NY Times article on DOs...

[Gatorman177]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/0...c-branch-of-medicine-is-booming.html?referrer

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[repititionition]

Just read it and came here to see if it had been discussed yet.

One paragraph stood out:

"Whatever the reasons for choosing a D.O. over an M.D., osteopathic medicine has, for decades now and increasingly so, been accepted as authoritative training by the medical establishment, including the residency programs that lead to licensure. This year, more than three-quarters of D.O. graduates successfully “matched” with a residency — half for M.D.-accredited programs and half for D.O.-accredited programs."

Emphasis mine...

This implies that a quarter of DO graduates did not match last year. W.T.F.?

 

[koan]

I was pretty sure it was 97.5% this year, but can't remember the source.

 

[NewBlood]

Maybe the author drew this 75% match statistic from hard data published by NMRP and the AOA, which might only list actual "matches," rather than SOAPs / Scrambles / positions secured outside the match.

 

[DocEspana]

Maybe the author drew this 75% match statistic from hard data published by NMRP and the AOA, which might only list actual "matches," rather than SOAPs / Scrambles / positions secured outside the match.

seems that way

 

[repititionition]

Yeah, not so clear:

https://www.natmatch.com/aoairp/stats/2014sklstats.html

It looks like the true unmatched percentage is ~12%. Staggering.

 

[meliora27]

Take a break for a moment from debating a statistic in the article (which is important) it's pretty great that DO's could get some good press in the NYT!

Say what you want about The Grey Lady (NYT) but the fact remains despite it's bias(es) that The New York Times is probably the most regarded newspaper in America with a weekday circulation of 1.8 Million. I'll take some good press in the NYT any day!

 

[demayette]

144,000 applications! Where the N.Y. times get that number?

 

[NontradCA]

144,000 applications! Where the N.Y. times get that number?

 

[demayette]

Lol....

http://www.aacom.org/data/applicantsmatriculants/Documents/2012-Applicant-Matriculant-Report.pdf

 

[NewBlood]

144,000 applications! Where the N.Y. times get that number?

Yeah these are not unique applications. There were about 15,000 applicANTS and a total of 115k applicATIONS in 2012. Actually, when I see that now and compare it to the ~5500 first-year seats in 2012, I'm amazed that it's really only one matriculant for 2.7 applicants. I'm even more amazed that there were almost 1000 seats added between 2012 and 2013. That is ridiculous and just another sign of the rampant, unconstrained proliferation of DO schools. A great way for the greedy Presidents/Board Members/Upper Admins to take advantage of premeds...just put more and more naive kids into massive debt in order to sustain double-digit salary increases.

That should be the real focus of this NYT article.

 

[demayette]

Yeah these are not unique applications. There were about 15,000 applicANTS and a total of 115k applicATIONS in 2012. Actually, when I see that now and compare it to the ~5500 first-year seats in 2012, I'm amazed that it's really only one matriculant for 2.7 applicants. I'm even more amazed that there were almost 1000 seats added between 2012 and 2013. That is ridiculous and just another sign of the rampant, unconstrained proliferation of DO schools. A great way for the greedy Presidents/Board Members/Upper Admins to take advantage of premeds...just put more and more naive kids into massive debt in order to sustain double-digit salary increases.

That should be the real focus of this NYT article.

But saying 144000 applications for 5000 spots without explaining it further is misleading...

 

[Postictal Raiden]

Residency placement rate (high 90's) > Residency match rate (high 70's)

 

[hallowmann]

Residency placement rate (high 90's) > Residency match rate (high 70's)

I estimated the match rate at ~87-89% before. I think that is the closest to the real thing. Like you said, placement is closer to 98%, but match was high 80s (don't forget that some people who don't match AOA are the same that don't match ACGME, so they get counted twice). Hopefully we'll have a better idea when the matches combine.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

I estimated the match rate at ~87-89% before. I think that is the closest to the real thing. Like you said, placement is closer to 98%, but match was high 80s (don't forget that some people who don't match AOA are the same that don't match ACGME, so they get counted twice). Hopefully we'll have a better idea when the matches combine.

