Is AOA leading the medical profession towards the right direction?!

[Brany]

"LECOM Introduces Three-Year Medical Degree Curriculum"

http://www.lecom.edu/bradenton/news/PCSP2.asp

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jrf331]

I dont think "leading" and "AOA" should be used in the same sentence

 

[seinordiggler]

This 3 year program is a really bad idea...I know I'm going to make some people mad with this one but it looks to me like Family Practice might really take a beating in the future. Again.....I don't want anyone to think I'm bashing primary care...but when you look at "market forces" I think FP is a bad basket in which to put one's "eggs". PA's and NP's are capable of doing a large percent of FP and they are cheaper!! With things like "Ready-clinics" coming to a WalMart near you, these mid levels are going to be much more accessible to the public.

I agree FP docs are extermely capable and I think they provide better care. However, I don't think the future of healthcare administration will support paying physician wages and reimnbursements for treating sore throats, ear aches and routine appointments.

 

[ssj3tom]

creating more FP docs faster isn't going to make a better situation for FP, especially if they get a stigma for being "less educated" than their peers!!!

 

[Krazykritter]

Sweet...LECOM is starting a PA school!? Just kidding of couse, I know what this is. It is a stupid move to lessen our education to that of PA's.

I'm not saying PA's are bad, but we are physicians.

 

[McDoctor]

This 3 year program is a really bad idea...I know I'm going to make some people mad with this one but it looks to me like Family Practice might really take a beating in the future. Again.....I don't want anyone to think I'm bashing primary care...but when you look at "market forces" I think FP is a bad basket in which to put one's "eggs". PA's and NP's are capable of doing a large percent of FP and they are cheaper!! With things like "Ready-clinics" coming to a WalMart near you, these mid levels are going to be much more accessible to the public.

I agree FP docs are extermely capable and I think they provide better care. However, I don't think the future of healthcare administration will support paying physician wages and reimnbursements for treating sore throats, ear aches and routine appointments.

If you are trying to say that making a 3-year Family Medicine degree de-values the profession, (that by shortening the training LECOM is suggesting that less training is required to produce primary care relative to other specialties), then I can see your point. Though I don't necessarily agree with that.

But you don't really think that all family medicine is about is treating sore throats and earaches, do you? When a patient has a sore throat, they definitely can see a PA or CRNP. But when a patient has advanced coronary vessel disease with concominant difficult to control hypertension and peptic ulcer disease, and someone has to decide when to safely initiate antiplatelet therapy without putting them at an unacceptably high risk for a CVA or a GI bleed, where do you think they go? To Wal-mart? I mean, give me a break. The second patient is a common scenario. A GI specialist won't want this patient on ASA or Plavix, ever. A cardiologist wants him/her on it yesterday, and then indefinitely. Family Doctors have to manage this kind of thing all the time, and the complexity is a far cry from otitis media.

That rant aside, I think the 3 year track might be a good option for a select few. Perhaps someone who is older and nontraditional, knows what he/she wants, is focused and not interested in a summer vacation, and has fewer productive years ahead of him/her in which to pay back student loans. Plus, lets face it, there is alot of nonsense that can be shed from the first two years of curriculum. I went to LECOM (a little while back) and I'd start with Human Sexuality with Dr. Ortoski.

 

[Shinken]

Although I fail to see the relationship between one school's decision to offer an accelerated FP route to the AOA's leadership or lack thereof, I think that (1) LECOM's accelerated FP route is a good idea for those interested in FP as a career and (2) the AOA is a great organization that has lifted the osteopathic profession from "alternative" medicine to an equal with allopathic medicine (no easy feat!).

What LECOM is doing is nothing new. Several MD schools have offered such programs in the past. I'm not sure if any are presently offering an accelerated FP program. See the following:

http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/accelerated_family_medicine.htm

Finally, I think the AOA is a victim of its own success. They transformed osteopathic medicine into an equal, and now DOs can work in any hospital, in any specialty, and train at ACGME programs. Unfortunately, that success has led many people to try and make the DO degree into an MD one (MDO? No way!). Many people also ignore the osteopathic profession's troubled past. Yes, DOs today are enjoying awesome respect and equality in medicine in the US, and all that is thanks to the AOA. Joint match? Degree designation? Those are irrelevant given the incredible success that the AOA has had in making DOs part of mainstream medicine.

