Fundamental differences between DO and MD

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I think this whole debate comes from the idea that MD requires a higher level of book-smarts, at least admissions wise. While this doesn't necessarily correspond to good doctor versus bad doctor, some people don't see it that way and are comforted by the MD degree because they think it implies a greater intillect. Does that sound right?

[Note: not my opinion, just trying to see if I understand the arguments]

To whoever thinks this is the "best statement in this thread":

This is exactly the problem. The above IS the mindset of the premed and many others. As an osteopathic student, I'm not offended or belittled by figures displaying that average GPA's and MCAT scores are higher in allopathic schools because for me, personally (and shockingly many of my classmates), my stats were at the level of the average US matriculated allopathic student. I've mentioned my previous allopathic waitlist status not to sound bitter, but to emphasize how imperfect admissions and averages are. Of course there are osteopathic students who probably had no shot at allo spots. But for every one of them, there are extremely strong students who were waitlisted, rejected, or here we go....CHOSE an osteopathic school over an allo school!

My point is, minus the stellar applicant and the osteopathic applicant that never came close to allopathic admissions, there is an enormous subset between with much overlap in scores and achievements. Mix in the subjectives of experiences, race, university attended, etc. you have one heck of a mess. It's not perfect.
 
The question was being able to answer questions in a test with being a better practicing physician. Sometimes it does not. When you see a patient, you are not seeing a piece of paper with clear answers. For example, in Psychiatry, you could miss a lot if your interpersonal skills are poor. You may be able to cite 100 different medications by heart with every single side effect, but that's irrelevant if you can't make the proper diagnosis. In surgery, you can know everything about performing a colostomy, but if you don't have the physical skills or the ability to do this under pressure, you will not be the best.
Odd examples you chose there. I don't think a psychiatrist with no interpersonal skills or a surgeon without the physical skills to operate well would make it through a good residency. Diagnostic skills are tested all throughout medical school and residency. Anyway, intellectual ability is more rare than the basic interpersonal skills or basic physical abilities needed for surgery. Probably why intellectual ability is what schools test for and then just make sure you have the other basics that they assume you will have once you get there.

So can I get a clear statement from you saying "I will not go to a black doctor because statistically it's possible that their URM status got them into school with lower grades?" Or are you afraid that when it's put in racial terms you realize that your argument about DO inferiority breaks down?
No and no.

It's "easy" to say that, but it can also be true to say that. Not everyone that goes to DO school is because they wish they were MD's. Last I checked, it was only a minority of DO students that got rejected into an MD program or even applied to one. It's also easy for you to say the opposite.
You and I were talking about taking the USMLE and going to an MD residency. Now you're talking about medical school.

You'll notice I removed your gratuitous ad hominem remarks, so you can just leave them out in future responses.
 
Odd examples you chose there. I don't think a psychiatrist with no interpersonal skills or a surgeon without the physical skills to operate well would make it through a good residency. Diagnostic skills are tested all throughout medical school and residency. Anyway, intellectual ability is more rare than the basic interpersonal skills or basic physical abilities needed for surgery. Probably why intellectual ability is what schools test for and then just make sure you have the other basics that they assume you will have once you get there.

What about the students that didn't have a high enough GPA/MCAT to enter some allopathic schools so they attended osteopathic? I understand that you're saying that you would rather trust a doctor who had the grades to get into an allo med school. But if those same students did really well in a DO school and got tested for the same diagnostic skills, wouldn't that mean anything?
 
Odd examples you chose there. I don't think a psychiatrist with no interpersonal skills or a surgeon without the physical skills to operate well would make it through a good residency. Diagnostic skills are tested all throughout medical school and residency. Anyway, intellectual ability is more rare than the basic interpersonal skills or basic physical abilities needed for surgery. Probably why intellectual ability is what schools test for and then just make sure you have the other basics that they assume you will have once you get there.

No and no.

You and I were talking about taking the USMLE and going to an MD residency. Now you're talking about medical school.

You'll notice I removed your gratuitous ad hominem remarks, so you can just leave them out in future responses.
No, we weren't talking about the USMLE and going to MD residency. We were talking about why DO's sometimes choose not to take the USMLE and stick to the COMLEX. Do you actively believe every DO went to DO school because they got rejected or couldn't get into an MD school? Do you actively believe every DO wants to do an MD residency?

