NBOME Propaganda

[IslandStyle808]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Of course I think exams to test basic competency are necessary. However, there's no reason at all that these exams need to cost $700+ per pop or $1,200+ for the physical exams. The cost is why it's a money grab, not the exam itself.

I agree with this for sure. I think the Step 2 CS is definitely a money grab. I can't image how much more money the Federation of Examiners suckered away from MD residents/attendings back in those day. I would take the Steps in all its glory over that FLEX pile of crap any day of the week!

 

[BorntobeDO?]

I agree with this for sure. I think the Step 2 CS is definitely a money grab. I can't image how much more money the Federation of Examiners suckered away from MD residents/attendings back in those day. I would take the Steps in all its glory over that FLEX pile of crap any day of the week!

Different states probably had agreements with other states similar to nursing, where you don't retake, but you just have to pay fees. I doubt any physician was actually taking a new test every time they moved.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Different states probably had agreements with other states similar to nursing, where you don't retake, but you just have to pay fees. I doubt any physician was actually taking a new test every time they moved.

There might have been reciprocity in some states. However, I do remember my dad did take different FLEX exams in each state (passed away a while back so I can't ask any specifics). So I do believe they had to take multiple exams in some cases.

Law for instance, does have reciprocity in some states. However, if they didn't then they had to take the state exam over again for each state (federal portion is one and done).

 

[Isoval]

*holds a TCOM acceptance*

*coughs*

Ahem...

HEAR YE, HEAR YE, I AM HERE TO DEFEND MY FAMILY’S HONOR~!!!

I heard from a current student that the most recent class to sit for USMLE/COMLEX (2019) hit an average of 231 for USMLE with well over 80% of the class sitting, on par with many MD schools.

*done defending honor using an anecdote of one of 30-something DO schools*

 

[IslandStyle808]

*holds a TCOM acceptance*

*coughs*

Ahem...

HEAR YE, HEAR YE, I AM HERE TO DEFEND MY FAMILY’S HONOR~!!!

I heard from a current student that the most recent class to sit for USMLE/COMLEX (2019) hit an average of 231 for USMLE with well over 80% of the class sitting, on par with many MD schools.

*done defending honor using an anecdote of one of 30-something DO schools*

TCOM, founder of the double systems curriculum that has made DO students into board killers. Has been implemented into RVU, KCU, BCOM, and few other schools. Not surprised.

 

[DocWinter]

I echo what Zero says - at my school, I don't know how many people did or did not take USMLE, but I believe it was probably 50 to 60%. We of course had a few that rocked it with above the average, but I heard of a lot of 20X, 21X scores. Myself and the majority of my contacts dropped out during prep after seeing our projections in that area. We simply did not get the biochem necessary to compete with MD and that was the main detractor in our collective knowledge bank

 

[NontradCA]

This isn't due to your school, it's due to you. I go to DO school. I had no science background outside of the pre-reqs. My biochem was ****, as was my stats. But I studied them and got a good step 1 score. People need to take accountability a little more around here.

You sound like a parrot. What are we paying tuition for 1st and 2nd year, if not to prepare us well in all aspects of medicine?

It’s the schools that need to be held accountable. They should be teaching biochem so that their students can do better on the USMLE and have more options in life.

 

[DocWinter]

You sound like a parrot. What are we paying tuition for 1st and 2nd year, if not to prepare us well in all aspects of medicine?

It’s the schools that need to be held accountable. They should be teaching biochem so that their students can do better on the USMLE and have more options in life.

Agreed. Generally speaking, our DO tuition is a few dollars more than most MD schools. It'd be nice to get what we pay

 

[uhmocksuhsillen]

You sound like a parrot. What are we paying tuition for 1st and 2nd year, if not to prepare us well in all aspects of medicine?

It’s the schools that need to be held accountable. They should be teaching biochem so that their students can do better on the USMLE and have more options in life.

1. YES the schools SHOULD be doing this. They're not. YES they should be held accountable. They're not.
2. Your options are a) complain about it and not take the time to do what the school should have done or b) learn the material yourself (you may also still complain)

I'm all for holding them accountable while also holding yourself accountable to learn the material you need to do well on the step exam. In reality, no one should NEED a powerpoint from a professor in order to learn biochem. Just open a book or use the plethora of review sources out there. Again, this doesn't mean this is how it SHOULD be, just that in the current state, this is how it is....so either rise up and do what you need to do or don't. It's that simple.

 

[DocWinter]

1. YES the schools SHOULD be doing this. They're not. YES they should be held accountable. They're not.
2. Your options are a) complain about it and not take the time to do what the school should have done or b) learn the material yourself (you may also still complain)

I'm all for holding them accountable while also holding yourself accountable to learn the material you need to do well on the step exam. In reality, no one should NEED a powerpoint from a professor in order to learn biochem. Just open a book or use the plethora of review sources out there. Again, this doesn't mean this is how it SHOULD be, just that in the current state, this is how it is....so either rise up and do what you need to do or don't. It's that simple.

