Why D.O over M.D

[Nomemal]

---

Members don't see this ad.

From most of my research I’ve found that someone would chose D.O mainly if they agree with the philosophy of treating the “person as a whole” rather than their symptoms. Also the fact that they learn OM and can have that as a tool, and not be afraid to use their hands to treat the patient is what a D.O told me is the main difference. After observing a D.O and M.D the only difference I saw was that the D.O offered to give me OM for fun, but practically speaking, as a Family medicine doc, there’s little practical difference in the day to day duties.

So how do D.O schools expect you to understand what you’re getting yourself into? Does anyone else have any better idea of the difference, that I may not have picked up in my experience.

Or do schools want to see the typical answer of wanting to provide primary care to patients and treat them as a whole, rather than treat their symptoms?

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Depends on your interviewer and the school you want to attend to. Some schools take being a DO seriously and expect you to be able to provide an answer as to why it fits you. There are other schools that don't care and spouting some generic thing will be enough for them. If you want someone to give you an answer, it won't come out sincerely if you repeat it. I think it's even okay to say "Title is not what matters to me. I want to be a doctor. It is patients that matters and I like your program because of X, Y and Z" if this fits you.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

There are several reasons why the DO looked similar to the MD. Mostly, Allopathic medicine has moved toward the osteopathic approach to patients and problems. 50 years ago you could get tracked into opthomology in your 2nd year of med school and never deliver a baby. Classes on taking a history were superficial or non existent. Secondly, the biggest crisis facing osteopathic medicine is getting DOs to act like DOs. Time constraints in the office dont often allow much time for OMT. Make sure you are fluent when discussing osteopathic tenets in your interview. A big no for me is someone who can't be bothered to check Wikipedia before their interview. Their petition to want to be a DO appears insincere. We need more hands on DOs rather than more prescription pad DOs.
Good luck and best wishes

 

[Chibucks15]

Don't say any of the cliche things such as "holistic medicine" and of the 5 tenets you'll find on google. Also don't denegrede our MD counterparts it looks bad. Take some time to research things and use that...but whatever you say make it genuine. Interviewers can smell BS a mile a way sometimes. If you're going to say something about using OMM and an additional modality and you wanted to learn all you can about medicine. Depending on where you're from shadow DOs. You can say you liked how the physician worked and his interactions with patients and you would like to emulate them.

DOs and MDs are becoming more and more alike, so there isn't a ton of differences to highlight, but just steer away from the stuff I mentioned above and make it sincere and you'll be alright.

EDIT: You can say the holistic things and bring up the cliche stuff, but don't make it the center of your answer. Definitely have something else legit and supplement with holistic medicine and all that if you need more time in your answer

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Don't say any of the cliche things such as "holistic medicine" and of the 5 tenets you'll find on google. Also don't denegrede our MD counterparts it looks bad. Take some time to research things and use that...but whatever you say make it genuine. Interviewers can smell BS a mile a way sometimes. If you're going to say something about using OMM and an additional modality and you wanted to learn all you can about medicine. Depending on where you're from shadow DOs. You can say you liked how the physician worked and his interactions with patients and you would like to emulate them.

DOs and MDs are becoming more and more alike, so there isn't a ton of differences to highlight, but just steer away from the stuff I mentioned above and make it sincere and you'll be alright.

EDIT: You can say the holistic things and bring up the cliche stuff, but don't make it the center of your answer. Definitely have something else legit and supplement with holistic medicine and all that if you need more time in your answer

Agreed. We have several MDs on our faculty and you want to avoid saying disparaging things about your advocate for admission during an interview.

 

[Nomemal]

Thank you!

 

[Goro]

From most of my research I’ve found that someone would chose D.O mainly if they agree with the philosophy of treating the “person as a whole” rather than their symptoms. Also the fact that they learn OM and can have that as a tool, and not be afraid to use their hands to treat the patient is what a D.O told me is the main difference. After observing a D.O and M.D the only difference I saw was that the D.O offered to give me OM for fun, but practically speaking, as a Family medicine doc, there’s little practical difference in the day to day duties.

So how do D.O schools expect you to understand what you’re getting yourself into? Does anyone else have any better idea of the difference, that I may not have picked up in my experience.

Or do schools want to see the typical answer of wanting to provide primary care to patients and treat them as a whole, rather than treat their symptoms?

Just as an aside, I've had students who turned down MD schools because they had medical issues that were helped by a DO when their MD clinicians could help help them.

