Would you master OMM and other topics to apply to AOA (DO) ROADs residencies?

[SpecterGT260]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be defensive. Did it come off that way? To me it does seem like he was commenting on the quality of the schools since he was explaining to Mass Effect why 'DO schools have less stringent training on average' does not mean that each and every school is worse since even if one school is worse it would bring down the average so that the average DO school would be lower in quality. He then goes on to further bolster his argument by explaining how having less stringent admissions requirements can result in a lower quality student/physician which might be true but that doesn't mean that the student is getting a lower quality education at the school.

I was only pointing out a flaw in mass's logic, and then extending my point on averages in a way that would make sense (hopefully). I do think DO schools, on average, have reduced quality of programs compared to MD. That makes sense, though. They have less funding, are much newer, are not usually associated with major hospitals. The same is true for new MD schools... but in the grander scheme there are far fewer of those relative to the bulk of programs available than there are in the DO world. Those which overcome these obstacles are likely every bit as good, provide all the same opportunities to their students, and likely are much more competitive as a result.

 

[Darkskies]

That is fair, but the two do go somewhat hand in hand. If we want to talk only about DO school quality - many (most?) DO schools struggle with getting clerkship sites. Some have long standing agreements with nearby hospitals to accommodate their students. Some leave it up to the student to coordinate a rotation off site. Some people find a silver lining in this, but it is my opinion that quality control of clerkships will suffer by farming them out and most DO schools are unable to have their clerkships in-house.

That's true. I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts. My school has its own teaching hospital but you're right that some other DO schools are lacking in this area. However, the argument that was being made by music2doc and some others was that the education given during the basic science years was somehow inferior to that provided in MD schools. I got the impression that they were insisting that there is a big difference in quality between MD and DO students rotating at this hospital and then went on to conclude that the education/training given during the first two years at the DO school must be inferior. I stated that I didn't think this was true since the only TANGIBLE metric used to assess this are the board exams at the end of 2nd year and since the students had passed that must mean the school did its job of providing the requisite education to begin on the wards.

They then went on to state how during their M1/M2 years they are getting quite a lot of clinical exposure that will help them on the wards. That might be true but this is only specific to their own MD school. Other MD schools probably do not provide as much clinical exposure during the basic science years while many DO schools probably provide the same amount of clinical exposure. I further referred to how the more cynical medical students and physicians think that what clinical training is given during the first two years is not very useful for when you are actually on the wards..

 

[ilMaestro]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be defensive. Did it come off that way? To me it does seem like he was commenting on the quality of the schools since he was explaining to Mass Effect why 'DO schools have less stringent training on average' does not mean that each and every school is worse since even if one school is worse it would bring down the average so that the average DO school would be lower in quality. He then goes on to further bolster his argument by explaining how having less stringent admissions requirements can result in a lower quality student/physician which might be true but that doesn't mean that the student is getting a lower quality education at the school.

Maybe I'm just used to DO students being overly defensive. his example mentioned one school, which would be an outlier and not really affecting the average.

To clarify, I don't think he saying a poorer quality is inherent to DO school's.

 

[Darkskies]

I was only pointing out a flaw in mass's logic, and then extending my point on averages in a way that would make sense (hopefully). I do think DO schools, on average, have reduced quality of programs compared to MD. That makes sense, though. They have less funding, are much newer, are not usually associated with major hospitals. The same is true for new MD schools... but in the grander scheme there are far fewer of those relative to the bulk of programs available than there are in the DO world. Those which overcome these obstacles are likely every bit as good, provide all the same opportunities to their students, and likely are much more competitive as a result.

Isn't most of the funding used for research purposes? It's true that DO schools are severely lacking in the research department but that doesn't have much to do with training one to be a physician. You're right that DO schools have less funding and are not usually associated with major hospitals. If it's true that the funding received by schools is mainly used for research purposes I don't think that really factors in to assessing the quality of a physician. Many MD students don't do any research even though their school has tons of opportunities while more ambitious DO students do research at major institutions with away rotations.. The fact that DO schools aren't usually associated with major hospitals is a real issue and difference in quality but the original argument stemmed from the fact that certain commenters were insisting that the education DO schools provide during the basic science years was inferior and not sufficient for students to begin on the wards(even though they had passed their boards).

 

[music2doc]

DOs make great physicians. So do MDs. Let's all be friends and sing...

j/k, but seriously... let's turn the vitriol upon the DNPs because, you know, they suck and are basically worse than Chiros (who also deserve our wrath).

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

j/k, but seriously... let's turn the vitriol upon the DNPs because, you know, they suck and are basically worse than Chiros (who also deserve our wrath).

You mean more deserving of scorn than chiros right? When it comes to medical decisions DNP > Chiro.

 

[peteB]

I agree, that is a bigger issue.

But because a forum conversation is not going to solve either, it isn't like getting distracted by these topics is going to really impact DNP expansion in any way whatsoever.

That's true. I was just saying that developing animosity between MDs and DOs is not good because we need to stand together in order to protect our profession from DNP enchroachment.

The British Empire used this technique (as one of many) to maintain their power. They would pit tribes and groups of people in places they ruled against each other so they wouldn't join forces and pose a threat to the Empire.

 

[SpecterGT260]

That's true. I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts. My school has its own teaching hospital but you're right that some other DO schools are lacking in this area. However, the argument that was being made by music2doc and some others was that the education given during the basic science years was somehow inferior to that provided in MD schools. I got the impression that they were insisting that there is a big difference in quality between MD and DO students rotating at this hospital and then went on to conclude that the education/training given during the first two years at the DO school must be inferior. I stated that I didn't think this was true since the only TANGIBLE metric used to assess this are the board exams at the end of 2nd year and since the students had passed that must mean the school did its job of providing the requisite education to begin on the wards.

They then went on to state how during their M1/M2 years they are getting quite a lot of clinical exposure that will help them on the wards. That might be true but this is only specific to their own MD school. Other MD schools probably do not provide as much clinical exposure during the basic science years while many DO schools probably provide the same amount of clinical exposure. I further referred to how the more cynical medical students and physicians think that what clinical training is given during the first two years is not very useful for when you are actually on the wards..

Well.... no... nothing anyone learns M1/M2 are going to make them better/worse in the wards. We do patient interactions, both standardized and not before really entering the clinic..... but I would be fooling myself if I were to say this has any real impact on how my first weeks as an M3 will be. If anything I would say that OMM may give you guys a temporary edge when examining patients just because you are much more used to having your hands on people. We do physical exam stuff about once a week for a semester, then there are assessments with individual labs to teach new techniques and keep things fresh. But even then.... the only impact is that we arent completely green when the clinic hits.