True.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

I estimated the match rate at ~87-89% before. I think that is the closest to the real thing. Like you said, placement is closer to 98%, but match was high 80s (don't forget that some people who don't match AOA are the same that don't match ACGME, so they get counted twice). Hopefully we'll have a better idea when the matches combine.

I just went ahead and calculated the total number of matched DOs to pgy1 positions, and it was 4468 (2341 AOA and 2127 ACGME). Then I divided this number by the number of participants in the AOA match, which was 5645, and got 79.1%. How did you get the 87-89% number?

 

[touchpause13]

I really shouldn't have read the comments:
"
The solution to the Primary Care Shortage is this: Instead of creating these second rate D.O. "doctors," the focus should be on educating more Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants to work as physician extenders of those with M.D. degrees"

LOLWUT

 

[SnowDoggy44]

I just went ahead and calculated the total number of matched DOs to pgy1 positions, and it was 4468 (2341 AOA and 2127 ACGME). Then I divided this number by the number of participants in the AOA match, which was 5645, and got 79.1%. How did you get the 87-89% number?

I agree with your 79.1% calculation from the published data for 2014. To get to a 98% placement rate, that must mean ~18.8% of graduates place into PGY-1 positions through SOAP or scramble which equates to about 1,060 graduates. There were 1579 PGY-1 positions unmatched (991 ACGME, 588 AOA); I'm not sure how many military positions went unmatched.

 

[costales]

I really shouldn't have read the comments:
"The solution to the Primary Care Shortage is this: Instead of creating these second rate D.O. "doctors," the focus should be on educating more Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants to work as physician extenders of those with M.D. degrees"
LOLWUT

Hey, all you need is a trained monkey to collect the copays and hand out specialist referrals. There is a contingent on SDN that advocates this approach.

 

[OCDEMS]

You really have to hand it to the AOA. The osteopathic profession has become the Apple Computer of medicine. “Think Different.” For all the talking back and forth here on SDN, the comments section of this article really brings into focus exactly what everyone has known for a long time: Not only are patients familiar with DOs, but there is also a minority of the population that has bought-hook, line, and sinker-the argument of osteopathic “distinctiveness.”

If osteopathic medicine stays the course, I think the profession will continue to see good press and greater public recognition. I think the profession needs to come to terms with where to draw the line on the “distinctive” argument. On one hand, it is true that there is a sizeable population of patients who see DOs as an alternative, however misinformed, to regular allopathic medicine. At the same time, the comments also reveal a sizeable portion (although clear minority) of MDs who feel threatened by DOs. The writing is on the wall for these people: medicine is under assault from mid-level practitioners and now, due largely to nothing within their own control, DOs are seen as a “holistic” version of the MD. What’s even better is that most of the population doesn’t even associate DOs with manipulation. Instead, they talk about completely intangible and immeasurable feelings of “niceness” and better beside manners. From a purely public relations standpoint it confers a lot of the advantages of nursing without needing to be a nurse.

I think there is goodwill in the public toward osteopathic medicine. It’s up to the osteopathic profession to use it wisely.

 

[hallowmann]

I just went ahead and calculated the total number of matched DOs to pgy1 positions, and it was 4468 (2341 AOA and 2127 ACGME). Then I divided this number by the number of participants in the AOA match, which was 5645, and got 79.1%. How did you get the 87-89% number?

I don't remember exactly how I did it, but I think your inclusion of previous DO grads is skewing the match rate a bit. Unfortunately, we don't have match rate data on previous grads, but I think it's safe to assume its much lower than DO seniors, as the match rate for MD grads is much lower than that for MD seniors. Eliminating them completely, the rate becomes ~87%. Adding DO grads at a match rate similarly lower than DO seniors as their MD counterparts makes match rate for 2014 closer to ~83%.

The real problem is that without the full data, we run in to a lot of problems. One problem is that for AOA Derm the grads are the only ones matching in that residency, so to compare with NRMP match data, they'd have to be included with senior match rates.

