new DO schools??

[DrBowtie]

Actually, his opinion is 30%. He said that US MD schools could increase 30% and still have an average MCAT score of over 26. He's worried because 2/3 of the MD residencies are going to DO's and FMG's.



I'm not; this guy is from the AAMC, not AMA. He's the head of an organization that promotes MD schools and residencies in the US. That's ALL they do.

The thing that really gets me, though, is that the head of the AAMC doesn't seem to have a problem with increasing the capacity of MD schools and lowering the average MCAT to 26. Oh noooooooo! There are DO schools currently with higher averages than that.

Chances are that if the MD schools average MCAT score dropped to 26, Osteopathic schools would drop as well. There just wouldn't be enough good applicants to DO schools for them to sustain their current numbers.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[medhacker]

Chances are that if the MD schools average MCAT score dropped to 26, Osteopathic schools would drop as well. There just wouldn't be enough good applicants to DO schools for them to sustain their current numbers.

Which should compel us to regard the MCAT in a totally different light...both for MDs and DOs...

 

[DrBowtie]

Which should compel us to regard the MCAT in a totally different light...both for MDs and DOs...

Disagree. It will be more important b/c as there is more spots, there will be a greater separation in quality of schools and medicine could go the way of law and business schools where the funnel tip isn't at school admissions.

 

[medhacker]

Disagree. It will be more important b/c as there is more spots, there will be a greater separation in quality of schools and medicine could go the way of law and business schools where the funnel tip isn't at school admissions.

The AAMC devised the MCAT. If they do not see any problems with accepting lower MCATs without compromising quality, why should we worry? obvioulsy, as reason dictates, there must be other ways to evaluate students with a 26 MCAT to make sure they will make fine physicians.'

I doubt the prez would openly admit to a 26 average MCAT if he thought it necessarily meant a decrease in health care standards. no?

 

[DrBowtie]

The AAMC devised the MCAT. If they do not see any problems with accepting lower MCATs without compromising quality, why should we worry? obvioulsy, as reason dictates, there must be other ways to evaluate students with a 26 MCAT to make sure they will make fine physicians.'

I doubt the prez would openly admit to a 26 average MCAT if he thought it necessarily meant a decrease in health care standards. no?

You're right they did devise the MCAT. They also set the somewhat arbitrary scale to have a mean of 24 knowing the approximate number of slots available hence somewhat setting the "competitive" score.

Without going into an exclusive MCAT discussion my point still remains that flooding the market with students will shift funnel tip. Who wants 200k debt only to not be able to pass the licensing exams?

 

[DragonWell]

Let me disclose something about myself: I am a student at one of these newer schools.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I would venture an observation that posters who are already enrolled in a DO program are much more likely to be in favor of raising admission standards and limiting the opening of new schools. While I understand there are some potential dangers to growth, it is also important to remember that these new schools represent opportunities for students who are just like us.

Any of us could have attended ATSU, but many of us decided for whatever reason that a newer school offered a better opportunity and "fit". We now have the luxury of having more options in our schooling than DO applicants 10 years ago; one of which you (and I) decided to take advantage of. Meaning no offense, it seems a little hypocritical that after indulging in that luxury, you now believe it should be denied to future students living in, say, Washington State, for example. It's easy to take this position when you are already sitting in a seat, but try to imagine your perspetive if you were still knocking on that door. Do you honestly think you be so willing to dismiss new schools, or do you think you would see them as opportunities?

I'm not trying to throw stones, just present a different perspective. (nicedream), you articulate your argument well, and I appreciate your lack of flaming rhetoric. Nice to hear different sides of a subject people disagree about and not have it digress into name calling... take that ya bast*rds!

 

[CJDocS]

This topic seems to be a very touchy subject for many of us here, including myself. I also have my concerns about the rate of osteopathic schools that are opening. Yes, I worry that the standards of med school applications might be lowered allowing those who aren't committed to the profession to one day practice medicine. However, the standards of the next generation of physicians relies upon us med students, and pre-meds. Shouldn't we be viewing med school as a means to one day serve? I know that some schools, if not most, have students involved in the admissions committee. This is a good way to get your opinion in on who you think is intellectually competent and dedicated candidate. I yet have to start med school and I'm still learning, but I'm sure there are many ways to become directly involved with the AOA, AMA or whatever in order to make more of an impact on the decisions that our 'leaders' are making. It should also be a good way to pick at their brains to know exactly how they are thinking. You never know, your opinion just might change. So, rather than arguing about which degree is going to have a higher mcat standard in the future, focus on what sort of standard you are placing on yourself. For those with loud voices on here, by all means, please take it to where it will matter the most.

 

[(nicedream)]

At the risk of stating the obvious, I would venture an observation that posters who are already enrolled in a DO program are much more likely to be in favor of raising admission standards and limiting the opening of new schools. While I understand there are some potential dangers to growth, it is also important to remember that these new schools represent opportunities for students who are just like us.

Any of us could have attended ATSU, but many of us decided for whatever reason that a newer school offered a better opportunity and "fit". We now have the luxury of having more options in our schooling than DO applicants 10 years ago; one of which you (and I) decided to take advantage of. Meaning no offense, it seems a little hypocritical that after indulging in that luxury, you now believe it should be denied to future students living in, say, Washington State, for example. It's easy to take this position when you are already sitting in a seat, but try to imagine your perspetive if you were still knocking on that door. Do you honestly think you be so willing to dismiss new schools, or do you think you would see them as opportunities?

