Who would be in a better position for jobs?

[Aspiring O]

---

Members do not see this ad.

If there were two job candidates who would have more job opportunities:

An MD who had completed a "mid level" residency say at a low/mid tier academic program or a community program

Or

A DO with a "higher level" residency say at a program with more name recognition

I know that residency matters more than school for jobs, but what about if its a DO vs MD grad with the DO in the better residency? Does the title of MD put the MD in better employment position still or does the better residency get the DO the job even though s/he is competing with a MD?

And definitely not trying to get the DO vs MD firestorm argument started, just want to know the realistic answers.

 

[deleted645092]

The better doctor.

 

[Stagg737]

The one who is going to bring in more money with less liability. If you're talking about candidates straight out of residency, also depends on who is hiring and what connections the candidates have.

 

[libertyyne]

You are only as good as your last institution. Some institutions probably display some bias against DOs in states that have very few.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

As far as hirability for new grad goes

MD trained in big names > DO trained in big names > MD trained in no names > DO trained in no names

Assuming all else are equal and no connections.

 

[Redpancreas]

The answer to your question is completely dependent on
1) What kind of job?
2) Which field?

1) You could apply for a group private practice group where they'll value group fit and efficiency moreso than institution you've trained at. On the other hand if you're applying to be a physician who rounds at a top 20-research ranked institution and are expected to teach medical students, residents, and fellows, your CV (where you've trained, publications, etc.) matter much more. If the group doesn't have an anti-DO mentality and is worried how one DO will look on their board, then DO will probably be equivalent to MD and it will come to other factors (probably not big name center training though). For that, I would feel being an MD would trump a DO from a big name (just stating, not saying its right).

2) DOs are everywhere but I'd imagine they'd have more success in EM than Dermatology for example.

 

[dj-Roomba]

This may be regional and also setting specific, but the managers of the clinics I have worked at have told me they just want a physician who is board certified. Degree and residency "prestige" don't matter to them

 

[oncology2020]

As far as hirability for new grad goes

MD trained in big names > DO trained in big names > MD trained in no names > DO trained in no names

Assuming all else are equal and no connections.

Let's be real--there is still a significant amount of bias against DO because DO traditionally has been the back door to become a physician in the US due to inability to get into a US allopathic med school (often due to lower grades and/or MCAT scores). The DOs that get into strong big name allopathic programs tend to be either in noncompetitive fields, had connections, and/or strong family ties.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

Let's be real--there is still a significant amount of bias against DO because DO traditionally has been the back door to become a physician in the US due to inability to get into a US allopathic med school (often due to lower grades and/or MCAT scores). The DOs that get into strong big name allopathic programs tend to be either in noncompetitive fields, had connections, and/or strong family ties.

A DO from MGH is gonna be more hirable than MD from staten island U

 

[Can'tdecide111]

A DO from MGH is gonna be more hirable than MD from staten island U

And both are going to be hirable anyway.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

And both are going to be hirable anyway.

Not if you are radonc or pathology.

 

[Aspiring O]

As far as hirability for new grad goes

MD trained in big names > DO trained in big names > MD trained in no names > DO trained in no names

Assuming all else are equal and no connections.

Thanks for the input. I am worried that with all the new DO schools opening up even those DOs coming from more established schools would be grouped in with all the DOs upcoming and therefore all the new DOs coming into the workforce would have so much of a stigma (since apparently its getting easier to get into a DO school with all the new ones) that they are much less likely to find a job even if board certified. But if a DO has a "better" residency than an MD would you believe s/he would still be more employable than a MD with a lesser known residency even with the major influx of DOs coming?

 

[Can'tdecide111]

Not if you are radonc or pathology.

I mean in those fields, your interpersonal skills and connections may be more important than others. But your employability will not depend on MD or DO

 

[libertyyne]

Thanks for the input. I am worried that with all the new DO schools opening up even those DOs coming from more established schools would be grouped in with all the DOs upcoming and therefore all the new DOs coming into the workforce would have so much of a stigma (since apparently its getting easier to get into a DO school with all the new ones) that they are much less likely to find a job even if board certified. But if a DO has a "better" residency than an MD would you believe s/he would still be more employable than a MD with a lesser known residency even with the major influx of DOs coming?

getting into the better residency is where the rub is in this plan.

 

[osteodoc7]

Let's be real--there is still a significant amount of bias against DO because DO traditionally has been the back door to become a physician in the US due to inability to get into a US allopathic med school (often due to lower grades and/or MCAT scores). The DOs that get into strong big name allopathic programs tend to be either in noncompetitive fields, had connections, and/or strong family ties.

Some of these low tier State MD programs have similar stats to top DO programs. I do agree that there remains some bias. However, I think this bias mostly comes from physicians who love to live in the past. If you're developing a bias based on test results from 7 years ago (why you got into an MD program), that's called living in your past glories. If a DO graduate performs better on the USMLE and has an overall better application allowing him to obtain a more competitive residency, then he should be a more desirable hire.
If desirable hires go hand in hand with either having the title of MD or DO, then desirable hires goes hand in hand with undergraduate GPA and MCAT. This is stupid in my opinion. If the DO got into a better residency, than he performed better in medical school. Should hire based on performances done in medical school, not when candidates were going through puberty.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

Thanks for the input. I am worried that with all the new DO schools opening up even those DOs coming from more established schools would be grouped in with all the DOs upcoming and therefore all the new DOs coming into the workforce would have so much of a stigma (since apparently its getting easier to get into a DO school with all the new ones) that they are much less likely to find a job even if board certified. But if a DO has a "better" residency than an MD would you believe s/he would still be more employable than a MD with a lesser known residency even with the major influx of DOs coming?

To a PD in the competitive program all DO schools are the same. “Top” DO school is an oxymoron.

 

[Mass Effect]

Let's be real--there is still a significant amount of bias against DO because DO traditionally has been the back door to become a physician in the US due to inability to get into a US allopathic med school (often due to lower grades and/or MCAT scores). The DOs that get into strong big name allopathic programs tend to be either in noncompetitive fields, had connections, and/or strong family ties.

Such BS. For one, all programs at the top institutions are competitive. Even something like psych at MGH is pretty competitive. And in some fields, like PMR, DOs may actually be seen as having an advantage because of OMM. DOs match, not because of connections or ties, but because some DOs work their asses off, just as some MDs do. Is it a tougher road? Yes. But to dismiss all DOs who match into "big name" programs as someone who had connections or was in a non-competitive field screams of the naiveté found in pre-allo.