How many New spots will the be available to MD students due to the Combined Match?

[Mad Jack]

If hard work was all it took to achieve good outcomes for our profession, then we would have achieved equal treatment a long time ago. Sometimes it takes advocacy and the first step is admitting that there is a problem when DOs give up all of their residencies and receive practically nothing in exchange. I do think, though, that the allo student forum is not the right place for osteopathic students to air those grievances unless we're accused of bs like not wanting to work. I'm hoping that is not what your post was implying.

We didn't get nothing. We got the right to be PDs in ACGME programs, to complete ACGME fellowships, and a few other things that are kind of extremely important.

I don't understand why you think giving up a useless protectionist policy that largely served to allow substandard residencies to fly under the radar and allowed substandard candidates to have a safety net is a "problem" anyway. This is going to make sure that no DO trains at a substandard residency ever again. Are higher standards not worth having? Do you think it is a problem when an organization raises their standards?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GUH]

We didn't get nothing. We got the right to be PDs in ACGME programs, to complete ACGME fellowships, and a few other things that are kind of extremely important.

I don't understand why you think giving up a useless protectionist policy that largely served to allow substandard residencies to fly under the radar and allowed substandard candidates to have a safety net is a "problem" anyway. This is going to make sure that no DO trains at a substandard residency ever again. Are higher standards not worth having? Do you think it is a problem when an organization raises their standards?

I doubt that most DOs who only got to be neurosurgeons because of AOA residencies were "substandard". That accusation has no merit at all.
Higher standards are good but not arbitrary standards and certainly not at any cost.

The number of AOA-trained DOs who would benefit from being ACGME PDs is small. AOA-trained DOs had been going to ACGME fellowships for years without any problems until the ACGME wanted to force the merger through. That's not the kind of "standard-raising" that will inprove physician training or patient care. It was a political move.

 

[Mad Jack]

I doubt that most DOs who only got to be neurosurgeons because of AOA residencies were "substandard". That accusation has no merit at all.
Higher standards are good but not arbitrary standards and certainly not at any cost.

The number of AOA-trained DOs who would benefit from being ACGME PDs is small. AOA-trained DOs had been going to ACGME fellowships for years without any problems until the ACGME wanted to force the merger through. That's not the kind of "standard-raising" that will inprove physician training or patient care. It was a political move.

It was and it wasn't. There were legitimate concerns brought to the table in regard to the capability of DOs graduating from certain AOA programs. Would you want someone with inadequate training coming into your fellowship? The best way to ensure that this was no longer an issue was to force DO programs to comply with ACGME standards or lose the ability to complete fellowships.

As to PDs, some of us might have this "ambition" thing going for us and would prefer to have that door open for us in the future. You want to schlep around in some hovel of an office in rural Kentucky, more power to you. Some of us want different things that are both much harder to achieve and that would have been completely impossible had the merger not gone through. There's going to be far more DOs that benefit from the merger (via completion of fellowships, lack of discrimination towards their AOA credentials, PD positions, etc) than there will be that lose out on the paltry number of competitive positions that were in the AOA match. It's a trade that works out for more of us than it doesn't, and only burns those that were gunning for extremely competitive residencies that had very limited spots on the AOA side to begin with.

 

[GUH]

It was and it wasn't. There were legitimate concerns brought to the table in regard to the capability of DOs graduating from certain AOA programs. Would you want someone with inadequate training coming into your fellowship? The best way to ensure that this was no longer an issue was to force DO programs to comply with ACGME standards or lose the ability to complete fellowships.

As to PDs, some of us might have this "ambition" thing going for us and would prefer to have that door open for us in the future. You want to schlep around in some hovel of an office in rural Kentucky, more power to you. Some of us want different things that are both much harder to achieve and that would have been completely impossible had the merger not gone through. There's going to be far more DOs that benefit from the merger (via completion of fellowships, lack of discrimination towards their AOA credentials, PD positions, etc) than there will be that lose out on the paltry number of competitive positions that were in the AOA match. It's a trade that works out for more of us than it doesn't, and only burns those that were gunning for extremely competitive residencies that had very limited spots on the AOA side to begin with.

Is there any basis at all to your claim that there was a problem with sub-par AOA-trained DOs getting to and then messing up at an ACGME-accredited fellowship?

 

[Mad Jack]

Is there any basis at all to your claim that there was a problem with sub-par AOA-trained DOs getting to and then messing up at an ACGME-accredited fellowship?

Is there any basis at all to your claim that they didn't?

I've literally heard the, "I wouldn't let that DO take care of my cat" line before. And, rather than blaming it on the individual, they summed up that incompetence to be a result of the DO's training, rightly or wrongly. By having the ACGME take over GME, the postgraduate side of things is now no longer an X factor. Everyone knows that every DO they work with or hire has ACGME training moving forward, and that's a good thing. That means things will slowly move in the direction of looking at individuals as **** ups rather than blaming their GME or degree.

 

[GUH]

Is there any basis at all to your claim that they didn't?

I've literally heard the, "I wouldn't let that DO take care of my cat" line before. And, rather than blaming it on the individual, they summed up that incompetence to be a result of the DO's training, rightly or wrongly. By having the ACGME take over GME, the postgraduate side of things is now no longer an X factor. Everyone knows that every DO they work with or hire has ACGME training moving forward, and that's a good thing. That means things will slowly move in the direction of looking at individuals as **** ups rather than blaming their GME or degree.

That argument could just as easily be applied to advocate for the elimination of osteopathic medicine altogether. In the absence of any evidence that DOs or osteopathic training are inferior and given that plenty of AOA-trained DOs practice good medicine, the onus is on the ignorant to change. Not on us to eliminate our own profession from existence. Clearly the "I wouldn't let a DO take care of my cat" is not based on a well-informed understanding of the profession. It would be a bad idea to change osteopathic training to kowtow to people like that.

 

[Mad Jack]

That argument could just as easily be applied to advocate for the elimination of osteopathic medicine altogether. In the absence of any evidence that DOs or osteopathic training are inferior and given that plenty of AOA-trained DOs practice good medicine, the onus is on the ignorant to change. Not on us to eliminate our own profession from existence. Clearly the "I wouldn't let a DO take care of my cat" is not based on a well-informed understanding of the profession. It would be a bad idea to change osteopathic training to kowtow to people like that.

It was in relation to a particular DO, and was attributed to that DO's training, not to all DOs in general. When you're a good DO, congrats, you managed to be as good as an MD. When you're a bad DO, it's because of that pesky training you got. That's how they see it. Whereas a good MD is expected, and a bad MD is viewed as a fluke. We need to reach the point that our standards are high enough that a bad DO is viewed as a fluke, and our training is solid enough that it is good without question.

