Osteopathic vs. Caribbean

[SLC]

I wouldn't exactly call this fighting, nor is it an MD/DO thing. @SLC said something that is ridiculous regardless of the degree you hold and got called out by two residents, a fellow and an attending (so far).

Two residents a fellow AND an attending? Well crap, I'm not sure I realized I was talking to two residents a fellow AND an attending...well I take it all back then. It was all fun and games when I thought I was dealing with just med-students

And this guy wants to lecture me about name-dropping.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Mayo Clinic in Rochester has a family med residency
Duke has a family med residency
UCSF has a family med residency
And I could go on.

But I think your point is still somewhat valid. If I understand you right (and correct me if I'm wrong), what you're saying is that big referral centers don't have FP docs seeing the sick/interesting/medical quandary patients in the hospital. People don't fly from the middle of nowhere to Mayo to see a FP doc; they come in to see the internal med specialist. So the name and prestige of the university doesn't mean as much because the FP people are in the local community clinics, seeing the family members of the community that surrounds the hospital..

Point taken.

Yup, something like that. The name means less for FP. Great programs aren't necessarily associated with a big nameand a big name doesn't necessarily mean a great program. Compare that to some other specialties; it is tough to find a great IM program or great surgery program that is not associated with what most would consider a big name. It is hard to get notoriety and prestige in a specialty that is primarily taking care of outpatients which may be why this is the case.

 

[W19]

Let it go guys/gals!

 

[NurWollen]

Point taken.

Yup, something like that. The name means less for FP. Great programs aren't necessarily associated with a big nameand a big name doesn't necessarily mean a great program. Compare that to some other specialties; it is tough to find a great IM program or great surgery program that is not associated with what most would consider a big name. It is hard to get notoriety and prestige in a specialty that is primarily taking care of outpatients which may be why this is the case.

Said that way, I actually agree with you.

 

[Osteotastic]

The only reason I would recommend going Caribbean is this:

The unfortunate truth is that, though generally training at Osteopathic schools can be quite good if not great pertaining to relevant medical curriculum required to become a modern physician and allows for entrance into many fairly strong residency programs given sufficient input of study time, hard work, board scores etc, unfortunately in the end you will be branded with a name that has practically nothing to do with the way you practice or what you do and that is associated with an unscientific stigma.
That said, as a DO, I am happy that I am now a doctor but I am not happy that I feel misrepresented by my name. If this makes you angry that I express this and for many DOs it will, it is most likely out of defense and pride. I understand that impulse but it is in defense and pride of something that you most likely don't practice and does not truly represent you (the "DO" holistic difference" is a crock of BS). You either are a Physician or you are not. I would prefer a designation that was more associated with adherence to science but unfortunately mine is stuck in an antiquated vestigial appendage that is a non existent component of my career.
Again, I am not unhappy for my career as a Physician that I obtained by going through the DO route, I take issue primarily with what I feel to be an outdated inaccurate label.
So, would having the letters MD be beneficial. Yes, I think in many was this is the case as it is more closely associated with adherence to science, evidence and the way you will likely actually practice. It also lends itself to being taken more seriously if you want to make a larger difference in medicine or this world in general in the arenas of book writing, media etc. This does not mean these cannot be done with the DO title but I believe it is more of a hindrance than a help in this area.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I'd rather have a DO and a residency than a MD and not tbh.

I agree with the notion, osteopathic medicine and doctor of osteopathic medicine make no sense especially in our age of random ass doctorates i.e doctor of naturopathic medicine, doctor of chiropractic medicine, doctor of rubbing penguins on your face to realign your chakras medicine it doesn't make sense to not move towards a MD, DO descriptor.
But again, if you're a DO and underneath that it says Attending Physician or Internal Medicine Physician or etc most ppl will probably know what the hell is going on.

 

[Dr Tony T. Chopper]

There is a marked difference between being a disillusioned realist and a self-victimizing sob story under the assumed safety and guise of, "[trash any topic] -> but don't get me wrong, im still so grateful".

No you're not.

You are clearly much more dissatisfied with the field of osteopathic medicine than you led on if you are actually recommending carib over DO. And here you are posturing with rhetoric for anybody who disagrees with you to be called idealistic, naive, and one who cannot stand the sight of naysaying voices of reason.

