M.D.s and D.O.s Moving toward a Single, Unified Accreditation System for GME

[SpecterGT260]

Yes. If it's not black, then it's white.

And definitely not red, or any of the 50 shades of grey.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[HalfListic]

Does correction of short = tall?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Yes. If it's not black, then it's white.

Are you trying to prevent my comment of preventing bad=good?

Please continue...haven't got there yet.


Preventing a horrible future, thats good. Not sure if you really want to fight this one...

 

[HalfListic]

Preventing a change is "keeping it the same".

Sure, and keeping the same, when opposed to something worse, is good. Or do you see that differently?

Im showing what I know you also realize...DOs avoided a worse future and this compromise, with its positives and negatives, is better than the alternative future that was certain

 

[MedPR]

Are you trying to prevent my comment of preventing bad=good?

Please continue...haven't got there yet.


Preventing a horrible future, thats good. Not sure if you really want to fight this one...

The merger doesn't prevent a horrible future though.

 

[sylvanthus]

I love how me staying that Res 42 is going to be gone (which has been stated by AOA leaders) is ridiculous.

But you stating the DO profession won't bloody exist anymore is perfectly acceptable.

They state on their website that it is to be "discussed." Im not going to trust you over what is written on their own site. I don't care what fictitious source you think you have.

 

[HockeyDr09]

They state on their website that it is to be "discussed." Im not going to trust you over what is written on their own site. I don't care what fictitious source you think you have.

I don't really care if you trust me, you're wrong. It was stated in a "town hall" meeting held by the AACOM president. I guess you just don't like actual evidence.

 

[HalfListic]

Let me get this straight.

Current: To do a (certain) ACGME fellowship, you must have completed ACGME residency.

By saying that is changing, you are saying that you no longer need to complete an ACGME residency to get those same ACGME fellowships. I'm not sure I follow, since all the AOA fellowships are going to fall under the ACGME. So those fellowships are still requiring ACGME residency completion unless they're going to start taking non-ACGME FMGs too.

Maybe you are legitimately confused...I thought you were trying to debate this.

I'll explain:

Your "current" is wrong. If we didn't have the current compromise (combined accreditation, etc) we would have a "current" of...if you complete an AOA residency, you would be denied any ACGME fellowships. This would be horrible (another word for bad ) This is actually almost exactly how the AOA explained it themselves btw.

To avoid this, the AOA and ACGME compromised and now we will have a combined match and any med student can compete for any residency and fellowship. There will still be bias both ways, but this is BETTER than the alternative.

 

[HalfListic]

The merger doesn't prevent a horrible future though.

Thats exactly what it did...read my above post for explanation

 

[HalfListic]

They state on their website that it is to be "discussed." Im not going to trust you over what is written on their own site. I don't care what fictitious source you think you have.

Its all but gone...this is generally accepted, everywhere

 

[MedPR]

Maybe you are legitimately confused...I thought you were trying to debate this.

I'll explain:

Your "current" is wrong. If we didn't have the current compromise (combined accreditation, etc) we would have a "current" of...if you complete an AOA residency, you would be denied any ACGME fellowships. This would be horrible (another word for bad ) This is actually almost exactly how the AOA explained it themselves btw.

To avoid this, the AOA and ACGME compromised and now we will have a combined match and any med student can compete for any residency and fellowship. There will still be bias both ways, but this is BETTER than the alternative.

Yes, and in the combined match, won't the AOA programs be governed by the ACGME? Thus making them ACGME residencies?

Thats exactly what it did...read my above post for explanation

No, it changed the status quo. There are still infinite possibilities of a horrible future.

 

[HalfListic]

So really:


Combined Match- good

Bias- remains

Avoiding ACGME sanctions- good

Increased competition?- remains to be seen

dual accreditation- ensured quality



what else...

 

[HalfListic]

Yes, and in the combined match, won't the AOA programs be governed by the ACGME? Thus making them ACGME residencies?

No, they will still be AOA programs, but will have the OK from the ACGME. Also, the AOA will be a part of the ACGME. There is a difference and the main thing is that the same people will be in power, but they will try to play nicer. Also, going to said AOA program will no longer restrict you to general surgery, general ortho, etc...

