Discrimination against DOs?

[JoAyi]

Most top places won't interview you because you are a DO. Most middle tier and low tier won't care as long as your board scores are good. You really need to take the USMLE to have a fair shot.

I've seen DOs in the match lists of Harvard, Penn, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, NYU. As far as I know, Penn takes at least one DO in Anesthesia every year (mostly from UMDNJ)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Skeeks]

I disagree. DO schools do in fact want higher GPA and MCAT scores. These scores are correlated (albeit losely) with higher academic success and completion of medical school. <26 there is a fairly linear inverse relationship between MCAT and attrition.

Well sure, if you find what you are looking for in an applicant AND they have great scores why wouldnt you take them? It goes without saying that schools want you to perform well. I am just pointing out the fact that they will pick lower scores over higher scores if it fits well with their mission and philosophy, and who they beleive will make a "good physician" in their opinion.

And most DO schools MCAT average is 26 and above. The national average of a DO school is a 27, so unless they make an exception they wont have people below that score level. MD schools do that as well.

As far as GPA goes DO schools actually average the same GPA as MD schools average.

Edit: I am afraid I have to state a caveat to the last statement. The GPA is the same AFTER grade replacement. I apologize for not clarifying that

 

[SpecterGT260]

I don't often agree directly with Spectre, I think he/she is a little too eager to put the DO system "in it's place" which is sort of a turnoff. But in this case, I think he/she is on the right track.

I can see how it comes across that way - but honestly it isnt about putting DOs or the DO system in its place. It is about addressing misconceptions and highlighting self-serving arguments. IMO, on a large online community such as this, any piece of misinformation has a % chance of leading someone down a wrong path and potentially causing that person to miss out on their goals. Super not cool, right? There is little hope to convince many of the people I argue with of the objective reasoning as to why their statements are simply bogus, but hopefully there is a similar % chance that someone reads the exchange, ditches the rose-colored glasses, and takes the obstacles seriously enough such that they are not taken by surprise later on.

 

[MedPR]

Well sure, if you find what you are looking for in an applicant AND they have great scores why wouldnt you take them? It goes without saying that schools want you to perform well. I am just pointing out the fact that they will pick lower scores over higher scores if it fits well with their mission and philosophy, and who they beleive will make a "good physician" in their opinion.

And most DO schools MCAT average is 26 and above. The national average of a DO school is a 27, so unless they make an exception they wont have people below that score level. MD schools do that as well.

As far as GPA goes DO schools actually average the same GPA as MD schools average.

That's the key. MD schools get more of those applicants than DO schools do. AMCAS is saturated with high stat applicants who also have intangibles. In other words, MD schools don't need to pick between a high stat/low intangible and a low stat/high intangible applicant like DO schools do.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well sure, if you find what you are looking for in an applicant AND they have great scores why wouldnt you take them? It goes without saying that schools want you to perform well. I am just pointing out the fact that they will pick lower scores over higher scores if it fits well with their mission and philosophy, and who they beleive will make a "good physician" in their opinion.

And most DO schools MCAT average is 26 and above. The national average of a DO school is a 27, so unless they make an exception they wont have people below that score level. MD schools do that as well.

As far as GPA goes DO schools actually average the same GPA as MD schools average.

Edit: I am afraid I have to state a caveat to the last statement. The GPA is the same AFTER grade replacement. I apologize for not clarifying that

All I am saying is that every school looks at ECs. At every schools these ECs do carry weight, so ECs can always offset low scores. This doesnt mean that people with high scores have poor ECs, and it doesnt mean that schools with lower scores have better ECs. DOs are no more or less willing to compensate than MDs are. The lower stats is not a result of forgoing higher scoring applicants for lower ones with better ECs relative to what MD schools do. I have seen no data to suggest that DO schools are selecting a lower band compared to their available pool relative to MD schools.

IIRC PCOM, which is the most highly selective school as an average of 28. There are schools out there with averages in the low 20s. As of a few years ago I saw a couple 22 averages, but this may have increased a little. Either way.... I think the "27 national average" is the result of a very specific interpretation of the data. For MD schools, 27 is at the extreme low end of averages by school. The highest are averaging 35. All things considered it is pretty tight with nearly every school averaging 30-33 with a few on either side.

