Not a hard question. More of a ridiculous question. But I'll assume we'll have to agree to disagree. It's unfortunate some judge me differently based on two simple letters behind my name although I've proven myself to be just as competent, and perhaps more so than my MD counterparts.
You'll be judged a lot throughout your surgical career. I wouldn't develop a big stick up your @#s just yet.
It's quite possible that you are equal or better to an MD, but where's the
proof you claim? Is it the USMLE? Is that how we judge a person's clinical skills? Is it your letters? Don't MDs have letters as well, and possibly from surgeons that the PDs know better and trust?
I think that a lot of the bias against DOs has to do with the fact that your worth is
unproven. Nobody cares about your
super-unique story that landed you in DO school despite acceptances to all the top Ivy League allopathic schools.
The fact is that DO schools are easier to get into, and the overall applicant pool is not as accomplished. Therefore, you're not a sure thing, so PDs will go with the product that they feel is more secure.
Someone who graduated from Harvard or another "top 10" equivalent is going to get preferential treatment over someone from State U. You'll get preference over a Caribbean grad....that all seems pretty fair to me.
Your med school says a lot about you. It's says "here's what I accomplished prior to medical school." Mine, for instance, shows that I was brainwashed by the Jesuits (12 straight years), and enjoy bullets whizzing by my head. A SLU degree will never open as many doors as a Harvard one, but I accepted that, regardless of how I felt I matched up individually to those people.
Anyway, I think I already stated in this thread that my experience with DOs has been relatively positive. I just think it's important that you don't get too much of a chip on your shoulder, or you'll go into the interview process defensive with something to prove, and it will ultimately hurt your chances of matching.
