why are do's undervalued?

[saiyagirl]

---

Members do not see this ad.

i don't get it. DO's ultimately learn everything MD's do and THEN some (the holistic views, etc). DO's and MD's are in residency together. so why are DO's undervalued relative to MD's?

when would someone see a DO over an MD...only when the MD has failed? why do allopathic schools ignore the DO philosophy--because they don't believe in it, or because they can't cram it in?


just curious. i've been wondering about this lately.

 

[Emergen-C]

The truth is that, in my quite multi-faceteed experieces in the world of medicine, I have never met someone who chose to go to DO school after receiving an acceptance offer at an MD school. Unfortunately, due to this reality, the MCAT scores and GPA scores needed to get into a DO school are significantly lower than those required at an MD program (even a carribean one). I will add that some of the best docs I know are DOs--the philosophy is incredibly inspiring, and they aeresponsible for more in their med school training-yet the stereotype andpublic opinion (some laypeople think they are chiropractors) lead many premedsto steer clear or future obstacles that DOs often encounter when looking for residencies in specialties and when applying for admin positions like CMO, etc.
I'll never forget one interviewer I had: he said, "If you get into a US DO progam, choose it over any foreign MD program. And if you are lucky enough to get into a US MD program, by all means don't pass up the chance--you'll thank yourself further down the road."

 

[Katie]

ok, I'm not saying that DO's are inferior to MD's, but wanted to challenge the notion that DO's learn everything MD's do. From what I've read on the USMLE home page, 93% of MD students pass Step 1 on the first try, while only 75% of DO students pass on the first try (and a much higher failure on retake rate than MD students). If the material is so similar and nothing is being left out of the DO curriculum during the first 2 years, why the discrepancy? Granted, DO students have USMLE II rates very similar to MD students, but these students were those that were preselected for after they mastered Step I. osteopathy is a different approach than allopathy, and the notion that people perpetrate on here that both curriculums are the exactly the same (with add. OMM training for DO students) is just incorrect. And whether we like it or not (I honestly haven't had extensive enough exposure to make a fair judgement), allopathy is considered the "mainstream" branch of medicine, which is why allopathic hospitals outnumber osteopathic hospitals. There are actually several posters on here who chose the DO route b/c they seem to be comfortable with a more rural or suburban environment, family-friendly atmosphere, lack of competitiveness, and early emphasis on physical examination and OMM from day 1. And there are many posters who chose the MD route for factors that go beyond prestige (contrary to popular belief) and school reputation. For me, location was really a big deal; I couldn't pass up the opportunity to live and work in Boston for 4 years and probably would have gotten restless at KCOM in Kirksville, MO (for example). If Tufts had been a DO school and Kirksville an MD school; I probably would still have chosen Tufts.

 

[canadagirl]

If, generally, students at DO schools are accepted with much lower GPAs and MCAT scores than those accepted at MD schools, then that would explain away the lower Step 1 pass rates.

They could be learning even more than MD programs with a better curriculum, but the students who were accepted with the lowest GPA/MCATs to DO schools that wouldn't even have been considered by MD schools are going to have a harder time, wouldn't you think?

Isn't there a strong correlation between MCAT and Step 1 scores?

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

GPA is slightly lower for DOs. MCAT is significantly lower for DOs.

That being said, there isn't THAT much of a difference between DO and MD applicants. However, to say that there is no difference (as DOs often suggest) is very much an untruth as well.

 

[Mike59]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
GPA is slightly lower for DOs. MCAT is significantly lower for DOs.

That being said, there isn't THAT much of a difference between DO and MD applicants. However, to say that there is no difference (as DOs often suggest) is very much an untruth as well.

Whether DO proponents want to believe it or not, the best and brightest students will overwhelmingly opt for the MD degree. I attended a large state University and do not know any applicants aged 20-24 who chose DO schools over MD schools.

Are premeds uneducated about Osteopathy? Sure. But this ignorance will translate into the best students ending up in MD programs. The same students who didn't know much about DOs when they were 23 may change their mind at 30 when they start working with DOs, but the never-ending cycle of DOs schools scraping up the bottom of the applicant pool is likely to continue.

