Should applicants to the new schools (quinnipiac, commonwealth, hofstra, etc.) be at all concerned about board passage or residency placement? How would you compare attending a "new" allopathic school to attending an established DO school--which is more favorable?
New schools vs. established schools
- Thread starter Jdoc91
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,062
- Reaction score
- 390
'People' is a very general term. If you are talking about patients, most don't know the difference between M.D. and D.O., they just know that a doctor is a doctor. Allopathic and osteopathic educations are nearly identical asides from the additional training in osteopathic principles (like OMM) that one gains from an osteopathic institution.
IMO a newer school is always going to be somewhat risky, and that goes for both allopathic and osteopathic. You want to be sure that they are fully accredited and that you can get all the federal loans you will need. You're also going to be running the risk of a poor curriculum which could of course lead to poor board passing rates and thus residency placement.
However, just because you run the risk doesn't automatically dictate that these things will happen.
Yes, it is more difficult to score a competitive residency position as a D.O., but if one scores well on the USMLE then there is still the opportunity to get into those positions. You by no means forfeit any opportunity by choosing the D.O. path, but it will be harder to get into the more lucrative specialties.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 577
- Reaction score
- 700
School reputation definitely plays a role in how prestigious a residency program you will be competitive for. A new MD school will not have an established reputation, which will likely put it in the same league as existing MD schools with low reputations.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 2,225
- Reaction score
- 25
This.
