Medical School Comparison

[proudtobeDO]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I am new to this lounge, however I have had the opportunity to read previous threads. In doing so, I have gained insight into how others feel about the medical profession and more specifically osteopathic medicine. Your views would be much appreciated on the following:
http://personal.mem.bellsouth.net/mem/k/e/keep/editorial2.html

 

[DO DUDE]

Can't seem to get that address to work.

 

[DOPhD student]

Personally, I would never trust the opinion of a PhD, especially in the matter of clinical practice. While a relatively intelligent individual he may be, I doubt his medical knowledge is sufficient to make a quality judgement of our clinical faculty, who consists of AOA-/ACGME-trained DOs as well as MDs. Dr. Jones, while maintaining an appearance of neutrality, does take a clearly biased stand concerning who is "we" and who is "they" as he states that PhDs, whether at DO or MD school, are trained under "allopathic" medical model. This is simply untrue. Basic medical research is exactly that - research. It is neither allopathic or osteopathic in nature since either of the above terms describes a more clinical approach to science. With that said, Dr. Jones, as all other biomedical scientists, is a biomedical scientist, but not an "allopathic" biomedical scientist. My own PhD training thus far bears very little resemblance to my previous medical training, and I expect my clinical training to be even more different. As far as clinical training, his information may be outdated since students here are able to select from several affiliated teaching hospitals in the metropolitan area so the dearth of patients is a nonissue. I will also comment briefly on the issue of biomedical funding at my school. While it is true that the school's fundings in no way compare to the fundings received by one of the major allopathic medical school of my states, it is worthwhile to mention that they are roughly equal to some at smaller allopathic medical schools. More importantly, it can also boast the fastest rate of increase in fundings from NIH, etc. among all state medical schools. Finally on the issue of the bumper sticker - I too am guilty. My license frame reads "osteopathic medicine - America's doctor" not because I feel any need to prove myself, but rather a sense of pride in who I will become one day but more importantly as a means of making osteopathic physicians and osteopathy more visible. When a profession is as well known as the MD profession, it needs not advertise itself, but osteopathy is a relatively obscure profession, and its practicioners have every right to make their presence known, and yes, by any means necessary.

 

[Ponyboy]

I can see where the author was coming from concerning basic science research. If you look at most DO schools, the number of PI's are usually below 10 and NIH research funding is in the hundreds of thousands while at allopathic schools, there are at least several dozen PI's and research dollars are somewhere in the millions. Take MCV. A state school that isn't known for research. NIH grants total around $7 million. Compare that to Kirkesville, one of more respected DO schools. NIH grants around $400 thousand. You can guess who's doing more research.

 

[Synergy]

I once stumbled upon this joker's opinion. I would agree with DOPhD. Also, DO schools tend to concentrate more on community medicine. Maybe some noncommon diseases such as leprosy are not seen like when a student rotates in an academic medical center at an allopathic institution. There are many allopathic institutions that fit the community medicine model, too.
His opinion stereotypes all DO schools, and DO students. I was especially offended about his remarks concerning DO students. I am not sure what his agenda is anyway.

 

[newbie]

This PhD is another curmudgeon friend of psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, MD, the creator of the Quackwatch site (www.quackwatch.com). Both of these gentlemen represent the old-school mine-is-better-than-yours mentality that so many pre-meds are afraid of dealing with professionally. While some of their facts are correct, their ignorant biases shine through. Many of the negative things they have to say are half-truths or overgeneralizations made to put down other professions. Every one of their jabs could be easily debated.

If anything, take comfort in the likelihood that neither one of them could treat a cold, and the fact that they're a dying breed.

 

[Gregory Gulick]

When I read this article, I could not help but think of an MCAT question that might ask "Why has the author chosen to write this article?" And somehow, perhaps because I'm a idiot DO student, I can't seem to find a sincere reason for writing it. Why? Because he cites problem after problem with DO education, but offers no real recommendations or interventions for implementing positive change. When you compound this with his isolated, anecdotal stories where he interprets the intentions of others (i.e., assuming that actions imply insecurity, when it may, as DOPhD already demonstrated, be an indication of pride), you get little more than mud slinging.

