So let's actually look at the data, shall we?
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2010.pdf
There were just over 2000 DO applicants and just under 10,000 IMGs. So, you should expect roughly 5x as many IMGs
Derm- there are a total of 360 PGY 1 and PGY 2 positions
DOs took 1, IMGs took 9. So DOs make up 0.2%, IMGs make up 9 times that (2.25%).
Therefore, neither are even close to appropriately represented but IMGs are closer
Ortho- 653 filled. 3 by osteo (0.4%), 15 by IMG (2.2%)
ENT- 279 spots- 1 DO (0.35%), 5 IMG (1.8%)
Neurosurg- 188 spots 1 DO 7 IMG
Plastics -69 spots, 0 DOs, 3 IMG
The data shows that DOs are
not appropriately represented, or even close... neither are IMGs. There is a very obvious bias against DOs as anyone who has actually gone through the match will tell you.
First, I doubt the DO bias ever came up and second they wouldn't tell you straight to your face even if it did.
Since actions speak louder than words let's look at the residency class make up at some of these places. Let's pick a non-competitive specialty like IM and look at some of the well known programs.
Johns Hopkins Hospital, MGH, Brigham and Womens, BIDMC, Duke, Penn, UCSF, OHSU, Stanford, UVA, Columbia, Mt Sinai, Wash U, Michigan, Yale, Vandy
I guarantee I can find a student from even the lowest tier MD school in these programs but you can't find a single DO student. You however do see some IMGs (for instance JHH has 3 that I know of). I am not saying that there is no IMG bias because there is. But, were there no DO bias you would expect over 150 DOs to be in these programs alone. There are none.
Even places like Penn, that have a DO school blocks away, have 0 DO students in their IM program. They do have students from both Jeff and Temple though.
I am not saying this to start a war. But to say that there is no DO bias when there obviously is and to say that program directors told you they have no bias when they don't take a single DO seems funny.