HOD resolution on osteopathic student discrimination

[notbobtrustme]

I am not aware of any evidence at all that graduates of osteopathic medical schools have inferior patient outcomes compared to graduates of MD-granting colleges. Unless there is evidence then what you describe is baseless discrimination, not some noble attempt to keep their patients safe from reckless, unqualified osteopathic physicians.

lol, it's not baseless. Residencies are free to choose the best candidates as they see fit. They are also free to set the criteria they want to. If they think that generic MD is better than all DOs, they are entitled to that opinion. Likewise, if they think only students from the top 20 med schools are acceptable, they are free to do that as well.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GUH]

lol, it's not baseless. Residencies are free to choose the best candidates as they see fit. They are also free to set the criteria they want to. If they think that generic MD is better than all DOs, they are entitled to that opinion. Likewise, if they think only students from the top 20 med schools are acceptable, they are free to do that as well.

Just because they can doesn't mean that there is a scientific (or any) basis for it. They can make decisions in the absence of any evidence supporting their criteria, and we are free to ask them not to.

 

[GUH]

Programs don't want to waste away rotation spots on students who are not capable of matching at their program. It's not uncommon for ortho and derm aways to request Step scores as part of your VSAS application (some even post Step cutoffs for away rotations). If a program states they don't take DO students, at least they are being honest.

For residency, you have to be kidding yourself if you think programs will place an applicant from Penn and Drexel on the same level. "Discrimination" exists in the MD match, and it is based on the quality of applicants, which is not only limited to ones step scores, AOA status, clinical grades, LORs, and research, but also the quality of the school they attended. As @MeatTornado mentioned above, there is a huge difference in the quality of the average DO vs MD school, and this "discrimination" is nothing new. Rather, it is a continuation of the stratification of quality amongst MD schools.

Yet I never saw programs advertising "we only accept graduates of top 20 med schools" or "we do not accept MDs from schools x, y, and z" prior to the GME takeover.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Yet I never saw programs advertising "we only accept graduates of top 20 med schools" or "we do not accept MDs from schools x, y, and z" prior to the GME takeover.

they may not advertise it but look at their intern class profile. It's pretty obvious once you see where residents are from.

 

[235009]

I am not aware of any evidence at all that graduates of osteopathic medical schools have inferior patient outcomes compared to graduates of MD-granting colleges. Unless there is evidence then what you describe is baseless discrimination, not some noble attempt to keep their patients safe from reckless, unqualified osteopathic physicians.

Also why do you think the default assumption should be that you're qualified? Sorry but the burden of proof is not on them. It's up to COCA to convince PDs that its graduates are qualified and they haven't done a good job of that.

 

[GUH]

Also why do you think the default assumption should be that you're qualified? Sorry but the burden of proof is not on them. It's up to COCA to convince PDs that its graduates are qualified and they haven't done a good job of that.

The fact that there are and for decades have been thousands of successful practicing DOs in almost every specialty and the complete absence of any objective evidence of poor patient outcomes, for starters.

They can try to pretend it's the 19th century and that DOs still haven't proven themselves to be competent physicians, but that backwards mentality is (very gradually) dying out, and I'd be glad to see it pushed further along into oblivion.

 

[NurWollen]

Also why do you think the default assumption should be that you're qualified? Sorry but the burden of proof is not on them. It's up to COCA to convince PDs that its graduates are qualified and they haven't done a good job of that.

It seems you're quite proud to be attending a residency that doesn't accept applications from DOs. I know you've never said that outright , but it's not hard to infer. Let me ask you something. Does your residency program accept IMGs? FMGs? You say COCA does a poor job of assuring the quality of clinical education? If you don't think that applies to a greater extent to to foreign schools, then you're a fool.

And yet the vast majority of IMGs and FMGs are every bit as competent as the majority of US MD grads. Just like the vast majority of DOs. DOs and IMGs might have more hoops to jump through than US MD grads. There's a significant bias in residency admissions. I have no problem admitting that. But you go beyond that. You champion that bias. You seem to be convinced that DOs are less competent than MDs. And that's just dumb. Remember, there are more residency programs that don't take IMGs than there are programs that don't take DOs. Consider that for a second. (For the record, I think blanket policies of not accepting foreign grads are as dumb as those prohibiting DO grads.)