However, if we want to talk correlations and pre-clinic years (This is just theoretical btw).... We have agreed that there are, on average, lower entry requirements for DO schools. The literature out there does correlate entry scores with board scores, but does also allow for variability, and it does correlate academic success with entry scores (nothing said about down the road practice success, btw).

So lets say, for example, we have a pool of people with increased academic difficulty or at least a lower level of academic success as compared to another pool. They are exposed to the same material as the other pool, but are also forced to learn something in addition. Do you think maybe retention as a whole might suffer? Personally, I know I am not remembering everything to begin with and it is all based on course load and volume/time of material. If I had another course thrown at me, even something small, I would think it is reasonable that my performance in one or all of the others may suffer to a degree (big? small? dunno....)

Add to that a statistically significant decrease in performance metrics and..... well.... I dont think it is so outrageous to say that DO curriculum, on average, imposes unnecessary hurdles as compared to MD curriculum concerning pre-clinical training. I have yet to find good data on DO USMLE scores. We know that within ACGME programs they historically can only compete on a repeating basis in primary care and lower competitive specialties. Is this because of an on average greater level of difficulty with step1 (i.e. the pre-clinical knowledge test)? Is it MD bias in the programs? Hard to say without the actual score data. It could be both, one/other, or neither. But its at least something to keep in mind, I think.

Isn't most of the funding used for research purposes? It's true that DO schools are severely lacking in the research department but that doesn't have much to do with training one to be a physician. You're right that DO schools have less funding and are not usually associated with major hospitals. If it's true that the funding received by schools is mainly used for research purposes I don't think that really factors in to assessing the quality of a physician. Many MD students don't do any research even though their school has tons of opportunities while more ambitious DO students do research at major institutions with away rotations.. The fact that DO schools aren't usually associated with major hospitals is a real issue and difference in quality but the original argument stemmed from the fact that certain commenters were insisting that the education DO schools provide during the basic science years was inferior and not sufficient for students to begin on the wards(even though they had passed their boards).

Lots of money goes to research, yes. But I dont think it is most. The funding of the school is often tied to the funding of the hospital. The hospital we use is technically owned by the college of medicine. The funding goes into expanding the hospital, developing departments, and that sort of thing (yes... I ended the list that way because I couldnt come up with a 3rd option 😛). Clinical opportunities are simply greater at a big hospital. I will get to see more than a student who is forced to do a rotation at a small community or underfunded (lacking equipment/resources/expertise/qualification) hospital or department.

DOs make great physicians. So do MDs. Let's all be friends and sing...

j/k, but seriously... let's turn the vitriol upon the DNPs because, you know, they suck and are basically worse than Chiros (who also deserve our wrath).

Is kumbaya the appropriate peace song? How about something a little more rocking? Highway to hell?

 

[music2doc]

You mean more deserving of scorn than chiros right? When it comes to medical decisions DNP > Chiro.

Yes, I was being a bit facetious. Personally, I'd rather be treated by a Massage Therapist than a Chiro (at least the former knows when to say, "Oh ****, this seems weird. You should go see your doctor!" and doesn't try to treat the mystical tumor away by additional spinal manipulations or something). The DNP is still a mid-level and I sure as heck would want a PA over a Chiro as well. I honestly see little purpose for Chiros. What makes them unique from a PT besides a total disregard for Science? They are to PTs as Scientology is to Mental Health and "Naturopathic Doctors" are to MDs/DOs.

 

[SpecterGT260]

That's true. I was just saying that developing animosity between MDs and DOs is not good because we need to stand together in order to protect our profession from DNP enchroachment.

The British Empire used this technique (as one of many) to maintain their power. They would pit tribes and groups of people in places they ruled against each other so they wouldn't join forces and pose a threat to the Empire.

But DNPs aren't British. They don't have mid levels there.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yes, I was being a bit facetious. Personally, I'd rather be treated by a Massage Therapist than a Chiro (at least the former knows when to say, "Oh ****, this seems weird. You should go see your doctor!" and doesn't try to treat the mystical tumor away by additional spinal manipulations or something). The DNP is still a mid-level and I sure as heck would want a PA over a Chiro as well. I honestly see little purpose for Chiros. What makes them unique from a PT besides a total disregard for Science? They are to PTs as Scientology is to Mental Health and "Naturopathic Doctors" are to MDs/DOs.

waiting for the facetguy appearance.


p.s. PA > DNP

 

[peteB]

But DNPs aren't British. They don't have mid levels there.

Not true, they do have nurse practitioners in the UK.

http://www.nursepractitioner.org.uk/

"Nurse Practitioners 'better than doctors'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/apr/05/nhsstaff.NHS

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

Yes, I was being a bit facetious. Personally, I'd rather be treated by a Massage Therapist than a Chiro (at least the former knows when to say, "Oh ****, this seems weird. You should go see your doctor!" and doesn't try to treat the mystical tumor away by additional spinal manipulations or something). The DNP is still a mid-level and I sure as heck would want a PA over a Chiro as well. I honestly see little purpose for Chiros. What makes them unique from a PT besides a total disregard for Science? They are to PTs as Scientology is to Mental Health and "Naturopathic Doctors" are to MDs/DOs.

I think about it like this:

Politics - The process of people ensuring they get theirs.

 

[music2doc]

waiting for the facetguy appearance.


p.s. PA > DNP

👍👍👍

 

[SpecterGT260]

Not true, they do have nurse practitioners in the UK.

http://www.nursepractitioner.org.uk/

"Nurse Practitioners 'better than doctors'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/apr/05/nhsstaff.NHS

I was... um... aw screw it 🙄

That just wasn't my point at all hint: I didnt have a point, I was trolling you with that last post.

 

[peteB]

I was... um... aw screw it 🙄

That just wasn't my point at all hint: I didnt have a point, I was trolling you with that last post.

Lol sorry, I am just used to being in argumentative mode with you.

 

[xenotype]

Isn't most of the funding used for research purposes? It's true that DO schools are severely lacking in the research department but that doesn't have much to do with training one to be a physician. You're right that DO schools have less funding and are not usually associated with major hospitals. If it's true that the funding received by schools is mainly used for research purposes I don't think that really factors in to assessing the quality of a physician. Many MD students don't do any research even though their school has tons of opportunities while more ambitious DO students do research at major institutions with away rotations.. The fact that DO schools aren't usually associated with major hospitals is a real issue and difference in quality but the original argument stemmed from the fact that certain commenters were insisting that the education DO schools provide during the basic science years was inferior and not sufficient for students to begin on the wards(even though they had passed their boards).

