Why are DO schools more lenient on GPA/MCATs?

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

---

Members do not see this ad.

You kind of proved my point... I was saying yes the 9 DO schools are PROPOSED schools, but most likely not all 9 will come into existence. Schools are proposed all of the time and very few are actually accredited.

And 0 of the DO schools will come into existence if the AOA succeeds with its referendum. Another thing I don't understand about new DO schools is the lack of scholarships. Almost all new MD schools grant their first year students some insurance, usually in the form of a full ride, just in case the school fails for some ridiculous reason.

 

[DocEspana]

Then why even open up DO schools? Why did Touro easily open up DO schools and had difficulty opening up even 1 MD school?

I've been thinking a bit about this. Are there any official reasons for this? My thinking is that there are fewer DO-granting schools than MD-granting schools. The AOA is big on carving out a name for DO's (and keeping DO's separate from MD's), but part of the problem is that DO's aren't as well-known or recognized compared with MD's. One solution is to get more DO's into the workforce, so that people encounter them more frequently. It's harder on the students, but it makes DO's more visible to the population at large.

If that's really the reasoning, then it ignores complications that can arise from the massive expansion without addressing other aspects of the medical training.

Serenade: your point seems like it would be valid... but its not. Touro had *no* problems opening the MD school. They got approval in late 2007. By late 2009 they already had the building 1/2 built (i saw it when the walls were first going up, its on my way to what was then my undergrad). But New York Medical College went on the market in late 2009 and Touro dropped everything in order to purchase them. It was solely a matter of what was cheaper. Buying an established medical school with some name brand (at least locally) was much more cost efficient than building your own school. LCME standards were passed easily. So they went and sold the half built school to someone else who wanted to use the land.

It should also be noted that Touro has 26 (now 27) schools under its name. Its a behemoth. So even if LCME standards were hard to attain, I'd never know. Touro actually has a huge amount of research going on between all of its schools. But its *not* research that slows anything down. Thats a red herring and its not required at all for LCME accreditation desite what everyone says.

 

[Funky]

This is what I was explaining. A lot of people sit in for the USMLE for the hell of it. If they do bad, so what? They still have AOA residencies and nobody ever has to know about if they passed the usmle or not. Conversely for MD students is that they HAVE to pass USMLE of they have no chance.

Taking the Step 1 just for the heck of it? I can find plenty of better ways to burn $500. Actually I think the price of it went up.

I'm sure those students are in the minority and have to agree with DrBowtie that the DO students taking the Step 1 are the ones who are more motivated to go into a ACGME residency for whatever reason.

 

[And I Was Like]

Also the problem with the Touro MD school was the facilities and the fact that there would be no "affordable" housing for the students to live. I live down the block from this "proposed" school and it would have been a complete disaster to open up a school in the area. No one here wanted it, there was no room for dorming, and the median home in the down is 450,000 with no apartment living. It would have been awful.

They will never say the reason why it never came to be. I suspect it's much more than living arrangements. It was likely due to an issue LCME had with the school, not a logistics/student satisfaction issue, but this is just speculation.

 

[DocEspana]

They will never say the reason why it never came to be. I suspect it's much more than living arrangements. It was likely due to an issue LCME had with the school, not a logistics/student satisfaction issue, but this is just speculation.

Nah. They were pretty transparent about the whole thing. Its not like they sent the students regular updates on it, but they made no effort in the last three years to hide the info on it on their main website. It was their baby. They updated every little detail, including a few of the hiccups (with a spin, but still, the info was there including constant mention of a need to attain student housing). They only took down the stuff a few months ago when the NYMC deal became official.

 

[denco88]

I've been thinking a bit about this. Are there any official reasons for this? My thinking is that there are fewer DO-granting schools than MD-granting schools. The AOA is big on carving out a name for DO's (and keeping DO's separate from MD's), but part of the problem is that DO's aren't as well-known or recognized compared with MD's. One solution is to get more DO's into the workforce, so that people encounter them more frequently. It's harder on the students, but it makes DO's more visible to the population at large.

If that's really the reasoning, then it ignores complications that can arise from the massive expansion without addressing other aspects of the medical training.

I'd have to agree with this... Also, I think they try to solve the rural GP shortage by opening more DO schools. This works if people are willing to go very rural and become a GP and have their loans forgiven, however, the very high price of a DO education does not help increase GP and FM.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I'd have to agree with this... Also, I think they try to solve the rural GP shortage by opening more DO schools. This works if people are willing to go very rural and become a GP and have their loans forgiven, however, the very high price of a DO education does not help increase GP and FM.

Unless they start pushing a contract like OU, then it's unlikely that this will be very effective.

 

[denco88]

They will never say the reason why it never came to be. I suspect it's much more than living arrangements. It was likely due to an issue LCME had with the school, not a logistics/student satisfaction issue, but this is just speculation.

These were just the reasons given by the newspaper reports around here.