 

[Skeeks]

That's the key. MD schools get more of those applicants than DO schools do. AMCAS is saturated with high stat applicants who also have intangibles. In other words, MD schools don't need to pick between a high stat/low intangible and a low stat/high intangible applicant like DO schools do.

But you missed the important part where I said if they fit what you are looking for. THATS the real key. I went on to say that they are willing to take lower scores to ensure they are matriculating the physicians they want to train. Thats the major disconnect between numbers, COMs and Allopathic schools are looking for pretty different qualities in physicians.

 

[Skeeks]

All I am saying is that every school looks at ECs. At every schools these ECs do carry weight, so ECs can always offset low scores. This doesnt mean that people with high scores have poor ECs, and it doesnt mean that schools with lower scores have better ECs.

I didnt mean to insinuate that I apologize.

DOs are no more or less willing to compensate than MDs are. The lower stats is not a result of forgoing higher scoring applicants for lower ones with better ECs relative to what MD schools do. I have seen no data to suggest that DO schools are selecting a lower band compared to their available pool relative to MD schools.

For this part I would refer you to my previous post before this last one.

 

[felix2929]

But you missed the important part where I said if they fit what you are looking for. THATS the real key. I went on to say that they are willing to take lower scores to ensure they are matriculating the physicians they want to train. Thats the major disconnect between numbers, COMs and Allopathic schools are looking for pretty different qualities in physicians.

Right. I think we get what you are saying. I think everyone else is saying they are "willing to take" the lower scores because the people with higher scores are going to MD programs.
For example last year I applied with a lower GPA and MCAT. This year I improved both, did not change my ECs in any fashion, re-applied to the same schools and was accepted to every school I applied to (except one I havent heard from yet).

 

[MedPR]

But you missed the important part where I said if they fit what you are looking for. THATS the real key. I went on to say that they are willing to take lower scores to ensure they are matriculating the physicians they want to train. Thats the major disconnect between numbers, COMs and Allopathic schools are looking for pretty different qualities in physicians.

Well we can agree to disagree then. I don't think DO schools and MD schools are looking for "pretty different qualities" in physicians. I think the overall diversity in each class at each school varies (duh), but in general every school wants the same thing out of an applicant. That's why there are the same general requirements and the same "required" cookie-cutter ECs for every school.

 

[SpecterGT260]

But you missed the important part where I said if they fit what you are looking for. THATS the real key. I went on to say that they are willing to take lower scores to ensure they are matriculating the physicians they want to train. Thats the major disconnect between numbers, COMs and Allopathic schools are looking for pretty different qualities in physicians.

Yes, but I think you are still clinging to the idea that there are somehow more people who "fit" in this pool. The two qualities are largely unrelated. I am still pretty sure that, given the average applicant (standard deviation included) to DO and MD schools independently, DO and MD acceptance stats, relative to applied are very similar. Neither school type is sacrificing scores.

People with 44s on the MCAT do in fact get turned down and have unsuccessful cycles every year. It is all entirely the same. This is one of the cases where the statement "people are people" is very true, and given the ridiculously subjective nature of admissions (and trust me, once you get in and get to know your faculty and more about the process you will see how subjective and individual each school is) it is just impossible to claim with any degree of certainty that the "philosophy dictates" that one is looking for more of X over Y

 

[DrWily]

Logical arguments make for boring discussion. Bring back Bumblebee.

 

[MedPR]

Logical arguments make for boring discussion. Bring back Bumblebee.

 

[Skeeks]

Yes, but I think you are still clinging to the idea that there are somehow more people who "fit" in this pool. The two qualities are largely unrelated. I am still pretty sure that, given the average applicant (standard deviation included) to DO and MD schools independently, DO and MD acceptance stats, relative to applied are very similar. Neither school type is sacrificing scores.

People with 44s on the MCAT do in fact get turned down and have unsuccessful cycles every year. It is all entirely the same. This is one of the cases where the statement "people are people" is very true, and given the ridiculously subjective nature of admissions (and trust me, once you get in and get to know your faculty and more about the process you will see how subjective and individual each school is) it is just impossible to claim with any degree of certainty that the "philosophy dictates" that one is looking for more of X over Y

I can see what you mean. The biggest problem now for both of us is that most of this is speculation. I can definitely see your point, but I still believe my arguement is valid as well.... medpr hit on it pretty good:

Well we can agree to disagree then. I don't think DO schools and MD schools are looking for "pretty different qualities" in physicians.