At this point it seems that it can only continue into a pissing contest. Sure, intellectual ability is rare, but it doesn't mean it must translate to being a good doctor. If you weren't more interested in winning an argument than facing reality, I think even you've run into situations when "smart" people are idiots at what they do. After all, not all doctors end up being good doctors, and not all bad doctors come from bad schools.
 
What about the students that didn't have a high enough GPA/MCAT to enter some allopathic schools so they attended osteopathic? I understand that you're saying that you would rather trust a doctor who had the grades to get into an allo med school. But if those same students did really well in a DO school and got tested for the same diagnostic skills, wouldn't that mean anything?
Exactly. Why stop at the MD/DO degree? Why not judge all doctors by where they went for residency or fellowship or how many publications they had? Why not make the judgment about what undergrad institution they went to? The reality is this person is just a bigot with a superiority complex. Unless he goes to Hopkins or Harvard, he should be telling his future patients "now, wait a minute. I'm not a Hopkins/Harvard grad, so I'm not as smart. Please go to another doctor that is so you can get superior care."
 
There definitely are reasons not to take the USMLE as a DO student, and I don't think the fear of not doing well is really one of them. If you think about it, a DO student who wants an ACGME residency would be foolish not to take the USMLE (although some are now starting to accept COMLEX - usually PC residencies), so students who want ACGME will take it regardless of fear. I mean, what's worse: fearing you'll do poorly and taking it, or fearing you'll do poorly, not taking it, and guaranteeing you won't match in the ACGME programs you want?

Most DO students who only take the COMLEX, from what I've noticed, do so because they want competitive AOA spots and 1. Don't think AOA PDs would be impressed by a high USMLE score, 2. Don't find it necessary because they WANT the AOA spots. Again, many people take both, and if you're shooting for any ACGME programs (in any field), I think it's a wise decision to take both.
 
To whoever thinks this is the "best statement in this thread":

This is exactly the problem. The above IS the mindset of the premed and many others. As an osteopathic student, I'm not offended or belittled by figures displaying that average GPA's and MCAT scores are higher in allopathic schools because for me, personally (and shockingly many of my classmates), my stats were at the level of the average US matriculated allopathic student. I've mentioned my previous allopathic waitlist status not to sound bitter, but to emphasize how imperfect admissions and averages are. Of course there are osteopathic students who probably had no shot at allo spots. But for every one of them, there are extremely strong students who were waitlisted, rejected, or here we go....CHOSE an osteopathic school over an allo school!

My point is, minus the stellar applicant and the osteopathic applicant that never came close to allopathic admissions, there is an enormous subset between with much overlap in scores and achievements. Mix in the subjectives of experiences, race, university attended, etc. you have one heck of a mess. It's not perfect.


You do realize I go to your school right? At least I am thinking you are PCOM since your username+saying you go to a DO school. I was saying it in more of a "QFT" kinda way.
 
No, we weren't talking about the USMLE and going to MD residency. We were talking about why DO's sometimes choose not to take the USMLE and stick to the COMLEX. Do you actively believe every DO went to DO school because they got rejected or couldn't get into an MD school? Do you actively believe every DO wants to do an MD residency?
No I don't believe any of that. No wonder you thought I was a bigot. I believe that most DOs would prefer to be MDs or at least go to an MD residency. But that's not really up for argument which is why I found your hostility towards my posts to be confusing.

Sure, intellectual ability is rare, but it doesn't mean it must translate to being a good doctor. If you weren't more interested in winning an argument than facing reality, I think even you've run into situations when "smart" people are idiots at what they do. After all, not all doctors end up being good doctors, and not all bad doctors come from bad schools.
It's not about winning an argument; it's about the fact that I made a few benign comments and they were taken in the wrong way. Let me ask you, if you were in the hospital and needed a lifesaving surgery and there were two docs on call and all you knew is that one was an MD and the other a DO, which would you pick? Forty years ago when the egalitarian virus hadn't affected so many in our population, none of my comments would have been taken negatively at all.
 