And if you want to understand why that is important, look through some of the historical threads on AOA anesthesia and radiology grads that were having trouble finding decent jobs, and the responses they got from those in the know. Anesthesia, in particular, had a reputation for turning out candidates with large deficits of knowledge in regard to critical anesthesia skills, and were basically not looked at by any groups because they were viewed as too risky. Our lower standards were at fault in those cases. Now such things won't be an issue. There will be no questioning of our credentials, because they are the same as an MD's in regard to GME.

As to scrapping the DO degree entirely- well, I honestly don't see a reason it should be a separate entity. Either osteopathic medicine is so good that everyone should learn it, or it is a niche interest that only a small number of people who are interested should be learning as a medical specialty or fellowship. There is no inherent justification for there to be two separate degree systems in place if OMM is as good as is claimed- it should be able to stand on its own two feet.

Personally I hope that the LCME eventually merges with the COCA, osteopathy becomes a fellowship one pursues after medical school or during elective rotations/classes, and then we can leave this whole schism behind us.

 

[Bones 2020]

 

[GUH]

It was in relation to a particular DO, and was attributed to that DO's training, not to all DOs in general. When you're a good DO, congrats, you managed to be as good as an MD. When you're a bad DO, it's because of that pesky training you got. That's how they see it. Whereas a good MD is expected, and a bad MD is viewed as a fluke. We need to reach the point that our standards are high enough that a bad DO is viewed as a fluke, and our training is solid enough that it is good without question.

And if you want to understand why that is important, look through some of the historical threads on AOA anesthesia and radiology grads that were having trouble finding decent jobs, and the responses they got from those in the know. Anesthesia, in particular, had a reputation for turning out candidates with large deficits of knowledge in regard to critical anesthesia skills, and were basically not looked at by any groups because they were viewed as too risky. Our lower standards were at fault in those cases. Now such things won't be an issue. There will be no questioning of our credentials, because they are the same as an MD's in regard to GME.

As to scrapping the DO degree entirely- well, I honestly don't see a reason it should be a separate entity. Either osteopathic medicine is so good that everyone should learn it, or it is a niche interest that only a small number of people who are interested should be learning as a medical specialty or fellowship. There is no inherent justification for there to be two separate degree systems in place if OMM is as good as is claimed- it should be able to stand on its own two feet.

Personally I hope that the LCME eventually merges with the COCA, osteopathy becomes a fellowship one pursues after medical school or during elective rotations/classes, and then we can leave this whole schism behind us.

If your real goal for supporting the elimination of distinctive osteopathic training is the complete elimination of DOs from medicine, then don't say that these changes are for the benefit of the osteopathic profession.

 

[Mad Jack]

If your real goal for supporting the elimination of distinctive osteopathic training is the complete elimination of DOs from medicine, then don't say that these changes are for the benefit of the osteopathic profession.

There is only medicine, and medicine that works or doesn't work. We are not the "osteopathic profession," we are medical professionals with additional osteopathic training. Anything that increases our legitimacy, skill, and training as physicians should be utilized, up to and including having higher undergraduate medical education standards. I never said DO training should be eliminated, just that it be optional as a branch of medicine. Having uniformally increased standards at DO schools via LCME oversight would increase the quality of undergraduate medical training substantially- that is good for medicine, good for the public, good for patients, and good for the people being trained. And if they want to go become osteopaths that door is still open. How you find any of that to be a negative thing is beyond me.

 

[GUH]

There is only medicine, and medicine that works or doesn't work. We are not the "osteopathic profession," we are medical professionals with additional osteopathic training. Anything that increases our legitimacy, skill, and training as physicians should be utilized, up to and including having higher undergraduate medical education standards. I never said DO training should be eliminated, just that it be optional as a branch of medicine. Having uniformally increased standards at DO schools via LCME oversight would increase the quality of undergraduate medical training substantially- that is good for medicine, good for the public, good for patients, and good for the people being trained. And if they want to go become osteopaths that door is still open. How you find any of that to be a negative thing is beyond me.

Trying to mask clearly politically-motivated moves against the profession as being for the benefit of patients and residents is not the best way forward.

 

[tymont12]

Is there any basis at all to your claim that there was a problem with sub-par AOA-trained DOs getting to and then messing up at an ACGME-accredited fellowship?

There must be or the ACGME wouldn't have said, "we'll shut you out if you don't meet our standards."

I recall hearing stories about certain AOA anesthesiology residencies in which the training was so sub-par that you couldn't expect to become BC/BE. Of course, this may be completely false.

 

[hallowmann]

As mentioned multiple times previously the audition rotations that are "required" by AOA programs are a consequence of the poor/inconsistent clinical rotations at DO schools. I find it hard to believe that a formerly AOA program (which has decided not to apply for osteopathic distinction) will pass up on applicants with LORs from well-known ortho and general surgeons at a large university program +/- a phone call from the program director at that university program just because they didn't do an "audition" rotation...

This assertion is purely speculation, much like most of the comments in this thread...

...Now let's talk about your ridiculous/insulting signature....

please, give me an example of how we as MDs only treat the symptoms and not the underlying cause of the disease? Are you implying that a patient who walks into my clinic complaining of diabetic neuropathy just gets a rx for gabapentin and that I'm so incompetent that I don't check an A1c or completely ignore their poorly controlled diabetes?

The hilarious thing is that if you knew the guy who posted that and the context, you'll realize that it was purely satirical mocking anyone who claims that DOs are >MDs in some way. I guess out of context its not obvious. I thought the ridiculousness of the quote was sufficient to recognize its a joke, but maybe you've actually met some ridiculous DOs (not sure where you would have since no DOs would ever get into your training programs, right?).

The claim is based on the fact that all but a handful (mostly FM) of the programs applying for acgme accreditation have decided not to apply for osteopathic distinction. They aren't eager to continue giving DOs an unearned and unwarranted advantage at their programs...

That's kind of a false equivalency. Just because they don't want to put in additional time and money to fulfill something that isn't required in no way relates to their resident selection process.

And I'll put it this way since you seem to always feel the need to imply that DOs are somehow "cheating the system" or getting "undeserved preferential treatment":

The DO PDs don't need to give all DOs preferential treatment, they just have to for example like people from their alma mater just like some MD PDs do. Or, being more familiar with DO schools in general, they need only be more willing to consider DOs from schools they are aware of, pretty much exactly how MD PDs from certain schools or certain areas show a preference for certain schools in certain areas. In addition, many AOA surgical programs are closely affiliated and in many cases sponsored by DO schools, so there will likely be pressure to accept students from their programs (just like there are with MD schools and their home institutions).