Furthermore, I must wholeheartedly agree with DOPhD that the "us" and "them" distinctions are very clear in his writing. Also, his continual use of the word "competition" in describing the relationship between the two professions and his use of the word "VERSUS" in his title illustrate the improper perspective he has brought to DO/MD issue. I, for one, do not feel as if I am competing against any MD or their schools.

Finally, the argument is very one sided. He critiques the DO schools, but not the MD schools. He does not criticize the many allopathic schools that seem unable to produce more than 25% primary care physicians. And I love his assertion that osteopathic medical schools favor older applicants because we have difficulty filling our classes! And yet he says nothing about the downright ageist attitudes of many MD schools that consider no one over the age of 30. Furthermore, he had the gall to place the full blame of poor osteopathic public perception on our profession. I place a great deal of responsibility for poor perception onto the shoulders of the AMA who, for almost one-hundred years, produced seemingly endless negative PR campaigns against DOs in order to sway public opinion in hopes of doing us in.

Not a tremendously well-written or well-researched article, I'm afraid. I still wonder why he wrote it. Did someone at TCOM anger him in someway? For example, by looking at his CV I noticed he was chair of the physio department from 84 to 93, but continued at the school through 94. Was he asked to step down? Replaced? Encouraged to retire early? Or did he do it voluntarily? Who knows. Regardless, there is a degree of disloyalty to his last and final appointment that I find questionable.

[This message has been edited by Gregory Gulick (edited June 29, 1999).]

 

[DO DUDE]

Seems interesting that he feels that research should be such a high priority at all medical schools. I know there are some students like myself who never plan on going into research and feel that clinical experience and education should be their priority. According to his own opinion DO schools
provide better focus on clinical education. Seems only logical that students more interested in clinical practice would attend schools known for better clinical exposure. I've never heard of DOs failing state licensing exams at a higher rate than MDs. Is this unique to TX?

His paragraph on older students and DO schools seems misplaced. He attempts to caveat his statements then proceeds to comment on how DO schools admit older students simply due to their lack of younger applicants and then implies quality and age are mutually exclusive. He doesn't expound further, but I suspect he believes that older students have less to offer due to fewer years left in their "useful" careers.

Again, if the stated purpose/tradition of most DO schools is reaching the underserved, and this by his own admission is happening, I don't see the problem with emphasizing clinical education.

 

[Synergy]

I for one could care less about doing much research. So this issue of MD vs DO for research doesn't mean much to me. I have (and let's face it, most med students) always cared more about clinical practice. Many students, like myself, that decide to attend a DO school, are usually more clinically oriented anyway. A large percentage of us go into primary care, and serve a huge need (and do it well, I might add), especially in underserved areas where otherwise they may get a nurse practitioner playing doctor.

DO schools have a hard time filling their spots? That is the most ludicrous opinion I have ever heard. There are many many applicants to DO schools. Also, by the time you get to this level, most of the students left are cream of the crop and highly qualified to be doctors.

 

[drusso]

Ah, old Dr. Jones...

Dr. Jones did in fact retire from his teaching and administrative post at a certain osteopathic medical school in Texas. However, he did not leave on the best of terms. That's all that can (or should) be said.

He obviously feels the needs to vent his frustration in public and for good or for evil that is the nature of freedom of speech on the internet. Sadly, by choosing an online cardiovascular research journal to do so, Dr. Jones lends the imprimatur of responsible scientific discourse and intellectual integrity to nothing but a childish tirade.

I believe that Dr. Jones' editorial reflects a more prevalent erosion of editorial standards in scientific journals that seems to be epidemic lately. Perhaps rigorous peer review is considered a quaint vestige of a bygone era in some circles. If that is gone, what ever happened to simple fact checking? It's interesting that not a single reference from a peer reviewed journal appears in his editorial to support any one of his aspersions. Perhaps Dr. Jones would defend his editorial by arguing that it only reflects his "experience" and should not be construed as a scientific analysis. Well, as my grandmother would say, "that experience and a token will get you on the subway." If the quality of osteopathic medical education is so poor, why does it seem that only Dr. Jones has any first-hand knowledge of it? Certainly, there must be others out there hording this terrible and dirty secret? Haven't medical educators conducted studies to appraise the current state of affairs in medical education? If so, what have they found?