 

[pancakesyrup]

It's possible that someone who had the grades/ECs would go to a DO school over an MD school, but outside if gigantic exceptions (like being unable to move, etc.) this is EXTREMELY rare.

I met a girl who chose a DO school (CCOM) over MD mainly because of the timing of her wedding.

 

[DocEspana]

Really.... no one is going to address that financially it does make more sense to purchase an established school than to build you own from scratch? Instead youre going to speculate it has to do with LCME accreditation problems, something the LCME publishes publicly about every prospective school being built and you can look up and see that it had no holds or snags?

Also, while we're on the topic of accreditation and touro schools. COCA (and the MO osteopathic society) denied a school recent that was under the touro umbrella from going any further because it had some clinical education plans that didnt have all their i's dotted and t's crossed. Technically the Homer Wright school didnt have the touro name attached to it, but the prospective president and dean are both admin at TouroCOM . That was pretty public knowledge on these boards right from the day the "hold order" was placed. If the LCME did the same thing, we'd know. Also the problem with Homer Wright was rather minor and it made big news here (the fact that it was later completely scrapped when the MO osteopathic board raised an complaint as well was after the fact)

 

[DocEspana]

I met a girl who chose a DO school (CCOM) over MD mainly because of the timing of her wedding.

I chose a DO school over quite a few MDs. But I'm stubbornly northeast-centric. So when given a choice of DO in the north east or MD only in the midwest I played into my own biases.

 

[pancakesyrup]

Absolutely not. DOs are NOT MDs. To put MD, DO after your name is misleading. The MD title is reserved for LCME accredited schools. If DO schools want to go through the LCME accreditation process and award a MD degree, that's fine.

Except for the Caribbean schools and numerous other foreign medical schools.

 

[And I Was Like]

Except for the Caribbean schools and numerous other foreign medical schools.

I said in a later post I was referring to only US schools (and Canada.. I guess). Try reading the entire thread before posting next time. Thanks.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Pretty sure USMLE data would say otherwise. And there isn't anything wrong with <100%. You don't need a lot of what is cut out. And for the record, there are plenty of MD schools that don't do 100% medicine either as things get cut when you condense things to 1 or 1.5 years.

Just wanted to address this because it's so stupid. The initial statement is about what is taught. The counter-argument is about what's learned. Or maybe DrBowtie thinks you can pass the USMLE with <100% medicine.

 

[premedmind]

It is a combination of fewer applicants and ignorance of what a DO is. The number of DO graduates is greatly increasing, at a rate of >100%, while the number of MD graduates has remained the same.

 

[DrBowtie]

Just wanted to address this because it's so stupid. The initial statement is about what is taught. The counter-argument is about what's learned. Or maybe DrBowtie thinks you can pass the USMLE with <100% medicine.

To think people are taught 100% of medicine is ludicrous. It is an ever expanding field. What is taught is the well proven core principles of medicine that give one the baseline knowledge to take knew information and synthesize it.

You can absolutely pass Step 1 with <100% of medicine taught and learned. It doesnt take a perfect score to score well much less pass. If you know FA, you can pass, and that certainly doesn't represent 100% of medicine.

Have you taken Step 1?

 

[DocEspana]

It is a combination of fewer applicants and ignorance of what a DO is. The number of DO graduates is greatly increasing, at a rate of >100%, while the number of MD graduates has remained the same.

As noted earlier. Osteopathic schools recieve more applications per school than allopathic schools. Admittedly the pool is diminished somewhat by allopathic schools having first pick, but if were gonna be totally honest, its definitely *not* because of less applicants in an absolute sense.

 

[And I Was Like]

As noted earlier. Osteopathic schools recieve more applications per school than allopathic schools. Admittedly the pool is diminished somewhat by allopathic schools having first pick, but if were gonna be totally honest, its definitely *not* because of less applicants in an absolute sense.

This. Also, one would think if there were more applicants for a school their average GPA/MCAT would be higher (supply/demand), it's not. It's actually quite the opposite.

 

[premedmind]

As noted earlier. Osteopathic schools recieve more applications per school than allopathic schools. Admittedly the pool is diminished somewhat by allopathic schools having first pick, but if were gonna be totally honest, its definitely *not* because of less applicants in an absolute sense.

Well, what I meant was total applicants are fewer, which is true.

The fact the there are more applicants per school yet entrance requirements for GPA and MCAT are lower could be attributed to the fact that most applicants view DO as a backup option/last resort, and have low stats to begin with. The 'cream of the crop' so to speak are already taken up by MD schools.

 

[TriagePreMed]

To think people are taught 100% of medicine is ludicrous. It is an ever expanding field. What is taught is the well proven core principles of medicine that give one the baseline knowledge to take knew information and synthesize it.

You can absolutely pass Step 1 with <100% of medicine taught and learned. It doesnt take a perfect score to score well much less pass. If you know FA, you can pass, and that certainly doesn't represent 100% of medicine.

Have you taken Step 1?