Again though, this is all speculation and only time will tell, but its all certainly possible, and probably equally as likely as what you're suggesting.

 

[DNC127]

There is only medicine, and medicine that works or doesn't work. We are not the "osteopathic profession," we are medical professionals with additional osteopathic training. Anything that increases our legitimacy, skill, and training as physicians should be utilized, up to and including having higher undergraduate medical education standards. I never said DO training should be eliminated, just that it be optional as a branch of medicine. Having uniformally increased standards at DO schools via LCME oversight would increase the quality of undergraduate medical training substantially- that is good for medicine, good for the public, good for patients, and good for the people being trained. And if they want to go become osteopaths that door is still open. How you find any of that to be a negative thing is beyond me.

Mad Jack keeps it real.

 

[midwestisbest]

It was in relation to a particular DO, and was attributed to that DO's training, not to all DOs in general. When you're a good DO, congrats, you managed to be as good as an MD. When you're a bad DO, it's because of that pesky training you got. That's how they see it. Whereas a good MD is expected, and a bad MD is viewed as a fluke. We need to reach the point that our standards are high enough that a bad DO is viewed as a fluke, and our training is solid enough that it is good without question.

And if you want to understand why that is important, look through some of the historical threads on AOA anesthesia and radiology grads that were having trouble finding decent jobs, and the responses they got from those in the know. Anesthesia, in particular, had a reputation for turning out candidates with large deficits of knowledge in regard to critical anesthesia skills, and were basically not looked at by any groups because they were viewed as too risky. Our lower standards were at fault in those cases. Now such things won't be an issue. There will be no questioning of our credentials, because they are the same as an MD's in regard to GME.

As to scrapping the DO degree entirely- well, I honestly don't see a reason it should be a separate entity. Either osteopathic medicine is so good that everyone should learn it, or it is a niche interest that only a small number of people who are interested should be learning as a medical specialty or fellowship. There is no inherent justification for there to be two separate degree systems in place if OMM is as good as is claimed- it should be able to stand on its own two feet.

Personally I hope that the LCME eventually merges with the COCA, osteopathy becomes a fellowship one pursues after medical school or during elective rotations/classes, and then we can leave this whole schism behind us.

This is what I think. Andrew Still was devastated by the loss of his family and invented a miracle way to do medicine differently... only he didn't. I'm alright with keeping parts of OMM around that are supported by research, maybe as a fellowship within or as a corollary to PM&R training, but it astounds me that DO is still a thing. DO schools should, maybe over the course of a decade or 15 years, seek to gain accreditation via LCME and AAMC (or as Mad Jack suggests, merge the accrediting boards) as MD schools, and phase out DO training. That would be the cleanest way to eliminate bias against graduates from those schools.

/This is my opinion. Take it for what it's worth (not much).

 

[ortnakas]

The claim is based on the fact that all but a handful (mostly FM) of the programs applying for acgme accreditation have decided not to apply for osteopathic distinction. They aren't eager to continue giving DOs an unearned and unwarranted advantage at their programs.

I'm sure this is true at some institutions, but I'm guessing another (maybe bigger factor) is just not wanting to jump through the extra hoops required to have "osteopathic distinction." I'm totally speculating, but I have a feeling the programs that are currently associated with DO schools, and have DO directors, are likely to continue to be DO friendly.

 

[tatsuchi]

There is only medicine, and medicine that works or doesn't work. We are not the "osteopathic profession," we are medical professionals with additional osteopathic training.

But, there is a reason DOs are titled 'Doctors of Osteopathy' and not 'Doctors of Medicine.'

And it's not just because of the two different letters after one's name. It's completely about the differing philosophy behind those two letters, and that difference is why they are not the same degree. Certainly similar, and in the 21st century the lines are definitely blurred way more than back in the 19th century, but it's still there.

If you are advocating cutting apart the entire Osteopathic philosophy and just reintegrating everyone as MDs with OMM specialty training, that is a different route of discussion. And not likely one that the AOA and those who genuinely believe in the DO degree would readily accept.

 

[kenjixshadow]

If you are advocating cutting apart the entire Osteopathic philosophy and just reintegrating everyone as MDs with OMM specialty training, that is a different route of discussion. And not likely one that the AOA and those who genuinely believe in the DO degree would readily accept.

Only the old guards still believe in the distinction. The new generation of DOs are ready for the merge. Whether AOA like it or not, DO will eventually join into MD and OMM will be a thing from the past. There are reasons why only <10% of DOs practice it.

 

[Bones 2020]

But, there is a reason DOs are titled 'Doctors of Osteopathy' and not 'Doctors of Medicine.'

Hmm I thought it was actually Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine...

 

[ortnakas]

Hmm I thought it was actually Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine...

It is.

 

[235009]

This assertion is purely speculation, much like most of the comments in this thread...

Agreed, it's an interpretation of the facts that are currently available. Obviously you will interpret the facts differently because you have a vested interest in a certain outcome whereas I don't and can therefore be more objective.

The hilarious thing is that if you knew the guy who posted that and the context, you'll realize that it was purely satirical mocking anyone who claims that DOs are >MDs in some way. I guess out of context its not obvious. I thought the ridiculousness of the quote was sufficient to recognize its a joke, but maybe you've actually met some ridiculous DOs (not sure where you would have since no DOs would ever get into your training programs, right?).

There are a handful of DOs in other programs at my hospital and judging from the (very few) match lists posted here there will be at least one roaming around the hospital of my future program too

I'm sure this is true at some institutions, but I'm guessing another (maybe bigger factor) is just not wanting to jump through the extra hoops required to have "osteopathic distinction." I'm totally speculating, but I have a feeling the programs that are currently associated with DO schools, and have DO directors, are likely to continue to be DO friendly.

Well before the wheels of the "merger"/takeover went into effect everyone on the osteo board was talking about how the AOA programs will continue to be relatively protected because MDs will have to jump through extra hoops and learn OMM to even apply but that, so far, has not been the case and all MDs (US, IMG and FMG) will have unfettered access to apply to these programs. Let's see if this next assertion will come true or whether the programs will continue to act in their own self interest as they've been doing all along. I can argue that there may be pressure from the hospital on these DO program directors to fill in the match (requiring them to rank IMGs and FMGs) or improve the quality of their residents (by potentially taking US MDs) in by the hospital that just spent $$$ getting everything in line for ACGME accreditation

...it's all speculation at this point and we'll see what happens... all i know is that things have not worked out so far as the majority of posters in the osteo forum had speculated/hoped

It's completely about the differing philosophy behind those two letters, and that difference is why they are not the same degree. Certainly similar, and in the 21st century the lines are definitely blurred way more than back in the 19th century, but it's still there.

