Bit of a narcasistic/self-conscious thread...

[hexane19]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I know that LUCOM is generally looked down upon by members of SDN.
However... imagine yourself in 10 years and you are a practicing physician and a colleague of yours is a graduate from LUCOM. Would you look down upon or think any less of her/him?

 

[j4pac]

So I know that LUCOM is generally looked down upon by members of SDN.
However... imagine yourself in 10 years and you are a practicing physician and a colleague of yours is a graduate from LUCOM. Would you look down upon or think any less of her/him?

The truth is that once your board certified...absolutely nobody (except for the Narcissist of the medical world) care where you went to medical school. Where did you go to residency and who do you know are the two most important factors in either getting a job or fellowship. 99% of your patients don't know and don't care where you went to medical school...all they want to know is if you are the correct specialist and can you make them better.

 

[mathnerd88]

The truth is that once your board certified...absolutely nobody (except for the Narcissist of the medical world) care where you went to medical school. Where did you go to residency and who do you know are the two most important factors in either getting a job or fellowship. 99% of your patients don't know and don't care where you went to medical school...all they want to know is if you are the correct specialist and can you make them better.

The OP is asking about other physicians' opinions of LUCOM graduates, and not about the opinions of patients.

Obviously there is some bias (just like Ivy League graduates get preferential treatment at many companies.) However, personally, I don't care where physicians graduate from, as long as they're fully competent physicians who don't instill any of their own religious beliefs in their practice or treat patients differently.

 

[deleted407021]

So long as they won't make their menstruating patients stay outside the city walls for 7 days or something, I think we'll be cool.

 

[j4pac]

The OP is asking about other physicians' opinions of LUCOM graduates, and not about the opinions of patients.

Obviously there is some bias (just like Ivy League graduates get preferential treatment at many companies.) However, personally, I don't care where physicians graduate from, as long as they're fully competent physicians who don't instill any of their own religious beliefs in their practice or treat patients differently.

I answered that question. Only the narcissistic, insecure physicians care. The mass majority do not. The residency program is infinitely more important abs scrutinized.

 

[mathnerd88]

I answered that question. Only the narcissistic, insecure physicians care. The mass majority do not. The residency program is infinitely more important abs scrutinized.

And it just so happens most of the top residency programs mostly take students from top medical schools. It just depends on what physicians or residency programs care about.

For example, some care about research, so their opinions of someone may be based on that. Some schools encourage more research than others. It is not necessarily narcissism or insecurity.

Why do you think people care about how established a school is? The school would have graduated many physicians who have paved the way for future physicians. If I know a certain school has trained good physicians, I would have more confidence than someone from a school I have never heard of. It is just the reality of the situation.

However, you are correct that residency is what physicians really care about. Medical school is a stepping stone to that residency.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

No.

Docs don't really care where you went to medical school one wit. They want to know two things: are you properly trained (i.e. Residency) and will you kill the patient?

The only thing a medical school name does for you is to put it up in a shiny frame on the old office wall. And that only helps if the public recognizes it. Like Harvard, Yale, Princeton...(yes I know there is no PSOM)

 

[j4pac]

And it just so happens most of the top residency programs mostly take students from top medical schools. It just depends on what physicians or residency programs care about.

For example, some care about research, so their opinions of someone may be based on that. Some schools encourage more research than others. It is not necessarily narcissism or insecurity.

Why do you think people care about how established a school is? The school would have graduated many physicians who have paved the way for future physicians. If I know a certain school has trained good physicians, I would have more confidence than someone from a school I have never heard of. It is just the reality of the situation.

However, you are correct that residency is what physicians really care about. Medical school is a stepping stone to that residency.

The question wasn't regarding residency director it was physicians 10 years into practice. Practicing physicians have more important things to worry about...like their own practices, families, investments, and toys.

 

[yanks26dmb]

So I know that LUCOM is generally looked down upon by members of SDN.
However... imagine yourself in 10 years and you are a practicing physician and a colleague of yours is a graduate from LUCOM. Would you look down upon or think any less of her/him?