...and I do think they are from my experience (although I do admit my experience is very limited).
Anyway! Stimulating discussion gentlemen! I will ponder on your opinions! Thank you for indulging me

 

[Skeeks]

Logical arguments make for boring discussion. Bring back Bumblebee.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I can see what you mean. The biggest problem now for both of us is that most of this is speculation. I can definitely see your point, but I still believe my arguement is valid as well.... medpr hit on it pretty good:

When you get to med school they will go over study design and type I and type II error. If you really understand type I error you will understand why I have taken issue with this

Till then, agree to disagree

 

[virtuoso735]

Pages 2-4 were hilarious. Where did bunglebee go?

Also, sphincter and MedPRick are great. You guys should consider changing your usernames.

 

[DrBumblebee]

Pages 2-4 were hilarious. Where did bunglebee go?

Also, sphincter and MedPRick are great. You guys should consider changing your usernames.

Well, the dude have had some hard-feelings from a previous discussion of ours at another thread in SDN (had his "top MD school student" ego scratched a little), so he chose to play very nasty in this thread.. now was totally ignored.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well, the dude have had some hard-feelings from a previous discussion of ours at another thread in SDN (had his "top MD school student" ego scratched a little), so he chose to play very nasty in this thread.. now was totally ignored.

If I can see you post I must not be ignored

And.... we argued before? Did you huff paint between then and now? I feel like I would remember something like this. Regardless, I can assure you that nobody reading this thinks I am responding to you out of hurt feelings

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Skeeks]

Tuche, but couldn't I make the same claim with you according to type II error? (I am currently working on an experiment I designed now so I have gone over experimental design)

 

[SpecterGT260]

Tuche, but couldn't I make the same claim with you according to type II error? (I am currently working on an experiment I designed now so I have gone over experimental design)

I was wondering if you were going to come back with this.

Honestly, no. Type II error comes from failure to detect a relationship when the experiment is designed to do so. Basically, the default is no relationship. Stating a casual observation or personal belief is not something that has tested the relationship and failed. It is just a statement. In these terms (and this applies quite literally to nearly all findings in the literature except for where type I has already occured) the assumption is that no relationship exists until proven otherwise. The wiki example is pretty good here:

Based on the real-life consequences of an error, one type may be more serious than the other. For example, NASA engineers would prefer to throw out an electronic circuit that is really fine (null hypothesis H0: not broken; reality: not broken; action: thrown out; error: type I, false positive) than to use one on a spacecraft that is actually broken (null hypothesis H0: not broken; reality: broken; action: use it; error: type II, false negative). In that situation a type I error raises the budget, but a type II error would risk the entire mission.
On the other hand, criminal courts set a high bar for proof and procedure and sometimes acquit someone who is guilty (null hypothesis: innocent; reality: guilty; test find: not guilty; action: acquit; error: type II, false negative) rather than convict someone who is innocent (null hypothesis: innocent; reality: not guilty; test find: guilty; action: convict; error: type I, false positive). In totalitarian states, the opposite may occur, with the preference to jail someone innocent, rather than allow an actual dissident to roam free. Each system makes its own choice regarding where to draw the line.

The idea being wrongful imprisonment of an innocent is worse than failing to convict someone who is guilty. This was the exact example given to us when applied to medicine and medical research. It is of lower negative consequence to fail to detect a relationship than it is to think you have detected one when it doesn't really exist. There are plenty of ways to nitpick it back and forth each way, but this is the generally accepted use in the medical community. If you commit type II on a study, no treatment modalities are changed. If you commit type I, suddenly everyone is getting the wrong treatment.

I mostly just said it to make a nerdy joke. The take home message is to be very critical of things that just seem like casual correlations, especially when the argument at the foundation is "well because that is just how it is". nothing is "just how it is", everything has a reason for being the way it is.