Another problem with this is that there is a clear population of scramblers that never participated in the NRMP match, and we have no idea how they would affect the stats had they participated. Maybe they would have applied to more programs and had a chance to match, maybe they would have also been unmatched in the NRMP match. We really don't know.

Again, we'll have to wait for a combined match to know for sure, because the stats just aren't available to us right now.

 

[demayette]

I really shouldn't have read the comments:
"
The solution to the Primary Care Shortage is this: Instead of creating these second rate D.O. "doctors," the focus should be on educating more Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants to work as physician extenders of those with M.D. degrees"

LOLWUT

That comment was hilarious! It seems like it's coming from nurse aspiring to become a NP...

 

[touchpause13]

That comment was hilarious! It seems like it's coming from nurse aspiring to become a NP...

Yeah that's what I figured as well

 

[AnonymousD.O.]

Yeah these are not unique applications. There were about 15,000 applicANTS and a total of 115k applicATIONS in 2012. Actually, when I see that now and compare it to the ~5500 first-year seats in 2012, I'm amazed that it's really only one matriculant for 2.7 applicants. I'm even more amazed that there were almost 1000 seats added between 2012 and 2013. That is ridiculous and just another sign of the rampant, unconstrained proliferation of DO schools. A great way for the greedy Presidents/Board Members/Upper Admins to take advantage of premeds...just put more and more naive kids into massive debt in order to sustain double-digit salary increases.

That should be the real focus of this NYT article.

"rampant, constrained proliferation of DO schools" . Not sure if that is exactly accurate. Some of the the new D.O. schools are branch campuses and COCA has its own restrictions, albeit different from the MD side of things, to insure the schools are of high quality.

 

[AnonymousD.O.]

You really have to hand it to the AOA. The osteopathic profession has become the Apple Computer of medicine. “Think Different.” For all the talking back and forth here on SDN, the comments section of this article really brings into focus exactly what everyone has known for a long time: Not only are patients familiar with DOs, but there is also a minority of the population that has bought-hook, line, and sinker-the argument of osteopathic “distinctiveness.”

If osteopathic medicine stays the course, I think the profession will continue to see good press and greater public recognition. I think the profession needs to come to terms with where to draw the line on the “distinctive” argument. On one hand, it is true that there is a sizeable population of patients who see DOs as an alternative, however misinformed, to regular allopathic medicine. At the same time, the comments also reveal a sizeable portion (although clear minority) of MDs who feel threatened by DOs. The writing is on the wall for these people: medicine is under assault from mid-level practitioners and now, due largely to nothing within their own control, DOs are seen as a “holistic” version of the MD. What’s even better is that most of the population doesn’t even associate DOs with manipulation. Instead, they talk about completely intangible and immeasurable feelings of “niceness” and better beside manners. From a purely public relations standpoint it confers a lot of the advantages of nursing without needing to be a nurse.

I think there is goodwill in the public toward osteopathic medicine. It’s up to the osteopathic profession to use it wisely.

Really good points. Really good. One thing that I can't stand hearing, and to be honest I'm not even sure how I feel about it, is the difference in matriculation "stats" of students into D.O. schools vs M.D. One commenter said he/she likes to have an M.D. physician, because he/she wants to simply have the best doctor possible, and M.D. schools have MCATs and Higher GPAs. Now, I think everyone on here knows that that argument is on the absurd side, as an MCAT or GPA in college doesn't define a physician or even medical school success obviously. BUT, those numbers do bug me sometimes. Although I would hope D.O. schools have lower "stats" because they look at more than just numbers to pick students, sometimes I don't know how to answer the question "Don't D.O. students just go to D.O. school because their MCAT kept them out of an M.D. school?" because lets face it, sometimes that is the elephant in the room for SOME students.