Let me ask you, if you were in the hospital and needed a lifesaving surgery and there were two docs on call and all you knew is that one was an MD and the other a DO, which would you pick? Forty years ago when the egalitarian virus hadn't affected so many in our population, now of my comments would have been taken negatively at all.

It would not make an iota of difference to me. If I were at the hospital where I work, which has a significant amount of DOs on staff, I'd go with whichever one I knew better/thought was the better doctor, and there would be plenty of times that could be the DO. It would not factor into my decision in the slightest.
 
It would not make an iota of difference to me. If I were at the hospital where I work, which has a significant amount of DOs on staff, I'd go with whichever one I knew better/thought was the better doctor, and there would be plenty of times that could be the DO.
That's different. In that case I would agree with you. In my hypothetical the only thing you know about the two surgeons is that one is an MD and one is a DO.

My whole point being that the majority of people would choose the MD. I hate when it's hard to make a fairly obvious point.
 
No I don't believe any of that. No wonder you thought I was a bigot. I believe that most DOs would prefer to be MDs or at least go to an MD residency. But that's not really up for argument which is why I found your hostility towards my posts to be confusing.

It's not about winning an argument; it's about the fact that I made a few benign comments and they were taken in the wrong way. Let me ask you, if you were in the hospital and needed a lifesaving surgery and there were two docs on call and all you knew is that one was an MD and the other a DO, which would you pick? Forty years ago when the egalitarian virus hadn't affected so many in our population, none of my comments would have been taken negatively at all.
With all sincerity I will tell you that I can understand where you're coming from. I can understand that if you believe DO's are inferior, you would pick an MD. However, since I'm informed about the system, I can't know if this MD went to Harvard or went to American University in Antigua down in the Caribbean. My only logical conclusion is that the hospital has hired them both equally because they believe both are equally capable. There's no "affirmative action" for DO, and in fact, seeing the bias, it could be that the DO worked harder to get his job. In sum, I'd say "either one is fine" because I can't make generalized conclusions from just knowing if one is MD and the other is DO. The same way I can't make conclusions about one doctor because he's black, a female, or some other attribute.
 
In sum, I'd say "either one is fine"
Ok, and that's fine, but I hope you wouldn't be upset if many people chose the MD. I've talked to quite a few laypeople about this and many say something along the lines of not wanting to risk it or that a doctor has MD after their name. I know that's a bit ignorant on their part, but they will be encountered in practice.

ETA: Also keep in mind that it's old people that visit the doctor more than any others, and they tend not to be so egalitarian and many of them will not have heard of DOs.
 
No I don't believe any of that. No wonder you thought I was a bigot. I believe that most DOs would prefer to be MDs or at least go to an MD residency. But that's not really up for argument which is why I found your hostility towards my posts to be confusing.


It's not about winning an argument; it's about the fact that I made a few benign comments and they were taken in the wrong way. Let me ask you, if you were in the hospital and needed a lifesaving surgery and there were two docs on call and all you knew is that one was an MD and the other a DO, which would you pick? Forty years ago when the egalitarian virus hadn't affected so many in our population, none of my comments would have been taken negatively at all.
if i'm in a lifesaving situation i'm probably not coherent to make a decision, not to mention give a flying phuck about where someone went to school. get real man.

your posts reek of ignorance and prejudice, whether or not you actually feel that way or you're terrible at expressing yourself, it's pathetic.
 
That's different. In that case I would agree with you. In my hypothetical the only thing you know about the two surgeons is that one is an MD and one is a DO.

My whole point being that the majority of people would choose the MD. I hate when it's hard to make a fairly obvious point.
Would they not be of equal caliber if the hospital hired both of them? You'd have to assume so since you have no other information.
 
mainlogoNT.jpg
 
Would they not be of equal caliber if the hospital hired both of them? You'd have to assume so since you have no other information.
I have a question for the people here who are so against what I'm saying. This is from Wikipedia: Overall pass rates for first time USMLE Step 1 test takers are: 92% for U.S. M.D. medical school graduates, 81% for U.S. D.O. osteopathic medical school graduates, and 73% for international medical school graduates [3].

