DO ignorance sucks

[Awesome Sauceome]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I know it's worse case scenario. Just wanted to clarify.

Don't change that positive outlook!

I mean dont get me wrong... its going to be super hard and I know I will be feeling like I am poor as crap haha. But I do truly have hope that monetarily it will work out (after enough time) and that the work will truly be fulfilling.

Realistically even in the very worst scenario I would be doing a lot better than I am doing now. There is no money in science whatsoever and even if there was I pretty much hate this kind of work soooo. I also cant really see myself doing anything else, maybe starting a Whiskey company haha, but the chances of that working are probably even lower than my chances of graduating med school. So I am willing to put in the work to try and get out of this situation, even if it means I will only be making a little bit better for the first few years after residency.

 

[67552931811]

Oops, double post.

 

[Omppu27]

I know now that the degrees are essentially identical.

But I won't lie. A few years ago, I had never heard of DO. A lot of people have no idea about it.

I didn't know about it until I found out about SDN, which was about 2-3 years ago. AND, I live in a very DO-friendly state...

 

[67552931811]

I mean dont get me wrong... its going to be super hard and I know I will be feeling like I am poor as crap haha. But I do truly have hope that monetarily it will work out (after enough time) and that the work will truly be fulfilling.

Realistically even in the very worst scenario I would be doing a lot better than I am doing now. There is no money in science whatsoever and even if there was I pretty much hate this kind of work soooo. I also cant really see myself doing anything else, maybe starting a Whiskey company haha, but the chances of that working are probably even lower than my chances of graduating med school. So I am willing to put in the work to try and get out of this situation, even if it means I will only be making a little bit better for the first few years after residency.

Agreed... Minus the whiskey part 😉.

 

[hallowmann]

It's not that DO schools have long valued non-traditional students and life experience. It is that their applicant pool is less impressive.

There is nothing magical about what DO schools look for compared to their MD counterparts. Their applicant pool is just less competitive. The same argument has been made by students from low tier MD schools compared to their Harvard/Columbia/Penn/UCSF counterparts. I'm sure I have made this argument a time or two. The truth of the matter is that the people getting into the Harvards of the world are superstars in every way. Their extra curriculars are much more impressive than yours or mine. Their grades are much better. Their MCAT scores are exceptional. They are often non-trads themselves.

There are plenty of non-traditional pre-meds in MD schools. MD schools just have an applicant pool that includes many non-trads who have gleeming academic records and strong ECs and don't need to consider those with blemishes. So it may seem that MD schools hate on non-trads; they don't. They just don't have to consider people with crappy stats who haven't proved they belong.

I know some non-trads with good stats, 3.7/mid-30s that could not manage to secure an MD acceptance. Being away from school for a few years scares adcoms off. Some DO schools tend to be more willing to take that risk. There certainly is a difference in the applicant pools, but that said, even with schools that have applicant pools similar to DO schools (not every MD school is Harvard), there does seem to be apprehension associated with accepting non-trads.

Obviously this is not across the board, and some DO schools are just as unfriendly to non-trads as some MD schools and some MD schools are more friendly towards non-trads than some DO schools. This is just the trend I've noticed with people in my area.

Given 20% of the current medical student population in America are training to become osteopathic physicians, I find this truly surprising and bizzare.

Closer to 25% right now.

Agree, but also interesting to note... there are actually (relatively speaking) a lot of DOs at the Cleveland Clinic!

I was about to say that. Cleveland Clinic and UH/Case are some relatively DO-friendly big academic powerhouses. OH itself has a better relationship with DOs than some states.

Most of the people who are doctors in the US have an MD degree, I also believe that in most countries that is the degree that most doctors hold.

Many people do apply DO as an alternative to MD, I was one of them, I think many of my classmates were the same. Some had the grades for MD, but could not get in, and some just did not have the grades but still had the motivation.

Most of the medical degrees from other countries are actually not "MDs". They are equivalent degrees, but outside of the Americas and I think Australia, the degrees granted by medical schools vary and include MBBS, MBChB, BMBS, MChD, etc.