That's a pretty arrogant attitude to just "rise up" and overcome severe deficits to beat the averages. Congrats on doing well on your step despite not having school resources, but if that's all true, you're the exception and not the rule. The rest of us average people who work hard and get Bs sometimes need the guidance and resources that should have been provided and for which we have paid an exorbitant amount of money for. And we should be able to gripe about it and hate the man who takes our money without this kind of condescension.

 

[Eagles6389]

Yes, the average rises, but the mean is readjusted as needed every 2-3 years to bring the mean back down to near 500. The year before I took it, the mean Level 1 was in the 540's. My year it was ~515 because the scores were readjusted. So while the COMLEX scores are regularly adjusted to keep the mean near 500, USMLE just keeps rising. For example, in the early 2000's, the mean Step 1 score was in the low 210's and passing was in the 180's. Now the mean is in the upper 220's and passing is 192. Their scoring format has also changed multiple times. It originally used percentiles, then they changed to a 2 digit and 3 digit score, now they only use a 3 digit score. It's just inconsistent.

I have to disagree with this. The average COMLEX score this year was in the mid 550s and jumped almost 30 points up from last year. You know how much that throws off the percentiles? How is a PD supposed to know what the average score is per year with this kind of variability? Secondly, COMLEX didn’t even list the average score for their period to test takers and just said “the average tends to vary each year from 500 to 550”. At least USMLE provides the average score for the period of test takers, of which mine was 229.

Yes, the USMLE Average has slowly crept up over the years but hasn’t had any crazy unpredictable jumps unlike the variability with COMLEX. And USMLE has remained pretty steady in the 227-230 range over the past couple years. I don’t blame any PD for not wanting to look at COMLEX percentiles when a 510 last year would have been close to average, while a 510 this year is well below average.

 

[uhmocksuhsillen]

That's a pretty arrogant attitude to just "rise up" and overcome severe deficits to beat the averages. Congrats on doing well on your step despite not having school resources, but if that's all true, you're the exception and not the rule. The rest of us average people who work hard and get Bs sometimes need the guidance and resources that should have been provided and for which we have paid an exorbitant amount of money for. And we should be able to gripe about it and hate the man who takes our money without this kind of condescension.

I believe the average DO student has the intelligence (if not the will power) to take the time needed to learn this material on their own. Yes, it'd be easier to do this if the school supported us, I don't disagree. Nonetheless, I believe the vast majority of us could learn this material, and learn it well, if we so choose. There's nothing arrogant about believing that.

The exorbitant money we pay, while absolutely a rip off, is irrelevant to what we're discussing.

 

[NontradCA]

I believe the average DO student has the intelligence (if not the will power) to take the time needed to learn this material on their own. Yes, it'd be easier to do this if the school supported us, I don't disagree. Nonetheless, I believe the vast majority of us could learn this material, and learn it well, if we so choose. There's nothing arrogant about believing that.

The exorbitant money we pay, while absolutely a rip off, is irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Right but there’s also the factor of the whole topic of this thread. Which are powers that be actively trying to persuade students that topics geared toward the usmle don’t matter.

I’ve just been through the match and I’ve seen a lot of people get reality checked. I think if you beat the odds, you should consider yourself lucky and not look down on others so much.

 

[uhmocksuhsillen]

Right but there’s also the factor of the whole topic of this thread. Which are powers that be actively trying to persuade students that topics geared toward the usmle don’t matter.

It's a racket, a scam, and I wouldn't be surprised if a class action was filed some day. I HATE COCA and NBOME and the way DO schools operate (you can throw OMM in there as a thing I hate too). I am absolutely not a friend of them. I just think students need to realize the ****ty hand they've been dealt and deal with it better.

 

[IslandStyle808]

It's a racket, a scam, and I wouldn't be surprised if a class action was filed some day. I HATE COCA and NBOME and the way DO schools operate (you can throw OMM in there as a thing I hate too). I am absolutely not a friend of them. I just think students need to realize the ****ty hand they've been dealt and deal with it better.

Its not as simple as taking it into your own hands. I'm at a newer school and we originally had a rather solid curriculum set up, only to find in 2nd year we were taught a lot of step 2 material. I found it was thanks to some of the clinicians who wanted to do the courses "there way" that I ended up having to find step 2 resources to study for "their" exams. This was time wasted put into step 2 studying that could have been put into step 1. Of course the students who "rose up" and told the clinicians this were shot down.