Every discussion deserves a great back and forth with real negatives volleyed with positives. There are a great many contributors on this forum who are incredible with helping pre-meds get the full picture before deciding. You pose as one of these people.

The only reason I would recommend going Caribbean is this:

The unfortunate truth is that, though generally training at Osteopathic schools can be quite good if not great pertaining to relevant medical curriculum required to become a modern physician and allows for entrance into many fairly strong residency programs given sufficient input of study time, hard work, board scores etc, unfortunately in the end you will be branded with a name that has practically nothing to do with the way you practice or what you do and that is associated with an unscientific stigma.
That said, as a DO, I am happy that I am now a doctor but I am not happy that I feel misrepresented by my name. If this makes you angry that I express this and for many DOs it will, it is most likely out of defense and pride. I understand that impulse but it is in defense and pride of something that you most likely don't practice and does not truly represent you (the "DO" holistic difference" is a crock of BS). You either are a Physician or you are not. I would prefer a designation that was more associated with adherence to science but unfortunately mine is stuck in an antiquated vestigial appendage that is a non existent component of my career.
Again, I am not unhappy for my career as a Physician that I obtained by going through the DO route, I take issue primarily with what I feel to be an outdated inaccurate label.
So, would having the letters MD be beneficial. Yes, I think in many was this is the case as it is more closely associated with adherence to science, evidence and the way you will likely actually practice. It also lends itself to being taken more seriously if you want to make a larger difference in medicine or this world in general in the arenas of book writing, media etc. This does not mean these cannot be done with the DO title but I believe it is more of a hindrance than a help in this area.

 

[Doctor Bob]

doctor of rubbing penguins on your face to realign your chakras medicine

I am going to work this into my practice. Where can I go to get this certification?

 

[Osteotastic]

There is a marked difference between being a disillusioned realist and a self-victimizing sob story under the assumed safety and guise of, "[trash any topic] -> but don't get me wrong, im still so grateful".

No you're not.

You are clearly much more dissatisfied with the field of osteopathic medicine than you led on if you are actually recommending carib over DO. And here you are posturing with rhetoric for anybody who disagrees with you to be called idealistic, naive, and one who cannot stand the sight of naysaying voices of reason.

Every discussion deserves a great back and forth with real negatives volleyed with positives. There are a great many contributors on this forum who are incredible with helping pre-meds get the full picture before deciding. You pose as one of these people.

When arguments are made, there is the logic/construct of an argument and the feelings generated.
I'm not trying to trash the training as a whole. And definitely not the "field", as the field is that of Physician of which I am proud to be. I just don't like the name. It doesnt have a whole lot of logical basis given contemporary practice and harkens back to practices of which I do not participate. As such, there are some downsides to name designation that is associated with that small antiquated part of my training that I never use. I'm merely presenting them. If that that hurts your feelings, I'm sorry?

As for saying that there is a "field" of osteopathic medicine, somehow different than mainstream medicine, this is also more than a bit silly to me. The only "osteopathic field" that really exists is OMM.
When a med student graduates from an osteopathic medical school then goes to a ACGME pathology residency and continues on to path oncology fellowship is that Physician part of the “osteopathic field” or the medical field?

 

[hallowmann]

When arguments are made, there is the logic/construct of an argument and the feelings generated.
I'm not trying to trash the training as a whole. And definitely not the "field", as the field is that of Physician of which I am proud to be. I just don't like the name. It doesnt have a whole lot of logical basis given contemporary practice and harkens back to practices of which I do not participate. As such, there are some downsides to name designation that is associated with that small antiquated part of my training that I never use. I'm merely presenting them. If that that hurts your feelings, I'm sorry?

As for saying that there is a "field" of osteopathic medicine, somehow different than mainstream medicine, this is also more than a bit silly to me. The only "osteopathic field" that really exists is OMM.
When a med student graduates from an osteopathic medical school then goes to a ACGME pathology residency and continues on to path oncology fellowship is that Physician part of the “osteopathic field” or the medical field?