If you want to change the way the AOA is, stop posting in here. Finish your DO education, complete an AOA residency, become part of the leadership of the AOA and really start making a difference.

 

[Faraaz23]

Sweet...LECOM is starting a PA school!? Just kidding of couse, I know what this is. It is a stupid move to lessen our education to that of PA's.

I'm not saying PA's are bad, but we are physicians.

I assumed that too until I took time to read the article. It seems they are just condensing it... go to school non-stop without summer vacations and cutting out a lot of the elective rotations 4th year.

Also, one can argue how important 4th year is. It differs from school to school, but you generally only have a few months, at the most, of required rotations left to do. Some students take advantage of elective time to do "audition" rotations and work their butt off while there are other non-gunners will want to schedule the rest of the year with lifestyle rotations like derm, OMM, radiology, and PMR just so they can take it easy and coast by. If you look at this part of the student population... they are going to put in the absolute minimal effort to pass the rotations. Now I argue that they are going to be of about the same quality of a physician at the beginning of 4th year and at the beginning of intern year.

That said, its not LECOM that worries me. What worries me is that the AOA thinks that the new ATSU-Mesa school can condense two years of preclinical sciences to one year... and "integrate" the rest into patient-hugging and clinical rotations done at almost exclusively all health clinics years 2-4. One of the intervees said on another thread in the pre-DO that when they visited one of the faculty was talking about how "back when I was in med school, we had to learn everything about the hand... thats just not practical." Ok, so just how much are they going to skimp on anatomy? Whats next, condensing respiratory physio -----> breathing is good, not breathing gets you dead? I'm exaggerating a bit obviously, but my point is that I think ATSU is taking a MUCH more radical path than LECOM. It seems as if he who holds AT Stills log-cabin in the lobby of your school gets to do what he wants. It may be ok for FP.... but what if someone decides later they want to do anethesia or IM (with intention of going into to cards or GI; read: they want to go to a high calibur IM program) or Neurosurgery. What kind of exposure can they possibly get in free/indigent out-patient health clinics that is going to compare to acute, tertiary care hospitals that draw the sickest of the sick from very large radii. I very much hope for the first few classes who're going to be piloting this new thing that they get the education they deserve.

 

[bth7]

I dont think "leading" and "AOA" should be used in the same sentence

Couldn't agree more.

 

[homeboy]

As much as I'm frustrated with the AOA, and it sounds horrible on the surface, I think a 3yr degree for FP is well warranted for a few reasons:

1.) 3 yr program graduates will still have to train in an accredited 3 yr FP residency...yes, true, you need a good base of knowledge, but residency is where you learn your job knowledge.

2.) the program states students will forego 1st yr summer vacation and start clinicals in March, and by trimming the fat of all the extraneous crap we learn the first 2 years, 3 yrs is very plausible.

3.) I think if you ask practicing physicians if they could have graduated medical school in 3 yrs versus 4 yrs, many of them would would say they could have, and FEW would agree their practice is shaped by a majority of material learned the first few years (again, residency).

4.) I agree with McDoctor, but again stressing that you learn your job duties as a resident, not a med student. Years 1-2 are base material from which to build on (MUCH of which is forgotten over the years), and years 3-4 are a primary exposure to clinical medicine (to test the waters and have a basic understanding of various fields).

I think the biggest thing to stress is that doctors learn the medicine for their particular field not in school, but in residency.

Much of medicine is bureaucracy, and we're constantly fighting for our turf. Many people will be opposed to a 3 yr program not because it won't work, but because it opens the gates of suggestion that perhaps, to be a physician in primary care, you don't need 7 yrs of training...maybe 6 is sufficient. Especially considering the fact that medicine today is very specialized...you have a heart problem? see a cardiologist. knee pain? here's your ortho referral.
much of family medicine is referrals.