No, it changed the status quo. There are still infinite possibilities of a horrible future.

You misunderstand...it prevented A horrible future. Not EVERY horrible thing that could possible happen.

Thats a weak argument too, because there are an infinite possibilities of good futures too...


edit: but I am glad you question it. I did, and do...and we all should continue to evaluate it, objectively

 

[SpecterGT260]

So really:<br />
<br />
<br />
Combined Match- good<br />
<br />
Bias- remains<br />
<br />
Avoiding ACGME sanctions- good<br />
<br />
Increased competition?- remains to be seen<br />
<br />
dual accreditation- ensured quality <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
what else...

I think you hit the high points

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[HockeyDr09]

So really:


Combined Match- good

Bias- remains

Avoiding ACGME sanctions- good

Increased competition?- remains to be seen

dual accreditation- ensured quality

DO's will have less hoops to work in ACGME program - good

Resolution 42 gone - good

Potentially more international rights to DO's (I personally don't care) - good



what else...

Edited. Call it a day.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Are you trying to prevent my comment of preventing bad=good?

Please continue...haven't got there yet.


Preventing a horrible future, thats good. Not sure if you really want to fight this one...

The problem is that people are going "prevent bad=good" then they go
"Well good stuff is happening, so obbvs it means things are better than they were"
Then "things are better? Must be better cuz of x y and z!"

See the problem?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[HalfListic]

I think you hit the high points

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Edited. Call it a day.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Edited. Call it a day.

How are hoops affected?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[MedPR]

No, they will still be AOA programs, but will have the OK from the ACGME. Also, the AOA will be a part of the ACGME. There is a difference and the main thing is that the same people will be in power, but they will try to play nicer. Also, going to said AOA program will no longer restrict you to general surgery, general ortho, etc...




You misunderstand...it prevented A horrible future. Not EVERY horrible thing that could possible happen.

Thats a weak argument too, because there are an infinite possibilities of good futures too...


edit: but I am glad you question it. I did, and do...and we all should continue to evaluate it, objectively

Oh I did not know that about AOA/ACGME. I'll let you guys speculate about the future if things had remained the same.

 

[HockeyDr09]

Yes, and in the combined match, won't the AOA programs be governed by the ACGME? Thus making them ACGME residencies?

There will be DO's on the ACGME board of directors so it's not giving up nearly as much "power" as some would lead you to believe. If anything it increases DO's influence to be honest.
Also they've added "osteopathic core tenets" into the ACGME tenets for all programs. Yes, that doesn't really mean anything, just thought it was interesting.

 

[docnotsopc]

Edited. Call it a day.

 

[HalfListic]

The problem is that people are going "prevent bad=good" then they go
"Well good stuff is happening, so obbvs it means things are better than they were"
Then "things are better? Must be better cuz of x y and z!"

See the problem?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Yes, I do see that...and it is important to realize, though I guess I see that as a secondary realization.

Also, I don't want to become complacent and just accept any change just because something worse was threatened. But, I think this time, the threat was legit and imminent and that this merger was just a long time coming anyway...

 

[HalfListic]

There will be DO's on the ACGME board of directors so it's not giving up nearly as much "power" as some would lead you to believe. If anything it increases DO's influence to be honest.

yep...especially long term

 

[SpecterGT260]

There will be DO's on the ACGME board of directors so it's not giving up nearly as much "power" as some would lead you to believe. If anything it increases DO's influence to be honest.
Also they've added "osteopathic core tenets" into the ACGME tenets for all programs. Yes, that doesn't really mean anything, just thought it was interesting.

They are getting representation on the board. They will have ~25% vote. This should not be seen as gaining power so much as given the opportunity to have a voice in the decisions that will be handed down to them.
Don't need a unanimous vote

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[HockeyDr09]

How are hoops affected?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

I posted this previously a few posts back...

Many (if not all) MD programs required staff to have attended ACGME residencies. There were ways around this ( I have no idea what they were). With all programs becoming ACGME that eliminates this issue.