No, that would be silly. Would I look down on the school, yes most likely. But if the guy/girl knows their stuff, why look down on them because of where they went to school?

 

[hexane19]

Hmm this leads to another important question... Do you think PD's would frown upon applicants from LUCOM?

 

[AlteredScale]

Hmm this leads to another important question... Do you think PD's would frown upon applicants from LUCOM?

Hmm idk.

Unless there are close academic affiliates (like Rowan, TCOM), a DO grad is a DO grad is a DO grad. PDs look at step scores, shelf scores, LORs, research. I really doubt an LUCOM grad with a 245 USMLE, honors in clerkship, solid LORs during their sub-is at solid university hospitals, and decent research exp would be punted from a solid residency for being from LUCOM.

 

[RurouniKarly]

If this website is any indication, people are significantly more mistrustful of religiously affiliated schools, Liberty University in particular. Just like IMGs and DOs have to work harder and score better than their MD counterparts to match into the same higher level residencies, I imagine a LUCOM graduate will have to be that much better than all the other DO graduates to get past the stigma and match into a good program.

I'd be concerned that LUCOM has not yet created any new residency positions, at best hopes to have created 13 spots by 2018, and don't currently have any plans to expand that number. It shows that GME isn't a big priority.

Considering the number of posts you've made about LUCOM in the last couple weeks, it seems as though you liked the school and want to attend, but you're searching for someone to validate that choice. If you want to go, then go. Work hard and do the best you can. People on the internet aren't in a position to tell you which school is the best place for you.

 

[oOKawaiiOo]

It's not where you went to school, it's where you went for residency that matters. - Doctors I've worked for.

 

[W19]

If LUCOM is the only acceptance you got, you should attend IMO... But anything else is better than LUCOM--even that new school in NM.

 

[mathnerd88]

If LUCOM is the only acceptance you got, you should attend IMO... But anything else is better than LUCOM--even that new school in NM.

You mean BCOM? Yes, BCOM does show a lot more promise than LUCOM.

Even Goro cannot recommend LUCOM, which does signify something. Adcoms usually would not criticize a specific school publicly on a public forum, so that does say something about LUCOM.

 

[petyr_baelish]

I wouldn't have any basis to question their medical competence or knowledge from the outset if they completed residency and were board-certified. To say that would be to question the validity and standards of the USMLE/COMLEX and the ACGME. But I would wonder if the grad is a Creationist, if they proselytize their particular brand of religion to their/our patients and if they believe in antibiotic resistance. If I learned that the grad went to LUCOM because it was a school that accepted them and it suit their needs 10+ years ago then no, I can't say I'd have any reason to look down upon them.

I wonder if anyone who would look down upon LUCOM graduates just because of their alma mater would openly admit their unreasonable bias. Please note I distinguish this from looking down on the school. Not all graduates from LUCOM will drink the Kool Aid.

 

[RurouniKarly]

I wouldn't have any basis to question their medical competence or knowledge from the outset if they completed residency and were board-certified. To say that would be to question the validity and standards of the USMLE/COMLEX and the ACGME. But I would wonder if the grad is a Creationist, if they proselytize their particular brand of religion to their/our patients and if they believe in antibiotic resistance. If I learned that the grad went to LUCOM because it was a school that accepted them and it suit their needs 10+ years ago then no, I can't say I'd have any reason to look down upon them.

I wonder if anyone who would look down upon LUCOM graduates just because of their alma mater would openly admit their unreasonable bias. Please note I distinguish this from looking down on the school. Not all graduates from LUCOM will drink the Kool Aid.

Why would a LUCOM graduate not believe in antibiotic resistance? I can't think of any Christian sect that doesn't believe in antibiotic resistance.