We literally can't afford for every new medical school in this country to have its own university hospital, biomedical research building, and $10 million+ in NIH research funding per year. It is economically impossible. What we do need is a lot more doctors than we have now. People have to accept at some point that medical schools won't meet the standards of extremely well established and well endowed MD schools. It would take over $200 million to build every new medical school if we required each to have a hospital and substantial laboratory space. Right now, it takes $50 million just to build a brand new DO school. Ofcourse rotations are going to be inconsistent and research opportunities dented, but there is no other way to do it with the limits of economic reality.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Lol sorry, I am just used to being in argumentative mode with you.

You'll get over it 👍

 

[Darkskies]

Well.... no... nothing anyone learns M1/M2 are going to make them better/worse in the wards. We do patient interactions, both standardized and not before really entering the clinic..... but I would be fooling myself if I were to say this has any real impact on how my first weeks as an M3 will be. If anything I would say that OMM may give you guys a temporary edge when examining patients just because you are much more used to having your hands on people. We do physical exam stuff about once a week for a semester, then there are assessments with individual labs to teach new techniques and keep things fresh. But even then.... the only impact is that we arent completely green when the clinic hits.

However, if we want to talk correlations and pre-clinic years (This is just theoretical btw).... We have agreed that there are, on average, lower entry requirements for DO schools. The literature out there does correlate entry scores with board scores, but does also allow for variability, and it does correlate academic success with entry scores (nothing said about down the road practice success, btw).

So lets say, for example, we have a pool of people with increased academic difficulty or at least a lower level of academic success as compared to another pool. They are exposed to the same material as the other pool, but are also forced to learn something in addition. Do you think maybe retention as a whole might suffer? Personally, I know I am not remembering everything to begin with and it is all based on course load and volume/time of material. If I had another course thrown at me, even something small, I would think it is reasonable that my performance in one or all of the others may suffer to a degree (big? small? dunno....)

Add to that a statistically significant decrease in performance metrics and..... well.... I dont think it is so outrageous to say that DO curriculum, on average, imposes unnecessary hurdles as compared to MD curriculum concerning pre-clinical training. I have yet to find good data on DO USMLE scores. We know that within ACGME programs they historically can only compete on a repeating basis in primary care and lower competitive specialties. Is this because of an on average greater level of difficulty with step1 (i.e. the pre-clinical knowledge test)? Is it MD bias in the programs? Hard to say without the actual score data. It could be both, one/other, or neither. But its at least something to keep in mind, I think.




Lots of money goes to research, yes. But I dont think it is most. The funding of the school is often tied to the funding of the hospital. The hospital we use is technically owned by the college of medicine. The funding goes into expanding the hospital, developing departments, and that sort of thing (yes... I ended the list that way because I couldnt come up with a 3rd option 😛). Clinical opportunities are simply greater at a big hospital. I will get to see more than a student who is forced to do a rotation at a small community or underfunded (lacking equipment/resources/expertise/qualification) hospital or department.


Is kumbaya the appropriate peace song? How about something a little more rocking? Highway to hell?

So you agree then that the clinical exposure given during MS1/MS2 is not very helpful in the grand scheme of things. The idea that it was helpful was the major part of the argument that the DO school curriculum was inferior given earlier by some commenters.

No one has been arguing against the fact that DO students on average have less stellar academic credentials. Many have agreed that this might correlate with poorer performance on average. As you say OMM is an additional course but it is largely a joke. According to what I've read an MD student could pass the COMLEX by just studying the OMM book by Savarese for a week. I don't think it takes any more time away from a student than what actively participating in a club would. You stating that the DO curriculum which is just the addition of OMM imposes unnecessary hurdles as compared to the MD curriculum with regards to pre-clinical training is frivolous IMO. It's like the princess complaining that she can't sleep because of a single pea under 40 mattresses(yes.. weird analogy). The bottom line is that it's really not that big a deal. To the extent that the students are perceived to be performing poorly vis a vis the MD students at this hospital I think it must be either be due to inherent issues that the students themselves bring to the table or greater scrutiny/prejudice. Why blame the school's curriculum?

If you go over to the specialty forums you'll see that there are many DOs with 250s on their Step 1s who are sometimes failing to receive interviews from the top 10 programs in even EM so there is clearly bias. Also DOs compete in nearly every specialty rather decently on the ACGME side except for Dermatology, Ophthalmology, and the surgical specialties. They are not just limited to the lower competitive specialties since the ones they are largely excluded from are specialties that are immensely hard for allopathic students to obtain as well(except for general surgery). It is an uphill battle for DOs to be admitted to top 10 programs in most specialties and to be admitted to any program in the extremely competitive specialties I mentioned before. However DOs routinely obtain positions in competitive programs(except for the top 10) in IM, EM, FM, Anesthesia, Radiology, Ob/GYN, Peds,Psych,etc.

I would bet that DOs on average don't do as well on the USMLE as MD students do but what's your point? They didn't perform as well in college/MCAT on average either. This predicts that their scores on the USMLE would be lower on average too. Why would you relate this to what/how they're being taught in school when it's much more likely that the average DO student is not as good at standardized exams? DOs are overrepresented in primary care specialties likely because either many desire to practice as a primary care physician or they didn't perform as well on their boards which is also predicted by the fact that the average entering stats are lower. I doubt it's the curriculum where there's really no difference except for OMM.

I remember reading somewhere that most funding goes towards research. You even admit that the funding goes towards expanding the hospital. We've already agreed that clinical opportunities are greater at a big hospital and that most MD schools have better organized clinical years and more opportunity to give a well-rounded clinical education. The argument was whether the basic science curriculum between MD and DO schools was distinct or not in any meaningful way and whether the education given during the first two years is good for anything other than learning the medical knowledge necessary for doing well on the boards. Also even though it is patently true that the 3rd/4th year is important in building a foundation for residency I've read that the bulk of your clinical training is acquired where someone does their residency anyway and not from 3rd/4th year rotations.

 

[peteB]

If you go over to the specialty forums you'll see that there are many DOs with 250s on their Step 1s who are sometimes failing to receive interviews from the top 10 programs in even EM so there is clearly bias.

I know US graduated MDs who have scores in the 250s and didn't get interviews at the top 10 programs in EM either. It's really really hard to get into the top 10 in anything.

 

[SpecterGT260]

So you agree then that the clinical exposure given during MS1/MS2 is not very helpful in the grand scheme of things. The idea that it was helpful was the major part of the argument that the DO school curriculum was inferior given earlier by some commenters.