I'm seriously confused, as a DO will it be harder to get a job compared to an MD equivalent?

I think the statement was more in reference to the demand of the medical profession as a whole as opposed to the DO degree specifically.

 

[Seth Joo]

I know some non-trads with good stats, 3.7/mid-30s that could not manage to secure an MD acceptance. Being away from school for a few years scares adcoms off. Some DO schools tend to be more willing to take that risk. There certainly is a difference in the applicant pools, but that said, even with schools that have applicant pools similar to DO schools (not every MD school is Harvard), there does seem to be apprehension associated with accepting non-trads.

Obviously this is not across the board, and some DO schools are just as unfriendly to non-trads as some MD schools and some MD schools are more friendly towards non-trads than some DO schools. This is just the trend I've noticed with people in my area.



Closer to 25% right now.



I was about to say that. Cleveland Clinic and UH/Case are some relatively DO-friendly big academic powerhouses. OH itself has a better relationship with DOs than some states.



Most of the medical degrees from other countries are actually not "MDs". They are equivalent degrees, but outside of the Americas and I think Australia, the degrees granted by medical schools vary and include MBBS, MBChB, BMBS, MChD, etc.



I think the statement was more in reference to the demand of the medical profession as a whole as opposed to the DO degree specifically.

MBBS is the equivalent to an MD, they use that term because in countries that have that designation, most students go to medical school directly from high school and medical studies is classified as undergraduate study, but some other countries also take high school students and the degree they receive is MD.

Age works in your favor in the eyes of DO adcoms and works against you in the eyes of MD adcoms. There are a few DO schools unfriendly to non traditional students, but they are the exception, most MD schools tend to be hostile to non traditional students.

 

[hallowmann]

MBBS is the equivalent to an MD, they use that term because in countries that have that designation, most students go to medical school directly from high school and medical studies is classified as undergraduate study, but some other countries also take high school students and the degree they receive is MD.

Age works in your favor in the eyes of DO adcoms and works against you in the eyes of MD adcoms. There are a few DO schools unfriendly to non traditional students, but they are the exception, most MD schools tend to be hostile to non traditional students.

Yes, but that's because almost everywhere uses the medical education immediately out of high school model (matching the British model). The degree itself may vary significantly by the country and the school granting it. Degrees are not universal things, they are dependent on the accrediting committees of the respective countries. That said, those degrees are equivalent, but then again, in many countries the DO degrees are also viewed as equivalent to the home degree of that country.

That's pretty much what I've noticed. Especially lately, MD schools have had the luxury of not needing to take risks no matter what because of the ever-increasing competitiveness of medical education in the last decade or so. DO schools don't see it as much of a risk because some have had a lot of experience with non-trads that have been successful.

 

[username456789]

I'm seriously confused, as a DO will it be harder to get a job compared to an MD equivalent?

I was commenting on everything the previous poster said after his first sentence. It was not a comment at all about MD versus DO.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I know some non-trads with good stats, 3.7/mid-30s that could not manage to secure an MD acceptance. Being away from school for a few years scares adcoms off. Some DO schools tend to be more willing to take that risk. There certainly is a difference in the applicant pools, but that said, even with schools that have applicant pools similar to DO schools (not every MD school is Harvard), there does seem to be apprehension associated with accepting non-trads.

Obviously this is not across the board, and some DO schools are just as unfriendly to non-trads as some MD schools and some MD schools are more friendly towards non-trads than some DO schools. This is just the trend I've noticed with people in my area.

Most of the medical degrees from other countries are actually not "MDs". They are equivalent degrees, but outside of the Americas and I think Australia, the degrees granted by medical schools vary and include MBBS, MBChB, BMBS, MChD, etc.

Right again. You can pretty much check the schools sites for what is average age for matriculants. Some schools have them as low as 23 or as high as 29 (check this years ago). So there are some that are non-trad friendly and some that aren't, just like MD schools.