Eleven percent is quite a difference. Can one of the people who contends that MDs and DOs are generally equivalent comment on this? Note that by that logic DOs and international med grads are equivalent, but I doubt many of the DOs would want to say that.
 
Would they not be of equal caliber if the hospital hired both of them? You'd have to assume so since you have no other information.



No, one's an MD and the other is a DO


images
 
I have to concur with the I'd have absolutely no issue choosing either, and I truthfully don't think patients would care. The IM doc or whoever was taking care of them would probably say 'this is the guy' (either MD/DO) and the patient would go for it.

Additionally, I really think you'd be hard pressed to find an unemployed DO, which leads me to believe that the 'patients overwhelmingly would want the MD' mentality is probably anecdotal at best. I think the reality of the situation is that most people chose a physician based on referrals, google, and WOM, and none of these really rely on the MD versus DO mentality whatsoever. If you google 'Internist in Seattle' and the closest one is a DO, my guess is that the average person who just wants to see a doc isn't going to continue searching for hours, and I'm inclined to believe the same thing happens with referrals and recommendations.
 
I have a question for the people here who are so against what I'm saying. This is from Wikipedia: Overall pass rates for first time USMLE Step 1 test takers are: 92% for U.S. M.D. medical school graduates, 81% for U.S. D.O. osteopathic medical school graduates, and 73% for international medical school graduates [3].

Eleven percent is quite a difference. Can one of the people who contends that MDs and DOs are generally equivalent comment on this? Note that by that logic DOs and international med grads are equivalent, but I doubt many of the DOs would want to say that.

DOs aren't required to take the USMLE, MD students are. It seems a bit odd to compare the pass rates when we really don't know the motives/situations behind DO students taking the USMLE. I personally know a few people who just took it after studying for the COMLEX because they might be interested in ACGME residencies down the road. They needed to pass the COMLEX and made sure of that, but the USMLE wasn't the same fight or flight situation for them. Granted, this is just as anecdotal as anything else, but if you want to strictly compare Step 1 pass rates: the latest MD average (which you posted) is 92% (USMLE), the latest DO average is 91.5% (COMLEX). We could sit here and argue the differences between the two tests and how this correlates to different numbers, but it would be just as anecdotal/subjective as anything else.
 
if i'm in a lifesaving situation i'm probably not coherent to make a decision, not to mention give a flying phuck about where someone went to school. get real man.

your posts reek of ignorance and prejudice, whether or not you actually feel that way or you're terrible at expressing yourself, it's pathetic.

In a life-threatening emergency, I'm calling for a dermatologist. Any doctor who wasn't smart enough to match into derm isn't worthy of putting his hands on me.
 
In a life-threatening emergency, I'm calling for a dermatologist. Any doctor who wasn't smart enough to match into derm isn't worthy of putting his hands on me.

Hahaha:

"I think I'm having a heart attack ... get me someone who matched ROADS STATTTT!"
 
That's different. In that case I would agree with you. In my hypothetical the only thing you know about the two surgeons is that one is an MD and one is a DO.

My whole point being that the majority of people would choose the MD. I hate when it's hard to make a fairly obvious point.

Because you have no way of proving it's a correct point. 🙄

And okay then. I don't know anything about either of them? Do I get to meet them? I'll just pick whoever I liked better based on how they explained my problem and what I needed done to me. Good Lord.
 

Eh, I've seen that wiki page before, and it's essentially standard wikipedia. Frankly, there are some definite factual errors on that page and a lot of the assumptions/opinions are written with (in my opinion) quite a bit of bias. I've actually considered contacting someone in the AOA (American Osteopathic Association) or something who cares/has the time to fix up that page because it's bothered me in the past (though I haven't looked at it in a while).
 
Ok, and that's fine, but I hope you wouldn't be upset if many people chose the MD. I've talked to quite a few laypeople about this and many say something along the lines of not wanting to risk it or that a doctor has MD after their name. I know that's a bit ignorant on their part, but they will be encountered in practice.

ETA: Also keep in mind that it's old people that visit the doctor more than any others, and they tend not to be so egalitarian and many of them will not have heard of DOs.
My experience has been similar. I think this varies regionally, I'm perhaps in a relatively less DO-friendly area. Many MDs do anything BUT espouse parity.

