Why is there a stigma against DOs?

[ArdentMed]

I've scoured the net in search of a concrete answer, but every single article or thread I've read is teeming with dissonance and incertitude. What is the (real) reason as to why DOs are stigmatized?

Statistically, just under 20% of doctors in the United States are DOs, and they are tantamount to an MD in virtually every aspect including qualifications, salary, job title, etc. and yet I see people complaining about "only" gaining acceptance into a DO school. What's so bad about DO anyway? As a Canadian resident who has to compete for a limited number of seats in the med schools here, I would absolutely kill to have a spot at a DO school and have a chance to practice medicine and further mankind. So what is the underlying reason?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TeamLeafs]

Low standards. And many DO students will tell you that some of the schools offer some poor quality training. Some schools are excellent though, others not so much.

 

[gumdrops]

I've scoured the net in search of a concrete answer, but every single article or thread I've read is teeming with dissonance and incertitude. What is the (real) reason as to why DOs are stigmatized?

Statistically, just under 20% of doctors in the United States are DOs, and they are tantamount to an MD in virtually every aspect including qualifications, salary, job title, etc. and yet I see people complaining about "only" gaining acceptance into a DO school. What's so bad about DO anyway? As a Canadian resident who has to compete for a limited number of seats in the med schools here, I would absolutely kill to have a spot at a DO school and have a chance to practice medicine and further mankind. So what is the underlying reason?

It's the lower barrier to entry that confers stigma upon DO's. Practically speaking, it means stupid things like having a tougher time matching into competitive residencies like derm or being barred from that pediatric cardiothoracic fellowship at Wash U you'd always dreamed of.

After training, it's all the same. Some people have complained that they have to explain what DO means to patients but that sounds like a small price to pay for getting to do what you want with your life.

 

[coolingglasses]

It's the lower barrier to entry that confers stigma upon DO's. Practically speaking, it means stupid things like having a tougher time matching into competitive residencies like derm or being barred from that pediatric cardiothoracic fellowship at Wash U you'd always dreamed of.

After training, it's all the same. Some people have complained that they have to explain what DO means to patients but that sounds like a small price to pay for getting to do what you want with your life.

Seems like I have to explain it more to friends than I do to anyone I encounter in the healthcare setting.

 

[DopaDO]

It's the lower barrier to entry that confers stigma upon DO's. Practically speaking, it means stupid things like having a tougher time matching into competitive residencies like derm or being barred from that pediatric cardiothoracic fellowship at Wash U you'd always dreamed of.

After training, it's all the same. Some people have complained that they have to explain what DO means to patients but that sounds like a small price to pay for getting to do what you want with your life.

Based on conversations with various PDs at several institutions (including Wash U), this is actually not the reason. The actual reason is the lack of standardization and potentially sub par clinicals in 3rd year.

"We have no doubt that DO students are extremely intelligent and their first two years are nearly identical to ours. The issue arises in 3rd and 4th year of training where the student realizes he/she made a mistake." -from a PD at a top 50 school.

 

[Beth_W737]

The problem is that is not all DO schools, some top tier are equal to low/mid tier allo schools and that should be better recognized

 

[cliquesh]

I also think DOs in the past were pretty terrible test takers. Historically, the usmle step 1 pass rate has always been around 80%, but it 2011 it jumped to 88% and then it further increased to 91% in 2012. I think DOs are getting "smarter" and I think in upcoming years you will see more competitive matches and less stigma.

 

[darklabel]

Based on conversations with various PDs at several institutions (including Wash U), this is actually not the reason. The actual reason is the lack of standardization and potentially sub par clinicals in 3rd year.

"We have no doubt that DO students are extremely intelligent and their first two years are nearly identical to ours. The issue arises in 3rd and 4th year of training where the student realizes he/she made a mistake." -from a PD at a top 50 school.

Yeah, I've heard this too.

I know from a premed perspective its just two things which are shallow reasons: not an "MD" title and lower barrier of entry. Heck, I see even here all the time how people with high stats, but only got DO say they "deserve" MD more or other ridiculous things.

I will definitely say though that not all DO schools are created equal and unlike the SDN mantra of "Always go to the USMD school", I would have some serious reservations based on what has been written about some DO schools.

 

[DopaDO]

I also think DOs in the past were pretty terrible test takers. Historically, the usmle step 1 pass rate has always been around 80%, but it 2011 it jumped to 88% and then it further increased to 91% in 2012. I think DOs are getting "smarter" and I think in upcoming years you will see more competitive matches and less stigma.

Agree with this. For the most part, the average DO CV can not compete with the average MD CV. MDs are better applicants overall

 

[Mr Roboto]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned OMT.

News flash: You can't cure asthma and allergies by spinal manipulation.

 

[DrEnderW]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned OMT.

News flash: You can't cure asthma and allergies by spinal manipulation.

News flash: no legitimate DO physician thinks that.