👍 Then we agree here. I have seen a few real and standardized patients at this point. Done assessments and plans.... It isn't going to mean anything for next year. At best I will be familiar with the clinic note format and be a little better at tying my ties than I was pre-medschool

No one has been arguing against the fact that DO students on average have less stellar academic credentials. Many have agreed that this might correlate with poorer performance on average. As you say OMM is an additional course but it is largely a joke. According to what I've read an MD student could pass the COMLEX by just studying the OMM book by Savarese for a week. I don't think it takes any more time away from a student than what actively participating in a club would. You stating that the DO curriculum which is just the addition of OMM imposes unnecessary hurdles as compared to the MD curriculum with regards to pre-clinical training is frivolous IMO. It's like the princess complaining that she can't sleep because of a single pea under 40 mattresses(yes.. weird analogy). The bottom line is that it's really not that big a deal. To the extent that the students are perceived to be performing poorly vis a vis the MD students at this hospital I think it must be either be due to inherent issues that the students themselves bring to the table or greater scrutiny/prejudice. Why blame the school's curriculum?

I wasnt saying it was significant. I know that smallgroups for us are a headache when you have to devote an hour of productivity to them when you could be reviewing for the test. OMM, I was just saying, is a non-zero factor. It could be minimal, but that isn't really the point.

As for "why blame the school's curriculum"... is this your first day? 😛 Just suggest that the average DO student isn't as "good", whatever that means, as the average MD student and people riot in here. I don't know that the schools are being blamed, necessarily. Just that things are put together as a package when compared. All or one of the factors listed impacts the final result. It isnt really all that important to me to nitpick which one it is.

If you go over to the specialty forums you'll see that there are many DOs with 250s on their Step 1s who are sometimes failing to receive interviews from the top 10 programs in even EM so there is clearly bias. Also DOs compete in nearly every specialty rather decently on the ACGME side except for Dermatology, Ophthalmology, and the surgical specialties. They are not just limited to the lower competitive specialties since the ones they are largely excluded from are specialties that are immensely hard for allopathic students to obtain as well(except for general surgery). It is an uphill battle for DOs to be admitted to top 10 programs in most specialties and to be admitted to any program in the extremely competitive specialties I mentioned before. However DOs routinely obtain positions in competitive programs(except for the top 10) in IM, EM, FM, Anesthesia, Radiology, Ob/GYN, Peds,Psych,etc.

Yeah... I agree

My point wasn't to definitively highlight and pinpoint the shortcomings of DO education. I was just saying that people can't really have their cake and eat it too. You seem comfortable with accepting that average stats are lower going in. This throws some people into a fit.

I would bet that DOs on average don't do as well on the USMLE as MD students do but what's your point? They didn't perform as well in college/MCAT on average either. This predicts that their scores on the USMLE would be lower on average too. Why would you relate this to what/how they're being taught in school when it's much more likely that the average DO student is not as good at standardized exams? DOs are overrepresented in primary care specialties likely because either many desire to practice as a primary care physician or they didn't perform as well on their boards which is also predicted by the fact that the average entering stats are lower. I doubt it's the curriculum where there's really no difference except for OMM.

I remember reading somewhere that most funding goes towards research. You even admit that the funding goes towards expanding the hospital. We've already agreed that clinical opportunities are greater at a big hospital and that most MD schools have better organized clinical years and more opportunity to give a well-rounded clinical education. The argument was whether the basic science curriculum between MD and DO schools was distinct or not in any meaningful way and whether the education given during the first two years is good for anything other than learning the medical knowledge necessary for doing well on the boards. Also even though it is patently true that the 3rd/4th year is important in building a foundation for residency I've read that the bulk of your clinical training is acquired where someone does their residency anyway and not from 3rd/4th year rotations.

If that is the point you are arguing, we don't disagree on anything Again, my point was to address an inconsistency in another posters point. IMO DO students will probably struggle more in the basic sciences, on average, because they have historically done so in UG and on the MCAT. Some people object pretty violently to this so that is why I bring up other such arguments..... something's gotta give, or else UG performance has literally zero correlation to medschool performance, a notion that is already shown to be wrong.

Question: if DO schools provide the same level of didactic training in years 1/2, AND DO students on average are less academically savvy, would you expect attrition rates to be higher in DO schools?

And before anyone rages on this - I am not saying this is fact... i am just trying to follow through all the points logically. With the assumption that UG performance and medschool performance are statistically correlated... what does that mean down the road?

 

[peteB]

Yeah... I agree

I keep seeing this emoticon you are using and I always think it is a guy hooked up to two electrodes getting shocked or something. I am not surprised that a scenario like that would be neccessary to get you to agree with someone 🙂

 

[SpecterGT260]

Its a shrug.


This one is a thumbsup 👍

🙂 (that one is a smile)

 

[Darkskies]

👍 Then we agree here. I have seen a few real and standardized patients at this point. Done assessments and plans.... It isn't going to mean anything for next year. At best I will be familiar with the clinic note format and be a little better at tying my ties than I was pre-medschool


I wasnt saying it was significant. I know that smallgroups for us are a headache when you have to devote an hour of productivity to them when you could be reviewing for the test. OMM, I was just saying, is a non-zero factor. It could be minimal, but that isn't really the point.

As for "why blame the school's curriculum"... is this your first day? 😛 Just suggest that the average DO student isn't as "good", whatever that means, as the average MD student and people riot in here. I don't know that the schools are being blamed, necessarily. Just that things are put together as a package when compared. All or one of the factors listed impacts the final result. It isnt really all that important to me to nitpick which one it is.

Yeah... I agree

My point wasn't to definitively highlight and pinpoint the shortcomings of DO education. I was just saying that people can't really have their cake and eat it too. You seem comfortable with accepting that average stats are lower going in. This throws some people into a fit.



If that is the point you are arguing, we don't disagree on anything Again, my point was to address an inconsistency in another posters point. IMO DO students will probably struggle more in the basic sciences, on average, because they have historically done so in UG and on the MCAT. Some people object pretty violently to this so that is why I bring up other such arguments..... something's gotta give, or else UG performance has literally zero correlation to medschool performance, a notion that is already shown to be wrong.

Question: if DO schools provide the same level of didactic training in years 1/2, AND DO students on average are less academically savvy, would you expect attrition rates to be higher in DO schools?

And before anyone rages on this - I am not saying this is fact... i am just trying to follow through all the points logically. With the assumption that UG performance and medschool performance are statistically correlated... what does that mean down the road?

I'm just very honest about things. Thankfully we're on the allopathic forum and not pre-allo where you're more likely to get flamed and attacked for stating simple facts. I just think it's kind of dishonest and perverse to say that you prefer the DO pathway or the holistic method of treating a patient when the real reason is that you couldn't get accepted anywhere else. Of course there are a certain number of DOs who did choose this pathway because of preconceived benefits to the treatment/education modality(which doesn't actually exist but is propagandized to exist) but I doubt that's true in most cases. In my case, I know my stats were too low(GPA:3.47 and MCAT: 32) and I remember how I was struggling to decide whether to do a special master's program or go DO and I remember how agitated and touchy people got on the pre-osteo forum. In the end I didn't think I could risk being in possibly 400k of debt(OOS tuition for 5 years of med school) or even the slight possibility of not getting accepted next year to the affiliated MD program. I still wonder about it but I can't change it now..

