Getting "pushed" into DO and irritated!!!!

[mooshika]

---

Members don't see this ad.

My application is competitive enough to get me into good MD schools, but because I'm "older" many advise I should do this even though I am not interested, and some of what I have heard is "let's not kid ourselves here, DO schools are easier to get into than MD schools, and they tend to like "non-trad's" more."

Not only that they are really expensive with less aid, and I would not be happy, feeling like I accepted "less than" mainly because it seems that is the way some people view it.

I think DO is a cool degree, and I think it is insulting to them that the med schools think of them as "taking their refuse." You should apply there because you are interested in osteopathic manipulation, not because you might not get into "real" med school.

Love to hear what people think.

 

[Geekchick921]

Love to hear what people think.

I think I disagree with a lot of what you had to say, but I won't bother quoting all of it. Basically, I think you're way too hung up on what letters come after your name. Just because you have the stats to get into an allo school doesn't mean DO is "beneath" you (some people actually prefer it), and both degrees allow you to practice medicine. I REALLY don't get what the BFD is.

I do have to quote this, though.

Because I don't want to be a DO. I think it's a stupid question. It's like asking why arent you applying to dental school or vet school... kinda.

What? Not in the SLIGHTEST.

 

[nowanmd]

and my stats (gpa at least was not as high as yours) I found many MD schools interested in me and was accepted to 2 of them. I also made UMDNJ osteo (by the way it is a great school) So my advice is if you want to be a doctor- by all means try for an MD (life may be a bit easier) but a DO is a very respectable physician degree- and DOs are in all specialties and on the staff of most (including the most prestigous hospitals) I am a practacing MD internist. One of the retina specialists here at this major academic center is a DO

 

[DrMidlife]

but because I'm "older" many advise I should do this even though I am not intertested

Many? Such as whom? If you get this advice from somebody over 40 who was thwarted in their attempt to get into an MD school despite a competitive app, and wishes they did DO instead, then give a listen. If you get this feedback from somebody who is unaware that pretty much every MD school in the country has students over 40, then blow them off. DO schools don't own nontrads any more than they own caring for the whole patient.

Frankly, it's my experience that if we older kids seem old, and/or if we have a chip on our shoulder that says "I proved my mettle in another industry and have the resume to prove it. You should be grateful that I'm bringing my talents to medicine. Your other students have SO MUCH to learn from me" then we're in trouble at any school.

We need to have a respectful, thoughtful answer for why the school should give up a seat to a 22 year old in favor of a 40+ year old. As mature candidates, our imagination and experience in the world helps us understand why this is a valid issue and not a matter of civil rights.

BTW, only about 5% of DO students give a crap about osteopathic manipulation, and only about 3% ever use it in practice. None of the bogosity about philosophy has anything to do with the job that >95% of DOs do.

My $.02. Best of luck to you.

 

[Ditto1114]

My application is competitive enough to get me into good MD schools, but because I'm "older" many advise I should do this even though I am not intertested, and let's not kid ourselves here, DO schools are easier to get into than MD schools, and they tend to like "non-trad's" more.

You're not the only one who is hearing this. I have actually been told by several admission committee's this year that me being older and out of undergrad for a couple years is a "big black mark" on my record. I'm only 25 too!! Kindda silly if you ask me.

 

[Valvool]

I experienced the same thing when I was applying to medschool three years ago. Initially I applied only to MD programs and I believed I would be accepted. My stats were decent. But people often asked me if I was also applying to DO programs as well as MD programs, and they also constantly asked about my back-up plan--becoming a PA or RN as an alternative to an MD. These conversations shook my confidence. When my physics professor (and for the record, I never made less than a 95% on any of his exams) asked me what my backup plan was, and expressed doubt that I would even get into a DO program...I went ahead and set up an account at AACOMAS and applied to several DO programs in my state even though it was not what I really wanted. I also began studying for the GRE--I figured everyone might be right, I figured I might well be destined for a PA program.

I don't think my professor was trying to discourage me, I think he thought he was being realistic. But I was accepted to an MD program (as well as DO) and my original plan was realized.

 

[kia ora]

no one ever mentioned it to me on the MD interview trail, and I'm quite a bit older than the average applicant/rising med student. when people suggest it to you, as a general policy it is probably not in your best interest to get defensive about it

also, asking you "why not DO school?" is most certainly *not* tantamount to asking you why not vet or dental school...

 

[ShyRem]

Ok, here's the deal.

1. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
2. Do you want to be a doctor or not?
3. Life isn't fair. You can't change the rules at this stage of your career.
4. If you're really hung up on the initials, PLEASE do NOT apply to osteopathic schools. You will be absolutely miserable.
5. Life isn't fair. Play by the rules and smile.
6. Try your best. You might be surprised. There are plenty of older applicants who don't have any black marks on their academic record (and even some that do) that were successful applicants to allopathic schools.
7. Life isn't fair.
8. If you go into your interviews with as big a chip on your shoulder as comes across here, you will likely not be successful.
9. Life isn't fair.
10. Apply broadly and have enough money to go to every single interview offered to you. Do NOT apply where you will not be happy to be accepted.

And, last but not least,
11. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

 

[Tutmos]

Ok, here's the deal.

1. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
2. Do you want to be a doctor or not?
3. Life isn't fair. You can't change the rules at this stage of your career.
4. If you're really hung up on the initials, PLEASE do NOT apply to osteopathic schools. You will be absolutely miserable.
5. Life isn't fair. Play by the rules and smile.
6. Try your best. You might be surprised. There are plenty of older applicants who don't have any black marks on their academic record (and even some that do) that were successful applicants to allopathic schools.
7. Life isn't fair.
8. If you go into your interviews with as big a chip on your shoulder as comes across here, you will likely not be successful.
9. Life isn't fair.
10. Apply broadly and have enough money to go to every single interview offered to you. Do NOT apply where you will not be happy to be accepted.

And, last but not least,
11. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

I'm quite surprised that people bright enough to be in medical school aren't aware that it is AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate on the basis of age for ANY EDUCATIONAL opportunity. On a legal basis it would be no different than me, as an employer, telling a black job applicant, "hey have you been applying to the jobs for black people program as well?"

 

[NTF]

Mooshika, I was curious to know exactly how old you are. >25? >30? >35? >40? >45? >50? I was also curious what region of the country you're from.

Because I'm a little taken aback that your age or non-trad status has become an issue so often. I'm the oldest guy in my class and my age never came up once during my interviews, nor any mention of DO schools.

 

[elftown]

Please don't apply to DO schools. You're the type of person I am trying to avoid. 🙂

You clearly view DO schools as second-rate. People are suggesting that you apply to DO schools to increase your chances of becoming a physician. It will only help to apply broader. There are many reasons people attend DO schools - OMM is just one.