There is no difference anymore other than OMM (which is almost completely pseudoscience). Everyone is taught to practice patient centered holistic medicine

 

[hallowmann]

But, there is a reason DOs are titled 'Doctors of Osteopathy' and not 'Doctors of Medicine.'

And it's not just because of the two different letters after one's name. It's completely about the differing philosophy behind those two letters, and that difference is why they are not the same degree. Certainly similar, and in the 21st century the lines are definitely blurred way more than back in the 19th century, but it's still there.

If you are advocating cutting apart the entire Osteopathic philosophy and just reintegrating everyone as MDs with OMM specialty training, that is a different route of discussion. And not likely one that the AOA and those who genuinely believe in the DO degree would readily accept.

Its actually Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine . It was created because AT Still wanted a distinct degree, and when the ASO got its charter and it was initially assigned to grant the MD degree, he rejected it and wanted a separate degree for Diplomat of Osteopathy.

Even within 20 yrs of its founding, half the community felt as Mad Jack does that rather osteopathy is a philosophy of an ideal way to practice medicine (focus on health, sources of illness, self-healing, homeostasis, etc. etc.) that can be aided by both manipulation and medicine. AT Still stood against all medicine claiming that manipulation can cure all illnesses, and ultimately it divided the community. Eventually, after his death, the american osteopathic community accepted the use of medication and pharmacology, forming the DO institutions and professionals we know today.

As of now, and for decades, MDs have supported the principle features of the osteopathic philosophy that made it revolutionary and ahead of its time in the misguidance that was heroic medicine. They're trained in that way, trained to think of the body as a unit, look further than a collection of symptoms, trained to recognize the importance of the MSK system, referred pain, the neuromuscular connections, etc., trained to focus on promoting healing based on lifestyle modification, diet, etc. A good physician does (and probably always did) those things, and its part of the medical profession and modern medical practice.

There is no longer two different philosophies, only implementation and OMT.

 

[Psai]

Obviously I'm not talking about averages here. The average Harvard student is likely going to be a better candidate than at least 90% of their competition, that includes both MDs and DOs. The point I was making was that given all else being equal, an MD will be taken over a DO just because of the letters 99.9% of the time in an ACGME program, and it's not uncommon that an MD with a 240 will be taken over a DO with a 250 when all else is equal too. Despite what might be said on here, the bolded is absolutely the case with some programs, and I've personally talked to a few program/fellowship directors who said that to my face before med school.

Also, I live in reality, and understand that the "brand name" of Harvard and the prestige do matter to people. All I'm saying is that I don't give a crap about the name of the school on a CV. I care about the rest of the application surrounding it (which will obviously typically be better coming from Harvard), which is how it should be imo but isn't always the case.

How do you know any of this? You can't throw around percentages that you pulled out of nowhere

You can say you don't care about the name of the school because your school has no name. You have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. But I know a few of the people who got into top schools and they are ridiculous. It takes a lot to get into medical school to begin with and even more so to get into a top school. The grades, the mcat scores, the research, the school name, the experiences that they have are all incredibly impressive. That's why name matters and will continue to matter. I would take an md with a 220 over a do with a 250 any day. You're in DO school for a reason and it's not because you loved the holistic aspect of omm so much.

 

[Mad Jack]

Only the old guards still believe in the distinction. The new generation of DOs are ready for the merge. Whether AOA like it or not, DO will eventually join into MD and OMM will be a thing from the past. There are reasons why only 2% of DOs practice it.

Ftfy

 

[hallowmann]

Agreed, it's an interpretation of the facts that are currently available. Obviously you will interpret the facts differently because you have a vested interest in a certain outcome whereas I don't and can therefore be more objective...

I don't really have a vested interest, its unlikely it will affect me personally much at all.

...Well before the wheels of the "merger"/takeover went into effect everyone on the osteo board was talking about how the AOA programs will continue to be relatively protected because MDs will have to jump through extra hoops and learn OMM to even apply but that, so far, has not been the case and all MDs (US, IMG and FMG) will have unfettered access to apply to these programs. Let's see if this next assertion will come true or whether the programs will continue to act in their own self interest as they've been doing all along. I can argue that there may be pressure from the hospital on these DO program directors to fill in the match (requiring them to rank IMGs and FMGs) or improve the quality of their residents (by potentially taking US MDs) in by the hospital that just spent $$$ getting everything in line for ACGME accreditation

...it's all speculation at this point and we'll see what happens... all i know is that things have not worked out so far as the majority of posters in the osteo forum had speculated/hoped...

That's only one of many reasons why people said they doubted significant DO position losses, and it holds true for any program that retains/applies for osteopathic focus (this includes ACGME programs that have applied and may apply for it).

In addition, people cited the fact that DO PDs, would likely still continue to accept DOs, which is why many were concerned when it was implied that they'd lose their jobs - but that has already been resolved for 95% of PDs. People also felt that hospitals full of DOs will still be considering DOs, hospitals where primarily DO students rotate will continue to prefer the students they know, just as any programs do, and again affiliated programs will still prefer students from their home institution. All of these are reasonable statements as they are objectively well known reasons all residency programs prefer certain applicants.

No one is saying DOs are breaking in to all the top tier MD University programs, but its not like we'll lose all the spots at all DO programs. We will lose some, but I also think we'll gain exposure in some programs that otherwise hadn't seen many DOs, simply by the larger number of DO applicants involved in the NRMP match (it'll double). Personally I think it'll break even for most DOs, and may adversely affect the ones at the bottom, if schools don't step up to support their students.

...There are a handful of DOs in other programs at my hospital and judging from the (very few) match lists posted here there will be at least one roaming around the hospital of my future program too ...

IT'S HAPPENING! WE'RE DOING IT!!!

...There is no difference anymore other than OMM... Everyone is taught to practice patient centered holistic medicine

Woah, woah, woah, did I just almost say verbatim what you just said? What's the world coming to??

 

[Mad Jack]

Agreed, it's an interpretation of the facts that are currently available. Obviously you will interpret the facts differently because you have a vested interest in a certain outcome whereas I don't and can therefore be more objective.