I will actually say something interesting that doesn't take away from the point you are making about the degrees in other countries. In India, usually the medical degree conferred is MBBS (since this is obtained after high school). When one wants to sub-specialize in a field, they will then take an MD before sub-specializing. Well, I don't know the specifics of how the education there works but, you are correct, they have their own system and one should not just look at the degree, but at the training.

 

[Instatewaiter]

The Cleveland Clinic is not an academic ivory tower. FYI it is a community hospital.

I know some non-trads with good stats, 3.7/mid-30s that could not manage to secure an MD acceptance. Being away from school for a few years scares adcoms off. Some DO schools tend to be more willing to take that risk. There certainly is a difference in the applicant pools, but that said, even with schools that have applicant pools similar to DO schools (not every MD school is Harvard), there does seem to be apprehension associated with accepting non-trads.

Obviously this is not across the board, and some DO schools are just as unfriendly to non-trads as some MD schools and some MD schools are more friendly towards non-trads than some DO schools. This is just the trend I've noticed with people in my area.

BS. It's not because they were non-trads. It is because they werent competitive in other ways. This is just the same old drivel that people keep posting on SDN with nothing but stories to back it up. Considering the median age of most medical schools is 24 or 25, its crap. About 40% of my medical school class had years between their undergrad and their medical school. We had a host of 40+ year olds and tons of 30 year olds. This belies your point that ADcoms are scared off by non-trads.

It is not because med schools are unwilling to take a risk on a non-trad. It is because there are other students who are more competitive.

I was about to say that. Cleveland Clinic and UH/Case are some relatively DO-friendly big academic powerhouses. OH itself has a better relationship with DOs than some states.

CCF is not an academic program. It is technically a community program. There is also a reason why it is DO friendly in some specialties... it's in Cleveland and people aren't exactly banging down doors to move to cleveland (where it was 9 degrees yesterday).

 

[reapplicanthelpme2014]

The Cleveland Clinic is not an academic ivory tower. FYI it is a community hospital.


BS. It's not because they were non-trads. It is because they werent competitive in other ways. This is just the same old drivel that people keep posting on SDN with nothing but stories to back it up. Considering the median age of most medical schools is 24 or 25, its crap. About 40% of my medical school class had years between their undergrad and their medical school. We had a host of 40+ year olds and tons of 30 year olds. This belies your point that ADcoms are scared off by non-trads.

It is not because med schools are unwilling to take a risk on a non-trad. It is because there are other students who are more competitive.





CCF is not an academic program. It is technically a community program. There is also a reason why it is DO friendly in some specialties... it's in Cleveland and people aren't exactly banging down doors to move to cleveland (where it was 9 degrees yesterday).

I'm confused. What's your purpose on this particular thread? To tell potential DO physicians that their noncompetitive?

 

[hallowmann]

The Cleveland Clinic is not an academic ivory tower. FYI it is a community hospital.

BS. It's not because they were non-trads. It is because they werent competitive in other ways. This is just the same old drivel that people keep posting on SDN with nothing but stories to back it up. Considering the median age of most medical schools is 24 or 25, its crap. About 40% of my medical school class had years between their undergrad and their medical school. We had a host of 40+ year olds and tons of 30 year olds. This belies your point that ADcoms are scared off by non-trads.

It is not because med schools are unwilling to take a risk on a non-trad. It is because there are other students who are more competitive.

CCF is not an academic program. It is technically a community program. There is also a reason why it is DO friendly in some specialties... it's in Cleveland and people aren't exactly banging down doors to move to cleveland (where it was 9 degrees yesterday).

Correct Cleveland Clinic is not technically an "academic" program, but in terms of research and GME it is certainly structured similarly to a powerful academic center. Also, I was talking about UH as well, but I guess you were ok with that since it's Case.

As far as whether or not it's shying away from nontrads, you can believe what you want. I'm just relating what other career changers I know have experienced.