 

[DrMidlife]

I'm quite surprised that people bright enough to be in medical school aren't aware that it is AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate on the basis of age for ANY EDUCATIONAL opportunity. On a legal basis it would be no different than me, as an employer, telling a black job applicant, "hey have you been applying to the jobs for black people program as well?"

There's against the law, and then there's prosecutable. If you want to try to get into med school by lawsuit, have at it. Let us know how it goes. That dean's recommendation letter you need to get into residency should be just awesome.

 

[peppy]

Rather than vet school, I would say that struggling to get into MD school and refusing to consider DO school is more like being really hung up on getting into a dental school that awards a DDS degree and shunning the ones that offer a DMD degree, even if it means wasting additional years just on trying to get into school while other people get into DMD schools and go on to become dentists.
Just like in the real world nobody notices or cares if their dentist is a DDS or DMD, in the real world nobody really notices or cares if their doc is a DO or MD. Heck, you can be a PA/NP and still get 95% of patients to think you are a doctor.

I think the reason that one tends to see more older folks in DO schools is partly because older people tend to be more practical than the youngsters.
Young folks tend to think that having an MD means everything and will waste years trying to get into an MD school (sometimes never making it), while an older person is less likely to be worried about issues like impressing other people and will be satisfied to take the DO route.
The vast majority of what we learn is the same in DO and MD schools. The OMM stuff is just one extra thing that is only a big deal if you are one of the folks who wants to really get into it.

 

[Tutmos]

There's against the law, and then there's prosecutable. If you want to try to get into med school by lawsuit, have at it. Let us know how it goes. That dean's recommendation letter you need to get into residency should be just awesome.

That's a very odd response. I'd like to point out a few minor issues with it though.

1. I made no suggesting I was planning to sue anyone. Pointing out something is against the law doesn't equate with "I'm going to sue!" I have no reason to even consider it. Nobody has told me I'm too old or look into DO schools at your age.

2. I don't think you give medical schools enough credit for being upstanding, law abiding members of the community.

3. I doubt the person telling the OP about DO schools was thinking of his/her age. They aren't idiots. They know it's against the law and I'd bet they have to attend little training sessions every year to remind them about it and to never do it.

4. A well respected medical school employee isn't going to risk his/her job and professional reputation to carry out some power trip and try to black ball someone that was acting in good faith.

5. If what the OP says is accurate I'm guessing there's some other aspect to his/her application package that we aren't being told about or perhaps they don't even know about. Maybe there's a few bad LOR's?

6. I think you can default to the assumption that any real medical school in the US is not only very aware of the law but is also going to follow it.

 

[ShyRem]

Tutmos, you have a lot to learn. I was flat out told by medical schools "you're outside the normal age range for our students" when I asked why I didn't get an interview and what I could do to improve.

Illegal?
Yes.
Prosecutable and winnable?
Doubtful. The whole thing hinged on a "he said she said" argument. And besides, did I really want to go there after they said that? No. And it was more than one school. So do they play by the rules? Heck no. I crossed those schools off my list and looked elsewhere.

You're not talking to a bunch of folks here who haven't been through the whole rigamaroll. But you figure out what works to get what you want. I wanted to be a doctor. I was not going to accomplish my goal by suing medical schools too ignorant to see my assets and potential.

I'm not so stupid to know it isn't illegal. I'm just smart enough to know the ramifications of such a futile pursuit. And professional enough to not want to commit career suicide before my career even began.

 

[mooshika]

Please don't apply to DO schools. You're the type of person I am trying to avoid. 🙂

You clearly view DO schools as second-rate. People are suggesting that you apply to DO schools to increase your chances of becoming a physician. It will only help to apply broader. There are many reasons people attend DO schools - OMM is just one.

First of all, I apologize for not using more respectful language initially, and it did not come across the way I meant, but I think there is a problem in perspective and there is very well absolutely age discrimination going on. I don't know why I am so surprised because I knew all of this before getting involved, and I did it anyway. But it's fine and it will all work out, but I think it is a problem.

You are misunderstanding me completely. I am not the one who thinks DO school is second rate. I am partly annoyed at how it is viewed by "industry standard" as being second rate, and this is based on the fact that (I read lots of messages, books, about getting into med school and on this forum, advisors, ADCOM members) people who have less than awesome grades or happen to be older than 24 are often given the "why don't you apply to DO school" question. Simply because I am older, it is often the first question I hear or read to others in my age range, why not DO school? Why is this?

Personally, I am not interested in Osteopathy, so I wouldn't apply to a DO school for that reason. I also am told that they "tend to take more non-traditional applicants than MD schools." Have you not also heard all this?

My point is that I think it is kind of screwed up. And I don't understand why MD programs wouldn't take as many non-traditional types as a DO school. Am I the only person who has been feed this information and sees it as elitist?

I was asked in half of my interviews, as was my age brought up only one time and in this one interview, and initially steered that way by my schools pre-med advisor. But I have seen it happen with others.

I am sorry, I really had no intention of disparaging DO or anything like that, it just seems to be a mixed message of "DO schools are great and just as good as MD schools, yet the same voices are saying that if you are older or your stats aren't that good you have a better chance of getting in to one." My point is also that I think it is insulting to DO schools more than to ME personally.

m.

 

[mooshika]

I'm quite surprised that people bright enough to be in medical school aren't aware that it is AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate on the basis of age for ANY EDUCATIONAL opportunity. On a legal basis it would be no different than me, as an employer, telling a black job applicant, "hey have you been applying to the jobs for black people program as well?"

EXACTLY!! That is my point, and the person with the 95% in Physics who posted about being "pushed" kind of that way.

That is exactly what it is, age discrimination. And my point is that a DO program is WAY MORE THAN a repository for broken dolls and people who couldn't afford to take a $1600 MCAT prep course.

My response to the question was not defensive, but I got a bit riled up because I read and hear about a lot of other people getting similar advice and wondered what can be done about it.

 

[Shinken]

Especially with a 32MCAT and 3.8 science GPA and experience as an RN

WOW!

32 MCAT, 3.8 sGPA and to top it all off, experience as an RN (I mean, like a real nurse, not an LPN or anything like that, but a real RN!).

Definitely you won't fit in at DO schools. You'll blow them all out of the water with your stats and experience. DO schools are full of MCAT failures and MD rejects, and most don't have any healthcare experience at all.

As a matter of fact, although I chose to become a DO I can't help but respect you as a superior both medically and intellectually. There's no doubt in my mind you'll be a great physician. Please don't humiliate the DOs you meet in the course of your career. We really try to learn medicine. Honest. We read some real medical textbooks while we study osteomanipulation.