And....correct me if i'm wrong, but don't many undergrads have accelerated programs to med school?

 

[homeboy]

and another point...

once 4th years have decided on a field and are nearing match, do you think they really care about the electives they have to finish up before graduation? sure, maybe some good experience, but after matching in March, do 2 or 3 months of rotations (unless they're in your field) really matter?

 

[PlasticMan]

PA = NP = DO FP ? This will make DO's look bad as some will only have 3 years of medical education now as compared to their allopathic counterparts. On top of this there are DO schools and satellite campuses opening up fast and no quality GME being created concurrently. I think we may be in need of another Flexner report.

 

[Brany]

DO's worked very hard to prove their competency in their medical education and practice of medicine in comparison to their allopath counterparts. Do you think opening numerous medical schools without supporting post-graduate residency programs, and now allowing new medical schools with three year curriculum contribute anything to the profession? I am assuming now that the next generation of graduating DO’s applying to allopathic residencies is going to be asked whether they attended a three-year osteopathic school or a four-year!

As much we have gained respect and acceptance from the majority of physicians (the allopathic world), isn't AOA just implying to the allopathic world that we make the profit off of students, and pass them onto you for their training?!

In my opinion, lowering the educational standards in regardless of the type of medical practice will jeopardize the credibility of the DO degree. Any program director will prefer to take a foreign medical graduate (who has actually been trained for four years) over a three-year trained DO. The argument is not whether four years of medical school is really necessary for family practitioners or not; but it's about the educational standardization that has been set to give credibility to the degree that medical doctors have obtained.

In 1910, Flexner report concluded that the standards of osteopathic schools were in fact substantially lower. As a result of the Report, the AMA expected all osteopathic medical schools to close, and many in fact did. However, a series of internal revolutions within the AOA brought a number of its schools into compliance with Flexner's recommendations. The main Flexner’s recommendation was in fact that medical school curriculums need to be 4 years.

What is different today from 1910? Do we have less science to learn? Have we evolved to become smarter individuals since 1910? Or do the family practitioners today need to know less than the ones who received their medical education in 1910?!

 

[gtleeee]

The Des Moines Osteopathic College for many years had a 3 year program. It was going great guns when I was at UHSCOM back in the early 80s. The way it worked was they went to school pretty much all year (though the summer) in years 1 and 2. There is nothing new with this and no it doesn't indicate the fall of Osteopathic Medical education, Just another old book taken off the shelf, dusted off, and presented as an "innovation".

 

[homeboy]

ditto what gtlee said...
if you talk to DO grads from several years ago, this is how the WHOLE school operated.

and board exams were similar (there was no part 1 and 2 COMLEX).

I'm not suggesting that the AOA is completely ultruistic in it's desire to establish 3 yr FP degrees, but looking at medicine as a whole, is 7 yrs versus 6 entirely necessary for FP? i'm not crediting the AOA with coming up with something revolutionary...i'm more suggesting that the whole of medicine should be looking into this, like that link that shinken posted (and it just happens that the AOA...not exactly a standard of exellence...is doing it).

If you are more concernd about your turf and potential income, than yes, this is a bad idea. if you are more concerned about medicine and US healthcare as a whole, then maybe it wouldn't hurt to re-evaluate our medical training.

EXAMPLE: getting a PhD takes anywhere from 3 yrs to 7 or 8 years, similar to how our residency programs take anywhere from 3 to 8 years. on top of that, we have a base of 4 years of additional school. is everything during those 4 yrs entirely necessary and contributory to our career?? doubt it.

 

[homeboy]

again...can anyone comment on undergraduate institutions offering accelerated programs to get INTO medical school??

 

[Red Beard]

again...can anyone comment on undergraduate institutions offering accelerated programs to get INTO medical school??

Pomona College in Claremont, CA has a linkage program with Western U through which you can become an MS1 in 3 years. They count some of your MS1 classes toward your undergraduate degree requirements.

