DO over MD?

[Dissected]

Do most Do grads go into an AOA or ACGME residency?

I think like 60% do ACGME. There's not enough AOA spots for graduating DO's and the AOA spots are not always in the most convenient locations.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[countthestars]

.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Any school affiliated in any way with Touro is suspicious, even if it claims to be non profit. Touro is affiliated with 3 schools.

Plus the one in colorado

Lastly my point is the fact that the AOA allows a medical school to be for profit is bad for a medical school and its students. Much like for profit healthcare and health insurance is bad for patients and the health care industry as a whole.

Uh oh, I guess you MDs are in trouble then because Touro College just bought NYMC

http://www.lohud.com/article/2009121...-Touro-College

It's easy to throw stones when you assume things. My guess is that this merger will make NYMC 0% less competitive to get into, even though it is affiliated with Touro.

 

[JaggerPlate]

The problem with this line of reasoning can be illustrated by the fact that said Rad Onc match was the only successful one in the entire country. Check the NRMP data here (bottom of page 5).

I agree that it's not good reason or shows any sort of trend ... my point was to simply illustrate that, contrary to what some where saying on this thread, So Cal is not this horrible anti-DO environment where DOs can only match FP in AOA residencies. Good students still get impressive matches through DO. I guess my statement wasn't so much 'look this proves my point,' more in the vein of 'cool huh? Shows that DOs can do what they want if they rock (like MDs have to to also match Rad Onc), even in CA.'

 

[JaggerPlate]

I'm just going by what I've seen in my hospital that I work with a relatively large, respected hospital with no affiliated school as of yet. DO's are still getting the short end of the stick in that nurses, RTs, and other support staff still treat them differently. But as I've said before, if that bothered you, you could go across town to the DO hospital which is brand new and very nice, but dosn't get the cool cases. Think carefully about what you want to do with your career, there's nothing you can't do as DO, but it is a factor in any decisions in the future that will come up for you. I guess go where you think you're going to do best at because it dosnt matter if you've got MD on yoru name if you do a bad job in school. BTW I have no doubt that the average patient really dosn't care or know the difference, because at the hospital I don't see them treating them different. It's the coworkers which surprised me when I started.

This is conjecture, baseless assumptions, and misinformation in the finest. No offense, and you aren't purposely doing this, nor am I trying to insult you, but these attitudes are the ones that seem to know SO little about DOs, yet voice their opinion with ferocity.

A few things ...
1. Can you define 'DO hospital?' I don't think an Osteopathic hospital has opened up or even really exists anymore. It wouldn't make any sense?? A DO hospital would be a ... hospital. It could have been opened up with a DO school (unfortunately unlikely), or house DO residencies, but it makes no sense to me to call it a DO hospital.

2. How do you know they don't get 'cool' cases, but you do??? Is this House?? Are they a community hospital and you are an academic? Because then it's just good patient care to have them transported to the biggest, better resource etc.

3. Nurses treat nice doctors nice and mean doctors mean. It's simple. My aunt and grandma have been/were nurses for YEARS, and they remind me everyday before I start medical school to be NICE to the nurses, because if you aren't, they won't treat you well. The nurses would have no reasons to treat any doc differently whatsoever. They just want to get their job done. As far as a tech or transport treating a DO differently .... laugh, please. Is it because the physicians never speak to them because they have no time ever??? Because again, that is exactly how it was when I worked in a hospital. I don't think I ever saw a doc talk to a tech or patient transport guy/gal (not because they thought they were better than them or anything, just super busy), and this was at the huge academic hospital in So Cal that had DO chiefs of staff, DO students rotating through the ER, etc etc.

 

[J1515]

How do you know there weren't 50?

This is exactly why it's worthless to count the numbers. All you have to know is it's possible if you're good. The remainder of your post is purely opinion with no factual basis.

 

[Parts Unknown]

This is exactly why it's worthless to count the numbers.

I think you should propose this notion to some oncologists. Indeed, much of medical practice involves decisions based on the likelihood of outcome, often with incomplete data to go on.

However, if you pour over the available data you will reach the irrevocable conclusion that DOs have a harder time in the NRMP match than MDs (~70% vs. ~94%). In 2009 the match rate for the AOA match was 80%, although I'm sure many scrambled and found positions. Furthermore, there were 3,724 DO grads and only 2,435 funded positions in the AOA match.

My advice stands: either go MD or go to one of the established DO schools with a solid track record. To do otherwise is to play the game poorly.

The remainder of your post is purely opinion with no factual basis.