The average age of MD matriculants is 24 (median age of 23). The average age of MD applicants is 25. The average age of DO matriculants is 25 (median of 24), and the average age of applicants is 25 (same as MD applicants). Obviously they aren't going to be far off, because most people enter the profession in their 20s, but I imagine, given that we are dealing in the thousands and the range of the majority of ages is likely small, that this difference is statistically significant. Now there may be many additional reasons for this difference, but this is a possible one.

I've talked to a handful of adcom members at a specific top MD school that have said they are weary of older applicants (they raise concerns about ability after being out of school, concerns about motivation or possibility of "flip-flopping", etc). The attitude of my DO school is that older applicants are at least the same as trads or if anything a safer bet. Again, I'm sure this varies a lot, but this is the difference in my area.

None of this is to say that MD schools don't take nontrads or older applicants, they absolutely do. That said, the difference as I see it to take the schools in my area as an example (again not universally): given 2 applicants with the same stats, but one being a trad and the other a non-trad that has been out of school for a few years, the MD school would take the trad hands down, whereas as my school would flip a coin or even lean on the side of the non-trad.

Now this is not a hard and fast rule. Each school is different, so research the schools you apply to. As @IslandStyle808 said, there are schools with matriculant age averages of 23 and ones with 29. I also wouldn't use this info alone as a reason to eliminate schools to apply to, only to add schools (i.e. add more back-ups or schools that you have a better chance with). It's hard to know how an adcom will act one year, and given the hundred of other things each individual is evaluated on, it's hard to know on which side you'd fall.

 

[Instatewaiter]

I'm confused. What's your purpose on this particular thread? To tell potential DO physicians that their noncompetitive?

*they're

Or are you saying non-competitive is owned by them?

 

[j4pac]

Why did the grammar police have to come crash the party? Lame

 

[reapplicanthelpme2014]

*they're

Or are you saying non-competitive is owned by them?

Womppp go take a nap.

 

[gyngyn]

Age works in your favor in the eyes of DO adcoms and works against you in the eyes of MD adcoms. There are a few DO schools unfriendly to non traditional students, but they are the exception, most MD schools tend to be hostile to non traditional students.

Do you have evidence to support this?

 

[mcloaf]

I've talked to a handful of adcom members at a specific top MD school that have said they are weary of older applicants (they raise concerns about ability after being out of school, concerns about motivation or possibility of "flip-flopping", etc). The attitude of my DO school is that older applicants are at least the same as trads or if anything a safer bet. Again, I'm sure this varies a lot, but this is the difference in my area.

None of this is to say that MD schools don't take nontrads or older applicants, they absolutely do. That said, the difference as I see it to take the schools in my area as an example (again not universally): given 2 applicants with the same stats, but one being a trad and the other a non-trad that has been out of school for a few years, the MD school would take the trad hands down, whereas as my school would flip a coin or even lean on the side of the non-trad.

Again, this all anecdotes and impressions. You can't look at one variable in a vacuum, age, and conclude that because it is higher at DO schools then it must be the case that MD schools look down on older applicants. My supposition would be that on average non-trads were less competitive during undergrad because most of them didn't know they were interested in medicine and so were not trying to build their applications. If I hadn't been planning on medical school my GPA certainly would have been lower. None of this is meant to be a value judgment about the quality of DO education or physicians. Perhaps there are schools that prefer a younger applicant, but at my school and I believe at many others a similarly qualified non-trad would be chosen before a 22 year old college student. Then again, my evidence is just anecdotes in the other direction.

Obviously we're all entitled to our opinions and observations. What's irksome is that people are repeating this "MD schools are non-trad unfriendly" dogma without any sort of real evidence beyond some appeal to common knowledge. I believe you when you say you've spoken to people at a local MD school who told you they prefer traditional students, just as I would hope people believe me that my school likes non-trads. What's dangerous is when casual observations and anecdotes become "well-known facts" as they get repeated on the internet.

Also, I don't mean to pick on you @hallowmann, your posts are some of the most balanced ones in here.