If the DO field wants to bring themselves up to par with MDs, they need to target the applicant pool and change the perception there.

 

[Homunculus]

🙄

 

[Mike59]

Originally posted by Homonculus
🙄

Your insightful commentary was truly enlightening!

 

[UCLAMAN]

Originally posted by Mike59
Your insightful commentary was truly enlightening!

aww come on...i checked this post because i thought you'd have a pic up.

 

[joedo]

heres one......


<img src="http://www.picturehosting.net/image.php?user=goose&image=goose-1041703060.gif">

 

[Mike59]

Originally posted by UCLAMAN
aww come on...i checked this post because i thought you'd have a pic up.

Hey all, I deleted that picture everyone found so offensive. I kindly ask anyone who replied directly to my post to edit their post and delete the image also.

 

[DragonM]

This question has been discussed extensively already. There's threads on this in the Osteopathic and Allo forum. Go look for it.

 

[tkim]

Originally posted by Mike59
Awww, you're too kind! I never back down from a fan's request, so here goes:

No offense to Homonculus, I'm just playin around!😉

You think posting a pic of a ******ed kid is funny?

- Tae

 

[womansurg]

Originally posted by tkim6599
You think posting a pic of a ******ed kid is funny?

- Tae

I'm not saying this as a testiment to the correctness or inappropriateness of it - but I did laugh until tears ran out of my eyes

 

[tkim]

Originally posted by womansurg
I'm not saying this as a testiment to the correctness or inappropriateness of it - but I did laugh until tears ran out of my eyes

Ah, then I guess perhaps that you don't have anyone in your family who was born with mental ******ation ...

- Tae

 

[womansurg]

Originally posted by tkim6599
Ah, then I guess perhaps that you don't have anyone in your family who was born with mental ******ation ...

- Tae

<< hangs head in shame >>

 

[womansurg]

Okay, it's just this: it was because of the SUBJECT that you guys were having your fisticuffs over...

And first let me go on record (do a search - my record does support this), that I am a strong proponent of the concept that standardized admission critieria only screen for very selected traits, and misses many highly important traits which are equally as critical to filling needs in the medical community. Further, that osteopathic schools often do a better job of screening for said traits, and of placing less emphasis on more traditional factors, with the end result being an improvement in the overall delivery of health care. I believe these things.

But, in the context of what was being argued, when the picture went up, the implication was....well, I pointed out to someone that the title of the pic could have read,
'graduation day at the school of osteopathic medicine!',
which is SO WRONG but, o my god, sooo FUNNY .

I had a friend who was a DO, and when we would round on head injured trauma patients, he'd be all serious and say, " well, he'll probably get back most of his language, and maybe some of his math skills, but the most he'll ever do is graduate from an osteopathic medical school!" I do the same thing in reference to surgery residents. Self depricating humor is the funniest. No harm intended.

 

[San_Juan_Sun]

Without question, DO students and applicants need to get a chip off of our collective shoulders. Hyper-vigilance doesn't make respect for DOs happen, only being good doctors does. (Of course, that respect coming from the practicing medical field. Respect from pre-meds is as laughable as it is worthless.)

A couple of responses to points in this thread:

1. A quick check of the MSAR will tell you that several MD schools have average matriculant stats that are comparable or lower than DO schools.

2. Insisting that all DO applicants have stats lower than MD applicants, thus prompting application to DO schools, is pretty funny. Nice of one poster to include their stats with their post, and classy too. Believing that DO schools get the bottom of the barrel simply because one doesn't know any DO applicants is pretty amusing too. In any case, given that at least half of medical school applicants won't be accepted this year (including both allo- and osteo- schools), it's clear that all medical schools are selctive in who they chose.

3. About USMLE pass rates... there is some confusion about this number, because many of the best DO students take the COMLEX only. How much that affects the pass rate, I can't say, but the numbers given aren't representative of the whole DO student population. For what it's worth.