Now you're switching it to say being taught 100% of all medicine, which doesn't happen at any medical school MD or DO.

 

[DrBowtie]

Now you're switching it to say being taught 100% of all medicine, which doesn't happen at any medical school MD or DO.

You're right. My original statement is most MD schools teach X where X < 100. Most DO schools teach X-Y where Y = OMM time.

Both X and X-Y are enough to pass respective boards easily. There isn't a reason to get upset about it but DO schools don't have 28 hours in the day.

I'm just suggesting that the 10% discrepancy in pass rates may be due to that extra content. I'm not at all suggesting it is required to be a better physician just merely do better on Step 1.

I don't really know what your angle is on the discussion unless you really think that DOs learn everything that MDs learn plus OMM and are thus superior.

 

[patel2]

You're right. My original statement is most MD schools teach X where X < 100. Most DO schools teach X-Y where Y = OMM time.

Both X and X-Y are enough to pass respective boards easily. There isn't a reason to get upset about it but DO schools don't have 28 hours in the day.

I'm just suggesting that the 10% discrepancy in pass rates may be due to that extra content. I'm not at all suggesting it is required to be a better physician just merely do better on Step 1.

I don't really know what your angle is on the discussion unless you really think that DOs learn everything that MDs learn plus OMM and are thus superior.

True, but in place of OMM, many MD schools have additional BS courses like cultural competency, healthcare administration and nutrition (nutrition could be very valuable, but doctors know nothing about it and preach the same old discredited 'low-fat high carb is healthy' nonsense). There are also PBL classes that have nothing to do with medicine and that most students hate. DO schools probably do some of this too, but since most of their "BS" time is dedicated towards cranial and OMM, it probably ends up being less in these areas.

I think the real answer to the 10% difference is that DO students taking the USMLE face less of a sense of urgency. All your focus and energy is going to be on the test set required of you to be a licensed physician. If your not all that interested in competitive field in the first place, you may not go into the USMLE really prepared for it and fail. If your goal is to be an internist/ped/FM, who cares? If med school admissions gave students the chance to take the MCAT and DATs to use for admissions, I may sit in for the DATs just cuz, without any urgent sense that I need to pass it. The two tests emphasize different areas, so someone primarily focused on prepping the COMLEX might not have acclimated to the USMLE format.

Another possibility is that the core of the problem relates to the correlation of MCAT ---> USMLE scores. DO schools have lower MCATs, and there is a fairly strong correlation between these two sets standardized tests, perhaps greater than MCAT and COMLEX (correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any studies of MCAT ---> COMLEX correlations.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Another possibility is that the core of the problem relates to the correlation of MCAT ---> USMLE scores. DO schools have lower MCATs, and there is a fairly strong correlation between these two sets standardized tests, perhaps greater than MCAT and COMLEX (correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any studies of MCAT ---> COMLEX correlations.

This is probably the biggest reason. Most medical schools also have stated that an mcat score of 27 at the minimum is required to have a high chance of passing the usmle, apparently 27-45 scores don't differ all too much.

 

[DrBowtie]

I just don't buy that DO students pay $545 and sacrifice 8 hours of their lives just for the hell of it.

Your other reasons may be valid.

 

[And I Was Like]

True, but in place of OMM, many MD schools have additional BS courses like cultural competency, healthcare administration and nutrition (nutrition could be very valuable, but doctors know nothing about it and preach the same old discredited 'low-fat high carb is healthy' nonsense).

Yeah, this is few and far between. The school I'm going to has none of this junk. And I check several other schools I could only find one that had a medical humanities class for one month meeting 2 hrs a week. I'm not a math major but 2 x 4 =/= 200 just saying.

Truth - OMM DOES take up time that would be devoted to other studies. But I believe that it's not significant enough to matter. 200 hours over 2 years is actually very little...

BTW the school with medical humanities (which was a combo of minorities in medicine and medical ethics) is MSUCHM, you have the option of substituting other courses like alternative medicine for it; yet, ironically you can't do OMM despite the DO school literally across the road. And yes, I did ask this at my interview.

 

[patel2]

Yeah, this is few and far between. The school I'm going to has none of this junk. And I check several other schools I could only find one that had a medical humanities class for one month meeting 2 hrs a week. I'm not a math major but 2 x 4 =/= 200 just saying.

Truth - OMM DOES take up time that would be devoted to other studies. But I believe that it's not significant enough to matter. 200 hours over 2 years is actually very little...

BTW the school with medical humanities (which was a combo of minorities in medicine and medical ethics) is MSUCHM, you have the option of substituting other courses like alternative medicine for it; yet, ironically you can't do OMM despite the DO school literally across the road. And yes, I did ask this at my interview.

Well then I guess it depends on the school. The MD school I interviewed at has all of what I listed for 8 hours of mandatory attendance per week for the first 2 years in cultural competency, nutrition, ethics, healthcare administration. The worst part is the real science attendance is optional, but they make the students sit through this garbage...