 

[Seth Joo]

Do you have evidence to support this?

Its been proven time and again that Allopathic schools are strongly biased against older applicants. My own personal experience has been that DO schools have shown a non traditional like me more love than MD schools.

 

[gyngyn]

Its been proven time and again that Allopathic schools are strongly biased against older applicants. My own personal experience has been that DO schools have shown a non traditional like me more love than MD schools.

Could you direct me to a resource so I could assess the proof?

 

[el_duderino]

Its been proven time and again that Allopathic schools are strongly biased against older applicants. My own personal experience has been that DO schools have shown a non traditional like me more love than MD schools.

This is interesting. Can you provide some evidence to support this?

 

[SpartanWolverine]

Do you have evidence to support this?

I would argue that I have seen no evidence to support MD schools being strongly biased against non-traditional students.

As a semi-non-traditional student myself, I find that I actually did better at MD schools than I expected with my numbers (interviews would lead me to believe that a lot was due to the experiences I had in my years between undergrad and applying). However, I do believe that MD schools tend to be less lenient with number deficiencies than DO schools -- whereas life experience can arguably "make up" for lower numbers at DO schools, I don't often see that happening for MD schools.

So if there is a relationship between non-trads and rejection from MD schools... I would argue (without evidence) that it is much more strongly mediated by GPA/MCAT than age. I am of the same thought as @mcloaf that non-trads likely have lower numbers as a cohort.

 

[nontrad78]

Maybe grade replacement benefits non-traditional students more than younger students.

 

[gyngyn]

I would argue that I have seen no evidence to support MD schools being strongly biased against non-traditional students.

As a semi-non-traditional student myself, I find that I actually did better at MD schools than I expected with my numbers (interviews would lead me to believe that a lot was due to the experiences I had in my years between undergrad and applying). However, I do believe that MD schools tend to be less lenient with number deficiencies than DO schools -- whereas life experience can arguably "make up" for lower numbers at DO schools, I don't often see that happening for MD schools.

So if there is a relationship between non-trads and rejection from MD schools... I would argue (without evidence) that it is strongly mediated by GPA/MCAT and not age.

My observations are much in line with your own. Everything else being equal, we would actually prefer students who meet the definition of non-traditional.

 

[Goro]

The demographics of Yale's matriculating class alone would belie this.


Its been proven time and again that Allopathic schools are strongly biased against older applicants.

 

[hallowmann]

Again, this all anecdotes and impressions. You can't look at one variable in a vacuum, age, and conclude that because it is higher at DO schools then it must be the case that MD schools look down on older applicants. My supposition would be that on average non-trads were less competitive during undergrad because most of them didn't know they were interested in medicine and so were not trying to build their applications. If I hadn't been planning on medical school my GPA certainly would have been lower. None of this is meant to be a value judgment about the quality of DO education or physicians. Perhaps there are schools that prefer a younger applicant, but at my school and I believe at many others a similarly qualified non-trad would be chosen before a 22 year old college student. Then again, my evidence is just anecdotes in the other direction.

Obviously we're all entitled to our opinions and observations. What's irksome is that people are repeating this "MD schools are non-trad unfriendly" dogma without any sort of real evidence beyond some appeal to common knowledge. I believe you when you say you've spoken to people at a local MD school who told you they prefer traditional students, just as I would hope people believe me that my school likes non-trads. What's dangerous is when casual observations and anecdotes become "well-known facts" as they get repeated on the internet.

Also, I don't mean to pick on you @hallowmann, your posts are some of the most balanced ones in here.

I generally agree. There is no way to have hard evidence on an issue like this. I mean if every Adcom member publicly said what they were looking for, and that didn't change, which I'm sure it does, maybe we would know. Without that, I don't see us ever getting hard evidence one way or another.

