Applying DO as Saftey

[ScheringPlough]

I was wondering if anyone else is applying to DO schools as a saftey. I'm applying to a couple just to make sure I'll get in. Either way, I want to be a physician in the end, so I hope it's not that bad of an idea......

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[eschauberger]

I'm applying to a couple of them, but really not as a safety net. I think deep down I prefer Allopathic--and if everything goes well should be able to get into one, but I really am indifferent and after interviewing at a few places find I think I could be happier spending four years at an osteopathic over an allopathic, then I'll probably do that.
BTW, I wouldn't recommend posting a message like this in the osteopathic forum, the pro-osteopaths will be sure to flame ya. Actually, some jerk (probably on a trip after being accepted into a school) posted a topic title "Osteopaths, save your time and just become janitors" or something like that. That's just poor.

 

[MeganRose]

Hi,
I'm applying to both allo & osteopathic schools and I definitely don't think that there's anything wrong with applying to both-- you never know where you'll get accepted/rejected from, who will give you the best financial aid package, etc so its always smart to keep every option open. The only thing that kind of bothers me is that you said youre applying to DO schools as a safety. I think you should consider the fact that you just might get an acceptance from just DO schools-- would you be ok with that? Or would you feel like you're settling for second best? Sometimes I battle with this question, only bc I was so struck by the quality of the DOs I interviewed at. After visiting one in particular, I saw a level of dedication to students and academics that I didn't see at the MD schools I interviewed at. Still, many ppl that I've spoken to (including 2 DOs) have told me that DOs still suffer from discrimination in some form.

There's this guy in my unit who is currently applying to medical school for the third time. I asked him if he was applying to any osteopathic schools and he answered, no-- he didn't want to be a second class doctor. His replied tripped me out-- I think that becoming a doctor should at its root be motivated by a desire to become a physician, not about the two letters that follow your name. All-in-all, I think its cool that you decided to apply to both and that you have a good outlook on the whole thing,

M

 

[IOE]

I don't think that osteopathic schools were founded to be "safety" options for allo. med. schools applicants. Osteopathic schools have a mission and philosophy very different than allopathic schools, and if you don't believe in them then you are not meant to be a D.O.
Thats the main reason I decided to apply only to allopathic schools.

that's my 0.02 $

 

[tmyers]

I have applied to both allopathic and osteopathic schools and have two acceptances to osteopathic schools. One of those osteo schools, Chicago School of Osteopathic Medicine, had MCAT and GPA numbers that are at the national mean for allopathic schools. I too was amazed at the cohesive nature of the student body at both of the DO schools I interviewed at, and the facilities at CCOM are nothing short of incredible.
As for DO's being second class doctors; the Surgeon General of the U.S. is a DO, and the head of cardiology at the hospital where I volunteer is a DO. I originally looked into osteopathy as a "safety" as well, but after years of research and shadowing DO's, I have to say that I would only choose an allopathic school if the situation at that particular school best suited my requirements.
Explore both possibilities and I think you'll find that being a DO is far better than not being a physician. If you have any more questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

P.S. One of the ER physician where I volunteer, who went to University of Chicago, said there is absolutely nothing second class about DO's and even that they have the skills of musculo-skeletal manipulation that MD's lack.

 

[Bmblee888]

United States Surgeon General Vice Admiral Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S. who was sworn in on August 6, 2002 is not a DO. The previous Surgeon General David Satcher wasn't a DO either.

 

[MeganRose]

Originally posted by Bmblee888
United States Surgeon General Vice Admiral Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S. who was sworn in on August 6, 2002 is not a DO. The previous Surgeon General David Satcher wasn't a DO either.

I think he meant the former Surgeon General of the Army, Lt. Gen Blanck, DO (highest ranking doc in the Army)

 

[aquaboy]

Originally posted by tmyers
Chicago School of Osteopathic Medicine, had MCAT and GPA numbers that are at the national mean for allopathic schools.

I find it very hard to believe that an osteopathic school has an MCAT average of a 29-30 for matriculating students. This is what the national average is for allopathic schools. I think you had better rethink your numbers. I also looked up this school online and they give out no info. If there scores and GPA were that high wouldn't they post them. Also the Surgeon General is not a D.O. so get your stats straight before posting them. All D.O schools that I have looked into have lower stats. Now don't get me wrong, I don't view them as second class doctors. I think they are a great asset to the medical profession but the truth remains, it's not as hard to get into osteopathic schools as it is for allopathic schools.

