interview question: why not DO?

[thebillsfan]

---

Members don't see this ad.

To answer this question, I'd just say that I want to focus more on research side of medicine than many do programs offer. What else is there to distinguish between the two types of programs?

 

[tkim]

To answer this question, I'd just say that I want to focus more on research side of medicine than many do programs offer. What else is there to distinguish between the two types of programs?

Uh, osteopathic manipulative medicine. You can make a compelling argument that the amount of time spent learning something that isn't supported by studies or shows efficacy could be better spent on ... research.

Of course, you need to do it in a nice way.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Tell the truth. Why aren't you applying to DO schools?

I'm not applying because cranial is bunk, and I don't want to learn quackery.

 

[Aromatic Amine]

Tell the truth. Why aren't you applying to DO schools?

I'm not applying because cranial is bunk, and I don't want to learn quackery.

that's a bit harsh don't you think?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

that's a bit harsh don't you think?

No, cranial is quackery. DOs are not quacks because they also learn all the actual science that MDs do, and almost no one actually practices cranial. Thankfully. I have no issues going to DOs as physicians, as my dad's oncologist is a DO and so is my family doctor. It's all the same for most people when it comes to clinical practice. If they recommended cranial as treatment though, I'd switch (not that they would - as I said, it's very very very rare).

But why should I put myself through quackery and pretend it's all great when it has been clearly debunked by science? It's a question of integrity as future physicians to me. To each his own though, I have no problems with other people choosing that route. But I won't.

If a particular MD program started offering required homeopathy courses, I'd feel the same about that school.

 

[Corpsman Up]

Thats a question ive been anticipating as well (one day when I actually interview). For me, the honest truth is thatI dont care about the letters that follow my name, my primary goal is to be a great physician, whether MD or DO...however I feel that (insert school name here) is terrific fit for me, etc etc.

My approach will be to not come off arrogant, like im too good for DO, and to compliment their particular school

 

[thebillsfan]

Uh, osteopathic manipulative medicine. You can make a compelling argument that the amount of time spent learning something that isn't supported by studies or shows efficacy could be better spent on ... research.

Of course, you need to do it in a nice way.

thanks everyone for replies. tkim, i agree with you on the OMM thing, but HOW in the world could we say this in a nice way? how can i say, "i don't want to go to a do school because studies show that OMM isnt effective." i'm really having trouble with that one TBH.

 

[sustentacular]

thanks everyone for replies. tkim, i agree with you on the OMM thing, but HOW in the world could we say this in a nice way? how can i say, "i don't want to go to a do school because studies show that OMM isnt effective." i'm really having trouble with that one TBH.

Maybe focus more on why you DO want an allopathic school vs. why you DON'T want to do DO. An easy answer could be "because I really want to go to this school and you don't have a DO program" for starters (assuming you're not at MSU).

 

[boggvir]

Would be funny if it was at MSU.

 

[willen101383]

Tell the truth. Why aren't you applying to DO schools?

I'm not applying because cranial is bunk, and I don't want to learn quackery.

OMM definitely has its place. Maybe not for a lot of the stuff it is advertised for...but for certain musculoskeletal issues it DEFINITELY helps....and I can personally attest to that. I will agree with you that cranial is 100 percent BS however.

 

[willen101383]

No, cranial is quackery. DOs are not quacks because they also learn all the actual science that MDs do, and almost no one actually practices cranial. Thankfully. I have no issues going to DOs as physicians, as my dad's oncologist is a DO and so is my family doctor. It's all the same for most people when it comes to clinical practice. If they recommended cranial as treatment though, I'd switch (not that they would - as I said, it's very very very rare).

But why should I put myself through quackery and pretend it's all great when it has been clearly debunked by science? It's a question of integrity as future physicians to me. To each his own though, I have no problems with other people choosing that route. But I won't.

If a particular MD program started offering required homeopathy courses, I'd feel the same about that school.

I dont think too many DO students really take OMM seriously. For us we have lecture and lab....lab being required. I havent sat in an OMM lecture since day one. Lab is nice because it reenforces relevant anatomy/landmarks. But most of my classmates view omm as just some BS you have to deal with along the way and dont take too much stock in it.