There are a handful of DOs in other programs at my hospital and judging from the (very few) match lists posted here there will be at least one roaming around the hospital of my future program too



Well before the wheels of the "merger"/takeover went into effect everyone on the osteo board was talking about how the AOA programs will continue to be relatively protected because MDs will have to jump through extra hoops and learn OMM to even apply but that, so far, has not been the case and all MDs (US, IMG and FMG) will have unfettered access to apply to these programs. Let's see if this next assertion will come true or whether the programs will continue to act in their own self interest as they've been doing all along. I can argue that there may be pressure from the hospital on these DO program directors to fill in the match (requiring them to rank IMGs and FMGs) or improve the quality of their residents (by potentially taking US MDs) in by the hospital that just spent $$$ getting everything in line for ACGME accreditation

...it's all speculation at this point and we'll see what happens... all i know is that things have not worked out so far as the majority of posters in the osteo forum had speculated/hoped



There is no difference anymore other than OMM (which is almost completely pseudoscience). Everyone is taught to practice patient centered holistic medicine

Contrary to popular belief, MDs have incorporated patient-centered, holistic views toward medical practice into their curriculum

 

[Mad Jack]

How do you know any of this? You can't throw around percentages that you pulled out of nowhere

You can say you don't care about the name of the school because your school has no name. You have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. But I know a few of the people who got into top schools and they are ridiculous. It takes a lot to get into medical school to begin with and even more so to get into a top school. The grades, the mcat scores, the research, the school name, the experiences that they have are all incredibly impressive. That's why name matters and will continue to matter. I would take an md with a 220 over a do with a 250 any day. You're in DO school for a reason and it's not because you loved the holistic aspect of omm so much.

 

[IslandStyle808]

How do you know any of this? You can't throw around percentages that you pulled out of nowhere

You can say you don't care about the name of the school because your school has no name. You have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. But I know a few of the people who got into top schools and they are ridiculous. It takes a lot to get into medical school to begin with and even more so to get into a top school. The grades, the mcat scores, the research, the school name, the experiences that they have are all incredibly impressive. That's why name matters and will continue to matter. I would take an md with a 220 over a do with a 250 any day. You're in DO school for a reason and it's not because you loved the holistic aspect of omm so much.

The second to the last sentence contradicts what you are stating, if they go to a top school their average scores will be higher. However, you think that people can't change themselves around in low-tier MD school or DO schools at all. There is a reason why people from low-tier MD schools still match into MGH. Its because they turned themselves around and excelled on their boards, clinical rotations, etc. I can understand that what school one comes from should be used since being no. 1 in Harvard outweighs being no. 1 in Drexel. However, that advantage can be far to great when you consider MDs don't have their applications filtered out while DOs do.

Plus, you got guy's like MadJack who are total exceptions to your rule. Now this is a different story, but not far from the point I'm stating.

 

[Mad Jack]

The second to the last sentence contradicts what you are stating, if they go to a top school their average scores will be higher. However, you think that people can't change themselves around in low-tier MD school or DO schools at all. There is a reason why people from low-tier MD schools that still match into MGH. Its because they turned themselves around and excelled on their boards, clinical rotations, etc. I can understand that what school one comes from should be used since being no. 1 in Harvard outweighs being no. 1 in Drexel. However, that advantage can be far to great when you consider MDs don't have their applications filtered out while DOs do.

Plus, you got guy's like MadJack who are total exceptions to your rule. Now this is a different story, but not far from the point I'm stating.

I mean, if it was all about undergraduate GPA, MCAT, and research, why not just put those on the application instead of just looking at the MD. That would make a more accurate assessment per Psai's criteria.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I mean, if it was all about undergraduate GPA, MCAT, and research, why not just put those on the application instead of just looking at the MD. That would make a more accurate assessment per Psai's criteria.

Let's just ignore USMLE scores, clinical grades, med school research, etc.; I totally agree.

 

[Dr. Death]

The more I think about it the more I like the merger. This is the first step in combining the DO and MD degrees, and will ensure that all residencies are held to a high standard. Furthermore, a lot of the crappy residencies (across all specialties) will close, tightening the bottleneck and squeezing out lower tier DO students and IMG's. All the while ensuring that (barring significant ACGME expansion) our profession doesn't end up like the dentists, pharmacists or lawyers of the country.

 

[Dr. Death]

How do you know any of this? You can't throw around percentages that you pulled out of nowhere

You can say you don't care about the name of the school because your school has no name. You have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. But I know a few of the people who got into top schools and they are ridiculous. It takes a lot to get into medical school to begin with and even more so to get into a top school. The grades, the mcat scores, the research, the school name, the experiences that they have are all incredibly impressive. That's why name matters and will continue to matter. I would take an md with a 220 over a do with a 250 any day. You're in DO school for a reason and it's not because you loved the holistic aspect of omm so much.

Applicant A 3.5 uGPA 30 MCAT KY resident - accepted to state MD school. Continues to be at or below average, scores average on USMLE
Applicant B 3.6 uGPA 31 MCAT CA resident - rejected from state MDs and goes to a high tier DO. Graduates highly ranked in class and scores above average on USMLE

Your logic makes a lot of sense and should certainly be applied in all scenarios.

 

[Psai]

Let's get something straight. I've successfully managed to get through the match process so let's assume that my understanding about the match might be a smidge better than yours. I now have literally no skin in the game as I'm almost done with school and I am in my program for the next 4 years. What happens to you has no bearing on me. All I can offer is my understanding and experience. If you want to close your eyes and cover your ears going la la la dos are just as good, that's fine with me. But you're here in allopathic for a reason, I'm not going to argue against pre-allo level arguments because I just don't care. I want everyone to do well and hope you go where you want to go

I'm explaining why name matters. My school is not a brand name school and I think it hurt me as well as my classmates. We have plenty of amazing people who didn't even get interviews at some of the most desirable places. There's a reason why harvard's match list is filled with harvard students. Whining about it, moaning about discrimination, constructing strawmen to pretend that name or degree doesn't matter won't help anything. I don't know why you guys insist on pretending that there is no bias or that if it exists then it's unfair except as an immature defense mechanism. Do you really think you are going to convince us that your schools provide the same quality applicants or turn out the same quality students? From what I've seen, it's not even close. You are all enthralled with the very few top notch students who match at top notch residencies and yes they are impressive but the vast majority of the matches are mediocre at best. This merger will likely end up helping md students get into competitive specialties. The other effects are harder to tell but I'm hoping that it will raise the standards of DO schools as well

 

[67552931811]

Let's get something straight. I've successfully managed to get through the match process so let's assume that my understanding about the match might be a smidge better than yours. I now have literally no skin in the game as I am in my program for the next whatever years and I don't care what happens to you guys. All I can offer is my understanding and experience. If you want to close your eyes and cover your ears going la la la dos are just as good, that's fine with me. But you're here in allopathic for a reason.