Could you be more specific? If my claims lack veracity I would like to know.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I think you should propose this notion to some oncologists. Indeed, much of medical practice involves decisions based on the likelihood of outcome, often with incomplete data to go on.

However, if you pour over the available data you will reach the irrevocable conclusion that DOs have a harder time in the NRMP match than MDs (~70% vs. ~94%). In 2009 the match rate for the AOA match was 80%, although I'm sure many scrambled and found positions. Furthermore, there were 3,724 DO grads and only 2,435 funded positions in the AOA match.

My advice stands: either go MD or go to one of the established DO schools with a solid track record. To do otherwise is to play the game poorly.



Could you be more specific? If my claims lack veracity I would like to know.

80% is pretty impressive considering the fact that DOs have their own AOA residency and anyone who applies to both ACGME and AOA and matches AOA is automatically withdrawn from the ACGME match.

 

[Parts Unknown]

80% is pretty impressive considering the fact that DOs have their own AOA residency and anyone who applies to both ACGME and AOA and matches AOA is automatically withdrawn from the ACGME match.

Ummmm, that 80% means 80% of the people who applied through the AOA system matched, while 20% did not match. I wouldn't call 20% unmatched "impressive" in a good sense.

For 2009

Total DO grads: 3,724 (100%)
Not participating in AOA match: 1,816 (48.8%)
Going military: 203 (5.5%)

Participants in AOA match: 1,794 (includes previously graduated DOs)
Matched: 1,433 (79.9%)
Unmatched: 361 (20.1%)

Compare to the NRMP data:

DO participants in 2009 NRMP match: 2,015
Matched: 1,408 (69.9%)
Unmatched: 607 (30.1%)

US allopathic seniors in 2009 NRMP match: 15,638
Matched: 14,566 (93.1%)
Unmatched: 1,072 (6.9%)

To be fair, the number of DO applicants to the NRMP match has increased by about 30% in the past four years, while the match rate remains ~70%. This growth has outpaced the increase in NRMP residency spots, and thus reflects a greater share going to DO grads. Also, this data does not incorporate the smaller matches (like the SF match).

All that said, at the end of the day, and looking at these numbers, which pool would you rather be in?

 

[JaggerPlate]

Ummmm, that 80% means 80% of the people who applied through the AOA system matched, while 20% did not match. I wouldn't call 20% unmatched "impressive" in a good sense.

For 2009

Total DO grads: 3,724 (100%)
Not participating in AOA match: 1,816 (48.8%)
Going military: 203 (5.5%)

Participants in AOA match: 1,794 (includes previously graduated DOs)
Matched: 1,433 (79.9%)
Unmatched: 361 (20.1%)

Compare to the NRMP data:

DO participants in 2009 NRMP match: 2,015
Matched: 1,408 (69.9%)
Unmatched: 607 (30.1%)

US allopathic seniors in 2009 NRMP match: 15,638
Matched: 14,566 (93.1%)
Unmatched: 1,072 (6.9%)

To be fair, the number of DO applicants to the NRMP match has increased by about 30% in the past four years, while the match rate remains ~70%. This growth has outpaced the increase in NRMP residency spots, and thus reflects a greater share going to DO grads. Also, this data does not incorporate the smaller matches (like the SF match).

All that said, at the end of the day, and looking at these numbers, which pool would you rather be in?

Err edit: sorry, I think I mistook what you were saying. I'm getting confused a lot today. So you're saying that 20% of DOs that participated exclusively in the AOA placement process did not match?

 

[tkim]

I was under the impression that when someone who matched AOA was pulled from ACGME they were considered 'unmatched' which drove the numbers up. Frankly, with two sets of residencies and an 80% chance of matching in ACGME and knowing there is a full other set that only DOs can apply to ... I don't care what boat I'm in.

When I withdrew from the DO match, I received 'open spot' messages after the AOA match as if I were scrambling. It may be that the AOA counted all people who withdrew from their match as 'unmatched', which would explain the relatively lower match percentage.

 

[JaggerPlate]

When I withdrew from the DO match, I received 'open spot' messages after the AOA match as if I were scrambling. It may be that the AOA counted all people who withdrew from their match as 'unmatched', which would explain the relatively lower match percentage.

So essentially you're saying that the number given for those participating in the AOA match by Parts Unknown may also include those applying AOA and ACGME and if one chooses to withdraw from AOA (probably due to an early contract) and take an ACGME spot, they could be considered unmatched by the AOA, which drives up the unmatched numbers?