 

[Red Beard]

PA = NP = DO FP ? This will make DO's look bad as some will only have 3 years of medical education now as compared to their allopathic counterparts. On top of this there are DO schools and satellite campuses opening up fast and no quality GME being created concurrently. I think we may be in need of another Flexner report.

There are more accelerated allopathic programs than there are accelerated DO programs, so its not an MD vs. DO thing.

Secondly, PA=NP =/= accelerated DO/MD because they are still going through full residency training, and must pass the same USMLE/COMLEX and board certification exams as their 4-year counterparts.

 

[allendo]

My fp doc that's a M.D. did the three year program.

 

[Old_Mil]

We certainly don't need to bring back a three year medical degree and have it look inferior in comparison to a four year MD program. However, with the every increasing body of "evidence based medicine", this would be a good time to cut the OMM portion of the curriculum back to one year so that Osteopatic curricula do a better job of preparing their graduates to practice evidence based medicine.

 

[cremaster2007]

Pomona College in Claremont, CA has a linkage program with Western U through which you can become an MS1 in 3 years. They count some of your MS1 classes toward your undergraduate degree requirements.

I did an early acceptance program through my undergraduate institution (small Div III school in Iowa) through DMU. I interviewed as a freshman in college, met my MCAT requirements and gpa requirements, and my first year of MS counted as my last year of college. So I was accepted into medical school my freshman year of college, and I did 3 years of undergrad and then left for medical school. My first year of MS counted as my senior year of college. It worked well for me, I matched neurosurgery this year, but I'm not sure how it worked out for anyone else doing the accelerated track.

 

[MDDOBS]

To the first few people who responded to this post: did you actually take the time to read the article, or did you just ignorantly assume and immediately respond negatively? As others have stated, the 3 year condensed program is nothing new. Many MDs and DOs practicing today were schooled in much the same manner.

 

[Dr JPH]

3 year degree for FPs is a fantastic idea.

Think about the current lenth of training to become a doc:

FP: 7 years
IM: 7 years
Peds: 7 years
Surgeon: 9 years
OB/GYN: 8 years
Cardiologist: 10 years
Radiology: 7 years
Anesthesiologist: 8 years

Now...forget the crazy subspecialties, they take forever.

3 years of medical school with a 3 year residency program is more than adequate to train an FP. They wont be losing out on anything. 4th year of medical school is more about kissing ass, doing electives, studying for boards and making fun of 3rd years than it is about education.

In fact, 4th year is in 3 parts:

July - November: impressing PDs (thinking you are stupid compared to interns)
November - February: studying for boards (thinking you are smarter than interns)
February - graduation: flirting and telling the nursing students that you are graduating soon (realizing you dont want to be an intern)

 

[Doc 2b]

Wow that speaks volume! And with 56 people voting, I'd say the the JAOA would consider that a large sample population, owing to statistical significance, though no sham studies were done. Although the authors concede that there may be some variations due to fellows performing the study. Had to vent my dismay at the AOA.

 

[GreenShirt]

That said, its not LECOM that worries me. What worries me is that the AOA thinks that the new ATSU-Mesa school can condense two years of preclinical sciences to one year... and "integrate" the rest into patient-hugging and clinical rotations done at almost exclusively all health clinics years 2-4. One of the intervees said on another thread in the pre-DO that when they visited one of the faculty was talking about how "back when I was in med school, we had to learn everything about the hand... thats just not practical." Ok, so just how much are they going to skimp on anatomy? Whats next, condensing respiratory physio -----> breathing is good, not breathing gets you dead? I'm exaggerating a bit obviously, but my point is that I think ATSU is taking a MUCH more radical path than LECOM. It seems as if he who holds AT Stills log-cabin in the lobby of your school gets to do what he wants. It may be ok for FP.... but what if someone decides later they want to do anethesia or IM (with intention of going into to cards or GI; read: they want to go to a high calibur IM program) or Neurosurgery. What kind of exposure can they possibly get in free/indigent out-patient health clinics that is going to compare to acute, tertiary care hospitals that draw the sickest of the sick from very large radii. I very much hope for the first few classes who're going to be piloting this new thing that they get the education they deserve.

