MD vs. DO?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
You werent responding to me but I will reply since I saw it. I am a bit of a weird situation because I never applied to any MD schools because although I had a 3.78 in grad school my undergrad GPA was still HORRIBLE. My grad school GPA wouldnt have moved my undergrad GPA on amcas...but AACOMAS has a spot for cumulative undergrad+grad GPA. I knew I would have been prescreened at most MD schools so I just didnt bother wasting the money.

Knowing what I know now I would have DEF applied to some MD schools. It has nothing to do with perceived stigma, because i really dont buy into that crap, and its not a huge problem where I live/plan on practicing. It has nothing to do with my competitiveness at allo programs, since I am most likely doing EM and EM is a pretty DO friendly specialty currently. It has nothing to do with the education, since I found the instruction at my school to be VERY good and I personally dont see how the instruction at most allo school could be any better.

But it has everything to do with the attitude of the AOA, old school DOs, and the "OMM folk." They just fail to recognize what 90% of modern DO students want. They fail to recognize the fact that 90 or more percent of DO med students, upon graduation will never use OMM again. Yet they still push this like its some awesome thing that we have had bestowed upon us by the gods of osteopathy. No. Its not. And i just dont see how it would even be applicable to anyone outside of family medicine. Especially nowadays where there is a push to see more pts (and especially in family med) I just dont see most docs having the time to fit this into an exam session.

They fail to recognize that modern day DO grads arent interested in just being primary care docs...yet (the aoa especially) keeps pushing this idea. The chip these hardline DOs and OMM docs have on their shoulder is extremely offputting. Of all the grades I got in med school, my OMM grades were the lowest. And despite the instruction only taking maybe an hour a week if not less, it was a disproportionate pain in the ass....in terms of having to deal with ridiculous requirements the OMM dept put out (which again are driven by the fact that they have a chip on their shoulder). So to CHANGE what law2doc said....I dont think it impacts the DELIVERY of instruction of all the other disciplines...but I surely think it IMPACTS you studying for the other disciplines. For example: our OMM dept LOVED putting our written exams the monday of our finals weeks for blocks. So wed be forced to study for these which would divert my attention away from studying for a more important class....which is unacceptable. But then again, they likely believe their subject is just as important as the others.

I could literally go on and on about this for days, but I will spare you all that. I think DO schools have a lot of great attributes, and the DO philosophy (while mostly bull bc almost all DO grads practice in the same manner of our allo counterparts) is a good way to be looking at practicing medicine. I think the admissions focus on other things than just numbers is also a good way to be doing things. With my undergrad numbers I likely never would have gotten in to an MD program due to that AMCAS issue I spoke about. Yet I have been very successful grade wise in my DO school...and judging by my NBME practice test scores I should be very successful on my usmle next week as well. It just goes to show that grades really arent everything, and if DO schools werent around I may have been passed up on. So for that I am really thankful.

But at the end of the day there is really no compelling reason to go to a DO school unless you absolutely cannot get into an MD school/dont think you can get in or for some god aweful reason want to spend your life as an OMM specialist. I likely wouldnt reapply and wait another year for an MD acceptance tho...unless you have really great numbers and your app profile was too top heavy/something weird happened. Just not worth the time/chance of not getting an acceptance and getting blacklisted at DO programs for dropping your acceptance.

Hope that wasnt too scathing, just an honest portrayal of the situation from someone who is on the inside. I think a lot of DO students are embarrassed to give the full story on this board, because they dont want to give the pre allo DO haters any more ammo. But this has nothing to do with the BS crap most of those kids argue about (prestige, matching ROADS, weird prejudices I have never personally seen)...and everything to do with the pathway...and the extra BS you have to deal with.

First of all, good luck next week!! Second of all, thank you so much for your post, it is very insightful, and not something you normally read here.

Sorry for my naive questions but isnt there very little evidence to support that OMM works? And when it does, it only works for a few situations (lower back pain?) So...why does DO push it? What about the 100 year old philosophy about treating "the whole" and the "persons spirit"? Isn't it obvious that it is a load of crap? Why do they hang on to it...just to make sure that there is a distinction between MD and DO? Then what is the reason for THAT...political reasons? You know, I always wondered this but never had the balls to ask this on SDN...how does someone interview at DO schools when it is obvious that whatever you say is bullsht: "oh yeaaaah Mr. Dean. I really want to go to your school because it emphasises an ancient/defunct philosophy, and a pointless class :). But lets cut the bs, im here cause my grades suck, my mcat is on the low side, but I know that I can still be a competent physician. Hence im willing to deal with your shananagans and put up with this false facade :) :) :) :)" ?????? I mean, aren't DO's realllly intelligent people, so don't they understand the nonsense that they accentuate and that the MD med school model is the right one? If they know it...and I know it...then it would make me feel really stupid to lie with my fake smiles and memorized/prepaed speeches. How do people go about this problem? What do they say? Or do most DO's actually believe everything that the philosophy preaches? (btw, i hope this is not offensive to you. If its any consolation coming from a lowly premed like myself, you seem like a really nice guy, and like someone I would trust my life with in an emergency department. My apologies for being so misinformed about the politics pertaining to MD/DO)

I typed this on my phone, so dont hate on the spelling.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Why do they hang on to it.

Just a guess, but it probably stems from the fact that medical school is a business. Administrators and executives run medical schools, and as a result they are "out of touch" with students and real-world medicine.
 
First of all, good luck next week!! Second of all, thank you so much for your post, it is very insightful, and not something you normally read here.