News flash: you'd prescribe a inhaled corticosteroid alone or in combo with a long-acting B2 agonist, regardless of degree. OMM would potentially be used as a adjunct therapy if the clinician though releasing some tension in the musculature around the ribs could help with breathing, in addition to their mediciation.

If you legitimately think you can cure asthma with solely OMM you are in a significant minority of the profession akin to an MD that only believe in homeopathic herbs.

 

[petyr_baelish]

Seems like I have to explain it more to friends than I do to anyone I encounter in the healthcare setting.

This.

When I worked as a pharmacy tech, wearing wildly different attire than the pharmacist, people thought I was a pharmacist. They are the types who cannot differentiate between an NP or an MD. Let alone a DO and an MD.

I don't mean to be condescending. I know someone who has an MBA and is in the top 5% of earners that has no idea what an NP is, so he'd probably assume they were doctors.

I have absolutely no fear that a patient will be curious about my degree if I get a D.O. Context is everything.

 

[petyr_baelish]

I also think DOs in the past were pretty terrible test takers. Historically, the usmle step 1 pass rate has always been around 80%, but it 2011 it jumped to 88% and then it further increased to 91% in 2012. I think DOs are getting "smarter" and I think in upcoming years you will see more competitive matches and less stigma.

This is really interesting. Does anyone think this has to do with medical school getting more competitive in general? Maybe the right students are being recruited now.

I remember being told that in the 90s, one had to be a trailblazer to go to DO school. Now I'm seeing more of wellp, I want to be close to my family or start a year earlier. So I'll go there.

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

I've scoured the net in search of a concrete answer, but every single article or thread I've read is teeming with dissonance and incertitude. What is the (real) reason as to why DOs are stigmatized?

Statistically, just under 20% of doctors in the United States are DOs, and they are tantamount to an MD in virtually every aspect including qualifications, salary, job title, etc. and yet I see people complaining about "only" gaining acceptance into a DO school. What's so bad about DO anyway? As a Canadian resident who has to compete for a limited number of seats in the med schools here, I would absolutely kill to have a spot at a DO school and have a chance to practice medicine and further mankind. So what is the underlying reason?

The real reason is that they are not haha

Go shadow some DOs and you will see they arent. Only in the super prestigious places are they heavily stigmatized, but so is everyone else that is beneath the "top ten" caliber. I have shadowed DOs in Ortho, Peds, and EM. There is absolutely nothing but respect for all of the physicians that are competent and hard working.

 

[Stephanopolous]

There is no universal stigma- only the one that some (mostly people on this forum) hold in their own mind.

My two cents comes from working 7 years as a paramedic and 5 years as a scribe. I've worked with a bunch of DO's and MD's and if it weren't for the letters on their ID card I would never be able to tell them apart.

One of our most liked cardiologists is DO.

As professionals they all treat each other with respect. I have never heard or overheard any doctor bashing another doctor because he's DO.

If you want to do this for the right reasons and your heart and soul are in it, it doesn't matter what school you go to in the long run.

 

[iWillOneDay]

News flash: no legitimate DO physician thinks that.

News flash: you'd prescribe a inhaled corticosteroid alone or in combo with a long-acting B2 agonist, regardless of degree. OMM would potentially be used as a adjunct therapy if the clinician though releasing some tension in the musculature around the ribs could help with breathing, in addition to their mediciation.

If you legitimately think you can cure asthma with solely OMM you are in a significant minority of the profession akin to an MD that only believe in homeopathic herbs.

Agree. While I'm not a medical student, when I shadowed a DO who practices OMM, I asked her if OMM can be used in ER (because I'm an ER scribe and never saw such a thing).
She said she tries to get her students to do manipulations in ER when patients get treated for asthma attack because it can allow their chest to open up more and allow medications/breathing treatment to work more quickly and efficiently (see how it's not in quotes, she didn't say it exactly like this, but you get the idea).

I'm surprised no one has mentioned OMT.

News flash: You can't cure asthma and allergies by spinal manipulation.

So, this ^^ guy's News is no better than FOX news.

 

[Xenoblade]

Agree with this. For the most part, the average DO CV can not compete with the average MD CV. MDs are better applicants overall

I scoff and laugh at this.

 

[DopaDO]

I scoff and laugh at this.

Care to elaborate?

 

[WillburCobb]

Care to elaborate?

:troll:

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

Looking at potential "rational" reasons perhaps misses impact of politics and power in social group dynamics have played in medical profession for the past 100 years or so in this country creating a hard to shake social "stigma" on DOs. In other words, they set a tone that was strongly ingrained into the medical "culture" in the USA. The AMA the associated MD medical societies at state, county and specialty levels have been a large political force within all things health related. Certainly some positions of the AMA have affected major health care policy decisions and can be viewed in the light of limited other professions from infringing on their "turf". As early as the 1920s and 1930s the AMA fought and won by using their political power to dismantle a highly successful Public Health Service Nurse Practitioner Corps that served the rural south. Additionally National Health Insurance was dropped from the initial Social Security act by FDR due to AMA pressure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447696/.
Certainly one can speculate that as a competing category of doctors, AMA had strong motivation to historically suppress DOs , both in policy and in reputation. Until about 1970-1980, there was a parallel system of societies, hospitals, schools, state medical boards, etc for MD and DO.