 

[mooshika]

WOW!

Definitely you won't fit in at DO schools. You'll blow them all out of the water with your stats and experience. DO schools are full of MCAT failures and MD rejects, and most don't have any healthcare experience at all.

As a matter of fact, although I chose to become a DO I can't help but respect you as a superior both medically and intellectually. There's no doubt in my mind you'll be a great physician. Please don't humiliate the DOs you meet in the course of your career. We really try to learn medicine. Honest. We read some real medical textbooks while we study osteomanipulation.

Mr. Shinken, why are you being so sarcastic to me? Did you not read what I wrote? You are an example of someone who wanted to go to a DO school, and there are MANY brilliant, excellent people like yourself who are there. You are proving my point, that these people have no right to assume someone goes to DO school because they are not quite young or smart enough. When someone sees that I am over a certain age, and the first question out of their mouths is "are you applying to DO schools" it annoys me not because I think I am so wonderful, but because it is a stereotype that works AGAINST all of us, including you.

It seems that these types are in the minority, and let's hope they are. For some reason a bunch of them have been shouting in my ear or at least within range.

The main reason I did not apply to the DO school is because I can't afford it and it is geographically inconvenient, but mostly the finance part.

OK. Sorry I came across as a jacka**. 😍 I am not the person who believes this, I have been fed this information too often and that is my point. Are we friends now?

 

[NTF]

1) DO and MD are the SAME profession.
2) Yes MD admissions are by and large more stat oriented than DO admissions
3) No this does not mean DO schools are easy to get into or that DO schools aren't concerned with your stats
4) No this does not mean stats are all that MD schools look at
5) To me there are only a few consequential differences to DO vs. MD which essentially completely vanish by the time you finish residency
- DO admissions allow grade replacement for retakes
- DO admissions have slightly lower averages (but still competitive) for MCAT and GPA
- DO students have to take both USMLE and COMLEX if they want to apply to both MD and DO residencies
- MD students are not eligible for DO residencies
- DO students all learn OMM
6) Other than OMM the curricula between DO and MD schools is virtually and functionally equivalent. The whole "DO is more people oriented or DOs treat people not diseases" thing is really if it were ever true a thing of the past. MDs and DOs are trained in an almost identical fashion nowadays, both goodly and badly.
7) Consider DO & MD as paths to the same destination.

My 2 cents.

 

[Nasrudin]

Mr. Shinken, why are you being so sarcastic to me? Did you not read what I wrote? You are an example of someone who wanted to go to a DO school, and there are MANY brilliant, excellent people like yourself who are there. You are proving my point, that these people have no right to assume someone goes to DO school because they are not quite young or smart enough. When someone sees that I am over a certain age, and the first question out of their mouths is "are you applying to DO schools" it annoys me not because I think I am so wonderful, but because it is a stereotype that works AGAINST all of us, including you.

It seems that these types are in the minority, and let's hope they are. For some reason a bunch of them have been shouting in my ear or at least within range.

The main reason I did not apply to the DO school is because I can't afford it and it is geographically inconvenient, but mostly the finance part.

OK. Sorry I came across as a jacka**. 😍 I am not the person who believes this, I have been fed this information too often and that is my point. Are we friends now?

That's a good apology. These things are sensitive.

I'm surprised that your surprised. That as a nurse you would not already be quite accustomed to hierarchy. Perfected. For it's own sake. I could not count how many times it's been told, assumed, and shoved down my f'n throat that I should go to nursing school, PA school, w(ever)tf'n trade school, how DO school would be a stretch and that just maybe given that they're less geezer-averse...

I don't even notice it anymore. Er'body in this mf'er has to have somethin over the person one rung down. And then they have to make it seem even seem certain physcians are lower even though they're not.

It ain't never gonna change. You're always gonna be lookin up at someone else's a-hole.

So just don't look up.

 

[Tutmos]

Tutmos, you have a lot to learn. I was flat out told by medical schools "you're outside the normal age range for our students" when I asked why I didn't get an interview and what I could do to improve.

Illegal?
Yes.
Prosecutable and winnable?
Doubtful. The whole thing hinged on a "he said she said" argument. And besides, did I really want to go there after they said that? No. And it was more than one school. So do they play by the rules? Heck no. I crossed those schools off my list and looked elsewhere.

It's the state / fed that would pursue the school, not the individual student. It's not a criminal offense, unless it's some grand organized scheme. The respective agency would conduct an investigation to determine if the school was really violating the law and demand they cease the activity as well as pay, in many cases, a very large fine and damages to the people they discriminated against. Additionally there would be all of the bad press. They wouldn't dare attempt to distribute the names of people they had discriminated against or they'd almost certainly be out of a job and unlikely to find another one as well as probably being personally liable.

I'm absolutely shocked someone from a school came out and told you that. You should spill the beans and let us know which school said that. It's highly offensive as well as illegal. Telling someone they're too old is no different than a medical school saying we don't welcome blacks here, or gays, or asians, or women or Catholics etc.

You're not talking to a bunch of folks here who haven't been through the whole rigamaroll. But you figure out what works to get what you want. I wanted to be a doctor. I was not going to accomplish my goal by suing medical schools too ignorant to see my assets and potential.

I'm not so stupid to know it isn't illegal. I'm just smart enough to know the ramifications of such a futile pursuit. And professional enough to not want to commit career suicide before my career even began.

That's an interesting moral position. Turn a blind eye. There's a lot of very bad people in the world that count on that kind of attitude. There's obviously psychology involved, just like that old case of the woman being attacked in NYC, I think, and dozens of people hearing it and doing nothing about it, because they didn't want to get involved. What bothers me here is how blatant you're saying it was, they came right out and said it to you. That was just supremely ignorant on their part. I'm still amazed anyone was dumb enough to come out and say that directly.

The most appropriate course of action would have probably been to ask to speak to the person's supervisor after that was said to you. Ask them to clarify if that really is the schools position, you'd probably find that you got a very quick interview invite. I realize it's excessively idealistic, but it really is no different than turning a blind eye to a school saying we don't welcome blacks, but not saying anything about it because you might be mentioned at other schools. I know it's not an easy issue, but it really is the question, would you sell your soul to get XYZ? Obviously the answer is yes for a lot of people on this board.

 

[Nasrudin]

It's the state / fed that would pursue the school, not the individual student. It's not a criminal offense, unless it's some grand organized scheme. The respective agency would conduct an investigation to determine if the school was really violating the law and demand they cease the activity as well as pay, in many cases, a very large fine and damages to the people they discriminated against. Additionally there would be all of the bad press. They wouldn't dare attempt to distribute the names of people they had discriminated against or they'd almost certainly be out of a job and unlikely to find another one as well as probably being personally liable.