Sorry for my naive questions but isnt there very little evidence to support that OMM works? And when it does, it only works for a few situations (lower back pain?) So...why does DO push it? What about the 100 year old philosophy about treating "the whole" and the "persons spirit"? Isn't it obvious that it is a load of crap? Why do they hang on to it...just to make sure that there is a distinction between MD and DO? Then what is the reason for THAT...political reasons? You know, I always wondered this but never had the balls to ask this on SDN...how does someone interview at DO schools when it is obvious that whatever you say is bullsht: "oh yeaaaah Mr. Dean. I really want to go to your school because it emphasises an ancient/defunct philosophy, and a pointless class :). But lets cut the bs, im here cause my grades suck, my mcat is on the low side, but I know that I can still be a competent physician. Hence im willing to deal with your shananagans and put up with this false facade :) :) :) :)" ?????? I mean, aren't DO's realllly intelligent people, so don't they understand the nonsense that they accentuate and that the MD med school model is the right one? If they know it...and I know it...then it would make me feel really stupid to lie with my fake smiles and memorized/prepaed speeches. How do people go about this problem? What do they say? Or do most DO's actually believe everything that the philosophy preaches? (btw, i hope this is not offensive to you. If its any consolation coming from a lowly premed like myself, you seem like a really nice guy, and like someone I would trust my life with in an emergency department. My apologies for being so misinformed about the politics pertaining to MD/DO)

I typed this on my phone, so dont hate on the spelling.

As an MD student I am at times astonished at what people in my class believe without or in contradiction to evidence. I wouldn't expect DO students to be less susceptible.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
First of all, good luck next week!! Second of all, thank you so much for your post, it is very insightful, and not something you normally read here.

Sorry for my naive questions but isnt there very little evidence to support that OMM works? And when it does, it only works for a few situations (lower back pain?) So...why does DO push it? What about the 100 year old philosophy about treating "the whole" and the "persons spirit"? Isn't it obvious that it is a load of crap? Why do they hang on to it...just to make sure that there is a distinction between MD and DO? Then what is the reason for THAT...political reasons? You know, I always wondered this but never had the balls to ask this on SDN...how does someone interview at DO schools when it is obvious that whatever you say is bullsht: "oh yeaaaah Mr. Dean. I really want to go to your school because it emphasises an ancient/defunct philosophy, and a pointless class :). But lets cut the bs, im here cause my grades suck, my mcat is on the low side, but I know that I can still be a competent physician. Hence im willing to deal with your shananagans and put up with this false facade :) :) :) :)" ?????? I mean, aren't DO's realllly intelligent people, so don't they understand the nonsense that they accentuate and that the MD med school model is the right one? If they know it...and I know it...then it would make me feel really stupid to lie with my fake smiles and memorized/prepaed speeches. How do people go about this problem? What do they say? Or do most DO's actually believe everything that the philosophy preaches? (btw, i hope this is not offensive to you. If its any consolation coming from a lowly premed like myself, you seem like a really nice guy, and like someone I would trust my life with in an emergency department. My apologies for being so misinformed about the politics pertaining to MD/DO)

I typed this on my phone, so dont hate on the spelling.
DO schools do follow the "MD" model. The curriculum of both types of schools is almost identical for the most part, and is taught the same. The only real difference is that DO schools tend to have a bit longer schedule, so they can fit in OMM. OMM can also be charged, some patients like it, and thus it's a small money maker. Most DO's don't ever use it, however.

Secondly, for the rest of the discussion. DO's have a 75% match rate in the ACGME match, and about a 90% overall match rate (AOA + ACGME). DO's have a harder time getting into very competitive ACGME residencies, but for the majority of residencies and specialties, they're fine.

Wow, we have this topic every day, lol.
 
As an MD student I am at times astonished at what people in my class believe without or in contradiction to evidence. I wouldn't expect DO students to be less susceptible.

Youd be stunned by what some of my classmates who buy into OMM believe. Its mindblowing...it really is. Its like a case of stockholm syndrome with these kids. They take their professors word as gospel regardless of the truth....and just bc a professor said it.
 
I find it astonishing that people don't realize that no matter how intelligent someone pretends to be or when you have individuals around you who you think are intelligent, but buy into the dumbest things without regard for questioning its legitimacy or its usefulness.
 
The bottom line is that DO is a great option and the license is the same, but MD is slightly better especially when you want to match into a very competitive specialty. However, I wouldn't wait a year to reapply, you only get older and who knows maybe next year you might not get into any school given that you didn't make it into an MD school this year.
 
M.D. has all the prestige. nobody wants to be a pill-prescribing chiropractor. that's why 99% of D.O.'s are M.D. rejects
 
Go for the M.D. bro... manipulation is ridiculous
 
First of all, good luck next week!! Second of all, thank you so much for your post, it is very insightful, and not something you normally read here.

Sorry for my naive questions but isnt there very little evidence to support that OMM works? And when it does, it only works for a few situations (lower back pain?) So...why does DO push it? What about the 100 year old philosophy about treating "the whole" and the "persons spirit"? Isn't it obvious that it is a load of crap? Why do they hang on to it...just to make sure that there is a distinction between MD and DO? Then what is the reason for THAT...political reasons? You know, I always wondered this but never had the balls to ask this on SDN...how does someone interview at DO schools when it is obvious that whatever you say is bullsht: "oh yeaaaah Mr. Dean. I really want to go to your school because it emphasises an ancient/defunct philosophy, and a pointless class :). But lets cut the bs, im here cause my grades suck, my mcat is on the low side, but I know that I can still be a competent physician. Hence im willing to deal with your shananagans and put up with this false facade :) :) :) :)" ?????? I mean, aren't DO's realllly intelligent people, so don't they understand the nonsense that they accentuate and that the MD med school model is the right one? If they know it...and I know it...then it would make me feel really stupid to lie with my fake smiles and memorized/prepaed speeches. How do people go about this problem? What do they say? Or do most DO's actually believe everything that the philosophy preaches? (btw, i hope this is not offensive to you. If its any consolation coming from a lowly premed like myself, you seem like a really nice guy, and like someone I would trust my life with in an emergency department. My apologies for being so misinformed about the politics pertaining to MD/DO)

I typed this on my phone, so dont hate on the spelling.