PS you guys can admit that you dont want to go DO because: you DO care about the letters behind your name, you are afraid of whatever stigma is left and not being able to get into whatever specialty you want. Thats fine and its not offensive!

 

[deleted74029]

I was asked this in my committee letter interview. I told them I wasn't sure what area of medicine I'd like to go into. DO seemed to be focused more on primary care and I didn't want to limit my options.

They seemed to be satisfied with that answer.

 

[curlytop]

PS you guys can admit that you dont want to go DO because: you DO care about the letters behind your name, you are afraid of whatever stigma is left and not being able to get into whatever specialty you want. Thats fine and its not offensive!

I want to believe this...but I cannot imagine this ever going over that well with adcoms. Besides points for honesty...could this really fly?

 

[Bacchus]

No, cranial is quackery. DOs are not quacks because they also learn all the actual science that MDs do, and almost no one actually practices cranial. Thankfully. I have no issues going to DOs as physicians, as my dad's oncologist is a DO and so is my family doctor. It's all the same for most people when it comes to clinical practice. If they recommended cranial as treatment though, I'd switch (not that they would - as I said, it's very very very rare).

But why should I put myself through quackery and pretend it's all great when it has been clearly debunked by science? It's a question of integrity as future physicians to me. To each his own though, I have no problems with other people choosing that route. But I won't.

If a particular MD program started offering required homeopathy courses, I'd feel the same about that school.

So would you avoid PCOM even though its cranial isn't really taught but through a few seminars (AFAIK)?

 

[Bacchus]

I want to believe this...but I cannot imagine this ever going over that well with adcoms. Besides points for honesty...could this really fly?

No because each school can name several to many graduates in that particular field.

The whole point is, I don't see any school asking this question unless you're a very, very borderline applicant and even then I'd put my money on getting struck by lightning first.

 

[deleted74029]

You could always just say "well I did actually apply to a couple of DO schools." I probably wouldn't, but I don't think there's any way of them knowing.

 

[LRAccord624]

Most of these answers could potentially piss people off. What if you have a DO for an allopathic interview? (I did).

How about, the initials after your name make no difference to you; but you applied to schools based on geographic location, cost, and personal fit based on mission statements and other research you did on the school. And then say, for example, "I applied to your school because... (explain how you feel that your interests really mesh with their mission and why you believe you would be a good fit for their program)".

PS. It is not likely to be asked "why not DO" at an allopathic interview. It is more common, in my limited experience, to be asked "Why DO" at an osteopathic school.

 

[addo]

Since I applied to a DO school, it would be easy to say, without lying that DO is a viable option...and it honestly is, especially when it is TCOM i am talking about.

 

[schlieren]

Is "I don't know much about it" a legitimate answer? I'd have never heard about DO if I did not come to SdN. There isn't a clue of DO in the official AAMC application, and pretty much all the doctors I have met are MDs.

 

[willen101383]

I want to believe this...but I cannot imagine this ever going over that well with adcoms. Besides points for honesty...could this really fly?

I was sort of being half sarcastic/ half serious. I never was asked that question...nor was I ever asked why MD at a DO school.

 

[willen101383]

So would you avoid PCOM even though its cranial isn't really taught but through a few seminars (AFAIK)?

I do think PCOM is regarded as the "most allopathic osteopathic school" no?

 

[Disinence2]

Most applicants would never be asked this question.

I would only even consider getting this questions if maybe your letter writers are all DO's, you talk about going to DO school in your application, or you have research/EC's promoting osteopathic medicine.

Just be consistent with your app. I bet you that no one reading this forum will be asked this.

Now if a DO school were to ask "Why not MD" that might be tougher to answer.

 

[willen101383]

Most applicants would never be asked this question.

I would only even consider getting this questions if maybe your letter writers are all DO's, you talk about going to DO school in your application, or you have research/EC's promoting osteopathic medicine.

Just be consistent with your app. I bet you that no one reading this forum will be asked this.

Now if a DO school were to ask "Why not MD" that might be tougher to answer.

I just said "because I think PCOM is a great school, and I dont want to leave Philly." Which was the truth.

 

[imer]

Good Luck

 

[IvyHopeful20]

So would you avoid PCOM even though its cranial isn't really taught but through a few seminars (AFAIK)?