As far as older patients go, don't forget that (among other things) it was within their adult lifetimes that osteopathy was referred to publicly as quackery.

Times change, but public attitudes change slowly. While the Mormon Church disavowed polygamy over one hundred years ago, it has still not fully shaken the association that existed beforehand.
 
My experience has been similar. I think this varies regionally, I'm perhaps in a relatively less DO-friendly area. Many MDs do anything BUT espouse parity.

As far as older patients go, don't forget that (among other things) it was within their adult lifetimes that osteopathy was referred to publicly as quackery.

Times change, but public attitudes change slowly. While the Mormon Church disavowed polygamy over one hundred years ago, it has still not fully shaken the association that existed beforehand.

There's not many area's that are DO unfriendly. In my county there aren't many DO's one I know says only around like 300 in the county. But many of them are very highly rated professionals including one well known psychiatrist and one is a well known Pm&R doctor.
 
My experience has been similar. I think this varies regionally, I'm perhaps in a relatively less DO-friendly area. Many MDs do anything BUT espouse parity.

So it's the physicians or the patients? Here's what confuses me:

Earlier in the thread, an MD attending told me that in his experience (as an attending) MDs are pretty oblivious to the inner workings of the DO world (and even said that he worked with a few and just viewed them as physicians because few people are up to date on the details of the DO). However, a few dozen posts later I'm supposed to believe that MDs are well aware of DOs, understand the difference, and chose to discriminate? Which one is it?

Furthermore, you claim that you're in a 'DO-unfriendly' area, and have experienced the same issues with lay people that Wilf described? Again, I can only assume that an area would be DO unfriendly because, as you pointed out, there aren't many in the region. However, in that same sense, I'm supposed to believe that there aren't many in the region, but that patients are aware enough to discriminate and even sharp enough to remember a time when DOs weren't fully licensed physicians???

I feel like many of these statements are simply opinions or proliferations of assumptions/things picked up off sites like SDN. My experience has been that MDs and DOs work right along side each other, they respect each other just fine, and patients are generally clueless to the whole thing/find a doc they feel comfortable with and utilize them as their health care provider.
 
Does anyone know how DO's are seen in Tennessee? I really want to do Internal Medicine in a generally large hospital possibly even Infectious Disease. Does anyone know how hospitals are on hiring internal DO's as attendings?

Sadly it looks like the AOA only has two infectious disease fellowships in midwest.

I say this because I genuinely like the osteopathic approach and wish to pursue it. And I would like to be an attending close to home (probably UT). I didn't know if DO would be allowed to teach at an allopathic hospital.
 
Last edited:
So can I get a clear statement from you saying "I will not go to a black doctor because statistically it's possible that their URM status got them into school with lower grades?" Or are you afraid that when it's put in racial terms you realize that your argument about DO inferiority breaks down?

The situation isn't so simple for African Americans (or other URMs) but I think a good example of this argument can be seen in the Soviet Union. Medical schools were quite competitive there as well, and spots for Jews were quite limited. The end result was the Moldavian majority in our socialist Republic had much more spots open, and thus they had much less competition in comparison to Jews, who had to outperform their peers. I don't think this played a small part in people considering Moldavian doctors butchers while Jewish doctors were generally sought after. Obviously there would have been crappy Jewish doctors as well as brilliant Moldavian doctors (one of whom played a major role in my life, sneaking me out of a **** hospital and treating severe burns with an experimental cream) however, again, I don't think these associations were conjured from thin air considering the openly anti-Semitic society. In the end greater competition will result generally in greater talent coming out on top.

As far as African American students go, they are almost always at a huge disadvantage in education as well as in their social environments. An affluent white kid with highly educated parents, who always push their child, surrounded by other driven kids, getting a diploma is expected; the same can't be expected of the poor black kid growing up in Detroit, where the functional literacy rate is bellow 50%, where a small minority graduate on time (if at all), where nobody expects you to succeed. Adversity shouldn't be discounted by a lower score. I'm not afraid to admit I have a helluva a lot more respect for the girl in my social phsych class who wanted to be a social worker, and who had gotten where she was in spite of having every single one of her close girlfriends drop out after getting pregnant, than I would for a guy like me, who still had to work their ass off to get into medical school, but never had to deal with the ugliness of the real world, and who was supported by their loved ones the whole way through their education. Where your example would really shine would be the affluent African American Student who was handed everything on a silver platter, who didn't face the adversity of their African American counterparts, and rode their URM status into a medical school, when really weren't good enough, and shouldn't have landed an acceptance.

