T
TheRock
I'm interested in both pre-DO students or DO students and their overall/science gpa during their undergrad years.
-
New SDN Article! Preparing Letters of Evaluation for the 2020 AMCAS® Application
Try here.
http://www.aacom.org/data/index.html
I think the info there will answer your question in a far better manner than your poll.
- Tae
Why not do a poll specifically for overall GPA, and another for science GPA. I don't fit into any of those categories. Maybe add MCAT while you're at it?
There's a couple of links that show average gpa/mcat for DO applicants and matriculants, if you don't feel ike wading through the site:
http://www.aacom.org/data/advisorupdate/sld010.htm
http://www.aacom.org/data/advisorupdate/sld009.htm
http://www.aacom.org/data/advisorupdate/sld008.htm
http://www.aacom.org/data/advisorupdate/sld007.htm
I found this sort of interesting though:
http://www.aacom.org/data/articles/ups-and-downs.html
"An important characteristic of the applicant pool is that the relationship between AACOMAS applicants and MCAT examinees changed drastically after the new MCAT was introduced in 1991. Under the old MCAT, each additional 100 examinees yielded about 7 additional AACOMAS applicants. But under the new MCAT ? which was designed to attract students from a broader range of fields ? each additional 100 examinees yielded 31 additional AACOMAS applicants.
The implication of this is that osteopathic medical schools began to attract a much greater proportion of their applicants from fields such as psychology, social sciences, and the humanities (i.e., the social sci & other group), and smaller proportions from the traditional feeder fields of physical sciences, engineering, and the health professions (i.e., the health & sciences group). This is clearly seen in Fig. 3 which shows the percent change since 1981 in the number of AACOMAS applicants from each group. By 1999, 32% of the applicants to osteopathic medical schools came from the ?social science and other? group ( up from 22% in 1981), while the ?health sciences group? supplied 69% of these applicants (down from 78% in 1981)."
I put forth a hypothesis that if the above implication is true - that osteopathic schools attract more of the 'soft' sciences and humanities majors, then the science gpas of those applicants are simply the prereq 4 premed courses everyone takes, rather than say - someone who can improve their sci gpa if they major in a hard sci and can make up in upper level classes what they didn't do so hot in the prereq class.
My point is that a non-hard-science major will have a harder time raising their sci gpa if all they take are the prereqs, while a bio major can - with hard work and dilligence, smooth out that not so hot grade in orgo I.
And if the soft science and hum majors are applying to DO schools in disporportionate numbers (which was not implied in the quote, but seems to follow), then of course the gpa for sci would be lower than hard science majors who make up for the majority of applicants both DO and MD, but in higher numbers for MD applicants.
Take it as you will.
- Tae, a phil major.
http://www.aacom.org/data/advisorupdate/sld010.htm
http://www.aacom.org/data/advisorupdate/sld009.htm
http://www.aacom.org/data/advisorupdate/sld008.htm
http://www.aacom.org/data/advisorupdate/sld007.htm
I found this sort of interesting though:
http://www.aacom.org/data/articles/ups-and-downs.html
"An important characteristic of the applicant pool is that the relationship between AACOMAS applicants and MCAT examinees changed drastically after the new MCAT was introduced in 1991. Under the old MCAT, each additional 100 examinees yielded about 7 additional AACOMAS applicants. But under the new MCAT ? which was designed to attract students from a broader range of fields ? each additional 100 examinees yielded 31 additional AACOMAS applicants.
The implication of this is that osteopathic medical schools began to attract a much greater proportion of their applicants from fields such as psychology, social sciences, and the humanities (i.e., the social sci & other group), and smaller proportions from the traditional feeder fields of physical sciences, engineering, and the health professions (i.e., the health & sciences group). This is clearly seen in Fig. 3 which shows the percent change since 1981 in the number of AACOMAS applicants from each group. By 1999, 32% of the applicants to osteopathic medical schools came from the ?social science and other? group ( up from 22% in 1981), while the ?health sciences group? supplied 69% of these applicants (down from 78% in 1981)."
I put forth a hypothesis that if the above implication is true - that osteopathic schools attract more of the 'soft' sciences and humanities majors, then the science gpas of those applicants are simply the prereq 4 premed courses everyone takes, rather than say - someone who can improve their sci gpa if they major in a hard sci and can make up in upper level classes what they didn't do so hot in the prereq class.
My point is that a non-hard-science major will have a harder time raising their sci gpa if all they take are the prereqs, while a bio major can - with hard work and dilligence, smooth out that not so hot grade in orgo I.
And if the soft science and hum majors are applying to DO schools in disporportionate numbers (which was not implied in the quote, but seems to follow), then of course the gpa for sci would be lower than hard science majors who make up for the majority of applicants both DO and MD, but in higher numbers for MD applicants.
Take it as you will.