I'm not trying to throw stones, just present a different perspective. (nicedream), you articulate your argument well, and I appreciate your lack of flaming rhetoric. Nice to hear different sides of a subject people disagree about and not have it digress into name calling... take that ya bast*rds!

Yeah, as I said, it's no coincidence that most people defending the practice of expansion are not yet in school (which is most of this thread since it's in the pre-DO forum). You have a point there. But I believe this continuing expansion is on another level from what we've seen.

My main beef is not even with MCAT scores, as I said before. The 3 schools opened in the past 2 years have been branches of established schools - schools that are, as far as I know, exclusively of the health sciences (I think Touro might have other stuff, not sure). Regardless, to the public they are just private medschools that they haven't heard of - when they hear it's a branch of a school in CA, FL, or PA, they don't think much of it. However, with a boom of schools coming that are NOT branches of established medical schools, NOT affilated with major universities or respected private colleges, and FOR PROFIT, that is a further departure from traditional medical education. I believe it is something that will raise eyebrows. Why do allopathic schools have a virtual monopoly on university medical schools and reputable college's medical schools? If the AOA announced that they were opening new schools at Princeton, or Colorado State, or University of Central Florida, I would be delighted. They're not.

Anyway, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

 

[BobBarker]

What DO schools have the highest average admission standards, and generally are considered the "best" school per rankings, rep, etc? The answer is the state schools, OSU, North Texas, Michigan State.. Why aren't other large state schools interested in opening up DO schools? Shouldn't Colorado State open up the the new Colorado DO school? Established private schools would also work. Gonzaga School of Osteopathic Medicine? It would make them money, increase overall university prestige, and no doubt give osteopathic medicine a greater reputation than a "for profit" medical school.

On edit: didn't read (nicedream)'s above post before writing this one. Obviously, I'm in total agreement with his/her post.

 

[DragonWell]

The 3 schools opened in the past 2 years have been branches of established schools - schools that are, as far as I know, exclusively of the health sciences (I think Touro might have other stuff, not sure).

PCOM is established (100+ years, I'll give you that one) but Touro was accredited by the AOA in 2001, LECOM in 1997. If we're going to condemn schools based on "newness" and willingness to open new campuses without a long track record, Touro and LECOM aren't really exempt.

 

[scpod]

What DO schools have the highest average admission standards, and generally are considered the "best" school per rankings, rep, etc? The answer is the state schools, OSU, North Texas, Michigan State.. Why aren't other large state schools interested in opening up DO schools?

By "state" schools you must mean schools with "state" in their name, since WVSOM is a "state" school by definition. So, does that mean Athens State, Jacksonville State, Fort Valley State, and the United States Sports Academy should consider opening up good medical schools with really high standards?

Those three "state" schools are very popular destinations for students within their own state and can, because of that, afford to be a little more choosy. OSU (93.3%), Michigan State (92.3%), and North Texas (96.1%) take in allmost all in-state students. Between the three of them, they matriculated a grand total of 22 out-of-state students in 2003-2004.

95% of the students in my state go to one of the two "state" medical schools-- mainly because they don't know that there is another option. If more of them knew that they could go to an out-of-state school (like one of the private DO schools), they would try. There are less than 300 active DOs in my state of over 4 million people. The've never even heard of DOs for the most part. The pre-med club at my university had all kinds of people come in to talk about health careers, including MDs, NPs, PAs, DVMs, podiatrists and chiropractors, but not a DO because the pre-med advisors had never heard of them. Thanks to me, though, they now have and quite a few students that are planning on applying to DO schools in the next cycle.

The real problem is with education because most people in the US still don't know what a DO is or what s/he does. What should happen, IMHO, is that current DO graduates should be doing all they can to insure that their undergrad schools are informing the students about the possibilities of becoming a DO. If they are unable to link up with their alma maters, then they should pick a local university near their practice and make sure that those students know there is an option. I think that with more awareness, you would see a greater trend toward DO schools and, in fact, an ultimate increase in standards as a more diverse group begins to apply. Believe it or not, there are actually quite a few people who choose DO for reasons other than they couldn't get into an MD school. With better education, some students who went MD would choose DO. That might also open some MD seats for the disgruntled DO students who couldn't get into MD. That way, everyone would be happy, right?

 

[USArmyDoc]

Chances are that if the MD schools average MCAT score dropped to 26, Osteopathic schools would drop as well. There just wouldn't be enough good applicants to DO schools for them to sustain their current numbers.

True....but what does it say of the validity of the MCAT? The MD schools have avg. MCATs in the 27-30 range. If they are willing to drop down to a 25-26 avg, they must be saying that 26 MCATs are competitive scores to be physicians. The majority of the osteopathic students are within that range for the MCAT. So......................are MCATs really indicative of physician's competency?

 

[San_Juan_Sun]

I think all that talk about diluted MCAT scores misses the mark.

MCAT scores don't make you a doc. And neither will a school (not a practicing one anyways). It's all about the residency. I don't really care a whole lot about DO expansion so long as the AOA makes new schools support proper residencies.