 

[petyr_baelish]

Why would a LUCOM graduate not believe in antibiotic resistance? I can't think of any Christian sect that doesn't believe in antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotic resistance concepts are based on an observed process scientists call natural selection. It is my understanding that Creationists have problems with the theory of evolution and natural selection.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'd be wary of hiring a LUCOM grad into a small practice, because the sort of person that thrives at LUCOM is the sort of person I don't want too much one-on-one contact with, but if it were in a large practice setting I probably wouldn't notice or care.

 

[W19]

You mean BCOM? Yes, BCOM does show a lot more promise than LUCOM.

Even Goro cannot recommend LUCOM, which does signify something. Adcoms usually would not criticize a specific school publicly on a public forum, so that does say something about LUCOM.

I meant BCOM... couldn't remember the name😛

 

[j4pac]

You mean BCOM? Yes, BCOM does show a lot more promise than LUCOM.

Even Goro cannot recommend LUCOM, which does signify something. Adcoms usually would not criticize a specific school publicly on a public forum, so that does say something about LUCOM.

Goro is highly respected on this forum...and for good reason. But his is not the definitive authority here.

Personally...if LUCOM was my only acceptance I would:
1) Look hard in the mirror and figure out if I had what it takes to get through med school. If the answer was "Yes"...I would proceed to step 2.
2) Would I have a way to significantly improve my resume for the next year. If the answer is "No"....I would proceed to step 3.
3) I would accept the LUCOM acceptance.

I still think that all DO programs are better than FMG/IMG if you want to practice in the USA. I think that affiliation Liberty is something that is LARGELY overblown. Could it hurt you a bit in regards to getting into residency? Maybe...but I doubt very much. PD's have more important things to worry about. PDs want to know if the student is competent, whether they will come to work every day and work hard, and whether they will play nice with others. Everything else is significantly less important. The majority of PDs don't care where you went to medical school...they don't know enough about each individual program of study and unless you come from a top med school like Harvard/Duke/Mayo...MDs are MDs, DOs are DOs, and IMGs are IMGs.

But anyway...we are getting side tracked from the OPs question. He/she didn't ask anything about PD's opinion about LUCOM...he asked about practicing physician's opinion of LUCOM. The don't give a **** factor is infinitely higher for a practicing physician. That's the answer...

Four years went I graduate from a Mayo residency program...I HIGHLY doubt that an employer or fellowship will care where I went to medical school. If my med school was good enough for Mayo residency....fellowships and employers will see it UNIMPORTANT to them.

 

[RurouniKarly]

Antibiotic resistance concepts are based on an observed process scientists call natural selection. It is my understanding that Creationists have problems with the theory of evolution and natural selection.

Creationists don't believe in macro evolution, but have no issue with micro evolution. They believe that God made his creations to be adaptable.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

[QUOTE="RurouniKarly, post: 17129917, member: 709687"]If this website is any indication.[/QUOTE]

It's not


LUCOM grads will have no harder a time matching than any other DO. If PDs were really concerned about "religious" universities then Loma Linda would meet the same resistance and they don't.

I do agree with the concerns about the GME though. Every school should be doing their part on that front

 

[petyr_baelish]

Creationists don't believe in macro evolution, but have no issue with micro evolution. They believe that God made his creations to be adaptable.

Having no issue with microevolution would be great if that meant the Creationist microbiologists think the same thing as non-Creationist microbiologists. Except that isn't the case.

My admittedly cursory understanding of where Creationists and non-Creationist scientists disagree in terms of microevolution has to do with where genetic variation comes from. Creationists think that all genes that exist or ever will are already present in nature. Whereas non-Creationist scientists understand that genes can mutate and new alleles are possible. For example, a Creationist would say that a strain of bacteria that has allele A cannot turn into a strain of bacteria that has Allele B (instead of A). Secondly, they say that Allele A can be transferred horizontally between bacteria strains but its origin is ancient, and that there is no way allele A did not exist at some point in the past because God created it 6000 years ago.

A non-Creationist scientist would say that allele A can evolve into allele B because it can mutate. For example, methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus picked up the methicillin resistance gene from bacteria called S. scuri.[1] But S. scuri does not have methicillin resistance. This means the gene changed form, or evolved, when it transferred.