I'm absolutely shocked someone from a school came out and told you that. You should spill the beans and let us know which school said that. It's highly offensive as well as illegal. Telling someone they're too old is no different than a medical school saying we don't welcome blacks here, or gays, or asians, or women or Catholics etc.




That's an interesting moral position. Turn a blind eye. There's a lot of very bad people in the world that count on that kind of attitude. There's obviously psychology involved, just like that old case of the woman being attacked in NYC, I think, and dozens of people hearing it and doing nothing about it, because they didn't want to get involved. What bothers me here is how blatant you're saying it was, they came right out and said it to you. That was just supremely ignorant on their part. I'm still amazed anyone was dumb enough to come out and say that directly.

The most appropriate course of action would have probably been to ask to speak to the person's supervisor after that was said to you. Ask them to clarify if that really is the schools position, you'd probably find that you got a very quick interview invite. I realize it's excessively idealistic, but it really is no different than turning a blind eye to a school saying we don't welcome blacks, but not saying anything about it because you might be mentioned at other schools. I know it's not an easy issue, but it really is the question, would you sell your soul to get XYZ? Obviously the answer is yes for a lot of people on this board.

Yeah. OR....

We could just admit that physician training is exhausting. And involves eating so much crow that older people, especially "accomplished" ones, don't usually have the stomach for it.

And so. Maybe we're really not the ideal candidates. And maybe we should get some tough shakedown questions. About our stamina. And ability to eat it for endless hours at a time.

The moral issues you're presenting fail to rile me up. And I'm hella nontrad.

 

[Tutmos]

Yeah. OR....

We could just admit that physician training is exhausting. And involves eating so much crow that older people, especially "accomplished" ones, don't usually have the stomach for it.

And so. Maybe we're really not the ideal candidates. And maybe we should get some tough shakedown questions. About our stamina. And ability to eat it for endless hours at a time.

The moral issues you're presenting fail to rile me up. And I'm hella nontrad.

I think you need a hug. 😍

 

[DrMidlife]

The respective agency would conduct an investigation to determine if the school was really violating the law and demand they cease the activity as well as pay, in many cases, a very large fine and damages to the people they discriminated against.

Are you 14?!? You watch too much TV.

I'm absolutely shocked someone from a school came out and told you that.

They're thinking whatever they want; is it worse that they're saying it too? The school can put whatever legal bandaid it wants in their non-discrimination statement but it's American Idol. 60% rejection rate. Buyer's market. Not about enhancing self esteem. You want to fight for the kids that are too young for med school? I don't.

You should spill the beans and let us know which school said that. It's highly offensive as well as illegal. Telling someone they're too old is no different than a medical school saying we don't welcome blacks here, or gays, or asians, or women or Catholics etc.

It's very different - a gay black tranny in a wheelchair can still practice medicine for 40 years. A candidate over 40 has 20 fewer working years than a 22 year old. Medicare pays $100k per year per resident - it's an investment. Speculation about whether a given 22 year old is going to give back the country its money's worth aside, if an adcom knows ahead of time that a candidate's clock is running out, that's a downside. An over 40 candidate has to be compelling enough to overcome that downside. Older isn't wiser. Wiser is wiser.

The interviewers themselves are overwhelmingly over 40. They finished med school 20 years ago. They can't imagine what on earth somebody is doing by going to med school, these days, over the age of 40, with declining reimbursements and a quarter mil of student debt. They're thinking mortgage, college for their kids, and how soon can they retire. Looking at a 48 year old candidate, they're thinking no time for a 2nd app year, think about DO just in case. Or they have recto-cranial inversions, that happens all the time.

I don't have a problem with over-40 candidates getting put through the wringer for wanting to take a med school seat away from a 22 year old. If I can't convince an MD or DO school that I'd be the best use of that seat despite the fact that I'm 43, then I won't get that seat. The worst wringing I've had yet was at a DO school, btw.

If there's actually a conspiracy, my theory is that there's a cap on older candidates, so that we're actually competing against each other for the 2 or 3 over-35 slots at a given school. "The nurse goes on the waitlist; we already accepted that stockbroker and that kayak guide."

 

[QofQuimica]

Folks, I realize everyone is passionate about this whole MD vs. DO debate. But let's please try to have a civil conversation like the adults we are, especially since we're all so proud of the wisdom and perspective we've gained with age and all. 😉

OP, the reason why people are jumping all over you is because the tone of your posts *does* sound derogatory toward DOs and DO schools. I didn't see the original version, so I'm only going based on what you have written now. It still comes off to me as derogatory even after you've edited your OP, and I'm not even a DO or DO student. As Nas pointed out, this is a sensitive subject for many people, and starting a discussion about it is kind of akin to tiptoeing through a minefield. Not for the faint of heart, the thin of skin, or the heavy of feet.

Concerning whether people should tell you to apply DO or ask you why you didn't apply DO, well, who cares if they do or they don't? Some people probably say it because they honestly think it's good advice. Some people probably ask it because figuring out the candidate's motivation is the job of an interviewer. (My school is research-oriented, so I often ask candidates why not MD/PhD or PhD if they tell me they're really into research and want a medical research career.) Some people may just be trying to make conversation. Some people may be trying to test you to see if you'll blow up the way you did on this forum. And so on. You'll probably never know what motivates most people to ask or tell you about applying to DO schools, so why waste your time worrying about it? Point being, if you don't like their free advice, it's not like you have to go trying to get your money back! Just smile, say thank you, and move on.

Tutmos, I have to concur with those who said that your views, while admirable in the abstract, are naive in the reality. While I wouldn't expect most adcoms to be openly discriminatory like what ShyRem described, no one can deny that the admissions process is very subjective. How are you going to prove that your rejection for "poor fit" was based on your age, assuming that it even was? At my school, we reject people of all ages for poor fit on a regular basis, so it's not like only nontrads are being rejected for that reason. It also doesn't help that many nontrads have some major blemishes on their academic records. Even if you tried to argue that we should have an equal proportion of accepted nontrads as we do nontrad applicants, I could convincingly argue against that by pointing out that nontrads on average have significantly worse stats than trads do. Rejecting someone because their MCAT or GPA is significantly below our averages is about as objective as our admissions decisions can get. Finally, your equating Shy's views as being analogous to the Kitty Genovese case is basically a surrogate of Godwin's Law, which means that you automatically lose this argument. 😉

As for my own views, I basically agree with nontradfogie's post. I am the daughter and sister-in-law of two DOs, and they are physicians in every sense of the word. ShyRem is one of the people on SDN whom I admire the most; I aspire to reach her level of clinical proficiency some day. The DOs and MDs in the hospitals where I've rotated are interchangeable in the sense that the only way you know who is who is to look at their badges. Most patients could care less about whether their physician is an MD or a DO, assuming they even know there are two different degrees in the first place. Basically, my experience is that the main people who get all hot under the collar about DO versus MD are premeds.