Thank you so much! My stress level has dropped off a ton now that I am done with my "ramming this $hit into my brain" phase...and onto my quickly reviewing everything phase (and discovering it stuck the first time.) To start...you dont offend me AT ALL. The only people who are offense on this board are the types who just come on (as premeds) and talk **** about DOs like they are *****s etc. But if its an honest, respectful discussion I will jump right in and give you my opinion as someone who is going through it. As for the whole BS about faking you like OMM to get in. Its just part of the game. And the OMM people really believe in the stuff....so you have to BS them because they hold the key. And to be fair, some of the stuff is good for certain indications. And think about it this way....most of the time when you go to the doctor for an illness its a hands off encounter for the most part. OMM connects the patient to the physician....and I think that physical touch goes a long way for some patients. Placebo effect...probably...but for certain musculoskeletal things it can work. Most OMM is glorified stretching/getting muscles to relax by using the antagonist muscle group and the like. I think it def has a place in sports medicine/team physicians and such who have acute muscle sprains/strains. And if I patient came in with a hypertonic muscle...id give it a whirl before cuttin them a script for muscle relaxants. But for a lot of the stuff its a bunch of baloney. I think a lot of students believe in it for a while because its not SO insane that they cant even wrap their mind around. Its based on believable principles.....so they dont really doubt it. The only thing we are taught that was so freakin outright ridiculous that almost everyone recognized it...was cranial...and we wont get into that because it hurts my brain to even think about people buying into that.

I think the higher ups (think AOA) hold on to this crap...because its the only distinction they have left. Furthermore its their job. If they admitted most DO students never use OMM again, and that OMM isnt really proven to work any better than more established treatments they would be out of jobs! And the AOA continues to exist because the 5 or 10 students in every class who buy into OMM are the ones who repopulate the AOA board. Let me just give an example of how "odd" these people are. Last year I went to an AOA lobbying event in DC. It was more of a medicine in general lobbying even, not just DO issues. My group leader was the present of the AOA. I was making smalltalk with him and I said "oh so dr X where did you go to medical school." He replies, " I didnt go to medical school." (insert long awkward silence bc i knew he was a DO)...."I WENT TO OSTEOPATHIC MEDICAL SCHOOL." And he actually stormed away from me.

Story #2 I have a friend in my class who was in charge of setting up a talk about healthcare reform. He got a "higher up" from a nationally known allopathic medical organization (I am being vague but I am sure u know what im talking about. bc I dont know if he wanted this online). He was really pumped about it since she is well known, as is the organization. He invited all the professors at our school, the dean, the presient of the pa osteopathic med association. About 2 days prior he gets an e mail from said present that stated "I am sorry, I will be unable to attend your event. It is clear your organization has interests outside of osteopathic medicine, which is unacceptable to me." All of a sudden, the dean, who had agreed to introduce the speaker didnt show up to the talk. Do I think that pres e mailed him etc? Maybe...but still it was absolutely ridiculous and I was/am embarrassed by it. THESE are the types of people that keep modern day DOs in the past. None of us students and new residents attendings want to deal with this crap....its just a few people. And unfortunately those few people hold the power.
 
M.D. has all the prestige. nobody wants to be a pill-prescribing chiropractor. that's why 99% of D.O.'s are M.D. rejects
I will say this about you. You're one of the biggest trolls on SDN, but your DO trolling is consistent. I'll give you that, lol.
 
M.D. has all the prestige. nobody wants to be a pill-prescribing chiropractor. that's why 99% of D.O.'s are M.D. rejects

A cursory glance over your comments on other threads yielded some gems. I cant even be mad you posted that...its virtually the only thing you post about.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
M.D. has all the prestige. nobody wants to be a pill-prescribing chiropractor. that's why 99% of D.O.'s are M.D. rejects

nzQsn.jpg
 
Thank you so much! My stress level has dropped off a ton now that I am done with my "ramming this $hit into my brain" phase...and onto my quickly reviewing everything phase (and discovering it stuck the first time.) To start...you dont offend me AT ALL. The only people who are offense on this board are the types who just come on (as premeds) and talk **** about DOs like they are *****s etc. But if its an honest, respectful discussion I will jump right in and give you my opinion as someone who is going through it. As for the whole BS about faking you like OMM to get in. Its just part of the game. And the OMM people really believe in the stuff....so you have to BS them because they hold the key. And to be fair, some of the stuff is good for certain indications. And think about it this way....most of the time when you go to the doctor for an illness its a hands off encounter for the most part. OMM connects the patient to the physician....and I think that physical touch goes a long way for some patients. Placebo effect...probably...but for certain musculoskeletal things it can work. Most OMM is glorified stretching/getting muscles to relax by using the antagonist muscle group and the like. I think it def has a place in sports medicine/team physicians and such who have acute muscle sprains/strains. And if I patient came in with a hypertonic muscle...id give it a whirl before cuttin them a script for muscle relaxants. But for a lot of the stuff its a bunch of baloney. I think a lot of students believe in it for a while because its not SO insane that they cant even wrap their mind around. Its based on believable principles.....so they dont really doubt it. The only thing we are taught that was so freakin outright ridiculous that almost everyone recognized it...was cranial...and we wont get into that because it hurts my brain to even think about people buying into that.