I'm explaining why name matters. My school is not a brand name school and I think it hurt me as well as my classmates. There's a reason why harvard's match list is filled with harvard students. Whining about it, constructing strawmen, pretending that name or degree doesn't matter won't help anything. I don't know why you guys insist on pretending that there is no bias or that it's unfair except as an immature defense mechanism. Do you really think you are going to convince us that your schools provide the same quality applicants or turn out the same quality students? From what I've seen, it's not even close

Random, but I'm curious: you are going into gas, right? Are there any DOs in your program? Cause DOs are pretty inundated in that speciality. Genuinely curious here.

 

[Wordead]

Applicant A 3.5 uGPA 30 MCAT KY resident - accepted to state MD school. Continues to be at or below average, scores average on USMLE
Applicant B 3.6 uGPA 31 MCAT CA resident - rejected from state MDs and goes to a high tier DO. Graduates highly ranked in class and scores above average on USMLE

Your logic makes a lot of sense and should certainly be applied in all scenarios.

Applicant B only applied to med schools in his state, poor decision making, meh.

 

[Mad Jack]

Applicant B only applied to med schools in his state, poor decision making, meh.

What if applicant B had, say, a spouse whose career would have been destroyed if they left the state? I would consider putting your family first good decision-making, personally, but that's just me.

Or what if a person could, I dunno, save a year of their life by applying DO, and they're already old enough that an additional year would be financially devastating to their retirement savings and represent an enormous loss of income relative to remaining working years. That would make it financially stupid to go MD.

Or what if you've got a kid with special needs and you won't have the resources to care for them if you're outisde of certain geographic regions.

I mean, there's a lot of conceivable reasons one could be perfectly capable of going MD but DO is the wise decision. Especially if they want to go into primary care or any of the other DO-friendly fields.

 

[Psai]

What if applicant B had, say, a spouse whose career would have been destroyed if they left the state? I would consider putting your family first good decision-making, personally, but that's just me.

Or what if a person could, I dunno, save a year of their life by applying DO, and they're already old enough that an additional year would be financially devastating to their retirement savings and represent an enormous loss of income relative to remaining working years. That would make it financially stupid to go MD.

Or what if you've got a kid with special needs and you won't have the resources to care for them if you're outisde of certain geographic regions.

I mean, there's a lot of conceivable reasons one could be perfectly capable of going MD but DO is the wise decision. Especially if they want to go into primary care or any of the other DO-friendly fields.

Let's not do this whole let's play pretend game. Md schools are in areas where people get healthcare. It's not like do schools that just open in the middle of nowhere and hope that some hospital will have rotations available for their students. The main reason that people go do is because they couldn't get md. It's really that simple. You're acting like there aren't way more md programs or that they're not in the same geographic areas

This isn't preallo. Even if you have other circumstances, it doesn't change the fact that the applicant pool for do schools is not as good and that they are not as competitive for residency due to lower quality of education, students, rotation sites, etc. whereas the minimum for md schools is standardized and very high

 

[deleted564680]

DO and MD school incoming GPA is almost equal and incoming MCAT is creeping up to equality each year. The MD side benefits from 10 to 15 schools that skew the avg high. There are a handful at least DO schools that have higher entrance stats than some state MD schools in less desirable states.

 

[AlteredScale]

Aacomas does do grade replacement while amcas doesnt. That may count for something as well.


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app

 

[Mad Jack]

Let's not do this whole let's play pretend game. Md schools are in areas where people get healthcare. It's not like do schools that just open in the middle of nowhere and hope that some hospital will have rotations available for their students. The main reason that people go do is because they couldn't get md. It's really that simple. You're acting like there aren't way more md programs or that they're not in the same geographic areas

This isn't preallo. Even if you have other circumstances, it doesn't change the fact that the applicant pool for do schools is not as good and that they are not as competitive for residency due to lower quality of education, students, rotation sites, etc. whereas the minimum for md schools is standardized and very high

I'm just sayin', there's some unique situations out there. My school, for instance, is the only school that can keep people in Maine for all four years- that's important for a lot of the married nontrads, lots of whom have children and spouses with businesses or other careers. Plenty of people in my class have MCAT >30 and GPA >3.5 combined stats and ended up here for a variety of reasons.

Hell, Touro-Harlem and Touro-CA have MCAT averages that are substantially higher than many state MD schools. As things have gotten more competitive, the lines have started to blur, because we've got a whole lot more qualified applicants than we have spots, and the caliber of people getting turned away today are the sort of people that would have easily walked into MD school fifteen years ago. Regardless, there's not much point in discussing any of this. Yeah, DO students are, on average, academically weaker moving in. But there is a substantial and growing minority that actually had the stats for MD school, and there just isn't enough room nowadays. 1,006 Asian applicants with a 30+, 3.8+ profile were rejected between 2014 and 2016. I mean, nearly half of Asians with an MCAT of 30-32 and a GPA of 3.6-3.8 get rejected- they're certainly qualified for MD school. If you expand it to 30+ 3.6+ there's 2,765 Asian applicants alone rejected every year. For whites, the categories break down to 2,505 for 30+, 3.8+ and 5,831 30+, 3.6+ applicants. That means we've got 8,596 30+, 3.6+ applicants every year, or an average of 4,298 of them every year that get rejected. A lot of those perfectly qualified candidates end up at DO schools.

 

[Psai]

Not the same scale due to grade replacement. Same majors? Same schools? Probably not. The numbers aren't necessarily comparable but then again you're just making assertions with no proof.

You do realize that this thread isn't about defending dos. It's about mds and how they will be affected by changes in the match. Feel free to keep your do groupthink in osteo so the rest of us can continue to live in reality

 

[MD2BE92]

DO and MD school incoming GPA is almost equal and incoming MCAT is creeping up to equality each year. The MD side benefits from 10 to 15 schools that skew the avg high. There are a handful at least DO schools that have higher entrance stats than some state MD schools in less desirable states.

Let's be honest here for a second, the entire average is skewed high because MD is everyone's first choice. That does not mean that there aren't special circumstances that cause highly qualified applicants to go the DO route, OR, that you cannot reinvent yourself in medical school, because there are and you can.

 

[Mad Jack]

Not the same scale due to grade replacement. Same majors? Same schools? Probably not. The numbers aren't necessarily comparable but then again you're just making assertions with no proof.

You do realize that this thread isn't about defending dos. It's about mds and how they will be affected by changes in the match. Feel free to keep your do groupthink in osteo so the rest of us can continue to live in reality

The competitiveness of DOs in regard to MDs factors heavily into how many of the formerly DO spots will go to MDs. I'm not defending DOs so much as stating that some of them are more competitive than you simplify them to be. That may or may not factor in with former AOA programs, depending on how things pan out.

