Don't hold your breath. Can't see how it would be enforceable
Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. It's a nice thought, but ...
When you interview zero DOs, have all DOs at the bottom of your rank list and match nobody with a DO, it'll force them to change
How are they weaker applicants if they did as well as an MD student in medical?
I guess I am confused at what this bill is suggesting. Is it suggesting that "DO and MD applicants will be looked at from an equal standpoint" or "xyz schools must accept _____ percentage of DO students and _____ percentage of MD students". After looking into the bill it sounded like the latter.
You're adding in demands and information that aren't in the bill. There's no imaginary quota system here, just the requirement to treat applicants fairly, whatever that means. All I'm seeing is that it residencies treat applicants fairly whether they are do or md.
You know the rotation sites are not the same. And they aren't competing with MDs for grades. Are you a do?
How can you objectively say they were ranked incorrectly? As an example, when you're a research-heavy program and you've got a pile of applicants who have worked with world-leading researchers at the top of your list and a bunch of people from DO schools with far less robust research credentials at the bottom, how could that be viewed as objectively improper given the mission of a research-driven program?
I agree that not all rotation sites are made the same. But, some do you schools are definitely better than others., also dear students are by Nature forced to seek out better rotation sites in their fourth years, so when they do their additions, and do it wisely they get a upper hand over say people who are at the brand new schools
Yes do students have to seek them out. I get requests all the time at my private practice. But MD students don't have to waste time on that and have many hospital rotations with supervision from physicians who have time to supervise appropriately.
How do they standardize grading if students find there own rotations?
Or teaching or supervision?
Sometimes, but every time? You're just assuming it's impossible that any DO can have robust research credentials, but then we could extend the logic to ranking MD applicants. You'd always have to rank everyone based on their stats. Besides, most people (MD or DO) don't really have any significant research
It is obvious that the bias has something to do with the quality of the training. It has been discussed on here ad naseam that only handfull of DO schools will meet LCME standards. We all know what a resource-rich, mentoring-rich, guidance-rich, etc., etc., etc. school environment can do for its students. All the DOs need to force the AOA to pressure COCA to bring the schools up to LCME standards. Stop opening more new DO schools (especially for profit schools) in an empty field in the midle to nowhere with ****ty training rotations.
This makes too much sense, therefore they won't do it.
LCME standards has heavy influence on research being conducted at the institution. While there are some DO schools with bad rotations, to label it a majority would be ludicrous. You keep perpetuating old stereotypes
This could end up being like the Rooney Rule. Who knows? DOs are certainly a minority. Over 1 million MDs and about 150,000 DOs. Accept federal funding accept the govt rules. I just thought it was an interesting approach. DO discrimination is a thing. One out of 3 PDs dont interview DOs. 30% of the programs arent HMS tier programs. Personally, I see it as a gesture and not going anywhere.
Becau$e 💸 you 💸 di$regard 💸 the 💸 o$teopathic 💸 philo$ophie$ 💸 if 💸 you 💸 do 💸 that 💸
It always confuses me. You chose DO education but still want MD residencies? Why not stay in your prescribed tract?
There is no such thing as MD residencies, which was mainly pushed by MDs. All residencies are owned by both MD and DO. Otherwise I'd gladly stay in my prescribed tract
is there an ownership of residency programs? If there is, I would like to hear more. ACGME sets the standards for training that res programs have to meet in order to be an accredited ACGME residency program. The ACGME residency programs (majority funding from publics sources/minority from private sources) are run by hospitals. The hospital take on the ownership role for the program. if the hospital is a teaching hospital for, or affiliated with, a med school, there is a nexus interms of who owns/operates the program.
Ownership as in the board overseeing ACGME residency programs by compromise of MDs and DOs includes both of them
How does this board own the residency programs? I thought they set and govern training standards with an overwhelming majority of MD votes.
DOs hold 30% of the board votes. Also once you’re in residency you will see just how much ACGME controls residencies. There is nothing a program fears more than a site visit
I’m not commenting on the overall topic of the thread. Honestly I think programs should be free to recruit whatever candidates they want.
Results as 0%? Only when you think in a single dimension. As soon as the in-group that's 70% starts to fracture on certain issues, they need to gather votes from the 30%. If they consistently **** of the 30%, they can't hope their own special projects to be taken seriously
Nope.
Many who complain about DO bias weren't competitive to be accepted at MD schools. Yet, as @Goro says, they think they will hit a 3 pointer at the buzzer and match a competitive residency. They think they will excel in med school when they didn't in undergrad. This can happen occasionally, but is far from frequent. To get accepted at a competitive residency it requires a competitive app for that specialty. Boards, class rank, LORs,research, etc. DOs are sadly not interviewed 36% of the time. With more new MD and DO grads, programs will be increasingly more competitive. When applying, understand the game as it changes frequently. Apply to specialties and programs where your stats are competitive and have a Plan B. Its not all gloom and doom, it just keeps getting harder.
It's not even about hitting it out of the ballpark. Many times people get looked over just because of the degree all things else being equal. Sometimes someone with a degree from a high pedigree school will be given more leeway. The entire point of equity is to be treated the same when being the same
On the bright side, ever since the merger, we've seen DOs match into uber-specialties that would have been unimaginable pre-merger. The glass door keeps getting kicked in more. And according tot he PD survey, more are willing to interview and rank DOs each year.
