Well, I originally thought, like many of you, that there was some sort of "DO difference," that I'd get some sort of better, more complete, or "holistic" education. Part of me doubted that from the start, thinking that there wasn't much difference at all and that any difference was artificially accentuated, but at the end I fell hard for the propaganda. Now, half way into my 2nd year, I can tell you that my experience of osteopathic medical education thus far has been different than my initial expectation might have informed me and that the part of me that doubted from the get go, was more right on the mark. My experiences indicate that the differences are minor at best and each moment that passes, the alleged differences seem to become less evident. Shocking, I know.
What I have learned is that medical education/medical school is pretty consistent across degree/designation being granted (MD or DO) and from school to school, more than the uninitiated would first suspect. The differences seem to be more dependent on individual school emphasis and curriculum than on some sort of "osteopathic focus." The basic sciences are pretty much the same across the schools. You get the exact same material and in some instances, delivered by exactly the same professors, as you would in any allopathic medical school. It's the same anatomy, the same pharmacology, the same pathology, and the same physiology, taught to the students no matter where you go. There is perhaps some forced emphasis on the so-called "osteopathic principles and practices" on occasion along with an attempt to reinforce a supposed primary care focus, but in large part, it is just annoying, superficial, and doesn't amount to any more than lip service. It is like occasionally putting different different rims on a Chevy and calling it a Benz.
I mean, of course, the major stand out is OMM, taught in osteopathic medical school as a mandatory subject, but really, I am not overwhelmed by it's practice in any way, or even by it's alleged value. You get a few hours a week of OMM lab and lecture, and so far it's been utterly forgettable, although admittedly, I have picked up a few useful techniques here and there. The majority of the information I have retained from OMM lab has been mostly concepts and techniques that are common to most medical schools. In some cases, however, I have seriously questioned the so-called scientific principles that underpin the OMM techniques being taught (if you don't believe me, just take a look at the green OMM handbook; highly dubious). The scientist in me scoffs at some of the explanations. Even so, I suspend my doubt, anyway, and give it a try. In some cases, I am pleasantly surprised and think it useful. In most cases, however, I am just going through the motions. Do I think it's worth attending an osteopathic medical school just for the "extra" education in OMM? I do not. However, that's just my opinion, based on my experiences. Others may think differently and I respect that.
Also, while I am on the subject, OMM isn't taught on top of the standard curriculum. I mean, in medical school, time is tight. That being the case, you are going to have to take time away from some subjects to feed any "extra" ones and as such, you are naturally going to be subtracting from subjects like physiology, pathology, and/or pharmacology, in order to have OMM lab. I don't think of this as a good trade off, although, it doesn't seem to cause any harm as of yet, so whatever to that. It's not a big deal.
Yet, to be fair and accurate, I want to say that there are differences that can be experienced, it just might not be what you think they are. At least in my experience, the most notable difference is from the curriculum and the way that the basic science material is being delivered, what is being emphasized and taught. No, it's not more "holistic," whatever that means, but it does provide a more clinical perspective and even primary care spin on basic science material taught in the first two years. What I mean by that is that the basic science material is approached in many, but not all cases, from a utilitarian/clinical manner. This is good in the sense that it reinforces and strengthens one's clinical acumen, but it doesn't seem to do wonders for my basic science background.
Last year I took an NBME comprehensive basic science assessment and I did really well on the clinical material, or subjects, but sucked pretty hard on many of the hard-core basic sciences. I feel like less of a medical scientist than a straight clinician, but that's what my education seemed to have emphasized. I have no doubt whatsoever that I am going to be strong clinically right out of the starting blocks due to the training I've received thus far, but I worry sometimes that my hardcore science knowledge isn't as strong as I'd like it to be. Perhaps not as critical for a front line clinician, but what if I want to be more of a medical scientist, or specialize in a discipline that is more rooted in, or favors, a stronger basic medical science foundation rather than a clinical one (unlikely, but I'm just wondering out loud and in general here)? I mean it won't be that big of a deal, I think, since I hold the belief that most of the medical knowledge you need is learned in the field, but more of what I'm getting at is that I think perhaps medical students trained a bit differently than myself may have an easier time with these more hardcore basic elements, such as pathophysiology, or the basic science elements, roots of disorders and presenting symptomatology, at least at the beginning of clinical training. Clearly, experience trumps all, equalizes minor differences, as it should. I should also note that I'm not saying this applies even outside of my own experiences, either, and that I think you'll receive a decent education no matter where you choose to attend.
Anyway, take what you will from my ramblings. My general experience is that all this "holistic" hoopla and "DO difference" is bunk. Mandatory OMM is pretty much the only notable and common difference you'll see. This is not to say that there won't be curricular difference, or individual differences in emphasis, but I think they tend to be more individual than uniquely "osteopathic." In conclusion, I'd say that osteopathic and allopathic medical education are more similar than different and that the further along I go, the more similar they seem.
The chance for MDs is extremely low, too. Not as low, but still quite low.