I think the higher ups (think AOA) hold on to this crap...because its the only distinction they have left. Furthermore its their job. If they admitted most DO students never use OMM again, and that OMM isnt really proven to work any better than more established treatments they would be out of jobs! And the AOA continues to exist because the 5 or 10 students in every class who buy into OMM are the ones who repopulate the AOA board. Let me just give an example of how "odd" these people are. Last year I went to an AOA lobbying event in DC. It was more of a medicine in general lobbying even, not just DO issues. My group leader was the present of the AOA. I was making smalltalk with him and I said "oh so dr X where did you go to medical school." He replies, " I didnt go to medical school." (insert long awkward silence bc i knew he was a DO)...."I WENT TO OSTEOPATHIC MEDICAL SCHOOL." And he actually stormed away from me.

Story #2 I have a friend in my class who was in charge of setting up a talk about healthcare reform. He got a "higher up" from a nationally known allopathic medical organization (I am being vague but I am sure u know what im talking about. bc I dont know if he wanted this online). He was really pumped about it since she is well known, as is the organization. He invited all the professors at our school, the dean, the presient of the pa osteopathic med association. About 2 days prior he gets an e mail from said present that stated "I am sorry, I will be unable to attend your event. It is clear your organization has interests outside of osteopathic medicine, which is unacceptable to me." All of a sudden, the dean, who had agreed to introduce the speaker didnt show up to the talk. Do I think that pres e mailed him etc? Maybe...but still it was absolutely ridiculous and I was/am embarrassed by it. THESE are the types of people that keep modern day DOs in the past. None of us students and new residents attendings want to deal with this crap....its just a few people. And unfortunately those few people hold the power.


Awesome response! Crazy situations.

I honestly hope I never have to come to the point where I will interview at a DO school (I want to go into a 'high end' specialty), but in the event that I do (everything can happen), how do people know what to say? You mentioned that there are normal people, but the old timers (the 10%) tend to be truly old school and really believe in "healing the whole body" etc... So the question is; do you always bullsht just in case since you don't know who believes in what?

I mean, its just soooo damn awkward, you know? I picture two people sitting in a room wearing suites. Both of them know what is going on. The interviewer (an older doctor with common sense) pretends to be a representative of the osteopathic philosophy.. and then there is the student, desperate and eager to become a physician (My aunt's friend went to NYCOM, and she got a 22 on her MCAT. I consider her a good physician, so obviously low GPA + MCAT doesn't mean you can't handle med school) who has a 3.2 GPA and a 24 on the MCAT...... and then, the interviewer awkwardly asks him "So, what is it about osteopathic medicine that attracted you here?" Lol..... "uhhh.. nothing. You people accept applicants with low a*s scores, I want to be a doctor, I suck at test taking, so here I am".

That would be me in that case. I wouldn't be able to bullsht. Idk. Is there a solution to this? Its not like DO schools can just convert to MD schools and say "listen, we've been using a 100 year old mentality... Our curriculum is already 99% identical to an allopathic curriculum, but we have this giant contradictory blob on our foreheads that it is about time we got rid of - so lets just get rid of it"

Clearly DO schools produce competent doctors, so accepting people with lower MCAT's and GPA's is not a problem. The problem is the amount of applicants per seat. Hypothetically, if the DO schools abandoned their whole trademark name, and became just another MD school, that would certainly lower MD average stats. Everyone would win:
1) More MD schools, less competition
2) MD is the only medical degree
3) No more MD vs. DO posts :p
4) No COMPLEX
5) Most importantly, a very gangrenous vestigial useless limb will finally be amputated - leaving "DO" programs with a true, MD curriculum, without any add-ons or subtractions. Best of all? The physicians don't sound contradictory.

Obviously that is all hypothetical ^

And I totally agree with you about physical patient contact. Its very important based on what I have seen (from my *limited* shadowing experience) and one should never underestimate the power of the placebo effect.

You guys are awesome, you learn the same crazy sht MD's learn, and you have the same exact privileges, but yet, the mentality is just so primitive. Long story short, I was just wondering whether all DO's really believe that stuff, and if not, then why is there still such a thing as a 'DO'. You answered my question pretty thoroughly, so thank you for your time, and for being so civil. :)
 
Awesome response! Crazy situations.

I honestly hope I never have to come to the point where I will interview at a DO school (I want to go into a 'high end' specialty), but in the event that I do (everything can happen), how do people know what to say? You mentioned that there are normal people, but the old timers (the 10%) tend to be truly old school and really believe in "healing the whole body" etc... So the question is; do you always bullsht just in case since you don't know who believes in what?

I mean, its just soooo damn awkward, you know? I picture two people sitting in a room wearing suites. Both of them know what is going on. The interviewer (an older doctor with common sense) pretends to be a representative of the osteopathic philosophy.. and then there is the student, desperate and eager to become a physician (My aunt's friend went to NYCOM, and she got a 22 on her MCAT. I consider her a good physician, so obviously low GPA + MCAT doesn't mean you can't handle med school) who has a 3.2 GPA and a 24 on the MCAT...... and then, the interviewer awkwardly asks him "So, what is it about osteopathic medicine that attracted you here?" Lol..... "uhhh.. nothing. You people accept applicants with low a*s scores, I want to be a doctor, I suck at test taking, so here I am".

That would be me in that case. I wouldn't be able to bullsht. Idk. Is there a solution to this? Its not like DO schools can just convert to MD schools and say "listen, we've been using a 100 year old mentality... Our curriculum is already 99% identical to an allopathic curriculum, but we have this giant contradictory blob on our foreheads that it is about time we got rid of - so lets just get rid of it"

Clearly DO schools produce competent doctors, so accepting people with lower MCAT's and GPA's is not a problem. The problem is the amount of applicants per seat. Hypothetically, if the DO schools abandoned their whole trademark name, and became just another MD school, that would certainly lower MD average stats. Everyone would win:
1) More MD schools, less competition
2) MD is the only medical degree
3) No more MD vs. DO posts :p
4) No COMPLEX
5) Most importantly, a very gangrenous vestigial useless limb will finally be amputated - leaving "DO" programs with a true, MD curriculum, without any add-ons or subtractions. Best of all? The physicians don't sound contradictory.