 

[Parts Unknown]

When I withdrew from the DO match, I received 'open spot' messages after the AOA match as if I were scrambling. It may be that the AOA counted all people who withdrew from their match as 'unmatched', which would explain the relatively lower match percentage.

Perhaps, but more likely they would be counted as inactive, and therefore not included in the number of match participants. That's how the NRMP handles it, and I doubt the AOA would do anything to generate an artifically decreased match percentage.

Also, per the same AOA blog I referenced earlier, in 2008 the AOA scramble netted an additional 396 trainees into training positions. That's quite a few, and suggests there are a lot of DOs looking for spots after match day.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Perhaps, but more likely they would be counted as inactive, and therefore not included in the number of match participants. That's how the NRMP handles it, and I doubt the AOA would do anything to generate an artifically decreased match percentage.

Also, per the same AOA blog I referenced earlier, in 2008 the AOA scramble netted an additional 396 trainees into training positions. That's quite a few, and suggests there are a lot of DOs looking for spots after match day.

Frankly, I think there is an explanation for it in some sense, I'm just not clear enough to identify it on my own.

 

[tkim]

Perhaps, but more likely they would be counted as inactive, and therefore not included in the number of match participants. That's how the NRMP handles it, and I doubt the AOA would do anything to generate an artifically decreased match percentage.

Also, per the same AOA blog I referenced earlier, in 2008 the AOA scramble netted an additional 396 trainees into training positions. That's quite a few, and suggests there are a lot of DOs looking for spots after match day.

There are also people who registered for the DO match, who interviewed and did not certify their ROL nor withdraw, but skipped the DO match in lieu of the MD match. Those would be counted an unmatched. I recall being told to do that in order to gain access to the DO scramble list, though I got access to it anyway after withdrawing.

We don't have a clear definition of what the AOA considers 'not matching', though I agree that they would probably want to count the withdraws as non-participants, in order to drive the percent matched up.

 

[BennieBlanco]

Ummmm, that 80% means 80% of the people who applied through the AOA system matched, while 20% did not match. I wouldn't call 20% unmatched "impressive" in a good sense.

For 2009

Total DO grads: 3,724 (100%)
Not participating in AOA match: 1,816 (48.8%)
Going military: 203 (5.5%)

Participants in AOA match: 1,794 (includes previously graduated DOs)
Matched: 1,433 (79.9%)
Unmatched: 361 (20.1%)

Compare to the NRMP data:

DO participants in 2009 NRMP match: 2,015
Matched: 1,408 (69.9%)
Unmatched: 607 (30.1%)

US allopathic seniors in 2009 NRMP match: 15,638
Matched: 14,566 (93.1%)
Unmatched: 1,072 (6.9%)

To be fair, the number of DO applicants to the NRMP match has increased by about 30% in the past four years, while the match rate remains ~70%. This growth has outpaced the increase in NRMP residency spots, and thus reflects a greater share going to DO grads. Also, this data does not incorporate the smaller matches (like the SF match).

All that said, at the end of the day, and looking at these numbers, which pool would you rather be in?

I would rather be in the MD gang. But here is a question... aren't you then in the bottom 20% or bottom 30% of the DO group? Or the bottom 7% of the MD group.

I feel like if I'm not even in the top half, then that's on me for not matching. But I guess that's just my opinion.

So if we are talking only bottom 7% or bottom 20-30% not matching, if I'm in either of those groups I probably chose the wrong profession. Plus I think you mentioned this, very highly ranked DOs probably fare as well as MDs. There are probably some DO schools that are lower tier that a heavier reject percentage comes from.

It would be interesting to see top DO school match % vs your MD #'s. anyone?????

Interesting stats though! Glad someone finally put #'s to this debate.

To be fair, the number of DO applicants to the NRMP match has increased by about 30% in the past four years, while the match rate remains ~70%. This growth has outpaced the increase in NRMP residency spots, and thus reflects a greater share going to DO grads. Also, this data does not incorporate the smaller matches (like the SF match).

Wow, this is excellent data, thanks again. This is useful and pertinent to the debate. How come I never see #'s like this posted on this site?

This actually sheds light on the debate!

I looked over your stats:http://blogs.do-online.org/media/2/20090210-DR_2-10-09_CollegeSummary.pdf

It looks like the top DO schools match similar to all MDs (5-9% don't match). But I would like to see the NRMP data on this, school by school

 

[BennieBlanco]

The problem with this line of reasoning can be illustrated by the fact that said Rad Onc match was the only successful one in the entire country. Check the NRMP data here (bottom of page 5).

This NRMP data is amazing. So glad you posted.