As for there not being any osteopathically relevant research underway at TCOM, nothing could be further from the truth both during his tenure as professor or now. I wonder what Dr. Jones thinks about Dr. Korr's work, who was his colleague and an emeritus professor of physiology at TCOM, or other work currently underway at TCOM involving the influence of sympathetic NS tone in animal models of cardiovascular ischemia? The fact that other PhDs seem to be able to collaborate with DO's and be able to obtain research funding from the AOA, other osteopathic grant awarding agencies, and NIH while Dr. Jones could not might simply reflect the individual merits of those competing for such grants.

[This message has been edited by drusso (edited June 29, 1999).]

 

[edgar]

I agree with all the above posters. I think his statements about sweeping generalizations of DO medical students is patronizing and untrue. He implies that the best students in osteopathic medical schools are M.D. wannabes who could not gain admittance to an M.D. school. I also question his negative comments about UNTHSC/TCOM, one of the most scientifically oriented osteopathic medical schools in the country. The level of research and research funding at TCOM in my opinion, is equivalent to or at least comparable to other "health science centers."

EDGAR

 

[njdevil]

Although, abunch of what I read was crap...I ask this of my peer future physicians? Has AOA done a good job of advertising Osteopathic Medicine (after all podiatrists and chiropractors are better known). Doesn't Osteopathic Medicine need more Researchers?

What I am getting at is Osteopathic Medicine is growing quickly, but it up to us the new guys to help solidify its standing...

 

[libuser]

Yes, that article is a joke. It starts off good, but then turns into a bunch of biased garble! It is loaded with inaccurate claims. Since when have osteopathic medical schools had a hard time filling their spots!! Give me a break! Maybe it takes until the Spring because osteopathic schools actually read the applications.

 

[DO DUDE]

In the late 80s almost all medical schools had trouble filling their seats. This is when professions like engineering were more popular. I believe there was concern that the quality of applicants at that time had dropped dramatically. This was followed by the herd mentality of the early to mid-nineties when applications were at record numbers. They are now again in a downward trend and the pendulum is swinging back the other way. If he is referring to the late 80s, then it is possible that seats were not being filled quickly, but this was a problem at most medical schools, not just DO schools.

[This message has been edited by DO DUDE (edited June 30, 1999).]

 

[Synergy]

DODUDE, You are absolutely correct about the app situation in the 80's.

Let's face it, this guy is a close-minded, bitter idiot. Enough said.

 

[jdaasbo]

At first I got hot under the collar. Then I noticed that the editor and the author Dr. Jones live in the same small town in Alabama. then i noticed that the piece is called an "editorial". Then i noticed that almost every article is at minumum co-authored by Dr. Jones. Then I noticed that the web address is a personal page at a Bell South page.

Then I laughed.

Perhaps i was slow to pick up on it, but this little site is some duff's way of getting back at the world. Enough said.

 

[cbeaty]