4. About DOs learning more... I'm not buying it. All types of med students learn plenty enough to get residencies and practice.

5. About DOs being "more holistic"... I'm not sure what holistic really means, but am fairly certain that DOs and MDs treat 99.9% of patients the exact same way. Some DO students try to rationalize their way into a belief that they treat the patient, while MDs treat the disease. proof positive that DO students ae as myopic as any others sometimes.

6. In the end, a lot of people talk about issues they don't know much about. But in the end, that's how people learn.

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by Mike59
Awww, you're too kind! I never back down from a fan's request, so here goes:

No offense to Homonculus, I'm just playin around!😉

You're a sick piece of crap for making fun of a ******ed kid. I think you could use some clinical experience, and then you would understand why your picture offends several of us on SDN.

 

[wolferman]

Originally posted by Gleevec
You're a sick piece of crap for making fun of a ******ed kid. I think you could use some clinical experience, and then you would understand why your picture offends several of us on SDN.

For someone obviously upset by the injustice that has befallen the "******ed kid" you seem to display a lack of verbal sensitivity. While his mental ******ation may be an aspect of his genetic disorder, I believe the correct term for what this boy has is Down's Syndrome. Look it up: http://www.nads.org/

 

[chloe5]

This is in very poor taste and certainly not funny.

Originally posted by Mike59
Awww, you're too kind! I never back down from a fan's request, so here goes:

No offense to Homonculus, I'm just playin around!😉

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by wolferman
For someone obviously upset by the injustice that has befallen the "******ed kid" you seem to display a lack of verbal sensitivity. While his mental ******ation may be an aspect of his genetic disorder, I belive the correct term for what this boy has is Down's Syndrome. Look it up: http://www.nads.org/

I definitely did not mean ******ed kid in a dimunitive sense, but I meant it in the technical sense of having mental ******ation. I obviously dont mean it to insult him, and for the purposes of this thread his actual diagnosis didnt cross my mind since I am more preoccupied with the post itself. I just used ******ed = mental ******ation to fit the tense, I was not connoting anything else.

Either way, its sick that someone would want to post a picture of this kid in his state to make fun of him.

 

[DrMom]

Another thread about DOs down the drain. 🙄

I'm always impressed with these intellectual discussions.

 

[chloe5]

Frankly, I don't think DOs are undervalued. My impression is that they learn basically what MDs learn plus the manipulation. I am unaware of the scientific basis of manipulation. I've been trying to find out why the Osteopathic approach is so different and what it is, but I always find statements like "Osteopaths are taught to treat the whole patient, not just the disease." Yeah, MDs are also taught to treat the whole patient. And I haven't found any scientific statements about manipulation. Although there are people who seem to claim there is some great difference, I just haven't seen it. In the end, after school and training, the bottom line is that MDs and DOs practice medicine. I would agree with the previous posters about DO schools being easier in terms of scores in admissions. I would agree that DO schools look at life experience in the admissions process and so do MD schools, but MD schools generally make a first cut based on a higher MCAT and GPA. And sure there are a couple of med schools like Howard with scores on the lower end (perhaps lower than some DO schools), but on average I think that DO schools have lower cutoffs.

Originally posted by DrMom
Another thread about DOs down the drain. 🙄

I'm always impressed with these intellectual discussions.

 

[rbassdo]

I know it's been posted a million times, but ultra high grades and MCAT scores don't make the doctor. Second, as I see how many DO's are getting into competitive allopathic residency programs, it makes sense that most of those programs probably evaluate applicants, individually, based on personality, promise, ability, and grades - probably in that order in most cases. Of course, we already knew this. I just like regurgitating things. Lastly, I realize that without allopathic residency programs opening their doors to DO's, there wouldn't be enough spots available for DO's. Yet, allopathy is not giving us the bottom of the barrel. That's very nice.