 

[HockeyDr09]

They are getting representation on the board. They will have ~25% vote. This should not be seen as gaining power so much as given the opportunity to have a voice in the decisions that will be handed down to them.
Don't need a unanimous vote

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

I always thought 25% was more than 0%. 25% is influence, I didn't say they would make HUGE changes and pass crazy resolutions. Your bias is showing...

 

[SpecterGT260]

I posted this previously a few posts back...

Many (if not all) MD programs required staff to have attended ACGME residencies. There were ways around this ( I have no idea what they were). With all programs becoming ACGME that eliminates this issue.

Potentially

I always thought 25% was more than 0%. 25% is influence, I didn't say they would make HUGE changes and pass crazy resolutions. Your bias is showing...

they are being given 8 seats which is comparable to their weight in terms of people. They are only being considered a daughter group on the board not unlike the ama. Your bias is showing because you are still attributing arbitrary meaning to things that could just as easily (or more easily) go the other way. I tell ya what, if your predictions come true go get a lotto ticket

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[HalfListic]

they are being given 8 seats which is comparable to their weight in terms of people. They are only being considered a daughter group on the board not unlike the ama. Your bias is showing because you are still attributing arbitrary meaning to things that could just as easily (or more easily) go the other way. I tell ya what, if your predictions come true go get a lotto ticket

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Wait, how is that biased?

I agree...8 seats is both few, but its more than 0. Also, as DOs grow in number, Im sure their representation will grow. Thats barely speculation, more like induction.

 

[HockeyDr09]

Potentially

So yes, I'm correct. It's a fact, not potential.

they are being given 8 seats which is comparable to their weight in terms of people. They are only being considered a daughter group on the board not unlike the ama. Your bias is showing because you are still attributing arbitrary meaning to things that could just as easily (or more easily) go the other way. I tell ya what, if your predictions come true go get a lotto ticket

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

What predictions? I've stated facts.

 

[SpecterGT260]

So yes, I'm correct. It's a fact, not potential.







What predictions? I've stated facts.

Riiiiiiight. It is my opinion that my opinion is fact and that's a fact

Homosexual Satanic achondroplastic women are not barred by any policy from becoming president. So super easy for them to do it right?
As long as the AOA stays a distinct entity there will always be a line that can be drawn to isolate them. I doubt this provisional accredidation is going to mean as much as you think. I also dont think many ACGME programs had policy expressly barring DOs from becoming staff. I think you made that up

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[HalfListic]

Riiiiiiight. It is my opinion that my opinion is fact and that's a fact

Homosexual Satanic achondroplastic women are not barred by any policy from becoming president. So super easy for them to do it right?
As long as the AOA stays a distinct entity there will always be a line that can be drawn to isolate them. I doubt this provisional accredidation is going to mean as much as you think. I also dont think many ACGME programs had policy expressly barring DOs from becoming staff. I think you made that up

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

That line can be drawn from either side and the AOA is the ONLY one that wants to draw it

 

[HockeyDr09]

Riiiiiiight. It is my opinion that my opinion is fact and that's a fact

Homosexual Satanic achondroplastic women are not barred by any policy from becoming president. So super easy for them to do it right?
As long as the AOA stays a distinct entity there will always be a line that can be drawn to isolate them. I doubt this provisional accredidation is going to mean as much as you think. I also dont think many ACGME programs had policy expressly barring DOs from becoming staff. I think you made that up

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

It's a fact they by having all residencies be ACGME accredited that all DO's graduating this program will be ACGME accredited. The issue was with DO's NOT being ACGME accredited. Now they ALL will be. Hoop eliminated. Fact. End of story. I'm not sure how you're disputing this. It's clear as day.

I never stated DO's were "barred" from being staff. Where do you come up with this stuff? For the final time. ACGME programs wanted staff that was ACGME certified. Previously AOA residencies were not ACGME certified. I'm sure there were ways around this, but now it's a non issue. Dr. Boozer stated this in the Town Hall webcast.