There is something to be said about having even a semi-decent curriculum that focuses on boards. These people make your lives infinitely easier and harp on concepts that are important that you wouldn't put weight on if you read a book like Robbins. Whenever I do Uworld, and get a question right it was rarely because I read about it but mostly because a professor harped on it.

As mentioned in a previous post, I was butchering biostats questions on Uworld that the vast majority of medical students in the nation were getting wrong. It had nothing to do with my medical schools curriculum, and I'm sure it would be just as crappy in most MD schools also. What help immensely was the 5+ courses I took in epidemiology when I was an undergrad and graduate student. There were answer choices that I didn't know about (like 30% of them), but thanks to the epidemology professors harping on the high yield points I've nailed most of the biostats questions in the bank.

I've taken my education into my own hands since day one, but thanks to my schools, not only did they under teach they taught the wrong material. So not only they did they not teach enough, they wasted my time and my classmates time as well...

 

[Nurse-to-Doctor]

#PerfectlyNotMatched #2020isComing

 

[Stagg737]

You sound like a parrot. What are we paying tuition for 1st and 2nd year, if not to prepare us well in all aspects of medicine?

It’s the schools that need to be held accountable. They should be teaching biochem so that their students can do better on the USMLE and have more options in life.

Agreed. Generally speaking, our DO tuition is a few dollars more than most MD schools. It'd be nice to get what we pay

Are there really DO schools that aren't teaching biochem at all? My school crammed it into the first 2.5 weeks of school and then would have review lectures on it with each system during first year. I realize why biochem or biostats wouldn't be heavily emphasized since they're so low-yield for boards (both sets), but I would think there'd at least be a crash course.

I have to disagree with this. The average COMLEX score this year was in the mid 550s and jumped almost 30 points up from last year. You know how much that throws off the percentiles? How is a PD supposed to know what the average score is per year with this kind of variability? Secondly, COMLEX didn’t even list the average score for their period to test takers and just said “the average tends to vary each year from 500 to 550”. At least USMLE provides the average score for the period of test takers, of which mine was 229.

Yes, the USMLE Average has slowly crept up over the years but hasn’t had any crazy unpredictable jumps unlike the variability with COMLEX. And USMLE has remained pretty steady in the 227-230 range over the past couple years. I don’t blame any PD for not wanting to look at COMLEX percentiles when a 510 last year would have been close to average, while a 510 this year is well below average.

It's still not that hard to interpret. Below a 500 is below average/mediocre, low 400s sucks. 600 is always 80th+ percentile. 700 is 98th+ percentile. Also, the larger score range it makes small differences far less relevant. For example, there's not really a difference between a 530 and a 550. Plus you may think a 510 is "well below average", but in terms of percentiles it's really not much difference either year. We can argue about it all day, but my point is it's not hard to interpret and I think the lack of understanding it comes from laziness and flippancy more than anything.

 

[zero0]

It's not just biochem either, the more nuanced details of all of physiology aren't covered in as great of detail. They are mentioned, but their relevance to disease processes is not stressed, partly because, I feel, physiology is mostly taught by PhDs with no clinical acumen, but that's a whole other bag of worms. For example, yeah we were made aware of some nebulous microtubule system that shuttles materials up and down axons, but we were never told that dyenin is retrograde, and that kinesin is anterograde and it's clinical significance in latent HSV reactivation. That's just one of countless examples in which I feel like my education was jipped because I have to spend 3-4 hours in OMM every week, which btw only 5% of practicing DOs use in practice according to the last research conference I attended.

5%

Why are we learning this stuff? Some of it is good and some people respond well to it, and it should probably be first line for some things along with dietary mods and exercise... That's fine, but don't make everyone learn it at the expense of learning more relevant things that will be on USMLE (which we NEED to take going forward past 2020) and may actually be useful in clinical practice. I know, OMM will never go away. Militant DOs control the leadership and they will never allow their "identity" to be sacrificed. Our only hope is to plead for the LCME to step in and save us from these malignant accrediting bodies. MD education is superior in every way, everything that is good about the DO profession came from emulating MD training and all the last few backwards remnants of original DO identity do is hurt their students in today's world.

I know this is brutally honest but this last ploy by the NBOME has crossed the line. They are ruining people's lives for their own self-interest and someone needs to tell them to **** off.

 

[DocWinter]

Are there really DO schools that aren't teaching biochem at all? My school crammed it into the first 2.5 weeks of school and then would have review lectures on it with each system during first year. I realize why biochem or biostats wouldn't be heavily emphasized since they're so low-yield for boards (both sets), but I would think there'd at least be a crash course.

No, it was covered...I'll just say that some of those responsible to impart such information to us had suspect knowledge base and/or inability to properly transfer said knowledge to us...

