% of D.O.'s in allopathic programs... significant?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

EUA

Full Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
there's some rumor going around that the ACGME limits the precentage of DO residents in an allopathic program for certification purposes. While it sounds suspect to me, it wouldn't be entirely surprised given that there still is a fair amount of DO prejudice.

Truth or lies? Whaddya think?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I would find this hard to believe, since I interviewed at some allopathic programs that are almost 50% DOs, and these are programs with excellent reputations. There are also dually accredited programs (both AOA and ACGME) which may have more than 50% DOs.

In fact, I'm a DO student who has been fairly heavily recruited by allopathic programs, and I know many of my classmates have been as well.

Maybe it's because I'm in Family, but I have never experienced DO prejudice (or at least none I've been aware of), and all but one of my rotations in the past 2 years, and all of my interviews, have been at allopathic programs.
 
Maybe it's because I'm in Family, but I have never experienced DO prejudice (or at least none I've been aware of), and all but one of my rotations in the past 2 years, and all of my interviews, have been at allopathic programs.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. In some specialties, there are "DO friendly" and "not DO friendly" programs.
 
While it sounds suspect to me, it wouldn't be entirely surprised given that there still is a fair amount of DO prejudice.

Yes, the ACGME secretly limits the amount of DOs in residency programs. It's a clever plot designed to destroy the osteopathic profession. The AMA failed for 130 years, but no more!

:rolleyes:
 
Yes, the ACGME secretly limits the amount of DOs in residency programs. It's a clever plot designed to destroy the osteopathic profession. The AMA failed for 130 years, but no more!

:rolleyes:

Come on. It was a serious question. This is the kind of stuff my PD has been saying in light of the upcoming match... like, "we like so-and-so, but she's a DO... so..." Note we are at 40% DOs currently -- so there's no prejudice here -- and this is a most DO unfriendly specialty. We're graduating a few and will drop down to 25% but still. Maybe he's just more concerned that it reflects upon the program in an unfavorable light. ???

It mostly concerned me because I don't think it's fair to lead on osteopathic applicants (because we've interviewed a fair amount) if there's no way we're going to match them based on their degree.
 
Come on. It was a serious question. This is the kind of stuff my PD has been saying in light of the upcoming match... like, "we like so-and-so, but she's a DO... so..." Note we are at 40% DOs currently -- so there's no prejudice here -- and this is a most DO unfriendly specialty. We're graduating a few and will drop down to 25% but still. Maybe he's just more concerned that it reflects upon the program in an unfavorable light. ???

Maybe he does have a strict quota, but I get the feeling your assumption about it putting the program in an "unfavorable light" is probably more on point. What do you think it says about an allopathic program when they can't get enough MD applicants to fill it, and have to turn to DOs? One would imagine the same principle operates with FMGs. No matter how good they are, too many of them makes the program look questionable.
 
Maybe he does have a strict quota, but I get the feeling your assumption about it putting the program in an "unfavorable light" is probably more on point. What do you think it says about an allopathic program when they can't get enough MD applicants to fill it, and have to turn to DOs? One would imagine the same principle operates with FMGs. No matter how good they are, too many of them makes the program look questionable.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It's just kind of lame to pass it off as an ACGME thing though, if it's his personal issue.
 
It mostly concerned me because I don't think it's fair to lead on osteopathic applicants (because we've interviewed a fair amount) if there's no way we're going to match them based on their degree.

OK. But why would the PD waste time interviewing people that will not match into the program based on degree? There are tons of foreign MDs more than willing to train in US programs. Therefore the program will fill with all MDs.

If the PD interviews someone and likes him but won't take him because of the degree I think the PD is being rather dumb, and doing a disservice to the program he leads. There are plenty of great DOs as well as FMGs. To be concerned about the "reputation" of the program because of something so irrelevant as the degree is more of a problem with the PD and not a problem with the ACGME.

However, if the PD chooses to use the degree as a factor, it's his prerogative whether we like it or not. I find it sad that the PD is most likely turning away potentially great applicants simply because of his problem with DOs.
 
Okay, so this is a perfect example of how simple critical thinking skills and a google search could debunk a rumor.