The differences in our experiences also exemplify the importance of researching individual schools, and even then not knowing for sure. For me, I was really surprised that I got any MD interviews when I applied back in the day with my low GPA and late app, but some schools have a very different way of selecting students. That's one of the reasons I always tell people to apply to as many places as they can afford, because as much as we think it will turn out one way, its possible we don't know something about our app, what they're looking for, or how they'll view it.

 

[Seth Joo]

The demographics of Yale's matriculating class alone would belie this.


Its been proven time and again that Allopathic schools are strongly biased against older applicants.

Really? I have seen more people of varying backgrounds at DO schools than I have at MD programs. I did research at a very big name Allopathic school and most of the first year students seem either fresh out of undergraduate school or one or two years out.

I was in a very different profession from healthcare, and at my Allopathic interviews I was grilled about wanting to change careers.

 

[SpartanWolverine]

Really? I have seen more people of varying backgrounds at DO schools than I have at MD programs. I did research at a very big name Allopathic school and most of the first year students seem either fresh out of undergraduate school or one or two years out.

I was in a very different profession from healthcare, and at my Allopathic interviews I was grilled about wanting to change careers.

Yes, perhaps HMS has a lot of traditional-track students -- but these are students with exceptional GPA, MCAT, and ECs on their CV. If a 30-year-old applicant also had a 3.9/40 with lots of research, I very strongly believe that they would not be discriminated against. However, a 3.3/32 who assumes their previous career in i-banking makes them desirable would not get a second look at HMS. On the other hand, look just down the road at UVM -- a great school and one historically seen as friendly to non-trads who fit their mission and school culture. Perhaps a non-trad who had previous experience in rural medicine would have a good chance with numbers a bit lower than average.

I believe career-changing can be a bit of a red flag to adcom members who will want to know why you won't abandon medicine. I think your being "grilled" was just testing your conviction for medicine. I certainly had interviewers ask me "why not a Ph.D.?" when looking at my research background.

 

[Seth Joo]

Yes, perhaps HMS has a lot of traditional-track students -- but these are students with exceptional GPA, MCAT, and ECs on their CV. If a 30-year-old applicant also had a 3.9/40 with lots of research, I very strongly believe that they would not be discriminated against. However, a 3.3/32 who assumes their previous career in i-banking makes them desirable would not get a second look at HMS. On the other hand, look just down the road at UVM -- a great school and one historically seen as friendly to non-trads who fit their mission and school culture. Perhaps a non-trad who had previous experience in rural medicine would have a good chance with numbers a bit lower than average.

I believe career-changing can be a bit of a red flag to adcom members who will want to know why you won't abandon medicine. I think your being "grilled" was just testing your conviction for medicine. I certainly had interviewers ask me "why not a Ph.D.?" when looking at my research background.

On my DO interviews my age and my non medical experience seemed to help me, it showed that I had maturity and people skills. On my MD interviews they thought why I wanted to change careers.

 

[mcloaf]

I did research at a very big name Allopathic school and most of the first year students seem either fresh out of undergraduate school or one or two years out.

On my DO interviews my age and my non medical experience seemed to help me, it showed that I had maturity and people skills. On my MD interviews they thought why I wanted to change careers.

So this overwhelming body of evidence that has proved your point time and again is actually just your research job and interview trail experience?

 

[Seth Joo]

So this overwhelming body of evidence that has proved your point time and again is actually just your research job and interview trail experience?

My own experience and that of other non traditional students.

 

[el_duderino]

Really? I have seen more people of varying backgrounds at DO schools than I have at MD programs. I did research at a very big name Allopathic school and most of the first year students seem either fresh out of undergraduate school or one or two years out.

I was in a very different profession from healthcare, and at my Allopathic interviews I was grilled about wanting to change careers.

This is based on a highly limited amount of experience and zero quantified data.

 

[Goro]

If you look in MSAR Online at the "Matriculant Data" tab, you find some interesting information. For example, at Albany Medical College, 29% of the matriculants have a graduate degree. This would rule out the "fresh out of UG" traditional students. In addition, 35% of the matriculants were NOT science or math majors.