 

[(nicedream)]

PCOM is established (100+ years, I'll give you that one) but Touro was accredited by the AOA in 2001, LECOM in 1997. If we're going to condemn schools based on "newness" and willingness to open new campuses without a long track record, Touro and LECOM aren't really exempt.

Not quite, LECOM 1992, Touro 1997. Besides, we're debating the current expansion not the expansion of the 90s. Between a branch of a school opened in the 90s and a completely unknown school, there's a difference.

 

[Taus]

I will admit that I'd rather have these new schools called (for example) "Colorado College of Osteopathic Medicine" or something of that nature and not a somewhat obscure name that no one has heard of. The rest of the arguments here in this thread are all moot points, because only time will tell the end result of all this expansion. As long as competant doctors are produced and standards of education are met AND there truly is an upcoming doctor shortage, then this is all fine with me. Our country is really struggling to produce primary care physicians, and with DO's taking the lead in producing them this may be just what the country needs http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/webextras/brief/sb_med_primarycare_brief.php

 

[USArmyDoc]

I will admit that I'd rather have these new schools called (for example) "Colorado College of Osteopathic Medicine" or something of that nature and not a somewhat obscure name that no one has heard of. The rest of the arguments here in this thread are all moot points, because only time will tell the end result of all this expansion. As long as competant doctors are produced and standards of education are met AND there truly is an upcoming doctor shortage, then this is all fine with me. Our country is really struggling to produce primary care physicians, and with DO's taking the lead in producing them this may be just what the country needs http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/webextras/brief/sb_med_primarycare_brief.php

Good points Taus. The only problem I have with the "only time will tell" approach is that if it does turn out negatively, it may be too late. As (nicedream) has said, most people here have not even started school, including myself, so I hold those who are in school (Taus, nicedream, etc) opinion's with high regard.

 

[DragonWell]

Not quite, LECOM 1992, Touro 1997.

"With the graduation of LECOM's charter class on May 24, 1997, the College received full accreditation from the American Osteopathic Association."

"In April 2001, the AOA awarded full accreditation status to the College of Osteopathic Medicine (TUCOM - California)."

I think you might be referring to the founding dates; I was referring to the accreditation dates of the schools. Doesn't really matter.

Besides, we're debating the current expansion not the expansion of the 90s. Between a branch of a school opened in the 90s and a completely unknown school, there's a difference.

What do you see as the differences? (Aside from the short term growing pains which any new program will experience.) I don't see any reasons why a school which opened in the '90's or early '00's should be assumed to offer a higher quality education than the schools which are slated to open in the coming years - what has changed in the last ten years? It's hard to imagine that folks who have been in this profession for many years are watching the current growth and seeing a line between the schools which opened in the 90's and those opening today. They're all "new" schools.

I am no historian, but Osteopathic medicine seems to have had three distinct surges of growth:

• the late 1800's (which produced ATSU, PCOM, CCOM,DMU, and KCUMB)
• the 1970's (which produced MSU, NSU, NYCOM, OSU, OU-COM, UMDNJ-SOM, WVSOM,COMP, TCOM)
• the present 90's-00's which produced the rest.

We're certainly not looking back on the schools which opened in the 70's and debating the reasons why one which opened in 1972 is superior to one which opened in 1979. At this point, it doesn't matter which school opened when; we have other criteria to use for evaluation. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, however, if there were DO students using the 70's version of SDN to hammer out a discussion with many of the same points we are raising today. Imagine how the students at the original DO schools must have felt in the 70's as nine more DO schools opened in as many years. Anybody have any insghts into what was driving that second expansion of DO schools?

 

[XKV]

" Anybody have any insghts into what was driving that second expansion of DO schools?

As I recall from The D.O.'s, this was due to a variety of factors: a national push by DO's for full practice rights after the California merger showed that the AMA (at least in CA) considered the DO physicians equivalent, and later lobbying by different osteopathic groups in states. Lobbying was done by convincing state legislators that osteopathic schools would train enough of the primary care doctors that the allopathic programs had been training less of since the 1950s. There was some controversy in the founding of some of the schools (MSUCOM, WVSOM), but those DO lobbying groups were successful for the most part.

 

[MacGyver]

Does the AOA just let anyone build a school?

Yes, they do.

But its the same way with the AMA and the LCME

Anybody and their brother can open up a medical school, as long as you meet the accreditation requirements then you are golden.

Thats why Florida is in the process of building their 4th new med school in 5 years.


The thing thats the hardest to build a med school is that it requires a buttload of money. But as long as you have the money, you can build a new medical school any time you want and there's nothing the AOA/AMA can do about it.

 

[MacGyver]

Actually, his opinion is 30%. He said that US MD schools could increase 30% and still have an average MCAT score of over 26. He's worried because 2/3 of the MD residencies are going to DO's and FMG's.



I'm not; this guy is from the AAMC, not AMA. He's the head of an organization that promotes MD schools and residencies in the US. That's ALL they do.

The thing that really gets me, though, is that the head of the AAMC doesn't seem to have a problem with increasing the capacity of MD schools and lowering the average MCAT to 26. Oh noooooooo! There are DO schools currently with higher averages than that.

