That is simply because a purely bioscientific approach is sufficient enough in a system with such demand that one doesn't need to hone that edge to such a fine point to function well within the system. That does not mean it is the best way to function, merely good enough given the practical realities of the system and delivery of healthcare. I also agree that UQ teaches these points at an extremely basic level and often rather poorly, making it difficult for most people to engage with the ideas and really take them home. I found the Life Course project to be incredibly onerous, yet I frequently discuss and write about topics that are exactly relevant to the principles they attempted to teach with that assignment. But of course, considering that everyone has different background with different proclivities it is necessarily impossible to design a course that will perfectly appeal to everyone. In areas like this, I would argue that it is even more difficult and I would agree that UQ is probably at or below par on that one (though "par" is hard to define, hence my hedge).
