Why do people go to the carribean when they can do D.O?

[Guinea]

---

Members do not see this ad.

DO > Caribbean MD no matter what anyone says.

(And I go to Ross and am on Dominica right now.)

So, is Dominica like a "Caribbean vacation"? We should settle this for all the naive premeds who think that going to a Caribbean med school would be like a tropical vacation.

 

[JaggerPlate]

One more thing.

Like I said before, there are plenty of negatives to choose from when it comes to Caribbean schools. Telling people that only 43% of FMG match in a "Caribbean vs DO" debate is just piling on.

DO > Caribbean MD no matter what anyone says.

(And I go to Ross and am on Dominica right now.)

I really appreciate your honesty and maturity with the issue. 👍

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

And correct the only people you have to explain why D.O vs M.D is to other ignorant Pre-Meds on SDN.

Don't you think it's kind of strange that premeds are the only people in the general populace that are ignorant of the DO degree? And that everyone else is fully familiar with it and its equivalency with the MD degree?

Maybe that's because it's not true. Most laypeople don't have any idea what a DO is, either. Whether you'll have to explain it to them depends on whether they have the intellectual curiosity to inquire. Most people will just run with it when you tell them you're a physician. But to suggest that everyone but premeds knows about DOs is, well, ignorant.

 

[thesituationPhD]

Maybe that's because it's not true. Most laypeople don't have any idea what a DO is, either. Whether you'll have to explain it to them depends on whether they have the intellectual curiosity to inquire. Most people will just run with it when you tell them you're a physician. But to suggest that everyone but premeds knows about DOs is, well, ignorant.

Not necessarily that all people know what a DO is, more than likely is they do not care. DO's are health professionals who recieved a medical education and are fully capable of treating someone in need.

Even if they do inquire, I highly doubt they care about the so called "stigma." More so can this person provide the services I need in an accurate and timely fashion so I may get on with the rest of my day.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Don't you think it's kind of strange that premeds are the only people in the general populace that are ignorant of the DO degree? And that everyone else is fully familiar with it and its equivalency with the MD degree?

Maybe that's because it's not true. Most laypeople don't have any idea what a DO is, either. Whether you'll have to explain it to them depends on whether they have the intellectual curiosity to inquire. Most people will just run with it when you tell them you're a physician. But to suggest that everyone but premeds knows about DOs is, well, ignorant.

Like PhD said ... it's not that they know (the general public is shockingly clueless with regards to med school, docs, different providers, etc) it's that they just know you're a doctor (when you say Hi I'm dr X - or look up 'dermatologist' on google and it brings up X, DO ... it's still a derm), and they won't care. I've heard multiple DO residents and attendings on the site say they have been asked like 1-2 times in the span of years.

 

[J1515]

Don't you think it's kind of strange that premeds are the only people in the general populace that are ignorant of the DO degree? And that everyone else is fully familiar with it and its equivalency with the MD degree?

Maybe that's because it's not true. Most laypeople don't have any idea what a DO is, either. Whether you'll have to explain it to them depends on whether they have the intellectual curiosity to inquire. Most people will just run with it when you tell them you're a physician. But to suggest that everyone but premeds knows about DOs is, well, ignorant.

Nobody suggested that everyone knows what DO stands for, nor do they know what the difference between DDS and DMD is or the history behind it. But what was suggested is that pre-meds are the only ones who care. A pre-med trying to get into medical school cares mostly about prestige and what others think (just look at all the Harvard vs. _____ threads, asking for opinions). A patient doesn't care about prestige. They just want someone to make them feel better. Almost all your patients will be referred to you from another doctor or a hospital consult. The letters won't matter.

 

[bannie22]

Hi guys, I said something extremely insensitive on this thread recently. I had just gotten off a thread in a Canadian forum and that was the vague idea I obtained from reading it and I just transferred those thoughts here without regard for the many SDNers who have chosen or will choose DO as their future pathway.

Such insensitive and immature behaviour cannot be tolerated and I am extremely sorry for any anger/grieviences that I have caused.

I would like to state that it was never in my intention to incite negativity, and I was just stating an opinion, but much too blatantly and with lack of sensitivity towards the context.

Once again, please accept my sincerest apologies. I will try to be more sensitive in the future, and I also commend DO candidates or Carribean MD candidates for choosing a path that has often be filled with unreasonable stigma. Your choice is an admirable one, and I believe strongly that your passion and determination will get you to where you wish in life (be it a good residency, or just happily married! 😛)

Thank you for reading this.

 

[JonathanMD]

Your stats were not conducive to DO schools? You sound like a guy who knows a lot about this.

Nope. But I'm also a non-traditional student (27 years old) and have made my mistakes.

I've heard other people in this thread say that, "the only people who go to the Caribbean do it for the initials." I'm sure there are a few. But I'd guess the vast majority do it because they treat Ross like a second chance school. I know I do.

So, is Dominica like a "Caribbean vacation"? We should settle this for all the naive premeds who think that going to a Caribbean med school would be like a tropical vacation.

A couple things:

1. It's absolutely gorgeous out here -- ridiculously beautiful.
2. If in "tropical vacation" you mean studying 10 hours a day, including weekends, like every other students at any other medical school... then yeah. I guess it's paradise. (I stopped going to class after the first week and stream all my lectures. When I say, "10 hours," this is including the time I would be in class, not in addition.)
3. People who cite crime as a reason not to come here aren't speaking from first hand experience. The majority of people out here are much nicer than the people in the states. It's common sense mostly, you don't want to go outside alone in the dark while listening to your iPod and carrying your laptop in your arms. I wouldn't do that anywhere else either.
4. If you have mild health problems and/or are extremely picky about food, can't stand the heat, don't like to walk, and/or have lots of allergies, you should really stay away. It's not summer camp out here, you (and everyone else) are definitely on your own. The first couple days are sensory overload and culture shock.
5. If you want to get into a competitive specialty, go somewhere else.