I really don't know DO school admissions to judge them, but if they do take "mediocre" students, it is more than fair to assume that on the whole they'd churn out doctors who, on average, would be of poorer quality than MD programs. Politeness doesn't change reality, and I don't see the point in sugar coating these things. But, again, I must strongly emphasize that I don't know, and so I'd be an arrogant ass to assume something like this, not to mention a hypocrite, because I feel that the MCAT and GPA are very poor signs in determining whether a person would make a great doctor.
 
While I do agree with the entirety of your statements regarding why the URM status and admissions exist, I think it doesn't influence what the point I was getting to. Regardless of what the circumstances that describe why these students have lower scores, they still have lower scores. I still think that someone that's saying they don't want a "DO" because of a statistical likelihood that they had lower scores should also not want a URM doctor because the same statistical likelihood exists.

Would you be more comfortable with a "poorer quality" doctor because he was URM and had a hard life? "sorry, I took out your kidney instead of the appendix... I grew up in the ghetto and nobody believed me so it's okay... we cool right?"

The situation isn't so simple for African Americans (or other URMs) but I think a good example of this argument can be seen in the Soviet Union. Medical schools were quite competitive there as well, and spots for Jews were quite limited. The end result was the Moldavian majority in our socialist Republic had much more spots open, and thus they had much less competition in comparison to Jews, who had to outperform their peers. I don't think this played a small part in people considering Moldavian doctors butchers while Jewish doctors were generally sought after. Obviously there would have been crappy Jewish doctors as well as brilliant Moldavian doctors (one of whom played a major role in my life, sneaking me out of a **** hospital and treating severe burns with an experimental cream) however, again, I don't think these associations were conjured from thin air considering the openly anti-Semitic society. In the end greater competition will result generally in greater talent coming out on top.

As far as African American students go, they are almost always at a huge disadvantage in education as well as in their social environments. An affluent white kid with highly educated parents, who always push their child, surrounded by other driven kids, getting a diploma is expected; the same can't be expected of the poor black kid growing up in Detroit, where the functional literacy rate is bellow 50%, where a small minority graduate on time (if at all), where nobody expects you to succeed. Adversity shouldn't be discounted by a lower score. I'm not afraid to admit I have a helluva a lot more respect for the girl in my social phsych class who wanted to be a social worker, and who had gotten where she was in spite of having every single one of her close girlfriends drop out after getting pregnant, than I would for a guy like me, who still had to work their ass off to get into medical school, but never had to deal with the ugliness of the real world, and who was supported by their loved ones the whole way through their education. Where your example would really shine would be the affluent African American Student who was handed everything on a silver platter, who didn't face the adversity of their African American counterparts, and rode their URM status into a medical school, when really weren't good enough, and shouldn't have landed an acceptance.

I really don't know DO school admissions to judge them, but if they do take "mediocre" students, it is more than fair to assume that on the whole they'd churn out doctors who, on average, would be of poorer quality than MD programs. Politeness doesn't change reality, and I don't see the point in sugar coating these things. But, again, I must strongly emphasize that I don't know, and so I'd be an arrogant ass to assume something like this, not to mention a hypocrite, because I feel that the MCAT and GPA are very poor signs in determining whether a person would make a great doctor.
 
The situation isn't so simple for African Americans (or other URMs) but I think a good example of this argument can be seen in the Soviet Union. Medical schools were quite competitive there as well, and spots for Jews were quite limited. The end result was the Moldavian majority in our socialist Republic had much more spots open, and thus they had much less competition in comparison to Jews, who had to outperform their peers. I don't think this played a small part in people considering Moldavian doctors butchers while Jewish doctors were generally sought after. Obviously there would have been crappy Jewish doctors as well as brilliant Moldavian doctors (one of whom played a major role in my life, sneaking me out of a **** hospital and treating severe burns with an experimental cream) however, again, I don't think these associations were conjured from thin air considering the openly anti-Semitic society. In the end greater competition will result generally in greater talent coming out on top.