 

[el_duderino]

I really shouldn't have read the comments:
"
The solution to the Primary Care Shortage is this: Instead of creating these second rate D.O. "doctors," the focus should be on educating more Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants to work as physician extenders of those with M.D. degrees"

LOLWUT

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

Really good points. Really good. One thing that I can't stand hearing, and to be honest I'm not even sure how I feel about it, is the difference in matriculation "stats" of students into D.O. schools vs M.D. One commenter said he/she likes to have an M.D. physician, because he/she wants to simply have the best doctor possible, and M.D. schools have MCATs and Higher GPAs. Now, I think everyone on here knows that that argument is on the absurd side, as an MCAT or GPA in college doesn't define a physician or even medical school success obviously. BUT, those numbers do bug me sometimes. Although I would hope D.O. schools have lower "stats" because they look at more than just numbers to pick students, sometimes I don't know how to answer the question "Don't D.O. students just go to D.O. school because their MCAT kept them out of an M.D. school?" because lets face it, sometimes that is the elephant in the room for SOME students.

Exactly... the reality is that the GPA/MCAT combo needed to get you into a DO school wouldve gotten you in a nice mid tier MD school 10-15 years ago (before the economy was demolished). Thats something a lot of people forget.... GPA and MCAT does not necessarily mean one would be a better physician.

 

[radkat101]

Really good points. Really good. One thing that I can't stand hearing, and to be honest I'm not even sure how I feel about it, is the difference in matriculation "stats" of students into D.O. schools vs M.D. One commenter said he/she likes to have an M.D. physician, because he/she wants to simply have the best doctor possible, and M.D. schools have MCATs and Higher GPAs. Now, I think everyone on here knows that that argument is on the absurd side, as an MCAT or GPA in college doesn't define a physician or even medical school success obviously. BUT, those numbers do bug me sometimes. Although I would hope D.O. schools have lower "stats" because they look at more than just numbers to pick students, sometimes I don't know how to answer the question "Don't D.O. students just go to D.O. school because their MCAT kept them out of an M.D. school?" because lets face it, sometimes that is the elephant in the room for SOME students.

What bugs me more about this argument is that it fails to acknowledge performance IN medical school where things actually begin to count. When someone says they'd rather see an MD because they have higher standards for medical acceptance, they are saying that they'd rather see the guy who studied really hard for the MCAT only to slack off in medical school and land a crappy residency in the middle of nowhere over the DO who busted a*** to train somewhere prestigious (not that that really matters to me). But, if they are going to be so damn picky, they should probably be scrutinizing the things that matter.

 

[NurWollen]

What bugs me more about this argument is that it fails to acknowledge performance IN medical school where things actually begin to count. When someone says they'd rather see an MD because they have higher standards for medical acceptance, they are saying that they'd rather see the guy who studied really hard for the MCAT only to slack off in medical school and land a crappy residency in the middle of nowhere over the DO who busted a*** to train somewhere prestigious (not that that really matters to me). But, if they are going to be so damn picky, they should probably be scrutinizing the things that matter.

One of the (smart) commentators on the article (correctly) pointed out that by choosing a physician that way you're basically judging doctors on whether they know their organic chemistry instead of whether they know their pathology. Not that MD's tend to slack off in school and DOs tend to excel, but that entrance into a given med school is a poor benchmark at which to judge a physician.

 

[Spikebd]

One of the (smart) commentators on the article (correctly) pointed out that by choosing a physician that way you're basically judging doctors on whether they know their organic chemistry instead of whether they know their pathology. Not that MD's tend to slack off in school and DOs tend to excel, but that entrance into a given med school is a poor benchmark at which to judge a physician.

Don't let MeatTornado or whatever his name is see that!

 

[NurWollen]

Don't let MeatTornado or whatever his name is see that!

Yeah I'm sure he'll be over here soon enough.

 

[NurWollen]

.

 

[meliora27]

I hope that the higher-ups at the AOA and AACOM are reading the comments on the NYT website. What I see in those comments is that people like DO's on style (bedside manner, holistic, warm fuzzy attributes) but still have some questions on substance (quality of training, rigors of gaining admission, etc.).

 

[AnonymousD.O.]

