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.