To be fair, you really tend to lay it on thick the downsides of being a DO. They certainly exist, but they aren't nearly as damaging to your "image" or "marketability" as a physician as you often imply. Maybe you are more sensitive to the slights that you perceive as being due to your degree as opposed to any number of possible things. Maybe you are in an unsupportive environment that makes you question the way people view your degree. Maybe you never really came to terms with the idea of being a DO and not an MD, and you're reminded of that every time you see those 2 letters behind your name. But for you to suggest that the Carib is a better option than DO for a current applicant at very least demonstrates an ignorance of the current residency and medical student climate.

In any case, I have no intention of getting into a discussion with you about this, as we've been through it before and I consider another to be an exercise in futility. I just feel it necessary to respond to your assertions at this fleeting moment.

As for anyone else. Don't choose DO if you want to be an MD. Choose it if you want to be a US physician and can't get into a US MD school or if you want to learn medicine and OMM. That's all.

 

[Osteotastic]

To be fair, you really tend to lay it on thick the downsides of being a DO. They certainly exist, but they aren't nearly as damaging to your "image" or "marketability" as a physician as you often imply. Maybe you are more sensitive to the slights that you perceive as being due to your degree as opposed to any number of possible things. Maybe you are in an unsupportive environment that makes you question the way people view your degree. Maybe you never really came to terms with the idea of being a DO and not an MD, and you're reminded of that every time you see those 2 letters behind your name. But for you to suggest that the Carib is a better option than DO for a current applicant at very least demonstrates an ignorance of the current residency and medical student climate.

In any case, I have no intention of getting into a discussion with you about this, as we've been through it before and I consider another to be an exercise in futility. I just feel it necessary to respond to your assertions at this fleeting moment.

As for anyone else. Don't choose DO if you want to be an MD. Choose it if you want to be a US physician and can't get into a US MD school or if you want to learn medicine and OMM. That's all.

Oh good lord.

Again. After the years of hearing this it has become quite humorous. Any time someone dares to present the other side of the osteopathic status quo it is met with ad homonym attacks. Please learn the difference between logic and the former, there really is a big difference.

Dogma without sound reason, Dogma that may threaten ones image or identity especially that is challenged will be met by attack of the character of the one who dares bring up alternate view points.
The simple attack always takes the following shape more or less: “You lack pride or belief in yourself and thus the negatives you have presented are false and all in your head. They are false and all in your head because you are not proud to be a DO. Therefore they are false and on top of that you are an xyz insert name (MD wannabe etc)”. This "argument/attack" can and has been regurgitated over and over any time someone challenges the current osteopathic structure.
Osteopathic medical school is not a religion. It is a set of classes and practicum. Some of those, a minority, are different than at other medical schools, this does not mean we must pledge some sore of blind allegiance to the name “Osteopathic” or “DO” no , the bigger point is being a physician and if you feel that the designation is antiquated and has draw backs, by all means, say so and let others know. If you feel the opposite by all means please present the logical pros. No need to attack each-other for either of these.
Progress happens by open debate and debating the logic of pros and cons. These have nothing to do with attacking the person or their reasons for presenting said logic.

As for the global argument of going to a DO or MD Caribbean school. I think there are many sound reasons to go to a DO school including current loan repayment options for US students, in most but not all cases - better rotation sites and ratio to attending among others. My comments in previous posts were not meant to be a global comprehensive assessment. I think if you are bright and determined to rise to the top you will make your way to a solid residency regardless of going DO, US MD or Caribbean MD as I did and have seen many of my colleagues from each of these schools do. In any case I hope that you realize that you are not your initials behind your name, you are a Physician but this does not mean you should not consider any potential pros or cons of having them just as you should consider all angles of your decision.

 

[W19]

My comments in previous posts were not meant to be a global comprehensive assessment. I think if you are bright and determined to rise to the top you will make your way to a solid residency regardless of going DO, US MD or Caribbean MD as I did and have seen many of my colleagues from each of these schools do. In any case I hope that you realize that you are not your initials behind your name, you are a Physician but this does not mean you should not consider any potential pros or cons of having them just as you should consider all angles of your decision.

I would not advise anyone who wants to become an ENT doc to go to the Caribbean...