Saying not 1 DO matched Rad Onc is true but... honestly, if you are going DO are you shooting for that?

There are only 15 MD's matching Rad Onc per year! 15 people.

So if you are going DO are you thinking you are going to be 15 of 15,000

or 1 of 1,000 people matching to Rad Onc? There is setting your goals high but....

 

[JaggerPlate]

Bennie ... I'm still a little confused by the 20% number and I think there is an explanation for it somewhere, but I agree that the big, established DO schools should have match rates on par with the MD data given.

 

[BennieBlanco]

Bennie ... I'm still a little confused by the 20% number and I think there is an explanation for it somewhere, but I agree that the big, established DO schools should have match rates on par with the MD data given.

I've been pouring through the NRMP data. I enjoy data, but these #'s aren't telling enough. We would need to see average board scores to coincide with the data, just saying __% matched and ___% didn't doesn't really give a picture of the student, not even a superficial #'s based look.

I think somehow including Step scores would shed a but more light. If some of the DO applicants had much lower step scores then that would be on them, not on the DO school. This isn't impossible as DO schools can offer acceptances to lower MCATs which could mean SOME of the applicants were not naturally good at standardized exams. But again, the data is telling but leaves a lot of questions.

 

[werd]

This NRMP data is amazing. So glad you posted.

Saying not 1 DO matched Rad Onc is true but... honestly, if you are going DO are you shooting for that?

There are only 15 MD's matching Rad Onc per year! 15 people.

So if you are going DO are you thinking you are going to be 15 of 15,000

or 1 of 1,000 people matching to Rad Onc? There is setting your goals high but....

just so the wrong impression isn't left, there were 156 rad onc spots spots in the 2009 match; 8 of them were filled by DO's (out of 24 applicants). there are 15 spots that are "PGY-1 positions" but another 141 that were "PGY-2 positions." Rad onc, like derm, neuro, and several other specialties usually starts with PGY-2 but there are a few programs that start at PGY-1. merry christmas.

 

[BennieBlanco]

Ummmm, that 80% means 80% of the people who applied through the AOA system matched, while 20% did not match. I wouldn't call 20% unmatched "impressive" in a good sense.

For 2009

Total DO grads: 3,724 (100%)
Not participating in AOA match: 1,816 (48.8%)
Going military: 203 (5.5%)

Participants in AOA match: 1,794 (includes previously graduated DOs)
Matched: 1,433 (79.9%)
Unmatched: 361 (20.1%)

Compare to the NRMP data:

DO participants in 2009 NRMP match: 2,015
Matched: 1,408 (69.9%)
Unmatched: 607 (30.1%)

US allopathic seniors in 2009 NRMP match: 15,638
Matched: 14,566 (93.1%)
Unmatched: 1,072 (6.9%)

To be fair, the number of DO applicants to the NRMP match has increased by about 30% in the past four years, while the match rate remains ~70%. This growth has outpaced the increase in NRMP residency spots, and thus reflects a greater share going to DO grads. Also, this data does not incorporate the smaller matches (like the SF match).

All that said, at the end of the day, and looking at these numbers, which pool would you rather be in?

Also this data isn't telling of the previous allo grads...

If you look at your NRMP #'s you will see that they lump Osteo students/previous grads together, while allo has a separate group for previous grads.

So your 93% vs 70% # is bending the #'s.

The true statistic should be that 89% match instead of 93%, as half of the previous allo grads do not match.

But still the gap is worth noting, it is general, 89 vs 70%. I think it would be interesting to see the % of osteo seniors as I wonder if osteo seniors may pull higher (75-80%) as the allo seniors pull higher... more questions.

 

[BennieBlanco]

just so the wrong impression isn't left, there were 156 rad onc spots spots in the 2009 match; 8 of them were filled by DO's (out of 24 applicants). there are 15 spots that are "PGY-1 positions" but another 141 that were "PGY-2 positions." Rad onc, like derm, neuro, and several other specialties usually starts with PGY-2 but there are a few programs that start at PGY-1. merry christmas.

sorry I'm premed nontrad, decided to become a doc a year ago and I have no idea what PGY-1 and PGY-2 are. What do they mean?

Looks like 90% are PGY-1 matches though.

All the data breakdowns are done PGY-1 also, they don't break down a lot of the PGY-2 on the report.

 

[JaggerPlate]

sorry I'm premed nontrad, decided to become a doc a year ago and I have no idea what PGY-1 and PGY-2 are. What do they mean?

Post-Graduate Year 1 and Post-Graduate Year 2. Some residencies match you straight in as your first PGY, others you need to do an internship and match it at the same time as your residency or match them separately, but enter your residency as a PGY 2 after spending PGY 1 as an intern.