 

[group_theory]

I'm not sure about the whole "holistic" approach (haven't started DO school yet)

but in regards to the lower first time pass rate for USMLE for DO students, there may be several factors that one must consider, not just the 93% vs. 75%

1. The courses are taught towards COMLEX (comprehensive osteopathic medical licensing examination). I'm sure the MD schools teach towards the USMLE. Both COMLEX and USMLE are recognized by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) as equivalent.

2. There is more emphesis on clinical science than basic science in COMLEX so the majority of students concentrate on that.

3. COMLEX is taken a few days before USMLE. How many of you would feel that you will do well taking the USMLE only a few days after taking a "multiday multipart medical licensing exam"? Because of #2, I'm sure some students will go in with the mentality that "well, I just studied for COMLEX, the USMLE should be silimar" and not study for it at all

4. COMLEX is required for licensing and graduation. USMLE is not. Therefore a lot of students choose not to take USMLE. There is also less pressure to pass the USMLE since it is not required for licensing and/or graduation.

5. There is absolutely no need for USMLE for DO students. In all 50 states, COMPLEX can be use in lieu of USMLE for residencies, DO or MD. (One program director told me that residency programs can not require DO students to submit USMLE, it's against state law)

6. With #5 said, students do take the USMLE if they feel that it will give program directors an easier oppertunity to compare their scores to those of MD students.

If you look at first time pass rate for COMLEX (DO students) and USMLE (US MD students only), they are comparable.

It's easy to go "DO students are dumb since they have lower USMLE scores than their MD counterpart." As mark twain said, there are 3 types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics. Be careful when someone throws numbers at you - there is usually more to the story than meets the eye.

Oh - to answer some of the posts, I am choosing DO schools over MD schools, I did well on the MCAT (31), and I have a younger brother who is mentally ******ed - that picture wasn't funny.

I hope this clarifies some misconception.
With regards,

Group_theory
Penn 2003
PCOM 2007

 

[johnstoner]

if DO's are into the holistic approach in medicine...why the heck are they applying to Allopathic residencies...Do's should stick to DO residencies since DO's want to learn how to "treat the whole patient" not the disease...

 

[chloe5]

Did someone say/imply that "DO students are dumb?" I'm asking since you put it in quotes. If so, it wasn't me.

Anyway, perhaps you can enlighten us further by sharing with us why you are choosing DO school over the MD route and why you are turning down an acceptance at a allopathic medical school to attend PCOM.

Originally posted by group_theory


It's easy to go "DO students are dumb since they have lower USMLE scores than their MD counterpart." As mark twain said, there are 3 types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics. Be careful when someone throws numbers at you - there is usually more to the story than meets the eye.

Oh - to answer some of the posts, I am choosing DO schools over MD schools, I did well on the MCAT (31), and I have a younger brother who is mentally ******ed - that picture wasn't funny.

 

[chloe5]

MDs also treat the whole patient.
This is why I find this whole rationale a little funny.

Originally posted by johnstoner
if DO's are into the holistic approach in medicine...why the heck are they applying to Allopathic residencies...Do's should stick to DO residencies since DO's want to learn how to "treat the whole patient" not the disease...

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

My real passion is my hobby..... I work with ******s.

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
My real passion is my hobby..... I work with ******s.

Meet the Parents

 

[johnstoner]

I agree with Chloe...

the question then still remains...what is the purpose of having 2 different titles for the same thing...its like we call potato chips british call potato crisps...its the same thing...

its also funny how a lot of DO's have to justify that they and MDs are essentially the same thing but they hypocritically say that Do's have a "holistic" approach whereas the implications are that MD's are not. What is the definition of "holistic"? anyway?

adding a few "manupilations" does not make a DO more "holistic" than an MD. I would not go to a DO school just because its more "holistic" i needed a better explaination.

don't want to sound rude but i'd like to have someone explain to SDN pre-allos what is the essential differences in a MD and DO and define "holistic"

 

[group_theory]

chloe5,

I wasn't quoting you or anyone. I was generalizing how lots of people assume DOs are inferior to their MD counterparts and use stats to back it up.


Why I choose PCOM?

