need some realistic numbers and guidance

[ARSdogma]

Im in the process of a life change. Graduated with Economics (minor psych) with lots of business related experience from top UC university. GPA 3.1
I have no classes for medical prereqs (I need a year's worth of bio, physics, ochem and chem. I have everything else) so I see this as my chance to raise my GPA.

What GPA and MCAT score is an ideal number to shoot for in my case (I only have those classes for a chance to raise my GPA and those aren't the easiest classes) to get into Western/COMP or any other DO school? I would prefer to go to Western and stay in Socal and for a number of reasons but I am interested in other DO schools. (Are there "top" DO schools? Are they ranked?)
I need to hear some realistic numbers that will put me in the "good chance" or "competitive" section of applicants regarding GPA and MCAT so I know what I can shoot for or whether or not medical school is even a realistic option for me.

The other thing I have going for me is my life story and drastic near death experience of suffering from an illness for a while, and that would be the motivation of going into medical school. I can care less about the money but there are things I need to do in life and being a medical doctor and a person taking charge of health is something I need to do. Personal statements and clinical shadowing should not be a problem.

Any help or guidance appreciated.

EDIT:
Actually if anyone wants to throw in some MD numbers as well to top 25 schools or so or flat out tell me whether or not it'd be feasible, I'm all ears. My first choice would be UCLA (alma mater) and after that, doesn't really matter.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mspeedwagon]

Starting from a 3.1, the Top 25 M.D. programs are most likely not realistic. You'd need a 4.0 for a few more semesters in a row. You need a GPA between 3.8 and 4.0 at the Top 25 M.D. programs. You can calculate for yourself what that would take.

To be competitive for D.O. you should have at least a 3.0 GPA and at least a 24 MCAT (would no section lower than a 7). That will likely NOT get you in, but you'd meet minimum requirements to be considered.

To be competitive for D.O. programs a 3.4 GPA and 27 MCAT (no section lower than an 8) would be what to shoot for (on the low side). The numbers for a school like Western are higher.

As for rankings, there is no real rankings for D.O. schools. The more reputable of the D.O. schools are those that are more established (argubly PCOM might have the best reputation). Personally, I really like Touro-CA (but I'm in NoCal and am biased).

This really comes down to what speciality you want to do and how realistic MD vs DO is to you. If you want to do anything very competitive MD is a better option, otherwise it makes no difference.

 

[ARSdogma]

Starting from a 3.1, the Top 25 M.D. programs are most likely not realistic. You'd need a 4.0 for a few more semesters in a row. You need a GPA between 3.8 and 4.0 at the Top 25 M.D. programs. You can calculate for yourself what that would take.

To be competitive for D.O. you should have at least a 3.0 GPA and at least a 24 MCAT (would no section lower than a 7). That will likely NOT get you in, but you'd meet minimum requirements to be considered.

To be competitive for D.O. programs a 3.4 GPA and 27 MCAT (no section lower than an 8) would be what to shoot for (on the low side). The numbers for a school like Western are higher.

As for rankings, there is no real rankings for D.O. schools. The more reputable of the D.O. schools are those that are more established (argubly PCOM might have the best reputation). Personally, I really like Touro-CA (but I'm in NoCal and am biased).

This really comes down to what speciality you want to do and how realistic MD vs DO is to you. If you want to do anything very competitive MD is a better option, otherwise it makes no difference.

mspeedwagon, i appreciate the advice. It helps a lot. I guess I could state what my main objectives are or long-term goals and perhaps someone (or you) can chime in about whether the path I plan to take is fit.
Currently, I am not seeking to pursue anything in research and also am not looking into any particular specializations (cardiology, neurology, etc.) What I would like to pursue is a private practice (in chronic illness and what not) and for that reason I feel a DO school that has more emphasis on holistic health is better suited.

I have been doing research but there is a lot for me to learn. I have read that DO schools are more "friendly" to private practice and seeing patients in that type of setup whereas MDs have more broader choices with really developed specializations but are not as holistic and private practice friendly as DO schools. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Would you say that a 3.4 GPA and 27 MCAT, strong personal statement and application and interview skills, is enough to have a "good chance" at the DO schools?