I really appreciate your honesty and maturity with the issue. 👍

I've made my bed with my decision about going here (if you know what I mean) and have nothing to hide. And I'll take any criticisms about, "you should have studied harder" because it's all true -- every word. The drop out rates may be higher out here, but I really believe that this is only due to the lower entrance requirements. Of course more people aren't going to make it (duh).

But I also thing that for the people who do make it, they're just as qualified to be physicians as anyone else. We learn the same information, we (will) do rotations and US teaching hospitals, and have to take and pass the same standardized exams to be licensed.

So I have some positives and negatives, but don't forget the big one:

The only reason I say, "US DO > Caribbean MD" is because the goal is to become a medical doctor, not a medical student. I figure being a medical student (anywhere) is hard enough as it is. You don't need additional hurdles to get in the way. Any negative that lessens your chances of graduating and landing a residency trumps any and all positives.

I think I can make it. I wouldn't be out here if I didn't, but we'll see.

My first choice is EM. My second choice is IM. Which programs I'll apply to is totally dependent on my Step score. (Out of the primary care specialties, I like the scope of practice of IM the most. They also have a lot of interesting sub-specialties.) From what I've seen from their 2 previous Match lists, EM and IM are both doable from Ross.


Hope that helps with the confusion.

 

[J1515]

It's common sense mostly, you don't want to go outside alone in the dark while listening to your iPod and carrying your laptop in your arms. I wouldn't do that anywhere else either.

There certainly are places in the states where you can walk outside alone in the dark while listening to your ipod. In fact I went jogging the other night with my ipod after I got home from work. There are good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods.

 

[PUMMELase]

Dr. Still, the founder of osteopathic medicine, was a MD/DO, why can't osteopathic doctors have the the same title as him?

 

[JaggerPlate]

there certainly are places in the states where you can walk outside alone in the dark while listening to your ipod. In fact i went jogging the other night with my ipod after i got home from work. There are good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods.

+1

 

[JaggerPlate]

Dr. Still, the founder of osteopathic medicine, was a MD/DO, why can't osteopathic doctors have the the same title as him?

The degree designation is a whole different, huge, wildly discussed issue.

 

[womp]

Dr. Still, the founder of osteopathic medicine, was a MD/DO, why can't osteopathic doctors have the the same title as him?

Because a couple of courses in OMM does not qualify you to have two doctorates, which is what an MD/DO or MD,DO degree would imply. It's more reasonable to say you get an MD with an OMM certificate.

 

[DrMagic]

Many people cite the match data saying that Caribbean graduates are at a high disadvantage to US residency placement in competitive specialties. What data is out there for students trying to match into European residencies? Does a foreign residency negatively affect your ability as a physician to practice your specialty in the United States? If I am privileged enough to attend a DO school, I would choose that over a Caribbean school, however I am trying to learn about this in case I was accepted to the Caribbean and nowhere else.

 

[Old Grunt]

seriously if you are a college student who cannot get into a MD or DO school, that means you didn't study in college, had too much fun, or something around that scenario....caribbean schools are all about tuition and taking your money and then you end up in random residencies....I'd say DO>MD>Carib MD....DO's have same education as MD along with extra advantage: OMM

If OMM were an advantage, then more than 5% of DOs would use it in their practice and it would be adapted by conventional medicine.

In its 100+ years of existence, few studies have been done on it, and the results are modest at best.

I realize some people believe in it, and some patients like it, but it's not some magical treatment modality. It certainly doesn't elevate one degree above another.

You won't hear me bagging on the DO degree, but you also won't hear me (or many critical thinkers) buying into the merits of OMM.

Keep in mind that Still thought OMM could cure most everything. As the evidence quickly refuted OMM's ability to treat things like, oh say meningitis (which Still lost two children too), OMM was adapted and winnowed down to it's current form to which the honest observer has to ask what the real point of it is.

I don't doubt it helps some people, but not to the extent that it commands a separate degree. I think It's honest to say that OMM still exists and is taught in DO schools because it is simply what makes DO's "different".

 

[willen101383]

If OMM were an advantage, then more than 5% of DOs would use it in their practice and it would be adapted by conventional medicine.

In it's 100+ years of existence, few studies have been done on it, and the results are modest at best.

I realize some people believe in it, and some patients like it, but it's not some magical treatment modality. It certainly doesn't elevate one degree above another.

You won't hear me bagging on the DO degree, but you also won't hear me (or many critical thinkers) buying into the merits of OMM.

Keep in mind that Still thought OMM could cure most everything. As the evidence quickly refuted OMM's ability to treat things like, oh say meningitis (which Still lost two children too), OMM was adapted and winnowed down to it's current form to which the honest observer has to ask what the real point of it is.

I don't doubt it helps some people, but not to the extent that it commands a separate degree. I think It's honest to say that OMM still exists and is taught in DO schools because it is simply what makes DO's "different".

I concur...and I am going a DO school. Perhaps it will teach me to become a more effective masseuse..and my girlfriend will...ummm like me more. 🙂


On the other side of the coin,in regard to those patients who want OMM and really believes it makes them feel better; that is good enough for me! You are doing your job as a physician....making your patient feel better...and better yet...you can bill for it 🙂

 

[Bacchus]

If OMM were an advantage, then more than 5% of DOs would use it in their practice and it would be adapted by conventional medicine.