Jordan Cohen, the outgoing AAMC president is an idiot. I bet if you went up to him and asked him go give rough guess as to how many DO schools there are, he would say 10 or 15. He knows NOTHING about the expansion of DO programs.

Hell you could ask Cohen how many new MD programs are in the planning stages and he wouldnt have a clue. Truth is there are at LEAST 7 new MD programs in the works nationwide. Thats in ADDITION to the new MD programs that have already been established at:

1) FSU
2) Cleveland Clinic
3) FIU
4) UCF
5) UMiami-FAU

I know more about the future supply of doctors than that idiot Cohen does. Also, Cohen totally IGNORES the contributions of NPs and PAs who run their own rural clinics, hospitals, and ERs nowadays. He pretends they dont exist and that MDs deliver all healthcare in the United States.

As for cohen's comments about only 65% of GME residency slots filled by US MDs, again he demonstrates his ignorance. GME residency slots have SKYROCKETED since the early 1980s, and it has NOTHING to do with a shortage of doctors.

GME residency slots = $100k per year PER RESIDENT from Medicare for the hospital. Residency slots are about MONEY, and have nothing to do with trying to balance supply/demand issues for doctors. Every hospital in teh United STates would LOVE to open up hundreds of more residency slots, even the podunk hospitals who barely have 50 hospital beds and who dont need residency slots.

Building new MD and DO programs is absolutely foolish and ALL OF US will be punished as a result. All the studies showing so-called doctor shortage are tremendously flawed due to several reasons:

1) They assume MDs deliver 100% of all healthcare in the USA

2) They outright IGNORE DOs. Their "physician counts" are based on AAMC data only which do not track DOs

3) they outright IGNORE NPs. NPs often run rural clinics by themselves.

4) They outright IGNORE PAs, who allow doctors to function more efficiently and take care of more patients

Remember this boys and girls. The United States ALREADY has the 4th HIGHEST PER CAPITA DOCTOR/PATIENT RATIO IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD, AND THAT FIGURE DOES NOT INCLUDE DOs!!! Once you add DOs into the mix, and take into account the contributions of PAs and NPs, you quickly find that the "doctor shortage" studies are absolute crap

At this moment RIGHT NOW, 50% OF ALL APPLICANTS to MD programs get accepted somewhere. I bet the % for DO schools is even higher. Opening up all these new programs will cause that number to go even higher.

By my unofficial count, there have been approximately 15 new DO programs opened in the last 10 years or scheduled to open in the next couple. The number of MD programs opened since 2000 and already in the planning stages is around 10 or so. When you factor in those schools, I guarantee you the aggregate accept rate is going to skyrocket. I predict that 65% of applicants will get accepted after adding all these schools.

Thats getting VERY CLOSE TO LAW SCHOOL NUMBERS FOLKS. Do you really want your profession to be downgraded to lawyers who are a dime a dozen. There are hundreds of crappy ass tier 4 law schools, pumping out grads who have no other option other than to become ambulance chasers and file frivolous BS suits.

 

[MacGyver]

I think all that talk about diluted MCAT scores misses the mark.

MCAT scores don't make you a doc. And neither will a school (not a practicing one anyways). It's all about the residency. I don't really care a whole lot about DO expansion so long as the AOA makes new schools support proper residencies.

Sure we could add 10,000 new residency slots and then increase the number of schools to fill those slots.

However, that would be absolutely STUPID because half of the residency graduates would be UNEMPLOYED due to job saturation.

The current setup ensures that 99.99% of med school grads from both DO AND MD PROGRAMS have a job waiting for them. If that changes, then god help us all

 

[MacGyver]

For the DOs, let me state for the record that if you support DO school expansion purely for the sake of "competing" against MDs then you are buying into fools gold

There are about 125 MD programs (will be 130 or so within 3 years) compared to about 30 DO schools (expanding to 40 or so within the next 5 years).

Now, you could go ahead and open up another 80 DO schools so you can have a similar number as the MD programs. And sure enough, with that kind of market presence, you would find less patients and laypersons asking you what a DO is, or questioning your skills as a DO.

However, the tradeoff for that stupid superficiality is ENORMOUS. You wont be questioned about being a DO as much, but your income will only be 50k per year because opening up 80 new DO schools would produce MASSIVE wage suppression.

So beware what you wish for.

 

[mjc48]

I think you are taking this too far being that there are just a few new schools opening. Hell, there are allopathic schools I have never heard of. ****, there are so many SUNYs anymore I think if they named 5 more, no one would care. These are not great schools either.

this statement is pure garbage. name one suny with lower admissions standards or an inferior residency match list than the school you'll be attending.

 

[dreambig2night]

These are my personal opinions:

I think the AOA should move in the direction of having reputed universities show interest in starting osteopathic medical colleges.
They should look at colleges whose values or mission statements match the osteopathic philosophy.
I do not think Expanding by allowing minor colleges without any reputation in opening osteopathic colleges will help. It will still give people the impression that these professionals are seeking to expand on the outside because they are rejected by the mainstream public.

There are four Osteopathic med schools in the 2007 rankings and all of them are public schools. I am sure that being a state school and being publically funded in some way or the other influences the ranking result

 

[):(]

Gonzaga School of Osteopathic Medicine? It would make them money, increase overall university prestige, and no doubt give osteopathic medicine a greater reputation than a "for profit" medical school.