 

[SpecterGT260]

It's a fact they by having all residencies be ACGME accredited that all DO's graduating this program will be ACGME accredited. The issue was with DO's NOT being ACGME accredited. Now they ALL will be. Hoop eliminated. Fact. End of story. I'm not sure how you're disputing this. It's clear as day.

I never stated DO's were "barred" from being staff. Where do you come up with this stuff? For the final time. ACGME programs wanted staff that was ACGME certified. Previously AOA residencies were not ACGME certified. I'm sure there were ways around this, but now it's a non issue. Dr. Boozer stated this in the Town Hall webcast.

Everything you are saying acts as if there haven't been hundreds of DOs matching ACGME and none of this being an issue for the last several decades (or whatever). Again this is of negligible impact for a number of reasons.
You're also mincing words. Don't do that. It makes it look like you're grasping at straws. Unbecoming

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[HockeyDr09]

Riiiiiiight. It is my opinion that my opinion is fact and that's a fact

Homosexual Satanic achondroplastic women are not barred by any policy from becoming president. So super easy for them to do it right?
As long as the AOA stays a distinct entity there will always be a line that can be drawn to isolate them. I doubt this provisional accredidation is going to mean as much as you think. I also dont think many ACGME programs had policy expressly barring DOs from becoming staff. I think you made that up

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Everything you are saying acts as if there haven't been hundreds of DOs matching ACGME and none of this being an issue for the last several decades (or whatever). Again this is of negligible impact for a number of reasons.
You're also mincing words. Don't do that. It makes it look like you're grasping at straws. Unbecoming

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Yeah, I'm the one grasping at straws.

 

[HalfListic]

Everything you are saying acts as if there haven't been hundreds of DOs matching ACGME and none of this being an issue for the last several decades (or whatever). Again this is of negligible impact for a number of reasons.
You're also mincing words. Don't do that. It makes it look like you're grasping at straws. Unbecoming

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Do you mean short term or long term impact? I could see an argument short term (though having a combined match is hardly negligible) but long term is an even tougher sell

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yeah, I'm the one grasping at straws.

Do you know what that means?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[sylvanthus]

I don't really care if you trust me, you're wrong. It was stated in a "town hall" meeting held by the AACOM president. I guess you just don't like actual evidence.

Written word versus your hearsay. Which is better evidence?

 

[HalfListic]

Well, it's been a good Sunday eve discussion...

I'm calling it a night for my SDN play

 

[HockeyDr09]

Written word versus your hearsay. Which is better evidence?

None of what you say if going to change the fact that you're wrong. I don't know why you keep going on about this. It's common knowledge by now. I'm not trying to be mean, but you're just being ridiculous at this point. For the last time, believe what you want. It has no bearing on you anyway.

^I'll second that halflistic. Hopefully we cleared SOME things up through this discussion.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Do you mean short term or long term impact? I could see an argument short term (though having a combined match is hardly negligible) but long term is an even tougher sell

either?

DOs who went ACGME had no restrictions about becoming staff. Everything that is being discussed only applies to those who would have gone AOA before the "merger" and he is acting like it is going to greatly impact all DOs everywhere. It wont. The residency bias will still exist, and therefore it is not any sort of a stretch to assume this goes for faculty as well.

Sure, there will now be more DOs who are ACGME certified (about 2-3x as many). A significant portion of these are specialists who were excluded from the biased specialties in the ACGME to begin with. Not likely to see many DOs on staff in these programs, so they don't count. After we pull all people who go private practice, leave academics for hospitalist positions, and whatever, we are left with a relatively small number of people who will be looking for an academic position within ACGME programs. I suspect that, by numbers, the increase in DOs as faculty in ACGME programs will be insignificant compared to what it already is. In fact, you could just as easily assume that the raw # of DOs in such positions will not increase (because doing so will more than likely displace MDs from MD programs, not very likely to happen) so it is reasonable to assume there will be increased competition for such spots among DOs and for the individual applicant the likelihood of landing a spot actually falls.

 

[sylvanthus]

None of what you say if going to change the fact that you're wrong. I don't know why you keep going on about this. It's common knowledge by now. I'm not trying to be mean, but you're just being ridiculous at this point. For the last time, believe what you want. It has no bearing on you anyway.