 

[jordansetron]

I feel like I keep having to rehash the same simple concepts in response to pre-meds these days.... this generation with their buzz words is the worst....

You are not being discriminated against for your qualifications!

The rest of your post makes absolutely no sense. States schools and private schools are't "dramatically different" precisely because of stringent LCME standards! I'll ignore the fact that you are "stereotyping" all state schools as being inferior to private schools by lumping them together despite the fact that you are whining that PDs lump all DOs. I'd like to see you try to argue that Albany/Drexel/RF are superior to and have more resources than UCSF because they're private schools.

Let me put it in simpler terms that you'll understand.... There are two colleges. College A known to have tough courses with rigorous coursework.. you have to write papers take tough exams and attend labs, etc. College B is an online school where you just watch videos, take at-home multiple choice tests, and do online labs. At college B you're more than welcome to take courses at college A and they'll gladly give you credit for them. Some students choose to go through the hassle of doing this. Would you fault a grad school or employer from avoiding any and all graduates from college B because they don't know what kind of education these students got and don't want to go through the trouble of trying to figure it out when they have dozens/hundreds/thousands of perfectly qualified applicants from college A where the quality of education is known to be up to par? Is it really up to the student in this case or will they just simply be under-qualified and unprepared because of the inferior experience they were afforded?

Finally, I realize you haven't even stepped into a med school classroom or are a first year at best so you have no idea what clinical undergraduate medical education is like (i.e. third and fourth year) but the differences between the LCME and COCA standards are real, significant and very important. For PDs these difference can mean life or death for patients or calamity in your program. So, no they're not at liberty to just "try the other turkey" and hope for the best. This is real life.

First off, I get that this is real life. 2nd, I never said that state schools were inferior and I certainly didn't mean to insinuate that. And yes I would fault the employer. There are sooooo many other factors to be considered besides the name of the school. You'd have to be crazy to just completely dismiss 10-20% of your potential employees based off of that. Especially when they score better on the standardized tests and have been proven to be good employees by the competition.

Just because this stratification is happening doesn't mean we have to be ok with it and it definitely doesn't mean that we can't try to change things for the better. I totally get what you're trying to say about school A and school B. I agree that PDs will likely choose applicants from a school they are familiar with and that osteopathic schools can't really compete with the resources of a lot of MD schools. But c'mon, DO schools are not akin to online schools. And even if they were, the PD has step scores, letters of recommendation, and audition rotations to consider. If everything is as bad at DO schools as you seem to think, then those factors alone should discount them from consideration. It shouldn't just be the degree.

But what you are suggesting is that osteopathic schools aren't as rigorous as MD, which is false. If anything, due to the amount of hoops one at a DO school has to jump through in addition to an extra class (OMM), DO school may likely be more difficult. Most programs have accepted DOs for residency, and they don't have patients dropping like flies because they did so. Clinical education is important, I AGREE. But its one of many factors that should be considered.

What is your experience with DO residents anyway? Have they really been that bad? And have you never met an MD student you thought had subpar training?

 

[jordansetron]

It seems you're quite proud to be attending a residency that doesn't accept applications from DOs. I know you've never said that outright , but it's not hard to infer. Let me ask you something. Does your residency program accept IMGs? FMGs? You say COCA does a poor job of assuring the quality of clinical education? If you don't think that applies to a greater extent to to foreign schools, then you're a fool.

And yet the vast majority of IMGs and FMGs are every bit as competent as the majority of US MD grads. Just like the vast majority of DOs. DOs and IMGs might have more hoops to jump through than US MD grads. There's a significant bias in residency admissions. I have no problem admitting that. But you go beyond that. You champion that bias. You seem to be convinced that DOs are less competent than MDs. And that's just dumb. Remember, there are more residency programs that don't take IMGs than there are programs that don't take DOs. Consider that for a second. (For the record, I think blanket policies of not accepting foreign grads are as dumb as those prohibiting DO grads.)

I agree with the blanket policy being dumb. I'm sure the response will be something along the lines of "if you already have 1000s of qualified MDs, then why waste time with DOs". Diversity, if for no other reason.

 

[Mad Jack]

It seems you're quite proud to be attending a residency that doesn't accept applications from DOs. I know you've never said that outright , but it's not hard to infer. Let me ask you something. Does your residency program accept IMGs? FMGs? You say COCA does a poor job of assuring the quality of clinical education? If you don't think that applies to a greater extent to to foreign schools, then you're a fool.