IMO this is comparable to what a DO student will face in terms of BS hours.

 

[And I Was Like]

Well then I guess it depends on the school. The MD school I interviewed at has all of what I listed for 8 hours of mandatory attendance per week for the first 2 years in cultural competency, nutrition, ethics, healthcare administration. The worst part is the real science attendance is optional, but they make the students sit through this garbage...

IMO this is comparable to what a DO student will face in terms of BS hours.

Except that less than five percent of DOs will ever use OMM and it's not even proven to be much more than a glorified massage.

Even if your learning Nutrition/ethics/administration it's still superior and bound to be more useful than OMM. Also the program you stated is fairly rare. I just looked at all the MD schools my state which is >3 and some of the others I applied to and MSU is still the only one that has such a program. Like I said though, even if you were learning any of the above it's still likely to be more useful then OMM.

 

[patel2]

Except that less than five percent of DOs will ever use OMM and it's not even proven to be much more than a glorified massage.

Even if your learning Nutrition/ethics/administration it's still superior and bound to be more useful than OMM. Also the program you stated is fairly rare. I just looked at all the MD schools my state which is >3 and some of the others I applied to and MSU is still the only one that has such a program. Like I said though, even if you were learning any of the above it's still likely to be more useful then OMM.

agreed about OMM, but I would argue that learning about nutrition from a physician or medical school faculty is even less scientific than learning OMM.

 

[And I Was Like]

agreed about OMM, but I would argue that learning about nutrition from a physician or medical school faculty is even less scientific than learning OMM.

There's so much wrong with what's being said here...
1) The people teaching nutrition at most of these schools are Ph.Ds who study it. Whereas the teachers of OMM are DOs.
2) There's nothing scientific about OMM, proving the existence of big foot is more scientific.

I'm much too tired to attack these statements in more detail.

 

[patel2]

There's so much wrong with what's being said here...
1) The people teaching nutrition at most of these schools are Ph.Ds who study it. Whereas the teachers of OMM are DOs.
2) There's nothing scientific about OMM, proving the existence of big foot is more scientific.

I'm much too tired to attack these statements in more detail.

most nutritionists at the medical school level are completely clueless about proper diets, and the "science" behind what they have historically promoted (low fat, high carb/whole grain diet) is as pseudoscientific (or worse) as OMM or the existence of bigfoot.

 

[And I Was Like]

most nutritionists at the medical school level are completely clueless about proper diets, and the "science" behind what they have historically promoted (low fat, high carb/whole grain diet) is as pseudoscientific (or worse) as OMM or the existence of bigfoot.

Yeah. I want sources on this information. The data is already floating around these forums as to why OMM is no more than an expensive massage. Frankly, I want to here why you know more than a Ph.D./RD, what wealth of articles do you have to back up your claim.

 

[premedmind]

This is probably the biggest reason. Most medical schools also have stated that an mcat score of 27 at the minimum is required to have a high chance of passing the usmle, apparently 27-45 scores don't differ all too much.

Where is/are your source(s)? Seems outlandish.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Where is/are your source(s)? Seems outlandish.

I wish I could find the source, but I cannot. So pretty much disregard the post and just consider the fact that their is a strongish correlation between mcat scores and usmle scores. So

 

[MightyMoose]

I wish I could find the source, but I cannot. So pretty much disregard the post and just consider the fact that their is a strongish correlation between mcat scores and usmle scores. So

The reason you can't find the article is because it likely doesn't exist...

You should stop posting "facts" if they aren't in fact "facts." There is a correlation between BS section scores and the USMLE, but I have yet to read an article that states a strong correlation between the MCAT and USMLE passing rates/scores. Some try to use composite MCAT score as a predictor, but it doesn't work statistically (at least in any of the articles I've read about the correlation between composite MCAT scores and USMLE success/scores).

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Well seeing as LizzyM was the one who stated the part about the correlation. I think I'm pretty sure. But alright, you've galvanized me to look for the source of the 27 mcat score ( I lost I switched computers recently).

 

[MightyMoose]

Well seeing as LizzyM was the one who stated the part about the correlation. I think I'm pretty sure.

You can name drop all you want, but unless I see the article, I'm not buying it.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

You can name drop all you want, but unless I see the article, I'm not buying it.

http://www.usmleworld.com/Step1/step1_facts.aspx
R = .4
In terms of correlation between tests that's actually quite strong.
Anyways... I'll comment back on this in the morning.

 

[LizzyM]

The reason you can't find the article is because it likely doesn't exist...

You should stop posting "facts" if they aren't in fact "facts." There is a correlation between BS section scores and the USMLE, but I have yet to read an article that states a strong correlation between the MCAT and USMLE passing rates/scores. Some try to use composite MCAT score as a predictor, but it doesn't work statistically (at least in any of the articles I've read about the correlation between composite MCAT scores and USMLE success/scores).