^I'll second that halflistic. Hopefully we cleared SOME things up through this discussion.

Hmm than one of two things is going on:

1) The website of the AOA is incorrect and needs to be updated. (not good and misleading)
2) It is NOT common knowledge and in fact you are wrong.

Either one is bad. The website providing false information or you just plain assuming you are correct without being correct.

It is not ridiculous to point out factual, written information that contradicts your belief.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Hmm than one of two things is going on:

1) The website of the AOA is incorrect and needs to be updated. (not good and misleading)
2) It is NOT common knowledge and in fact you are wrong.

Either one is bad. The website providing false information or you just plain assuming you are correct without being correct.

It is not ridiculous to point out factual, written information that contradicts your belief.

The town hall releases were hurried statements put out during the fallout of the resolution and were VERY (overly?) optimistic. The AOAs major interest at the time was in keeping the faith among DO students and putting as positive a face on this as possible.

WAIT! NO!
They were the unadultered words of God himself with no bias, agenda, or conspicuous lack of lavender fragrance which wafted by with every heavenly word uttered
(HokeyDr, still hoping you are able to differentiate straw grasping from sarcasm )

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well, it's been a good Sunday eve discussion...

I'm calling it a night for my SDN play

he said 10 min ago with his "online" light still lit up

 

[HockeyDr09]

Hmm than one of two things is going on:

1) The website of the AOA is incorrect and needs to be updated. (not good and misleading)
2) It is NOT common knowledge and in fact you are wrong.

Either one is bad. The website providing false information or you just plain assuming you are correct without being correct.

It is not ridiculous to point out factual, written information that contradicts your belief.

It's ridiculous to blatantly ignore evidence from the heads of AACOM and AOA that was spoken about after that press release you're reading. I'm sorry you can't believe information that you did not hear in person. There is nothing I can do for you here. I'm really not sure what you're looking for. I apologize for assuming it was common knowledge, you're the first DO student I've encountered that didn't know about this. Then again, most students I know listened to the town halls.

And honestly, of all the things to argue about, why choose this.

The fact of the matter is (or at the very least what I've tried to convey) is that there are big changes in-store. Some people believe this changes nothing, and I believe they couldn't be any more incorrect. I've done everything I can to convey this information. There is obviously no way I'll change some opinions, but at least pre-meds on here can see both sides and choose the side they believe has enough evidence.

I know DocE's post got buried which had some solid points so i'll throw it up so it gets the attention it deserves.

Real talk time. And this is in no way extensive.... just a few points that I think need a big ol' dose of "admit-the-damn-truth"

- Anyone who says this is anything other than fantastic for those who wished to apply to both ACGME and AOA (As DO students) is completely wrong. You need to have witnessed the unique pain that is interview season and ranking to understand the very visceral way in which you are wrong. Being able to list off all of your preferences in numeric order regardless of what training affiliation they are is an immeasurable win for anyone who would be applying AOA+ACGME or even ACGME only. It lets the former rank the list exactly how they truly prefer and lets the former have a safety net that they previously had to make the hard choice to exclude. And there is no DO student in the history of "insert esoteric timeframe here" that wouldnt sleep better at night with a few AOA residencies tacked onto the end of their rank list.

- Biases exist. Period. On both sides. I know anecdotally from my friends trying for AOA ortho that some of the program directors are bitterly anti-MD. I can tell you first hand that *most* of the AOA urology programs are bitterly anti-MD. Not all, but numerically most. Any discussion of dual accreditation at those sites is met with venom and "why the hell would I want an MD when there are qualified DOs who want the spot." Integrating programs will not lead to the tsunami of MDs taking AOA spots in high demand fields because degree bias does go both ways.

- It goes both ways. A program that didn't take DOs on principle before, isnt gonna change either.

- Both of the above points will mellow (not erase) with time as this gives huge legitimacy to DO students (not PGY spots... but students) as these programs that always accepted DO students will be shown to have identical standards as the ones who only accepted MD students. Vis-A-Vis the applicants can be compared based on merits without a stigma (though it will never change that neither a DO school nor a low level MD school is ever gonna be a high level MD school)

- Some AOA programs will close. It will probably be 10 years from now. It will probably be very few. this number will be smaller than the number of new AOA and ACGME programs that will open in the same time period.