If it is not taught, then I would not avoid PCOM. I was under the impression that it is tested on the COMLEX, so avoiding it completely might hurt your score (even if it's very lightly tested). I am not a huge fan of OMM either, as studies have shown it helps for some cases, but not for others (I'm more than happy for it to be taught for cases which has shown to be helpful). Cranial is another category because it's plain (in the words of Sheldon) hokum and shown to be so.

But if DO schools are moving away from that, I would 100% not avoid DO schools. I am only applying to fully funded MD/PhD programs, so only a few places in the DO would would fit my aims (PCOM has a DO/PhD but its in health policy not basic science, and I don't think it's fully funded for all seven/eight years).

So assuming no cranial and the existence of fully funded basic science DO/PhD programs, I would not have any concerns about going that route. Half the people in my family haven't finished high school and no one has finished college, so I couldn't give a rat's ass about the letters behind my name.

 

[sideways]

If it is not taught, then I would not avoid PCOM. I was under the impression that it is tested on the COMLEX, so avoiding it completely might hurt your score (even if it's very lightly tested).

What are you talking about man. Please don't wax poetic on the trials of OMM when you don't what you're talking about.

You act like cranial is some fundamental experience in DO schools. No one gives a shiiit about it. You spend 4 hours on it in 2 years. You could study for it for boards in a matter of an hour (and that would be overdoing it).

 

[willen101383]

If it is not taught, then I would not avoid PCOM. I was under the impression that it is tested on the COMLEX, so avoiding it completely might hurt your score (even if it's very lightly tested). I am not a huge fan of OMM either, as studies have shown it helps for some cases, but not for others (I'm more than happy for it to be taught for cases which has shown to be helpful). Cranial is another category because it's plain (in the words of Sheldon) hokum and shown to be so.

But if DO schools are moving away from that, I would 100% not avoid DO schools. I am only applying to fully funded MD/PhD programs, so only a few places in the DO would would fit my aims (PCOM has a DO/PhD but its in health policy not basic science, and I don't think it's fully funded for all seven/eight years).

So assuming no cranial and the existence of fully funded basic science DO/PhD programs, I would not have any concerns about going that route. Half the people in my family haven't finished high school and no one has finished college, so I couldn't give a rat's ass about the letters behind my name.

Honestly OMM at PCOM is more like a "side thing" and not the focus. Its all about the other stuff...and less about the OMM. As far as things taught in medical schools...not everything works all the time in either branch of medicine. I personally think DO schools need to move away from OMM outside the realm of musculoskeletal complaints. I think once the current group of administrators begin to retire, and younger individuals take their jobs, things may go that way.

Will I ever use OMM in practice.....I doubt it....but its something else to have in your repertoire of tx should other modalities fail. I dont really understand why you are so averse to learning about something that may be helpful to a patient? Psychiatry is a field readily accepted by allopathic medicine, yet its treatments really dont do much of anything a pretty significant portion of the time. But hey...to each his own. You shouldnt be forced to learn about anything that doesnt interest you.

 

[VikingLegacy]

baleeted

 

[Slowpoke]

Well for the same reasons I prefer vanilla over chocolate.

Next?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Honestly OMM at PCOM is more like a "side thing" and not the focus. Its all about the other stuff...and less about the OMM. As far as things taught in medical schools...not everything works all the time in either branch of medicine. I personally think DO schools need to move away from OMM outside the realm of musculoskeletal complaints. I think once the current group of administrators begin to retire, and younger individuals take their jobs, things may go that way.

Will I ever use OMM in practice.....I doubt it....but its something else to have in your repertoire of tx should other modalities fail. I dont really understand why you are so averse to learning about something that may be helpful to a patient?

Because cranial is shown to be bunk. It's unethical to prescribe it to patients, just like it'd be unethical for a doctor to prescribe homeopathic remedies. Why is it an annoyance that's shoved under the table and ignored instead of simply acknowledged as crap and discarded?

 

[Siggy]

Because cranial is shown to be bunk. It's unethical to prescribe it to patients, just like it'd be unethical for a doctor to prescribe homeopathic remedies.

I fully support oral homeopathic remedies for dehydration. The more dilute the medication, the better!