Obviously that is all hypothetical ^

And I totally agree with you about physical patient contact. Its very important based on what I have seen (from my *limited* shadowing experience) and one should never underestimate the power of the placebo effect.

You guys are awesome, you learn the same crazy sht MD's learn, and you have the same exact privileges, but yet, the mentality is just so primitive. Long story short, I was just wondering whether all DO's really believe that stuff, and if not, then why is there still such a thing as a 'DO'. You answered my question pretty thoroughly, so thank you for your time, and for being so civil. :)
You keep bringing up MD vs. DO curriculum differences. You even mention "subtractions". What are MD's taught that DO's aren't?
 
You keep bringing up MD vs. DO curriculum differences. You even mention "subtractions". What are MD's taught that DO's aren't?

The opposite.

MD = DO + OMM

DO - OMM = MD

MD = DO.

I'm not bashing on either curriculum. I'm saying that MD's and DO's learn the same exact thing, except that DO's have to learn OMM. Should osteopathic schools convert to allopathic ones, they would not teach OMM anymore and thus would be identical to an allopathic education.
 
The opposite.

MD = DO + OMM

DO - OMM = MD

MD = DO.

I'm not bashing on either curriculum. I'm saying that MD's and DO's learn the same exact thing, except that DO's have to learn OMM. Should osteopathic schools convert to allopathic ones, they would not teach OMM anymore and thus would be identical to an allopathic education.
I get what you're trying to do here but your first equation should be

MD + OMM = DO

:prof: lol
 
The opposite.

MD = DO + OMM

DO - OMM = MD

MD = DO.

I'm not bashing on either curriculum. I'm saying that MD's and DO's learn the same exact thing, except that DO's have to learn OMM. Should osteopathic schools convert to allopathic ones, they would not teach OMM anymore and thus would be identical to an allopathic education.
To be honest, they would probably still insist on teaching OMM (at least make it optional), but without the philosophy. OMM is a serious money maker to many practices.
 
I get what you're trying to do here but your first equation should be

MD + OMM = DO

:prof: lol

Lmao, thanks! That's what I meant. :cool:

To be honest, they would probably still insist on teaching OMM (at least make it optional), but without the philosophy. OMM is a serious money maker to many practices.

Good point :thumbup: I can actually see it as an elective too.
 
I get what you're trying to do here but your first equation should be

MD + OMM = DO

:prof: lol

I think what many allo people object to is the self serving claim often repeated on the osteo boards that DO is equivalent to MD PLUS something -- ie that it's an enhanced and superior degree somehow. Most of us are okay with folks claiming it's simply the equivalent but that's really not how people on the osteo boards like to leave it, if you read through those threads. The real equation is likely that
DO + OMM = MD - breadth in a handful of first year courses like biochem.
 
1. Case studies are often the weakest evidence when presenting any sort of findings.

No, they are the least generalizable. There is nothing weak about the finding itself, but that's semantics really. I get your point. Within the context of the case the finding may be extremely strong, however for establishing trends that's a different story.

2. PsyD programs are not equivalent in ANY way to PhD programs unless you literally want to just become a clinical psychologist. You lack any sort of coursework or research to prepare you to work in the field of psychology outside of clinical work.
Not exactly true, many rigorous Psyd programs (e.g. Baylor (88.4% 10 yr match rate), Rutgers (90% 10 year match rate)) do focus on research more than other Psyd programs where as PhD programs like PGSP Ph.D. (63% 10 yr match rate, which is much lower the PGSP-Stanford Psy.D's 86%) are less research oriented than even Baylor.
It's not simply you aren't as competitive for fellowships, it's simply you just won't get one over a PhD grad.
Get rid of the 15 worst offending apa accredited degree mills and match rates become much less disparate. 14 of which are Psyd programs and one of which is a PhD program. All of which are free standing for profit schools. APPIC match statistics suggest differently:

Match Rate
Ph.D. Psy.D.
Matched 84% 75%
Not Matched 14% 22%
Withdrew or did not 2% 3%
submit rankings

Where you are correct is the quality of those matches:

Percentage of matched applicants that were placed at an
APA- or CPA-accredited program:

Ph.D. = 94%
Psy.D. = 64%

Adding credence that the more competitive slots go to the Ph.D. students and not the Psy.D. students.



3. Many PsyD programs require students to pay, whereas most PhD programs fund students through grants.

4. Graduating from a PsyD program does not offer you even close to similar opportunities for career options;
You are right about the money, but less right about the opportunity. Psyd graduates tend to have the greatest difficultly with getting positions as academics, and even now there has been a shift too with the flooding of the market by Psyd practitioners.

whereas DO and MD programs allow students to compete for the same residencies.
So do PhD and Psyd students.

5. The individual is just that, the individual. It doesn't matter what happened to random Joe over there, when it comes down to it. Unless you can apply the data to a generalizable model, anecdotes are simply stories we like to tell people to give them hopes and dreams. If you are the 1%, congratulations, but the other 99% of people are exactly what the statistics state is going to happen. There is a reason that 99% of the people survive, and the 1% don't, and that can't be modeled because it is an anomaly.
LOL, no I am not the 1%, I went to a fully funded PhD program, and I still believe the argument is in fact somewhat analogous.