As the wise Angus referred to above, do a bit more than just vomit up what you know about Osteopathy from reading Wiki.

 

[BabyDaddy]

There are several reasons why the DO looked similar to the MD. Mostly, Allopathic medicine has moved toward the osteopathic approach to patients and problems. 50 years ago you could get tracked into opthomology in your 2nd year of med school and never deliver a baby. Classes on taking a history were superficial or non existent. Secondly, the biggest crisis facing osteopathic medicine is getting DOs to act like DOs. Time constraints in the office dont often allow much time for OMT. Make sure you are fluent when discussing osteopathic tenets in your interview. A big no for me is someone who can't be bothered to check Wikipedia before their interview. Their petition to want to be a DO appears insincere. We need more hands on DOs rather than more prescription pad DOs.
Good luck and best wishes

I interviewed at one DO school and prepared thoroughly. I expressed sincere interest in the DO philosophy because I was sincerely interested at the time 🙂 One interviewer (An upper-level administrator) was happy to hear my sincere interest in the DO philosophy and spent half the interview expounding on why Osteopathy and OMM is so important. The other interviewer was a clinician that barely had time to eat lunch. She could care less about the DO philosophy and told me, "It really isn't any different than the MD philosophy. I don't use osteopathy any more in daily practice."
My wife and I had similar experiences when we purposefully sought out a DO primary care provider a couple years back. The clinician could care less about exclusive osteopathic principles, specifically. She explained to us that she implemented whatever patient care approach was proven effective for each clinical situation.
Do you sincerely think MDs have moved more toward the Osteopathic model, or that both have just moved toward what actually works in daily practice (evidence-based medicine)?
Thanks,

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I interviewed at one DO school and prepared thoroughly. I expressed sincere interest in the DO philosophy because I was sincerely interested at the time 🙂 One interviewer (An upper-level administrator) was happy to hear my sincere interest in the DO philosophy and spent half the interview expounding on why Osteopathy and OMM is so important. The other interviewer was a clinician that barely had time to eat lunch. She could care less about the DO philosophy and told me, "It really isn't any different than the MD philosophy. I don't use osteopathy any more in daily practice."
My wife and I had similar experiences when we purposefully sought out a DO primary care provider a couple years back. The clinician could care less about exclusive osteopathic principles, specifically. She explained to us that she implemented whatever patient care approach was proven effective for each clinical situation.
Do you sincerely think MDs have moved more toward the Osteopathic model, or that both have just moved toward what actually works in daily practice (evidence-based medicine)?
Thanks,

I have said in other posts that the greatest threat to osteopathy is getting DOs to act like DOs. Time constraints and reimbursement impact how much OMT can be incorporated into patient treatment. Also, in my view, the MD philosophy isn't much different than ours. It didn't always used to be that was as I mentioned above.

 

[Goro]

I have said in other posts that the greatest threat to osteopathy is getting DOs to act like DOs. Time constraints and reimbursement impact how much OMT can be incorporated into patient treatment. Also, in my view, the MD philosophy isn't much different than ours. It didn't always used to be that was as I mentioned above.

Sometimes I think the biggest threat to osteopathy is the AOA!

 

[BabyDaddy]

Sometimes I think the biggest threat to osteopathy is the AOA!

Oh my.

 

[smukke]

So how do D.O schools expect you to understand what you’re getting yourself into? Does anyone else have any better idea of the difference, that I may not have picked up in my experience.

Or do schools want to see the typical answer of wanting to provide primary care to patients and treat them as a whole, rather than treat their symptoms?

Is this a real question or how to answer an interview question?

 

[workaholic181]

In my DO interviews I talked about how I wanted to treat populations that were under served. Did the same in my MD interviews and was received well in both. I'd only bring up something super specific to DOs like OMM if you've actually had hands on experience with it (I had and my interviewers loved it). Ultimately just give the most genuine answer you can.

 

[RNthenDoc]

I very pointedly told DMU that I was going to attend the best school that I was accepted to, regardless of initials. The interviewer then probed about "DO philosophy" and I more or less just said that my philosophical caring model has been built with my background as a nurse. I got accepted, so it must not have been to snarky

 

[BabyDaddy]

I very pointedly told DMU that I was going to attend the best school that I was accepted to, regardless of initials. The interviewer then probed about "DO philosophy" and I more or less just said that my philosophical caring model has been built with my background as a nurse. I got accepted, so it must not have been to snarky

Congratulations!