 

[DrWily]

If I can see you post I must not be ignored

And.... we argued before? Did you huff paint between then and now? I feel like I would remember something like this. Regardless, I can assure you that nobody reading this thinks I am responding to you out of hurt feelings

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Is he talking about GuyWhoDoesStuff or you? I'm confused.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Is he talking about GuyWhoDoesStuff or you? I'm confused.

well... I am assuming he is referring to me when he says sphincter. He put it in bold in that last post. But then again... he has had some creative usage of the english language so far. Maybe I am giving him too much credit in assuming he up with the pun himself.

 

[Skeeks]

You are perfectly fine specter. I understood your jest and was just replying in kind. Take it easy man, good talking with you.

 

[SpecterGT260]

yeah I figured as much. But I took the opportunity to indulge in some geeking out

 

[DrWily]

well... I am assuming he is referring to me when he says sphincter. He put it in bold in that last post. But then again... he has had some creative usage of the english language so far. Maybe I am giving him too much credit in assuming he up with the pun himself.

Oh, I didnt see the bolded part.

 

[cliquesh]

I don't mean to sound argumentative. I just don't know how else to word my question.

Aren't aways/audition rotations pivotal to matching certain places? Don't you think having a solid M3 is important to knowing what you're doing during M4 when you do aways/audition rotations?

That's kind of true, I guess. In the Acgme world, most people do not do aways, so Acgme programs don't expect it. If you have your heart set on a particular program then doing an away will help. Otherwise, your board scores, Clinical grades, and class rank will open doors for you.

 

[username456789]

Is he talking about GuyWhoDoesStuff or you? I'm confused.

I've never had a conversation with him on any other thread. I'm still not convinced I've had a conversation with him on this thread, any more than I have a conversation with my coffee maker in the morning when it's malfunctioning.

 

[cliquesh]

I've seen DOs in the match lists of Harvard, Penn, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, NYU. As far as I know, Penn takes at least one DO in Anesthesia every year (mostly from UMDNJ)

Most top programs have taken a DO at one point or another, but, in general, it doesn't happen that often. You'll go on interviews and you'll hear from your fellow USMD interviewees that have board scores 30 or 40 points lower than yours interviewing at places you've been instantly rejected by. It's just the way it is.

 

[MI Achilles]

If I can see you post I must not be ignored

And.... we argued before? Did you huff paint between then and now? I feel like I would remember something like this. Regardless, I can assure you that nobody reading this thinks I am responding to you out of hurt feelings

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

I don't believe he can see your posts, he ignored you. You didn't ignore him.
I'm still debating if he knows the definition of "comply".

 

[cliquesh]

I think Drbumblebee was just being defensive about his/her future career, which is understandable. I don't he/she deserves any insults. I also don't think specter or gwks were being jerks.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I don't believe he can see your posts, he ignored you. You didn't ignore him.
I'm still debating if he knows the definition of "comply".

possibly.... I was under the impression that it worked both ways. In other threads that have gone awry mods have stepped in and I seem to recall them saying it was a 2 way street, not unlike fb blocking. I could be wrong, however. His ego is such that I suspect he will be unblocking from time to time to check.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I've never had a conversation with him on any other thread. I'm still not convinced I've had a conversation with him on this thread, any more than I have a conversation with my coffee maker in the morning when it's malfunctioning.

There is your problem: you need to sweet talk the coffee maker. It means well. Pre-osteo trolls on the other hand..

 

[DrBumblebee]

I don't believe he can see your posts, he ignored you. You didn't ignore him.
I'm still debating if he knows the definition of "comply".

No need to debate. Let me simply finish your dilemma:

com·ply (km-pl)
intr.v. com·plied, com·ply·ing, com·plies
1. To act in accordance with another's command, request, rule, or wish: The patient complied with the physician's orders.
2. Obsolete To be courteous or obedient.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/comply)

I think, I had used "comply with" at somewhere in my post to DrWily after his interesting post of which followed the same language of the dude, who has an avatar with two asps fierce-fully fighting against each other (nice choice by a person having such a poisonous tongue .) Some people, for the sake of being supportive to the dude in his way of sticky sarcasm, must have been carried away altogether and just copied it post after post that the place where it was used became lost.

Even sarcasm itself has some sort of self-limit. But, some people here at SDN never follow any ethics available to human beings. They only realize the existence of ethics after they've been called with the same type of words by their counter-parties. And, then they start to threaten.