Let's look at a few more schools:
BU: non science/math 42%; grade degree: 21%
Case: 28%/11%
Columbia: 43%/8%
Harvard 38%/14%
Drexel 25%/15%

So when at least 10-15% of a top school has non-trads in the class, I'd say they're not so hostile to someone being a non-trad, but rather, are more discriminating as to stats.

My own experience and that of other non traditional students.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Median MD matriculant MCAT: 32
Median DO matriculant MCAT: 27
Median MCAT score: 26

This issue isn't so much that those with lower scores won't make competent doctors. However, having equal admissions standards would certainly go a long way in giving credibility to the assertion of MD=DO.

Only if you're a pre-med do you care about undergrad GPA and MCAT scores. Honestly, I don't care if you get into med school with 4.0/45 or a 2.0/20. All that matters is what your boards say. Nobody should ever use the MCAT or undergrad GPA to try and compare the degrees.

 

[Seth Joo]

If you look in MSAR Online at the "Matriculant Data" tab, you find some interesting information. For example, at Albany Medical College, 29% of the matriculants have a graduate degree. This would rule out the "fresh out of UG" traditional students. In addition, 35% of the matriculants were NOT science or math majors.

Let's look at a few more schools:
BU: non science/math 42%; grade degree: 21%
Case: 28%/11%
Columbia: 43%/8%
Harvard 38%/14%
Drexel 25%/15%

So when at least 10-15% of a top school has non-trads in the class, I'd say they're not so hostile to someone being a non-trad, but rather, are more discriminating as to stats.

What about people who have been out of an academic environment for an extended period of time, 5 years or more?

I noticed many of the so-called graduate programs are aimed at students who want to improve their chances for medical school and other professional programs. Many of these are actually not that different from undergraduate studies.

I would not consider people who studied Liberal Arts degrees as non-traditional, medical schools have been recruiting students who did not major in Science or Math for years.

I would agree that Allopathic schools are much more discriminating with regards to stats compared to Osteopathic schools.

 

[JimmyB123]

What about people who have been out of an academic environment for an extended period of time, 5 years or more?

I noticed many of the so-called graduate programs are aimed at students who want to improve their chances for medical school and other professional programs. Many of these are actually not that different from undergraduate studies.

I would not consider people who studied Liberal Arts degrees as non-traditional, medical schools have been recruiting students who did not major in Science or Math for years.

I would agree that Allopathic schools are much more discriminating with regards to stats compared to Osteopathic schools.

Dude I can't get into an MD school and I have a 3.7 and a 32. Who knows what goes on? Admissions is weird and not worth examining

 

[user3]

Only if you're a pre-med do you care about undergrad GPA and MCAT scores. Honestly, I don't care if you get into med school with 4.0/45 or a 2.0/20. All that matters is what your boards say. Nobody should ever use the MCAT or undergrad GPA to try and compare the degrees.

I agree that there are other issues that matter more than admission standards. We would likely be served better via other methods, such as cleaning OMM of quackery techniques and joining our schools to strong universities.

However, lower admission standards (judged primarily by GPA/MCAT, unfortunately) IS a factor--albeit only one, somewhat less important factor-- that hurts our image. Having more equal admission standards to MD is one thing that could help bring our schools to more respectability.

 

[user3]

.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I agree that there are other issues that matter more than admission standards. We would likely be served better via other methods, such as cleaning OMM of quackery techniques and joining our schools to strong universities. However, having approximately equal admission standards (judged primarily by GPA/MCAT, unfortunately) to MD is one thing that can help bring our schools and degrees to more respectability.

Lower admission standards IS a factor-- albeit only one factor-- that hurts our image. Although it is not the most important issue, it is one issue that could be worthwhile to improve.

That's simply never going to happen. Nobody is going to pick DO schools at a 1:1 ratio. DO schools simply do not provide the same level of incentives as going to an MD school: most have questionable clinical rotations, are pricier than the many publics and you have to live with the hassle of OMM. Focusing on equal outcomes, eliminating most of OMM and establishing better clinical rotations takes far more precedence and the only viable way to change admission stats over time. You can't offer an inferior product and expect to sell it at the same price.