 

[Stagg737]

Only the old guards still believe in the distinction. The new generation of DOs are ready for the merge. Whether AOA like it or not, DO will eventually join into MD and OMM will be a thing from the past. There are reasons why only <10% of DOs practice it.

I'd say the bigger reason is because there isn't enough research on the techniques that are legitimately efficacious for patients and the old guard is holding onto certain techniques/treatments with no evidence behind them which makes the entire field seem like bs.

How do you know any of this? You can't throw around percentages that you pulled out of nowhere

You can say you don't care about the name of the school because your school has no name. You have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. But I know a few of the people who got into top schools and they are ridiculous. It takes a lot to get into medical school to begin with and even more so to get into a top school. The grades, the mcat scores, the research, the school name, the experiences that they have are all incredibly impressive. That's why name matters and will continue to matter. I would take an md with a 220 over a do with a 250 any day. You're in DO school for a reason and it's not because you loved the holistic aspect of omm so much.

The percentages were examples, but the point was most 'average' people at Harvard or any of the top 3-5 schools will likely have far better CV's and stats than most other applicants. Just look at the match lists and it's pretty obvious. I mean, even if the Harvard name carries a lot of weight, they wouldn't be matching entire classes into ridiculously strong programs unless the class as a whole was strong.

You're still missing the point with the second paragraph. I could care less what a residency applicant's MCAT score or undergrad GPA was or how impressive they were. If they were the golden child during undergrad, went to a top tier program, and had an average GPA with a 220 Step 1 and minimal EC's, then the name of the school doesn't mean squat to me. At the same time if a student goes to a low-tier MD or DO school, ends up top 10% of their class, hits a 250, and has some solid research/EC's, I'll take them over the mediocre applicant I previously mentioned any day, and I personally wouldn't want to work with anyone that wouldn't take the latter over the former.

Not the same scale due to grade replacement. Same majors? Same schools? Probably not. The numbers aren't necessarily comparable but then again you're just making assertions with no proof.

You do realize that this thread isn't about defending dos. It's about mds and how they will be affected by changes in the match. Feel free to keep your do groupthink in osteo so the rest of us can continue to live in reality

Back to the original topic, I would guess that there will likely be less DO's matching into the formerly-AOA programs of the more competitive fields, but I don't think it will be as easy as many MDs would like it to be. Ortho on the AOA side, for example, attracts a lot of extremely competitive individuals because there is now such heavy bias against DOs in ACGME programs. So MDs unable to match ortho in the current ACGME match will likely still struggle when it comes to the new AOA programs, as they'll be competing with individuals with better or similar stats at programs where the anti-DO bias is minimal or doesn't exist. Other competitive fields like ophtho might see many MDs filling those positions. Additionally, MDs may take up more of the programs in highly desired locations in moderately competitive fields. Then again, that's just speculation. I really don't think anyone can say how it will play out yet with certainty, but I do think the merger will be hurting many DO students in the short run.

 

[deleted564680]

First of all, a very common reason that a person ends up in DO school is that they went to a tough undergrad and had a tough major like chemistry, physics, engineering as opposed to those who went to state schools and majored in exercise science, nutrition, etc. I can't collect data on that.
Also, I can't collect data on grade replacement exactly but according to AACOMAS, 75% of DO matriculants were starting school at age 21-25 meaning that a good chunk of people didn't have grade replacement. And again, the MD side has 10-15 schools on the high end that skew some of the averages a bit, which is perfectly fair but notable. The MD side is pulled up by some high schools and the DO side is pulled down by some low schools.

For 2015, average GPA for DOs: 3.64 non-science, 3.49 science (http://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/data-and-trends/2015_mat.pdf?sfvrsn=8)
MCAT: 27.3
For 2015, average GPA for MDs: 3.77 non-science, 3.64 science (https://www.aamc.org/download/321494/data/factstablea16.pdf)
MCAT: 31.4


Some DO Schools: Most data is old and likely the MCAT scores for each school are .5-1 pt higher now.
Touro-NY: 3.40/30.8 (2013)
Touro-Ca: 3.47/3.40/30.8 (2015)
CCOM: 3.60/3.55/29.4 (2013)
AZCOM: 3.51/3.44/29
LECOM-B: 3.53/3.45/29 (2015)
KCU: 3.XX/3.XX/29 (2015)
DMU: 3.63/3.57/28.3
RVU: 3.63/3.59/28.11
RowanSOM: 3.63/3.55/28 (2013)
UNTHSC-TCOM: 3.60/3.49/28
NYITCOM: 3.6/28 (2013)
MSU: 3.59/28
COMP: 3.58/3.56/28
UNECOM: 3.5+/28
Touro-NV: 3.5/3.4/28
NSU: 3.49/3.40/28 (2013)
PCOM: 3.46/3.37/28 (2012)
OU-HCOM: 3.65/27.37
MU-COM: 3.62/3.56/27.33
CUSOM: 3.6/3.5/27
KCOM: 3.56/3.47/27 (2013)


Some MD Schools: I just searched a few that came into my head as possibly comparative to DO school competitiveness (I'm sure there are many more but I don't have the time to look them all up and many schools don't report their latest data on their sites)
Louisville: /29.16 (2015 - http://louisville.edu/medicine/admissions/app-process/take-mcat)
Central Michigan: 3.63/29 (2015 - https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/8E60AE8A-DD89-F38B-68F611A92AA5D47A/cmu_cmed_fact_sheet(2).pdf)
Arkansas: 3.72/29 (2015 - https://medicine.uams.edu/files/2015/05/COM_admissions_guide_2016-web.pdf)
Florida State: 3.6/28 (2015 - http://med.fsu.edu/?page=mdAdmissions.faqs)
Mississippi: 3.7/3.6/28 (2015 - https://www.umc.edu/Education/Schools/Medicine/SOM_Admissions/Metrics.aspx)
NEOMED: 3.65/27 (2015 - http://www.neomed.edu/admissions/medicine/direct/COMM1ClassProfile201515thDay.pdf)


Granted, most MD schools > DO schools in MCAT and GPA but it's not as different as some would make it seem and it's relevant in this thread with the DO bias and DOs and MDs competing more directly now. I hope there's a day when both are seen equally, but I don't know if that will happen.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Not really trying to insert myself deeply into this conversation but I would like to add a few thoughts to @Cubsfan10's post.

1. It's more than 10-15. There are probably ~30 schools that have what would be considered "high" MD stats (both 35+ MCAT, 3.8+ GPA), so double that number. That's about 20-25% of all MD schools.