I agree... Why isn't the new DO school for Washington getting attached to a university? I don't get why they're adding a DO school in Yakima Washington. I didn't even know that Yakima had a college. Washington state has a ton of great colleges that they could try to attach themselves to if they already didn't try. Maybe the DO schools are trying to attach themselves to respectable colleges, but are not having any luck. I couldn't imagine how upset UW school of medicine would be if some of their funding was pooled into a public DO school. Does anyone know of a college rejecting the notion of adding a DO school?

 

[nub]

The problem with new DO schools IMO

1) Lower admission standards (people that say MCAT scores don't mean anything are most likely th people with low MCAT scores)

2) Worse clinical education based on the osteopathic propensity for community based training vs County, VA, or University Hospital training for MD's and also less available faculty (look at US news faculty-student ratio)

3) No real research faculty which makes DO schools more like technical schools or degree mills than places of higher education

4) A non-proportional increase in Osteopathic training making us ever more dependant on ACGME training.

The way to force the AOA to increase standards for accredidation is for the established DO schools to apply for LCME accredidation. This would serve many purposes:

A) Prove that at least some DO schools are equivalent to LCME schools

B) force the AOA to raise accredidation standards (possible grandfathering or probation for the current DO that could not meet the new criteria to avoid school closing)

C) Force the AOA to establish a real osteopathic difference (other than just manip which only 5% of us will end up using and the treating people not symptoms bull). Something along the lines of Jerry MacGuire style ....fewer patients more time per patient personal attention.

D) force DO schools to increase faculty size getting a larger percentage of DO's into research (hopefully to prove the efficacy of osteopathic medicine in a trial with more than 10 people) and teaching

Just my opinion

 

[NRAI2001]

The problem with new DO schools IMO

1) Lower admission standards (people that say MCAT scores don't mean anything are most likely th people with low MCAT scores)

2) Worse clinical education based on the osteopathic propensity for community based training vs County, VA, or University Hospital training for MD's and also less available faculty (look at US news faculty-student ratio)

3) No real research faculty which makes DO schools more like technical schools or degree mills than places of higher education

4) A non-proportional increase in Osteopathic training making us ever more dependant on ACGME training.

The way to force the AOA to increase standards for accredidation is for the established DO schools to apply for LCME accredidation. This would serve many purposes:

A) Prove that at least some DO schools are equivalent to LCME schools

B) force the AOA to raise accredidation standards (possible grandfathering or probation for the current DO that could not meet the new criteria to avoid school closing)

C) Force the AOA to establish a real osteopathic difference (other than just manip which only 5% of us will end up using and the treating people not symptoms bull). Something along the lines of Jerry MacGuire style ....fewer patients more time per patient personal attention.

D) force DO schools to increase faculty size getting a larger percentage of DO's into research (hopefully to prove the efficacy of osteopathic medicine in a trial with more than 10 people) and teaching

Just my opinion

Where would the DO schools get the money to do the research??? I m sure most DO schools would love to have research being conducted at their schools, but an issue of funding maybe of concern. Its easy to say that DO schools should have this research or that number of faculty or this facility but you got to be realistic. DOs are not as concerned with research as are MDs. If you are truely interested in doing research then an MD school maybe a better fit. DO schools focus on producing clinicians.

 

[dr.z]

Where would the DO schools get the money to do the research??? I m sure most DO schools would love to have research being conducted at their schools, but an issue of funding maybe of concern. Its easy to say that DO schools should have this research or that number of faculty or this facility but you got to be realistic. DOs are not as concerned with research as are MDs. If you are truely interested in doing research then an MD school maybe a better fit. DO schools focus on producing clinicians.

They can get funding from private sources and NIH.

 

[NRAI2001]

They can get funding from private sources and NIH.

It ll be more difficult to do so at a DO school than an MD school.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Thats getting VERY CLOSE TO LAW SCHOOL NUMBERS FOLKS. Do you really want your profession to be downgraded to lawyers who are a dime a dozen. There are hundreds of crappy ass tier 4 law schools, pumping out grads who have no other option other than to become ambulance chasers and file frivolous BS suits.

My nit-picky point on the law school thing -- there are still so many more applicants to law schools than medical schools that you can't compare acceptance rates. Medical school applications are kept lower by all the prerequisites that are somewhat difficult. Law schools have no prerequisites aside from a college degree, hence the many more applicants. Also, a law school class is generally around 500 compared to a medical school class of 100 to 250, so that cuts the numbers significantly. I agree that turning into a law school situation is definitely what we don't want as future practitioners who have to pay off these huge loans, but I don't think we'll be close any time soon.

I do agree with your point that caring more about the public reputation of DOs than earning potential is foolish. No physician MD or DO wants a physician glut, and arguably DOs would be hit the hardest because most DO schools are private with limited scholarship funds.

The branches are bad, imo -- in five years, we'll probably have a Touro in every state. Opening a for-profit school could also be a big PR nightmare for osteopathic medicine, and I am really worried about the declining competitiveness of osteopathic schools. The MCAT does have some relevance -- it doesn't explain everything, but a school full of students with sub-22s is probably a school that's going to have problems with students passing their boards. It's also very scary that the AOA has essentially no oversight on the opening of new schools.