In it's 100+ years of existence, few studies have been done on it, and the results are modest at best.

I realize some people believe in it, and some patients like it, but it's not some magical treatment modality. It certainly doesn't elevate one degree above another.

You won't hear me bagging on the DO degree, but you also won't hear me (or many critical thinkers) buying into the merits of OMM.

Keep in mind that Still thought OMM could cure most everything. As the evidence quickly refuted OMM's ability to treat things like, oh say meningitis (which Still lost two children too), OMM was adapted and winnowed down to it's current form to which the honest observer has to ask what the real point of it is.

I don't doubt it helps some people, but not to the extent that it commands a separate degree. I think It's honest to say that OMM still exists and is taught in DO schools because it is simply what makes DO's "different".

I agree with a lot of what you say. I'm going to provide this link: http://www.studentdoctor.net/blogs/omtguru/2006/01/osteopathic-medicine-and-treating.html It doesn't talk about meningitis, but it does show how OMM actually was a pivotal treatment in our 1918 flu pandemic. Just some extra info that was triggered my your meningitis mentioning.

 

[Old Grunt]

I concur...and I am going a DO school. Perhaps it will teach me to become a more effective masseuse..and my girlfriend will...ummm like me more. 🙂


On the other side of the coin,in regard to those patients who want OMM and really believes it makes them feel better; that is good enough for me! You are doing your job as a physician....making your patient feel better...and better yet...you can bill for it 🙂

At this point in my education, I feel too massively crushed by trying to simply learn medicine to be a snob about where someone else goes to school or their degree.

Though, I believe in the scientific method, and their just isn't a lot of strong data that supports the notion that OMM is that effective. I've posted the Andersson study on here regarding lower back pain. Recently there was a study on OMM and pregnant women, that again showed modest gains.

I feel for the people trying to do the bench science behind OMM. Pain is massively subjective, and most of their methodology is shaky at best (i.e. in the Andersson study, the subjects had to first be evaluated by a DO to assess if they could "benefit from manipulation". Tell me that's not introducing bias into your study).

Like I said, if it were that effective, allopathic medicine would steal it (and offering electives in it doesn't equate to signing on to OMM. Most Allopathic schools offer electives in alternative medicine too).

 

[Old Grunt]

I agree with a lot of what you say. I'm going to provide this link: http://www.studentdoctor.net/blogs/omtguru/2006/01/osteopathic-medicine-and-treating.html It doesn't talk about meningitis, but it does show how OMM actually was a pivotal treatment in our 1918 flu pandemic. Just some extra info that was triggered my your meningitis mentioning.

Thank you, I will check it out a little later on.

Now I must go and make love to Qbank for the next four hours.

 

[willen101383]

At this point in my education, I feel too massively crushed by trying to simply learn medicine to be a snob about where someone else goes to school or their degree.

Though, I believe in the scientific method, and their just isn't a lot of strong data that supports the notion that OMM is that effective. I've posted the Andersson study on here regarding lower back pain. Recently there was a study on OMM and pregnant women, that again showed modest gains.

I feel for the people trying to do the bench science behind OMM. Pain is massively subjective, and most of their methodology is shaky at best (i.e. in the Andersson study, the subjects had to first be evaluated by a DO to assess if they could "benefit from manipulation". Tell me that's not introducing bias into your study).

Like I said, if it were that effective, allopathic medicine would steal it (and offering electives in it doesn't equate to signing on to OMM. Most Allopathic schools offer electives in alternative medicine too).

Yeah. I highly highly doubt I will use OMM in practice. And thank you for approaching OMM/DOs in a mature way. If only half the people on this website would follow in your footsteps.

 

[Morsetlis]

Thank you, I will check it out a little later on.

Now I must go and make love to Qbank for the next four hours.

Wish I had a Qbank.

 

[Old Grunt]

Wish I had a Qbank.

Why would you want a step 1 qbank as a pre-med?

 

[Old Grunt]

I agree with a lot of what you say. I'm going to provide this link: http://www.studentdoctor.net/blogs/omtguru/2006/01/osteopathic-medicine-and-treating.html It doesn't talk about meningitis, but it does show how OMM actually was a pivotal treatment in our 1918 flu pandemic. Just some extra info that was triggered my your meningitis mentioning.

Okay, I read it while on hold with Kaplan due to them screwing up my Qbank (yet again, Kaplan has the worst customer service in the world if you are considering Kaplan versus world).

Anyways, it was an interesting read, though do you think the following statement would hold up in a lecture all today?

"Traditional osteopaths" are long on evidence as the best-cited specialty in treating flu cases but short on public recognition of their non-invasive treatment -- osteopathic manual medicine (OMM). Still, the ability to help patients, osteopaths say, stems from the profession's unique training to effectively address the underlying abnormalities that cause illness, including influenza.
The point of treatment, especially in a flu virus, is to trigger the body's own natural healing mechanisms and increase immune response. "The congestion that flu causes predisposes the patient to pneumonia and sets up an environment in which the virus will proliferate," said Dr. Zinaida Pelkey, who practices OMM at St. Barnabas Hospital in New York. "By mobilizing the fluids and allowing the body's own immune system to function optimally you not only bring in cells that fight infection but clear away waste products of infection and inflammation."

That beings said, the article had the numbers to support the position at the bottom (though no methodology).

My thoughts are this: the flu is still a problem, and the concept of moving lymph around to shorten the duration of disease should be efficacious against any strain of the flu (not just the 1918 bug), so I would think that it would be a relatively easy task to conduct a study on this matter today that was adequately scientifically rigorous (as opposed to a meta analysis, which is what the paper has done, I believe).