One of the interesting and most powerful "players" in this is none other than Nelson Rockerfeller, grandson of John D Rockerfeller, who had a very bad chronic back problems. As Governor of New York, he had a personal osteopathic physician who helped is condition so much that he used his political power and family money to get NYCOM founded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Institute_of_Technology_College_of_Osteopathic_Medicine . Subsequent events helped start getting DOs privileges in traditional MD hospitals.

Today you have 41 out of 52 state and Territorial/District medical boards being combined with regulatory power over both MD and DO. Still the "social stigma" within the medical profession still cant be shaken. It is, however, most prevalent at the"low" end (ie premedical and medical students) and at the "high" end in the prestigious academic and research centers.

Students can discuss in the abstract the perceived differences, use the data on medical school GPA/MCAT scores across the school types, or similar data on residency matching, etc. Most of that will however miss the true underlying social forces that created this "stigma" and how it remains entrenched in the value system of our medical culture.

This is very interesting. I am working through "The DO's" by Norman Gevitz, and I think there is a lot of truth to that. Both MD and DO really started around the same time (MD maybe a little earlier). But for some reason the MD society just really clung on to the leadership and became a strong united political force. They have really held that power for the last 100 years or so.

 

[Goro]

Ignorance. And "low standards" ignores the that plenty of people reinvent themselves.

I've scoured the net in search of a concrete answer, but every single article or thread I've read is teeming with dissonance and incertitude. What is the (real) reason as to why DOs are stigmatized?

Statistically, just under 20% of doctors in the United States are DOs, and they are tantamount to an MD in virtually every aspect including qualifications, salary, job title, etc. and yet I see people complaining about "only" gaining acceptance into a DO school. What's so bad about DO anyway? As a Canadian resident who has to compete for a limited number of seats in the med schools here, I would absolutely kill to have a spot at a DO school and have a chance to practice medicine and further mankind. So what is the underlying reason?

 

[SurgeDO]

people treat this "stigma" all wrong.

if somebody wants to look down on my degree, **** them; that is their problem not mine. quit worrying about what others think of you and start worrying about being as competent a physician as you can.

 

[TXKnight]

Agree with this. For the most part, the average DO CV can not compete with the average MD CV. MDs are better applicants overall

When did cliquesh, even remotely, mentioned or alluded to anything related to what you are saying???
BTW, I think you are wrong...on average...

 

[chizledfrmstone]

Students can discuss in the abstract the perceived differences, use the data on medical school GPA/MCAT scores across the school types, or similar data on residency matching, etc. Most of that will however miss the true underlying social forces that created this "stigma" and how it remains entrenched in the value system of our medical culture.

Very insightful.

 

[hallowmann]

I've scoured the net in search of a concrete answer, but every single article or thread I've read is teeming with dissonance and incertitude. What is the (real) reason as to why DOs are stigmatized?

Statistically, just under 20% of doctors in the United States are DOs, and they are tantamount to an MD in virtually every aspect including qualifications, salary, job title, etc. and yet I see people complaining about "only" gaining acceptance into a DO school. What's so bad about DO anyway? As a Canadian resident who has to compete for a limited number of seats in the med schools here, I would absolutely kill to have a spot at a DO school and have a chance to practice medicine and further mankind. So what is the underlying reason?

You are also running on a bit of false info. At best, DOs constitute 10% of practicing physicians in the US (its actually a bit less than that). With a reduced presence and a generally disparate distribution (tons in the midwest and not so many in some other parts of the country) combined with the knowledge that entry stats are slightly lower, means people can look down at something they aren't familiar with, and in turn stigmatize it.

Also, I believe the 20% stat you are talking about is the percent of medical school students/graduates in the US every year. DOs have constituted 1/5 of all US med school graduates/students for a few (many) years now, and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if that number was closer to 25% when I graduate or a little later. With this change, I also believe that DO stigma and the prevalence of DOs in classically less DO-friendly areas will improve.

Also, the reason you are getting different responses, is because of what I mentioned above, there is variable distribution of DOs across the country, so in some areas DO stigma is minimal and non-existent while in others its blatantly present. That said the stigma is mainly present during applying for residencies, and later your residency is usually more important than your degree in how people view you.

 

[Mr Roboto]

News flash: no legitimate DO physician thinks that.

News flash: you'd prescribe a inhaled corticosteroid alone or in combo with a long-acting B2 agonist, regardless of degree. OMM would potentially be used as a adjunct therapy if the clinician though releasing some tension in the musculature around the ribs could help with breathing, in addition to their mediciation.

If you legitimately think you can cure asthma with solely OMM you are in a significant minority of the profession akin to an MD that only believe in homeopathic herbs.