 

[nub]

Where would the DO schools get the money to do the research??? I m sure most DO schools would love to have research being conducted at their schools, but an issue of funding maybe of concern. Its easy to say that DO schools should have this research or that number of faculty or this facility but you got to be realistic. DOs are not as concerned with research as are MDs. If you are truely interested in doing research then an MD school maybe a better fit. DO schools focus on producing clinicians.

Since I will be graduating in 34 days from a DO school I don't think MD would be a better fit. UNTHSC/TCOM has more NIH funding than a handfull of MD schools so it is possible to develop a research program at a DO school. Most, especially for profit DO schools don't care about having research one bit which is part of the problem.

 

[NRAI2001]

Since I will be graduating in 34 days from a DO school I don't think MD would be a better fit. UNTHSC/TCOM has more NIH funding than a handfull of MD schools so it is possible to develop a research program at a DO school. Most, especially for profit DO schools don't care about having research one bit which is part of the problem.

Where are you heading to for residency?

 

[nub]

Where are you heading to for residency?

Internal medicine somwhere

 

[BMW19]

Actually my school (GA-PCOM) just spent a lot of cash to build out a Costco sized space on our campus for research. There will be a biomedical sciences program for a Master's and eventually PhD (I think). All of the professors will be required to do research and one of our Pharm professors just got a major grant for research. So much for your theory!

BMW-

The problem with new DO schools IMO

1) Lower admission standards (people that say MCAT scores don't mean anything are most likely th people with low MCAT scores)

2) Worse clinical education based on the osteopathic propensity for community based training vs County, VA, or University Hospital training for MD's and also less available faculty (look at US news faculty-student ratio)

3) No real research faculty which makes DO schools more like technical schools or degree mills than places of higher education
4) A non-proportional increase in Osteopathic training making us ever more dependant on ACGME training.

The way to force the AOA to increase standards for accredidation is for the established DO schools to apply for LCME accredidation. This would serve many purposes:

A) Prove that at least some DO schools are equivalent to LCME schools

B) force the AOA to raise accredidation standards (possible grandfathering or probation for the current DO that could not meet the new criteria to avoid school closing)

C) Force the AOA to establish a real osteopathic difference (other than just manip which only 5% of us will end up using and the treating people not symptoms bull). Something along the lines of Jerry MacGuire style ....fewer patients more time per patient personal attention.

D) force DO schools to increase faculty size getting a larger percentage of DO's into research (hopefully to prove the efficacy of osteopathic medicine in a trial with more than 10 people) and teaching

Just my opinion

 

[nub]

Actually my school (GA-PCOM) just spent a lot of cash to build out a Costco sized space on our campus for research. There will be a biomedical sciences program for a Master's and eventually PhD (I think). All of the professors will be required to do research and one of our Pharm professors just got a major grant for research. So much for your theory!

BMW-

That is great for PCOM-Ga, but you are only addressing 1 out of 4 points for only 1 out of 6-10 new schools

 

[Taus]

Actually my school (GA-PCOM) just spent a lot of cash to build out a Costco sized space on our campus for research. There will be a biomedical sciences program for a Master's and eventually PhD (I think). All of the professors will be required to do research and one of our Pharm professors just got a major grant for research. So much for your theory!

BMW-

for whatever its worth....here is a link to PCOM's faculty research:

http://www.pcom.edu/Research/Research_and_Scholarly_Activit/Research_and_Scholar.html

and here is a link to a just about every distinctly osteopathic research project out there:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=99957

 

[(nicedream)]

My nit-picky point on the law school thing -- there are still so many more applicants to law schools than medical schools that you can't compare acceptance rates. Medical school applications are kept lower by all the prerequisites that are somewhat difficult. Law schools have no prerequisites aside from a college degree, hence the many more applicants.

That would lead to a lower acceptance rate, not higher...I don't see your point.

 

[DragonWell]

The branches are bad, imo -- in five years, we'll probably have a Touro in every state. Opening a for-profit school could also be a big PR nightmare for osteopathic medicine, and I am really worried about the declining competitiveness of osteopathic schools. The MCAT does have some relevance -- it doesn't explain everything, but a school full of students with sub-22s is probably a school that's going to have problems with students passing their boards. It's also very scary that the AOA has essentially no oversight on the opening of new schools.

In order to have a PR problem, we'd first have to find somebody in the news industry that knows what osteopathic medicine is.
I guess newsweek is out.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

That would lead to a lower acceptance rate, not higher...I don't see your point.

What I'm saying is the acceptance rate isn't useful in comparing law school and medical school. Acceptance rates at cr@ppy law schools are probably around 80% or so. Even if these new medical schools have similar acceptance rates (and they might), we'll still have much fewer doctors than lawyers. For clarification, you might want to read the post I was responding to.

 

[Lindyhopper]

It's generally difficult to predict future trends with with much accuracy. Is this increased growth period a spurt or the beginnings of a great upheaval of the profession?

I don't know. But somehow limiting the wider spread of science & learning doesn't seem like building a brighter future.