Evidence shows that the MCAT correlates with the Step 1 and Step 2-CK exams (almost linear) with the Step 1 showing a steeper curve (meaning a stronger relationship). A higher score on the MCAT tracks with a higher score on the Step 1 and Step 2-CK.

The relationship between the MCAT total score and the pass rates for the Step 1 are linear between 15-17 and 26-29 and then flatten out. Likewise, the relationship between MCAT total score and 4- year graduation rates are positively associated up to about 27-29 where they flatten out before dipping slightly at MCATs of 33 and higher (most likely reflecting students who take a year off for research). The 5-year graduation rate is high and flat for MCATS between 24 and 45.

I got the information from an AMCAS Communication. "Using MCAT Data in 2010 Student Selection", October 2009. It is a leaflet...


PM me with your name and mailing address and I'll send you a photocopy. This offer applies only to Doubting Thomas -- I mean MightyMoose.

 

[patel2]

Evidence shows that the MCAT correlates with the Step 1 and Step 2-CK exams (almost linear) with the Step 1 showing a steeper curve (meaning a stronger relationship). A higher score on the MCAT tracks with a higher score on the Step 1 and Step 2-CK.

The relationship between the MCAT total score and the pass rates for the Step 1 are linear between 15-17 and 26-29 and then flatten out. Likewise, the relationship between MCAT total score and 4- year graduation rates are positively associated up to about 27-29 where they flatten out before dipping slightly at MCATs of 33 and higher (most likely reflecting students who take a year off for research). The 5-year graduation rate is high and flat for MCATS between 24 and 45.

I got the information from an AMCAS Communication. "Using MCAT Data in 2010 Student Selection", October 2009. It is a leaflet...


PM me with your name and mailing address and I'll send you a photocopy. This offer applies only to Doubting Thomas -- I mean MightyMoose.

Please send me a photo copy to confirm this.

My full name is Muhammed Akbhar Mujahdine Patel, and my address is 14 Avenue Derka Road, Kabul, Afghanistan

 

[TriagePreMed]

You're right. My original statement is most MD schools teach X where X < 100. Most DO schools teach X-Y where Y = OMM time.

Both X and X-Y are enough to pass respective boards easily. There isn't a reason to get upset about it but DO schools don't have 28 hours in the day.

I'm just suggesting that the 10% discrepancy in pass rates may be due to that extra content. I'm not at all suggesting it is required to be a better physician just merely do better on Step 1.

I don't really know what your angle is on the discussion unless you really think that DOs learn everything that MDs learn plus OMM and are thus superior.

I must agree with you that learning an additional thing will take time from the USMLE and could hurt the score.

I think DOs learn everything that an MD does in the medical sense. I don't think learning OMM makes you "superior" or the education "superior." In fact, the cranial crap seems to simply waste time.

 

[MightyMoose]

http://www.usmleworld.com/Step1/step1_facts.aspx
R = .4
In terms of correlation between tests that's actually quite strong.
Anyways... I'll comment back on this in the morning.

You are right. I stand corrected.

Results Medical school performance measures from 11 studies and medical board licensing examinations from 18 studies, for a total of 23 studies, were selected. A random-effects model meta-analysis of weighted effects sizes (r) resulted in (1) a predictive validity coefficient for the MCAT in the preclinical years of r = 0.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.54) and on the USMLE Step 1 of r = 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.67); and (2) the biological sciences subtest as the best predictor of medical school performance in the preclinical years (r = 0.32 95% CI, 0.21-0.42) and on the USMLE Step 1 (r = 0.48 95% CI, 0.41-0.54).

Evidence shows that the MCAT correlates with the Step 1 and Step 2-CK exams (almost linear) with the Step 1 showing a steeper curve (meaning a stronger relationship). A higher score on the MCAT tracks with a higher score on the Step 1 and Step 2-CK.

The relationship between the MCAT total score and the pass rates for the Step 1 are linear between 15-17 and 26-29 and then flatten out. Likewise, the relationship between MCAT total score and 4- year graduation rates are positively associated up to about 27-29 where they flatten out before dipping slightly at MCATs of 33 and higher (most likely reflecting students who take a year off for research). The 5-year graduation rate is high and flat for MCATS between 24 and 45.

I got the information from an AMCAS Communication. "Using MCAT Data in 2010 Student Selection", October 2009. It is a leaflet...


PM me with your name and mailing address and I'll send you a photocopy. This offer applies only to Doubting Thomas -- I mean MightyMoose.

Thank you for the info from the leaflet. I'm not that bad that I won't you take you at face value for the data you're citing (plus, you might even be an adcom at my school, then I would have to blush in embarrassment every time I walked by your office...).

 

[Dr Yiot]

Evidence shows that the MCAT correlates with the Step 1 and Step 2-CK exams (almost linear) with the Step 1 showing a steeper curve (meaning a stronger relationship). A higher score on the MCAT tracks with a higher score on the Step 1 and Step 2-CK.