 

[Stagg737]

It's not just biochem either, the more nuanced details of all of physiology aren't covered in as great of detail. They are mentioned, but their relevance to disease processes is not stressed, partly because, I feel, physiology is mostly taught by PhDs with no clinical acumen, but that's a whole other bag of worms. For example, yeah we were made aware of some nebulous microtubule system that shuttles materials up and down axons, but we were never told that dyenin is retrograde, and that kinesin is anterograde and it's clinical significance in latent HSV reactivation. That's just one of countless examples in which I feel like my education was jipped because I have to spend 3-4 hours in OMM every week, which btw only 5% of practicing DOs use in practice according to the last research conference I attended.

5%

Why are we learning this stuff? Some of it is good and some people respond well to it, and it should probably be first line for some things along with dietary mods and exercise... That's fine, but don't make everyone learn it at the expense of learning more relevant things that will be on USMLE (which we NEED to take going forward past 2020) and may actually be useful in clinical practice. I know, OMM will never go away. Militant DOs control the leadership and they will never allow their "identity" to be sacrificed. Our only hope is to plead for the LCME to step in and save us from these malignant accrediting bodies. MD education is superior in every way, everything that is good about the DO profession came from emulating MD training and all the last few backwards remnants of original DO identity do is hurt their students in today's world.

I know this is brutally honest but this last ploy by the NBOME has crossed the line. They are ruining people's lives for their own self-interest and someone needs to tell them to **** off.

I won't get into the OMM debate, because it's not worth starting up and most people here probably agree on most points, but we actually did learn a lot more depth than that about dynein* and kinesin, and most of my DO friends seemed to have gone much more in-depth with biochem than you're describing. Maybe there's just that much of a difference in curriculum between some schools, idk. I just know that when I talk to my MD friends about what's covered in our curriculum most of them actually thought my school's curriculum was harder (or at least that's what they thought from the descriptions and types of test questions we got).

Honestly, I think the basic physio is taught better by PhDs who are actually focused on teaching and not physicians. Once you move into path/pathophys is when clinicians should be stepping in. I think maybe the only advantage going to a school with minimal research was that our PhD profs were actually focused on teaching us instead of their own work. My classmates might disagree, but I thought that overall the PhDs who taught at my school were very solid.

No, it was covered...I'll just say that some of those responsible to impart such information to us had suspect knowledge base and/or inability to properly transfer said knowledge to us...

Sorry to hear that. Just take solace in knowing that the same thing does happen at MD schools as well. Typically the "inability to properly transfer said knowledge" part, with them including excessive details about their personal research instead of info that's relevant for boards to clinical practice.

 

[NurWollen]

It's a racket, a scam, and I wouldn't be surprised if a class action was filed some day. I HATE COCA and NBOME and the way DO schools operate (you can throw OMM in there as a thing I hate too). I am absolutely not a friend of them. I just think students need to realize the ****ty hand they've been dealt and deal with it better.

You're just gonna love the ABMS

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

 

[915907]

I echo what Zero says - at my school, I don't know how many people did or did not take USMLE, but I believe it was probably 50 to 60%. We of course had a few that rocked it with above the average, but I heard of a lot of 20X, 21X scores. Myself and the majority of my contacts dropped out during prep after seeing our projections in that area. We simply did not get the biochem necessary to compete with MD and that was the main detractor in our collective knowledge bank

Same exact way at my school; our school decided to show us IN SECOND YEAR a statistic of our school's performance on board exams in relation to our class performance. It was not pretty; of the top performers in our class, half of those were able to attain a 227... And in that presentation, many of the students started asking questions about why we spend so much time on certain non-board related material and so little on actual board materials. Dean just blew off the questions and gave a very scripted answer

 

[BorntobeDO?]

It's not just biochem either, the more nuanced details of all of physiology aren't covered in as great of detail. They are mentioned, but their relevance to disease processes is not stressed, partly because, I feel, physiology is mostly taught by PhDs with no clinical acumen, but that's a whole other bag of worms. For example, yeah we were made aware of some nebulous microtubule system that shuttles materials up and down axons, but we were never told that dyenin is retrograde, and that kinesin is anterograde and it's clinical significance in latent HSV reactivation. That's just one of countless examples in which I feel like my education was jipped because I have to spend 3-4 hours in OMM every week, which btw only 5% of practicing DOs use in practice according to the last research conference I attended.

5%

Why are we learning this stuff? Some of it is good and some people respond well to it, and it should probably be first line for some things along with dietary mods and exercise... That's fine, but don't make everyone learn it at the expense of learning more relevant things that will be on USMLE (which we NEED to take going forward past 2020) and may actually be useful in clinical practice. I know, OMM will never go away. Militant DOs control the leadership and they will never allow their "identity" to be sacrificed. Our only hope is to plead for the LCME to step in and save us from these malignant accrediting bodies. MD education is superior in every way, everything that is good about the DO profession came from emulating MD training and all the last few backwards remnants of original DO identity do is hurt their students in today's world.