That being said DOs are still physicians and get nearly the exact same training which is what my point has been. Even though 3rd/4th year rotations leave something to be desired at some schools you can still get into a good residency program where the bulk of your training commences. So the fact that some DO schools have somewhat less well-rounded clinical exposure shouldn't be too much of a hindrance in getting into a good residency and becoming a well-trained physician. Some of the commenters before made it appear as if there was a stark difference between DOs and MDs in the quality of their education(and thus the quality of their expertise) which I don't agree with. Most likely you have a varying pool of DOs with some who are amazing and others who are more mediocre. This is the same case with the varying pool of MDs except the pool will skew towards having greater numbers of very competent and knowledgeable clinicians.

The argument stemmed from the fact that someone asserted that DO schools have weaker training which is why PDs are biased against DOs. What I think more likely(since the medical education and training is nearly identical for the reasons given above) is that PDs are biased against DOs because of pedigree and the fact that in extremely competitive specialties they can afford to be picky. The stories that music2doc related kind of rubbed me the wrong way since they showed that those particular PDs seem to have negative prejudice towards all DOs when they should focus on the individual and not the degree. I just hope I don't have to deal with greater scrutiny or prejudice when I'm on the wards..

 

[SpecterGT260]

The argument stemmed from the fact that someone asserted that DO schools have weaker training which is why PDs are biased against DOs. What I think more likely(since the medical education and training is nearly identical for the reasons given above) is that PDs are biased against DOs because of pedigree and the fact that in extremely competitive specialties they can afford to be picky.

There may also be an air of uncertainty in DO applicants. Just as IMG programs can be every bit as good as US MD programs, as a PD if you havent looked into each program you don't necessarily know what you are getting. But I suspect you are right in that much of it is just prejudiced bias.

 

[SpecterGT260]

There was no flaw in my logic. You don't determine an average among schools by citing two schools out of 30. That's basic mathematics.

..... no... but those 2 schools are certainly factored into the average. If you are talking median... fine. That would work the way you are talking. But most of the posts are not specific on this and many of the points speak to mean averages in terms of chances.

 

[Darkskies]

I forgot to add but yes I do believe that attrition rates at DO schools should be higher than at MD schools based on the factors we've been discussing. That being said I don't think the attrition rate at DO schools is very high at all(especially in recent years) since the students while not doing as well on average in UG or the MCAT as their allopathic counterparts have still demonstrated a work ethic and academic competence prior to admissions..

I don't think it really has that much to do with how competent they are as physicians since in order to practice as one all physicians in training must pass their boards and specialty boards which are what determine if someone is competent enough to practice as a full-fledged attending. Besides you don't need to get a 260 on your step 1 to be an expert physician..

 

[Darkskies]

My main point is that I'm peeved at the discrimination dished out at DOs just because of a difference in pedigree which is made obvious by the difference in the name of the degree. How come we never hear people complaining about the lack of funding/weak curriculum/weak students/poor rotations at regionally/mission focused or rural MD schools like Howard, Meharry, West Virginia University, Marshall University, LSU, Shreveport, North Carolina/Tennessee/certain midwestern schools? No one gives them a more thorough critique because they're MD schools..

 

[SpecterGT260]

My main point is that I'm peeved at the discrimination dished out at DOs just because of a difference in pedigree which is made obvious by the difference in the name of the degree. How come we never hear people complaining about the lack of funding/weak curriculum/weak students/poor rotations at regionally/mission focused or rural MD schools like Howard, Meharry, West Virginia University, Marshall University, LSU, Shreveport, North Carolina/Tennessee/certain midwestern schools? No one gives them a more thorough critique because they're MD schools..

cuz das racist


but trust me, they don't really fare any better....

 

[Darkskies]

cuz das racist


but trust me, they don't really fare any better....

Only Howard/Meharry are HBCUs. The other ones I mentioned are rural/regional and the student body is mostly made up of non-URMs. I remember looking at some of their match lists and there definitely were people matching into derm and orthopedics even from a school like SIU(Southern illinois University) where the average MCAT was a 27-28 or so last I checked. Why only pick on DO schools? If the degrees would just merge current DO students would fare so much better since the preconceived notions/prejudice would be more likely to dissipate when the degree being granted is the same.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Only Howard/Meharry are HBCUs. The other ones I mentioned are rural/regional and the student body is mostly made up of non-URMs. I remember looking at some of their match lists and there definitely were people matching into derm and orthopedics even from a school like SIU(Southern illinois University) where the average MCAT was a 27-28 or so last I checked. Why only pick on DO schools? If the degrees would just merge current DO students would fare so much better since the preconceived notions/prejudice would be more likely to dissipate when the degree being granted is the same.

blame the AOA man 👍 They have been insisting upon this "different but equal" thing since the get go and there is just no way to do away with divisiveness when that is going on.

its funny you mention SIU. I have a friend of a friend who goes there and she is just arrogant as all getout.

 

[SpecterGT260]

ok 👍

 

[Darkskies]

blame the AOA man 👍 They have been insisting upon this "different but equal" thing since the get go and there is just no way to do away with divisiveness when that is going on.

its funny you mention SIU. I have a friend of a friend who goes there and she is just arrogant as all getout.

You're right. The merger probably won't happen for decades. Oh well, I guess everyone will just have to deal with it like we have been. Heh.. Anyway, going to a lower tier medical school doesn't mean someone will be an inferior physician.

 

[docnotsopc]

 

[music2doc]

There was no flaw in my logic. You don't determine an average among schools by citing two schools out of 30. That's basic mathematics.

It DOES affect the average if two schools are weak and, more importantly, it indicates that someone looking at programs as a category are going to be somewhat less certain of what they will get in terms of products. That is, because a couple of bad apples are known, residencies might take a buyer beware strategy until an unknown (to that PD) DO program has proven itself whereas the new MD program might be given the benefit of the doubt. It's not that other DO programs are "worse," it's that these programs bring down the mean performance of DO students.

Spin, spin, spin. Nothing you say changes facts. The facts are that the poster said that on average, DO schools have less stringent training while he was referring to only two schools. It's an inaccurate way to assess an average, plain and simple. It would be like me saying that the average score on the exam was a 50 without knowing a thing about anyone's score except for two students. I don't care what anyone else said because I was replying to THAT poster, not anyone else. So my post to THAT poster was 100% accurate. There was no flaw in my logic.