 

[costales]

I'd say if people want to go to the Caribbean, let them - they've already made up their mind anyway. It's a free country, and it's no skin off my back. I wish I could go to the Caribbean more often.

 

[the argus]

I would not advise anyone who wants to become an ENT doc to go to the Caribbean...

You should also probably advise them not to go to an osteopathic medical school either...

 

[Mjolner]

You should also probably advise them not to go to an osteopathic medical school either...

And probably not a bottom tier MD school either.

 

[22031 Alum]

And probably not a bottom tier MD school either.

The hard truth is that a "bottom tier" MD student with the right application profile will get interviews that a DO student and Caribbean student with equal or even better applications won't get. So let's not get too carried away with the "LOL these people have an uphill climb too!!" sentiment.

 

[TravelingDoc2]

Just one semester into a DO program and am already feeling the "downsides". Cannot find any research programs in my state that will take or have had a history of taking DOs. One physician-scientist straight up said to my face "We don't take DOs." Just noticed on last years match list that all the students matched to an AOA residency rather then ACGME surgery.

Really did not expect it to be this bad. Makes me wonder why I didn't just spend another year doing stuff to get into an MD school.

 

[Mjolner]

The hard truth is that a "bottom tier" MD student with the right application profile will get interviews that a DO student and Caribbean student with equal or even better applications won't get. So let's not get too carried away with the "LOL these people have an uphill climb too!!" sentiment.

Sure they have it easier but I'm betting Hopkins and MGH aren't full of bottom tier MD medical schools.
The biggest limiting factor is NOT your degree or the reputation of your institution. It's the quality of candidates that your school accepts which leads to higher quality graduates with brighter futures. My DO school had a 260+ guy last year and several 250+
Those folks will have options that other DOs and most lower tier MDs won't. And a HMS guy with a 211 won't be matching ENT.
Right application profile is the key. Period.
Lower tier MD, DO and Caribbean tend to have less competitive students in that order, and thus face difficulties matching in that order. PDs are aware of this and act accordingly, sometimes blocking out whole groups of candidates that they don't feel would ever be competitive.

 

[Mjolner]

Just one semester into a DO program and am already feeling the "downsides". Cannot find any research programs in my state that will take or have had a history of taking DOs. One physician-scientist straight up said to my face "We don't take DOs." Just noticed on last years match list that all the students matched to an AOA residency rather then ACGME surgery.

Really did not expect it to be this bad. Makes me wonder why I didn't just spend another year doing stuff to get into an MD school.

If it makes you feel any better, we're all matching ACGME going forward!

 

[22031 Alum]

Just one semester into a DO program and am already feeling the "downsides". Cannot find any research programs in my state that will take or have had a history of taking DOs. One physician-scientist straight up said to my face "We don't take DOs." Just noticed on last years match list that all the students matched to an AOA residency rather then ACGME surgery.

Really did not expect it to be this bad. Makes me wonder why I didn't just spend another year doing stuff to get into an MD school.

You may have to cast a wider net than just your state, but there are summer research programs out there that take DO students. Hopefully you have someone at your school who can help you find an opportunity.

 

[22031 Alum]

Sure they have it easier but I'm betting Hopkins and MGH aren't full of bottom tier MD medical schools.
The biggest limiting factor is NOT your degree or the reputation of your institution. It's the quality of candidates that your school accepts which leads to higher quality graduates with brighter futures. My DO school had a 260+ guy last year and several 250+
Those folks will have options that other DOs and most lower tier MDs won't. And a HMS guy with a 211 won't be matching ENT.
Right application profile is the key. Period.
Lower tier MD, DO and Caribbean tend to have less competitive students in that order, and thus face difficulties matching in that order. PDs are aware of this and act accordingly, sometimes blocking out whole groups of candidates that they don't feel would ever be competitive.

The original post that started the LOLZ wasn't about matching at MGH or Hopkins. It was about matching a competitive specialty, period. So if we don't add caveats after the fact, US MD grads are more likely to get a chance at matching somewhere in a competitive specialty, than is a DO or Caribbean student with a similar profile. I am not an ENT but I would bet that the 250s/260s from your school had doors shut to them that were not shut to a Harvard or even ETSU (to pick on Tennessee) student with the same or lower scores. If we're talking my own specialty, I can guarantee it with 100% certainty- I've seen sub-200 allopathic students match at places where all DO/IMG applications get thrown out. I'm not saying it's fair or right, I'm saying that is how it is.