I know this is brutally honest but this last ploy by the NBOME has crossed the line. They are ruining people's lives for their own self-interest and someone needs to tell them to **** off.

While I agree with the jist of this, I will say I think our MSK training is superior in general.

 

[BorntobeDO?]

You're just gonna love the ABMS

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

I thought they where the better of the two to be boarded under?

 

[zero0]

While I agree with the jist of this, I will say I think our MSK training is superior in general.

It is, unquestionably so, but MSK is very low yield for USMLE.

I won't get into the OMM debate, because it's not worth starting up and most people here probably agree on most points, but we actually did learn a lot more depth than that about dynein* and kinesin, and most of my DO friends seemed to have gone much more in-depth with biochem than you're describing. Maybe there's just that much of a difference in curriculum between some schools, idk. I just know that when I talk to my MD friends about what's covered in our curriculum most of them actually thought my school's curriculum was harder (or at least that's what they thought from the descriptions and types of test questions we got).

Honestly, I think the basic physio is taught better by PhDs who are actually focused on teaching and not physicians. Once you move into path/pathophys is when clinicians should be stepping in. I think maybe the only advantage going to a school with minimal research was that our PhD profs were actually focused on teaching us instead of their own work. My classmates might disagree, but I thought that overall the PhDs who taught at my school were very solid.



Sorry to hear that. Just take solace in knowing that the same thing does happen at MD schools as well. Typically the "inability to properly transfer said knowledge" part, with them including excessive details about their personal research instead of info that's relevant for boards to clinical practice.

I find it hard to believe that any DO school is emphasizing biochem and physiology to the degree that it should, but it's possible yours is the exception. I don't know and I'm not about to go off on a who's crappy medical school is slightly less crappy tangent. My point is, DO schools overall are focusing on the wrong material to get us ready for the world after 2020.

 

[Preston Garvey]

It's funny that everyone is so worked up over biochem lol. On my USMLE I had like 3 biochem questions, all of which asked about b vitamins. Didn't seem like it was emphasized much at all.

 

[FourniersGreenGang]

It's funny that everyone is so worked up over biochem lol. On my USMLE I had like 3 biochem questions, all of which asked about b vitamins. Didn't seem like it was emphasized much at all.

I haven't taken step 1 yet so I can't comment but it's probably because Uworld has a ton of biochem that asks very specific questions about cell bio and biochem. That qbank made me realize how little I was actually taught, I hope I get a test form like yours

 

[Preston Garvey]

I haven't taken step 1 yet so I can't comment but it's probably because Uworld has a ton of biochem that asks very specific questions about cell bio and biochem. That qbank made me realize how little I was actually taught, I hope I get a test form like yours

Yeah I remember how detailed the Uworld biochem was, it can be intimidating. Just know that the USMLE is well balanced and even if you get tough questions there shouldn't be more than a handful of biochem questions.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I haven't taken step 1 yet so I can't comment but it's probably because Uworld has a ton of biochem that asks very specific questions about cell bio and biochem. That qbank made me realize how little I was actually taught, I hope I get a test form like yours

The funny part, for all the complaining I do about my school, it did a decent job on biochem. There were multiple questions that he harped on that were in the bank. And the reason why my biochem professor did a decent job, he cracked open first aid and knew the stuff he needed to teach down cold. He still taught things outside the context of the USMLE, but he made sure not to miss anything board prep related...

 

[uhmocksuhsillen]

I haven't taken step 1 yet so I can't comment but it's probably because Uworld has a ton of biochem that asks very specific questions about cell bio and biochem. That qbank made me realize how little I was actually taught, I hope I get a test form like yours

fwiw mine was simple stuff too

 

[Stagg737]

I find it hard to believe that any DO school is emphasizing biochem and physiology to the degree that it should, but it's possible yours is the exception. I don't know and I'm not about to go off on a who's crappy medical school is slightly less crappy tangent. My point is, DO schools overall are focusing on the wrong material to get us ready for the world after 2020.

Like I said, I'd guess this just varies more from school to school far more than I thought. I have friends at 3-4 different DO schools and none of them had issues with the biochem curriculum or their curriculum as a whole. I also don't know if the overall trend is to focus on the wrong material to prepare people for boards and residency (other than OMM), but again I only know curriculum of a few schools and more detailed info about 4-5 of them, so maybe some schools really are that bad (though there are also a few MD schools that fit that category as well).

 

[zero0]

Like I said, I'd guess this just varies more from school to school far more than I thought. I have friends at 3-4 different DO schools and none of them had issues with the biochem curriculum or their curriculum as a whole. I also don't know if the overall trend is to focus on the wrong material to prepare people for boards and residency (other than OMM), but again I only know curriculum of a few schools and more detailed info about 4-5 of them, so maybe some schools really are that bad (though there are also a few MD schools that fit that category as well).