But we do know about other programs. The best DO programs are nowhere near the level of training and accomplishment that the best MD programs are (compare apples to apples here -- best of DO vs best of MD, not worst MD vs best DO). You're comparing the best DO programs to the worst MD programs (i.e., cherry-picking) and then trying to tell us no one complains about the worst MD programs (which are generally weaker due to specific missions toward certain underserved populations necessitating acceptance of weaker applicants and, possibly, utilization of whatever faculty are willing to live in those areas as well as limited funding as a result of location/state funding/etc.).

The correct way to compare the programs would be to either take a random sample across both ranges of programs or do matching. To simplify, I would advocate we pick a few programs from each category and compare them:


Using MCAT for DO programs since most are unranked... and matching top 18 DO programs to a sequential match of the MD programs equivalent in the field (counting by 7s for MD programs and using the median rank to ensure we "match" programs with some level of appropriateness):

Best DO:
#1 Western University of Health Sciences / College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific
vs. Top 10 MD:
#4 Stanford


Second Best DO:
#2 Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine of Midwestern University
vs. Top 20 MD:
#13 UCLA

Fourth Best DO:
#4 Des Moines University College of Osteopathic Medicine
vs. Top 40 MD:
#25 University of Virginia

Mid-Range DO:
#9 University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine
vs Mid-Range MD
#57 SUNY Stony Brook

Mid-Range DO:
#10
vs. Mid-Tier MD
#67 UTHSC-San Antonio

Low-Range MD
#12 Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences
vs. Low-Tier MD:
#86 West Virginia University

Unranked MD: EVMS
vs.
Unranked DO: RVU


How do these comparisons turn out? There's your answer....

 

[xenotype]

My main point is that I'm peeved at the discrimination dished out at DOs just because of a difference in pedigree which is made obvious by the difference in the name of the degree. How come we never hear people complaining about the lack of funding/weak curriculum/weak students/poor rotations at regionally/mission focused or rural MD schools like Howard, Meharry, West Virginia University, Marshall University, LSU, Shreveport, North Carolina/Tennessee/certain midwestern schools? No one gives them a more thorough critique because they're MD schools..

With the exception of Howard/Meharry, the weak students at these programs are as good as the students at the absolute best DO schools if not better. Their board score averages are typically very good as well, usually 220 and up. All of them have their own university hospital, or a partner hospital contracted with them and physicians in the hospital as faculty of the school. The same cannot be said for DO schools. Most of them also still manage to pump out more research than the top DO schools as well.

 

[Darkskies]

It DOES affect the average if two schools are weak and, more importantly, it indicates that someone looking at programs as a category are going to be somewhat less certain of what they will get in terms of products. That is, because a couple of bad apples are known, residencies might take a buyer beware strategy until an unknown (to that PD) DO program has proven itself whereas the new MD program might be given the benefit of the doubt. It's not that other DO programs are "worse," it's that these programs bring down the mean performance of DO students.






But we do know about other programs. The best DO programs are nowhere near the level of training and accomplishment that the best MD programs are (compare apples to apples here -- best of DO vs best of MD, not worst MD vs best DO). You're comparing the best DO programs to the worst MD programs (i.e., cherry-picking) and then trying to tell us no one complains about the worst MD programs (which are generally weaker due to specific missions toward certain underserved populations necessitating acceptance of weaker applicants and, possibly, utilization of whatever faculty are willing to live in those areas as well as limited funding as a result of location/state funding/etc.).

The correct way to compare the programs would be to either take a random sample across both ranges of programs or do matching. To simplify, I would advocate we pick a few programs from each category and compare them:


Using MCAT for DO programs since most are unranked... and matching top 18 DO programs to a sequential match of the MD programs equivalent in the field (counting by 7s for MD programs and using the median rank to ensure we "match" programs with some level of appropriateness):

Best DO:
#1 Western University of Health Sciences / College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific
vs. Top 10 MD:
#4 Stanford


Second Best DO:
#2 Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine of Midwestern University
vs. Top 20 MD:
#13 UCLA

Fourth Best DO:
#4 Des Moines University College of Osteopathic Medicine
vs. Top 40 MD:
#25 University of Virginia

Mid-Range DO:
#9 University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine
vs Mid-Range MD
#57 SUNY Stony Brook

Mid-Range DO:
#10
vs. Mid-Tier MD
#67 UTHSC-San Antonio

Low-Range MD
#12 Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences
vs. Low-Tier MD:
#86 West Virginia University

Unranked MD: EVMS
vs.
Unranked DO: RVU


How do these comparisons turn out? There's your answer....

Your link is outdated. The entering classes of DO schools nowadays have average GPAs of around a 3.5 and an MCAT of 28. I would bet that the most accomplished MD programs are ranked so highly because of the research funding they receive. They are more selective in admitting students to their institutions so the fact that their students perform so well is likely due to what the students brought with them before they started medical school rather than the 'superb' training they receive in medical school especially the first two years where everyone is learning the same material so they can do well on the boards.

I still stand by what I was saying before that any perceived performance issues of DO students on the wards during M3/M4 years is either due to inherent weaknesses in the individual students themselves or it's because they are being monitored more closely due to preconceptions of lower quality on the part of the PDs. I don't think there's enough evidence that it's due to the school's curriculum which doesn't vary much across all schools.

 

[Darkskies]

With the exception of Howard/Meharry, the weak students at these programs are as good as the students at the absolute best DO schools if not better. Their board score averages are typically very good as well, usually 220 and up. All of them have their own university hospital, or a partner hospital contracted with them and physicians in the hospital as faculty of the school. The same cannot be said for DO schools. Most of them also still manage to pump out more research than the top DO schools as well.

I purchased the MSAR for the last year before I applied to schools and the schools I mentioned definitely do not have higher MCAT scores(at least they did not for last year's entering classes) than many DO schools(except for the bottom of the barrel ones that let students in with a 25 MCAT).. I couldn't get accepted to an MD school with nearly a 3.5 and a 32 MCAT and there are quite a few individuals at my school who are in the same situation and have graduated from top undergrads like Johns Hopkins, Brown, and Cornell.. DO schools have become much more competitive..Besides we were only discussing the curriculum for the first two years and not the difference in clinical education for the last two years which everyone has agreed is inferior at many DO schools. That being said most of the clinical education that you will receive on your path to becoming a physician will be in residency so your school does not matter in terms of how competent you'll be as a physician as much as you might think it does..

 

[SpecterGT260]

I feel like we have to diagram sentences for this to make sense. Who said it doesn't affect the average if two schools are weak? Certainly not me. ?