 

[Mjolner]

The original post that started the LOLZ wasn't about matching at MGH or Hopkins. It was about matching a competitive specialty, period. So if we don't add caveats after the fact, US MD grads are more likely to get a chance at matching somewhere in a competitive specialty, than is a DO or Caribbean student with a similar profile. I am not an ENT but I would bet that the 250s/260s from your school had doors shut to them that were not shut to a Harvard or even ETSU (to pick on Tennessee) student with the same or lower scores. If we're talking my own specialty, I can guarantee it with 100% certainty- I've seen sub-200 allopathic students match at places where all DO/IMG applications get thrown out. I'm not saying it's fair or right, I'm saying that is how it is.

I'm not denying this, but as a guy with many friends at various MD schools I hear the lament of those at lower tier all the time.
Plus it's easy to say someone else has it worse to deny the difficulties you face (not saying you particularly).
I don't know your specialty or what program you're talking about, but I highly doubt there is a specialty that will take sub 200 allopathic students over ALL DOs across the board. There are always exceptions to the rule and there will always "that one place" yes, but not nationally. Most of the specialties, that on a national scale, won't look at DO won't look at most MD students either.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Just one semester into a DO program and am already feeling the "downsides". Cannot find any research programs in my state that will take or have had a history of taking DOs. One physician-scientist straight up said to my face "We don't take DOs." Just noticed on last years match list that all the students matched to an AOA residency rather then ACGME surgery.

Really did not expect it to be this bad. Makes me wonder why I didn't just spend another year doing stuff to get into an MD school.

If you're willing to travel NIH, NIMH, NCIA all take DOs and have plenty of DO PIs and DO physician-scientists.

 

[Mjolner]

If you're willing to travel NIH, NIMH, NCIA all take DOs.

Yeah. But who has ever heard of those guys...

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Yeah. But who has ever heard of those guys...

I think there are something we can talk about DOs having a disadvantage in, but having another slave for a few months to help you publish your paper isn't one of them....

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Yeah. But who has ever heard of those guys...

Admittedly I think the only thing I'm jelly of atm in terms of research is the military track. I would personally love to work at Walter Reed and do research there after I finish medical school.

 

[Mjolner]

Admittedly I think the only thing I'm jelly of atm in terms of research is the military track. I would personally love to work at Walter Reed and do research there after I finish medical school.

I'm not jealous of anyone at the moment. I chose DO over MD because I didn't like the MD programs that accepted me and loved the DO one that I chose. Also, I'm not interested in any of the fields typically closed to DO so I'm cool on that front as well. It took a lot of debate to pick the school I did and I knew what I was giving up when I did. I just loved the school and I'm VERY happy with my choice for many personal reasons.
Well, I am jealous of the Hopkins folks, I hear that's where House went

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I'm not jealous of anyone at the moment. I chose DO over MD because I didn't like the MD programs that accepted me and loved the DO one that I chose. Also, I'm not interested in any of the fields typically closed to DO so I'm cool on that front as well. It took a lot of debate to pick the school I did and I knew what I was giving up when I did. I just loved the school and I'm VERY happy with my choice for many personal reasons.
Well, I am jealous of the Hopkins folks, I hear that's where House went

Technically he went to MSU after being kicked out of JHU.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Two residents a fellow AND an attending? Well crap, I'm not sure I realized I was talking to two residents a fellow AND an attending...well I take it all back then. It was all fun and games when I thought I was dealing with just med-students

And this guy wants to lecture me about name-dropping.

I think one of the greater pleasure in my life was seeing him as a crossdresser in Me You and the Apocalypse.

 

[NurWollen]

Oh good lord.

Again. After the years of hearing this it has become quite humorous. Any time someone dares to present the other side of the osteopathic status quo it is met with ad homonym attacks. Please learn the difference between logic and the former, there really is a big difference.