I really find this statement dubious:

"Traditional osteopaths" are long on evidence as the best-cited specialty in treating flu cases but short on public recognition of their non-invasive treatment -- osteopathic manual medicine (OMM).

Most of the DO students on here have acknowledged that OMM has little benefits outside of musculoskeletal pain. This is the first wholesale statement that it treats infectious disease too.

 

[Morsetlis]

So I could make love to it.

Also, using OMM to treat the flu seems like treating something that gets better by itself (or with other more convention treatments).

 

[willen101383]

Why would you want a step 1 qbank as a pre-med?

I was wondering that too. 😕

 

[Old Grunt]

So I could make love to it.

It's not a gentle lover.

Quite the opposite.

 

[Bacchus]

That blog is written by someone under the handle OMMGuru or something like that. I do agree some of the osteopathic banner waving is a bit much. I wish they would do another study, like you said, to prove the efficacy instead of looking at the epidemiology from that time period.

 

[VTBuc]

I don't mean this to be a flame...but I can understand it. I didn't work hard in college, bust my butt for the MCAT, and do all this work to get DO at the end of my name. I did it to get MD. I have no passion for osteopathic medicine...I didn't even know what it was until I got to college. I never dreamed of being an osteopath when I was young. I don't want people asking me, "Are you a REAL doctor?" or "What's an osteopath?" for the rest of my life. With the type of doctor I want to be, osteopathic medicine has no benefits over an MD program. People always say DO=MD. Bull. If that were the case there would be no distinction between the two. Obviously there's curriculum differences, otherwise there would be no such thing as osteopathic medicine.

Osteopathic medicine has its merits and is very respectable, but it's not for everyone(including me).

 

[ahowardmd]

DO=MD. Bull.

I'm pointing out the only thing that's wrong with your statement! MD IS equal to DO, it's just that the general public is ignorant. Like you, I didn't know what a DO was until I learned about it in my 'getting into professional school' class in college. And also like you, I didn't pursue the degree, because of the same superficial reasons you mentioned. But just to respect our future colleagues, let's remember that they are actually equal.

 

[VTBuc]

I'm pointing out the only thing that's wrong with your statement! MD IS equal to DO, it's just that the general public is ignorant. Like you, I didn't know what a DO was until I learned about it in my 'getting into professional school' class in college. And also like you, I didn't pursue the degree, because of the same superficial reasons you mentioned. But just to respect our future colleagues, let's remember that they are actually equal.

Equal in terms of quality of education, YES. But not equal in that you're learning the same thing. There are differences...that's why they are different degrees. Sorry if I mispoke. 🙂

 

[J1515]

I don't want people asking me, "Are you a REAL doctor?" or "What's an osteopath?" for the rest of my life. With the type of doctor I want to be, osteopathic medicine has no benefits over an MD program.

During my DO student --> resident career, 2 people have asked me what DO stood for out of thousands of patients. Neither of them cared. Your above statement is one of the common pre-med misconceptions/myths. Patients rarely if ever ask, nor do they care.

People always say DO=MD. Bull. If that were the case there would be no distinction between the two. Obviously there's curriculum differences, otherwise there would be no such thing as osteopathic medicine.

You are misinformed my friend. There is no distinction between the two in the hospitals or with patient care, they do exactly the same thing. Also, there is zero curriculum difference in this day and age with the exception of the addition of OMM at DO schools. Please do not make assumptions as you don't have facts to back them up yet at your level. 100 years ago there was a difference in curriculum and that's why different initials exist. Since then, the AOA realized that in order to get full and equal practicing rights they would need to merge with mainstream medicine and that is why they teach all the same basic sciences and clinical courses at allopathic and osteopathic schools. DOs lecture at MD schools, MD's lecture at DO schools. They use the same textbooks for all the basic sciences.

Osteopathic medicine has its merits and is very respectable, but it's not for everyone(including me).

That's fine, but it seems like you are forming opinions based on false information. I suggest doing a quick search on SDN for posts made directly by DO attendings.

 

[skiddoc]

I don't mean this to be a flame...but I can understand it. I didn't work hard in college, bust my butt for the MCAT, and do all this work to get DO at the end of my name. I did it to get MD.

Obviously, you didn't bust your ass hard enough to get into an American MD school . You busted it only hard enough to get into Caribbean MD.

 

[Old Grunt]

That blog is written by someone under the handle OMMGuru or something like that. I do agree some of the osteopathic banner waving is a bit much. I wish they would do another study, like you said, to prove the efficacy instead of looking at the epidemiology from that time period.

There were also some bold claims that OMM was efficacious in treating otitis media.

Again, I don't have a problem with OMM, I just don't think it should be over-sold. Claiming it can cure infectious disease is where I start to get a little incredulous. Do you suppose that this could fall under the heading of "OMM mythology" that you guys sometimes mention the OMM faculty preaching?

If OMM could truly prove beneficial in treating the flu, it would be a relatively easy experiment to run. You could recruit every person in a hospital setting who has a positive rapid flu (a specific test, but not a sensitive one) that has been symptomatic for less that 48 hours, give tamiflu to one and OMM to the other and measure quantifiable symptoms (i.e. fever) over a time period. That seems fairly straight forward enough.

The fact that it hasn't been done (to my knowledge) and the claims on that site rely on data from 1918 (which we can probably agree was shaky at best (and also before the advent of antivirals)) really leads me to be dubious about the matter.

 

[Old Grunt]

Equal in terms of quality of education, YES. But not equal in that you're learning the same thing. There are differences...that's why they are different degrees. Sorry if I mispoke. 🙂

Actually, most medical schools have a lot of latitude to teach medicine. Depending on where you go, you might be in a straight problem based approach or an old fashioned, didactic lecture. You can learn medicine in a completely different manner than your peers at another school, but the end result is the same. In that regard, DO's and MD's learn the same thing. It's not like they learn a different brand of medicine in DO-world.