 

[BennieBlanco]

Post-Graduate Year 1 and Post-Graduate Year 2. Some residencies match you straight in as your first PGY, others you need to do an internship and match it at the same time as your residency or match them separately, but enter your residency as a PGY 2 after spending PGY 1 as an intern.

good to know, 90% of matches don't intern.

but if you want Rad/Derm/Neuro

You should be an intern...

 

[BennieBlanco]

just so the wrong impression isn't left, there were 156 rad onc spots spots in the 2009 match; 8 of them were filled by DO's (out of 24 applicants). there are 15 spots that are "PGY-1 positions" but another 141 that were "PGY-2 positions." Rad onc, like derm, neuro, and several other specialties usually starts with PGY-2 but there are a few programs that start at PGY-1. merry christmas.

What page are you getting this data from? I just want to read up.

I'm trying to find the (out of 24) portion of your data. Is it from the NRMP data?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

good to know, 90% of matches don't intern.

but if you want Rad/Derm/Neuro

You should be an intern...

no the 90% still intern, that's what a first year is.. they just do it as a part of the single residency (e.g. IM)

 

[halekulani]

I Should have added that i am not looking to go into a highly competitive specialty. I'm almost 100% sure i'll be doing something in primary care.

I would like to stay in my hometown because i don't want to uproot my fiance (or my self) to such an extent - the east coast is far (and cold) damnit!

i really don't know what to do.

i think all signs point towards DO
i don't think there's anything the MD offers that the DO does not. with the DO school, you have a chance to do what you want and keep your marriage stable.

 

[BPlaysItCool]

The recurrent theme that I see in this perpetual conundrum is this:

DO's being a minority population from a traditionally midwestern-rooted, more obscure medical training, will always be on the defensive in coastal areas, academic institutions and anywhere where allopathic snobbery is still virulent.

The DO's on this thread mistake stragegic thinking with a percieved sleight against their profession. Sure. It is a fact that once in practice there is absolutely no difference between either a DO or an MD.

What is not true is the equity with which each had to attain their position in the allopathic universe. Saying that DO's have an alternate system to match in which helps them achieve parity of opportunity is assuming that people want to live in places where DO culture and insitutions are strong. Myself. I just couldn't live in the midwest by choice. So that eliminates that argument, for me at least.

Secondly, the statistics are clear when it comes to matching. There remains a bias against DO's in the matching process. The math doesn't lie. So for me there are 2 issues:

1. Career planning.
2. Patient perception.

So far the DO's here have tackled #2. And the heck w/ patients think anyway. Most of them make their judgements on a basis not unlike choosing the poular kids in school.

#1. Not so much. These sdn DO's have been unconvincing in this area. But to each his own everyone must decide for themselves. and deal with the consequences of their own decisions.

 

[vin5cent0]

Go MD. Get out and explore the country a little, why would you want to stay in one town your entire life?

 

[J1515]

Saying that DO's have an alternate system to match in which helps them achieve parity of opportunity is assuming that people want to live in places where DO culture and insitutions are strong. Myself. I just couldn't live in the midwest by choice. So that eliminates that argument, for me at least.

I'm in NY/NJ. The "DO culture" is plenty strong out here - far from the midwest.

 

[spicedmanna]

What is not true is the equity with which each had to attain their position in the allopathic universe. Saying that DO's have an alternate system to match in which helps them achieve parity of opportunity is assuming that people want to live in places where DO culture and insitutions are strong. Myself. I just couldn't live in the midwest by choice. So that eliminates that argument, for me at least.

Secondly, the statistics are clear when it comes to matching. There remains a bias against DO's in the matching process. The math doesn't lie.

The math may not lie, but the interpretations can. This is not to say that I disagree with you entirely. Currently, it is an allopathic universe and there are far more opportunities available in the allopathic match. It is also obvious that DO's aren't in exact parity with MD's in the allopathic match currently, which makes sense since it isn't their native match. However, I think your argument is a bit flawed in that you are assuming that just because you are a DO, you have little choice but to do a DO residency in the Midwest. You are making it sound like you are doomed to be stuck in the Midwest as a DO. That is just ludicrous. I would ask you to look at the match lists of some of the more well-established osteopathic medical schools. Yes, there may be some doors that are closed, but I don't think your options are as limited as you make it sound.

I want to agree with you, though, on your major point. If you don't want to be discriminated against based on your degree and you want the absolute maximum opportunities available to you, then become an MD. That way, you will be a part of what is currently the majority of physicians in the US and you won't have to ever deal with some doors being closed to you because of your degree.