I've met multiple DO's who think that. One, in fact, said it to potential students during a presentation for the DO school where he teaches OMT. Another was a recent DO grad who told me that my seasonal allergies would improve if she popped my neck a certain way. I stuck with antihistamines though lol.

There are DO's out there who have the same beliefs as the whackier fringes of chiropractics. They do give DO's a bad name, because they're the ones writing papers defending OMT when study after study fails to find the miraculous benefits it claims...

 

[DocWinter]

If the stigma you are referring to is anonymous encounters with uninformed pre-meds on SDN, then the answer is that stigma = ignorance and oneupmanship.

In the real world, where professionals bump shoulders 95% of those who know what a DO actually is don't give a whiff of care or difference to the title vs MD. The ONE physician (who wrote me a LOR) who told me not to go DO gave me her logic: it was that it was more expensive vs. the local state medical school, and she wanted me to go into orthopedics like her and residency would be easier to get. She was right about the finances, and I don't want to go into Orthpeds for anything and I wanted to learn OMM, so....

The one other possible reason is that some aspects of DO OMT training or the ideals of the "whole body treatment" boarder chiropractic manipulation/natural healing that ommnomm touched on. Some of it can be mistaken for or taken to a level of quackery when taken out of intended use or context.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I was talking to an HMS/UCSF MD physician 2 days ago. He told me that if Osteopathic Medicine wants to prove the training is equivalent then we must move to the single accreditation GME (which we are) and for all of us to take the USMLE too (which we might).

 

[DoctorKrieger]

Looking at potential "rational" reasons perhaps misses impact of politics and power in social group dynamics have played in medical profession for the past 100 years or so in this country creating a hard to shake social "stigma" on DOs. In other words, they set a tone that was strongly ingrained into the medical "culture" in the USA. The AMA the associated MD medical societies at state, county and specialty levels have been a large political force within all things health related. Certainly some positions of the AMA have affected major health care policy decisions and can be viewed in the light of limited other professions from infringing on their "turf". As early as the 1920s and 1930s the AMA fought and won by using their political power to dismantle a highly successful Public Health Service Nurse Practitioner Corps that served the rural south. Additionally National Health Insurance was dropped from the initial Social Security act by FDR due to AMA pressure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447696/.
Certainly one can speculate that as a competing category of doctors, AMA had strong motivation to historically suppress DOs , both in policy and in reputation. Until about 1970-1980, there was a parallel system of societies, hospitals, schools, state medical boards, etc for MD and DO.

One of the interesting and most powerful "players" in this is none other than Nelson Rockerfeller, grandson of John D Rockerfeller, who had a very bad chronic back problems. As Governor of New York, he had a personal osteopathic physician who helped is condition so much that he used his political power and family money to get NYCOM founded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Institute_of_Technology_College_of_Osteopathic_Medicine . Subsequent events helped start getting DOs privileges in traditional MD hospitals.

Today you have 41 out of 52 state and Territorial/District medical boards being combined with regulatory power over both MD and DO. Still the "social stigma" within the medical profession still cant be shaken. It is, however, most prevalent at the"low" end (ie premedical and medical students) and at the "high" end in the prestigious academic and research centers.

Students can discuss in the abstract the perceived differences, use the data on medical school GPA/MCAT scores across the school types, or similar data on residency matching, etc. Most of that will however miss the true underlying social forces that created this "stigma" and how it remains entrenched in the value system of our medical culture.

^^This. Any 'stigma' today is largely due to the 100+ year history between the two schools of medicine. The AMA was a pretty big a-hole during much of the 20th century.

 

[DopaDO]

:troll:

Not a troll. I'm a 3rd year student who has worked really hard to make my application as good as possible. Few DO students ace usmle and very few have the kind of research and extracurriculars that the average MD has. It is much easier for them to get involved in projects and get published. It's also easier for them to get good LORs instead of a lot of DOs having to settle for a LOR from a community FM doc. With that said, if you work hard you can overcome all of it.

My point is that it is a little harder as a DO but a lot of it has to do with DOs just not being as good of applicant as an MD.

 

[WillburCobb]

Not a troll. I'm a 3rd year student who has worked really hard to make my application as good as possible. Few DO students ace usmle and very few have the kind of research and extracurriculars that the average MD has. It is much easier for them to get involved in projects and get published. It's also easier for them to get good LORs instead of a lot of DOs having to settle for a LOR from a community FM doc. With that said, if you work hard you can overcome all of it.

My point is that it is a little harder as a DO but a lot of it has to do with DOs just not being as good of applicant as an MD.

I was referring to the individual to which you replied, not you. Check out his post history, you were baiting the waters.

Edit - Holy typos Batman.

 

[DopaDO]

I was referring to the individual to which you replied, not you. Check out his post history, you were baiting the waters.

Ahhhhh gotcha. Sorry about that.

 

[WillburCobb]

Ahhhhh gotcha. Sorry about that.