And yet the vast majority of IMGs and FMGs are every bit as competent as the majority of US MD grads. Just like the vast majority of DOs. DOs and IMGs might have more hoops to jump through than US MD grads. There's a significant bias in residency admissions. I have no problem admitting that. But you go beyond that. You champion that bias. You seem to be convinced that DOs are less competent than MDs. And that's just dumb. Remember, there are more residency programs that don't take IMGs than there are programs that don't take DOs. Consider that for a second. (For the record, I think blanket policies of not accepting foreign grads are as dumb as those prohibiting DO grads.)

I think MT is an IMG.

 

[Darthberghen]

I wonder how many times a day he jerks off to his MD diploma.

 

[NurWollen]

I think MT is an IMG.

I'm sure I've seen him deny it but who knows? 'Tis the interweb. I guess that would make sense as to why he has such a chip on his shoulder.

Honestly though, there is a huge difference between criticizing DO schools or foreign schools and criticizing their graduates. With all the crap they have to deal with to get a residency and get licensed, IMG's/FMG's totally have my respect. Likewise I've got no problem pointing out some of the problems with DO schools, even my own, but criticizing the people who have worked hard for a DO degree crosses a line, IMHO.

 

[costales]

You mean he couldn't get in a U.S. med school? Well, that explains the fancy-pants attitude and burning desire to put DO folks in their place. Incidentally, IMGs I've worked with are fine people.

God help the impertinent DO student who dares to apply to his program, or the unsuspecting DO who crosses his path or calls him for a consult. (Hint: Don't.)

 

[235009]

It seems you're quite proud to be attending a residency that doesn't accept applications from DOs. I know you've never said that outright , but it's not hard to infer. Let me ask you something. Does your residency program accept IMGs? FMGs? You say COCA does a poor job of assuring the quality of clinical education? If you don't think that applies to a greater extent to to foreign schools, then you're a fool.

And yet the vast majority of IMGs and FMGs are every bit as competent as the majority of US MD grads. Just like the vast majority of DOs. DOs and IMGs might have more hoops to jump through than US MD grads. There's a significant bias in residency admissions. I have no problem admitting that. But you go beyond that. You champion that bias. You seem to be convinced that DOs are less competent than MDs. And that's just dumb. Remember, there are more residency programs that don't take IMGs than there are programs that don't take DOs. Consider that for a second. (For the record, I think blanket policies of not accepting foreign grads are as dumb as those prohibiting DO grads.)

First off, I get that this is real life. 2nd, I never said that state schools were inferior and I certainly didn't mean to insinuate that. And yes I would fault the employer. There are sooooo many other factors to be considered besides the name of the school. You'd have to be crazy to just completely dismiss 10-20% of your potential employees based off of that. Especially when they score better on the standardized tests and have been proven to be good employees by the competition.

Just because this stratification is happening doesn't mean we have to be ok with it and it definitely doesn't mean that we can't try to change things for the better. I totally get what you're trying to say about school A and school B. I agree that PDs will likely choose applicants from a school they are familiar with and that osteopathic schools can't really compete with the resources of a lot of MD schools. But c'mon, DO schools are not akin to online schools. And even if they were, the PD has step scores, letters of recommendation, and audition rotations to consider. If everything is as bad at DO schools as you seem to think, then those factors alone should discount them from consideration. It shouldn't just be the degree.

But what you are suggesting is that osteopathic schools aren't as rigorous as MD, which is false. If anything, due to the amount of hoops one at a DO school has to jump through in addition to an extra class (OMM), DO school may likely be more difficult. Most programs have accepted DOs for residency, and they don't have patients dropping like flies because they did so. Clinical education is important, I AGREE. But its one of many factors that should be considered.

What is your experience with DO residents anyway? Have they really been that bad? And have you never met an MD student you thought had subpar training?

I think MT is an IMG.

I'm sure I've seen him deny it but who knows? 'Tis the interweb. I guess that would make sense as to why he has such a chip on his shoulder.

Honestly though, there is a huge difference between criticizing DO schools or foreign schools and criticizing their graduates. With all the crap they have to deal with to get a residency and get licensed, IMG's/FMG's totally have my respect. Likewise I've got no problem pointing out some of the problems with DO schools, even my own, but criticizing the people who have worked hard for a DO degree crosses a line, IMHO.