 

[Med Ed]

50 years ago you could get tracked into opthomology in your 2nd year of med school and never deliver a baby.

Never heard of this. And I have rarely seen an attending misspell ophthalmology.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Never heard of this. And I have rarely seen an attending misspell ophthalmology.

Back in the 70s when I was in high school,Tracking was all the rage. Sorry you were unaware. Good to know the Spelling Nazi's are on the job.

 

[Med Ed]

Back in the 70s when I was in high school,Tracking was all the rage. Sorry you were unaware.

Indeed. Do you happen to have a link or two so I can learn more? It's not often that I encounter something that was all the rage in medical education within the last 100 years that I was oblivious to.

Good to know the Spelling Nazi's are on the job.

Well, in an anonymous internet world, where anyone can pose as anyone, you can never be too careful...

 

[Medic741]

From most of my research I’ve found that someone would chose D.O mainly if they agree with the philosophy of treating the “person as a whole” rather than their symptoms. Also the fact that they learn OM and can have that as a tool, and not be afraid to use their hands to treat the patient is what a D.O told me is the main difference. After observing a D.O and M.D the only difference I saw was that the D.O offered to give me OM for fun, but practically speaking, as a Family medicine doc, there’s little practical difference in the day to day duties.

So how do D.O schools expect you to understand what you’re getting yourself into? Does anyone else have any better idea of the difference, that I may not have picked up in my experience.

Or do schools want to see the typical answer of wanting to provide primary care to patients and treat them as a whole, rather than treat their symptoms?

Just drink the cool aid.

 

[mdh2]

Sometimes I think the biggest threat to osteopathy is the AOA!

Agreed. I can't think of an organization that has done more to damage the brand that the AOA. Between sanctioning irresponsible medical school growth when we have so many problems with rotation sites already and doubling down on some of the "ahem" less evidence based forms of OMT they are a significant hurdle for us to overcome.

 

[Goro]

Agreed. I can't think of an organization that has done more to damage the brand that the AOA. Between sanctioning irresponsible medical school growth when we have so many problems with rotation sites already and doubling down on some of the "ahem" less evidence based forms of OMT they are a significant hurdle for us to overcome.

And refusing the recognize the necessity for taking USMLE.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Indeed. Do you happen to have a link or two so I can learn more? It's not often that I encounter something that was all the rage in medical education within the last 100 years that I was oblivious to.

Don't feel bad, it could happen to anybody. Must have been before your time.



Well, in an anonymous internet world, where anyone can pose as anyone, you can never be too careful...

I have rarely seen an attending with such a passion for spelling, lacking the intellectual curiosity to look into a topic. But, I'm an educator so I will do the work for you. Simply Googling Medical School Curriculla in the 1970's, I found several articles, one article "Three-Year Medical Schools in the US and Canada-AAMC . Author Joan Cangiarella, M.D., at aamc.org>download>data. She discusses how in the 1970's. the 4th year of medical school was entirely elective. Many program directors felt that the 4th year was redundant with PGY 1. So I stand by my original statement regarding graduating from medical school and never delivering a baby. Elite students were targeted in high school and college to enter a 3yr program for college and 3 yr program at certain medical schools. According to Cangiarella, programs were discontinued due to lack of government funding and bias from PD's towards these students. My experience with these students was that they were quite bright and motivated. However, if they graduated early from high school or college, the could end up being a 22 year old M.D. Many felt at that age they were lacking in maturity and world experience to be good doctors who could relate to their patients. Hence the bias. In recent years, there has been a resurgence in this area with several schools offering 3 year programs.

Since the discussion has wandered so far off the topic, I believe my time on this thread has come to an end.
Good luck and best wishes to all!

 

[Med Ed]

I have rarely seen an attending with such a passion for spelling, lacking the intellectual curiosity to look into a topic.

Attention to detail is not a bad trait in many specialties.

With regard to abbreviated training programs in the 1970's, I have looked into them. To my knowledge the 3+3 programs of the 1970's fused what would have been the fourth year with a rotating internship. I find it difficult to believe it was commonplace for students in those programs to somehow skirt core clerkship requirements altogether. Besides, my question was really about this "tracking" you mentioned, which would not be reliant upon shortening medical school. Searching for information on that subject yielded mainly articles on modern fast-track MD programs and references to old MD/PhD-track programs for physician-scientists. Granted, this was not a full blown literature search on my part, but my attempt to locate examples of students in the 1970's getting "tracked" from M2 into specialist residencies as you describe turned up nothing.