 

[Tutmos]

Are you 14?!? You watch too much TV.

Oddly enough I've been an employer for over 15 years and dealt with those very agencies over very similar discrimination claims for employment purposes. I had to pay out 5 figure claims in cases where we had done nothing wrong. So no, not 14 and my opinions are not based on TV. What experience is backing up your claims?

They're thinking whatever they want; is it worse that they're saying it too? The school can put whatever legal bandaid it wants in their non-discrimination statement but it's American Idol. 60% rejection rate. Buyer's market. Not about enhancing self esteem. You want to fight for the kids that are too young for med school? I don't.

It's a bit frightening that you think schools can simply disregard whatever laws they want. You act like they're a collection of gangsters or something. I think schools actually want to be fully compliant with the law.

It's very different - a gay black tranny in a wheelchair can still practice medicine for 40 years. A candidate over 40 has 20 fewer working years than a 22 year old.

You're very wrong here. These are all protected classes under the law. A school does not have the right to make the considerations you think they do.

Medicare pays $100k per year per resident - it's an investment. Speculation about whether a given 22 year old is going to give back the country its money's worth aside, if an adcom knows ahead of time that a candidate's clock is running out, that's a downside. An over 40 candidate has to be compelling enough to overcome that downside. Older isn't wiser. Wiser is wiser.

You need to think about what you've written here. Medicare is paid by the state and the fed, not the school. The investment is on the part of the government, you know, the people that make the laws that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age in education? Are you trying to tell me the government knowingly breaks the law in this case because they're hoping to get more years of service? What are you even thinking about? You don't continue working for the government or the medical school after residency. What service / investment recoup are you talking about?

The interviewers themselves are overwhelmingly over 40. They finished med school 20 years ago. They can't imagine what on earth somebody is doing by going to med school, these days, over the age of 40, with declining reimbursements and a quarter mil of student debt. They're thinking mortgage, college for their kids, and how soon can they retire. Looking at a 48 year old candidate, they're thinking no time for a 2nd app year, think about DO just in case. Or they have recto-cranial inversions, that happens all the time.

...or maybe they've established themselves already, aren't pursuing medicine for riches, won't have any debt after school, have no desire to retire but may restrict hours of practice after 65, are under 40 and will have a paid off mortgage before they are out of residency.

I don't have a problem with over-40 candidates getting put through the wringer for wanting to take a med school seat away from a 22 year old. If I can't convince an MD or DO school that I'd be the best use of that seat despite the fact that I'm 43, then I won't get that seat. The worst wringing I've had yet was at a DO school, btw.

I'm sorry you don't understand. The law requires that age be left out of it. I agree that hypothetical 40 something has to prove they are a better candidate than that 22 year old but age cannot be a part of that equation.

If there's actually a conspiracy, my theory is that there's a cap on older candidates, so that we're actually competing against each other for the 2 or 3 over-35 slots at a given school. "The nurse goes on the waitlist; we already accepted that stockbroker and that kayak guide."

Very unlikely. That would be institutionally organized discrimination and a dramatically larger offense. Adcoms are not a couple of old white guys in a dark smoky room plotting how to do whatever they want. Let's say that an MS4 on the adcom is somehow wronged by the school or a Professor feels hurt by the school, maybe didn't get a special lab or some random thing (god knows what some people are offended by), they could simply make an anonymous call... It's silly to think a school would risk itself over something like this because they don't like the law?

 

[Tutmos]

Tutmos, I have to concur with those who said that your views, while admirable in the abstract, are naive in the reality. While I wouldn't expect most adcoms to be openly discriminatory like what ShyRem described, no one can deny that the admissions process is very subjective. How are you going to prove that your rejection for "poor fit" was based on your age, assuming that it even was? At my school, we reject people of all ages for poor fit on a regular basis, so it's not like only nontrads are being rejected for that reason. It also doesn't help that many nontrads have some major blemishes on their academic records. Even if you tried to argue that we should have an equal proportion of accepted nontrads as we do nontrad applicants, I could convincingly argue against that by pointing out that nontrads on average have significantly worse stats than trads do. Rejecting someone because their MCAT or GPA is significantly below our averages is about as objective as our admissions decisions can get.

I think we're actually in agreement, with the exception that I don't think medical schools ignore age discrimination laws. I'm sure some interviewers think it but I have no doubt it's in violation of the school's policy. I don't think nontrads should get any additional consideration over someone else. I hope you didn't get that impression. If they have bad GPA's etc. that's unfortunate for them. I don't think they say, oh he's got a low MCAT but he's old so it's okay. My point is that they can't consider age. If the old guy has lower MCAT and GPA and similar relevant experience then the younger one should get it.

 

[Nasrudin]

I think we're actually in agreement, with the exception that I don't think medical schools ignore age discrimination laws. I'm sure some interviewers think it but I have no doubt it's in violation of the school's policy. I don't think nontrads should get any additional consideration over someone else. I hope you didn't get that impression. If they have bad GPA's etc. that's unfortunate for them. I don't think they say, oh he's got a low MCAT but he's old so it's okay. My point is that they can't consider age. If the old guy has lower MCAT and GPA and similar relevant experience then the younger one should get it.

Like the Q said. You're arguments fail in the culture of medicine and particularly how one moves thru it's gates at various levels.

Barring any asinine. And I would think gloriously so. Comments pertaining to calling you flatly to old in an interview. You simply have nothing to base your claim on. You're talking about an employer choosing amongst like applicants for a narrow range of objective measures. Per the Q. Subjective components of selection make this a swampy terrain for the would-be elderly-rights-advocate-ACORN-wingnut-something-or-other.

That and once you do get your old @ss in the door. Forget the notion that you have rights. If you insist that you do. You might as well paint a big target on your back for "squeal-like-a-pig" style hazing by your seniors. Not smart. Theoretically correct in abstract debate...? Why even bother yourself with such notions...?

 

[ShyRem]

If you truly think I'm "turning a blind eye", you don't know me very well. I don't "turn a blind eye" -- I lie in wait until the time is right to make a change. But you don't win from a position of weakness. You wait until you have strength and position to make change.