The relationship between the MCAT total score and the pass rates for the Step 1 are linear between 15-17 and 26-29 and then flatten out. Likewise, the relationship between MCAT total score and 4- year graduation rates are positively associated up to about 27-29 where they flatten out before dipping slightly at MCATs of 33 and higher (most likely reflecting students who take a year off for research). The 5-year graduation rate is high and flat for MCATS between 24 and 45.

I got the information from an AMCAS Communication. "Using MCAT Data in 2010 Student Selection", October 2009. It is a leaflet...


PM me with your name and mailing address and I'll send you a photocopy. This offer applies only to Doubting Thomas -- I mean MightyMoose.

hmm interesting, but at the same time I still don't know if I believe it. Just because of personal experience. I work for a primary care doc(DO) who scored a 24 on the mcat. She ended up destroying the USMLE. She really wanted to be a FP and had offers at many programs accros the US(she mentioned UCLA etc etc). she was also top of her class in med school where she went(NYCOM). Extremely bright and excellent physician. Thats why im a little hesitant.

also it states that there is a higher correlation of graduating in 5 yrs. with scores bw a 24 and 25? I don't know if I buy that either just because if this is true then why would schools even consider accepting applicants with those scores or lower? why would they "risk" accepting a student knowing they have a higher chance of failing out? every student they accept is an investment i don't understand why they would do that.

heres what I have heard. I believe Moss Poh came on and posted this. im not going to dig it up. Anyone who scores over a 24 can pass med school in four years and do well on either liscensing exam with the right amount of effort.

ill agree to that?

just cause I have friends at certain schools with unbelievably low mcats and stellar gpa's that have done very well.

friend of mine at vcom had a 23 with a 3.6 and matched allopathic EM
other friend of mine is in somewhere with a 22.
again im not saying your evidence is invalid im just not buying into it.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

hmm interesting, but at the same time I still don't know if I believe it. Just because of personal experience. I work for a primary care doc(DO) who scored a 24 on the mcat. She ended up destroying the USMLE. She really wanted to be a FP and had offers at many programs accros the US(she mentioned UCLA etc etc). she was also top of her class in med school where she went(NYCOM). Extremely bright and excellent physician. Thats why im a little hesitant.

also it states that there is a higher correlation of graduating in 5 yrs. with scores bw a 24 and 25? I don't know if I buy that either just because if this is true then why would schools even consider accepting applicants with those scores or lower? why would they "risk" accepting a student knowing they have a higher chance of failing out? every student they accept is an investment i don't understand why they would do that.

heres what I have heard. I believe Moss Poh came on and posted this. im not going to dig it up. Anyone who scores over a 24 can pass med school in four years and do well on either liscensing exam with the right amount of effort.

ill agree to that?

just cause I have friends at certain schools with unbelievably low mcats and stellar gpa's that have done very well.

friend of mine at vcom had a 23 with a 3.6 and matched allopathic EM
other friend of mine is in somewhere with a 22.
again im not saying your evidence is invalid im just not buying into it.

Correlation =/= Causation my friend. While something might be likely, it still might not occur and even then you have outliers who do beyond well or beyond horrible. As such statistics may appear to not coincide with anecdotes often.

Btw, Thx LizzyM for filling in the gaps of my post. When I was typing it last night at 2 AM I had the hardest time finding any post/ article to defend my position. But yes, looks like 27-29 isn't associated with USMLE pass rate, per say, but rather high 4 year graduation rate. Thanks again for the wisdom.

 

[DrBowtie]

I must agree with you that learning an additional thing will take time from the USMLE and could hurt the score.

I think DOs learn everything that an MD does in the medical sense. I don't think learning OMM makes you "superior" or the education "superior." In fact, the cranial crap seems to simply waste time.

Well then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Velocity]

hmm interesting, but at the same time I still don't know if I believe it. Just because of personal experience.

I think we all know people like that, but the trends are what they are for a reason. Just for fun (I have time to burn), I surmise that it is the way that it is because there are three types of people who apply to medical school:

1) People who are very skilled test-takers, who may or may not really care for the material that they're learning. These people likely make up the majority of medical school matriculants at allopathic programs. For this group, their MCAT scores indicate how well they can prepare for an exam with a lot of material, and thus it is not surprising that there would be a correlation between MCAT, Step 1, and Step 2 CK scores.

2) People whose testing performance depends on how engaging they find the material. This group will include the people who score 24's on the MCAT and then blow away the Step exams. It will also include the people who fail out of medical school. Depending on how their baseline ("uninterested") testing abilities are, you'll find this type in DO and MD programs. With increasing competition, I would wager that they'll enter DO programs in greater amounts.

3) People whose test-taking (and perhaps academic) ability is low overall, regardless of the material. This group will most likely be forced into DO (or international) programs, if they're able to make it into medical school at all.

Actually, the last group (and the entire grouping in general) could be verified if we have data on the USMLE scores by IMGs. After all, they don't have OMM in their academic curriculum, but it is stereotyped that they're the "academic undesirables" in the admissions process. How do their scores compare to those of DO students?