Well --

1. I want to go into primary care and osteopathic schools gear their students toward that goal
2. I want to learn osteopathic manipulation - it would be another tool in my bag of tricks that I can offer people (and bill them)
3. Location - I'm in Philly and I want to stay in Philly
4. Atmosphere - I like the feeling that I got while I interviewed there
5. Great facilities - THE SIXERS TRAIN THERE 🙂
6. $$$ - cost of living and tuition is definately cheaper than Jefferson, GW, etc.
7. Required rural rotation - never been to a rural area before and I think this is an exciting concept

Cons: PA (along with West Virginia, Florida, Oklahoma, and Michigan) requires an osteopathic internship to be licensed.

My overall goal is to become a physician. I choose PCOM over other MD schools because it is what I wanted. People who choose to go MD over DO because they don't want the stigma is also a legitimate and valid reason, IMHO. In the Northeast, because of PCOM, UMDNJ-SOM, NYCOM, LECOM, UNECOM (and soon VCOM of Virginia Tech), - DOs are common and there is no discrimination.

To answer the holistic approach - I believe that it depends more on the school than on MD vs DO. However, remember that the philosophies of DO and MD have been merging for the last few decades. If you look at the history, DO used to be very holistic, and MDs were very systematic. They started to merge into one and now there is little differences between the two. In fact, I don't even believe that DOs are more holistic than MDs. If that was the case, how would you explain the osteopathic schools at UMNDJ and MSU?

I choose PCOM not because it is DO (well, the manipulation helps), but because I felt it is where I would be happiest for the next 4 years. I think that is the main criteria for choosing med school - not board pass rates, residency placements, or types of degree conferred.

I hope i don't come off as "MD bashing" or "DO is the best". They are both legit options towards becoming a health care provider. Neither one or the other is better. It is up to the individual to decide which one they prefer.

Cheers!
Group_theory

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by Gleevec
Meet the Parents

I thought it was "There's Something About Mary"...

 

[Pre-Dent-David]

I know why. It's because nobody respects DO's because they are all racist and they only wanted to get into medicine to murder people legally!

 

[Pre-Dent-David]

Just kidding.

 

[tarantismnow]

The more I read; the more questions I ask; the more I think; I begin to surmise that the present divide between osteopathy and allopathy has much to do with money, power, and politics. A conflict so complex and so deep routed that pre-meds are blinded to the complexitry of it.

Both sectors are driven by marketing. Allopathy claims superiority and osteopathy claims to offer OMM and holistic healing - both are half truths that manipulate us. Never forget that Medicine and the training of doctors is big money.

Thoughts I have not see anyone mention thus far in this discussion.

Go where you will be happy - that's my plan.

 

[wolferman]

All things being equal, I bet MD's get more chicks. (And that was enough of a selling point for me.)😎

<< wolferman puts his flame-******ant suit, gloves, and mask on in anticipation of the flames to come >>

 

[johnstoner]

the easiest way to get around not getting a lot of chicks is just say u are a medical student or a doctor...don't say you are a DO student or a DO... j/k.

eheheheh

 

[ckent]

My understanding of it was that "******ed" is the correct medical terminology. I have heard that they were thinking about changing that though, it's kind of stupid why. Did you know that "idiot" used to be a medical term to describe someone who was ******ed? The reason that they stopped using idiot in the medical field was because pop culture picked it up as a derogatory term. And now they are saying the same thing about "******ed". I've heard that they have been thinking about terms like "mentally handicapped". The thing is that no matter what they change it to, it can always be picked by pop culture and made derogatory.

 

[kpax18]

Funny, the MD's i know dont seem to be happy with their marriages....😉

 

[DrMom]

Originally posted by johnstoner
the question then still remains...what is the purpose of having 2 different titles for the same thing

At least we're back to actually discussing this. 🙂

This is a good question, but to understand it you have to go back & see why Dr. Still (who was an MD) started osteopathic medicine. Let me give you a bit of overview and perspective, but please don't consider this to be comprehensive & completely explanatory. He was practicing medicine in the 1800s, when medicine had little to offer patients, surgical procedures were traumatic (and had high mortaility rates), and many of the "medications" were toxic (or useless).