 

[Tutmos]

...How are you going to prove that your rejection for "poor fit" was based on your age, assuming that it even was? At my school, we reject people of all ages for poor fit on a regular basis, so it's not like only nontrads are being rejected for that reason. It also doesn't help that many nontrads have some major blemishes on their academic records. Even if you tried to argue that we should have an equal proportion of accepted nontrads as we do nontrad applicants, I could convincingly argue against that by pointing out that nontrads on average have significantly worse stats than trads do. Rejecting someone because their MCAT or GPA is significantly below our averages is about as objective as our admissions decisions can get.

I forgot to address this in the previous post. There's no need to "prove" anything. All that matters is what the person at the state agency thinks happened. The practical reality is once that barrier is cleared you lose. The agency has no budget limit in pursuing the claim and most of the people in charge of doing it are very idealistic, assuming any big organization is hurting little people. The cost to defend it, no matter how right you are, is well into the tens of thousands. I don't think anyone would be planning to try to go to that school if they did so, but if they told the person that they're too old they aren't going there anyway.

With respect to most non-trads having lower stats and MCAT scores, I don't think they should be given any breaks on that. Of course there shouldn't be an equal percentage rate of acceptances for non-traditionals if they have lower GPA and MCATs. The law requires, and I think most reputable schools want to, consider applicants based on content of their application package, without thinking of age. If the non-traditional has been involved in a profession that an adcom thinks is valuable experience maybe they get extra points for that, just like a traditional might get points for substantial volunteering or other extra-academic activities.

My note about the people ignoring the woman being attacked wasn't intended as name calling or trying to label Shyrem, it was to highlight that it is often human nature not to help and not wanting to get involved. My concern is that medicine is supposed to be a noble profession. Some of my comments might be idealistic, but we're supposed to be the people that rush to help the person bleeding on the street, not the ones that avert their gaze and pretend they never saw it.

 

[Tutmos]

If you truly think I'm "turning a blind eye", you don't know me very well. I don't "turn a blind eye" -- I lie in wait until the time is right to make a change. But you don't win from a position of weakness. You wait until you have strength and position to make change.

I'm glad to hear it. I didn't mean to suggest you're supposed to fall on your sword over something like this and sacrafice your future, just not pretend nothing is wrong. Your response is heartening and I'm glad to see we agree on the basic moral level.

 

[sassilysweet]

It's very different - a gay black tranny in a wheelchair can still practice medicine for 40 years. A candidate over 40 has 20 fewer working years than a 22 year old. Medicare pays $100k per year per resident - it's an investment.

I really hate this argument. If they are going to base acceptance off of time of practice, then any woman planning to take time off for having kids should be considered a worse applicant. Or they should screen out people with "high risk behaviors" such as riding a motorcycle or sky-diving because they would be more likely to die before they practice for "long enough". Who's to say that the 20-something isn't going to retire after only working for 20 years? The whole point of "time of practice" is really moot unless you are arguing against training an 80-yr-old.

 

[DrMidlife]

I really hate this argument. If they are going to base acceptance off of time of practice, then any woman planning to take time off for having kids should be considered a worse applicant.

There are still some ancient adcoms living in 1950 who still think this way. Therefore apply broadly. Any adcom who has been paying attention, by contrast, knows that male physicians have been getting increasingly slammed by family issues. Yep, women still carry more of the childcare and elderly parent care duties, but it's no longer 10:1 women:men. More like maybe 4:1.

More to the point, if you talk to docs in practice, it's not whether a young male or female physician is going to start a family in a way that interferes with practice. It's how they're going to do it. Are they going to be considerate and responsible? Or are they going to be arrogant and entitled, expecting their coworkers to gleefully shoulder the load? The typical adcom isn't thinking "is this candidate fertile?" so much as they're thinking "is this candidate an ass?"

Or they should screen out people with "high risk behaviors" such as riding a motorcycle or sky-diving because they would be more likely to die before they practice for "long enough".

Can't predict which new MD is going to use their big piles of money to do dangerous stuff. Can't predict which 22 year old is going to take up blogging full time or get sick or change their mind. Statistically, that 22 year old has better odds of a long career in practice. Whether you hate it or not, that's on the table as much as immaturity is on the table for a 22 year old candidate. Your 40+ year old classmate trounced a 22 year old who wants to be House.

Who's to say that the 20-something isn't going to retire after only working for 20 years?

Not who, but what: statistics. Bell curves. The 40+ year old candidate has to be to the right of the 40+ year old bell curve in a bunch of ways. As does the 22 year old with the 22 year old bell curve.

The whole point of "time of practice" is really moot unless you are arguing against training an 80-yr-old.

80, sure. 70? 60? 55? 48? 43?

And the other way works too. The average applicant age is rising, not falling, partially because immaturity is a fair judgment by which to reject an applicant. Plenty of rejected 22 year olds think that should be illegal.

 

[sumstorm]

I really hate this argument. If they are going to base acceptance off of time of practice, then any woman planning to take time off for having kids should be considered a worse applicant.

Or anyone who has parents that they may need to provide elder care for, or a spouse who might fall ill.

Or they should screen out people with "high risk behaviors" such as riding a motorcycle or sky-diving because they would be more likely to die before they practice for "long enough".

Or anyone who ever gets in a motorvehicle which is statistically far more dangerous than skydiving.

 

[2010houston]

You're very wrong here. These are all protected classes under the law.

And neither is age a protected class unless you are 40+, which would exclude the 30-39 nontrads that are often found on this forum.

 

[kia ora]

And neither is age a protected class unless you are 40+, which would exclude the 30-39 nontrads that are often found on this forum.

yes, but this is specifically with regard to employment (the ADEA) and thus is inapplicable to medical school admissions. the federal Age Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination based on age (age period, not X years and older) in programs receiving federal financial assistance, so it could be argued that this applies to school admissions. but I agree with the posters upthread who said, essentially, good luck proving it and it'll only screw you in the future wrt that school

 

[Heidiho]

I'm quite surprised that people bright enough to be in medical school aren't aware that it is AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate on the basis of age for ANY EDUCATIONAL opportunity. On a legal basis it would be no different than me, as an employer, telling a black job applicant, "hey have you been applying to the jobs for black people program as well?"

Yeah, well......against the law or not, if you think there is not age discrimination, you are completely naive and foolish! The stats on acceptance by age group make it quite clear.
I was flat out told at 2 allo- interviews that I was too old and had been out of undergrad too long. (I am 40.)
What is more important to you? Practicing medicine? Which initials are behind your name? Trying to do anything about 'age discrimination'?
Whatever! What is most important to me is practicing medicine, so that is what I'll be doing.
And if people have told you that DO schools are more friendly towards non-trads, it's b/c they are. It was a complete non-issue at every DO interview I attended.....and yes, I was the oldest person in the room.
Don't care. La..la...la

 

[tkim]

There's obviously psychology involved, just like that old case of the woman being attacked in NYC, I think, and dozens of people hearing it and doing nothing about it, because they didn't want to get involved.