 

[theWUbear]

B) Sorry I have to cut your interview short but the gal before you was so interesting we ran over - you don't mind do you?

Good Luck

can we talk about this SDN

was this a 'test' question or was he legitimately wrapping up your interview. and how do you respond

 

[brooklynblunder]

who's gonna ask this question?

 

[empty p orbital]

Because cranial is shown to be bunk. It's unethical to prescribe it to patients, just like it'd be unethical for a doctor to prescribe homeopathic remedies. Why is it an annoyance that's shoved under the table and ignored instead of simply acknowledged as crap and discarded?

OMM has been shown in studies to be effective in treatment of lower back pain:

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

I am prone to agree with what has been said here about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of cranial OMM, but for the sake of fairness and unbiased scientific inquiry can anybody please post some links to peer-reviewed articles that do in fact debunk cranial?

 

[willen101383]

Because cranial is shown to be bunk. It's unethical to prescribe it to patients, just like it'd be unethical for a doctor to prescribe homeopathic remedies. Why is it an annoyance that's shoved under the table and ignored instead of simply acknowledged as crap and discarded?

Hey SSRIs for depression have been determined to be no more effective than placebo..yet are rx'd every day by both MDs and DOs. Whats your point again?

As someone above posted, you act like cranial is some all encompassing thing you learn in DO school. If you even learn cranial there is like less than one hour devoted to it at my school.

OMM as a whole takes up like a 40th of my "learning time" during an average week anyway.

Each day I have between 3-6 hours of traditional med school curriculum with about 3 hours of gross lab. Maybe 2 days a week there is an hour of OMM lecture and ONE hour of lab. I havent been to an OMM lecture yet...so my omm exposure consists of one hour a week. There isnt really any mention of OMM by any of the other "disciplines" at the school.

 

[dr zaius]

who's gonna ask this question?

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

I am prone to agree with what has been said here about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of cranial OMM, but for the sake of fairness and unbiased scientific inquiry can anybody please post some links to peer-reviewed articles that do in fact debunk cranial?

Aside from it making no anatomical sense (ask your anatomy professors about rhythms), a cursory search revealed these:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8090842

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10709302?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9806622?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

 

[willen101383]

Aside from it making no anatomical sense (ask your anatomy professors about rhythms), a cursory search revealed these:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8090842

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10709302?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9806622?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

haha somehow you have my name on another persons quote....but anyways...I 100 percent agree with you that cranial is bull****. The principles it supposedly works on dont make any sense. I have no beef with your statements about cranial being BS. I just want you to realize that 1. cranial is HARDLY taught at most DO schools, and 2. OMM as a whole is a pretty minor part of the curriculum.

 

[randomb]

Why not DO?

Uhh.. if someone offered you a choice between $3 and $2, why not $2?

 

[brooklynblunder]

1. stop wasting time thinking about questions that no one will ask
2. if someone asks this question, it will most likely be a DO faculty at a MD school (yea there's **** tons of them)
3. if its not #2, there is probably a context. its either because you have not gotten into medical school (and the interviewer knows this), your stats suck, or the interviewer thinks you should apply more broadly and is trying to go about it in an ******* way. sometimes, interviewers might even tell applicants that they think they won't get in (and they maybe wrong).
4. the interviewer will learn nothing by you answering this question.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

haha somehow you have my name on another persons quote....but anyways...I 100 percent agree with you that cranial is bull****. The principles it supposedly works on dont make any sense. I have no beef with your statements about cranial being BS. I just want you to realize that 1. cranial is HARDLY taught at most DO schools, and 2. OMM as a whole is a pretty minor part of the curriculum.

Yea, thats why I said I have no problem with DOs as physicians. I just think, that if I were fortunate enough to have a choice, I avoid avoid the schools for that reason.

If I had to go, then I'd go of course, and deal with it.

 

[oaklandguy]

You could possibly bring up that DO's are still rare in certain parts of the country and that even though DO's are being integrated more and more, the MD is still a more marketable degree and as a career choice it makes more sense to go with what is more marketable.

Realistically, there are tons of jobs for DO's and they do make just as much money, but I don't think there would be an argument against the marketability of the MD.