No worries.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Not a troll. I'm a 3rd year student who has worked really hard to make my application as good as possible. Few DO students ace usmle and very few have the kind of research and extracurriculars that the average MD has. It is much easier for them to get involved in projects and get published. It's also easier for them to get good LORs instead of a lot of DOs having to settle for a LOR from a community FM doc. With that said, if you work hard you can overcome all of it.

My point is that it is a little harder as a DO but a lot of it has to do with DOs just not being as good of applicant as an MD.

Why do you think you have to settle for an LOR from a community FM doc? You still have core rotations in all specialties. I would imagine many very specialized fields like Neurotology would be difficult to find and secure a rotation at some places, but you still can very much get letters from EM, anesthesia, neurosurgery, etc.

Very few MD students ace the USMLE as well. Research opportunities are limited, but there is usually enough at the established campuses to be able to do a realistic project for a med student. If your goal is high impact journals in basic science, that is extremely difficult even as an MD student. You may be able to contribute enough to possibly get 7th author or something (if you get lucky it gets published before you apply to residency), but completing a project with 1st or 2nd author going into a journal with an impact factor >6 could take 2-3+ years of full time (50 hr/wk) work. The big advantage I do see is in clinical research which is easier to publish, but you won't be "punished" for doing basic science over clinical research. Any good PD will know that publications will be more rare for basic sciences.

The difficulty with some DO schools is accessing top quality rotations, but if you to a place like Western, PCOM, OSUCOM, MSUCOM, Nova, etc., you don't have to worry about that. If you end up at LUCOM, LMU-DCOM, KYCOM, etc., you could (not always) run into some rotation problems.

 

[BillrothI]

Do a larger proportion of DOs tend to gravitate toward fringe medicine when compared to their MD colleagues? I feel like I've seen an inordinate number of DOs contributing to sites like Mercola and Natural News.

Just something I've been curious about. Not trying to bash DOs - have several of them in my family - but I feel that highly visible quacks like the aforementioned Mercola could be giving DOs a bad name.

-Bill

 

[DopaDO]

Why do you think you have to settle for an LOR from a community FM doc? You still have core rotations in all specialties. I would imagine many very specialized fields like Neurotology would be difficult to find and secure a rotation at some places, but you still can very much get letters from EM, anesthesia, neurosurgery, etc.

Very few MD students ace the USMLE as well. Research opportunities are limited, but there is usually enough at the established campuses to be able to do a realistic project for a med student. If your goal is high impact journals in basic science, that is extremely difficult even as an MD student. You may be able to contribute enough to possibly get 7th author or something (if you get lucky it gets published before you apply to residency), but completing a project with 1st or 2nd author going into a journal with an impact factor >6 could take 2-3+ years of full time (50 hr/wk) work. The big advantage I do see is in clinical research which is easier to publish, but you won't be "punished" for doing basic science over clinical research. Any good PD will know that publications will be more rare for basic sciences.

The difficulty with some DO schools is accessing top quality rotations, but if you to a place like Western, PCOM, OSUCOM, MSUCOM, Nova, etc., you don't have to worry about that. If you end up at LUCOM, LMU-DCOM, KYCOM, etc., you could (not always) run into some rotation problems.

I go to a school that is consistently mentioned as one of the best DO schools. My point with the LOR from community family doc was more along the lines of me trying to say that most DO students rotate at community programs and get LOR from a nobody. It may still be a strong LOR from a radiologist, FM doc, or Surgeon, but it's a lot more difficult as a DO to secure a faculty letter bc you pretty much have to do an away rotation to get this. As an MD student, you get a meeting with the chairman for the specialty you are interested in so he can write you a LOR. This is such a huge for MDs. (Sorry if I'm doing a bad job explaining this, I'm just coming back from my first away and I'm exhausted).

As for research, I can only speak to my experiences. I have been involved in research but only because I have been extremely proactive about getting involved - I eventually got involved with some projects at a local MD school. My roommate is the only other person that I know of in our entire school that is doing research. There may be a few more out there but this is in massive contrast to the average MD candidate who can easily hop into some project with their local department.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Do a larger proportion of DOs tend to gravitate toward fringe medicine when compared to their MD colleagues? I feel like I've seen an inordinate number of DOs contributing to sites like Mercola and Natural News.

Just something I've been curious about. Not trying to bash DOs - have several of them in my family - but I feel that highly visible quacks like the aforementioned Mercola could be giving DOs a bad name.

-Bill

I don't think there are any statistics regarding this. The training itself isn't different than MD, but one could argue 20 years ago osteopathic medicine was less known by the general public compared to people that researched into alternative treatments and found DO.

 

[wjs010]

I'm pretty sure the only beef is with the comlex and 3rd year rotations..after that, there isn't a stigma...there pretty much isn't one anyway. But, if your school doesn't provide adequate rotations, isn't it possible to make up your own?

most of us incoming students would love to only take one licensing exam...