Forget biochem, that was just an example. No offense, but I'm not interested in how well you think your school prepares you for USMLE, what your 3 friends think, or any other anecdotes. The numbers speak for themselves and Ill bet your average Step 1 is well below the national average, just like every other DO school, and that's with only the top of the class taking it. If everyone took it, the average would probably be failing (yes, at your school too) and you don't think that has everything to do with the curriculum? Really?

Get over yourself, stop trying to turn this into a pissing contest, and realize that this is a problem at all DO schools. Our training just isn't cutting it anymore in a world where the ACGME controls all the residencies and USMLE is king.

All that aside, it's really not that big a deal, just take it upon yourself to study for USMLE, do well on it, resist bs propaganda like this, and you'll match fine. The good news is there are great opportunities out there for DOs who do well and DO bias seems to be less of an issue every year.

 

[Blunt Dissection]

One of my professors that taught at an MD school commented that the difference between the MD and DO curriculum comes from the end goal of what type of niche they are trying to fill. The allopathic curriculum places significant emphasis on the importance of the basic sciences because the end goal is to have the highest achievers become prominent physician scientist - these are the individuals that bring prestige to the institution in the world of academia. With a majority of research funds in the country going to legacy MD schools, these institutions basically have a monopoly. Looking back about 20 years ago, the goal of the AOA was simply about trying to make the DO degree more visible - remember that it wasn't until 1989 that DOs had full practicing rights in all 50 states. Because the "physician scientist" niche was already filled, the AOA attempted to push for this idea that DOs are somehow more empathetic or are more personable. It would explain why as a whole, research is still practically nonexistent at a majority of DO schools and why publicity is placed not on the individuals that match into prestigious specialties or residency programs, but placed on "% of students going into primary care." If you compare the publication requirements and the level of peer scrutiny between the JAOA and JAMA, a significant amount of JAOA publications are just poor work that lack any power or have egregious errors in statistical analysis.

Essentially, it's not that the AOA/COCA are stupid or incompetent, their stance on things is to keep the DO degree relevant and to ensure that the flow of money doesn't stop when the larger entity (the AMA) takes over.

 

[sab3156]

Like I said, I'd guess this just varies more from school to school far more than I thought. I have friends at 3-4 different DO schools and none of them had issues with the biochem curriculum or their curriculum as a whole. I also don't know if the overall trend is to focus on the wrong material to prepare people for boards and residency (other than OMM), but again I only know curriculum of a few schools and more detailed info about 4-5 of them, so maybe some schools really are that bad (though there are also a few MD schools that fit that category as well).

I go to your school. It isn't just an issue with poor board prep. It is absolute incompetence to an astonishing degree. For example, we were taught 3 times by the renal phys course director that ADH is produced by the macula densa and that it does this to provide signaling to the JG cells. There are also many other examples of absolute incompetence from several professors. I doubt this kind of crap would be tolerated at MD institutions.

 

[Stagg737]

The numbers speak for themselves and Ill bet your average Step 1 is well below the national average, just like every other DO school, and that's with only the top of the class taking it. If everyone took it, the average would probably be failing (yes, at your school too) and you don't think that has everything to do with the curriculum? Really?

My class of 250+ had over 80% take Step 1, with most of the people who didn't take it being mil-med people (some of whom scored over 600 on Level 1). Our class average was 226, 3 points below the national average. Friends of mine were disappointed with scores in the 230s. If everyone in my class had taken it our average likely would have still been in the 220s. I have friends at US MD schools whose class averages were in the low 210's (one of them at a school that I feel has questionable standards). I am looking at numbers, and at least for my class it wouldn't be an issue.

Get over yourself, stop trying to turn this into a pissing contest, and realize that this is a problem at all DO schools. Our training just isn't cutting it anymore in a world where the ACGME controls all the residencies and USMLE is king.

I'm not making it a pissing contest, I'm just debating your generalization that all DO schools have curriculums that are far inferior to all MD curriculums because it's just not true. If you ever get the chance, go sit in on some lectures at mid or low tier MD schools (I did for a few classes in grad school), you'd be surprised how bad some MD classes are.

To clarify, I'm not saying there aren't DO schools with major curriculum problems or that as a whole MD schools don't do better than DO schools. I'm saying the generalization is false. I agree that for many residencies, USMLE is king (at least in terms of landing an interview) and that MD schools as a whole do far better than DO schools at preparing students for this. Largely because DO curriculum is often built around doing well on COMLEX, not USMLE. Which while they are similar tests, there are obvious differences in emphasis and quality of the actual questions. As I've said before, I'd love to see everything move to a single test format like the residency merger, but until that happens, DO schools still have to prioritize COMLEX over USMLE otherwise DO graduates won't be licensed physicians.