You mean he couldn't get in a U.S. med school? Well, that explains the fancy-pants attitude and burning desire to put DO folks in their place. Incidentally, IMGs I've worked with are fine people.

God help the impertinent DO student who dares to apply to his program, or the unsuspecting DO who crosses his path or calls him for a consult. (Hint: Don't.)

Ok guys, whatever you all need to believe to protect your fragile egos and help you sleep at night. I have 2,700+ posts. The fact that you can't figure out that I'm a US MD is on you.

The reason I even respond to threads like this is the undue sense of entitlement and misuse of popular buzzwords like "discrimination". Next thing you know you'll find a way to throw in "bullying" and "microaggressions". You guys are just projecting onto me your insecurities and twisting my words. All I'm saying is that you aren't entitled to a particular residency spot, it's not your "right" to be considered at a particular program (or anywhere at all for that matter), and you aren't being "discriminated" against when someone uses your educational qualification to judge your candidacy for a job.

You are the same guys who tried to run me off the forum when I was cautioning you about the merger that you all were salivating over and only one month into the beginning of the merger people are acting surprised that programs are calling it quits because you all have misled them into thinking everything was roses and that the merger was a huge win. I'm just trying to give pre-meds and younger students a realistic and experienced perspective to counter the pre-meds and pre-clinical students who bring lots of enthusiasm but zero experience and the DO adcom who has a vested interest in the marketing pitch and also has no experience with clinical education or residency.

 

[67552931811]

Lol.

 

[Mad Jack]

Ok guys, whatever you all need to believe to protect your fragile egos and help you sleep at night. I have 2,700+ posts. The fact that you can't figure out that I'm a US MD is on you.

The reason I even respond to threads like this is the undue sense of entitlement and misuse of popular buzzwords like "discrimination". Next thing you know you'll find a way to throw in "bullying" and "microaggressions". You guys are just projecting onto me your insecurities and twisting my words. All I'm saying is that you aren't entitled to a particular residency spot, it's not your "right" to be considered at a particular program (or anywhere at all for that matter), and you aren't being "discriminated" against when someone uses your educational qualification to judge your candidacy for a job.

You are the same guys who tried to run me off the forum when I was cautioning you about the merger that you all were salivating over and only one month into the beginning of the merger people are acting surprised that programs are calling it quits because you all have misled them into thinking everything was roses and that the merger was a huge win. I'm just trying to give pre-meds and younger students a realistic and experienced perspective to counter the pre-meds and pre-clinical students who bring lots of enthusiasm but zero experience and the DO adcom who has a vested interest in the marketing pitch and also has no experience with clinical education or residency.

It was an honest mistake on my part, not some misplacement of feels. The whole DO discrimination thing is nonsenese- programs have to select candidates somehow, if they feel like shortening the list by taking out applicants from IMGs, DOs, low-tier MDs, or whatever, that's their business. You can't just force programs to take DOs, any more than you can force them to take candidates from Meharry or Drexel.

 

[DrEnderW]

The reason I even respond to threads like this is the undue sense of entitlement and misuse of popular buzzwords like "discrimination". Next thing you know you'll find a way to throw in "bullying" and "microaggressions"..

I completely agree that discrimination is not the correct word. I cringe whenever I read that.

That doesn't mean I personally enjoy with the way some programs ignore all DO applicants. Different phraseology needs to be used, especially by AOA leadership.

 

[235009]

I completely agree that discrimination is not the correct word. I cringe whenever I read that.

That doesn't mean I personally enjoy with the way some programs ignore all DO applicants. Different phraseology needs to be used, especially by AOA leadership.

Didn't say I "enjoy" it either. I'm just pointing out that it happens, there's a logical reason behind it, it's in no way "discrimination" and rather than shooting the messenger you should demand reform from your accrediting body and try to fix the problem.

 

[DrEnderW]

Didn't say I "enjoy" it either. I'm just pointing out that it happens, there's a logical reason behind it, it's in no way "discrimination" and rather than shooting the messenger you should demand reform from your accrediting body and try to fix the problem.

Yup, I totally agree. We are on the same page.