 

[hallowmann]

Why do you think you have to settle for an LOR from a community FM doc? You still have core rotations in all specialties. I would imagine many very specialized fields like Neurotology would be difficult to find and secure a rotation at some places, but you still can very much get letters from EM, anesthesia, neurosurgery, etc.

Very few MD students ace the USMLE as well. Research opportunities are limited, but there is usually enough at the established campuses to be able to do a realistic project for a med student. If your goal is high impact journals in basic science, that is extremely difficult even as an MD student. You may be able to contribute enough to possibly get 7th author or something (if you get lucky it gets published before you apply to residency), but completing a project with 1st or 2nd author going into a journal with an impact factor >6 could take 2-3+ years of full time (50 hr/wk) work. The big advantage I do see is in clinical research which is easier to publish, but you won't be "punished" for doing basic science over clinical research. Any good PD will know that publications will be more rare for basic sciences.

The difficulty with some DO schools is accessing top quality rotations, but if you to a place like Western, PCOM, OSUCOM, MSUCOM, Nova, etc., you don't have to worry about that. If you end up at LUCOM, LMU-DCOM, KYCOM, etc., you could (not always) run into some rotation problems.

1) Virtually all MD schools are affiliated directly with a large teaching hospital that contains within it most specialties. In addition, visiting professors, workshop leaders, etc. at those schools are usually from that facility and from a variety of specialties. That makes it much easier to network, shadow, do research with, etc. those physicians. The ones you meet teaching at DO school are usually a bunch of FM docs (nothing against them, many of whom are great), with some exceptions.

2) This is incorrect. DO schools are for one very variable in their research opportunities, and even when it is present it is usually not well funded (in comparison) and opportunities are few and far between. Its relatively easy for MD students at an institution with a decent amount of research (most mid-tier and up MD schools) to get those opportunities. Most DOs have to go out and find them at neighboring locations. Sure its possible, but you have to put a lot more legwork in to do it, and honestly a lot of DO students just won't.

Also to be clear, we're not talking necessarily high impact research/journals, we're talking any research opportunities that result in publications. If you have to work full-time for years to get 1st or 2nd author publications, either you aren't doing it right or your PD doesn't know how to play the game.

3) You can access top quality rotations on electives, you just have to put in some work (or so I hear and have soon others do so).

Do a larger proportion of DOs tend to gravitate toward fringe medicine when compared to their MD colleagues? I feel like I've seen an inordinate number of DOs contributing to sites like Mercola and Natural News.

Just something I've been curious about. Not trying to bash DOs - have several of them in my family - but I feel that highly visible quacks like the aforementioned Mercola could be giving DOs a bad name.

-Bill

Who knows? I doubt its really significant, but there are those people who go to DO school to be unique/alternative/only use OMT. They buy into stuff like cranial, and that OMT can cure everything under the sun.

In terms of asking whether it gives DOs a bad name, does Dr. Oz give MDs a bad name? There are tons of MDs that are quacks, punks, etc., but anyone actually trying to understand the degree knows that they're not representative of all MDs. The same goes for DOs. If people are looking for a way to justify their bias, they'll find it, but that has nothing to do with the crazies in any one group.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

1) Virtually all MD schools are affiliated directly with a large teaching hospital that contains within it most specialties. In addition, visiting professors, workshop leaders, etc. at those schools are usually from that facility and from a variety of specialties. That makes it much easier to network, shadow, do research with, etc. those physicians. The ones you meet teaching at DO school are usually a bunch of FM docs (nothing against them, many of whom are great), with some exceptions.

2) This is incorrect. DO schools are for one very variable in their research opportunities, and even when it is present it is usually not well funded (in comparison) and opportunities are few and far between. Its relatively easy for MD students at an institution with a decent amount of research (most mid-tier and up MD schools) to get those opportunities. Most DOs have to go out and find them at neighboring locations. Sure its possible, but you have to put a lot more legwork in to do it, and honestly a lot of DO students just won't.

Also to be clear, we're not talking necessarily high impact research/journals, we're talking any research opportunities that result in publications. If you have to work full-time for years to get 1st or 2nd author publications, either you aren't doing it right or your PD doesn't know how to play the game.

3) You can access top quality rotations on electives, you just have to put in some work (or so I hear and have soon others do so).



Who knows? I doubt its really significant, but there are those people who go to DO school to be unique/alternative/only use OMT. They buy into stuff like cranial, and that OMT can cure everything under the sun.

In terms of asking whether it gives DOs a bad name, does Dr. Oz give MDs a bad name? There are tons of MDs that are quacks, punks, etc., but anyone actually trying to understand the degree knows that they're not representative of all MDs. The same goes for DOs. If people are looking for a way to justify their bias, they'll find it, but that has nothing to do with the crazies in any one group.

Not true at all when it comes to high impact journals. I work at one of the top labs in its field and we consistently have people spend 3 or more years for papers in top journals. We are talking cell, nature and science. Even the ones going to journal of neuroscience or neuron take 2 or 3 years. Real high impact basic science takes a long time.

