I don't think that most people think allopathic education is better. But allopathic schools tend to be cheaper, more prestigious, and better known. Since we're very concerned with these things as a society, there's your answer. My personal feeling is that if you're planning to go into practice, there's no real difference between getting an MD versus a DO. My dad is a DO in family practice, and he does the same job as MDs in family practice. I'm going to be an MD because I want to do research. That's about it as far as I'm concerned.
I think your feeling is generally true. Osteopathic medical schools are filled with older students and career changers and, for what it's worth, I think they pride themselves in retraining students that perhaps more traditional medical schools won't take a gamble on. While older students are perhaps a little more motivated and they are generally taking on more of an element of risk (leaving established careers, subjecting themselves/their family to financial burdens), they also tend to have a LOT more going on in their life (spouse, children, mortgage, house, part-time job etc.). Medical schools know that these factors can jeopardize academic success and so it's understandable that they may not be willing to take a gamble on such a student - especially if their application credentials are borderline. There are, of course, always exceptions to this generalization.
The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine was the first allopathic medical school in the U.S., founded by John Morgan in 1765 - a wee bit earlier than the first D.O. program. He trained at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. Harvard Medical School was founded in 1782 - a wee bit later.
I guess I am just a glutton for punishment.
"In the 1960s in California, the American Medical Association (AMA), sensing increased competition from osteopathic medicine, spent nearly $ 8 million to end the practice of osteopathy in the state. With considerable financial support from the AMA, the state passed a state wide referendum (Proposition 22) ending the practice of osteopathic medicine in California. California D.O.s were granted the M.D. degree in exchange for paying $65 and attending a short seminar. The College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons became the University of California, Irvine, College of Medicine. However, the decision proved quite controversial. In 1974, after protest and lobbying by a group of influential and prominent D.O.s, the California Supreme Court ruled that licensing of D.O.s in that state must be resumed.
I think most people are totally ignoring and forgetting about the option of residencies that are open to DO's only. Here is the list of residencies that are run by my school:http://www.pcom.edu/Graduate_Medical_Education/Residency_Programs/Residency_Programs.html and here are all of the DO programs in the country:
while I definitely agree w/ you about most of your post....please read my post that came right before yours
That may be a part of it...but its also the big issue of location, location, location.....and in case I forgot...location. Most of the DO specialty slots are clustered in a handful of states. You've been around here long enough to know its not a cut and dry issue. Location, research focus, availablity, ease of entrance (ie AGCME IM, FP, etc) etc etc all figure in to it. It may be more of a fair statement ot say that the ease/ability of a DO to place into something like Ortho is about on par w/ an MD (ie both brutally hard) b/c MD's have a tough time w/ MD spots and there is much competition among DO's for their own spots (not even figuring in the few DO's who match MD spots).