There was no flaw in my logic. You don't determine an average among schools by citing two schools out of 30. That's basic mathematics.

Tell me you can see how the lower quote makes the above quote look odd..... 😕

Whether it is what your intended or not is immaterial. What is important for at least the next 5 seconds is that you can at least acknowledge the potential for confusion here. 👍

In the lower quote you were specifically responding to me when I said 1 school out of 100 with lower stats will lower the average compared to a group that doesn't have that 1.

 

[music2doc]

I purchased the MSAR for the last year before I applied to schools and the schools I mentioned definitely do not have higher MCAT scores(at least they did not for last year's entering classes) than many DO schools(except for the bottom of the barrel ones that let students in with a 25 MCAT).. I couldn't get accepted to an MD school with nearly a 3.5 and a 32 MCAT and there are quite a few individuals at my school who are in the same situation and have graduated from top undergrads like Johns Hopkins, Brown, and Cornell.. DO schools have become much more competitive..Besides we were only discussing the curriculum for the first two years and not the difference in clinical education for the last two years which everyone has agreed is inferior at many DO schools. That being said most of the clinical education that you will receive on your path to becoming a physician will be in residency so your school does not matter in terms of how competent you'll be as a physician as much as you might think it does..

Foundation is critical.... This is like saying that for a math major it doesn't matter where he went to high school because "most of your math is learned in college [for a math major]." Well yeah, but if your foundation is weak, a great residency A) is less likely to occur and B) will have to expend for effort just to remediate your weak foundation (which means you're not going to get as much out of it as the other students).



As for the numbers, I am not going to check each one's but I will do the mid-tier ones of each to give a mid-range comparison using the data from US News' 2012 report (premium edition). You can do a more thorough analysis yourself. Without having looked at the actual data before writing this sentence, I will be comparing:

Mid-Range DO:
#9 University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine
vs Mid-Range MD
#57 SUNY Stony Brook

The criteria to compare are (also without having seen the data -- so no bias):

• Matriculant GPA
• Matriculant MCAT
• Faculty:Student Ratio
• Pre-Clinical Patient Contact
• Primary Care Residency Director & Peer Evals
• Research/Specialty Residency Director & Peer Evals

So here goes (I have given the winners in each category a green font, losers in red, and ties are bolded black):

University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine

• 
  [*]Matriculant GPA: 3.54
  [*]Matriculant MCAT: 27.0
  [*]Faculty:Student Ratio -- 0.1:1 (LOW)
  [*]Pre-Clinical Patient Contact: Occasional
  [*]Primary Care Residency Director & Peer Evals: 2.7 & 2.6 (out of 5)
  [*]Research/Specialty Residency Director & Peer Evals: 2.1 & 2.0 (out of 5)

SUNY Stony Brook

• 
  [*]Matriculant GPA: 3.62
  [*]Matriculant MCAT: 32
  [*]Faculty:Student Ratio: 1.3:1 (MEDIUM)
  [*]Pre-Clinical Patient Contact: Occasional
  [*]Primary Care Residency Director & Peer Evals: 3.0 & 2.7 (out of 5)
  [*]Research/Specialty Residency Director & Peer Evals: 3.0 & 2.7 (out of 5)

 

[Mass Effect]

Tell me you can see how the lower quote makes the above quote look odd..... 😕

Whether it is what your intended or not is immaterial. What is important for at least the next 5 seconds is that you can at least acknowledge the potential for confusion here. 👍

In the lower quote you were specifically responding to me when I said 1 school out of 100 with lower stats will lower the average compared to a group that doesn't have that 1.

Assuming one is able to follow a linear conversation, no, I don't think it's confusing at all. I maintain, you don't determine an average by only following two schools. Would you be happy if your professors cited your average on an exam by only looking at two scores? Would you be happy if the NBME determined the average USMLE score by only looking at two exams? Of course those two exams will bring down the average, but those two scores are not the average and that's the point.

If two students at Random Allo School Class of 2014 were horrible on clinicals, would it be fair of me to say that on average, Random Allo School's Class of 2014 sucks?

 

[music2doc]

I feel like we have to diagram sentences for this to make sense. Who said it doesn't affect the average if two schools are weak? Certainly not me. But that isn't what your original post said. Your original post argued that, on average, DO schools are weaker. You can't ascertain what DO schools are "on average" unless you assess all DO schools. How is this difficult to understand?



Actually, I'm doing no such thing. I haven't compared a single DO school to an MD school nor do I intend to. My point is and always was that your statement was grossly inaccurate because of the way you arrived at your conclusion. You're intent on doing all these comparisons in order to back up the flawed claim you made in the first place.



Oh brother. Didn't you outgrow this in pre-allo?

Meh, it's called procrastination and finding your obviously false statements a bit funny. The median DO program is clearly weaker than the median MD program. The lowest is clearly weaker than the weakest US MD programs. Finally, the strongest DO programs can't even begin to compete with the best MD programs. I am not saying this to put down any DOs. They make for great physicians. In practice, there is no difference; however, to try to make the training programs sound like "equals" on every level is an exercise in futility. They're not. That is like me trying to say my school is on par with Yale or Harvard. It's not. I go to a middle of the road, solid MD program. I am happy to say that. I know I am getting solid training that will serve me well in whatever career I choose to pursue. That is all that matters. I am not concerned with whether or not I am receiving an Ivy League medical education. I would say that, on average mid-tier programs probably do not have as good of clinical training as the very best of the Top 10. Is the difference particularly large? Probably not, but the residency directors do give it a bit higher of a rank. My school gets around a 3.3/5.0, whereas many of the Top 40 are in the 3.5-4.0 range. That basically means a few more residency directors marked "Outstanding" instead of "Excellent" on their evaluation forms.... NBD, really, but I wouldn't deny that it may have some meaning.

 

[peteB]

A somewhat related question: Since OMM is the only difference between MD and DO- How many people do you think go to DO school because they actually (honestly) want to learn OMM? What percentage of the class is that? From what I've heard it's not even close to being everyone, but I'd like to hear what an actual DO student has to say about this.

 

[SpecterGT260]

My school gets around a 3.3/5.0, whereas many of the Top 40 are in the 3.5-4.0 range. That basically means a few more residency directors marked "Outstanding" instead of "Excellent" on their evaluation forms.... NBD, really, but I wouldn't deny that it may have some meaning.

what numbers are you citing here?

 

[music2doc]

Assuming one is able to follow a linear conversation, no, I don't think it's confusing at all. I maintain, you don't determine an average by only following two schools. Would you be happy if your professors cited your average on an exam by only looking at two scores? Would you be happy if the NBME determined the average USMLE score by only looking at two exams? Of course those two exams will bring down the average, but those two scores are not the average and that's the point.