hmm........well.......I think Dr. Jones has a hole in his *aura*.......I think he is like really bad energy, man..
there is some truth in what he says but I don't beleive the admission stuff he claims..yeah, it is EASIER compared to allopathic school but with the number of applications for the past 8 years, it isn't like DO's are stupid people..30% of state residents who apply are taken at OSU and like 4 of the 2,000 applicants from out of state are taken (oh well, whats another 500 bucks to ACOMAS if I have a very slim chance of my number coming up [what a scam that is! should be legislated against {I fell for that con with the MD application process!}] I suppose the numbers maybe high to Mr. Jones's way of thinking....as far as the money goes, the state spends 20K + on inmates a year ( and they don't graduate..they just stay for life for getting caught with a dime bag or come and go after the ocassional murder) and does he know how much they spend on undergraduate students or even primary school students? Not much.........!!!!!!!!!!!I wouldn't want to rock his world but there are a jillion economic issues that need to be addressed before a cost analysis of 30 yr old DO students......as well: age discrimination isn't exactly on his high list..
Moving along: I wanted to go to MD school....but I couldn't get in 6 years ago in California..If I were a state resident of Texas, I would probably go to an allopathic tex school (they are easier to get into compared to California).I was biased about DO's..However, 6 years later after being an accountant and moving back to Oklahoma and seeing the big set up they have in Tulsa, I became open minded..The truth is is that in California, I didn't know **** about what a DO is and no one is going to tell you at UCLA because they are all embarassed that they didn't get into Harvard or Stanford (so it is all relative). Also, a childhood friend who has gone there told me about some of the pluses (she claims that there isn't hazing like in MD schools and that you are treated with more respect during your rotations (no more than 12 hours a day))...All of these things make sense....and are desirable qualities to me and I expect that there is probably more working together because we *stupid* DO's with our witchcraft have to stick together and help each other out cause we have more to prove....I hope that is how it turns out and I think you already see it somewhat here on the msg board actually......
I would like to say something about research as I noticed it somewhat close hand at UCLA....There are the ones who have the Phds and some who have Nobels and they fear BIG BUISNESS which seems to be turning them into slaves either directly or indirectly..then there are the ones that have conjoined with bio-tech firms or who have started their own......I just don't know how important research without results will be in the future so if the Texas DO school isn't doing much research, well, then maybe they are f'ing lucky.....it seems a shame, but the pharm companys have everyone by the balls and conspiring with the govt, it is only going to get worse so......I think I'll go over to the the union msg board and continue my thoughts there (Pro-Union!) Live better! Work better!

 

[turtleboard]

While I may see why part of the DO's problem with perception has to do with the AMA since, as Greg pointed out, they have been trying to screw the AOA for almost the last one-hundred years. But the AMA and AOA are now coexisting in an environment that's pretty darn DO friendly -- more DO friendly than it's ever been since 1874 -- so what's the excuse? The last large onslaught by the AMA on the AOA was with the California merger in the 1960s, but since then, everything else has been relatively smooth.

It's time for the AOA to mount a large public awareness campaign, and the Osteopathic Unity Campaign is just the way to go (though I'm sitll waiting to see what the results are).

Tim of New York City.

 

[Denise Smith Rodd]

"JDAASBO" forwarded the online editorial to AOA, and after reviewing the article, this was my response: We've reviewed the article and have indeed found flaws in the author's arguments. The author is only embarrassing himself and his degree by posting a poorly-researched editorial for public view.

I am glad to see everyone discussing this article in the Osteopathic.com lounge. Many are excellent points, and I would recommend that messages be sent to [email protected] - the address given for responses to the editorial.

As far as what the AOA will do, the editorial is just that. While the Internet is the most open forum for free speech and lends itself to worthwhile communication, it cannot screen out that which is wrong. Since the piece is framed in the context of an opinion, there isn't much we can do-especially since this is a private homepage.

You are correct in that the article is in offense of all D.O.s as well as everyone in the osteopathic family--especially in education. The author risks alienating himself from the profession with such an article (it appears he already has from the student body represented here). I will continue to monitor the site to see if the author posts anything further or even posts some responses.

Denise Smith Rodd
AOA Web Editor

 

[drhenderson]

It took me awhile to see what you were talking about. I found the site quackwatch.com mentioned in one of your articles checked it out to see what they say about D.O.s

No wonder such an uproar on this board! The guys paper is a totally irresponsible bashing of a respected profession. I went to undergrad at Truman State in Kirksville, and frequented the KCOM library and visited the Andrew Taylor Still museum. Yeah, Still's scientific aspects were questionable, but so were Freud's. The important thing is, both started movements and challenged the status quo of their professions.

Dr. Quackwatch's argument could be carried over to almost any profession and movement and his argumentative method is irrational and irrelevant.

D.O.s should not bash M.D.s and visa versa.

Best wishes all,

Jim Henderson, MD of Medicalstudent.net

 

[drusso]

Hmm, that's interesting. I've never seen Andrew Taylor Still compared to Freud before; I have however heard someone once refer to Still has the Joseph Smith (the Mormon prophet of the 1800's) of Medicine...