I think it's best to have clear & public accrediation standards. If a qualified law abiding party can meet them; Congratulaions. Education is a good thing.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Okay, out of curiosity, I decided to look up the easiest to get into law school on usnews. It's not Touro -- they have a fourth tier law school that accepts something like 30% of applicants. It's Thomas Cooley Law School in Lansing, MI, and they accept 69% of their applicants (average gpa 2.72 to 3.39, average lsat 144 to 149 (151 is about 50% percentile of all test takers). Their tuition is $23k a year, and they have a dismal 55% bar passage rate coupled with an employment rate of 71.2% nine months following graduation. This is what happens when you admit anybody who walks in off the street -- nearly half your students can't pass licensing exams or get jobs. If this is the future of osteopathic medical schools, it'd be pretty scary. We're not there yet, but if we open 30 more schools in the next 10 years, we might be.

 

[CJDocS]

If the AOA essentially does not have any oversight on the schools that are opening, who does? With all the students who are opposed to having all these osteopathic schools open at once, how much of an impact do students have in the decision making process? This is may not be an accurate assumption, but if the percentage of people on SDN against opening more schools represents the percentage of all the osteopathic med students out there, why does it seem as though students' voices are falling on deaf ears?

 

[medhacker]

if the percentage of people on SDN against opening more schools represents the percentage of all the osteopathic med students out there, why does it seem as though students' voices are falling on deaf ears?

Because it is not the same percentage. Reasonable arguments have already being presented as to why the doomsday predictions are no more than speculation until the future shows otherwise. This is the reason why the percentage of students on SDN making ominous predictions does not reflect the same percentage in all students.

 

[DrBowtie]

If the AOA essentially does not have any oversight on the schools that are opening, who does? With all the students who are opposed to having all these osteopathic schools open at once, how much of an impact do students have in the decision making process? This is may not be an accurate assumption, but if the percentage of people on SDN against opening more schools represents the percentage of all the osteopathic med students out there, why does it seem as though students' voices are falling on deaf ears?

It's all about the $$$

 

[BMW19]

80% acceptance is a VERY high # for even the worst medical school in the country (US). Our new branch school had about 2000 apps last year and let in 86 people. You do the math. Even if they interviewed a few hundred....

BMW-

What I'm saying is the acceptance rate isn't useful in comparing law school and medical school. Acceptance rates at cr@ppy law schools are probably around 80% or so. Even if these new medical schools have similar acceptance rates (and they might), we'll still have much fewer doctors than lawyers. For clarification, you might want to read the post I was responding to.

 

[DrBowtie]

80% acceptance is a VERY high # for even the worst medical school in the country (US). Our new branch school had about 2000 apps last year and let in 86 people. You do the math. Even if they interviewed a few hundred....

BMW-

Accepted 86 or Matriculated 86?

 

[MacGyver]

That has to be 86 matriculated. No school, not even Harvard, gets 100% yield.

So if they matricd 86, they must have accepted at least double or triple that number. Some schools accept 5 or 6 times their matriculant pool because they are not that attractive and most of their accepted students choose to matric somewhere else.

Besides, thats mostly irrelevant. You need to look at the AGGREGATE accept rate for med schools, not the accept rates for individual programs.

After all, Harvard Law school has something like a 15% accept rate, but the AGGREGATE accept rate for all applicants is something like 90%.

The AGGREGATE accept rate for MD programs is right at 50%. I would guess that DO schools are higher, maybe 60%

If you keep adding DO schools like this and pump out 30 more in the next 2 or 3 decades, you'll see that aggregate jump substantially, up into the law school range.

 

[box29]

This is only describing Touro Nevada. I am not familiar with the policies at the other new schools. As a student member of the admissions committee, I can state what I know and have experienced at my institution.

The problem with new DO schools IMO

1) Lower admission standards (people that say MCAT scores don't mean anything are most likely the eople with low MCAT scores)

At Touro Nevada, a minimum MCAT requirement of 23 is necessary to be granted an interview (this has been established for the class of 2010). The minimum GPA requirements are still at 2.75, however, that is not to say that one will gain admissions with a sub 3.0 GPA. Usually, those people will have a lower sci GPA than the cum which is above 3.0. Of those accepted and have submitted the hefty $2000 first deposit, which is about 112 students, the average MCAT is 26 and sci GPA 3.3 and cum GPA 3.4. Those on the waitlist have similar numbers. The average MCAT for the class of 2009 was 25 with a sci GPA of 3.25 and cum GPA of 3.35. Additionally, the dean has now begun to look at the amount of science hours/units/credits taken before entering medical school. Anything under 50 credits/units catches the dean's attention.

My point being is that I do believe that a minimum set of standards should be adhered to and that may be difficult in the earlier years of a new institution. However, I would imagine that the institution would generally increase the minimum requirements as subsequent cycles go by.

2) Worse clinical education based on the osteopathic propensity for community based training vs County, VA, or University Hospital training for MD's and also less available faculty (look at US news faculty-student ratio)

I think this may be looked at differently by others, especially those currently on rotation. Just because a rotation site is a community hospital does not necessarily mean it is a bad/subpar program. There are some really good programs at community hospitals. I think it is important to question the clinical education at any school and ask what experiences the students have had. Do the students get to do procedures or is it given to the residents (like at a teaching/university hospital). What you might find is that some students who do attend new schools, for example VCOM, are able to procedures based on who their attending is and what rotation and hospital. Go to the clinical rotations forum and look to see what people talk about. I know that my friend at VCOM who is an MS III is doing procedures since it is him and the attending only...no residents...additionally, these are at community programs that don't have residents. If there were residents there, the procedures would probably be done by a reisdent rather than student. There are pros and cons to everything.