As far as African American students go, they are almost always at a huge disadvantage in education as well as in their social environments. An affluent white kid with highly educated parents, who always push their child, surrounded by other driven kids, getting a diploma is expected; the same can't be expected of the poor black kid growing up in Detroit, where the functional literacy rate is bellow 50%, where a small minority graduate on time (if at all), where nobody expects you to succeed. Adversity shouldn't be discounted by a lower score. I'm not afraid to admit I have a helluva a lot more respect for the girl in my social phsych class who wanted to be a social worker, and who had gotten where she was in spite of having every single one of her close girlfriends drop out after getting pregnant, than I would for a guy like me, who still had to work their ass off to get into medical school, but never had to deal with the ugliness of the real world, and who was supported by their loved ones the whole way through their education. Where your example would really shine would be the affluent African American Student who was handed everything on a silver platter, who didn't face the adversity of their African American counterparts, and rode their URM status into a medical school, when really weren't good enough, and shouldn't have landed an acceptance.

I really don't know DO school admissions to judge them, but if they do take "mediocre" students, it is more than fair to assume that on the whole they'd churn out doctors who, on average, would be of poorer quality than MD programs. Politeness doesn't change reality, and I don't see the point in sugar coating these things. But, again, I must strongly emphasize that I don't know, and so I'd be an arrogant ass to assume something like this, not to mention a hypocrite, because I feel that the MCAT and GPA are very poor signs in determining whether a person would make a great doctor.

As a Jew from the Soviet Union I disagree with you completely. Do not attempt to compare the sociology of the USSR and the US, in the USSR there's a 100 year history of you needing to do your job and do it well on fear of being sent to a labor camp in Siberia. It's literally like comparing a banana to a Mk-47.
These benefits for African Americans are necessary simply because of a general majority. Sure you have outliers who spoiled their kids, but that's very rare and I know in my area ( Top 3 richest counties in the country) most children of African Americans actually work to pay for college. This combination provides much more adversity than at least I have to face on a daily basis.
Further more you do not need to be a genius to be a good doctor. A mediocre student will likely still study his ass off beyond belief to just pass medical school. Moving on to GPA & MCAT. If you attend an institute with high grade inflation or with teachers who simply love to give out A's ( Ivy's and private schools) your grades even if a mediocre student will be significantly higher than the average state school student who is capable. Secondly if your classes are significantly easier that allots more time for MCAT studying. As well as if you're attending a expensive institute you'll probably without a doubt have money for a Kaplan or Princeton prep course or 2. If you're a poor student then you probably can't afford a prep course and or as a state school student don't even have time. This combination literally means that money for the most part will buy you good grades and a higher potential to do well on the mcat. So like I said you can be a rich ***** and probably still get into medical school.
 
As a Jew from the Soviet Union I disagree with you completely. Do not attempt to compare the sociology of the USSR and the US, in the USSR there's a 100 year history of you needing to do your job and do it well on fear of being sent to a labor camp in Siberia. It's literally like comparing a banana to a Mk-47.
These benefits for African Americans are necessary simply because of a general majority. Sure you have outliers who spoiled their kids, but that's very rare and I know in my area ( Top 3 richest counties in the country) most children of African Americans actually work to pay for college. This combination provides much more adversity than at least I have to face on a daily basis.
Further more you do not need to be a genius to be a good doctor. A mediocre student will likely still study his ass off beyond belief to just pass medical school. Moving on to GPA & MCAT. If you attend an institute with high grade inflation or with teachers who simply love to give out A's ( Ivy's and private schools) your grades even if a mediocre student will be significantly higher than the average state school student who is capable. Secondly if your classes are significantly easier that allots more time for MCAT studying. As well as if you're attending a expensive institute you'll probably without a doubt have money for a Kaplan or Princeton prep course or 2. If you're a poor student then you probably can't afford a prep course and or as a state school student don't even have time. This combination literally means that money for the most part will buy you good grades and a higher potential to do well on the mcat. So like I said you can be a rich ***** and probably still get into medical school.

yes, but how many of those students actually apply to medical school? I would be surprised to learn that the URM applicant pool was overwhelmingly disadvantaged. It would be nice to have the statistics on applicant socio-economic status.
 
yes, but how many of those students actually apply to medical school? I would be surprised to learn that the URM applicant pool was overwhelmingly disadvantaged. It would be nice to have the statistics on applicant socio-economic status.