Discrimination of any kind, including country of origin, religion, language, sex, etc. is against the law. Ethics rules wrap around this idea consistently. If you don't follow others' reasoning, you can behave maturely and tell your reasoning. This way we can have a nice dialogue. I don't need to read anyone's tangled mind, thus I ignore.

I hope these people don't make fun of their colleagues', directors', patients', etc. use of language, as they do it here with my posts, just to appear "the winner" of any debate.

Let me repeat myself for the SDN:

I'm so much grateful that I was given the chance(s) to study at an American med school in this successful cycle. I haven't applied to MD schools, at all. I'm sure that I'll receive a great training at whichever DO school I'll be choosing. After a successful 15-year professional life as an IT manager with multiple degrees, I'm now ready to start studying at medical school to become a great physician, soon. Honestly, I don't care the letters after my name, MD or DO. So, I'll only leave those alone in their darkness, who might dare to criticize me with these letters.

 

[SpecterGT260]

 

[MedPR]

No need to debate. Let me simply finish your dilemma:
.

Comply isn't synonymous with
agree.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[SpecterGT260]

Comply isn't synonymous with
agree.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

I comply

 

[MedPR]

No need to debate. Let me simply finish your dilemma:

com·ply (km-pl)
intr.v. com·plied, com·ply·ing, com·plies
1. To act in accordance with another's command, request, rule, or wish: The patient complied with the physician's orders.
2. Obsolete To be courteous or obedient.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/comply)

I think, I had used "comply with" at somewhere in my post to DrWily after his interesting post of which followed the same language of the dude, who has an avatar with two asps fierce-fully fighting against each other (nice choice by a person having such a poisonous tongue .) Some people, for the sake of being supportive to the dude in his way of sticky sarcasm, must have been carried away altogether and just copied it post after post that the place where it was used became lost.

Even sarcasm itself has some sort of self-limit. But, some people here at SDN never follow any ethics available to human beings. They only realize the existence of ethics after they've been called with the same type of words by their counter-parties. And, then they start to threaten.

Discrimination of any kind, including country of origin, religion, language, sex, etc. is against the law. Ethics rules wrap around this idea consistently. If you don't follow others' reasoning, you can behave maturely and tell your reasoning. This way we can have a nice dialogue. I don't need to read anyone's tangled mind, thus I ignore.

I hope these people don't make fun of their colleagues', directors', patients', etc. use of language, as they do it here with my posts, just to appear "the winner" of any debate.

Let me repeat myself for the SDN:

I'm so much grateful that I was given the chance(s) to study at an American med school in this successful cycle. I haven't applied to MD schools, at all. I'm sure that I'll receive a great training at whichever DO school I'll be choosing. After a successful 15-year professional life as an IT manager with multiple degrees, I'm now ready to start studying at medical school to become a great physician, soon. Honestly, I don't care the letters after my name, MD or DO. So, I'll only leave those alone in their darkness, who might dare to criticize me with these letters.

Ok now that I'm at a computer I'll actually try to tackle this beast of a post.

First. You don't "finish" a dilemma.

Second, as previously stated, compliance and agreement are different.

Third, nobody is disciminating here. Everyone was actually quite civil until you started with the name calling.

Fourth, sarcasm is not unethical.

Fifth, everyone was "maturely giving their reasoning". However, to have a "nice dialogue" you actually do need to read the "tangled mind" of another. Otherwise you are having a "nice dialogue" only with yourself, if at all.

Sixth, you'll note both sphincter meanie and I openly stated that we were trying very hard not to criticise you for your poor grammar. So, to accuse us of doing so is quite inaccurate.

Seventh, I'm sure you will get trained well at the DO school you matriculate at (or is it to? I truthfully don't know).

 

[SpecterGT260]

I like the dude better. Let's go with the dude

 

[DrWily]

I'm done here. I'll get myself in trouble if I stay.

Also, the "avatar with two asps fierce-fully fighting against each other" is a caduceus. Just FYI.

 

[docnotsopc]

Most top programs have taken a DO at one point or another, but, in general, it doesn't happen that often. You'll go on interviews and you'll hear from your fellow USMD interviewees that have board scores 30 or 40 points lower than yours interviewing at places you've been instantly rejected by. It's just the way it is.