If two students at Random Allo School Class of 2014 were horrible on clinicals, would it be fair of me to say that on average, Random Allo School's Class of 2014 sucks?

Except we are looking at multiple students at these institutions and these institutions are 2 of a relatively small population. Further, it shows a lack of quality control (i.e., consistency). Finally, the data I just posted shows that this isn't a matter of "just 2" schools. I gave you two median schools to compare. The medians are clearly different across 4/5 categories (in the same direction).

 

[Mass Effect]

Meh, it's called procrastination and finding your obviously false statements a bit funny.

Which statements are you citing as "obviously false"?

The median DO program is clearly weaker than the median MD program. The lowest is clearly weaker than the weakest US MD programs. Finally, the strongest DO programs can't even begin to compete with the best MD programs.

Do yourself a favor and go back to pre-allo. You may have started med school two months ago, but you are very much in the pre-med frame of mind. Furthermore, don't attribute things to me that I didn't say just so you can justify your beliefs.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Assuming one is able to follow a linear conversation, no, I don't think it's confusing at all. I maintain, you don't determine an average by only following two schools. Would you be happy if your professors cited your average on an exam by only looking at two scores? Would you be happy if the NBME determined the average USMLE score by only looking at two exams? Of course those two exams will bring down the average, but those two scores are not the average and that's the point.

If two students at Random Allo School Class of 2014 were horrible on clinicals, would it be fair of me to say that on average, Random Allo School's Class of 2014 sucks?

it isn't much of a logical leap to look at two schools that fall well below even the lowest tier MD schools and make that statement. Technically speaking, I was being a little facetious when I made that first post about 1 in 100, because obviously that is not a good way to go about doing things, but you seem to be exploiting technicalities here. If you think his point was to say "This has value X, therefore, without looking at any other data, I am certain that its average is lower than this thing I just mentioned I don't look at data for" I think you are mistaken. That is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Mass Effect]

it isn't much of a logical leap to look at two schools that fall well below even the lowest tier MD schools and make that statement.

It's a huge logical leap to take an anecdotal story about a few students, turn it into a reflection on two schools, then pretend to know the quality of student from the lowest tier MD school in order to determine that the attributes of the MD students, which supposedly reflect on the whole school, are well above that of the previously mentioned DO school, and then try to pass the whole thing off as an example of the average DO school.

If that sentence sounds convoluted, it's because the train of thought is convoluted. Music2Doc took a story told to him about a few students. He then used these stories to stereotype the schools they came from. He then used that, coupled with the vast knowledge he's attained in his two months of med school, to say unequivocally that, on average, DOs receive less stringent training than MDs. It's absurd.

Technically speaking, I was being a little facetious when I made that first post about 1 in 100, because obviously that is not a good way to go about doing things, but you seem to be exploiting technicalities here. If you think his point was to say "This has value X, therefore, without looking at any other data, I am certain that its average is lower than this thing I just mentioned I don't look at data for" I think you are mistaken. That is beyond ridiculous.

My whole point was about the technicalities. If you look back through my posts, you will see my objection was to his wording. I refuted some of the other things he said, but my point from the start was about the language he used. It was an inaccurate exaggeration and I said so.

 

[SpecterGT260]

It's a huge logical leap to take an anecdotal story about a few students, turn it into a reflection on two schools, then pretend to know the quality of student from the lowest tier MD school in order to determine that the attributes of the MD students, which supposedly reflect on the whole school, are well above that of the previously mentioned DO school, and then try to pass the whole thing off as an example of the average DO school.

If that sentence sounds convoluted, it's because the train of thought is convoluted. Music2Doc took a story told to him about a few students. He then used these stories to stereotype the schools they came from. He then used that, coupled with the vast knowledge he's attained in his two months of med school, to say unequivocally that, on average, DOs receive less stringent training than MDs. It's absurd.

My whole point was about the technicalities. If you look back through my posts, you will see my objection was to his wording. I refuted some of the other things he said, but my point from the start was about the language he used. It was an inaccurate exaggeration and I said so.

alright. I'm not super interested in arguing about it anyways. I just saw a few points made that really didn't seem true and sounded like someone rationalizing away what was otherwise a decent, albeit imperfect, point.

 

[music2doc]

Which statements are you citing as "obviously false"?

Do yourself a favor and go back to pre-allo. You may have started med school two months ago, but you are very much in the pre-med frame of mind. Furthermore, don't attribute things to me that I didn't say just so you can justify your beliefs.

Honestly, I could care less about this whole thing. You simply seem over-invested in "proving" that what I said is wrong. Why the effort? As I said, IRL I have 0 problem with DOs and I have actually gone to OMM workshops that were offered by DO residencies in the area simply because I thought it was kind of fun stuff to learn on the side. At the end of the day, DOs still come out doctors. We are colleagues and that is all that really matters. I have friends who are at DO programs right now. I look forward to practicing with them some day. When we talk, we may throw MD/DO jabs at each other jokingly because we can laugh at ourselves. Why not just laugh about it. Realize that there's some truth to schools being different and then just move on....

It's a huge logical leap to take an anecdotal story about a few students, turn it into a reflection on two schools, then pretend to know the quality of student from the lowest tier MD school in order to determine that the attributes of the MD students, which supposedly reflect on the whole school, are well above that of the previously mentioned DO school, and then try to pass the whole thing off as an example of the average DO school.

I have met students at "bottom tier" MD programs and seen them work. We have had some on visiting rotations. We had no issues of which I am aware but who cares.... This is a fruitless debate.

If that sentence sounds convoluted, it's because the train of thought is convoluted. Music2Doc took a story told to him about a few students. He then used these stories to stereotype the schools they came from. He then used that, coupled with the vast knowledge he's attained in his two months of med school, to say unequivocally that, on average, DOs receive less stringent training than MDs. It's absurd.

You are twisting words. You imply a lack of overlap. Sure there is overlap. Perhaps the 50th percentile of MD programs is equivalent to the 70th of DO programs and perhaps likewise for the students. It would be a difference on average.... Why are you so thickskulled when it comes to this?

My whole point was about the technicalities. If you look back through my posts, you will see my objection was to his wording. I refuted some of the other things he said, but my point from the start was about the language he used. It was an inaccurate exaggeration and I said so.

Is it? Is it inaccurate to say that, on average, MD programs have more stringent training than DO programs? The residency director evals indicate "no," although I am certainly willing to question the validity of those evals. Nevertheless, we have basically compared program by program at low, mid, and top tier for each type and in all cases, the MD programs are stronger. That pretty much seals the deal. I didn't really want to take it that far but you have sort of forced it to this point, although I still don't really understand why....