 

[sab3156]

The hard truth is that osteopathic schools are a back-up if you absolutely cannot get into a U.S. MD school. That is all. Anyone who says anything else is just drinking the kool aid.

 

[mdh2]

The hard truth is that osteopathic schools are a back-up if you absolutely cannot get into a U.S. MD school. That is all. Anyone who says anything else is just drinking the kool aid.

I do not like looking at it like that. Unfortunately, with everything that has been happening it is looking more and more like the case. I would not advise someone today to go DO over MD unless there is a huge cost or geographic factor involved. The sad thing is it does not have to be this way. If we would just do a better job of regulating our schools, protecting our students, and advocate for ourselves rather than humoring the 90 year olds at the AOA/OMT faculty things would be different.

 

[Goro]

The hard truth is that osteopathic schools are a back-up if you absolutely cannot get into a U.S. MD school. That is all. Anyone who says anything else is just drinking the kool aid.

Except for the True Believers on our adcom, we know this, and don't take it personally.

Interestingly, year after year, when we poll our students at graduation (when they have no reason to lie), some 80-90% say that if they had to do it all over again, they wouldn't change a thing. ~5-10% say that they would rather go MD, and another 5-10% say they'd pick a different career.

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

From most of my research I’ve found that someone would chose D.O mainly if they agree with the philosophy of treating the “person as a whole” rather than their symptoms. Also the fact that they learn OM and can have that as a tool, and not be afraid to use their hands to treat the patient is what a D.O told me is the main difference. After observing a D.O and M.D the only difference I saw was that the D.O offered to give me OM for fun, but practically speaking, as a Family medicine doc, there’s little practical difference in the day to day duties.

So how do D.O schools expect you to understand what you’re getting yourself into? Does anyone else have any better idea of the difference, that I may not have picked up in my experience.

Or do schools want to see the typical answer of wanting to provide primary care to patients and treat them as a whole, rather than treat their symptoms?

I chose my DO school over a couple MD schools because it was in a small town not a huge city, it was located near family, its match list had many people matching into the specialties I am interested in, their board scores are high. I brought all of these things up and added a tidbit about how OMM is an extra tool and its always good to have another tool to use when treating. Be honest about why you like the school, they don't want to hear a canned regurgitated answer.

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

The hard truth is that osteopathic schools are a back-up if you absolutely cannot get into a U.S. MD school. That is all. Anyone who says anything else is just drinking the kool aid.

People must not understand the importance of location and "fit." It took about 5 seconds for my wife and I to realize our family would not enjoy the MD life living in chicago or new orleans (we are both from small towns). I don't love research and I didn't vibe with atmosphere at the MD schools where I interviewed. I chose DO because of where the schools are located, their focus on supplying community docs instead of academics, and the "vibe" of the school. Would I rather have the MD initials? Sure. Do I think OMM is awesome? Not really. But those were not on the top of my list of important factors in a school, they were near the bottom. I received MD acceptances, but chose DO because it was a much better fit for myself and my family. That said, many people do go DO as a back up.

 

[sab3156]

People must not understand the importance of location and "fit." It took about 5 seconds for my wife and I to realize our family would not enjoy the MD life living in chicago or new orleans (we are both from small towns). I don't love research and I didn't vibe with atmosphere at the MD schools where I interviewed. I chose DO because of where the schools are located, their focus on supplying community docs instead of academics, and the "vibe" of the school. Would I rather have the MD initials? Sure. Do I think OMM is awesome? Not really. But those were not on the top of my list of important factors in a school, they were near the bottom. I received MD acceptances, but chose DO because it was a much better fit for myself and my family. That said, many people do go DO as a back up.

You are part of the minority, in a group called "I honestly just don't care very much."

 

[mdh2]

You are part of the minority, in a group called "I honestly just don't care very much."

We are a larger group than you would think based on SDN. Many of us are on our second careers and not hunting prestige. I think it is important to remember that this website is an incredible skewed group of people rather than a micocasim of all applicants.

Now that I have a DO after my name I do not regret it nor does it make my life more difficult. Neither attendings nor medical students on my team from the MD program my residency is affiliated at had anything negative to say.

 

[W19]

More hot chicks...