I go to your school. It isn't just an issue with poor board prep. It is absolute incompetence to an astonishing degree. For example, we were taught 3 times by the renal phys course director that ADH is produced by the macula densa and that it does this to provide signaling to the JG cells. There are also many other examples of absolute incompetence from several professors. I doubt this kind of crap would be tolerated at MD institutions.

I know who you're talking about, and while I don't think she was as bad as some people thought, she did regularly misspeak during lectures and need to be corrected multiple times. Even so, I don't think one or two profs ruins the entire core curriculum for boards relevant material. Imo the worst parts of the curriculum were PCM and bioethics which were pretty useless for boards and frankly most of that material shouldn't need to be taught beyond an elective format. If you want to PM, I'd be interested to hear who you think is incompetent, as my opinions of profs changed pretty significantly after taking boards and getting into the clinical years.

 

[sab3156]

I know who you're talking about, and while I don't think she was as bad as some people thought, she did regularly misspeak during lectures and need to be corrected multiple times. Even so, I don't think one or two profs ruins the entire core curriculum for boards relevant material. Imo the worst parts of the curriculum were PCM and bioethics which were pretty useless for boards and frankly most of that material shouldn't need to be taught beyond an elective format. If you want to PM, I'd be interested to hear who you think is incompetent, as my opinions of profs changed pretty significantly after taking boards and getting into the clinical years.

It was a male professor, may be different from your year.

 

[Stagg737]

It was a male professor, may be different from your year.

Yep, mine was female. Been a lot of changes in faculty in the last 5 years, so I guess I can't really speak to the current profs as much.

 

[ButterButter]

Same exact way at my school; our school decided to show us IN SECOND YEAR a statistic of our school's performance on board exams in relation to our class performance. It was not pretty; of the top performers in our class, half of those were able to attain a 227... And in that presentation, many of the students started asking questions about why we spend so much time on certain non-board related material and so little on actual board materials. Dean just blew off the questions and gave a very scripted answer

Similar thing at my school (hey, maybe we go to the same one). The bottom line is this: pretty soon we'll be operating under single accreditation. A few years down the line (maybe 5, maybe 15, maybe more), PDs will really start to draw the line about DO applicants applying with COMLEX scores, unless you're talking mid to lower-tier primary care programs. I truly believe that the current mission of the AOA and COCA is to approve as many DO schools as possible in the coming years in order to flood the applicant pool with COMLEX scores. In this way, maybe PDs will be forced to be more accepting of it in lieu of USMLE. That's obvious a pipe dream, and what will happen is a lot of schools will continue to tell applicants that COMLEX is just fine and they will continue to scramble them into primary care spots as a result. Then everyone will say, "see, DOs love primary care!"

 

[sab3156]

Same exact way at my school; our school decided to show us IN SECOND YEAR a statistic of our school's performance on board exams in relation to our class performance. It was not pretty; of the top performers in our class, half of those were able to attain a 227... And in that presentation, many of the students started asking questions about why we spend so much time on certain non-board related material and so little on actual board materials. Dean just blew off the questions and gave a very scripted answer

At my school, the Dean answered with the classic "we don't teach for the boards, we teach to make outstanding physicians", as if the two are entirely unrelated. Really sucks to have "leadership" like that.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

At my school, the Dean answered with the classic "we don't teach for the boards, we teach to make outstanding physicians", as if the two are entirely unrelated. Really sucks to have "leadership" like that.

To be fair almost every MD school dean says the same thing.... My MD friends and I have had many a complain session about it.. It's the new company line and the "reasoning" behind the movement of "early clinical exposure" which really just means you do random worthless activities in the pre-clinical years and then do reflection papers on it. The only real clinical thing we have done that I thought was worthwhile was a thing we had to do at a free clinic where the attending had us get the HPI/history and present the patient to him and would ask us questions about what we thought the treatment should be. I gained more clinical insight in that 2 hours than I have from every other "clinical exposure" activity combined.

 

[915907]

To be fair almost every MD school dean says the same thing.... My MD friends and I have had many a complain session about it.. It's the new company line and the "reasoning" behind the movement of "early clinical exposure" which really just means you do random worthless activities in the pre-clinical years and then do reflection papers on it. The only real clinical thing we have done that I thought was worthwhile was a thing we had to do at a free clinic where the attending had us get the HPI/history and present the patient to him and would ask us questions about what we thought the treatment should be. I gained more clinical insight in that 2 hours than I have from every other "clinical exposure" activity combined.

My school has this as well; it's honestly the best form of "clinical exposure" we get. I'm not sure if it's a symptom of only DO schools, but our clinical skills workshops for 3rd year are awful. The problem is whether or not there are any patients during these shadowing/preceptorship experiences to learn from.