Waiting for a pre-med to disagree with this.....

To that pre-med -->

 

[Gastrapathy]

Yea, it's not a huge deal. Every DOs clinical experiences are different. I have classmates who have wonderful clerkships and others who didn't learn a thing. So, at worst, your 3rd year is a complete waste. Your 4th year is mostly electives, which you can do anywhere, so those electives should correct for any deficits you may have. Even if they don't it just means your.first few months of internship will suck a little more, but you'll catch up eventually. Your 2 years of clinical experience in medical schoo is like 2 out of 30 years of clinical experiene. In your lifetime. It doesn't really matter.

If you train residents, I assure you that it matters. Those sucky months as an intern don't just suck for the intern, they burden the senior residents and attendings. If you really believe that its possible for the key year of medical school to be a "complete waste" and that "doesn't really matter", you can see why some allopathic PDs are reluctant to dip their toes in the DO pool.

When an intern shows up and isn't ready, we spend a lot of resources getting that person up to speed. You are right that they usually catch up eventually but its not without us spending time fixing something that was supposed to have already been accomplished.

I know there are good DO schools but beyond a few familiar names, I don't know which are which. For fellowship, its easy because I can rely on allopathic IM PDs to evaluate the applicant.

For the DO student who can get away with just shadowing as an MS3, don't do it! Get there early, see the patient, exercise your brain. You just can't learn medicine by watching.

 

[CarlisleBeans]

When I first posted this thread, it was more just of a "hey - worth reading when considering DO schools" type of thread. I definitely did not expect there to be so many MD students, etc. responding to this particular thread. I'm not negatively commenting on that - just stating an observation - it may be pure naivety on my part and that's all. I feel like I hear so many different things about the whole DO vs. MD debate . . . I've gotten to the point where I just want to be a doctor. It is nothing more complicated than that. Becoming a doctor is what I want to do with my life. I know this 100% (I'm a non-tradional and have had a TON of time and medical experience to ponder this). I just want to go to medical school and come out a competent, caring physician. I feel like ultimately, in the end, wherever I choose to go, be it DO or MD, it's really going to be a lot of what I make out of the experience. Not the reputation of the school. Not whether I am a DO or a MD. But what I put into the experience, how much I study, how much drive and dedication I have, not what the school does for me, but really what I end up putting into it myself. No matter what, as long as I am a doctor, and a competent and compassionate one, that is all that really matters. Again - this may be total naivety on my part.

 

[racerwad]

When I first posted this thread, it was more just of a "hey - worth reading when considering DO schools" type of thread. I definitely did not expect there to be so many MD students, etc. responding to this particular thread. I'm not negatively commenting on that - just stating an observation - it may be pure naivety on my part and that's all. I feel like I hear so many different things about the whole DO vs. MD debate . . . I've gotten to the point where I just want to be a doctor. It is nothing more complicated than that. Becoming a doctor is what I want to do with my life. I know this 100% (I'm a non-tradional and have had a TON of time and medical experience to ponder this). I just want to go to medical school and come out a competent, caring physician. I feel like ultimately, in the end, wherever I choose to go, be it DO or MD, it's really going to be a lot of what I make out of the experience. Not the reputation of the school. Not whether I am a DO or a MD. But what I put into the experience, how much I study, how much drive and dedication I have, not what the school does for me, but really what I end up putting into it myself. No matter what, as long as I am a doctor, and a competent and compassionate one, that is all that really matters. Again - this may be total naivety on my part.

I know that you'll do your best but this really is naivety.

We've talked and, as I mentioned in our PM, based on the field you're interested in, you'll be more successful (per calorie of effort burned studying) if the school you went to had that specialty as its own department and residency. I am certain that you'll be able to accomplish your ultimate goal of being a specialist in X. The question is just about the effort you're going to expend getting there.

 

[ShyRem]

The bottom line here is no one really knows what is going to happen with the takeover of the AOA residencies by the ACGME.

To spread information on what was true in the past would be disingenuous at best.