The only exception being OMM, which is a minor part of the curriculum. I will admit that there is a degree of unfairness that OMM is tested on the COMLEX. I've never learned OMM, but I would imagine that those would be easy points to provide some padding, but people can correct me if I am wrong.

 

[skiddoc]

There was also some bold claims that OMM was efficacious in treating otitis media.

Again, I don't have a problem with OMM, I just don't think it should be over-sold. Claiming it can cure infectious disease is where I start to get a little incredulous. Do you suppose that this could fall under the heading of "OMM mythology" that you guys sometimes mention the OMM faculty preaching?

If OMM could truly prove beneficial in treating the flu, it would be a relatively easy experiment to run. You could recruit every person in a hospital setting who has a positive rapid flu (a specific test, but not a sensitive one) that has been symptomatic for less that 48 hours, give tamiflu to one and OMM to the other and measure quantifiable symptoms (i.e. fever) over a time period. That seems fairly straight forward enough.

The fact that it hasn't been done (to my knowledge) and the claims on that site rely on data from 1918 (which we can probably agree was shaky at best (and also before the advent of antivirals)) really leads me to be dubious about the matter.

I would create a third group which would use Tamiflu along with OMM treatments to see if there might be any synergy. Although I'm likely to attend a DO school in the Fall, I'm skeptical about OMM's benefits in curing communicable diseases (unless they directly serve to impede circulation and muscle function).

 

[Old Grunt]

I would create a third group which would use Tamiflu along with OMM treatments to see if there might be any synergy. Although I'm likely to attend a DO school in the Fall, I'm skeptical about OMM's benefits in curing communicable diseases (unless they directly serve to impede circulation and muscle function).

Maybe you can work up the study and present it to the IRB of your school some time during your time as a Med Student. Research always looks good on your resume.

 

[tmjbama5]

Look, I'm thrilled that you're so passionate about your profession. If anything, I find that a lot of students who go to DO or Carib schools who had originally applied to (and preferred) US-MD schools are incredibly passionate and committed because they realize they'll have to work harder to achieve the same goals. I applaud commitment and work ethic in general, so yay.

On the other hand, I'm kinda sick of reading about how DOs have a "different philosophy" that allows them to treat patients differently, with more compassion or whatever; to then read a couple of posts later that DOs and MDs are exactly the same and anyone who doesn't think so is a frickin idiot.

I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You're either the same or you're not. Spouting stuff about "different philosophies" and "different ways of looking at patients" and a "more holistic admission practice" implies that you're not, in fact, the same as MD schools, in which case you'll have to accept that some people think your way is stupid and/or not valid. But of course as soon as someone says something like "the philosophy isn't for me" then 10 DO students come in and talk about how the philosophy is the same and we're all trained the same so we're ignorant *****s. I'm sorry, but you have to choose, you're either equal or you're not.

Personally, I've worked with both DOs and MDs and I have met great and terrible doctors from both walks of life. One of the DOs I worked with hated being a DO and insisted that she wanted to have "Dr. X" on her coat instead of "X, DO". Others were incredibly proud of their background. But for the most part, no one talked about it because there was more important stuff to talk about- patient care. And for that matter, it's the same deal with IMGs. Once you have your training and board certification, no one cares.

Also, implying that DO > MD because of OMM is hilarious. So wait, does my research project give me extra points? What about my electives? I took a healthcare econ class last semester, if I count that plus my research project, does that mean that my MD > your DO? Maybe I should add more electives, then my MD >>> every MD evar.

And finally, as for admissions. It's nice to think that they look at students more "globally" while MD schools only care about numbers. It's a nice thought that's common about both DO applicants and, actually, Carib applicants (read any of their admission pages- that's their "admission philosophy" too, and they too love non trads cause of their "enriching life experiences"). I'm not saying that it's categorically false. But to generalize the 100+ MD schools in this country as number ****** while DO schools are the Mother Theresas of the admission process is, well, ignorant, to use a much abused word on this thread (not to mention the fact that it underscores inequality yet again!). I'm a non-trad with life experiences and go to an MD school. As are all the other non-trads with life experiences at my MD school. I don't know that many students at DO schools, so all the people I know who were like me...are at MD schools. Not everyone had great numbers (myself included). We all just had a good "package" that the MD schools we got into liked. It's that simple. I can assure you, if MD schools had a numbers-only admission process, I wouldn't be where I am now.

If you're doubting my words, spend a couple of hours looking through some pre-allo threads. You'll find tons of examples of kids with amazing numbers who didn't get into the schools they wanted and are wondering wtf happened there. Usually the answer has to do with the "intangibles"- personality, recommendations, life experiences. All those things you seem to imply are exclusively used in DO schools. I'd love for you to write in one of those threads "well, it's cause MD schools only care about one thing". I'm sure their 3.9/40 selves will find that to be a riot.

Oh, and I do love that the person who talked a big talk about our ignorance and arrogance is a pre-med who hasn't started med school yet. Cool.