From his experiences working with patients, Dr. Still stated that the body is capable of healing itself (not, mumbo-jumbo...keep in mind what medicine consisted of in his day and age) and he began to study the human body in more depth, especially the musculoskeletal system. He also worked to determine why the body succombed to disease. Again, this line of thinking & study was unusual for physicians of the 1800s. In his research, he did find some manipulative techniques that improved some conditions for his patients (the beginning of osteopathic manipulative medicine/techniques...which has been tremendously expanded in the meantime). He also developed the "philosophy" of osteopathic medicine. Again, keeping in mind how radical this was for the time period, he wrote of "treating the whole person, not just the disease," and he stated that "the goal is to find health, anybody can find disease."

And, yes, osteopathic medicine does have a stated philosophy/principles. You'll find slightly different wording from place-to-place, but here are the key principles:

1. the body is a unit: mind, body, spirit
2. the body is capable of self-regulation, self-healing, and health maintenance
3. structure and function are reciprocally interrelated
4. rational therapy is based upon the understanding of the first 3 principles

Although I know of no "stated philosophy" of allopathic medicine, these concepts are not foreign to MDs.

So basically, in a time when physicians could often do nothing or try things that too often caused the patient more harm, Dr. Still was practicing quite differently.

Now, by today's standards, the difference & the philosophy (in practice) are not tremendously different between MD & DO, but there are some. Obviously, DOs learn OMM (which some use and others do not). Also, there is an emphasis on the principles of osteopathic medicine during the clinical classes. Again, these principles are not something that MDs would disagree with, but in many (not all) allopathic schools they are not going to be regularly emphasized.

There is clinical research being done to study various methods of OMM's effectiveness, but the lack of research in the past is a problem. Please keep in mind that the problem is that little research has been done, not that the methods have been disproven by research. That said, there are going to be some things, I'm sure, that won't pan out in clinical studies, but I'm confident that the vast majority will.

As to why we still have 2 different degrees for the same thing, the main reason, in my opinion, is that DOs have historically wanted to remain distinct. Over the past century they have worked hard to make the degree program equivalent to the MD, but they still want to keep the stated philosophy & OMM.

I hope that helps.

 

[San_Juan_Sun]

Originally posted by johnstoner
if DO's are into the holistic approach in medicine...why the heck are they applying to Allopathic residencies...Do's should stick to DO residencies since DO's want to learn how to "treat the whole patient" not the disease...

Very simple, there simply aren't nearly enough AOA residencies for DO students. Like someone else said, it's very nice of AGCME residencies to open their doors to DOs.

 

[marleybfour]

As a nurse who has worked with hundreds of doctors, (DO and MD ) I firmly belive THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

Doctors do not sit around and hash out their "philosophies." They don't have time to do this!!! I know of no DO who uses OMM. I've met good MD's and bad. Same for DO's. I've met good foreign MD's and bad. There just isn't the differences you all seem to perceive when you are talking "real world."

I also had the choice btween DO and MD. I choose DO primarily due to location. I am married and don't have the flexability to move around.

 

[DrMom]

Originally posted by marleybfour
As a nurse who has worked with hundreds of doctors, (DO and MD ) I firmly belive THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

I totally agree.

The only differences I've found (other than OMT, if used by the Dr) are the subtle ones in the teaching, but no differences in actual practice.

 

[republicandr]

After researching long and hard for several years, I decided to go for the MD. I told myself that if I did not get into an MD program after trying for two years, then I would apply to a DO program the third year. I could not afford to apply to both.

I have this link that would answer many questions about the MD vs. DO. It helped me make my decision. Here are some important facts from the article:

Consider, for instance, a study on OMT appearing last year in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. In a survey of 1,055 osteopathic FPs, only about 6 percent said they treated more than half their patients with OMT. Nearly one third indicated they used OMT on fewer than 5 percent of their patients. Contrast that with a 1954 survey of all D.O.s graduating between 1948 and 1953, in which 44 percent said they used OMT on more than half their patients.