 

[Catalystik]

If you just have a few classes pulling your cGPA down, be aware that the DO application service, AACOMAS, only includes the most recent grade in the application GPA calculation when you retake courses. This can raise your GPA more quickly than taking new coursework. AMCAS (MD application service), unfortunately, just averages in retakes.

Average stats for entering all DO students are a 3.48/26.09, so the stats you've projected above would definitely give you a "good chance" at a DO acceptance.

 

[mspeedwagon]

I'm not sure where you got this information from, but it's not true. There aren't a disproportionate number of DOs in private practice and having worked with over 50 DOs the holistic approach is not a good reason to solely pursue DO. That said, in the end of the day you want to be a doctor and given where you are starting from DO is a realistic option and a good means to an end (neurology, cardiology etc.).

I have been doing research but there is a lot for me to learn. I have read that DO schools are more "friendly" to private practice and seeing patients in that type of setup whereas MDs have more broader choices with really developed specializations but are not as holistic and private practice friendly as DO schools. Correct me if I'm wrong?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

If I had a .0001 gpa boost every time someone erroneously states that DO is somehow holistic. I would have over a 4.0. Let me be clear, there is absolutely nothing holistic about it because it is that same as MD. Research is not necessary for DO, but its an important part of being a physician as all medicine is research based.

 

[ARSdogma]

If I had a .0001 gpa boost every time someone erroneously states that DO is somehow holistic. I would have over a 4.0. Let me be clear, there is absolutely nothing holistic about it because it is that same as MD. Research is not necessary for DO, but its an important part of being a physician as all medicine is research based.

I think i may need to clarify what I meant and also would like some clarification (from your post and mspeedwagon's).

What I meant by research was that I do not want to pursue anything in the field of research, such as a pharmaceutical research MD, lab technician and administrator, and so forth. I do of course, understand that western medicine is completely based on research and is what you would call "evidence based". So i accept that some research will be done on a daily basis of course, as that is what medicine and science is all about. My current standing or perception of the difference between MD and DO is that there are none. The sky is the limit and if you put your mind to it and are a go-getter person, you can't argue that you can't do something in medicine because you're stuck with an "DO" title or an "MD" title. They get the same training, tests, etc.

But that being said, I also perceived from what I have read so far on the differences between the two (as subtle as they may be) is that there are still underlying differences in education or at least emphasis and style. Osteopathic medicine (from what I have read, i could be wrong) seems to be more holistic (and these are not my words) and assess the person, not the disease. The foundations and slight emphasis and style may be more holistic in approach at DO schools than at the majority of MD schools. The training in osteopathic manipulations as well as the few DO appointments (as a patient) I have been to are a bit different from the traditional MDs I have seen. Please keep in mind these are my PERCEPTIONS of things and I understand that I may be wrong, and i also understand that every doctor is different and has the potential to treat their patients with care and love and get skills regardless of licensing. I agree with the former statement in regards to any profession: lawyer, chiropractor, physical therapist, whatever. I have met bad and good in both.

Why did you say that DOs are not holistic? I am also under the impression that DOs and lots of residency options are targeted or STYLIZED towards primary care. Thats not to say that you cannot go into surgery or anything else but that is what I have heard and read. I'm not making the claim that if you go into DO school, that you are restricted but rather different schools have slightly different focuses. Same goes for physical therapy schools, they are all the same and everyone goes out with a DPT or MPT but different schools and systems teach and emphasize things a little differently..and I thought DOs = holistic.

My reason for leaning towards DO would be all the things listed above. I may even get some hate for it, but I believe strongly in being open to new possibilities and forms of treatments and that preventative medicine, "alternative" medicine, and environmental medicine is ultimately what I would be seeking to do. DO seems more conducive and welcoming to that than MD?

Thanks for the help.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I think i may need to clarify what I meant and also would like some clarification (from your post and mspeedwagon's).

What I meant by research was that I do not want to pursue anything in the field of research, such as a pharmaceutical research MD, lab technician and administrator, and so forth. I do of course, understand that western medicine is completely based on research and is what you would call "evidence based". So i accept that some research will be done on a daily basis of course, as that is what medicine and science is all about. My current standing or perception of the difference between MD and DO is that there are none. The sky is the limit and if you put your mind to it and are a go-getter person, you can't argue that you can't do something in medicine because you're stuck with an "DO" title or an "MD" title. They get the same training, tests, etc.
I still recommend doing research because most DO schools and MD schools will want to see you've got experience and won't fall apart later in research.