 

[user3]

this might echo what someone earlier said...but while I agree that it is appropriate to take school name into consideration, it simply seems like that one factor is used against DO students to an unreasonable and disproportionate extent.

Again, it is a valid factor but the sheer degree to which it is used against what are fellow USA medical schools does not seem justified. (jmo)

FWIW, I would rather be a student at a brand new USMD program with 210's steps than a DO student with 250's.

 

[PatsyStone]

Just because this stratification is happening doesn't mean we have to be ok with it and it definitely doesn't mean that we can't try to change things for the better. I totally get what you're trying to say about school A and school B. I agree that PDs will likely choose applicants from a school they are familiar with and that osteopathic schools can't really compete with the resources of a lot of MD schools. But c'mon, DO schools are not akin to online schools. And even if they were, the PD has step scores, letters of recommendation, and audition rotations to consider. If everything is as bad at DO schools as you seem to think, then those factors alone should discount them from consideration. It shouldn't just be the degree.

But what you are suggesting is that osteopathic schools aren't as rigorous as MD, which is false. If anything, due to the amount of hoops one at a DO school has to jump through in addition to an extra class (OMM), DO school may likely be more difficult. Most programs have accepted DOs for residency, and they don't have patients dropping like flies because they did so. Clinical education is important, I AGREE. But its one of many factors that should be considered.

Let me call PDs at Stanford ASAP and let them know that students at William Carey are just as qualified as students at Columbia.

 

[GUH]

Let me call PDs at Stanford ASAP and let them know that students at William Carey are just as qualified as students at Columbia.

That would be an issue if a program advertised "no WCU graduates need apply" or "Columbia graduates only". But that's not the issue being discussed.

 

[GUH]

I completely agree that discrimination is not the correct word. I cringe whenever I read that.

That doesn't mean I personally enjoy with the way some programs ignore all DO applicants. Different phraseology needs to be used, especially by AOA leadership.

Definition of discrimination:

noun:
1.
an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

I don't know which dictionary you're using but it is absolutely discrimination to categorically reject all DOs regardless of individual merit, or even to only consider applications from DOs who are otherwise far better qualified than their MD applicant counterparts.

 

[acapnial]

this might echo what someone earlier said...but while I agree that it is appropriate to take school name into consideration, it simply seems like that one factor is used against DO students to an unreasonable and disproportionate extent.

Again, it is a valid factor but the sheer degree to which it is used against what are fellow USA medical schools does not seem justified. (jmo)

FWIW, I would rather be a student at a brand new USMD program with 210's steps than a DO student with 250's.

I assure you you would not

 

[DrEnderW]

Definition of discrimination:

I don't know which dictionary you're using but it is absolutely discrimination to categorically reject all DOs regardless of individual merit, or even to only consider applications from DOs who are otherwise far better qualified than their MD applicant counterparts.

I think the point is that part of the individual merit being judged is the degree, school, and accreditation standards.

It's not like they're saying we don't take a specific race or gender. It's a graduate degree requirement for hiring. I don't agree with it - I'm a DO student. I just don't think discrimination is the right term. There's definitely severe bias, which I vehemently disagree with for qualified DO students.

 

[GUH]

I think the point is that part of the individual merit being judged is the degree, school, and accreditation standards.

It's not like they're saying we don't take a specific race or gender. It's a graduate degree requirement for hiring. I don't agree with it - I'm a DO student. I just don't think discrimination is the right term. There's definitely severe bias, which I vehemently disagree with for qualified DO students.

Nobody said that this was discrimination against sex or race or whatever else. It is discrimination against DOs if there is a written or unwritten policy of holding them to a different standard than MDs, let alone excluding them completely.

The more honest discussion is whether such discrimination is warranted. Some here have made arguments indicating that they think it is warranted.

 

[jw3600]

I assure you you would not

I agree. That's a tad hyperbolic. I still stick with the mantra that DO is effectively -10 to -15 points on step 1 with all other things (other than school name) being equal.

 

[jordansetron]

Nobody said that this was discrimination against sex or race or whatever else. It is discrimination against DOs if there is a written or unwritten policy of holding them to a different standard than MDs, let alone excluding them completely.

The more honest discussion is whether such discrimination is warranted. Some here have made arguments indicating that they think it is warranted.