[1] Development of Methicillin Resistance in Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus sciuri by Transcriptional Activation of the mecA Homologue Native to the Species
http://jb.asm.org/content/185/2/645.full?view=long&pmid=12511511

You can read more on this well-written blog post which is where I found my example: http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2006/06/21/antibiotics-creationism-and-ev/

 

[j4pac]

Having no issue with microevolution would be great if that meant the Creationist microbiologists think the same thing as non-Creationist microbiologists. Except that isn't the case.

My admittedly cursory understanding of where Creationists and non-Creationist scientists disagree in terms of microevolution has to do with where genetic variation comes from. Creationists think that all genes that exist or ever will are already present in nature. Whereas non-Creationist scientists understand that genes can mutate and new alleles are possible. For example, a Creationist would say that a strain of bacteria that has allele A cannot turn into a strain of bacteria that has Allele B (instead of A). Secondly, they say that Allele A can be transferred horizontally between bacteria strains but its origin is ancient, and that there is no way allele A did not exist at some point in the past because God created it 6000 years ago.

A non-Creationist scientist would say that allele A can evolve into allele B because it can mutate. For example, methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus picked up the methicillin resistance gene from bacteria called S. scuri.[1] But S. scuri does not have methicillin resistance. This means the gene changed form, or evolved, when it transferred.

[1] Development of Methicillin Resistance in Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus sciuri by Transcriptional Activation of the mecA Homologue Native to the Species
http://jb.asm.org/content/185/2/645.full?view=long&pmid=12511511

You can read more on this well-written blog post which is where I found my example: http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2006/06/21/antibiotics-creationism-and-ev/

You've done a fantastic job of putting all Christian microbiologists in a box...and have done a fantastic job of taking the thread off topic.

 

[petyr_baelish]

You've done a fantastic job of putting all Christian microbiologists in a box...and have done a fantastic job of taking the thread off topic.

Sorry, couldn't resist answering that question thoroughly. I did answer the OP's original question and subsequent question in the thread, so I felt I could respond a bit off topic but by all means I'll shut up now. BTW I didn't put Christian microbiologists in a box. I was talking specifically about Creationists. But I know what you mean and yes, I did speak in general terms for the sake of brevity.

 

[RurouniKarly]

Having no issue with microevolution would be great if that meant the Creationist microbiologists think the same thing as non-Creationist microbiologists. Except that isn't the case.

My admittedly cursory understanding of where Creationists and non-Creationist scientists disagree in terms of microevolution has to do with where genetic variation comes from. Creationists think that all genes that exist or ever will are already present in nature. Whereas non-Creationist scientists understand that genes can mutate and new alleles are possible. For example, a Creationist would say that a strain of bacteria that has allele A cannot turn into a strain of bacteria that has Allele B (instead of A). Secondly, they say that Allele A can be transferred horizontally between bacteria strains but its origin is ancient, and that there is no way allele A did not exist at some point in the past because God created it 6000 years ago.

A non-Creationist scientist would say that allele A can evolve into allele B because it can mutate. For example, methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus picked up the methicillin resistance gene from bacteria called S. scuri.[1] But S. scuri does not have methicillin resistance. This means the gene changed form, or evolved, when it transferred.

[1] Development of Methicillin Resistance in Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus sciuri by Transcriptional Activation of the mecA Homologue Native to the Species
http://jb.asm.org/content/185/2/645.full?view=long&pmid=12511511

You can read more on this well-written blog post which is where I found my example: http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2006/06/21/antibiotics-creationism-and-ev/

This is like saying you read a blog about Mormon polygamists, therefore all Mormons must practice polygamy and from now on you'll assume that every Mormon you meet is a polygamist.

 

[petyr_baelish]

This is like saying you read a blog about Mormon polygamists, therefore all Mormons must practice polygamy and from now on you'll assume that every Mormon you meet is a polygamist.

No, this is my pet topic. I didn't read one blog post.