I agree wholeheartedly that it has been true that for some specialties it was difficult for a DO to get into an ACGME fellowship. Not for all, but for some. Some ACGME residencies have been darn near impossible for DOs to get into. Which ones these are, however, has waxed and waned over the years. Believe it or not, years ago IM was outrageously competitive and derm, rads, and ortho were for folks who couldn't cut it in IM.

I know a physician from England who laughed heartily when he heard ortho was competitive here. Apparently ortho in England were for the "idiots whose heads got knocked about a bit much in rugby". He told stories of docs in England who took 3 or 4 years longer to complete med school that could only get into ortho.

What will happen in the future is anyone's guess. There are some folks who speculate that the DOs will go away entirely and be absorbed by the MDs.

Only time will tell at this point.

 

[cliquesh]

If you train residents, I assure you that it matters. Those sucky months as an intern don't just suck for the intern, they burden the senior residents and attendings. If you really believe that its possible for the key year of medical school to be a "complete waste" and that "doesn't really matter", you can see why some allopathic PDs are reluctant to dip their toes in the DO pool.

I'm pretty sure its true, to various degrees, for most 4th years. I've not met a MD or DO 4th year who actual cares anymore, unless they are rotating in a field related to their speciality of choice. Maybe it's just our generation.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I'm pretty sure its true, to various degrees, for most 4th years. I've not met a MD or DO 4th year who actual cares anymore, unless they are rotating in a field related to their speciality of choice. Maybe it's just our generation.

After a certain point. By about this time of the year, IIRC, grades are final anyways. That is basically what my 4th year friend told me

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[se20001984]

I went to a DO school bc I COULD NOT get into an MD school


however, as long as my USMLE/comlex (which will eventually be combined) scores are better/at par with MDs

there is NO need to put bias on there..



my organic chemistry marks and my intro to basket weaving and a BS verbal article on the civil war of 1812 in Hungry

does not factor into being a doctor

undergrad was a joke...if i could re due education..id shorten undergrad to 3 years and lengthen Medical education

 

[SpecterGT260]

I went to a DO school bc I COULD NOT get into an MD school


however, as long as my USMLE/comlex (which will eventually be combined) scores are better/at par with MDs

there is NO need to put bias on there..



my organic chemistry marks and my intro to basket weaving and a BS verbal article on the civil war of 1812 in Hungry

does not factor into being a doctor

undergrad was a joke...if i could re due education..id shorten undergrad to 3 years and lengthen Medical education

Just to clarify: are you saying there is no NEED for bias or that there is NO bias? The data on the subject is published. Bias exists.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[se20001984]

The bottom line here is no one really knows what is going to happen with the takeover of the AOA residencies by the ACGME.

To spread information on what was true in the past would be disingenuous at best.

I agree wholeheartedly that it has been true that for some specialties it was difficult for a DO to get into an ACGME fellowship. Not for all, but for some. Some ACGME residencies have been darn near impossible for DOs to get into. Which ones these are, however, has waxed and waned over the years. Believe it or not, years ago IM was outrageously competitive and derm, rads, and ortho were for folks who couldn't cut it in IM.

I know a physician from England who laughed heartily when he heard ortho was competitive here. Apparently ortho in England were for the "idiots whose heads got knocked about a bit much in rugby". He told stories of docs in England who took 3 or 4 years longer to complete med school that could only get into ortho.

What will happen in the future is anyone's guess. There are some folks who speculate that the DOs will go away entirely and be absorbed by the MDs.

Only time will tell at this point.

it will get absorbed

but probably not eliminated

we have 1 pillar holding the DO title-- which is OMT (that no one practices)

it will work in the following order

1. Comlex #2 locations are too few..so that will mix with USMLE locations
2. bc of identical accreditation...you MUST have the same exam... ie comlex #1 will be gone..and DOs will have to sit an extra hr for a OMT subsection after USMLE studentsare done


those 2 are a 100% chance in 2-3 years

Omt leaving might be alittle harder...however

with a HUGE wave of new generation DOs comming out..that really..lets be honest no one respects or believes in OMT...

that might give it a last push

 

[se20001984]

Just to clarify: are you saying there is no NEED for bias or that there is NO bias? The data on the subject is published. Bias exists.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

published on the opinion section of an internet site?? that does not mean published....ahhhahaha

im saying there is no need...