Dogma without sound reason, Dogma that may threaten ones image or identity especially that is challenged will be met by attack of the character of the one who dares bring up alternate view points.

@hallowmann isn't throwing ad homonym attacks or adhering to dogma. He's presenting a reasonable middle-of-the-road view, which is something a lot of people on SDN struggle with. He's just trying to point out that while there are certainly downsides to going DO, it's hardly an objectively bad choice.

 

[Danglebells]

The original post that started the LOLZ wasn't about matching at MGH or Hopkins. It was about matching a competitive specialty, period. So if we don't add caveats after the fact, US MD grads are more likely to get a chance at matching somewhere in a competitive specialty, than is a DO or Caribbean student with a similar profile. I am not an ENT but I would bet that the 250s/260s from your school had doors shut to them that were not shut to a Harvard or even ETSU (to pick on Tennessee) student with the same or lower scores. If we're talking my own specialty, I can guarantee it with 100% certainty- I've seen sub-200 allopathic students match at places where all DO/IMG applications get thrown out. I'm not saying it's fair or right, I'm saying that is how it is.

quoted for truth

 

[Danglebells]

I'm not denying this, but as a guy with many friends at various MD schools I hear the lament of those at lower tier all the time.
Plus it's easy to say someone else has it worse to deny the difficulties you face (not saying you particularly).
I don't know your specialty or what program you're talking about, but I highly doubt there is a specialty that will take sub 200 allopathic students over ALL DOs across the board. There are always exceptions to the rule and there will always "that one place" yes, but not nationally. Most of the specialties, that on a national scale, won't look at DO won't look at most MD students either.

sorry but its just not true.
inside the bubble of SDN and OMS1-3.5 it is, but there are is a **** ton of anti-DO bias out there.

 

[NurWollen]

The original post that started the LOLZ wasn't about matching at MGH or Hopkins. It was about matching a competitive specialty, period. So if we don't add caveats after the fact, US MD grads are more likely to get a chance at matching somewhere in a competitive specialty, than is a DO or Caribbean student with a similar profile. I am not an ENT but I would bet that the 250s/260s from your school had doors shut to them that were not shut to a Harvard or even ETSU (to pick on Tennessee) student with the same or lower scores. If we're talking my own specialty, I can guarantee it with 100% certainty- I've seen sub-200 allopathic students match at places where all DO/IMG applications get thrown out. I'm not saying it's fair or right, I'm saying that is how it is.

It isn't just unfair. It's asinine on the residencies' part. Taking a sub-200 US MD student over a 250+ DO student? That's absurd. I mean, I'm not doubting what you're saying, but just the fact that it happens is absurd.

 

[costales]

It's likely that no one ever saw that 250+ if there was a data filter - which programs use to manage applications in ERAS e.g. see http://bit.ly/1mMw0Y0; IMGs are screened out by simply restricting the field "Medical School Country" to the U.S.

 

[22031 Alum]

It isn't just unfair. It's asinine on the residencies' part. Taking a sub-200 US MD student over a 250+ DO student? That's absurd. I mean, I'm not doubting what you're saying, but just the fact that it happens is absurd.

I don't entirely disagree with you. I would have agreed with you more as a resident and new attending. But as I've become more involved in residency education and selection, I've learned more about the wide variations that exist in clinical education, so I can see why some PDs are gun-shy and I wouldn't call it completely absurd.

There's also the simple real-world consideration that "who you know" matters for this type of thing. If your residency classmate (or old program director, or whatever) emails you and says "Step 1 was a fluke, give this kid a chance and you won't be sorry," well... that carries some weight. Perfectly logical? No. How the world works. Yep.

 

[AlteredScale]

I don't entirely disagree with you. I would have agreed with you more as a resident and new attending. But as I've become more involved in residency education and selection, I've learned more about the wide variations that exist in clinical education, so I can see why some PDs are gun-shy and I wouldn't call it completely absurd.

There's also the simple real-world consideration that "who you know" matters for this type of thing. If your residency classmate (or old program director, or whatever) emails you and says "Step 1 was a fluke, give this kid a chance and you won't be sorry," well... that carries some weight. Perfectly logical? No. How the world works. Yep.

Is that wide variation in clinical education only apparent in DO applicants? Or is it also present in MD applicants as well?