Also, I've seen the research opportunities for western, Touro CA, msu, osu, pcom, ccom, nyit and a few others. The opportunities are there for basic science if you want it. They may not be the top, but they are good enough to get published at respectable journals. I think DO students generally are not interested in research and feel they wouldn't be competitive for the top programs even if they did, so they put their time on boards.

 

[hallowmann]

Not true at all when it comes to high impact journals. I work at one of the top labs in its field and we consistently have people spend 3 or more years for papers in top journals. We are talking cell, nature and science. Even the ones going to journal of neuroscience or neuron take 2 or 3 years. Real high impact basic science takes a long time.

If you read my quote, I wasn't talking about strictly high impact research. Unless your ultimate goal is primarily research, any research in the field of your interest that you participate as a primary figure in (i.e. 1st or 2nd author) is sufficient for applying for residencies in most fields.

Also, I've seen the research opportunities for western, Touro CA, msu, osu, pcom, ccom, nyit and a few others. The opportunities are there for basic science if you want it. They may not be the top, but they are good enough to get published at respectable journals. I think DO students generally are not interested in research and feel they wouldn't be competitive for the top programs even if they did, so they put their time on boards.

MSU, OSU, PCOM, and CCOM are arguably the best DO schools with the most research funding (which is still significantly dwarfed by even the average MD school's funding/opportunities). They are certainly not representative of all 37 (or is it 39 now) DO schools in the country. I've seen the facilities and opportunities at many DO schools as well, and have not been impressed. Now I admit, I've never been to Touro-CA, but every other DO school I saw/looked at for research was not impressive.

I'll agree with you that most DO students don't care about research, but the argument isn't about whether DO students care about research, its about whether the opportunities are as available/pervasive for the average DO student as they are for the average MD student. They aren't.

Sure, like I said, handfuls of opportunities for basic research exists, but not in the same amount as are available for the average MD student. Its easier for them to mark that research check box than it is for DO students, because of that extra availability and those connections. To be clear, again, I'm not saying DOs couldn't get research experience if they wanted it (they can and do all the time, just look at average stats of DOs in many of the moderate to competitive fields in the NRMP match). They do, however, have to put in more legwork to do it than the average MD.

 

[touchpause13]

I was talking to an HMS/UCSF MD physician 2 days ago. He told me that if Osteopathic Medicine wants to prove the training is equivalent then we must move to the single accreditation GME (which we are) and for all of us to take the USMLE too (which we might).

The problem with boards is that no one really wants to take 2.

However at a talk with our Dean yesterday he mentioned that they are trying to move towards getting rid of the COMLEX and instead have the USMLE and USMLE-O. With the only difference being the USMLE-O would have an additional OMM section.

 

[Dreamstoo]

Father has been a practicing MD for 30 years, he knows of some very well off DOs who are doing great career wise and work for top notched hospitals in the tri-state area. For those who have the stigma, as a DO (if I do become one), I will just laugh it off cause I know we're all doctors nonetheless.

 

[SuperMinion]

There is no universal stigma- only the one that some (mostly people on this forum) hold in their own mind.

My two cents comes from working 7 years as a paramedic and 5 years as a scribe. I've worked with a bunch of DO's and MD's and if it weren't for the letters on their ID card I would never be able to tell them apart.

One of our most liked cardiologists is DO.

As professionals they all treat each other with respect. I have never heard or overheard any doctor bashing another doctor because he's DO.

If you want to do this for the right reasons and your heart and soul are in it, it doesn't matter what school you go to in the long run.

My experience has been exactly the same, at least in a community (university affiliated) setting. I worked in a community hospital in NJ for 7 years as an LPN in the OR (community hospital, but 2 residency programs rotated through there), and we had some DOs among the surgeons and anesthesiologists. I didn't see any difference in how they were treated by other docs, the staff, or the patients, and I shadowed one for quite a bit while I was working there. I also couldn't see a significant difference in skill. One of the surgeons was not the best but not the worst, and one of the DO anesthesiologists was probably the best one in the group. I don't think either of those had anything to do with the initials after their names.

I also worked at a small hospital in Texas, and I think there was one DO there. I don't think anyone knew what a DO was, but they all knew he was a physician. I don't think most people (even staff) pay much attention to the initials. If you say you're their doctor, they'll probably just believe you.

Now, I've never worked at a hospital with an allopathic program. I did work at one of the primary sites for the UMDNJ-SOM general surgery residency and vascular surgery fellowship, but every doc in that OR was a DO just about.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

If you read my quote, I wasn't talking about strictly high impact research. Unless your ultimate goal is primarily research, any research in the field of your interest that you participate as a primary figure in (i.e. 1st or 2nd author) is sufficient for applying for residencies in most fields.