First off, tremendous post. Secondly, I find it hilarious that this post addresses basically all of the reasons for the b!tching and moaning from the DO supporters.....and yet, since this post, basically ZERO DO supporters have come up with a rebuttal! Honestly, if you want to act high and mighty bc you think DO is completely different and/or better due to "OMM", then do it...if you think DO=MD, that's cool too. However, don't sit there and argue both sides like a b!tch. It makes you look insecure, desperate, and asinine. DO is either = to or not equal to MD...if it is = to MD, the more logical choice, especially if you are interested in a competitive specialty, is non-carribean MD (if you are able to go that route). If you consider DO as different from MD, then it is just a matter of opinion as to what route you go. You would think that some of these people acting super intelligent would know that you can't have it both ways.....i just find these people absolutely hysterical in a completely pathetic way.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Such a tragic "bump." Why, oh why??? The thoughts pre-medical students share anonymously on the internet concern me. I also feel better when I see J15 has already posted ... it means I don't have to.

 

[skiddoc]

First off, tremendous post. Secondly, I find it hilarious that this post addresses basically all of the reasons for the b!tching and moaning from the DO supporters.....and yet, since this post, basically ZERO DO supporters have come up with a rebuttal! Honestly, if you want to act high and mighty bc you think DO is completely different and/or better due to "OMM", then do it...if you think DO=MD, that's cool too. However, don't sit there and argue both sides like a b!tch. It makes you look insecure, desperate, and asinine. DO is either = to or not equal to MD...if it is = to MD, the more logical choice, especially if you are interested in a competitive specialty, is non-carribean MD (if you are able to go that route). If you consider DO as different from MD, then it is just a matter of opinion as to what route you go. You would think that some of these people acting super intelligent would know that you can't have it both ways.....i just find these people absolutely hysterical in a completely pathetic way.

Here's the thing. When osteopathic medicine was first founded, it was pretty radically different from allopathic medicine (though I doubt allopathic medicine was then known as such). Over the years, allopathic medicine has made great strides in treating the patient just as holistically as osteopathic medicine. So, in effect, these two different philosophies have come together and become nearly the same thing, save for OMM, which is pretty much the only thing that sets the two traditions apart (as far as I know). If anyone can add to my explanation, or tear it apart, please feel free to do so.

 

[willen101383]

Obviously, you didn't bust your ass hard enough to get into an American MD school . You busted it only hard enough to get into Caribbean MD.

HAHAHAHA if this is true VT just made him/herself look like a complete tool.

 

[Bacchus]

There were also some bold claims that OMM was efficacious in treating otitis media.

Again, I don't have a problem with OMM, I just don't think it should be over-sold. Claiming it can cure infectious disease is where I start to get a little incredulous. Do you suppose that this could fall under the heading of "OMM mythology" that you guys sometimes mention the OMM faculty preaching?

If OMM could truly prove beneficial in treating the flu, it would be a relatively easy experiment to run. You could recruit every person in a hospital setting who has a positive rapid flu (a specific test, but not a sensitive one) that has been symptomatic for less that 48 hours, give tamiflu to one and OMM to the other and measure quantifiable symptoms (i.e. fever) over a time period. That seems fairly straight forward enough.

The fact that it hasn't been done (to my knowledge) and the claims on that site rely on data from 1918 (which we can probably agree was shaky at best (and also before the advent of antivirals)) really leads me to be dubious about the matter.

There seems to be some trials out there that tested OMT and otitis media. I can't find results to any of them. There are also records of grants distributed for that purpose.

Re: the flu

I found this letter to the JAOA that talks about the feasability of study today and outcomes from the past: http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/ful...INDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

All in all, I agree with you. It has its uses; but there are also some claims out there that are almost asinine.

 

[VTBuc]

Obviously, you didn't bust your ass hard enough to get into an American MD school . You busted it only hard enough to get into Caribbean MD.

HAHAHAHA if this is true VT just made him/herself look like a complete tool.

I'm attending an American MD School this fall. 🙄

 

[Morsetlis]

I might be!

 

[Caesar]

old thread is old.

Personal preference.

/thread

 

[VTBuc]

During my DO student --> resident career, 2 people have asked me what DO stood for out of thousands of patients. Neither of them cared. Your above statement is one of the common pre-med misconceptions/myths. Patients rarely if ever ask, nor do they care.

You are misinformed my friend. There is no distinction between the two in the hospitals or with patient care, they do exactly the same thing. Also, there is zero curriculum difference in this day and age with the exception of the addition of OMM at DO schools. Please do not make assumptions as you don't have facts to back them up yet at your level. 100 years ago there was a difference in curriculum and that's why different initials exist. Since then, the AOA realized that in order to get full and equal practicing rights they would need to merge with mainstream medicine and that is why they teach all the same basic sciences and clinical courses at allopathic and osteopathic schools. DOs lecture at MD schools, MD's lecture at DO schools. They use the same textbooks for all the basic sciences.

That's fine, but it seems like you are forming opinions based on false information. I suggest doing a quick search on SDN for posts made directly by DO attendings.

Bull. Every freakin' DO or Pre-DO person I talk to tells me how osteopaths "view the patient as a whole" and "are less focused on numbers", etc. etc. There's differences, dude. If there were no differences in curriculum or philosophy, there would be no reason for Osteopathic schools--they would all be Allopathic schools.

In fact, you're insulting the entire DO track by saying they're the same. The admission standards are quite lower, so be saying they're the same it's implying that DO is simply a lower-tiered allopathic school, right? If there's no difference between DO and MD, why the heck are people so passionate about going DO rather than MD? If DO and MD are the same, why did you go DO instead of MD?

If I get asked twice if my lifetime, "what's an Osteopath?"...that right there is twice too many. I don't want that. Good for you if you do.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Bull. Every freakin' DO or Pre-DO person I talk to tells me how osteopaths "view the patient as a whole" and "are less focused on numbers", etc. etc. There's differences, dude. If there were no differences in curriculum or philosophy, there would be no reason for Osteopathic schools--they would all be Allopathic schools.