I just made the mistake of reading some of the comments on the article, so many mis informed people. One comment said that "D.O's with their inferior education should be replaced by Physician's Assistants to cure the primary care physician shortage" .....sigh

Sometimes I go back to what a friend said to me one time, that really got down to the bottom line. It was a rather simple comment. He was getting a Ph.D. at my undergrad institution, and his brother was getting his M.D., also at the same school.

I asked him what he thought about Osteopathic Medicine, and about some people "not liking D.O.s" He said something to the effect of "who cares. Sure there are plenty of people out there who have no idea what they are talking about who will not want to be seen by you. But, you are still going to have more than enough patients to fill your practice, and see in the hospital. It really doesn't matter. you can specialize in whatever you want, and make the same amount of money as an M.D."

And that is the bottom line. If people don't want to be seen by me, I'll try to explain to them why I went into osteopathic medicine, and why I am qualified to put their life in my hands. If they still chose to be seen by someone else, I'll move on to the next patient and help them. Their loss.

 

[AnonymousD.O.]

I hope that the higher-ups at the AOA and AACOM are reading the comments on the NYT website. What I see in those comments is that people like DO's on style (bedside manner, holistic, warm fuzzy attributes) but still have some questions on substance (quality of training, rigors of gaining admission, etc.).

Yes. And that is what I was getting at earlier. I do believe that if the COMs wanted to, they could beef up admission "stats". For instance, VCOM, where I go, had a class of 2017 with a 25 MCAT. The Virginia and Carolinas campus received about 5,000 applications for our class (many applied to both campuses). I would be willing to bet, if VCOM wanted to, they could have cherry picked 150+ students out of that 5000 apps that had an average MCAT of higher than 25 to fill the class. But they didn't. Instead, they chose students with an interest in rural medicine, with clinical experience, excellent ECs, individuals from various academic backgrounds etc. I feel the AACOM needs to make this more clear, as it is the one thing that still urks me. People feel that students use D.O. school their "safety school". And although sometimes the case, it isn't always true. I know of a friend who got into at least 2 M.D. schools at the time, and didn't receive a single D.O interview. I chose VCOM because of its affiliation with Virginia Tech and emphasis on patient care. It's a shame that the general public uses a very simple minded approach in choosing their physician

 

[Dharma]

The comments section following various forms of media reports tend to conjure some interesting characters. I wouldn't give much thought to such opinions.

 

[NurWollen]

The comments section following various forms of media reports tend to conjure some interesting characters. I wouldn't give much thought to such opinions.

My favorite quote from the comment section of the article:

"If they're equal to MDs as this article is leading us to believe, then why is there still a distinction?

I'm a med school dropout (for many reasons, and many years ago) and am the daughter of a family of doctors. DOs were then and still (to us) looked at with disdain, and I'm still trying to understand why, if they're so well educated, that the stigma is still there, and why there remains an education separation?
I still think they're hocus pocus."

 

[Dr. Zombie]

It's a shame that the general public uses a very simple minded approach in choosing their physician

Unfortunately, the general population use very simple minded approaches to many decisions. Why else do you think stupid, malignant and unqualified government representatives of all levels get elected?

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

Unfortunately, the general population use very simple minded approaches to many decisions. Why else do you think stupid, malignant and unqualified government representatives of all levels get elected?

The government is going to need some ice for that burn.

 

[NewBlood]

It's a shame that the general public uses a very simple minded approach in choosing their physician

Unfortunately, the general population use very simple minded approaches to many decisions.

Do you and many of the commenters on that article really expect patients to somehow dig up board scores, med school grades, or figure out what constitutes a good residency? That is asinine. Usually all a patient has to go on are board certification status, residency/fellowship, medical school, and (anecdotal) recommendations from friends. An embarrassingly high number of my fellow DO students did not understand what board certification was or what it signified--very often they misunderstood that as a license to practice medicine. Even people on SDN can't agree whether or not places like the Cleveland Clinic or Mayo Clinic or Duke have "good" programs in certain specialties. If it takes a medical degree to understand board certification and what is a "good" residency, then we can't expect the general public to know that stuff. And we certainly can't expect them to dig up grades. So people judge a doctor by where they went to school or whether they are an MD or DO or NP or whatever. Seems pretty effective to me. People aren't stupid, they realize that there are exceptions to general rules...but when you have very little info to go on it's not at all stupid to make judgements based on high-level generalizations.