I'm reading a lot of threads by SDNers who misunderstand the ATSU-Mesa curriculum. It's NOT a 1 year basic science + 3 year clinicals program. In the second year they still have basic science lectures, the only difference is that these classes take place in a clinic classroom as opposed to a classroom on a campus. In the afternoons, when other medical students are working with patient actors or trying to find some clincal exposure through volunteering, the ATSU-Mesa students will be working with real patients in a clinic they are actually part of. There's still the regular clerkships at local hospitals in years 3-4 as at any other school.

The thing that's "radical" or unique about the program is the continuity of care in clinicals. While other med students will see a patient's care for a day or two in each rotation, ATSU-Mesa students will be following the care of their assigned group of patients for 3 whole years.

It's not watering down medical education, it's teaching students the skills they need to know for the real world.

 

[GreenShirt]

In 1910, Flexner report concluded that the standards of osteopathic schools were in fact substantially lower. As a result of the Report, the AMA expected all osteopathic medical schools to close, and many in fact did. However, a series of internal revolutions within the AOA brought a number of its schools into compliance with Flexner's recommendations. The main Flexner’s recommendation was in fact that medical school curriculums need to be 4 years.

What is different today from 1910? Do we have less science to learn? Have we evolved to become smarter individuals since 1910? Or do the family practitioners today need to know less than the ones who received their medical education in 1910?!

Ask yourself: How many things that were invented in 1910 do we still use now a days? If everything else has evolved, shouldn't how we train physicians be modified as well? No we don't have less science to learn today, in fact have ten times or even a hundred times as much to learn. You think it's possible to learn it all? With scientific knowledge becoming outdated every two years, how are you going to keep up using an education model from 1910!? Is it not better to teach students to become lifelong learners, so that they can stay abreast of the science knowledge they need for their field?

 

[Red Beard]

Ask yourself: How many things that were invented in 1910 do we still use now a days? If everything else has evolved, shouldn't how we train physicians be modified as well? No we don't have less science to learn today, in fact have ten times or even a hundred times as much to learn. You think it's possible to learn it all? With scientific knowledge becoming outdated every two years, how are you going to keep up using an education model from 1910!? Is it not better to teach students to become lifelong learners, so that they can stay abreast of the science knowledge they need for their field?

This argument doesn't seem to address the following fact: the MD and DO 6 year FP programs are training physicians who by all standard measures are equivalently competent compared to their 7 year counterparts. USMLE/COMLEX and board certification exams are the same for both groups.

 

[GreenShirt]

This argument doesn't seem to address the following fact: the MD and DO 6 year FP programs are training physicians who by all standard measures are equivalently competent compared to their 7 year counterparts. USMLE/COMLEX and board certification exams are the same for both groups.

So if they're both equivalently competent...then it supports my arguement that it's silly to hold onto a model from 1910, if there's a more efficient way to do it today. If you want to be a PCP and don't mind cramming three years into four, then its smart to save yourself the $35K for the extra year. Again, why hold onto things just because they're "tradition" if there's a more efficient or innovative way to produce the same physician?

 

[Red Beard]

So if they're both equivalently competent...then it supports my arguement that it's silly to hold onto a model from 1910, if there's a more efficient way to do it today. If you want to be a PCP and don't mind cramming three years into four, then its smart to save yourself the $35K for the extra year. Again, why hold onto things just because they're "tradition" if there's a more efficient or innovative way to produce the same physician?

Ahh, gotcha. I agree.

I misunderstood your last post.

 

[Brany]

Ask yourself: How many things that were invented in 1910 do we still use now a days? If everything else has evolved, shouldn't how we train physicians be modified as well? No we don't have less science to learn today, in fact have ten times or even a hundred times as much to learn. You think it's possible to learn it all? With scientific knowledge becoming outdated every two years, how are you going to keep up using an education model from 1910!? Is it not better to teach students to become lifelong learners, so that they can stay abreast of the science knowledge they need for their field?