- This is in no way going to cripple the AOA nor bring about the end of its existence and prominence in our lives, and all of our glorious complaints about them will not change in the next 3-10 years barring an unexpected massive change. (this, for example, was an unexpected massive change)

- You will still have to pay the AOA all your fun licensing fees. Thats actually one of the other non-negotiables of the AOA's deal. They get to keep their membership fees from people trained under their residencies past and future.

- IM, FM, Peds. These are fields with many many unfilled spots nationwide if counting only american students. American student will still > american, foreign trained > foreign long term physician > foreign recent graduate. That won't change. IMGs will not be a serious threat to any AOA position except in cases of nepotism or insanely overqualified applicant, which is the only times they are threats to ACGME positions that are desired by american grads.

- This actively opens a world of education to DOs. Previously DO graduates could not be core faculty or program directors at an ACGME residency unless they both went to an ACGME residency AND jumped through a few arduous hoops (ACGME residency was not enough). This has entirely been abolished and any american residency graduate can now be core educational faculty. AOA has agreed to loosen their standards on this too to allow ACGME trained DOs to be core faculty and program directors and MDs to be core faculty without jumping through hoops, though I have not heard confirmed that MDs can be program directors.

- This is good news if ONLY because so many people had accepted the fellowship futures as limited/dead. Those who negatively rip on it here are not being pragmatic, are not being prophetic, are not being intuitive. They are being antagonistic and purposely ignoring the situations that surrounded this debate in months immediately prior to the announcement. AOA programs were having educational series on how to handle the loss of ACGME fellowship access as recently as August (I sat through one). The most nefarious thing here is (the fact) that some AOA residencies wont make it to 2022. But none of us will even BE in residency in 2022 (only exception, current 1st years who become neurosurgeons will be chief residents.... all 13, maximum, of you given current training numbers)

- At this moment there is zero acceptance of MDs into AOA programs. But the fact of the matter is they should be allowed in. Hell they should be allowed in without OMT training unless the program can prove they utilize OMT. But they will all claim they do and make up **** to prove it. So that last part is neither here nor there. But the fact is that the integration of MD students into AOA programs is entirely under debate and most of the details here have been accepted with this being one of the major "still under discussion" parts. The AOA is not opposed to it, but they are resistant. Real talk: they will lose that debate and the residencies will open. But under what time frame? Probably closer to the 10 year window set for all changes, than the 3 year window set for the single match.

- Haven't we all moaned on and on about how combining matches/degrees/diplomas/chromatin/lunchbox contents would lead to more respect for DO's? I know of only a very small number of you who have ever argued against that. They're excused from this comment. The rest of you, show some balls and embrace the fact that this is y/our chance to prove respect is deserved and parity exists by becoming one with the mother organization.

- The whole "ACGME will never be neutral because AAMC is a part of it". Well.... big deal. The AMA is a part of it too. As are about 4 other organizations. so 5 out of 6 (or 4 out of 5, i forget) controlling organizations represent both groups of physicians and of those groups its fair to argue that the AAMC has one of the lowest vested interest in residency. Unlike the AMA or the associated state medical societies.

 

[angkim]

so does single residency match system mean do students only need to take the comlex?

 

[TriagePreMed]

so does single residency match system mean do students only need to take the comlex?

This hasn't been worked out, but that's what they hinted. The majority believe it'll still be in your best interest to take both.

 

[411309]

From now on DO students will take the usmlex

 

[Ost3oclast]

From now on DO students will take the usmlex

Hahahaha

 

[MedPR]

Does anyone else besides the DMU dean call it the "u-smile"?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[SpecterGT260]

Does anyone else besides the DMU dean call it the "u-smile"?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

Ew.....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Dmr6186]

Does anyone else besides the DMU dean call it the "u-smile"?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

Haha I remember him saying that and wondered if I would hear it anywhere else. Still haven't.