MSU, OSU, PCOM, and CCOM are arguably the best DO schools with the most research funding (which is still significantly dwarfed by even the average MD school's funding/opportunities). They are certainly not representative of all 37 (or is it 39 now) DO schools in the country. I've seen the facilities and opportunities at many DO schools as well, and have not been impressed. Now I admit, I've never been to Touro-CA, but every other DO school I saw/looked at for research was not impressive.

I'll agree with you that most DO students don't care about research, but the argument isn't about whether DO students care about research, its about whether the opportunities are as available/pervasive for the average DO student as they are for the average MD student. They aren't.

Sure, like I said, handfuls of opportunities for basic research exists, but not in the same amount as are available for the average MD student. Its easier for them to mark that research check box than it is for DO students, because of that extra availability and those connections. To be clear, again, I'm not saying DOs couldn't get research experience if they wanted it (they can and do all the time, just look at average stats of DOs in many of the moderate to competitive fields in the NRMP match). They do, however, have to put in more legwork to do it than the average MD.

If we are talking about just research, the opportunities are there, but if we are talking about specific research, I would agree it's limited. I would agree that many programs would like to see research in their field, but many students change their mind on what they want to do. Because of that, most places are interested in your desire to do research and know that skills are adaptable to other research. I currently work in Pain and Itch research but found a cancer drug lab at the school I'll be attending. 100% of what I do is applicable to what they do at this cancer lab.

The truth is I don't know about research at all DO campuses, but I'll say for most of the older programs there is some. You won't run into trouble finding something on campus at: Touro-CA, WesternU-Pomona, AZCOM, CCOM, TCOM, NSU, DMU, UNECOM, MSUCOM, KCUMB, NSUCOM, Rowan, NYIT, OUCOM, OSUCOM and PCOM. That's 16 campuses.

We can agree that MD opportunities are much more than at DO schools, but I think as long as DO students are aiming for mid-tier programs and come from an established school, inability to do is more about the student than the campus.

 

[CSqueed]

If we are talking about just research, the opportunities are there, but if we are talking about specific research, I would agree it's limited. I would agree that many programs would like to see research in their field, but many students change their mind on what they want to do. Because of that, most places are interested in your desire to do research and know that skills are adaptable to other research. I currently work in Pain and Itch research but found a cancer drug lab at the school I'll be attending. 100% of what I do is applicable to what they do at this cancer lab.

The truth is I don't know about research at all DO campuses, but I'll say for most of the older programs there is some. You won't run into trouble finding something on campus at: Touro-CA, WesternU-Pomona, AZCOM, CCOM, TCOM, NSU, DMU, UNECOM, MSUCOM, KCUMB, NSUCOM, Rowan, NYIT, OUCOM, OSUCOM and PCOM. That's 16 campuses.

We can agree that MD opportunities are much more than at DO schools, but I think as long as DO students are aiming for mid-tier programs and come from an established school, inability to do is more about the student than the campus.

I know WesternU boasts research opportunities, but in reality the students who want their research to come with good LORs, publications, basically something more meaningful, etc. they do something at UCLA or UCI.

Touro-CA research is a sham. When I interviewed there a couple years back, the tour guide said most students do their research in the summer at a different location if they want a good publication.

 

[CSqueed]

The problem with boards is that no one really wants to take 2.

However at a talk with our Dean yesterday he mentioned that they are trying to move towards getting rid of the COMLEX and instead have the USMLE and USMLE-O. With the only difference being the USMLE-O would have an additional OMM section.

Wouldn't this cause some problems with the overall scoring? Like how would you be able to compare a score on the USMLE to the USMLE-O? Say an MD student gets a 250 on the USMLE vs a DO student with a 250 on the USMLE-O... Residencies may see that as them just using the OMM section to boost their overall score, which would then just continue the bias, that is unless they offered to give two separate scores on a USMLE-O: one including the OMM section and one NOT including the OMM section.

 

[touchpause13]

My thought would be they should do it like the writing section on the MCAT. Have the USMLE part be a number and the OMM part be a letter. Problem solved

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I know WesternU boasts research opportunities, but in reality the students who want their research to come with good LORs, publications, basically something more meaningful, etc. they do something at UCLA or UCI.

Touro-CA research is a sham. When I interviewed there a couple years back, the tour guide said most students do their research in the summer at a different location if they want a good publication.

For the summer that's just normal for any institution MD or DO. I have a friend at Arizona MD that did her summer at Stanford. It had nothing to do with the ability to find meaningful mentors. She just wanted to be close to home.

What I'm talking about is research during the school year. Yes, your publications won't be as amazing as if you're an MD student at UCSD, but you generally have research that's published and done well, which is sufficient for what osteopathic medicine can get you: low-mid tier ACGME.

 

[NeuroLAX]

The problem with boards is that no one really wants to take 2.

However at a talk with our Dean yesterday he mentioned that they are trying to move towards getting rid of the COMLEX and instead have the USMLE and USMLE-O. With the only difference being the USMLE-O would have an additional OMM section.

I'm shocked your Dean said that. Did he say anything more?