 

[And I Was Like]

I think we all know people like that, but the trends are what they are for a reason. Just for fun (I have time to burn), I surmise that it is the way that it is because there are three types of people who apply to medical school:

1) People who are very skilled test-takers, who may or may not really care for the material that they're learning. These people likely make up the majority of medical school matriculants at allopathic programs. For this group, their MCAT scores indicate how well they can prepare for an exam with a lot of material, and thus it is not surprising that there would be a correlation between MCAT, Step 1, and Step 2 CK scores.

2) People whose testing performance depends on how engaging they find the material. This group will include the people who score 24's on the MCAT and then blow away the Step exams. It will also include the people who fail out of medical school. Depending on how their baseline ("uninterested") testing abilities are, you'll find this type in DO and MD programs. With increasing competition, I would wager that they'll enter DO programs in greater amounts.

3) People whose test-taking (and perhaps academic) ability is low overall, regardless of the material. This group will most likely be forced into DO (or international) programs, if they're able to make it into medical school at all.

Actually, the last group (and the entire grouping in general) could be verified if we have data on the USMLE scores by IMGs. After all, they don't have OMM in their academic curriculum, but it is stereotyped that they're the "academic undesirables" in the admissions process. How do their scores compare to those of DO students?

I have to disagree here - I'll number the arguments correlating with each of your points.

1) I want to see stats showing a good portion of MD students don't like the material. If you hate the material don't go to medical school - there are better careers if you just want money, it's called business, and you can have an entire political party willing to do anything you say so you can make a buck.

2) I need stats here to show a majority of these kids go DO. I personally hated the Verbal section and had zero interest in it. I also hated the biology section of the MCAT cause I don't like plants. I scored 10+ on both these sections because I studied them. I'm certain not everyone who gets 10+ on the Physical science section is a physics/inorganic chemistry fanboy/fangirl.

3) I also don't believe this, people with poor test-taking schools often realize this and study significantly harder. This is the real problem, you can get the grades/mcat if you study hard enough. It's not a "I'm not smart enough" question it's a "Am I willing to work hard, very hard, for it."

Also, Dr. Yiot - Anecdotal evidence is worthless. You're n=1 is nice, but it's a definite outlier against the statistics taken from the n = 40k+ study LizzyM posted.

 

[DocEspana]

Actually, the last group (and the entire grouping in general) could be verified if we have data on the USMLE scores by IMGs. After all, they don't have OMM in their academic curriculum, but it is stereotyped that they're the "academic undesirables" in the admissions process. How do their scores compare to those of DO students?

There are two or three huge variables here that you cant overlook though: The USMLE is the only saving grace for these students so they are well known for scoring better than expected (still not quite reaching the 220 average, but with a definite positive skew with many many high scoring outliers). also many/most/all (depends on who your asking) schools will either filter the students and not allow a certain percentage to ever take the USMLE or will decellerate them into extra years of pre-clinical education so that the only people taking the USMLE are the ones hand-picked to pass it.

Its not much simpler to measure by match rate, but if you do look at match rate you see a huge trend (much larger than DO trends) into internal med, family med, psychiatry, and preliminary spots. Additionally the *self-reported* first-attempt match rates of St George's and Ross (so even after any filter sthey may have) is 68% and 72% respectively. The rates of the entire caribbean (including those two) is almost exactly 50%.

To be more clear: they report the class size is X. and that Y people have responded to them with their match. They have a 99% match rate of the Y who respond. But Y is only 68 or 72% of the class. Additionally the NRMP notes that the number of unmatched 1st years is remarkably close to = X-Y. etc etc. this is not an offshore bashing thread, just showing my work to avoid having to explain how they "self-report" when they clearly list 99% on their home page. Its because they give you all the numbers on their homepage and hope that you dont do the math and just accept their analysis.

 

[DocEspana]

I have to disagree here - I'll number the arguments correlating with each of your points.

1) I want to see stats showing a good portion of MD students don't like the material. If you hate the material don't go to medical school - there are better careers if you just want money, it's called business, and you can have an entire political party willing to do anything you say so you can make a buck.

it wasnt said that they didnt like the material. It was said that their interest, high or low, is irrelevant. They are simply great test takers.

2) I need stats here to show a majority of these kids go DO. I personally hated the Verbal section and had zero interest in it. I also hated the biology section of the MCAT cause I don't like plants. I scored 10+ on both these sections because I studied them. I'm certain not everyone who gets 10+ on the Physical science section is a physics/inorganic chemistry fanboy/fangirl.

You'd be in the first group. So lets get that otu of the way and seperate you and your experience from this comment. There needs be no stats here cause this is a sort of common sense thing. Students with clear redeeming qualities but one big hit against them (generally it is MCAT. that can be shown easily) go DO more frequently. Its safe to assume that some portion of those people prob got low scores because they couldnt lock into the material enough to nail the MCATs. Its not a *given* but its a relatively logical conclusion that enough exist like that to be worth noting in this listing of 'types'.