This is forming into some sort of troll super-thread.

MD/DO and URM.

😱
 
If you attend an institute with high grade inflation or with teachers who simply love to give out A's ( Ivy's and private schools) your grades even if a mediocre student will be significantly higher than the average state school student who is capable.

Lol. That is misinformation. I transferred from a non-prestigious public school to a good private one. It is MUCH harder to get top grades where I currently attend. Perhaps a couple Ivy's curve higher than necessary, but not all similar schools do. I put in twice the amount of work for a GPA lower than the state school. You don't even consider that mediocre students at such schools are commonly valedictorians/salutatorians with 1500+ SAT's.
 
Last edited:
Lol. That is misinformation. I transferred from a non-prestigious public school to a good private one. It is MUCH harder to get top grades where I currently attend. Perhaps a couple Ivy's curve higher than necessary, but not all similar schools do. I put in twice amount of work for a GPA lower than the state school. You don't even consider that mediocre students at such schools are commonly valedictorians/salutatorians with 1500+ SAT's.

Category 4.

It sure is getting windy in here...
 
Does anyone know how DO's are seen in Tennessee? I really want to do Internal Medicine in a generally large hospital possibly even Infectious Disease. Does anyone know how hospitals are on hiring internal DO's as attendings?

Sadly it looks like the AOA only has two infectious disease fellowships in midwest.

I say this because I genuinely like the osteopathic approach and wish to pursue it. And I would like to be an attending close to home (probably UT). I didn't know if DO would be allowed to teach at an allopathic hospital.

All I know is from personal experience, but my dad works at a hospital in Cookeville, TN, and they recently started getting students from LMU-DCOM and he says they are absolutely brilliant, and it has completely changed his views of DO's. I think Tennessee is probably a little bit behind in terms of the advancement of DO's...meaning they haven't really had much exposure to many DO's, but I know the head of orthopedic surgery at Vanderbilt is (or used to be) a DO and with DCOM there now, I am sure people are starting to be more comfortable with it. Also I am pretty sure it doesn't matter if you are a DO or MD, you will probably be able to teach if you want to. But, I might be a little biased since I just sent in my DCOM deposit 👍😀
 
lots of variables in this question. my limited experience at ER: no difference. you wouldn't even know without looking on the badge. when they wheel in a cardiac arrest patient the doctor takes care of him.

the path does not matter. only the destination. if you're working in the ER - you're working the ER. they don't tier the responsibility. besides, why stop at just med schools? why not college too? why not board scores? you'll say that generally the guy at a ivy league is better than the state school...but there are too many exceptions to this imo.

it's true that MD schools have more competitive stats. but you can still enter DO, be a better student, absorb the material, and be a great doctor. just like how the state school student surpasses the ivy league kid. the DO merely affords you the opportunity to prove yourself.

in substance, all that matters is your job & responsibility. in this regard, at the ER, there is no difference. in terms of superficial stuff, MD has name recognition and is commonly known. almost entirely irrelevant at the ER - but present in the minds of some. at the end of the day, when you're working 12 hour shifts at the ER, you're treating patients who have had a dog bite, cardiac arrest, dislocated foot, etc. - believe me, those letters will be the last of your concerns.

i have no affiliation with either although my dream is to work in the ER or be primary care physician within my local community (i know, not hollywood enough). the experiences of a specialist do not have enough variety for my liking (i shadowed a cardiologist) and i don't want surgery (interacting with patients >>> cutting flesh). if the residencies are significantly more advantageous for MD schools - then i say MD schools have an advantage. if you want to go DO, you can still do it. the pressure is on you to prove yourself and make only substance count - which is how good of a doctor you become - purely a function of your intelligence, hard work, character, and dedication 🙂

Probably the most comprehensive and truthful post in this forum.
 
Top