It has been well documented that the quality of DO education is for the most part inferior to MD.
This is absolute BS and it only exists because places like SDN are a rat’s nest for dumb theories. DO education is inferior according to who? All the anonymous mouths on this forum?
Here is the reality from health policy circles: osteopathic schools are a winner at the state level, the federal government loves them, and patients love DO physicians. The general arguments used to claim that DO education is inferior typically come down to a few points:
1) Faculty to student ratios (14:1 MD vs. ~2:1 DO). The only place this silly argument has traction is on this forum. There are tons of people in the policy sphere that have been absolutely bitching for years about the “waste” in modern medical education. “Blah, blah…subsidizing researchers who come in and give a lecture twice a year.” Furthermore, most MD faculty numbers come from associate and assistant professors that, for all intents and purposes, are full time attendings in their affiliated hospitals. I think it’s great that MD schools have, on average, larger and more advanced hospitals attached to their programs but I haven’t seen an ounce of evidence about how this leads to better doctors. The evidence that does exist is anecdotal and crazy susceptible to individual bias, e.g. “Well, I don’t think DO students are as well prepared based on my experience.” Do I think that having an attached hospital is great? Yeah. Do I think it probably has educational benefit? Sure do. How measurable a difference does it make? Got me?
Show me a study.
2) DO schools rely more on tuition to run their services. Only in the ivy tower of medical education would anyone nod their head and go, “YEAH!” Everyone else in the world (state legislatures, policy makers) think this works out to a good deal for them. Less tax dollars and more doctors. Personally, I actually agree that tuition needs to be lower and that one of the ways this happens is through subsidy, but I don't think anyone trying to pay for it (taxpayers) cares.
3) There are some who believe that the DO model is actually the future of medical education. There are more than a few calls to “trim the fat” in medical education. You can’t read a NYTimes article without someone complaining about the 4th year or all the pomp and circumstance and wasted money that go into the process. I don’t agree with all of this personally, but the tide is on the other side.
4) NPs!!! There is literally an entire other profession whose central point is that we (physicians and future physicians) are all over educated and yet people on this forum have the audacity to sit and run the same tired MD vs. DO debate.
Medical school is hardly at a point where an “average Joe” can stumble his way into a class. Despite the fatalistic attitudes on this forum, gaining admission into any U.S. medical school still remains competitive. So competitive in fact that it’s hard to miss an article about the barriers to entry being so high that only rich kids can enter.
"The current system has costs beyond making doctors expensive and rare. The long process doesn’t just weed out the incompetent and the lazy from the potential pool of physicians—it deters students who can’t pay for so many years of education or who need to make money quickly to support their families. That introduces a significant class bias into the physician population, depriving a large proportion of the population of doctors who understand their background, values, and challenges." -
Source
Absent the MCAT, admission still requires jumping through hoops that 95% of the general public considers insane. Do DO schools have some room for improvement? Yeah, of course. Is it well established that they're producing inferior doctors? No, not at all.