Kitty Genovese. Bystander effect. Diffusion of responsibility. NOT because they didn't want to get involved.

Get your psychology straight before you use it to support your argument.

 

[Tutmos]

Kitty Genovese. Bystander effect. Diffusion of responsibility. NOT because they didn't want to get involved.

Get your psychology straight before you use it to support your argument.

Hey thanks for teaching me about psychology. It's good we can have such experts around here to keep those ignorant pre-meds in line.

I "edumahcated" myself about those big words on Wikipedia, the final word on all things scientific, and I'm confused, honestly I'm kind of hoping an expert like you might help me understand. Both phenomena seem to have absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened in the Kitty Genovese case, thanks for coming up with the name btw, or what I was talking about. Both are dealing with people in large packs not acting. What I mentioned was isolated inidividuals not wanting to get involved, which is what actually seemed to happen in the Kitty Genovese case.

I'll promise not to use common human nature to support my arguments in the future. You should probably submit an edit to Wikipedia to fix the faulty entries they have for those terms and thanks again for setting me straight. 🙄

 

[tkim]

Hey thanks for teaching me about psychology. It's good we can have such experts around here to keep those ignorant pre-meds in line.

I "edumahcated" myself about those big words on Wikipedia, the final word on all things scientific, and I'm confused, honestly I'm kind of hoping an expert like you might help me understand. Both phenomena seem to have absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened in the Kitty Genovese case, thanks for coming up with the name btw, or what I was talking about.

Both phenomena were developed as a result of the Kitty Genovese murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

"The circumstances of her murder and the lack of reaction of numerous neighbors were reported by a newspaper article published two weeks later; the common portrayal of neighbors being fully aware but completely nonresponsive has later been criticized as inaccurate. Nonetheless, it prompted investigation into the social psychological phenomenon that has become known as the bystander effect (seldom: "Genovese syndrome")[4] and especially diffusion of responsibility."

Both are dealing with people in large packs not acting. What I mentioned was isolated inidividuals not wanting to get involved, which is what actually seemed to happen in the Kitty Genovese case.

"Only one witness, Joseph Fink, was aware she was stabbed in the first attack, and only Karl Ross was aware of it in the second attack. Many were entirely unaware that an assault or homicide was in progress; some thought that what they saw or heard was a lovers' quarrel or a drunken brawl or a group of friends leaving the bar when Moseley first approached Genovese."

I'll promise not to use common human nature to support my arguments in the future. You should probably submit an edit to Wikipedia to fix the faulty entries they have for those terms and thanks again for setting me straight. 🙄

Psychology =/= 'common human nature'.

Read for comprehension, *****. At the very least, get your facts straight before you use them to support your argument.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

I'm quite surprised that people bright enough to be in medical school aren't aware that it is AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate on the basis of age for ANY EDUCATIONAL opportunity. On a legal basis it would be no different than me, as an employer, telling a black job applicant, "hey have you been applying to the jobs for black people program as well?"

i am quite surpised that people bright enough to be in medical school aren't aware that life doesn't work this way. The fact is, black people, old people, gay people, whatever race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or anything you want to call it, get discriminated against regardless of the law. Where I am from, you don't have to give a reason why you did not hire, or even fire people. So I agree with Shyrem. Life isn't fair. But that is how it is.

 

[QofQuimica]

Folks, I know that people's passions run high on these topics, but please refrain from name-calling and personal attacks. It would be a shame for this thread to have to be shut down because a few people can't disagree civilly.

 

[Tutmos]

Both phenomena were developed as a result of the Kitty Genovese murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

"The circumstances of her murder and the lack of reaction of numerous neighbors were reported by a newspaper article published two weeks later; the common portrayal of neighbors being fully aware but completely nonresponsive has later been criticized as inaccurate. Nonetheless, it prompted investigation into the social psychological phenomenon that has become known as the bystander effect (seldom: "Genovese syndrome")[4] and especially diffusion of responsibility."

I realize I'm just some *****, but if you'll notice, the portions of your post I bolded explain that the causes you claimed, as the psychology expert here, were not actually the causes of the Kitty Genovese events, but just a hopping off point, based on the initial false reporting, toward investigating other phenomena. Who cares if they discovered something else because of a falsified report as the starting point? How does that help to support your arrogant and insulting over simplification?

"The authors of the article suggest that the story continues to be misrepresented in social psychology textbooks because it functions as a parable and serves as a dramatic example for students."

Let me guess you have one of those textbooks? 😉 Remember you stressed, "Read for comprehension, *****. At the very least, get your facts straight before you use them to support your argument."

Why did you feel the need, or perhaps it was a compulsion, to resort to childish insults and name calling? My initial interpretaion of the story, that inidividuals didn't want to get involved, still appears to be the accurate one, despite your brash psych 101 declarations of authority. I can't help but get the impression that you're one of those people that's convinced themselves that they must be the smartest person in the room, without knowing anything about anyone else. I sure hope I'm wrong.

 

[Tutmos]

i am quite surpised that people bright enough to be in medical school aren't aware that life doesn't work this way. The fact is, black people, old people, gay people, whatever race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or anything you want to call it, get discriminated against regardless of the law. Where I am from, you don't have to give a reason why you did not hire, or even fire people. So I agree with Shyrem. Life isn't fair. But that is how it is.

There's an important detail that's being overlooked here. While I agree with you that illegal discrimination does happen at the individual level across the country, "This person isn't a good fit." to conceal the decision maker's (insert bias here) as mentioned by someone else in the thread, but what was being discussed was institutional discrimination expressed openly. The representative of the school told the subject, you're too old or you're outside of the age range this school accepts, as though it were a printed policy of the school.

What you were thinking of at the end is the "employment at will" standard and you're right in that what you described often happens. Can you imagine though if the interviewer at the job came out and openly said, "We don't hire blacks." They might be a racist and conceal it by saying, "I'm sorry I don't think you're a good fit for this position." On the other hand if they came right out and said it you'd fall on the floor in amazement that the person could be so callous about the discrimination. That's what was described in this thread, someone coming right out and saying it, or actually I think they claimed multiple cases did it.

 

[tkim]

I realize I'm just some *****, but if you'll notice, the portions of your post I bolded explain that the causes you claimed, as the psychology expert here, were not actually the causes of the Kitty Genovese events, but just a hopping off point, based on the initial false reporting, toward investigating other phenomena. Who cares if they discovered something else because of a falsified report as the starting point? How does that help to support your arrogant and insulting over simplification?