Its uncomfortable to throw around words like "discrimination" because they are usually reserved for violations of civil rights. However inflammatory, it actually is the most appropriate word. If all programs considered DOs but held them to a higher standard, then it would be more of a bias. But because some programs flat out refuse to even consider DOs that are objectively more qualified than their MD counterparts, it constitutes discrimination. Any suggestions for an alternative word would be great. As MT pointed out, its more than just a bias.

In my personal experience, the Ivy leagers at my DO school were no better prepared than the state students. If anything, their name brand education gave them a false sense of confidence. @PatsyStone the students are likely to be more qualified at Colombia without a doubt, but 4 years is a long time to develop skills, wherever they are. Its not like they're learning different antibiotics/fractures/pathologies/etc... Why even have a USMLE at all if a PD is going to consider the name recognition of a school only?

@MeatTornado I don't think that DOs feel entitled to residency spots at all programs, or even be viewed as 100% equal to MDs. Just to be realistaclly considered if they're application is competitive. The trash-can is not a place for an applicant with a 250 step, first author research, and dynamite clinical skills. BUT, if a program is adamant about not interviewing DOs/IMGs/FMGs, then they should explicitly state that on their website so those potential applicants don't spend money and time on that program that clearly doesn't respect their degree/qualifications.

I appreciate your concern about these topics @MeatTornado. Not sure how "real' your reality is but its important to hear multiple perspectives. But the only person that sounds entitled is you.

Entitled: believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.

Sounds a lot like someone advocating for MDs to automatically be considered of higher esteem regardless of individual merit. Elitist is also an appropriate word. Sorry to bring you back to reality, but MDs and DOs have equal practice rights in the US for a reason. Not saying that MD and DO education isn't different... just not different enough to merit a "DOs need not apply" blanket policy.

 

[DrEnderW]

I think people are confusing/applying the blanket layman term of discrimination vs employment discrimination, which is what we are truly discussing. We're talking about the hiring of a resident for a 4-7yr job. Degree qualifications and pedigree doesn't fall under employment discrimination.

For example, someone can deny a person a promotion bc they have a different masters degree other than a MBA when a 2nd candidate does have an MBA. That is not employment discrimination even though the employer will only take those with a specific degree. With separate degrees and accrediting bodies I don't see how that is employment discrimination even if it is stupid in the MD/DO instance.

 

[notbobtrustme]

In my personal experience, the Ivy leagers at my DO school were no better prepared than the state students. If anything, their name brand education gave them a false sense of confidence. @PatsyStone the students are likely to be more qualified at Colombia without a doubt, but 4 years is a long time to develop skills, wherever they are. Its not like they're learning different antibiotics/fractures/pathologies/etc... Why even have a USMLE at all if a PD is going to consider the name recognition of a school only?

It's not about knowledge, it's about expectations. For example, our 3rd year grading is done behind the scenes. We don't even have access to the evaluation form although we do have access to the rubric. In contrast, CCOM students can choose who they want to evaluate them and have to turn in a single evaluation for their 3rd year grade. Knowing that, which honors do you put more stock into, ours or CCOM's? Some students had an outpatient surgery rotation where they were in surgery like 2x/week. And this is an established school with a supposedly great reputation and they have kid glove rotations.

Do you wonder why there's DO discrimination? It's because you can have outpatient surgery rotations with no call and few expectations while choosing your evaluator. In contrast, every MD student I've ever talked to had a similar grading scheme as us (eg behind the scenes). Sure, they had different criteria, but no school lets you choose who you want to evaluate you.

And the difference in quality is tremendous. I'm currently rotating a major academic center (eg your grandma would recognize the name) and the expectations from 3rd years and 4th years is much higher than what was expected of me in my 3rd year.

 

[GUH]

It's not about knowledge, it's about expectations. For example, our 3rd year grading is done behind the scenes. We don't even have access to the evaluation form although we do have access to the rubric. In contrast, CCOM students can choose who they want to evaluate them and have to turn in a single evaluation for their 3rd year grade. Knowing that, which honors do you put more stock into, ours or CCOM's? Some students had an outpatient surgery rotation where they were in surgery like 2x/week. And this is an established school with a supposedly great reputation and they have kid glove rotations.