It's all about priorities. In considering the OP's dilemma, it sounds like it would be fairly high priority for he and his fiance to be in his hometown. It sounds like it's what they desire. I can't say what the OP should do, because that's a personal decision, but for me, my family's happiness would clearly weigh over a few more opportunities I may or may not want anyway.

 

[BPlaysItCool]

I'm in NY/NJ. The "DO culture" is plenty strong out here - far from the midwest.

This additionally is another recurrent theme: cherrypicking the use of a coherent logic in career planning, with line item contrarianism.

Look, I hear you guys. Your eduation and training is equal. But have any of you really adressed thate fact that it will be more difficult as a DO than as an MD for a number of career paths.

I fail to see where you have in a coherent sense. Instead you seem to enjoy what you have over premeds in being medical students. Well congratulations.

Now could we adress real stragegic planning or not.

 

[BPlaysItCool]

The math may not lie, but the interpretations can. This is not to say that I disagree with you entirely. Currently, it is an allopathic universe and there are far more opportunities available in the allopathic match. It is also obvious that DO's aren't in exact parity with MD's in the allopathic match currently, which makes sense since it isn't their native match. However, I think your argument is a bit flawed in that you are assuming that just because you are a DO, you have little choice but to do a DO residency in the Midwest. You are making it sound like you are doomed to be stuck in the Midwest as a DO. That is just ludicrous. I would ask you to look at the match lists of some of the more well-established osteopathic medical schools. Yes, there may be some doors that are closed, but I don't think your options are as limited as you make it sound.

I want to agree with you, though, on your major point. If you don't want to be discriminated against based on your degree and you want the absolute maximum opportunities available to you, then become an MD. That way, you will be a part of what is currently the majority of physicians in the US and you won't have to ever deal with some doors being closed to you because of your degree.

It's all about priorities. In considering the OP's dilemma, it sounds like it would be fairly high priority for he and his fiance to be in his hometown. It sounds like it's what they desire. I can't say what the OP should do, because that's a personal decision, but for me, my family's happiness would clearly weigh over a few more opportunities I may or may not want anyway.

OP take note. This is the strategically deft point of view given your priorities.

And I agree completely.

 

[J1515]

This additionally is another recurrent theme: cherrypicking the use of a coherent logic in career planning, with line item contrarianism.

Look, I hear you guys. Your eduation and training is equal. But have any of you really adressed thate fact that it will be more difficult as a DO than as an MD for a number of career paths.
.

Dude, first off, you're not writing an essay for your undergrad philosophy class so just stop - you know what I'm talking about. Second, I'm not cherrypicking. You are false in thinking that the midwest is the only place or even the major place that is "DO friendly" in the country. Osteopathy originated there 100+ years ago. That means nothing in the year 2009. NY/NJ/CT/PA/FL/VA/WV just to name a few, all on the east coast, are "DO friendly." This is not cherrypicking. This is stating a fact contrary to your false belief that you have to go to the midwest to find "DO friendly" areas or residencies. I suggest you take a look at NYCOMs, PCOMs, and LECOMs matchlists year after year and then try to tell me the east coast isn't "DO friendly." Third, if I had chosen to be a dermatologist or neurosurgeon, there are DO programs right here in the tri-state area (with actually a pretty good reputation) that I could have applied to. It was not more difficult for me as a DO. I don't know how many ways I could state that. I experienced it first hand. I went through it. Where do you get off trying to educate people who have actually been through the very process the OP is asking about, while you yourself haven't set foot in a medical school yet? Yes, we all know, you've researched it extensively, you worked in the healthcare industry, the doctor you shadowed told you, your dad's a doctor, yada yada yada...

Thank god I have pre-meds here to tell me about my own career

PS - If any osteopathic MSIV's or DO residents would like to discuss first hand how they've had a more difficult time than I have, and they are willing to name hospitals and doctors who treated them unfairly (via PM of course), I'm open to discussion.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Dude, first off, you're not writing an essay for your undergrad philosophy class, so stop the crap - you know what I'm talking about. Second, I'm not cherrypicking. You are false in thinking that the midwest is the only place or even the major place that is "DO friendly" in the country. Osteopathy originated there 100+ years ago. That means nothing in the year 2009. NY/NJ/CT/PA/FL/VA/WV on the east coast are all "DO friendly." This is not cherrypicking. This is stating a fact contrary to your false belief that you have to go to the midwest to find "DO friendly" areas or residencies. Take a look at NYCOMs and PCOMs matchlists. Third, if I had chosen to be a dermatologist or neurosurgeon, there are DO programs right here in the tri-state area (with actually a pretty good reputation) that I could have applied to. It was not more difficult for me as a DO. I don't know how many ways I could state that. I experienced it first hand. I went through it. Where do you get off trying to educate people who have actually been through the very process the OP is asking about, while you yourself haven't set foot in a medical school yet? Yes, we all know, you've researched it extensively, the doctor you shadowed told you, your dad's a doctor, yada yada yada...