My old PI was close to the PD of IM at UCSD. He told me that the PD will not consider DO's for the program because he feels having a DO on the roster lowers the prestige. I do believe that aspect of bias is still there and probably won't go away.

 

[Jinxapotato]

It isn't just unfair. It's asinine on the residencies' part. Taking a sub-200 US MD student over a 250+ DO student? That's absurd. I mean, I'm not doubting what you're saying, but just the fact that it happens is absurd.

Yep, very absurd and very unfair, but, that's how things run in the world. For example, if I one day make a big donation to my undergrad institution (a top notch school), you can bet that they will admit my mediocre son-to-be over some excellent student from a nobody family. Things like this are happened in the past, and will keep on happening in the future. Knowing the right people or born in the right family matters, sadly.

 

[W19]

Is that wide variation in clinical education only apparent in DO applicants? Or is it also present in MD applicants as well?

My old PI was close to the PD of IM at UCSD. He told me that the PD will not consider DO's for the program because he feels having a DO on the roster lowers the prestige. I do believe that aspect of bias is still there and probably won't go away.

It's because there are some US MD students that rank programs based on the # of IMG/DO they have on their rosters.

 

[costales]

My old PI was close to the PD of IM at UCSD. He told me that the PD will not consider DO's for the program because he feels having a DO on the roster lowers the prestige. I do believe that aspect of bias is still there and probably won't go away.

Prestige is a huge factor in academic medicine. Brand matters, and brand prestige engenders brand tribalism.

 

[NurWollen]

I don't entirely disagree with you. I would have agreed with you more as a resident and new attending. But as I've become more involved in residency education and selection, I've learned more about the wide variations that exist in clinical education, so I can see why some PDs are gun-shy and I wouldn't call it completely absurd.

There's also the simple real-world consideration that "who you know" matters for this type of thing. If your residency classmate (or old program director, or whatever) emails you and says "Step 1 was a fluke, give this kid a chance and you won't be sorry," well... that carries some weight. Perfectly logical? No. How the world works. Yep.

Fair enough, especially considering you are obviously qualified to speak on the matter.

Is that wide variation in clinical education only apparent in DO applicants? Or is it also present in MD applicants as well?

My old PI was close to the PD of IM at UCSD. He told me that the PD will not consider DO's for the program because he feels having a DO on the roster lowers the prestige. I do believe that aspect of bias is still there and probably won't go away.

I suspect that is the major reason for the bias.

It's because there are some US MD students that rank programs based on the # of IMG/DO they have on their rosters.

Which sucks, because then it becomes a positive feedback loop. If a program has lots of IMGs/DOs, then fewer US MDs apply, which leads to more IMGs and DOs, which decreases [unfairly, imo] the perceived prestige of a program. If people would instead judge the program on its actual merits, then none of this would be an issue.

Luckily for me, I don't really care about prestige, and the fields I'm interested in have plenty of solid programs that are wide open to DOs. I'd much rather go somewhere that will appreciate my skills and qualifications than a program that views my degree as a detriment to their name.

 

[kenjixshadow]

It's because there are some US MD students that rank programs based on the # of IMG/DO they have on their rosters.

They have every right reason to do so. I spent a few shifts with my attending at a community hospital where there are lots of IMG residents. Let just say that I was not impressed with the program nor the residents and even I didn't want to be there. As a lowly med student, I wouldn't go as far as saying that these residents don't know anything. It's just that I also receive some educations from an academic program, where there are lots of US MD residents, and I would like to match there over the community program simply bc of the training.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Is that wide variation in clinical education only apparent in DO applicants? Or is it also present in MD applicants as well?

My old PI was close to the PD of IM at UCSD. He told me that the PD will not consider DO's for the program because he feels having a DO on the roster lowers the prestige. I do believe that aspect of bias is still there and probably won't go away.

It'll go away slowly if that's what you're talking about. But when it comes down to it the top tier MD applicants are always going to on the book beat the best DO applicants because they'll always have better LORs, better research resumes, and etc. I think what we need to be reasonable about is the reality that there is a thawing going on and that thawing has allowed DOs to get into very good positions and match very highly when they deserve it.