Also, I really don't understand the benefit of having these "early clinical exposure" lectures in medical school. Is there a lecture hour quota needed for accreditation? Because it seriously is the biggest waste of time on everyone's parts. At my school, nothing's gained from these lectures because the lecturers (always physicians or fellows in their field) go through the complex minutiae of how to manage very specific diseases related to the speciality. At the same time, the students haven't even learned that particular block of material, so everything flies over our heads. How am I supposed to know how to manage this patient's illness when I don't truly understand the pathology behind it?

 

[915907]

Similar thing at my school (hey, maybe we go to the same one). The bottom line is this: pretty soon we'll be operating under single accreditation. A few years down the line (maybe 5, maybe 15, maybe more), PDs will really start to draw the line about DO applicants applying with COMLEX scores, unless you're talking mid to lower-tier primary care programs. I truly believe that the current mission of the AOA and COCA is to approve as many DO schools as possible in the coming years in order to flood the applicant pool with COMLEX scores. In this way, maybe PDs will be forced to be more accepting of it in lieu of USMLE. That's obvious a pipe dream, and what will happen is a lot of schools will continue to tell applicants that COMLEX is just fine and they will continue to scramble them into primary care spots as a result. Then everyone will say, "see, DOs love primary care!"

We probably do go to the same school haha. I don't know if they ever will, but the accrediting body on the MD side can hopefully step in to tell the corrupt DO accrediting body to stop opening so many new schools. As it is, the quality of education, especially clinical education, is lacking at many DO schools. All this will do is end up diluting the medical degree. This will have an effect on the MD side as well, because poorer quality physicians will be flooding the workforce. At my school, they're already heavily considering opening a branch campus, yet we still struggle to provide quality rotation sites for the students.

And it really is disingenuous for DO schools to tell their students to apply to residencies, considering the merger, without a USMLE score. I understand that it's not absolutely necessary; however, a merger where many of the PDs are from the MD side will want a uniform standard to compare DO and MD students.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

At my school, nothing's gained from these lectures because the lecturers (always physicians or fellows in their field) go through the complex minutiae of how to manage very specific diseases related to the speciality. At the same time, the students haven't even learned that particular block of material, so everything flies over our heads. How am I supposed to know how to manage this patient's illness when I don't truly understand the pathology behind it?

Lol is your school my school? I literally had a test question that said, "according to the American Academy of Blah Blah, what is this very specific criteria for a complicated clinical scenario that you for sure don't know and won't have to for 2 years?" I laughed out loud in the middle of the test.

 

[Goro]

Lol is your school my school? I literally had a test question that said, "according to the American Academy of Blah Blah, what is this very specific criteria for a complicated clinical scenario that you for sure don't know and won't have to for 2 years?" I laughed out loud in the middle of the test.

At my school, this is why we PhDs who run the courses have to ride herd on the clinical faculty.

This is NOT unique to DO schools. For several years now I've seen the kids in the MD forum complain bitterly about how their faculty ask questions about their own research.

This is nothing new either. An MD colleague who went to Stanford in the late 70s told me his professors did the same thing!

Thank Gawd that stupid paper clip is gone, too.

 

[Lawpy]

Thank Gawd that stupid paper clip is gone, too.

 

[Preston Garvey]

My school does a systems curriculum and 50% of the lectures were purely clinical. It was so annoying studying for step 1 as a second year and having to deal with the step 2 bs they kept throwing our way. They really need to make lecturers read their respective section in first aid and incorporate at least some of that into their lectures.

 

[ButterButter]

We once had a speaker from NBOME visit our school to give a lecture about COMLEX & single accreditation. He told the lecture hall of students NOT to take the USMLE because it's an inferior exam. He wove an interesting, delusional narrative about how NBME question writers were trying to infiltrate NBOME and steal COMLEX secrets because it's such a superior exam. His take on single accreditation was garbage too. He definitely had his head pretty far up his own a**.

 

[DrMcCoyDO]

We once had a speaker from NBOME visit our school to give a lecture about COMLEX & single accreditation. He told the lecture hall of students NOT to take the USMLE because it's an inferior exam. He wove an interesting, delusional narrative about how NBME question writers were trying to infiltrate NBOME and steal COMLEX secrets because it's such a superior exam. His take on single accreditation was garbage too. He definitely had his head pretty far up his own a**.

What was his take on single accreditation? Also, what a jerk telling students that!

 

[ButterButter]

What was his take on single accreditation? Also, what a jerk telling students that!

Basically that the AOA has stronger residency programs and single accreditation will force ACGME to improve their standards.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Basically that the AOA has stronger residency programs and single accreditation will force ACGME to improve their standards.

Lol, this is what happens after drinking far too much kool-aid... you start to actually think the kool-aid is a fine wine.