1. No DO say this or refers to themselves as an Osteopath. You are making assumptions based on SDN stereotypes here. People who use this mantra of "whole patient," "MD + some," "older applicants/less focused on numbers," are, frankly, making excuses, and NO practicing DO feels this way. It's something at the pre-medical level -akin to people making a stink about DO vs MD. MDs can 'focus' on the whole patient just as much as DOs, and do. OMM is an extra tool in your bag, few choose to use it, but, again, it doesn't make a DO better than an MD. Good DO/MDs and bad DOs/MDs ... scratch that ... there are good docs and bad docs, regardless of degree. Some of the dumb stereotypes and SDN catchphrases are rooted in reality, but they've been stretched and barfed up so may times that it's just lost all meaning. It's like the pre-med who tries to tell us how medicine works because he/she shadowed a doctor and has a radiologist aunt who said X.

2. You're not thinking in the universal language here ... DOs schools exist because there are two governing bodies - the AOA and the AMA, and the AOA is NOT about to give up it's revenue stream, power, abilities, etc, and fold into the AMA/LCME (if that's what your suggesting). It makes no sense to them. People are clawing down doors to get into DO schools every year ... this gives them cash, helps grow their organization, brings press, etc - no one is going to give that up because philosophies have meshed over time. There really, really isn't any curricula et al differences at core. Maybe from school to school ... but no bigger flux than between MD to MD school. Now, if you wanted to bring rotations into it ... different story, but unrelated to your point.

In fact, you're insulting the entire DO track by saying they're the same. The admission standards are quite lower, so be saying they're the same it's implying that DO is simply a lower-tiered allopathic school, right? If there's no difference between DO and MD, why the heck are people so passionate about going DO rather than MD? If DO and MD are the same, why did you go DO instead of MD?

Not insulting whatsoever. Varying "standards" exist all over. You're going to tell me there are certain state MD schools that aren't easier to get into than UCSF?? Of course not. DO and MD schools are two similar paths to a singular goal. Admissions standards are lower for a variety of reasons ... I really disagree that they are "quite lower." I've stated VARIOUS times why the averages seems lower as a whole - please don't make me explain this again, I've written novellas about it.

Furthermore, people go DO for various reasons - namely, it's where they got in. Same as someone who gets into one MD school over another and 'chooses' to go there. People act like there is some horrible thing about being a smart, hard working student with a 3.5/28, applying from a tough state who goes to a DO school (note - those aren't my stats, I actually have a 30+ MCAT and will be going DO next year - gasp). There are far, far more qualified applicants than there are spots, even with DO + MD.

However, people, like J15, also choose DO for the same reason people choose any other medical school over another - cost, location, fit, proximity to family, state you'd like to practice in, association with residency programs, etc.

If I get asked twice if my lifetime, "what's an Osteopath?"...that right there is twice too many. I don't want that. Good for you if you do.

Jesus. You sound horribly insecure. Don't think the "MD" is the end all of questions and discrimination in the field of Healthcare. Unless you're a middle-aged, white, male ... you can expect to be questioned or asked something, at least "twice." IE:

"how old are you ... are you still a student?" Oh burn - are you not going to explain yourself then, or are you going to crawl into a cave and give up.

"What school did you go to? Oh, X doctor I see went to Harvard." Ouch - guess you've been 'put down,' better give up.

"Aren't there any X sex or X ethnicity doctors on staff that can help me?" Think it doesn't happen ... it does. Read up on some of the things female docs and docs varying ethnic backgrounds have to say on SDN.

Furthermore ... is there a reason why you feel the need to be so negative towards DOs? I hear snide comments from the 4.0/36 crowds going to Ivy League from time to time ... but it's a bit presumptions from someone, who to my knowledge, was accepted to a singular, brand new MD school?? I met three people on the DO interview trail that were also interviewing at TCMC. Seems like an overlapping pool to me.

 

[Perrotfish]

Bull. Every freakin' DO or Pre-DO person I talk to tells me how osteopaths "view the patient as a whole" and "are less focused on numbers", etc. etc. There's differences, dude. If there were no differences in curriculum or philosophy, there would be no reason for Osteopathic schools--they would all be Allopathic schools.

In fact, you're insulting the entire DO track by saying they're the same. The admission standards are quite lower, so be saying they're the same it's implying that DO is simply a lower-tiered allopathic school, right? If there's no difference between DO and MD, why the heck are people so passionate about going DO rather than MD? If DO and MD are the same, why did you go DO instead of MD?
.

The reason why Osteopathic medicine is seperate from Allopathic medicine is because if the two merged it would put a lot of administrative leeches out of a job and no one with the power to merge the two wants that to happen. It's the same reason there are 4 heavyweight titles in boxing. The reason why some people want to go DO rather than MD is because DO schools send out some very nice promotional materials loaded with words like 'holistic' and many premeds have so completely given in to stockholm syndrome that many of them are prepared to swallow even this. By the time they graduate they'll realize the 'whole patient' thing is just another marketing gimmick, OMM is a bunch of BS, and, if they had the option of a cheaper state MD school, that that they overspent on what is basically the exact same degree as an MD.

 

[VTBuc]

1. No DO say this or refers to themselves as an Osteopath. You are making assumptions based on SDN stereotypes here. People who use this mantra of "whole patient," "MD + some," "older applicants/less focused on numbers," are, frankly, making excuses, and NO practicing DO feels this way. It's something at the pre-medical level -akin to people making a stink about DO vs MD. MDs can 'focus' on the whole patient just as much as DOs, and do. OMM is an extra tool in your bag, few choose to use it, but, again, it doesn't make a DO better than an MD. Good DO/MDs and bad DOs/MDs ... scratch that ... there are good docs and bad docs, regardless of degree. Some of the dumb stereotypes and SDN catchphrases are rooted in reality, but they've been stretched and barfed up so may times that it's just lost all meaning. It's like the pre-med who tries to tell us how medicine works because he/she shadowed a doctor and has a radiologist aunt who said X.