Anyway, the entire point of my argument is this. Get into the best program you can get into, regardless of MD or DO, do well there, and then try and match into the residency you want to work in. Look at matching rates from schools to the type of residency you want. That will be the only thing that really matters when it comes down to your career 10 years from now.
This we both agree on completely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The opposite.

MD = DO + OMM

DO - OMM = MD

MD = DO.

I'm not bashing on either curriculum. I'm saying that MD's and DO's learn the same exact thing, except that DO's have to learn OMM. Should osteopathic schools convert to allopathic ones, they would not teach OMM anymore and thus would be identical to an allopathic education.
I see a problem with these posts.... Law gets at this quite nicely below.
I think what many allo people object to is the self serving claim often repeated on the osteo boards that DO is equivalent to MD PLUS something -- ie that it's an enhanced and superior degree somehow. Most of us are okay with folks claiming it's simply the equivalent but that's really not how people on the osteo boards like to leave it, if you read through those threads. The real equation is likely that
DO + OMM = MD - breadth in a handful of first year courses like biochem.

Here is the thing for me, and you (in a generalized "whole pre-osteo board" use of the word) are more than welcome to (and probably likely to) object.

I believe that GPA and MCAT scores on the whole are indicative of a person's ability. I do not believe that 1 person can be accurately described and quantified by their scores, but I do believe that a group of people can be accurately described by their cumulative scores.

What I mean is - 1000 people with high GPA and high standardized test scores are likely more academically "able" on average than 1000 people with lower scores. Within the higher group there are very likely people who got lucky and/or had fluff majors for the GPA. Within the lower group there are very likely people who had bad days or extenuating circumstances. Within EACH group is a majority of people who are more or less accurately described by their scores and each groups makes a distribution of such situations.

So here is where the logic breaks down - We have a system which selects out of a lower pool on average claiming to bee more strenuous but with equal success rate (although it is about 10% lower by match, I suppose) to a system with increased selection criteria. That doesnt make any sense to me. If the selection criteria are at all related to ability you would either expect increased success with increased selectivity or less strenuous work for the lower selective groups - or there cannot be a correlation between the scoring criteria and ability (which, again, I do not believe to be true).

This is why MD+ sticks in the craw of so many MD schools. Ive eased up on DOs since starting on SDN. We dont have to stick to the itchy inflamed and ointment-needing subject of MD/DO :idea:, so for common ground, consider this:
http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/drgrisanti/mddc.htm

same logic applies. Do you (MD and DO alike) appreciate the claim that DCs do more with less time (and per scores less ability) than you do? Kind of a slap in the face when the two pre-clinic years are arguably the most intense academic training on the entire face of the world. They are basically saying "oh you guys don't have it that bad, look how bad WE have it!". And depending how close you are to finals/boards/pharmacology you can either laugh, cry, or go on a psychotic rage.

The point is NOT that DOs are incapable. Just that the MD+ analogy is self serving (I liked that use before, so I'm borrowing it ;)) and disingenuous. It should really just stop because the focus on OMM can be just as easily seen as a negative and spawns the confusion when SDN noobs start tlaking about it being the focal point of training. Once could easily call MD DO+ because it is DO+ prestige, match-ability, whatever. To be honest the whole ___=___+ comparison should just go away all together, but what I am suggesting here is that turnabout is fair play and you guys (preDO and DO students whatever) cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim MD+ OMM and in the same breath downplay OMM as not defining of your training. I'm doing research which not all med students do. Will I be MD+? I will arguably have as much research as DOs have OMM (and a defensible position which says it is more beneficial too ;)). We all have unique training experiences to some degree if we seek it out so to emphasize something the majority of you also consider minor is not only a monumental pat on your own back, but aside from its irritating implication it is just a little sad.

TL;DR
Believing in the meaning of scores is not the same as saying anyone is smarter than anyone else based on scores
Emphasis on OMM making DO=MD+ is just nonsense and is as childish for people (mostly pre-DOs) to cling to as is the mindless DO bashing by pre-allo. Puts both groups on equally low footing IMO.
 
Last edited:
I think what many allo people object to is the self serving claim often repeated on the osteo boards that DO is equivalent to MD PLUS something -- ie that it's an enhanced and superior degree somehow. Most of us are okay with folks claiming it's simply the equivalent but that's really not how people on the osteo boards like to leave it, if you read through those threads. The real equation is likely that
DO + OMM = MD - breadth in a handful of first year courses like biochem.

Yeah. Just pre DOs with inferiority complexes id say. I think the more you progress through DO school the less likely you are to say that stuff. I got jaded pretty damn quickly...
 
I stay on the Pre-DO board a lot, and I have rarely ever heard anyone describe a DO degree as MD+. In fact, I actually never have. My problem with these constant debates on SDN is that it makes it seem like it's a real issue in the real world, but just like most things on SDN, it's something pre-meds and medical students harp on about, but no one really cares about in the real world. I've worked with more DO's than I have MD's, and I've seen them in some really competitive fields, and no one has ever pointed out that they were DO's. No one has ever started a debate about OMM, no patient has even asked what a DO is. Whenever someone asks whether they should go DO or reapply to MD, I always say that they have to make these decisions for themselves. Figure out a ballpark list of what specialties you're considering (for the majority of them, you're fine as a DO), and that includes even having to do a AOA residency (half of DO's do them, and they find jobs easily and get paid the exact same as their MD counterparts). Figure out a path that is best for you, not what a bunch of pre-meds (who tend to overrate their own ability to get into top MD programs) think.

These debates overstate the "prestige" argument way too much. Med students need to realize that this is a business, and you have a job like any other. Most patients and lay people out there don't care what school you went to or that you're a doctor, they don't respect it. I was talking to a friend of mine this weekend who graduated from a top MD program and is now doing an Ortho surgery residency, and the main advice he had for me was "get humility." Otherwise, you may find yourself pissing off the wrong person (like he did), and then find yourself in front of an administrator, with half the education you have, determining your future.