But honestly another reality is that when it comes down to it a lot of DO applicants and even MD applicants aren't really going to care about it. They'll take their near perfect step 1 scores and they'll take their specialty of choice and go for a residency in a smaller place if it means being happy, with family, and or settling down. I know personally despite probably having a good chance at the top tier of my specialties pending the score I'd rather take my residency in my area back home.

 

[Mjolner]

sorry but its just not true.
inside the bubble of SDN and OMS1-3.5 it is, but there are is a **** ton of anti-DO bias out there.

If so, then name a specialty that takes sub 200 MD students regularly and nationally yet nationally refuses ALL DO students.

 

[jokersmiles]

Go to DO school if you are not competitive enough to get into an MD school.
Go to Caribbean if you want the MD title and feel good about yourself when you're alone.

In the end both DO and Caribbean physicians will end up having to explain why they didn't get into an MD medical school in the US.

But in general DO > Caribbean

 

[costales]

In the end both DO and Caribbean physicians will end up having to explain why they didn't get into an MD medical school in the US.

Explain to whom? Who asks? Who cares?

 

[Danglebells]

If so, then name a specialty that takes sub 200 MD students regularly and nationally yet nationally refuses ALL DO students.

this post kind of proves that you have no idea how the process works.

 

[Mjolner]

this post kind of proves that you have no idea how the process works.

No. You supported the statement that said this happens. Show that it happens.

 

[Mad Jack]

I think what makes the difference in how much free time you have it whether or not you attend a school with mandatory attendance. We're forced to be in class or labs from 8pm to 5pm most days, which leaves just 4ish hours every night to get through 4 or 5 lectures.

Some students can learn well in class listening to lectures, so they probably end up having more free time.

mandatory attendance is the worst time and productivity killer a school can have.

 

[Goro]

The same applies to Carib grads, but even more so. The differentials PDs have for the behaviors of Carib grads is not pretty.

So, would having the letters MD be beneficial. Yes, I think in many was this is the case as it is more closely associated with adherence to science, evidence and the way you will likely actually practice. It also lends itself to being taken more seriously if you want to make a larger difference in medicine or this world in general in the arenas of book writing, media etc. This does not mean these cannot be done with the DO title but I believe it is more of a hindrance than a help in this area.

I think wherever Deepak Chopra trained.

I am going to work this into my practice. Where can I go to get this certification?


My learned colleague @22031 Alum is correct here. About 30% of my students end up in specialties (mostly ACGME), and maybe 7% in ACGME competitive specialties. Yet ~75-80% of Drexel grads end up in specialties. Let's face it, most DOs will be going into Primary Care. The AOA is quite happy with that, and my school is happy with that as well.

I posit to interviewees all the time "Do you want to be a doctor, or a ___"? [put a specialty in the blank].

But the door keeps opening wider. More of my students are getting into competitive specialties nowadays than occurred about a decade ago. It won't surprise me if one of them ends up in IM at NYU someday soon (cue the Meat torpedo to come in, sputtering).

I don't have any NRMP data handy, but I'll wager that a DO can get into a decent ACGME speciality easier than any IMG. Am I wrong??

The original post that started the LOLZ wasn't about matching at MGH or Hopkins. It was about matching a competitive specialty, period. So if we don't add caveats after the fact, US MD grads are more likely to get a chance at matching somewhere in a competitive specialty, than is a DO or Caribbean student with a similar profile.

 

[Mad Jack]

This is possible, but I would automatically assume that TRI's go away, especially when they're allowing programs to retain "osteopathic recognition", and yes, some AOA programs have not applied for it, but a handful of previously ACGME programs have applied for "osteopathic recognition" already as well.

My program, an Ivy League program BTW, may very well apply for osteopathic recognition. They already sponsor an OMM clinic for the DO residents and interested MD residents. And a few of the MD faculty have even gone through OMM training and use and bill for it/supervise residents with it in clinic.

The next few years will be interesting. But I don't get the sense that the ACGME is looking for a hostile takeover as much as a shared set of GME standards.

Power the AOA, TRIs are both scrapped and will not be eligible for GME credit after 2020 for any that were completed prior to that date.