2. You're not thinking in the universal language here ... DOs schools exist because there are two governing bodies - the AOA and the AMA, and the AOA is NOT about to give up it's revenue stream, power, abilities, etc, and fold into the AMA/LCME (if that's what your suggesting). It makes no sense to them. People are clawing down doors to get into DO schools every year ... this gives them cash, helps grow their organization, brings press, etc - no one is going to give that up because philosophies have meshed over time. There really, really isn't any curricula et al differences at core. Maybe from school to school ... but no bigger flux than between MD to MD school. Now, if you wanted to bring rotations into it ... different story, but unrelated to your point.



Not insulting whatsoever. Varying "standards" exist all over. You're going to tell me there are certain state MD schools that aren't easier to get into than UCSF?? Of course not. DO and MD schools are two similar paths to a singular goal. Admissions standards are lower for a variety of reasons ... I really disagree that they are "quite lower." I've stated VARIOUS times why the averages seems lower as a whole - please don't make me explain this again, I've written novellas about it.

Furthermore, people go DO for various reasons - namely, it's where they got in. Same as someone who gets into one MD school over another and 'chooses' to go there. People act like there is some horrible thing about being a smart, hard working student with a 3.5/28, applying from a tough state who goes to a DO school (note - those aren't my stats, I actually have a 30+ MCAT and will be going DO next year - gasp). There are far, far more qualified applicants than there are spots, even with DO + MD.

However, people, like J15, also choose DO for the same reason people choose any other medical school over another - cost, location, fit, proximity to family, state you'd like to practice in, association with residency programs, etc.



Jesus. You sound horribly insecure. Don't think the "MD" is the end all of questions and discrimination in the field of Healthcare. Unless you're a middle-aged, white, male ... you can expect to be questioned or asked something, at least "twice." IE:

"how old are you ... are you still a student?" Oh burn - are you not going to explain yourself then, or are you going to crawl into a cave and give up.

"What school did you go to? Oh, X doctor I see went to Harvard." Ouch - guess you've been 'put down,' better give up.

"Aren't there any X sex or X ethnicity doctors on staff that can help me?" Think it doesn't happen ... it does. Read up on some of the things female docs and docs varying ethnic backgrounds have to say on SDN.

Furthermore ... is there a reason why you feel the need to be so negative towards DOs? I hear snide comments from the 4.0/36 crowds going to Ivy League from time to time ... but it's a bit presumptions from someone, who to my knowledge, was accepted to a singular, brand new MD school?? I met three people on the DO interview trail that were also interviewing at TCMC. Seems like an overlapping pool to me.

I'm not negative towards DOs. I just dislike this double-standard of being different yet being the same simultaneously. DO schools themselves talk about their different approaches. I think you're projecting generic negativity onto me, which is unfair. I mentioned before osteopathic medicine is a very good path, just not for me. What's wrong with that? Sure, getting asked what an osteopath is is a very superficial reason not to want to be a DO, but why does my reasoning matter? If I said I didn't want to go to UVA's med school because they are my school rival no one would give a crap, but I say I don't want to go to a DO school for just as silly of a reason and all-of-a-sudden I'm insecure?

I personally don't think DO is inferior or that there should be a negative stigma around it. I think it's great and I'm glad that DO schools exist because we need physicians. However, I think it's false to say there's no differences when the schools themselves promote those differences and every DO student I've ever talked to mentions them. What else do I have to go by but what the schools project and others tell me? I'm not attending both an osteopathic and an allopathic school, only an allopathic one so I have no way to personally experience any differences.

And DO schools do have lower stats. Last I checked, no DO school had an average MCAT over 30 and the average GPA hovers around a 3.3. I'm not trying to imply that that makes them inferior, just stating facts. Either these schools are looking for something different in their students or they're not..you tell me which is the case.

DOs bring something extra to medicine:

• Osteopathic medical schools emphasize training students to be primary care physicians.
• DOs practice a "whole person" approach to medicine. Instead of just treating specific symptoms or illnesses, they regard your body as an integrated whole.
• Osteopathic physicians focus on preventive health care.
• DOs receive extra training in the musculoskeletal system-your body's interconnected system of nerves, muscles and bones that make up two-thirds of your body mass. This training provides osteopathic physicians with a better understanding of the ways that an illness or injury in one part of your body can affect another.
• Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is incorporated into the training and practice of osteopathic physicians. With OMT, osteopathic physicians use their hands to diagnose illness and injury and to encourage your body's natural tendency toward good health. By combining all other available medical options with OMT, DOs offer their patients the most comprehensive care available in medicine today.

http://www.osteopathic.org/index.cfm?PageID=ado_whatis

Sounds like they're toting something different to me.

 

[Bacchus]

As Jagger mentioned, it doesn't how many non-Administrators of the profession equate themselves as equals of MDs, the administration (AOA) will always swear there's a difference. You're arguing something that will NEVER change.

 

[VTBuc]

As Jagger mentioned, it doesn't how many non-Administrators of the profession equate themselves as equals of MDs, the administration (AOA) will always swear there's a difference. You're arguing something that will NEVER change.

Right. I'll be the first to admit I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to osteopathic medicine. The supporters of it send very mixed messages as to what it is, though. The only thing I had to go by in basing my decision not to apply to any DO schools was the resources available, and based on the differences described I decided it wasn't for me. Fair enough? 🙂