I apologize for the confusion. I'm referring to medical school admissions as the seller's market here because they are providing the services necessary to train medical students into the clinical sector. The applicants here are the buyers, since they are paying tuition to acquire those services.
The demand reflects on applicants' choices, and so far, applicants view MD to be more prestigious than DO. As such, more applicants are applying to MD programs (and are even stupid enough to go Caribbean for the sake of that MD degree). So the demand for US MD programs is greater than the demand for US DO programs (demand = applicants' choices). Medical schools realize this and act accordingly.
This is why you see grade replacement favored by DOs, but not by MDs. It's also why MD academic averages are higher than those of DOs.
The same economic argument can be used to explain why Top 20 schools require extensive research and unique backgrounds, why there is an IS variation in some states but not others etc. It's a seller's market, and medical schools have complete market power to decide what applicants to select.
Yep. There is no denying the economic aspect of this. But in a sense, this can help reduce some of the negative perception re: DO. Why? B/c DO schools have delivered excellent post-graduate doctors in many cases. So what if they are viewed as the underdogs? People love to see the underdogs be winners in the end.
The bottom line is that all the research and extra GPA points in the world to that point of competition will not
necessarily affect the quality of the physician produced. That is to say, simply b/c for allopathic, it is what the market will bear, d
oes not mean you are getting less quality in physicians through the less prestigious or more competitive programs. Sure it happens, but overall, I say it doesn't count in the long run where it's up to the individual and his/her dedication to practice that will make the difference.
Listen, my pets have gone to vets from top-notch programs, and those from lower-tier programs--comparatively speaking. In the end, it's a highly individual thing. Same thing with various specialists and people. Unless someone is really having trouble with learning the material and then applying it clinically, the whole thing is non sequitur.
People want their physicians to be bright, caring, dedicated, approachable, insightful, and highly skilled. All those things can come to a physician, regardless of whether he/she pursues DO or MD, higher-tier school versus lower-tier or not if the innate intelligence, motivation, and dedication is there. There are programs and mentors that can influence and help foster this in students and graduates, but at the end of the day, it's up to the individual.
Sick people are scared, perhaps in pain, troubled by the limiting aspects of their illness. They want a cure or if not possible, some effective treatment, relief, and nowadays, even good prevention monitoring. If they need a surgeon, hell yea. They will hopefully want one that is adept and well versed in what she or he is doing for them. With re: to the later, sure. I might choose to sacrifice a great bedside manner for good operative/outcome stats and high expertise in the particular procedures. I
deally, however, I'd want both; b/c it's important to know that your provider is approachable--even if he or she is a very busy surgeon.
