asdasd12345 said:
from what ive read, if you make a french fry out of gravy you arent viewed as "sound" of a candidate for working at fast food corporations. Seems to me they are would both taste as good. if applicants have the same training, then shouldnt they both wendys and mcdonalds be as hard to get a job with. maybe that would cancel out the rumour that people who use gravy are better than people who use potatoes. your thoughts?
For all the digression going on, I'm going back to the original post here...
I strongly wonder how one could "make a french fry out of gravy" in the first place. Gravy usually consists of meat and some flour/water base, and french fries are made from potatoes. It's sort of like asking something not very related at all to become similar, if not the same, as that which you have in mind. I have in mind trying to make a boat into a car. Basically, gravy and fries don't go from one state to the other.
And, it seems to me that a gravy "fry" would NOT be anything close to "as good" as a (potato) french fry.
And, sticking with your analogy, I don't think the training is the "same" for making a "fry" out of gravy vs. throwing french fries in a vat of grease.
By the way, last time I checked, Wendy's and McDonald's make their fries from potatoes, but the people trained to throw them in the grease don't make the potatoes...another connected process is involved before the friendly fast food person grease-pits your (potato) fries.
So, to stick with parallels here in this ever-drawn-out/annoyingly-pre-med-in-nature "discussion" you initiated by talking about fries from gravy vs. potatoes:
1) DOs and MDs do NOT get the same training
2) Employers of DOs and MDs would require trained *doctors*
3) And these *doctors* would really just need to be good at what they do.
Now, life (including be a doctor) progresses through the action of synthesis. Without synthesis, drugs wouldn't exist, nor would babies. Synthesis, evidently, has multiple meanings. I'm talking, here, about taking multiple streams of information and making them MIX, and forming interrelatedness and connections as much as possible. You think the friendly (potato) fry-dipper gets along by thinking his/her fries are the *only* important part of the meal a person purchases? You think s/he knows this from just short observations in the checkout line? or do you think knowing and understanding comes from doing?
All we're *doing* here is philosophizing about a bunch of hypothetical friendly fast food workers and drawing parallels to doctors with different letters after their names.
Let's get down to brass tacks and pick at this some more because I think something stimulating will emerge...maybe more than you (all) want:
Let's say 1) (above) is true: then, taken to its extents, an MD and a DO would perform differently given some "standard" patient presentation scenerio, and the two differently-trained *doctors* would employ different methods of treatment. Lemme ask for good times sakes: what is wrong with admitting an MD and a DO receive different training? Why would a DO who receives OMT training want to say s/he received the same training as an MD? Why would an MD want to say s/he received the same training as a DO? Some DO schools require 3 semesters of anatomy (KCOM did...not fully sure now if that's true) and it makes me wonder if a courseload like that really allows you, as a KCOM student, to say you've "received the same training as" even your fellow DO-to-be's, much less your MD colleagues.
I'm picking here on the generalization about "receiving the same training" because it's not true. MDs are not trained like DOs.
Has your mind been opened a bit yet? Good. Go back and re-read if you're still fighting.
Despite the dissimilar training, and the fact that some hospitals employ both MDs and DOs, something about synthesis can be gleaned...namely: hospitals understand that having both "flavors" of *doctors* is a good idea. Why? I think the answer piggy-backs on what multiple posters before me have said, basically, that 4 years of school + residency and board certification shows you've synthesized your book knowledge, your clinical training, and then your very-intense-and-in-your-face real-life experiences *doing* things as a resident. Oh, while we're on that matter, maybe we should try discussing DO vs. MD residencies while we're at it...seeing as how it's just about as foreign to pre-meds as med school or making gravy fries is to a potato-wielding french fry cooker. Are you really speaking truth if you say that two FP residencies, DO and MD are going to be "the same training"?
The aim of all of this is a (correct) synthesis....and if people would lay down their PC notions of "the same training" and admit that DO and MD are different paths having similarities and interconnectedness that are more-numerous than the differences, yet the differences are what make the two unique, but that both "paths" are "complimentary" (meaning: they can co-exist because they share many points) I think people get more on-track.
If you've read this far... I thank you for your patience. Please respond; I welcome your thoughts!
🙂