As for Touro Nevada, there are currently 3 sites from which to choose and one has multiple hospitals under it. Rotational site #1 is UMC/Valley: UMC (University Medical Center) is a level 1 trauma and teaching hospital for UNR school of Medicine through which our students will rotate. Valley hospital is currently the OPTI sponsored by Touro-CA and offers IM and FM. Again this is also a teaching hospital. Rotational site #2 is Sunrise Hospital which is a level 2 trauma and is not a teaching hosptial as of yet. Rotational site #3 is St. Rose Dominican which is a level 3 and private hospital.

For any student, I think it is additionally important to take advantage of electives in the third an fourth year. For those who set up their own rotations, this might be a great opportunity to rotate through the different spectrums of community vs. university programs.

3) No real research faculty which makes DO schools more like technical schools or degree mills than places of higher education

What is your definition of real research faculty? Someone who only does research or more research than teaching? I think I would have worded this differently. I think that the emphasis on research has been...well...quite lacking as well. I'm not sure how easy it is to persuade well known researchers to come and teach and do research as well as perhaps let go of their tenure at their institution to go to another. Gaining adequate funding may be another issue. This may be easier for the state funded public institutions than the private, but who knows. It has been all over the AOA, JAOA, and The DO for a push in research. Is it HOT air? We'll see.

At Touro Nevada, we are in the process of setting up our research facilities which will include micro/immuno, physiology, neuroscience. We have created alliances with several research institutions in the Las Vegas area which include Center for Advanced Imaging and Genetics (AMIGENIX), the only institution in Nevada incorporating genetics with neuroimaging in interpreting neurological diseases; Medical Education and Research Institute of Nevada (MERIN), a unique institution for training the osteopathic surgeons at national and international levels on minimally invasive surgery for total knee and/or hip replacement; Western Regional Center for Brain and Spine surgery and Nevada Neuroscience Institute (NNI), full-service neurosciences center providing access to world-class patient care and pioneering medical research for brain and spine diseases, disorders and injuries; Nevada Cancer Institute (NVCI), the only institute in Nevada providing comprehensive care to cancer patients and performing quality research with an aim to find remedies for malignant diseases...to name a few. Other partners can be seen on our site: http://www.tu.edu/departments.php?id=46&page=260. Dr. Quereshi, MD, PhD is the director of research at our institution.

4) A non-proportional increase in Osteopathic training making us ever more dependant on ACGME training.

This is definitely an issue for most DO students. I agree that more GME programs need to started.

As for Touro Nevada, per the dean, we will be creating new residencies in 2007 in dermatology and ophthalmology, followed by EM at UMC. Ortho is currently being planned by Dr. Crovetti at MERIN - when - I'm not sure. In addition to the FM and IM, there will be new fellowships in 2008 or 2009 in Cardiology, Gastroenterology, and Pulmonology/Critical Care. These are some of the new and exciting things in development at Touro University Nevada.

I know that this is only about Touro Nevada, but we are a new school that is taking the steps to provide opportunities to our students and others who may apply to the GME programs.

 

[nub]

I am glad to see that you are excited about your school. It does sound like there are some positive things going on out west. My only replies

1) I think an average of 25 and 3.35 is too low but at least Tuoro has minimum standards and I guess you have to start somewhere.

2) Most DO students say that clinical training is what you make of it, but in a more established program with a set hierarchy students are held more accountable for their attendance and individual responsibilities compared to community programs in my expereince. Basically, less slack off room. Also with more faculty, residents you get to see more than one way of doing things than by spending a whole rotation with just one or two preceptors. 2nd the amount of procedures you get to do as a student really don't help that much in residency. The bed side procedures (thoracentesis, LP, etc) will be learned in residency and are not worth trading for a quality morning report and noon conference. Plus there are many chances to get bed side procedures at most county hospitals even with many layers (Fellows, residents, Interns, MS-IV) ahead of you due to a higher volume with more advanced path than most community hospitals. Again my opinion. If you are talking about being first assist in big procedures (lap chole or appy) that is of no practical importance unless you are going into that field. I believe many students often miss the point of a surgery rotation. It is not to see surgery but to learn how to manage surgical patients and what to refer a pt to surg for because most people, especially DO's, are not going to be doing surgeries.

3) No real research faculty = a school borrowing most of its phD's from another unaffiliated institution for basic sciences and clinical faculty that do not publish case reports or participate in clinical or basic research of any kind. Unfortunately those publications you list mostly advocate for manip based research not all research from my experience.

4) I'm impressed by the growth in your opti because mine only has a few FP and trad, 1 IM, 1 gen surg, 0 peds, 0 ortho,etc....

These are just my observations, I'm sure they are not accurate for every school or person

 

[OHMAN0125]

Why can't we just meld the DO GME and MD GME together. Then MD's wont argue it's not fair that they cant apply to DO competitive residencies while DO's can apply to both. And then DO's won't have to worry about AOA not establishing enough GME since this one GME body will continue establishing programs across the board that is open to both sides? Sounds like an ideal plan to me....but probably will never happen..