If you are a doctor working in Africa, you aren't gonna be sending everything out for PCR, you are going to be doing quick gram stains to see if something is viral or bacterial, gram positive or gram negative. If I were to call that doctor simple minded because he didn't send everything out for PCR, it would really be showing MY ignorance of the way the world operates.

 

[D4C]

My favorite quote from the comment section of the article:

Some people on this forum, and elsewhere, equate a lower MCAT to a lower intelligence. There was a gentleman who frequents the allo forums that argued this with super black and white thinking/logic (splitting?).

 

[NurWollen]

Some people on this forum, and elsewhere, equate a lower MCAT to a lower intelligence. There was a gentleman who frequents the allo forums that argued this with super black and white thinking/logic (splitting?).

Just to clarify, the dumb statement I quoted was from a commentator on the NYT article, not from an SDN user. I quoted Dharma elsewhere in my post and when I hit post it attributed the NYT quote to Dharma. My bad.

 

[AnonymousD.O.]

Do you and many of the commenters on that article really expect patients to somehow dig up board scores, med school grades, or figure out what constitutes a good residency? That is asinine. Usually all a patient has to go on are board certification status, residency/fellowship, medical school, and (anecdotal) recommendations from friends. An embarrassingly high number of my fellow DO students did not understand what board certification was or what it signified--very often they misunderstood that as a license to practice medicine. Even people on SDN can't agree whether or not places like the Cleveland Clinic or Mayo Clinic or Duke have "good" programs in certain specialties. If it takes a medical degree to understand board certification and what is a "good" residency, then we can't expect the general public to know that stuff. And we certainly can't expect them to dig up grades. So people judge a doctor by where they went to school or whether they are an MD or DO or NP or whatever. Seems pretty effective to me. People aren't stupid, they realize that there are exceptions to general rules...but when you have very little info to go on it's not at all stupid to make judgements based on high-level generalizations.

If you are a doctor working in Africa, you aren't gonna be sending everything out for PCR, you are going to be doing quick gram stains to see if something is viral or bacterial, gram positive or gram negative. If I were to call that doctor simple minded because he didn't send everything out for PCR, it would really be showing MY ignorance of the way the world operates.

"Do you and many of the commenters on that article really expect patients to somehow dig up board scores, med school grades, or figure out what constitutes a good residency?"

I wasn't saying it is the patients faults for such logic, and hence why I said that the Osteopathic profession should do something to educate these individuals who seem so concerned with who they choose as a physician but are obviously misinformed. I think they would be willing to listen if the opportunities were there. I don't expect them to look up a physicians grades etc, like that really matters that much anyway, but would expect them to educate themselves on what a D.O. is (if the resources were available easily, which they should be) before potentially denying health care from a physician.

 

[D4C]

Just to clarify, the dumb statement I quoted was from a commentator on the NYT article, not from an SDN user. I quoted Dharma elsewhere in my post and when I hit post it attributed the NYT quote to Dharma. My bad.

Oh I know it was from that article. You should read through some yahoo article comments sometime, it's always good for a laugh.

 

[NewBlood]

I wasn't saying it is the patients faults for such logic, and hence why I said that the Osteopathic profession should do something to educate these individuals who seem so concerned with who they choose as a physician but are obviously misinformed. .

OK I may have sounded harsh but my point was that their logic, while based on crude measurements, is not at all faulty. As doctors / future doctors, we should be able to see the value in quick, crude measurements--is this person black or white? male or female? obese or normal weight?

