I disagree. Now every DO graduate will have GME that is up to ACGME standards- there were programs in the past that were less than adequate in their training. This means that there will no longer be any question in regard to the quality of a DO's GME, and no more "we don't take AOA grads," a problem that was an issue in radiology, anesthesia, and surgery in the past due to the dubious quality of a minority of AOA programs.
Ortho has historically been fairly DO friendly in comparison to similarly competitive ACGME fields. And PM&R loves us.
The COMLEX and the USMLE are, in fact, very different exams. We actually had a guy score a 240 on the USMLE and fail the COMLEX last year, to give you an idea, as well as a person who scored a 650 on one but a 210 on the other. They're written differently, and OMM can make or break you.
Many also require you to finish a FP residency before being considered. A quirk of the DO side that's always been annoying and present.
I'd have to look at older matches- by historically I meant over the last 10 years more so than I meant the last match. Ortho has gotten less and less DO friendly over the years, but that's a natural effect of it getting slightly more competitive each year.
That's autocorrect, obviously. My phone things it knows better than me.
Lolwut. We exist to become physicians. Residency, fellowship, research, and hard work are what make you an expert in a field, not your alma mater.
Do programs even care about stuff like this? I was under the impression they cared about your step score and the quality of your clinical education(more consistent at MD) and then things like LOR and research.
I feel the nuance here is that if you are a competitive DO applicant this was never a worry. The top DO students were always going to get adequate GME. I suppose it is good for some people but there is a definitely a subset of people who are getting boned by this "merger."
I agree that rotations are the biggest issue plaguing DOs to be seen as equals. As you mentioned, some DO schools have pretty good rotations while others don't and sometimes it's even on a per student basis. There are many threads here on SDN though of MDs complaining about their rotations too. I think it's a nationwide phenomenon right now both MD and DO that medical students just aren't getting the autonomy and experience they used to.
It's just so difficult to measure the individual performance and experience a student gets on a rotation. The SLOE system that EM uses seems to be one of the best ways, but I will admit I'm not super familiar with it since I'm in a different field.
Oh, and all medical students do audition rotations and those DOs going for ACGME spots likely will have done auditions at ACGME institutions...so I don't see how those would be held as inferior rotations
It doesn't matter. The statement was asinine.
Well. Nothing useful is coming of it. The only thing that is happening is the showing of biased opinions. I don't really see anything backed up by facts. And while I'm all for heartful discussions, I don't mind responding negatively to posts filled with hateful ignorance. Cheers.
The trouble is, a lot of the time people would assume DO=AOA residency unless they were someone you worked with regularly. You could have gone to Cleveland Clinic but it won't matter if no one bothers looking it up because they'll assume that, by virtue of your degree, you probably trained at someplace substandard.
Who's they?
Some DO schools are better than others in regard to clinical rotations. The standards certainly aren't up to where most MD schools are, but we've been hearing about even MDs having rotations precepted by NPs as of late, so it's not just on the DO side of things.
I worked at a big medical center. We had a great DO surgeon that would constantly have his educational credentials questioned, despite training at a well-respected ACGME surgical program, because people just assumed he trained at some backwoods AOA residency. Before I applied, he was one of my best resources in regard to the bias that still exists against DOs, particularly in regard to higher-tier academic medicine. My PCP actually gave me the same sort of attitude when I mentioned I was becoming a DO- despite the fact I'm very likely going to end up training at the same hospital he trained at if the match pans out my way lol. DO bias us alive and well, particularly with the older MD crowd.
Yes, but questioned by who? I think a lot of patients in this country don't know what a DO is, let alone know the difference between AOA v ACGME trained. Or Wright State v. MGH trained. That being said, a person likely to care about training credentials is going to know DO = person who did poorly in undergrad. So I'm not sure where you're going with that thought.
No. Because ACGME (read MD) programs are unaffected by this merger. Nothing is changing at that level, including biases. Things will only change at the AOA level.
I'm talking about colleagues, not patients. The guy in ENT that's rolling his eyes at your consult because you're just some DO so he's going to have to double-check all of your work. The guy in management who is reluctant to promote you because he doesn't know his ass from his elbow but he's heard AOA training is inferior to ACGME training and you must've some AOA because you're a DO. Nonsense like that. Your colleagues' opinion of you matters, because it makes consults, admits, and much more easier when you're dealing with a person you don't know personally and all they see is "NTC, DO" and they're left to draw the conclusions of how seriously they should take your opinion based on the reputation those last two letters carries.
Really, cuz I've never heard of DOs hurting for jobs or equal pay. It may exist, but this is the first I'm hearing of it. I also doubt what you're saying because most physicians are going to be part of groups and consulting the same people. I tend to think after a while, initial judgments and preconceived notions about people are either affirmed or rejected, but on merit.
No. It means DOs have to compete on an even playing field rather than having protected spots in competitive specialties. It is good for the reputation of GME, as there is now a universal standard, but bad for individual DOs that wanted competitive spots. The bias against DO candidates isn't going away, but at least the bias against AOA residencies that would keep some people out of fellowships and certain jobs will, plus all the substandard programs will be eliminated.
It isn't about being unemployed or making less. It's about your ceiling in academia, in fellowships, and the crash you have to deal with when making referrals, particularly in large academic environments. It isn't a big deal in some environments, but it can be annoying in others. The merger serves to dispel some of that aura of inferior training, which is good across the board for DOs.
Yea and I'm still not buying what you're saying. Because in Academia, reputation supersedes letters. In these environments publishing power and grant means everything. I don't see how "management" is going to judge based on someone being a DO and not their funding. And if a DO is in academia, that often means that they've worked hard, despite their degree because like competitive fields, it's an uphill battle. It's widely accepted, both on these forums and IRL that biases tend to go away after GME and appointment.
That's possible. Although this sounds like something future DOs will benefit from. For me personally, merger is complete ****e.