Step I -- Critical thinking exercise:

What would be the educational or programatic advantage to limiting DO's in a program? What would a program GAIN by such a tactic? Why would this make sense from an accreditational standards point of view? The ACGME exists to make sure that residencies appropriately train physicians within their specialty. They are accountable to stakeholders, the public, the federal government to make sure this happens. They're responsible for ensuring that residents are competent in six domains:

1. Patient care that is compassionate, appropriate, and effective for the
treatment of health problems and the promotion of health;

2. Medical Knowledge about established and evolving biomedical, clinical,
and cognate sciences, as well as the application of this knowledge to
patient care;

3. Practice-based learning and improvement that involves the investigation
and evaluation of care for their patients, the appraisal and assimilation of
scientific evidence, and improvements in patient care;

4. Interpersonal and communication skills that result in the effective
exchange of information and collaboration with patients, their families,
and other health professionals;

5. Professionalism, as manifested through a commitment to carrying out
professional responsibilities, adherence to ethical principles, and
sensitivity to patients of diverse backgrounds;

6. Systems-based practice, as manifested by actions that demonstrate an
awareness of and responsiveness to the larger context and system of health
care, as well as the ability to call effectively on other resources in the
system to provide optimal health care.


So, it doesn't make sense that limiting applicants based upon the medical degree type awarded would further this mission at all, does it? Would stakeholders or the public be better served by such policy?

Probably not.

Step II -- Google search exercise:

Go to the ACGME website. Read the "Common Program Requirements" document for ANY residency program. Is there any mention of a "quota" on DO's?? No.

Rumor debunked. No go find the person who told you this and help correct their thinking on the topic.
 
perhaps you are referring to combined programs? In these programs a number of spots are guaranteed to DOs but any conspiracy doesnt exist....





or does it :)
 
No need to be snotty, drusso. My critical thinking skills are typically in fine working order, and I did figure the whole thing was a large, steaming load of ****e. I just thought it was a bizarre thing all around and I wanted to hear if anyone else had the misfortune of encountering such idiocy.

And no - it's not a combined program.
 
What do you think it says about an allopathic program when they can't get enough MD applicants to fill it, and have to turn to DOs? One would imagine the same principle operates with FMGs. No matter how good they are, too many of them makes the program look questionable.

I think this is probably what's really going on. It is sad, but true, that when looking at programs, MD students tend to look unfavorably on a high concentration of DO's or FMG's. The program seems less appealing because it seems less competitive. This has nothing to do with the actual day to day functioning of the program or how good the program really is. There is a gut reaction as an MD to a large DO/FMG percentage. Program directors may want to limit the number of these house staff in order to seem more attractive to future MD's.
 
However, if the PD chooses to use the degree as a factor, it's his prerogative whether we like it or not. I find it sad that the PD is most likely turning away potentially great applicants simply because of his problem with DOs.[/quote]


____________

I just don't understand why PDs even have the authority to automatically reject someone based on their degree....are PDs personally funding these residency programs?
 
No need to be snotty, drusso. My critical thinking skills are typically in fine working order, and I did figure the whole thing was a large, steaming load of ****e. I just thought it was a bizarre thing all around and I wanted to hear if anyone else had the misfortune of encountering such idiocy.

And no - it's not a combined program.

______

I've read enough posts from drusso to conclude that he is not capable of being snotty....I think he was just giving you and others some solid arguments to use when countering our less-enlightened friends.
 
I just don't understand why PDs even have the authority to automatically reject someone based on their degree....are PDs personally funding these residency programs?

You sound a little sour grapes there.

Perhaps you could explain why every PD for Osteopathic residencies would immediately reject me solely because of my MD degree?
 
You sound a little sour grapes there.

Perhaps you could explain why every PD for Osteopathic residencies would immediately reject me solely because of my MD degree?

Yeah, that doen't make sense, except for OMM residencies, or something that has a heavy manipulation component. Otherwise, why not?
 
You sound a little sour grapes there.

Perhaps you could explain why every PD for Osteopathic residencies would immediately reject me solely because of my MD degree?

Because they fear castration by the AOA.
 
Top