Do you wonder why there's DO discrimination? It's because you can have outpatient surgery rotations with no call and few expectations while choosing your evaluator. In contrast, every MD student I've ever talked to had a similar grading scheme as us (eg behind the scenes). Sure, they had different criteria, but no school lets you choose who you want to evaluate you.

And the difference in quality is tremendous. I'm currently rotating a major academic center (eg your grandma would recognize the name) and the expectations from 3rd years and 4th years is much higher than what was expected of me in my 3rd year.

Any actual proof of inferior outcomes, or are you just trying to pass off a few anecdotes as evidence?

 

[jordansetron]

It's not about knowledge, it's about expectations. For example, our 3rd year grading is done behind the scenes. We don't even have access to the evaluation form although we do have access to the rubric. In contrast, CCOM students can choose who they want to evaluate them and have to turn in a single evaluation for their 3rd year grade. Knowing that, which honors do you put more stock into, ours or CCOM's? Some students had an outpatient surgery rotation where they were in surgery like 2x/week. And this is an established school with a supposedly great reputation and they have kid glove rotations.

Do you wonder why there's DO discrimination? It's because you can have outpatient surgery rotations with no call and few expectations while choosing your evaluator. In contrast, every MD student I've ever talked to had a similar grading scheme as us (eg behind the scenes). Sure, they had different criteria, but no school lets you choose who you want to evaluate you.

And the difference in quality is tremendous. I'm currently rotating a major academic center (eg your grandma would recognize the name) and the expectations from 3rd years and 4th years is much higher than what was expected of me in my 3rd year.

Rotating at a major academic center is not afforded to every MD student either. But I hear you, its completely understandable reason to have bias. But like @GUH said, this is anecdotal. I have my own stories of MD students doing relatively little on their respective rotations too. DO clinical education seems to be more variable for sure though. Is this a standard DO thing with choosing your evaluator or is it a school specific thing @notbobtrustme ?

 

[GUH]

Rotating at a major academic center is not afforded to every MD student either. But I hear you, its completely understandable reason to have bias. But like @GUH said, this is anecdotal. I have my own stories of MD students doing relatively little on their respective rotations too. DO clinical education seems to be more variable for sure though. Is this a standard DO thing with choosing your evaluator or is it a school specific thing @notbobtrustme ?

Definitely does not happen at COMP.
I'm skeptical that it even happens at CCOM, in spite of what was said.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Rotating at a major academic center is not afforded to every MD student either. But I hear you, its completely understandable reason to have bias. But like @GUH said, this is anecdotal. I have my own stories of MD students doing relatively little on their respective rotations too. DO clinical education seems to be more variable for sure though. Is this a standard DO thing with choosing your evaluator or is it a school specific thing @notbobtrustme ?

I think it's just CCOM but I don't have exposure to other schools to comment.

 

[IlDestriero]

I don't think PDs base their choice of candidates from this perspective at all. It's simply not how the world works. The reason that they choose MD applicants is simply because they know the people who come from those schools and reputation. The long winded post about standards and etc is not really needed.

This is your problem, and it's extremely difficult to change.
Before our fellowship match started a couple years ago, we selected nearly all our fellows from the same handful superior residency programs that we were all familiar with.
The match has mixed things up a bit, but we still don't even interview 2/3 of the applicants. They get screened out in the first pass through.

 

[jw3600]

It's not about knowledge, it's about expectations. For example, our 3rd year grading is done behind the scenes. We don't even have access to the evaluation form although we do have access to the rubric. In contrast, CCOM students can choose who they want to evaluate them and have to turn in a single evaluation for their 3rd year grade. Knowing that, which honors do you put more stock into, ours or CCOM's? Some students had an outpatient surgery rotation where they were in surgery like 2x/week. And this is an established school with a supposedly great reputation and they have kid glove rotations.

Do you wonder why there's DO discrimination? It's because you can have outpatient surgery rotations with no call and few expectations while choosing your evaluator. In contrast, every MD student I've ever talked to had a similar grading scheme as us (eg behind the scenes). Sure, they had different criteria, but no school lets you choose who you want to evaluate you.

And the difference in quality is tremendous. I'm currently rotating a major academic center (eg your grandma would recognize the name) and the expectations from 3rd years and 4th years is much higher than what was expected of me in my 3rd year.

I had always figured all students on a rotation were graded the same and it was in a manner determined by the hospital or clinic providing the rotation. That's interesting.