Manipulations are not a big part of most DO's practices any more, so even though the manipulations are taught for all four years, they are not really applied.

Here is the link:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m3229/n8_v75/20775730/print.jhtml

Good luck.

 

[racerx]

Originally posted by ckent
My understanding of it was that "******ed" is the correct medical terminology. I have heard that they were thinking about changing that though, it's kind of stupid why. Did you know that "idiot" used to be a medical term to describe someone who was ******ed? The reason that they stopped using idiot in the medical field was because pop culture picked it up as a derogatory term. And now they are saying the same thing about "******ed". I've heard that they have been thinking about terms like "mentally handicapped". The thing is that no matter what they change it to, it can always be picked by pop culture and made derogatory.

FYI-

In New York State, the legal term is "Developmentally Disabled." I'm not sure of other states. By using that term, those with trisomy, autism, early life TBI, etc. receive care and educational assistance through the same agencies (ARC), with oversight by the NYS OMRDD.

Also, I am leaning toward DO because they tend to be a bit more friendly, admissions-wise, towards non-traditional students. A close MD friend of mine actually suggested that I look at DO schools because I am in my 30's and have a fmaily... "much more family friendly" were his words.

I will be applying to one MD program simply because it is my dream school, and close to the home I own.

Racerx

 

[womansurg]

You know, I really think some of youse guys are misinterpreting the use of the pic, and it's intent.

An argument was underway which was, roughly, about who was smarter. Criticisms were being thrown about lack of intelligence in responses (eg 'what an insightful response', or whatever that was...). Then someone posts a pic of a person who is recognizably not smart (a Down's kid) receiving an award, with the caption suggesting 'okay okay you win'. No one was making fun of the kid, but simply using his recognizability as an individual who is not smart (that's what ******ed means, folks) to characterize their opponent in an argument over who is smarter.
It'd be like arguing over who was faster, then using a pic of an old guy in a walker to characterize your opponent. It's not that you're making fun of old people; it's just a way of reinforcing the idea you're putting forth.

It's not as though you're stereotyping - all Down's kids ARE ******ed. If you characterized them as slovenly or inept or unlovable, then I could understand taking offense.

 

[chloe5]

I disagree with you and I can't believe the picture is being defended in this way!
I wonder about how you define "intelligence."
And further, I felt the picture was subtly implying ineptitude, that the kid was getting the prize even though he was inept as a way of saying "okay okay you win."

Originally posted by womansurg
You know, I really think some of youse guys are misinterpreting the use of the pic, and it's intent.

An argument was underway which was, roughly, about who was smarter. Criticisms were being thrown about lack of intelligence in responses (eg 'what an insightful response', or whatever that was...). Then someone posts a pic of a person who is recognizably not smart (a Down's kid) receiving an award, with the caption suggesting 'okay okay you win'. No one was making fun of the kid, but simply using his recognizability as an individual who is not smart (that's what ******ed means, folks) to characterize their opponent in an argument over who is smarter.
It'd be like arguing over who was faster, then using a pic of an old guy in a walker to characterize your opponent. It's not that you're making fun of old people; it's just a way of reinforcing the idea you're putting forth.

It's not as though you're stereotyping - all Down's kids ARE ******ed. If you characterized them as slovenly or inept or unlovable, then I could understand taking offense.

 

[Mike59]

Hey all,

I have modified my post from the first page, removing my link to that picture and apoligize to those I have offended.

I didn't intend to start a flame war and I definitely did not intend to directly poke fun at developmentally challenged individuals. There are tons of messageboards on the net were jokes like that (and far worse) are thrown around all the time (and I apologize if some of that humor has rubbed off on me). I now have a better understanding of what is appropriate and not on this forum and will act accordingly in my future posts.

Those who replied directly to my quote can easily delete their replies to eliminate the image from the board.

Thanks for your understanding,
Mike59