BTW, this was a generic rant, not to anyone in particular.
 
I see a problem with these posts.... Law gets at this quite nicely below.


Here is the thing for me, and you (in a generalized "whole pre-osteo board" use of the word) are more than welcome to (and probably likely to) object.

I believe that GPA and MCAT scores on the whole are indicative of a person's ability. I do not believe that 1 person can be accurately described and quantified by their scores, but I do believe that a group of people can be accurately described by their cumulative scores.

What I mean is - 1000 people with high GPA and high standardized test scores are likely more academically "able" on average than 1000 people with lower scores. Within the higher group there are very likely people who got lucky and/or had fluff majors for the GPA. Within the lower group there are very likely people who had bad days or extenuating circumstances. Within EACH group is a majority of people who are more or less accurately described by their scores and each groups makes a distribution of such situations.

So here is where the logic breaks down - We have a system which selects out of a lower pool on average claiming to bee more strenuous but with equal success rate (although it is about 10% lower by match, I suppose) to a system with increased selection criteria. That doesnt make any sense to me. If the selection criteria are at all related to ability you would either expect increased success with increased selectivity or less strenuous work for the lower selective groups - or there cannot be a correlation between the scoring criteria and ability (which, again, I do not believe to be true).

This is why MD+ sticks in the craw of so many MD schools. Ive eased up on DOs since starting on SDN. We dont have to stick to the itchy inflamed and ointment-needing subject of MD/DO :idea:, so for common ground, consider this:
http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/drgrisanti/mddc.htm

same logic applies. Do you (MD and DO alike) appreciate the claim that DCs do more with less time (and per scores less ability) than you do? Kind of a slap in the face when the two pre-clinic years are arguably the most intense academic training on the entire face of the world. They are basically saying "oh you guys don't have it that bad, look how bad WE have it!". And depending how close you are to finals/boards/pharmacology you can either laugh, cry, or go on a psychotic rage.

The point is NOT that DOs are incapable. Just that the MD+ analogy is self serving (I liked that use before, so I'm borrowing it ;)) and disingenuous. It should really just stop because the focus on OMM can be just as easily seen as a negative and spawns the confusion when SDN noobs start tlaking about it being the focal point of training. Once could easily call MD DO+ because it is DO+ prestige, match-ability, whatever. To be honest the whole ___=___+ comparison should just go away all together, but what I am suggesting here is that turnabout is fair play and you guys (preDO and DO students whatever) cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim MD+ OMM and in the same breath downplay OMM as not defining of your training. I'm doing research which not all med students do. Will I be MD+? I will arguably have as much research as DOs have OMM (and a defensible position which says it is more beneficial too ;)). We all have unique training experiences to some degree if we seek it out so to emphasize something the majority of you also consider minor is not only a monumental pat on your own back, but aside from its irritating implication it is just a little sad.

TL;DR
Believing in the meaning of scores is not the same as saying anyone is smarter than anyone else based on scores
Emphasis on OMM making DO=MD+ is just nonsense and is as childish for people (mostly pre-DOs) to cling to as is the mindless DO bashing by pre-allo. Puts both groups on equally low footing IMO.

Leave me out of this you know i despise that crap :D

I agree with everyone you said. Its just pre osteo kids being insecure. I was one of them. I used to make all sorts of dumb claims. But you live and learn as you get experience. There is a reason the AOA sponsored lobbying trip usually only has 1st years go on it. By 2nd year most students know what the AOA/the OMMers are about. None of us see ourselves as any different than MD students. We are all dealing with the same bull**** (with the exception that you lucky bastards didnt have to deal with OMM). Its just a shame that we are "supported" by a national organization that doesnt represent us...but represents the 2-3% of every class who are rabidly pro DO. Sad state of affairs. Totally political at this point and totally un necessary.
 
I stay on the Pre-DO board a lot, and I have rarely ever heard anyone describe a DO degree as MD+. In fact, I actually never have. My problem with these constant debates on SDN is that it makes it seem like it's a real issue in the real world, but just like most things on SDN, it's something pre-meds and medical students harp on about, but no one really cares about in the real world. I've worked with more DO's than I have MD's, and I've seen them in some really competitive fields, and no one has ever pointed out that they were DO's. No one has ever started a debate about OMM, no patient has even asked what a DO is. Whenever someone asks whether they should go DO or reapply to MD, I always say that they have to make these decisions for themselves. Figure out a ballpark list of what specialties you're considering (for the majority of them, you're fine as a DO), and that includes even having to do a AOA residency (half of DO's do them, and they find jobs easily and get paid the exact same as their MD counterparts). Figure out a path that is best for you, not what a bunch of pre-meds (who tend to overrate their own ability to get into top MD programs) think.

These debates overstate the "prestige" argument way too much. Med students need to realize that this is a business, and you have a job like any other. Most patients and lay people out there don't care what school you went to or that you're a doctor, they don't respect it. I was talking to a friend of mine this weekend who graduated from a top MD program and is now doing an Ortho surgery residency, and the main advice he had for me was "get humility." Otherwise, you may find yourself pissing off the wrong person (like he did), and then find yourself in front of an administrator, with half the education you have, determining your future.

BTW, this was a generic rant, not to anyone in particular.


Its been said...just not as frequently as law2doc makes it seem. At any rate the arguing about this is just ridiculous already. Nitpicking semantics...wow. Let the premeds alone to worry about their inferiority complexes.