3) I also don't believe this, people with poor test-taking schools often realize this and study significantly harder. This is the real problem, you can get the grades/mcat if you study hard enough. It's not a "I'm not smart enough" question it's a "Am I willing to work hard, very hard, for it."

Also, Dr. Yiot - Anecdotal evidence is worthless. You're n=1 is nice, but it's a definite outlier against the statistics taken from the n = 40k+ study LizzyM posted.

3 is totally anecdotal. but I will say that the n= "a couple" that I know in medical school who are plain bad test takers are *NOT* working any harder. Their suffering and doing poorly and are somewhat resigned to the fate. n= "a couple" is just anecdotal, but i figure if i'm commenting on everything else, might as well comment on this one.

 

[And I Was Like]

it wasnt said that they didnt like the material. It was said that their interest, high or low, is irrelevant. They are simply great test takers..

"People who are very skilled test-takers, who may or may not really care for the material that they're learning. "

No where Velocity's statement did he make such a claim that interest is irrelevant, in fact quite the opposite. Reading comprehension is also tested on the MCAT, btw.

You'd be in the first group. So lets get that otu of the way and seperate you and your experience from this comment. There needs be no stats here cause this is a sort of common sense thing. Students with clear redeeming qualities but one big hit against them (generally it is MCAT. that can be shown easily) go DO more frequently. Its safe to assume that some portion of those people prob got low scores because they couldnt lock into the material enough to nail the MCATs. Its not a *given* but its a relatively logical conclusion that enough exist like that to be worth noting in this listing of 'types'.

I disagree, everyone here assumes MD schools are brutal tyrants with no hearts. This is simply false. There is a clear link between the MCAT and USMLE as LizzyM post, hence why MD schools are little more strict. But that's not to say they don't accept people with lower MCAT scores.

Truth of the matter, the universe is not against DO students. There are plenty of MD students who got poor grades or a poor MCAT score but they alleviated this by SMP, course retakes, MCAT retakes. Also remember course retakes for MD schools don't do grade replacement.

Also, there is no such thing as "common sense" everyone comes from different backgrounds therefore they're ideas of what the societal norms are is varied. Ask a philosophy professor, they literally laugh at the mere notion of "common sense".

 

[Dr Yiot]

I think we all know people like that, but the trends are what they are for a reason. Just for fun (I have time to burn), I surmise that it is the way that it is because there are three types of people who apply to medical school:

1) People who are very skilled test-takers, who may or may not really care for the material that they're learning. These people likely make up the majority of medical school matriculants at allopathic programs. For this group, their MCAT scores indicate how well they can prepare for an exam with a lot of material, and thus it is not surprising that there would be a correlation between MCAT, Step 1, and Step 2 CK scores.

2) People whose testing performance depends on how engaging they find the material. This group will include the people who score 24's on the MCAT and then blow away the Step exams. It will also include the people who fail out of medical school. Depending on how their baseline ("uninterested") testing abilities are, you'll find this type in DO and MD programs. With increasing competition, I would wager that they'll enter DO programs in greater amounts.

3) People whose test-taking (and perhaps academic) ability is low overall, regardless of the material. This group will most likely be forced into DO (or international) programs, if they're able to make it into medical school at all.

Actually, the last group (and the entire grouping in general) could be verified if we have data on the USMLE scores by IMGs. After all, they don't have OMM in their academic curriculum, but it is stereotyped that they're the "academic undesirables" in the admissions process. How do their scores compare to those of DO students?

i actually really like your reply as I think I actually fall in groupw # 2. I had some SERIOUS classes in undergrad. Took a biochem class with a lot of kids and only the top 15% got A's. I don't think I actually found a class more interesting so I DESTROYED every exam and aced the course.

Put me in a physics class which I absolutely DETEST and I don't perform as well. Which is why I agree with your posts highly. I could easily see myself doing well in med school and performing better on the comlex/usmle just because I am interested in the material.

it took me 3x to get my Physical Science scores up on the MCAT. I hated all of that material. i pulled a 6 twice and after about two months of killing myself on physics and inorganic I finally pulled off a 9. On all three attempts I performed the exact same in my bio section. I loved it.

Correlation =/= Causation my friend. While something might be likely, it still might not occur and even then you have outliers who do beyond well or beyond horrible. As such statistics may appear to not coincide with anecdotes often.

Btw, Thx LizzyM for filling in the gaps of my post. When I was typing it last night at 2 AM I had the hardest time finding any post/ article to defend my position. But yes, looks like 27-29 isn't associated with USMLE pass rate, per say, but rather high 4 year graduation rate. Thanks again for the wisdom.

ah I see. This is freaking me and my 25 on the mcat out. I might just retake to get a 27 so that I am comforted to know that I will pass the USMLE😛