I think we are both on the same page as far as the "today's medical education expectations" and producing lifelong learners goes, with one excetion; and that is whether shortening the length of medical education is in fact contributing to producing more competent lifelong learners?!
3 or 4 years of medical education will not make a significant difference in the outcome of practicing FP's in the future. However, AOA always being a pioneer and leader in lowering the academic standards and board certifications will make a significant difference in the credibility and value of the DO degree that we are receiving.

Please see the article below in regards to the board certifications by AOA and some others issues emphasized in this article:

http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/106/5/252

 

[Red Beard]

I think we are both on the same page as far as the "today's medical education expectations" and producing lifelong learners goes, with one excetion; and that is whether shortening the length of medical education is in fact contributing to producing more competent lifelong learners?!
3 or 4 years of medical education will not make a significant difference in the outcome of practicing FP's in the future. However, AOA always being a pioneer and leader in lowering the academic standards and board certifications will make a significant difference in the credibility and value of the DO degree that we are receiving.

Please see the article below in regards to the board certifications by AOA and some others issues emphasized in this article:

http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/106/5/252

I've read that letter before. I'm not sure how it supports the claim that the AOA is a 'pioneer and leader in lowering academic standards.' If anything, I would think requiring an additional intern year raises the standard of education.

Do you have anything solid that suggests educational standards for osteopathic education have been lowered at any relevant point in time?

 

[Brany]

I've read that letter before. I'm not sure how it supports the claim that the AOA is a 'pioneer and leader in lowering academic standards.' If anything, I would think requiring an additional intern year raises the standard of education.

Do you have anything solid that suggests educational standards for osteopathic education have been lowered at any relevant point in time?

Maybe the fact that only 72% oh highly motivated DO students who actually CHOOSE to take the step 1 USMLE only get to pass this examination as opposed to 92% of our allopath counterparts. In my opinion, this standardized examination is a good determinant that osteopathic schools are not offering the same level of education, which is being offered at the allopathic institutions.

Please see the link below for the statistical information:

http://www.usmle.org/scores/2005perf.htm

 

[GreenShirt]

Maybe the fact that only 72% oh highly motivated DO students who actually CHOOSE to take the step 1 USMLE only get to pass this examination as opposed to 92% of our allopath counterparts. In my opinion, this standardized examination is a good determinant that osteopathic schools are not offering the same level of education, which is being offered at the allopathic institutions.

Please see the link below for the statistical information:

http://www.usmle.org/scores/2005perf.htm

It's probably not the schools that are providing a lower quality education that lead to lower scores, but the caliber of the students. Average MCAT for an Allopathic matriculant is 31 vs. the 26 average for Osteopathic students. Lets face it, the students going into DO programs are generally not as academically competitive as those going into MD programs. So when these students take the USMLE, they just follow the same trend shown earlier on the MCAT.

 

[Red Beard]

Maybe the fact that only 72% oh highly motivated DO students who actually CHOOSE to take the step 1 USMLE only get to pass this examination as opposed to 92% of our allopath counterparts. In my opinion, this standardized examination is a good determinant that osteopathic schools are not offering the same level of education, which is being offered at the allopathic institutions.

Please see the link below for the statistical information:

http://www.usmle.org/scores/2005perf.htm

Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing. I was specifically responding to the notion that the AOA has intentionally lowered the educational standards for medical students and residents.

So, while your link doesn't really relate to the argument at hand, it does bring up another point: there was a 3% increase in the pass rate for first time DO USMLE examinees between 2004 and 2005. I would be interested in seeing the trend over 5 or 10 years. It may show that osteopathic education is actually heading in the right direction.

Last thing I want to say: I am not sure you can assume that USMLE pass rates accurately represent the quality of education given at DO schools. It is well known that the two exams have some differences in their areas of emphasis, and are also formatted differently. Without being able to test MD students vs. COMLEX, you can't really differentiate what is going on. It could be that programs tailor their education to their professional exam. It could be the lower testing ability of DO students on average. To make the claim that the quality of instruction or standards of education at DO programs is lower is quite a speculative leap.