Thank god I have pre-meds here to tell me about my own career lol

PS - If any osteopathic MSIV's or DO residents would like to discuss first hand how they've had a more difficult time than I have, and they are willing to name hospitals and doctors who treated them unfairly (via PM of course), I'm open to discussion.

Word.

 

[dokein]

I think there is some bias by a lot of the posters (including me). Generally speaking people who have a DO degree are not going to feel it is inferior ... just like people who only get into a tier 2 medical school saying that it is only about fit and the school was their top choice (which I am 'sure' they would have picked over Harvard or UCSF).

From what I know, if you want to go into a competitive residency, a DO degree means you will be climbing uphill. This is according to fellows and attendings in Derm and Rad at UCLA--so they might be biased, but they're doing the interviews for new residents so it's a relevant bias. Sure, if you do exceptionally well you can get in, but these specialties are difficult enough without the extra speedbump.

However, no matter where you go, you control your own opportunities and experiences. If you ace the boards and have awesome research and extracurriculars, you'll get into a ROADS program no matter where you went. Whether the school is an MD or DO is unlikely to affect your board performance--school average scores are mostly a function of the school's selectivity in entering students rather than the quality of their classes and resources.

It is unlikely that patients or colleagues will care (except maybe at the interview stage for residencies or private practices). From a patient perspective, as mentioned earlier, most people either don't know or don't care. From a colleague perspective, your body of work quickly demonstrates how good or bad of a physician you are.

 

[Isoprop]

From what I know, if you want to go into a competitive residency, a DO degree means you will be climbing uphill. This is according to fellows and attendings in Derm and Rad at UCLA--so they might be biased, but they're doing the interviews for new residents so it's a relevant bias. Sure, if you do exceptionally well you can get in, but these specialties are difficult enough without the extra speedbump.

This is the crazy thing I've been reading this entire thread. Going into rads or derm is an uphill climb whether you coming from an allo school or an osteo one. Yes, DOs have to climb Mt. Everest to get into derm but MDs only have to climb K2 so they have it much easier. For the 98% of us who don't stand a chance in the first place, why does this matter?

Superstars are going to be superstars whether they are at Harvard or XYZ College of Osteopathic Medicine. Can an OMS-IV or recent graduate tell me he would have gone into derm but his osteopathic education him them back? I'd really like to see that!

 

[dokein]

This is the crazy thing I've been reading this entire thread. Going into rads or derm is an uphill climb whether you coming from an allo school or an osteo one. Yes, DOs have to climb Mt. Everest to get into derm but MDs only have to climb K2 so they have it much easier. For the 98% of us who don't stand a chance in the first place, why does this matter?

Superstars are going to be superstars whether they are at Harvard or XYZ College of Osteopathic Medicine. Can an OMS-IV or recent graduate tell me he would have gone into derm but his osteopathic education him them back? I'd really like to see that!

ROAD is an illustrative point. The steeper slope is true for any competitive residency.

 

[J1515]

I think there is some bias by a lot of the posters (including me). Generally speaking people who have a DO degree are not going to feel it is inferior ... just like people who only get into a tier 2 medical school saying that it is only about fit and the school was their top choice (which I am 'sure' they would have picked over Harvard or UCSF).

As I've stated about 2000 times, I chose DO over MD. It really was only about fit and the DO school really was my top choice. . When you get out into the real world you will see life isn't all about prestige.

From what I know, if you want to go into a competitive residency, a DO degree means you will be climbing uphill. This is according to fellows and attendings in Derm and Rad at UCLA--so they might be biased, but they're doing the interviews for new residents so it's a relevant bias. Sure, if you do exceptionally well you can get in, but these specialties are difficult enough without the extra speedbump.

I guess the fellows and attendings at UCLA didn't tell you there are derm and ortho and neurosurgery residencies that are open only to DOs.

When will people realize there is no point in asking pre-meds for advice when they are at the same stage of education as you are? I'm done here.

 

[ensuii]

.