But you are right, largely this crap doesnt go on IRL. "Well i shadowed X doc and he said this blah blah blah." It was shadowing. Thats what happens. You are there as a learner so the doctor is going to tell you crap he otherwise wouldnt have said. Hes going to advise you on the best route to go...which is irrefutably MD. I am not gonna go tooting my own horn but I worked in healthcare for 10 years before med school, and ive never seen this "crazy omnipotent bias" **** that everyone here thinks is so overwhelming. Never seen it. I am sure its around somewhere, but its not going to be infiltrating every aspect of your life. But premeds dont know that. They dont have experience in the field. They shadowed a bit and some doctor told them something...thats all theyve generally got. I dont even know why this argument keeps coming up. There are only a few things that need to be said about the DO pathway and every thread like this would be resolved in 2 posts:

1. You get paid the same as MDs
2. The admissions hard numbers are easier.
3. You will be forced to learn OMM
4. You will have a harder time matching into ACGME residencies and certain specialties may be unattainable (of course this IRL pertains to like 25% of med students although allos wanna believe everyone is going to be a neurosurgeon).


Thats really it. Anything else is just he said she said N=1 stories and dudes with their e peens out trying to feel superior because they cant say this **** in real life without getting their faces smashed in.
 
Leave me out of this you know i despise that crap :D

I agree with everyone you said. Its just pre osteo kids being insecure. I was one of them. I used to make all sorts of dumb claims. But you live and learn as you get experience. There is a reason the AOA sponsored lobbying trip usually only has 1st years go on it. By 2nd year most students know what the AOA/the OMMers are about. None of us see ourselves as any different than MD students. We are all dealing with the same bull**** (with the exception that you lucky bastards didnt have to deal with OMM). Its just a shame that we are "supported" by a national organization that doesnt represent us...but represents the 2-3% of every class who are rabidly pro DO. Sad state of affairs. Totally political at this point and totally un necessary.

Don't let willen fool you, he loves OMM. Every saturday night he's like, "crack me, J, crack me." And I'm like, "Naw."
 
Its been said...just not as frequently as law2doc makes it seem. At any rate the arguing about this is just ridiculous already. Nitpicking semantics...wow. Let the premeds alone to worry about their inferiority complexes.

But you are right, largely this crap doesnt go on IRL. "Well i shadowed X doc and he said this blah blah blah." It was shadowing. Thats what happens. You are there as a learner so the doctor is going to tell you crap he otherwise wouldnt have said. Hes going to advise you on the best route to go...which is irrefutably MD. I am not gonna go tooting my own horn but I worked in healthcare for 10 years before med school, and ive never seen this "crazy omnipotent bias" **** that everyone here thinks is so overwhelming. Never seen it. I am sure its around somewhere, but its not going to be infiltrating every aspect of your life. But premeds dont know that. They dont have experience in the field. They shadowed a bit and some doctor told them something...thats all theyve generally got. I dont even know why this argument keeps coming up. There are only a few things that need to be said about the DO pathway and every thread like this would be resolved in 2 posts:

1. You get paid the same as MDs
2. The admissions hard numbers are easier.
3. You will be forced to learn OMM
4. You will have a harder time matching into ACGME residencies and certain specialties may be unattainable (of course this IRL pertains to like 25% of med students although allos wanna believe everyone is going to be a neurosurgeon).


Thats really it. Anything else is just he said she said N=1 stories and dudes with their e peens out trying to feel superior because they cant say this **** in real life without getting their faces smashed in.
Exactly. It's why pre-meds need to learn to determine their own path, without worry of what anyone else. There are a few specialties that you will have a very hard time matching into (AOA or ACGME), but outside of that, you're fine. In the end, though, the vast majority of MD students won't be able to get into those specialties either (though, they have a better chance). In the end, as a DO 15 years from now, you'll be a doctor (or surgeon [even through AOA residencies]), and you'll be making the same. Hopefully by then, you won't be on this website caring about what pre-meds think, lol.
 
SoulinNeed,

Quite a few attendings here, now, who have been attendings for a rather long time ;). We can't just rely on premed sage wisdom, after all.
Your status says medical student, so I don't believe it. ;p

Though, I should ask. Do you have any experience working with DO's? Does anyone ever bring up the distinction?
 
I worked in healthcare for 10 years before med school, and ive never seen this "crazy omnipotent bias" **** that everyone here thinks is so overwhelming. Never seen it. I am sure its around somewhere, but its not going to be infiltrating every aspect of your life. But premeds dont know that. They dont have experience in the field.

Thank you! After 8 years in the medical field, the only thing about DOs I've ever heard anyone say is, "wait, what is a DO?" Its usually NURSES that don't know, yet still call them doctor and follow the orders all the same.
 
I think what many allo people object to is the self serving claim often repeated on the osteo boards that DO is equivalent to MD PLUS something -- ie that it's an enhanced and superior degree somehow. Most of us are okay with folks claiming it's simply the equivalent but that's really not how people on the osteo boards like to leave it, if you read through those threads. The real equation is likely that
DO + OMM = MD - breadth in a handful of first year courses like biochem.
I agree with you, but you've still got the equation wrong. :laugh:

It should then be:

DO = MD - breadth + OMM
 
Patient title recognition is my primary concern with going the D.O. route. I have spoken to many otherwise educated people about my interest in osteopathic medicine, only to get the 'what's that' reply.
 
Patient title recognition is my primary concern with going the D.O. route. I have spoken to many otherwise educated people about my interest in osteopathic medicine, only to get the 'what's that' reply.
That's probably the silliest reason, honestly. There are various positions, specialties, etc. that patients don't know exist.

Besides, truth be told, patients recognize Physicians based on their specialty, not degree initials (eye doctor, heart surgeon, brain surgeon, family doctor, etc.).
 
Top