 

[tmyers]

My bad concerning the gaff on the Surgeon General. Secondly, my intention in that post was to illustrate the fact that not all of the osteo schools are a cake walk to get into (although some of them certainly are), not to start some allopathic/osteopathic fued.
Aquaboy, the numbers I quoted for CCOM came from the 2002 Princeton Guide which has the average MCAT there at 28, not exactly the national mean for allopathic matriculants, but better than several allopathic schools I can think of off the top of my head (SIU, MSU, UVM etc.).
Once again, I applied to both MD and DO programs so I have no bias either way. As one of the other posters mentioned - and I'll paraphrase here for fear of further reprisal - the osteopathic philosophy is slightly different than that of the allopathic community, and it is up to the individual to determine whether that philosophy is a good fit for them.

 

[X]

Someone want to explain the Osteopathic philosophy and how it differs from the allopathic one for those of us that have no clue.

X

 

[Bmblee888]

Usually when someone asks that question, another SDN person tells them to go read some website for more clarification. Or they will go into a long-winded explanation about how the DO philosophy is about the "whole person" approach. But you know what? I've shadowed both an MD and a DO, and aside from the occasional manipulations that DOs perform, you really can't tell the two apart. They both treat patient's ailments. And whether or not they are a good doctor depends on the individual doctor.

 

[group_theory]

Hi

OK, first, I don't think ScheringPlough post will get flamed if posted in the pre-osteo or osteo forum. It is a legitimate question and many people in the pre-osteo forum are also applying MD/DO. We're just a little edgy when people post and flame us (like DO SUCK, GO BE A JANITOR INSTEAD). After a while, you just become wary and suspicious of people's intention. But for ScheringPlough question seeking honest advice/opinions, it should be fine.

Second - to understand the osteopathic philosophy, one must also understand it in the context of history. Osteopathy was founded during a time when a lot of MDs were quacks (diploma mills, European training, apprentices, etc) - and there was no standard care - barbers were surgeons, Mercury was a miracle cure, and tonic water (alcohol) was the cure for a wide range of diseases. Because of the widespread malpractice and ease of obtaining MDs, doctors were not held in high regards as they are today. There were many schools of medicine, including homeopathy, ecclectic, allopathy, etc.

The founder of osteopathy, Andrew Taylor Still MD, didn't like the state of medicine at the time. He saw firsthand his powerlessness when his children died of natural causes. So he decided to open a school of osteopathy in Kirksville MO that emphasize patient care along w/ courses in anatomy, embryology, pharmacology, etc. (which was revolutionary at the time). I believe his school (American School of Osteopathy) was granted the right to give out MD by the state of Missouri. However, he felt this was something different so he decided to stick to DO (diplomat of osteopathy) instead of MD.

Anyway, short history lesson there

Today, allopathic medicine is moving towards patient care (hollistic view) and osteopathic medicine is moving towards scientific research. Both embrace the same principles of healing arts, and both employ the same modality (with the exception of osteopathic manipulation).

In the end, do research on both schools, histories, etc. If you don't mind having a DO after your name and don't mind always explaining and defending yourself, go for it. If in the end you choose MD, that's fine too. As long as you make an inform choice that you are satisfy with, I'm sure everyone will be happy for you.

Cheers and good luck deciding which school to attend.

Group_Theory (the point group of the day is D2H, like diborane)
---------------------------------------
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
Class of 2007

 

[futurdoc11]

One could think of the MD/DO difference politically. Democrats and Republicans. They are both working under a democracy and have the same rights and responsibilities, but they don't always see things the same.

 

[tryingagain]

DO's "moving towards scientific research"???? Where did you come up with this crap? I'd like some examples since I can give you about 1 million examples of how MDs stomp DO's in term of leading scientific research.

Check PubMed if you want and check the results for yourself of published research.

M.D. Papers --- 13150
D.O. Papers --- 349

There are 97% more published research papers by MD's than by DO's.

Seriously, I don't know where some of you come up with this crap.

Sorry about the flame - its just that this **** gets frickin annoying after a while.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

 

[group_theory]

Confrontational, eh?

hehe

Osteopathy (and osteopathic medicine) have largely been focused on patient care (and primary care) - and as a result, there was little basic science research done at osteopathic medical schools and little researched to back up the claims of osteopathic manipulative therapy.

However, recently within the last 10 years, there is a move to do more basic science and clinical research. Schools such as PCOM,MSU-COM, DMU, NYCOM now have basic science facilities and faculty doing bench work. MSU-COM even has a DO/PhD program that is similar to the MSTP program (but not funded by NIH)

There is a multimillion dollar clinical trial, funded by NIH, going on right now in Texax College of Osteopathic Medicine to test the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative medicine. There have been lots of small studies (done by both MDs and DOs) that have shown that OMM is effective and not effective.