2. The largest group of MD schools are state schools who take students primarily from their own state. This means that students are competing against a restricted applicant pool and thus the admissions standards are lower; many of them (as you've noted) are comparable to DO admissions standards. Even if out of state applicants apply, they are generally not considered for many of theses schools (particularly for most of the schools you listed above), and thus won't factor into the median accepted applicant stats that you've provided. If you opened up the applicant pool (realistically, as in no or little in-state bias), I can almost guarantee you that those scores would go up very quickly as a flood of higher stat candidates flood into the pool. Thus, I don't think it's really fair to compare admissions standards for DO schools to schools like University of Mississippi who admit 90%+ of their accepted students from in-state (source: https://www.umc.edu/Education/Schools/Medicine/SOM_Admissions/Mississippi_Residency.aspx - says in recent years, non-residents of Mississippi cannot be considered, so they would be 100% in-state). It's more fair to compare them to schools like Hofstra, Jefferson, George Washington, and Tufts that are lower tier schools in terms of admissions competitiveness that consider students from all across the country.

If we are going to talk about this kind of thing, I think it's at least important to make sure the things we are comparing are, well, comparable.

 

[CopaceticOne]

Applicant B 3.6 uGPA 31 MCAT CA resident - rejected from state MDs and goes to a high tier DO. Graduates highly ranked in class and scores above average on USMLE

I'm just sayin', there's some unique situations out there. My school, for instance, is the only school that can keep people in Maine for all four years- that's important for a lot of the married nontrads, lots of whom have children and spouses with businesses or other careers.

Then they made a intentional decision on going to that local DO school instead of an MD school. In such a case the results and ramifications for that decision are their responsibility and theirs alone. Just because it may have been a poor decision, doesn't absolve them of their ownership of the outcome.

Or what if a person could, I dunno, save a year of their life by applying DO, and they're already old enough that an additional year would be financially devastating to their retirement savings and represent an enormous loss of income relative to remaining working years

If they are already so old that they are concerned about retirement savings because of financial devistation, then going to medical school and acquiring an astounding amount of debt is idiotic. Again, a fine example of poor decision making skills.

 

[Mad Jack]

If they are already so old that they are concerned about retirement savings because of financial devistation, then going to medical school and acquiring an astounding amount of debt is idiotic. Again, a fine example of poor decision making skills.

You clearly don't understand the power of compound interest. Let's say I were to make 300k out of the gate, year 1 post graduation. I invest 80k of my first year earnings at 10% a year (historically speaking) for the next 28 years (I won't have as long of a working life as most of you, given my age). That 80k ends up being worth $1,153,679.49. That's over one million dollars of opportunity cost you're giving up all to tack on "MD" instead of "DO." Personally, I decided that was a poor decision and went DO. And so far, I'm a competitive enough applicant to be an example of (hopefully) why most of these DO spots aren't going to all end up going to MDs. But we'll see. I think some spots (plastics, for instance) will go almost entirely MD, and overall, most of the competitive spots will lose a lot of ground to MDs. But overall, I think DOs that want to match in mid to lower tier specialties will probably fare just fine post-merger, as they'll take about as many spots as we give up in a lot of specialties.

 

[deleted564680]

Not really trying to insert myself deeply into this conversation but I would like to add a few thoughts to @Cubsfan10's post.

1. It's more than 10-15. There are probably ~30 schools that have what would be considered "high" MD stats (both 35+ MCAT, 3.8+ GPA), so double that number. That's about 20-25% of all MD schools.

2. The largest group of MD schools are state schools who take students primarily from their own state. This means that students are competing against a restricted applicant pool and thus the admissions standards are lower; many of them (as you've noted) are comparable to DO admissions standards. Even if out of state applicants apply, they are generally not considered for many of theses schools (particularly for most of the schools you listed above), and thus won't factor into the median accepted applicant stats that you've provided. If you opened up the applicant pool (realistically, as in no or little in-state bias), I can almost guarantee you that those scores would go up very quickly as a flood of higher stat candidates flood into the pool. Thus, I don't think it's really fair to compare admissions standards for DO schools to schools like University of Mississippi who admit 90%+ of their accepted students from in-state (source: https://www.umc.edu/Education/Schools/Medicine/SOM_Admissions/Mississippi_Residency.aspx - says in recent years, non-residents of Mississippi cannot be considered, so they would be 100% in-state). It's more fair to compare them to schools like Hofstra, Jefferson, George Washington, and Tufts that are lower tier schools in terms of admissions competitiveness that consider students from all across the country.

If we are going to talk about this kind of thing, I think it's at least important to make sure the things we are comparing are, well, comparable.

Fair points. I just randomly picked schools and a lot of MD schools didn't officially list their MCAT scores. I didn't want to use a 3rd party site.

 

[AlteredScale]

Not really trying to insert myself deeply into this conversation but I would like to add a few thoughts to @Cubsfan10's post.

1. It's more than 10-15. There are probably ~30 schools that have what would be considered "high" MD stats (both 35+ MCAT, 3.8+ GPA), so double that number. That's about 20-25% of all MD schools.

2. The largest group of MD schools are state schools who take students primarily from their own state. This means that students are competing against a restricted applicant pool and thus the admissions standards are lower; many of them (as you've noted) are comparable to DO admissions standards. Even if out of state applicants apply, they are generally not considered for many of theses schools (particularly for most of the schools you listed above), and thus won't factor into the median accepted applicant stats that you've provided. If you opened up the applicant pool (realistically, as in no or little in-state bias), I can almost guarantee you that those scores would go up very quickly as a flood of higher stat candidates flood into the pool. Thus, I don't think it's really fair to compare admissions standards for DO schools to schools like University of Mississippi who admit 90%+ of their accepted students from in-state (source: https://www.umc.edu/Education/Schools/Medicine/SOM_Admissions/Mississippi_Residency.aspx - says in recent years, non-residents of Mississippi cannot be considered, so they would be 100% in-state). It's more fair to compare them to schools like Hofstra, Jefferson, George Washington, and Tufts that are lower tier schools in terms of admissions competitiveness that consider students from all across the country.

If we are going to talk about this kind of thing, I think it's at least important to make sure the things we are comparing are, well, comparable.

I agree. HBU or state MDs have a binding contract to select from their pool of residents which is not a good comparison when it comes to stats. In that aspect, it makes the argument quite weak since these private DO schools (essentially all of them) have a much larger pool to select and are still fighting to hit the GPA and MCAT of what most low and some mid tier MD schools (and that's with applicants who utilize grade replacement).