 

[Goro]

MSAR doesn't give info like that, but I believe individual schools do.

What about people who have been out of an academic environment for an extended period of time, 5 years or more?

SMPs are like medical school-lite, with med school coursework, so they are not clones of UG programs.
I noticed many of the so-called graduate programs are aimed at students who want to improve their chances for medical school and other professional programs. Many of these are actually not that different from undergraduate studies.

If MSAR thinks it's important enough to make a category for it, then perhaps it is. A Psych major who takes the bare pre-reqs is not the same as a Bio major. English or Fine Arts majors definitely bring something else to the table.

I would not consider people who studied Liberal Arts degrees as non-traditional, medical schools have been recruiting students who did not major in Science or Math for years.

At this point in time? No way. Those IIs have all gone out.
did you apply broadly to MD? there is still time in the cycle if you haven't gotten bites.

 

[user3]

That's simply never going to happen. Nobody is going to pick DO schools at a 1:1 ratio. DO schools simply do not provide the same level of incentives as going to an MD school: most have questionable clinical rotations, are pricier than the many publics and you have to live with the hassle of OMM. Focusing on equal outcomes, eliminating most of OMM and establishing better clinical rotations takes far more precedence and the only viable way to change admission stats over time. You can't offer an inferior product and expect to sell it at the same price.

yup, it is actions like this that will help improve the quality of our schools, and consequently admissions.

However, I would still love to see one common application service. It would be cool for all schools to use AMCAS, and have it divided into an allo subsection and an osteo subsection (with a separate PS, grade replacement, etc). Using the same app service could help bring our schools more applicants, more awareness, and a little more sense of equality with MD programs.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Only if you're a pre-med do you care about undergrad GPA and MCAT scores. Honestly, I don't care if you get into med school with 4.0/45 or a 2.0/20. All that matters is what your boards say. Nobody should ever use the MCAT or undergrad GPA to try and compare the degrees.

Making the argument that boards matter a ton is essentially the same argument that GPA/MCAT matter.

I would disagree that boards matter. Once you have taken them and then realize what clinical medicine entails you will realize they test stupid minutia and clinically irrelevant facts. Any monkey can learn the key words and minutia tested on the boards. It takes much more than just good board scores to be a good clinician. I have met some truly scary doctors with great board scores.

 

[Instatewaiter]

My own experience and that of other non traditional students.

First, the pleural of anecdote is not data.

Second and more importantly, can you think of a more biased group? Of a population of non-trads who didn't get into MD school, what is their impression of the MD process?

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Making the argument that boards matter a ton is essentially the same argument that GPA/MCAT matter.

I would disagree that boards matter. Once you have taken them and then realize what clinical medicine entails you will realize they test stupid minutia and clinically irrelevant facts. Any monkey can learn the key words and minutia tested on the boards. It takes much more than just good board scores to be a good clinician. I have met some truly scary doctors with great board scores.

Fair enough, but I was thinking along the lines of the education giving similar outcomes rather than judging based on when you enter school.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Reasonable

 

[Seth Joo]

Only if you're a pre-med do you care about undergrad GPA and MCAT scores. Honestly, I don't care if you get into med school with 4.0/45 or a 2.0/20. All that matters is what your boards say. Nobody should ever use the MCAT or undergrad GPA to try and compare the degrees.

It would take a very lucky individual to get into a medical school with a 2.0 and a 20 MCA

First, the pleural of anecdote is not data.

Second and more importantly, can you think of a more biased group? Of a population of non-trads who didn't get into MD school, what is their impression of the MD process?

I was merely sharing my own personal experience, and I went through two cycles of admissions, the first time was MD, the second was DO.

 

[deleted407021]

It would take a very lucky individual to get into a medical school with a 2.0 and a 20 MCA

Well, yeah but that wasn't Albino's point.