But that being said, I also perceived from what I have read so far on the differences between the two (as subtle as they may be) is that there are still underlying differences in education or at least emphasis and style. Osteopathic medicine (from what I have read, i could be wrong) seems to be more holistic (and these are not my words) and assess the person, not the disease. The foundations and slight emphasis and style may be more holistic in approach at DO schools than at the majority of MD schools. The training in osteopathic manipulations as well as the few DO appointments (as a patient) I have been to are a bit different from the traditional MDs I have seen. Please keep in mind these are my PERCEPTIONS of things and I understand that I may be wrong, and i also understand that every doctor is different and has the potential to treat their patients with care and love and get skills regardless of licensing. I agree with the former statement in regards to any profession: lawyer, chiropractor, physical therapist, whatever. I have met bad and good in both.
Ugh.. both MD and DO assess the person. This is a common misconception. However 100 years ago during the schism this might have been different. This however is no longer a valid point. Of which you can actually say differentiates each other. 90+% of DO will never use OMM in their career. This because OMM is not a means to cure the cold. It is however useful in helping with muscle and bone damage.

Why did you say that DOs are not holistic? I am also under the impression that DOs and lots of residency options are targeted or STYLIZED towards primary care. Thats not to say that you cannot go into surgery or anything else but that is what I have heard and read. I'm not making the claim that if you go into DO school, that you are restricted but rather different schools have slightly different focuses. Same goes for physical therapy schools, they are all the same and everyone goes out with a DPT or MPT but different schools and systems teach and emphasize things a little differently..and I thought DOs = holistic.
They were "stylized" towards primary care. As 50 years ago DO's were only primary care physicians. This is however not the case now a days as DO's can if they desire go into whatever residency they choose whether primary care or a ROADS specialty. DO's learn basically the same thing as MD's. Philosophically were started under the terms of an alternative to MD medicine which 100 years ago was not research and evidence based. This however has long since changed and DO's have since then joined MD's.

My reason for leaning towards DO would be all the things listed above. I may even get some hate for it, but I believe strongly in being open to new possibilities and forms of treatments and that preventative medicine, "alternative" medicine, and environmental medicine is ultimately what I would be seeking to do. DO seems more conducive and welcoming to that than MD?
Preventative medicine sure go for DO. Alternative medicine find a homeopathic school. Because you will not learn alternative medicine at a DO school. You will learn just real medicine and real bodily effect of which is all research based. And developing medicine to add to that field will be added through research. Environmental medicine? I've never heard such a specialty.

Thanks for the help.

Needless to say I think you've heard many wrong things about the DO profession. They are physicians who practice real medicine and are not about alternative medicine. I know 2 DO's of which one is a neurologist and the other a hospitalist. Neither went to DO to be holistic, they went to DO so they could become physicians to learn how to treat people with illnesses with real cures and real medicine. If there ever was a holistic aspect to DO, its been dead for over 50 years.
I should also add the neurologist is a researcher looking for methods to deal with dementia. So research is something you might want to do.

Now that I re-read I think I'm being a bit mean. So I want to say I apologize. I just feel like this a belief that is not true.

 

[mspeedwagon]

. You may want to check your sources OP. There are so many false statements I don't know where to begin.

If you want to pursue research, especially via an MD/PhD, that is one area where an MD is superior, but that is not to say that you can't do research as a DO. DO schools place a little more emphasis on patient care over research. For example, molecular biology is tested more heavily on the USMLE than on the COMLEX. The COMLEX focuses a little more on clinical cases.

I agree with the entire post below.

Needless to say I think you've heard many wrong things about the DO profession. They are physicians who practice real medicine and are not about alternative medicine. I know 2 DO's of which one is a neurologist and the other a hospitalist. Neither went to DO to be holistic, they went to DO so they could become physicians to learn how to treat people with illnesses with real cures and real medicine. If there ever was a holistic aspect to DO, its been dead for over 50 years.