- Tae, a phil major.
http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/nov97/osteopat.htm
---
J Am Osteopath Assoc 1997 Jun;97(6):359-62 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Comparing medical knowledge of osteopathic medical trainees in DO and MD programs: a random effect meta-analysis.
Shen L, Cavalieri T, Clearfield M, Smoley J.
National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME), Des Plaines, IL 60018, USA.
The authors used random effect meta-analysis to synthesize eight mean score differences of the Part III/Level 3 examinations of the national Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME) between osteopathic medical trainees in DO residency programs and osteopathic medical trainees in MD programs. The analysis involved 6001 trainees and all Part III or Level 3 examinations since 1992. The average mean score difference was not significantly different from zero; however, the estimates of true effect sizes of each examination varied substantially. The findings indicate that, overall, medical knowledge of osteopathic trainees in MD and DO residency programs is compatible at the time they took the examinations. However, a large variation of effect size suggests the need for further investigation of the factors other than difference between osteopathic and allopathic training programs.
---
J Am Osteopath Assoc 1994 Dec;94(12):1050-3 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Performances of candidates with osteopathic compared with allopathic subspecialty training on the American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine subspecialty certifying examinations 1984 to 1992.
Slick GL, Dolan S.
Department of Internal Medicine, Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine of Midwestern University, IL 60615.
The American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine has been examining various factors that may affect candidate performance on subspecialty certifying examinations. To see whether taking subspecialty training in an osteopathic compared with an allopathic institution could predict better performance on the certifying examinations, the authors analyzed examination performance for all candidates from 1984 through 1992. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for the two groups for any of the nine subspecialty certifying examinations. When the results from all nine examinations were pooled, the mean first-time examination takers' score for candidates in allopathic subspecialty programs (n = 201) was 78.3 and for those in osteopathic subspecialty programs (n = 153), 77.4 (P > 0.2). On the basis of these results, we cannot conclude that osteopathic subspecialty training is a factor that predicts better performance on the subspecialty certifying examination.
---
J Med Educ 1977 Nov;52(11):920-5 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
A comparison of D.O. and M.D. student performance.
Stachnik TJ, Simons RC.
The performances of students from two medical colleges, one allopathic (M.D.) and one osteopathic (D.O.), at Michigan State University in a first course in psychiatry are compared. Although the M.D. students had scored significantly higher on the Medical College Admission Test, there was no difference in examination performance in the psychiatry course, which included measures of both basic information and of skill in diagnostic clinical application.
---
---
J Am Osteopath Assoc 1997 Jun;97(6):359-62 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Comparing medical knowledge of osteopathic medical trainees in DO and MD programs: a random effect meta-analysis.
Shen L, Cavalieri T, Clearfield M, Smoley J.
National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME), Des Plaines, IL 60018, USA.
The authors used random effect meta-analysis to synthesize eight mean score differences of the Part III/Level 3 examinations of the national Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME) between osteopathic medical trainees in DO residency programs and osteopathic medical trainees in MD programs. The analysis involved 6001 trainees and all Part III or Level 3 examinations since 1992. The average mean score difference was not significantly different from zero; however, the estimates of true effect sizes of each examination varied substantially. The findings indicate that, overall, medical knowledge of osteopathic trainees in MD and DO residency programs is compatible at the time they took the examinations. However, a large variation of effect size suggests the need for further investigation of the factors other than difference between osteopathic and allopathic training programs.
---
J Am Osteopath Assoc 1994 Dec;94(12):1050-3 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Performances of candidates with osteopathic compared with allopathic subspecialty training on the American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine subspecialty certifying examinations 1984 to 1992.
Slick GL, Dolan S.
Department of Internal Medicine, Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine of Midwestern University, IL 60615.
The American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine has been examining various factors that may affect candidate performance on subspecialty certifying examinations. To see whether taking subspecialty training in an osteopathic compared with an allopathic institution could predict better performance on the certifying examinations, the authors analyzed examination performance for all candidates from 1984 through 1992. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for the two groups for any of the nine subspecialty certifying examinations. When the results from all nine examinations were pooled, the mean first-time examination takers' score for candidates in allopathic subspecialty programs (n = 201) was 78.3 and for those in osteopathic subspecialty programs (n = 153), 77.4 (P > 0.2). On the basis of these results, we cannot conclude that osteopathic subspecialty training is a factor that predicts better performance on the subspecialty certifying examination.
---
J Med Educ 1977 Nov;52(11):920-5 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
A comparison of D.O. and M.D. student performance.
Stachnik TJ, Simons RC.
The performances of students from two medical colleges, one allopathic (M.D.) and one osteopathic (D.O.), at Michigan State University in a first course in psychiatry are compared. Although the M.D. students had scored significantly higher on the Medical College Admission Test, there was no difference in examination performance in the psychiatry course, which included measures of both basic information and of skill in diagnostic clinical application.
---