Schools such as Nova Southeastern are more focused on clinical research than basic science research (and even have students win national competitions in research among MD students)

This is a new trend. Hence the low numbers of papers publish by DOs as primary authors.

In fact, I would be extremely surprise if the numbers were at parity since 1. there are a lot more MDs than DOs and 2. MDs have been doing clinical/basic science research a lot longer than DOs.

I hope this response satisfy your vexation.


Group_theory (the point group of the day is D2H, such as diborane)
________________________________________
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
Class of 2007

 

[Dr Sum Day]

Originally posted by tryingagain
DO's "moving towards scientific research"???? Where did you come up with this crap? I'd like some examples since I can give you about 1 million examples of how MDs stomp DO's in term of leading scientific research.

Check PubMed if you want and check the results for yourself of published research.

M.D. Papers --- 13150
D.O. Papers --- 349

There are 97% more published research papers by MD's than by DO's.

Seriously, I don't know where some of you come up with this crap.

Sorry about the flame - its just that this **** gets frickin annoying after a while.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

Nothing wrong with venting, but I believe person was pointing out that DO's are trying to do more than just primary care. Of course, we know that MDs rock when it comes to research.

 

[tryingagain]

I accept, but may not agree with, your explanation.

 

[tkim]

Originally posted by tryingagain
DO's "moving towards scientific research"???? Where did you come up with this crap? I'd like some examples since I can give you about 1 million examples of how MDs stomp DO's in term of leading scientific research.

[...]

Seriously, I don't know where some of you come up with this crap.

Sorry about the flame - its just that this **** gets frickin annoying after a while.

Someone saying that DO's are trying to increase the amount of research they do is not the equivalent of saying that they are doing as much or more research than MDs.

So your flame is really unnecessary, and actually a bit of a strawman.

- Tae

 

[tryingagain]

You are right, I misunderstood the direction of his statement.

I will admit when I am wrong.

 

[tkim]

Originally posted by tryingagain
You are right, I misunderstood the direction of his statement.

I will admit when I am wrong.

Dude, I wish there like 10K more like you.

- Tae

 

[bioguy123]

"There are 97% more published research papers by MD's than by DO's."

Actually, if MD's published 97% more papaers than DO's, that would mean that MD's publish 349 X 1.97 = 687 papers. Since MD's publish 13150, that's about 400% more. I think you need to relearn your 5th grade math skills, Mr. tryingagain.

 

[tryingagain]

I'm sorry I didn't work out the math for all of you. I merely was trying to say that the majority of all the papers were MD papers. I didn't actually take the time to break out the TI-85 and do the math. Next time I will take the time to be a complete nerd and calculate it properly.

 

[Lascivious]

Tryin-again: Moving toward doesn't mean they're there yet...

 

[tkim]

Originally posted by bioguy123
"There are 97% more published research papers by MD's than by DO's."

Actually, if MD's published 97% more papaers than DO's, that would mean that MD's publish 349 X 1.97 = 687 papers. Since MD's publish 13150, that's about 400% more. I think you need to relearn your 5th grade math skills, Mr. tryingagain.

I think what he meant to say was that 97% of the published abstracts available online from pubmed were published by MDs, hence the 349/13499 = ~2.5% remaining are DO published.

But really, the guy admits that he misinterpreted what the other poster wrote. I consider that a stand-up thing to do.

- Tae

 

[AlternateSome1]

Originally posted by bioguy123
"There are 97% more published research papers by MD's than by DO's."

Actually, if MD's published 97% more papaers than DO's, that would mean that MD's publish 349 X 1.97 = 687 papers. Since MD's publish 13150, that's about 400% more. I think you need to relearn your 5th grade math skills, Mr. tryingagain.

*COUGH* Before you say something like that...you might want to double check your own math...

349 * 5 (100% + 400%) = 1745...

Now...if you said there were around 3668% more..you wouldn't have made such as ass out of yourself...

~AS1~

 

[tryingagain]

See above post to see how much I care about the accuracy of my math.

 

[14931]

 

[smilez428]

To get back to the OPs question-

I applied to 3 DO schools as well as 9 MD schools- I've been accepted to my state DO school so far (so excited!). I want to be a doctor- period. I like the osteopathic philosophy just as much as i like the allopathic philosophy. Granted- i'd probably pick MD if I had the choice (b/c i'd rather not have to spend my life justifying my degree...) but I will be just as happy as a DO- I could see the same patients, do the same things, etc.

I am not going through this awful process again, I'm going to be a doctor (regardless of the two letters following my name). MDs may have more prestige, but if that's the only reason you want to go into medicine- you're in the wrong field.

 

[ScheringPlough]

Smilez428,

I couldn't have said it better myself!!! All these people that began flaming my original post really don't have the proper attitude for a future physician.