 

[Red Beard]

Greenshirt,

I think you are probably right.

 

[jamaals]

I think there are numerous reasons why most graduates are less likely to go into FP. However, an obvious reason is most DO programs charge 30K+/yr in tuition. By the time an FP is finished they'll be paying back nearly 300K+ on an already dwindling salary. I also see many practices and even residencies are starting to believe its OK to refer out a majority of complex paitents. Therefore, if the AOA would like more FP's there should be some assistance in those aspects at least

 

[Future DOctor]

In my humble opinion shortening the training of a D.O. to three years is a very bad idea. I think that the four years in medical school should be universal so your not viewed as being an "undereducated physician". With that said I do think that the entire process to become a physician could be re-evaluated.

With this proposed system a FP will do 7 years before residency by shortening Medical school (which in my opinion all 4 years are needed). Instead I would urge more 7 year B.S./D.O. programs that shorten one year of UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION NOT MEDICAL SCHOOL. I am currently in one of these
7 year B.S./D.O. programs at KCUMB-COM and I can tell you from experience it is by far the best way to "shorten education". To the posters who have said that fourth year of medical school is frivilous, I think even they would agree that the last year of undergrad was a far greater waste of time. In the end when I am done with my education no one could say that I was "undertrained" by shortening my undergraduate education-but I do believe that the same could not be said about the people involved in the new LECOM program.

 

[McDoctor]

It's probably not the schools that are providing a lower quality education that lead to lower scores, but the caliber of the students. Average MCAT for an Allopathic matriculant is 31 vs. the 26 average for Osteopathic students. Lets face it, the students going into DO programs are generally not as academically competitive as those going into MD programs. So when these students take the USMLE, they just follow the same trend shown earlier on the MCAT.

Comparing average MCAT scores tells you nothing. The top medical schools in the country grant MD's. Yale, Harvard, John Hopkins, Penn, Stanford. they all grant MD's. This skews the averages, since there are no osteopathic equivalents to these institutions. The only people I ever hear parrot this argument about higher average MCAT scores for MD's are clowns from middle of the road MD schools trying to inflate their own credentials. The truth is there is no difference between the average PCOM student vs. the average Jefferson student, or Temple University student.

A simpler explanation for the lower rate of passing USMLE scores lies in the fact that so much of the DO curriculum is spent on OMT. This is essentially wasted time if you are taking the USMLE. When I went to LECOM, I think 4 hours a week was spent on OMT. That is huge. In a 50 week year, the DO student will have 200 less hours of curriculum devoted to passing the USMLE as the MD counterpart. When you consider this, a 72% pass score is actually quite impressive.

 

[McDoctor]

Greenshirt,

I think you are probably right.

Why? Greenshirt presents no coherent argument or reasoning. He/She is merely taking numbers at face value without putting any real thought into it. This lazy approach to interpreting statistics is what pharmaceutical marketing departments salivate over.

 

[jhug]

In a 50 week year, the DO student will have 200 less hours of curriculum devoted to passing the USMLE as the MD counterpart

but that is what makes us MD's and more...or is it less...???

 

[McDoctor]

but that is what makes us MD's and more...or is it less...???

Right. This is what cracks me up about these slogans that suggest DO is the same as MD plus more. As if we go to school longer than an MD.

The bottom line is that there is way too much mandatory OMT curriculum in years 1 and 2. This is at the expense of more important, more clinically relevant, medical curriculum and study of basic sciences. But this battle won't be won by fleeing to MD residencies and taking membership in AMA and predominately allopathic specialty colleges. Changes need to be made from within the AOA, by becoming active in the ranks and voicing rational criticism, as somebody pointed out in an earlier post.