 

[Parts Unknown]

If you look at your NRMP #'s you will see that they lump Osteo students/previous grads together, while allo has a separate group for previous grads.

An excellent point. I have been trying to whittle down the DOs to include only seniors, but the data is elusive.

 

[spicedmanna]

ROAD is an illustrative point. The steeper slope is true for any competitive residency.

For any competitive residency, huh? Is that your final answer? I'd be careful with that line of thinking. To my knowledge, it's mostly a myth. True, there are some allopathic residencies that may be more difficult for DO's to attain and maybe a door or two that is closed, but you are making it sound as if it's universal that DO's have a harder time across all competitive residencies, which is completely preposterous. It's just not true. It shows a deficiency of knowledge about the process. I encourage you to do some research about that and check back.

 

[BPlaysItCool]

Well alright then. If yall are saying you've never experienced a disadvantage with your background who am I to say differently. We'll all be working together anyway where it counts and I don't think this topic will ever come up there. It'd be unprofessional if it did. And since you are ahead of us you'll be teaching us and showing us the ropes anyway.

Nevertheless. The OP has available to them the range of opinions represented. I don't think just because some of them are more progressed in the stages of physician education that that nullifies all the others. But that's just my opinion. I am grateful for opportunities I'll have at an Allopathic school--and not a prestigious one at all. A DO education would have been problematic for me. Largely because I do not want to move around for clerkships and I don't want to study OMM. Or take the COMLEX if I have the acronym correct. <<<I'm sure you're cocked and loaded with a rebuttal. But I've done the research to satisfy myself on these issues. And all I'm suggesting is that the OP do the same. Because the DO med students here have spoken so strongly and aggressively, I just wanted to make that point alone.

 

[willen101383]

Well alright then. If yall are saying you've never experienced a disadvantage with your background who am I to say differently. We'll all be working together anyway where it counts and I don't think this topic will ever come up there. It'd be unprofessional if it did. And since you are ahead of us you'll be teaching us and showing us the ropes anyway.

Nevertheless. The OP has available to them the range of opinions represented. I don't think just because some of them are more progressed in the stages of physician education that that nullifies all the others. But that's just my opinion. I am grateful for opportunities I'll have at an Allopathic school--and not a prestigious one at all. A DO education would have been problematic for me. Largely because I do not want to move around for clerkships and I don't want to study OMM. Or take the COMLEX if I have the acronym correct. <<<I'm sure you're cocked and loaded with a rebuttal. But I've done the research to satisfy myself on these issues. And all I'm suggesting is that the OP do the same. Because the DO med students here have spoken so strongly and aggressively, I just wanted to make that point alone.

Hey..you post valid reasons. Thats the problem with SDN...people like to ***** foot around their core issues about going to a DO school. You dont want to take OMM and the COMLEX. Valid enough reason for me! Another person may just want the MD behind their name and not DO. Totally fine with me as well. I wish people could just come out and say this stuff...rather than make up these elaborate stories to justify their choice to go MD...and belittle those who go to a DO school.

And just so ya know...there are many many DO schools who have all their rotations locally and dont require you to move!

 

[hopefuldoc87]

If you ace the boards and have awesome research and extracurriculars, you'll get into a ROADS program no matter where you went.

I think this is the line of thinking that alot of premeds have. For some residencies, like rads and derm, there are just too few spots for the number of superstars there are. A good amount of applicants just don't get the spots, no matter how qualified they are.

That's assuming everyone who says that they want to do a ROAD residency as a premed actually ends up applying for it. You'd be surprised how things change when you get your first exam grades back, and it hits you: the pond just got a whole lot bigger.

Merry Christmas

 

[hopefuldoc87]

And just so ya know...there are many many DO schools who have all their rotations locally and dont require you to move!

Not true.

I know this Radiologist at Yale who said otherwise. Quit exaggerating!

 

[Isoprop]

On a completely unrelated note, is there a way we can hide threads?

 

[hopefuldoc87]

On a completely unrelated note, is there a way we can hide threads?

Cover it up with a piece of paper.

 

[Isoprop]

Cover it up with a piece of paper.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[willen101383]

Not true.

I know this Radiologist at Yale who said otherwise. Quit exaggerating!

I stand corrected. All DO programs are garbage and require you to move for each rotation you do! Plan on moving every few months. And if you are a DO all the ancilliary staff in the hospital will NOT respect you. You are a fake doctor to them...even the cafeteria workers, an environmental services workers. What was I thinking going to a DO school? I guess I will have to leave PCOM and move to the bible belt..as that is the only place I will be accepted as a physician by the hospital janitors!