"The authors of the article suggest that the story continues to be misrepresented in social psychology textbooks because it functions as a parable and serves as a dramatic example for students."

Let me guess you have one of those textbooks? 😉 Remember you stressed, "Read for comprehension, *****. At the very least, get your facts straight before you use them to support your argument."

Why did you feel the need, or perhaps it was a compulsion, to resort to childish insults and name calling? My initial interpretaion of the story, that inidividuals didn't want to get involved, still appears to be the accurate one, despite your brash psych 101 declarations of authority. I can't help but get the impression that you're one of those people that's convinced themselves that they must be the smartest person in the room, without knowing anything about anyone else. I sure hope I'm wrong.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

From the guy who couldn't pull the name of the person he was using as an example, yeah, buddy, I'm smarter than you.

For one, stop changing the story:

There's obviously psychology involved, just like that old case of the woman being attacked in NYC, I think, and dozens of people hearing it and doing nothing about it, because they didn't want to get involved.

What I mentioned was isolated inidividuals not wanting to get involved, which is what actually seemed to happen in the Kitty Genovese case.

So you were educated on the Genovese murder, so you quickly changed the tune from 'dozens' to 'isolated'. Good for you. So you learned something. Good for you. As I said before, if you're gonna use an example, better make it the right one. Better yet, know what the hell you're talking about.

You pulled out the Genovese murder to make a comparison without knowing anything about it, and now that you know, it's contextually wrong to use as an example. Oops.

The three things I recall from my psych class were the name, and the two psych terms, which I posted. Obviously things you didn't know.

Instead of saying, 'ah yes, Genovese, right', you get all huffy about it and pull out Wikipedia of all things, as a source and start yammering about how it had nothing to do with the terms. Dude. They came from the Genovese case. That's why they're related.

Then you assign me the role of psych authority and attack me for my lack of psych knowledge.

Hey buddy, I just knew the name of the girl who got shanked and the two psych terms that came from her killing, and you didn't. No big deal. Is any of this going to get you into med school? No. Just let it go, big guy.

Just. Next time, don't talk about **** you know nothing about. 'K?

 

[sassilysweet]

Blah. Blah. Blah.

From the guy who couldn't pull the name of the person he was using as an example, yeah, buddy, I'm smarter than you.

For one, stop changing the story:





So you were educated on the Genovese murder, so you quickly changed the tune from 'dozens' to 'isolated'. Good for you. So you learned something. Good for you. As I said before, if you're gonna use an example, better make it the right one. Better yet, know what the hell you're talking about.

You pulled out the Genovese murder to make a comparison without knowing anything about it, and now that you know, it's contextually wrong to use as an example. Oops.

The three things I recall from my psych class were the name, and the two psych terms, which I posted. Obviously things you didn't know.

Instead of saying, 'ah yes, Genovese, right', you get all huffy about it and pull out Wikipedia of all things, as a source and start yammering about how it had nothing to do with the terms. Dude. They came from the Genovese case. That's why they're related.

Then you assign me the role of psych authority and attack me for my lack of psych knowledge.

Hey buddy, I just knew the name of the girl who got shanked and the two psych terms that came from her killing, and you didn't. No big deal. Is any of this going to get you into med school? No. Just let it go, big guy.

Just. Next time, don't talk about **** you know nothing about. 'K?

Wow, you need to settle down. You were the one who started name-calling and whatnot. Either way, as you have already said, let it go. I think both of you are arguing a point that the other is not listening to.

 

[vanslix]

I'm quite surprised that people bright enough to be in medical school aren't aware that it is AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate on the basis of age for ANY EDUCATIONAL opportunity. On a legal basis it would be no different than me, as an employer, telling a black job applicant, "hey have you been applying to the jobs for black people program as well?"

Good luck proving that when 8,000 people apply for a couple hundred spots.

Regarding the DO, I went through the same thing and applied to both DO and MD schools. I got into the MD program and it worked better for me (no relocation of my family). With that said, my family doc is a DO and one of the best family docs I have ever seen. I wouldn't feel the least bit ashamed of having DO instead of MD after my name, despite what others may think. Apply for both and see where the chips fall. If DO is the only option, ask yourself "how bad to you want to be a physician"?

 

[Old Grunt]

My application is competitive enough to get me into good MD schools, but because I'm "older" many advise I should do this even though I am not interested, and some of what I have heard is "let's not kid ourselves here, DO schools are easier to get into than MD schools, and they tend to like "non-trad's" more."

Not only that they are really expensive with less aid, and I would not be happy, feeling like I accepted "less than" mainly because it seems that is the way some people view it.

I think DO is a cool degree, and I think it is insulting to them that the med schools think of them as "taking their refuse." You should apply there because you are interested in osteopathic manipulation, not because you might not get into "real" med school.

Love to hear what people think.

OP and others who have heard similar things: ignore it.

Discriminating against an applicant based on their age is illegal, so it certainly isn't the "M.O." of allopathic schools to do so. I don't think (and it wasn't my experience) that MD schools held my age against me. Quite the contrary. Maybe that has been used as a discriminator against people during application, but my point is that it is not a policy (and I would even say it's not common).

Advisers are not immune from giving your bad advice. You probably instinctively know it already. Listen to the good and can the bad.

Apply where you want to go.

To the hypersensitive DO folks on the thread: lay off the man. He stated he didn't want to do DO. That's his prerogative, and he doesn't need to explain himself. Let's not turn this into the 5,000,000,000 incarnation of an SDN MD/DO thread.

 

[Crelal]

The discussion of age discrimination is just one facet of the med school admission hidden standards. Let's not forget that one of the first blanks on the AMCAS is the number of DEPENDENTS you have. Hmmm... I wonder what they are trying to figure out there, and who is affected? 🙄

As a supremely old 30 y.o., I was grilled not only on age but being a parent. I was actually asked (in a very snotty, condescending voice) "How do you think you could possibly do this with three kids?" by a female interviewer.

Med school admissions committees have thousands more applicants than they need; they can find a multitude of reasons in any file to reject an applicant. While they may not say "too old", they may say, "lacks understanding of occupation", "unclear motive for studying medicine", and that is the end of it. Sad, but true.

At the opposite end of the age spectrum, there is some discussion of requiring real life experience beyond undergrad prior to entrance to med school. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of very mature, wonderful people in my class who are 22 or younger. But there is also a section that has a lot of growing up to do, and it scares me that it will be done while they are on rotations, etc.

So at the end of the day, it is best to be 23/24 applying with a killer app. 😉