 

[Doc 2b]

Your absolutely right, but who want's to subject themselves to the continual brainwashing we get in school, throughout residency? It seems they have the abilty to beat the science right out of you. I think all of the DO grads that flee, should just band together in their own org, maybe AAOA (anti-AOA), maybe that would effect change. Afterall, they aren't really in any group when their shunned by the AOA for going on to greener pastures, and DO's living in an MD world.

 

[LovelyRita]

Case Medical School (M.D) has a 3+3 FP-tracking program. Currently. So it's not just the D.O.'s.

This is seriously no big deal overall.

 

[simpy2000]

Right. This is what cracks me up about these slogans that suggest DO is the same as MD plus more. As if we go to school longer than an MD.

The bottom line is that there is way too much mandatory OMT curriculum in years 1 and 2. This is at the expense of more important, more clinically relevant, medical curriculum and study of basic sciences. But this battle won't be won by fleeing to MD residencies and taking membership in AMA and predominately allopathic specialty colleges. Changes need to be made from within the AOA, by becoming active in the ranks and voicing rational criticism, as somebody pointed out in an earlier post.

I agree. I would start with ridding us of Cranial and visceral OMT. What a joke.

 

[jhug]

Changes need to be made from within the AOA, by becoming active in the ranks and voicing rational criticism, as somebody pointed out in an earlier post.

That would be great except for the fact that the AOA is delusional! Try telling a pt with schizophrenia that they aren't hearing real voices!!!
The greatest encumbrance to change from within the AOA is that their leaders aren't elected...they get appointed years in advance.
This means that a single slip up...one minor comment about AT Still not actually being diety...cranial might not fix everything from cancer to down syndrome to the avian flu...the germ theory actually has some merit...anything at all about the scientific method...or that our post-graduate education isn't "just fine" and you are out of any leadership position.
I am afraid, with how the AOA is set up and the issues they see as important right now (ie: O-MS, DO's on tv shows), that the only way to improve and continue to support progress for our profession is through another organization. Whether it is the AMA (which i would recommend everyone join to see how a real professional organization works) or an organization that is newly created, betterment and progress is needed.

 

[McDoctor]

That would be great except for the fact that the AOA is delusional! Try telling a pt with schizophrenia that they aren't hearing real voices!!!
The greatest encumbrance to change from within the AOA is that their leaders aren't elected...they get appointed years in advance.
This means that a single slip up...one minor comment about AT Still not actually being diety...cranial might not fix everything from cancer to down syndrome to the avian flu...the germ theory actually has some merit...anything at all about the scientific method...or that our post-graduate education isn't "just fine" and you are out of any leadership position.
I am afraid, with how the AOA is set up and the issues they see as important right now (ie: O-MS, DO's on tv shows), that the only way to improve and continue to support progress for our profession is through another organization. Whether it is the AMA (which i would recommend everyone join to see how a real professional organization works) or an organization that is newly created, betterment and progress is needed.

Give me a break. Your whole post is nonsense.

It speaks for itself. there is no reason to justify it with a rebuttal.

 

[McDoctor]

I don't see the purpose of vitriolic anti-AOA rants or wholesale dismissal of OMT. I just want to distance myself from that crap.

My position is more in line with the thinking that OMT should have a basic mandatory curriculum that respresents its common utility in standard practice. This means painful musculoskeletal conditions (LBP,headache, ankle sprains, etc.), and some inpatient adjunctive care techniques where there is at least some published evidence to support. The rest should be considered investigational, and left available only to those students who have a firm grasp of the underlying concepts, and are in the best position to drive research.

I mostly disagree with the AOA in its push to maintain the image of being "unique". I don't necessarily see the value in being unique just for the sake of it. If there needs to be a vision for osteopathy unique from MD's, then I would argue that the focus on primary care should be the marketing point. But I'm in Family Medicine, so obviously this position is biased and self-serving. That's politics for you.

Also, obviously, you don't need to be the president of the AOA to affect change. You need to have a position, and be able to argue for it. And you need to have an interest in staying active in osteopathic education.

The rants like jhug's may be cathartic, but serve no useful purpose. Sorry for the monologue. But, again, I want to distance myself from some of these posts.