And the Osteopathic profession itself can't even agree on what makes a DO a DO or why we are unique, or if we even are unique. Those are the topics of a series of JAOA articles that have run recently. Hell, I'm a DO graduate who has put a lot of thought into these things and I can't even convincingly articulate what a DO is. You'd literally need a 15 minute training session for the general public to learn what a DO is and why we exist. Actually, maybe that is what the AOA should do. It would be better than them spending millions of dollars on OMM research that they are ramping up for.

Ok, now I am rambling nonsensically...I must really be a DO.

 

[DrEnderW]

It would be better than them spending millions of dollars on OMM research that they are ramping up for.

This is sidetracking from the NYT article, which I thought was great, but I hope the intended journal isn't JAOA.

If OMM is going to ever gain credibility through research, step 1 is to not publish in a journal that has an impact factor of 0.00 and is considered by zero scientists/physicians. A featured research study by the AOA recently was a JAOA publication on somatic dysfunction where the patient group was medical students from the publishing institution. It's such a profound embarrassment.

 

[NurWollen]

Oh I know it was from that article. You should read through some yahoo article comments sometime, it's always good for a laugh.

Yeah, CNN is funny too. It's full of trolls breeding.

 

[razor]

Yes. And that is what I was getting at earlier. I do believe that if the COMs wanted to, they could beef up admission "stats". For instance, VCOM, where I go, had a class of 2017 with a 25 MCAT. The Virginia and Carolinas campus received about 5,000 applications for our class (many applied to both campuses). I would be willing to bet, if VCOM wanted to, they could have cherry picked 150+ students out of that 5000 apps that had an average MCAT of higher than 25 to fill the class. But they didn't. Instead, they chose students with an interest in rural medicine, with clinical experience, excellent ECs, individuals from various academic backgrounds etc. I feel the AACOM needs to make this more clear, as it is the one thing that still urks me. People feel that students use D.O. school their "safety school". And although sometimes the case, it isn't always true. I know of a friend who got into at least 2 M.D. schools at the time, and didn't receive a single D.O interview. I chose VCOM because of its affiliation with Virginia Tech and emphasis on patient care. It's a shame that the general public uses a very simple minded approach in choosing their physician

This sounds like you're implying that the only way MD schools get those high stats is that they "cherry-pick" those high GPA/MCATs while neglecting to select on other things like clinical experience, excellent ECs, etc. Which is far from the truth.

That's the difference. MD schools start w/ a pool that has much higher stats to begin with, then selects based on a lot of the same ECs. We (DO students/physiscians) always make derogatory claims that MDs are less caring or compassionate or less-well-rounded mediclones. This is not true. My undergrad had a large premed club and I have a lot of friends from there that went the MD route and they weren't heartless book-reading machines. They were just like you and I, except they were EXCEPTIONALLY brilliant.

 

[razor]

The problem with these articles is their implications paint a negative image toward MDs in all of their "Unique to DOs" statements. For example:

1.... DOs are trained to palpate and percuss -----> My student-MD counterparts learn the EXACT same physical exam skills that we do minus the OMM which not even DO attendings take seriously unless they're OMM/NMM teaching faculty.

2...DOs are trained to rely on the H&P for diagnosis, not lab tests and expensive imaging ---> My student-MD counterparts learn the EXACT same clinical skills.

3...DOs are trained to look at the whole patient not just the symptoms ----My student-MD counterparts have this same integrating all body systems mantra drilled into them in every systems block.

 

[Jwalker]

The problem with these articles is their implications paint a negative image toward MDs in all of their "Unique to DOs" statements. For example:

1.... DOs are trained to palpate and percuss -----> My student-MD counterparts learn the EXACT same physical exam skills that we do minus the OMM which not even DO attendings take seriously unless they're OMM/NMM teaching faculty.

PM&R bro. Harvard has a course that teaches its Pm&R residents OMM.

The problem with these articles is their implications paint a negative image toward MDs in all of their "Unique to DOs" statements. For example:

3...DOs are trained to look at the whole patient not just the symptoms ----My student-MD counterparts have this same integrating all body systems mantra drilled into them in every systems block.

DOs did this before it was cool. (say 20 years ago?). Everyone just stealin our shine 8D